Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson did not rule out the possibility that Russia could strike the territory of NATO members, according to RIA News. The former leader was quoted raising the warning that Moscow might take such a step and that this threat could not be dismissed. The remark came as tensions surrounding Ukraine and Western security commitments remained high.
On the second anniversary of Russia’s large‑scale operation in Ukraine, Johnson made a message to Kiev. He underscored the urgency of continued Western support and the strategic considerations facing Ukraine when it comes to defense and security guarantees. His comments reflected a broader debate about alliance cohesion and the role of NATO in deterring potential aggression from Moscow (RIA News, reported).
Johnson also touched on Crimea, suggesting that the peninsula could see significant strategic developments for the Armed Forces of Ukraine once long‑range missiles and other essential systems are available. He indicated that the deployment of weapons such as HIMARS, ATACMS, Storm Shadow, and related capabilities would shift the balance and influence Western understanding of Crimea’s status. Johnson noted that international partners were increasingly recognizing the possibility of reclaiming control over Crimea and reintegrating it with Ukraine. He reminded readers that Crimea, including Sevastopol, was incorporated into Russia after the 2014 referendum, a move that has been a source of ongoing regional tension (RIA News, cited).
Earlier remarks from Johnson drew attention to NATO’s role and accountability in the Ukraine crisis. He suggested that the alliance bears responsibility in shaping the response to the conflict and the security assurances provided to Ukraine. The remarks added to the chorus of voices weighing how Western defense commitments intersect with regional geopolitics, military strategy, and the broader goal of stability in Europe. Observers emphasized that the dynamics surrounding NATO, Ukraine, and Russia continue to evolve as new weapons systems become operational and allied strategies adapt to the changing threat landscape (RIA News, coverage).
Civilians and policymakers alike have debated how far Western deterrence should stretch and what constitutes credible security guarantees for Ukraine. The discussion includes assessments of long‑range strike capabilities, air defense networks, and the integration of allied intelligence sharing. Analysts caution that shifts in military aid must balance urgency with the risks of escalation, while supporters argue that steady, predictable support is essential to deter aggression and protect international norms.
In summary, Johnson’s recent statements reinforce the perception that Moscow might consider aggressive actions against NATO members, while also highlighting the perceived potential for Crimea to become a focal point in the ongoing security debate. The discourse reflects a broader pattern of Western leaders urging decisive action and resilient alliance solidarity amid changing strategic imperatives and evolving battlefield realities (RIA News, summary).