Boris Johnson's Six-Point Plan to Deter Russia in Ukraine

British Prime Minister has announced a six-point plan to resist Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The plan, as declared by Downing Street 10, is as follows:

World leaders should mobilise an "international humanitarian coalition" for Ukraine.

They should also support Ukraine "in its efforts to provide for its own self-defence".

Economic pressure on Russia should be ratcheted up.

The international community must resist Russia's "creeping normalisation" of its actions in Ukraine.

Diplomatic resolutions to the war must be pursued, but only with the full participation of Ukraine's legitimate government.

There should be a "rapid campaign to strengthen security and resilience" among NATO countries.

It is clear that the British Prime Minister's six-point plan for resisting the Russian invasion of Ukraine does not give the option of dialogue with Russia any importance.

Boris Johnson's proposal is an escalatory step against Russia, but the questions are; will his plan succeed and turn into a tangible reality? And if it succeeds, will it force Russia to stop the war and withdraw from Ukraine? Even if the plan succeeds, knowing that this is a very small possibility, is there enough time to prevent Russia from achieving a military victory in Ukraine? It seems that the initial features of the answers to the questions above are bleak and pessimistic.

In theory, Johnson's plan is about the current Russian war in Ukraine, but in essence, the plan refers to the post-Ukraine period, or rather to the stage that will follow the almost inevitable Russian military triumph in Ukraine.

Most of NATO's words and deeds regarding Russia's intervention in Ukraine go in this direction, that is, the stage that will follow Russia's military conquest in Ukraine.

NATO is very aware that Putin has invaded Ukraine to win militarily, not to be defeated. Defeat, for Putin, in Ukrainian war means his end as a political leader and head of state, if this does not impact stability in his crisis-stricken country.

However, NATO is concerned that the Russian president may repeat the experience of the war in Ukraine in other NATO countries that were either republics within the former Soviet Union or the countries in the collapsed Soviet alliance. This, in turn, may lead to the outbreak of a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia that may lead to the use of nuclear weapons, which would be devastating to both sides.

Johnson's plan, like all other NATO plans, including painful economic sanctions against Moscow, will not dissuade Putin from his plan to take over Ukraine and overthrow its pro-Western regime.

The options for the West to deter Russia in Ukraine are very limited. If the international solidarity with Ukraine is great nowadays, the reason is because the crisis is still in the beginning. But after a while, the world will forget what happened to the Ukrainians, and every single country, including some Western countries, will only focus on its interests first and last.

NATO should have discussed the Russian requests seriously prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Especially, since NATO was well aware that Russia had mobilised tens of thousands of soldiers on the border with Ukraine to declare war, not for a picnic.

However, practically, and realistically, it seems that NATO wanted this war to occur to exhaust the annoying Russian rival, even if that was at the expense of the suffering of an entire nation. This is how it was, and this will be international relations and politics between the great powers, which are based on immorality.

NATO has no choice but to sit with Russia and listen to its demands and take its reservations and fears into consideration if NATO is really interested in international peace and order. The issue is not about morality, truth, and justice as much as it is about power, interests and domination. On this basis, Russia and all the great powers have always acted.