I am not a supporter of the no-fly zone request from Ukraine, and it would almost certainty escalate the situation to the point of NATO being at war with Russia. However, it would be theoretically possible for the no-fly zone to be imposed without a single Russian plane being shot down—all Russia would have to do is to cease flying over Ukraine.
Why not go further? Why stop at the air? Why not make the whole country a DMZ? After all,
"it would be theoretically possible for a demilitarized zone to be imposed without a single Russian soldier being injured—all Russia would have to do is to pull all military out of Ukraine."
With ground forces it’s not that clear, Russia could still try to and potentially succeed to achieve some military objectives (especially if they are able to occupy any densely populated areas before NATO forces show up) because NATO countries would be 100x times less willing to sacrifice the lives of their soldiers and probably much less willing to risk civilian casualties.
Also, assuming there is a guarantee (which is obviously impossible) I assume most people in western countries would support a no fly zone. I expect much fewer would support actual boots on the ground even given the same guarantee.
Of course the risk of escalation is too great in either case..
I'm not sure we can assume that much, given how the invasion has been planned and how it's being executed. Even mainstream Russian media started to criticize it with at least one commentator saying there are no good ways of getting out of this war:
Of course, withdrawing all russian military from Ukraine would take days. Declaring a no-fly zone is faster and a good start.
My point is that "no fly zone" is pretty similar to "boots on ground", even if they're "peacekeepers". It's not some sort of special military operation you can declare that won't provoke a response from putin.
It's not about rights. It's about whether you want to wake up to a mushroom cloud.
Whereas, right now, we're simply waiting for a bomb to mistakenly land on the wrong side of a border. No thought, no intention, no authorization...just one of those things that happen during war. I think this is a much more likely outcome.
Putin did not sign for no flying zone. For him it is not a violation and as much as I hate this maniac he is under no obligation to respect NATO laws on non NATO territory.
Violating Ukraine the way he did required way more than "hopefully thought" and yet it did not stop him.
I think that no-fly zone is a guarantee to get nuked.
But assuming your logic is correct, we're screwed anyway. Putin has always wanted to rebuild the USSR. He's annexed territory in the past, he's attempting to annex it now, and he'll attempt it again in the future.. So at some point, someone's gonna push the button..
I am not sure if this is sarcasm, but yes, it is pretty much up to him.
>"He's annexed territory in the past, he's attempting to annex it now, and he'll attempt it again in the future"
I think Ukraine is where his career ends. The question is how long. And in any way I do not think that he will attack NATO unless in return. I could be wrong but I prefer having a chance not to be annihilated vs a guarantee to the opposite.
So yes, it is not a good reason.
Checks outside. No, WW3 definitely isn't already happening.
> with no warmongering dictators
So, once Putin is dealt with, you're headed off to depose the Saudi and Emirati regimes?
I asked my relatives to show me outside and it certainly does look like WW3 in Kyiv and Kharkiv.
So, the Saudis haven't been bombing Yemen since 2015? I mean it's only a conflict that resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 people. One would think that would cause more outrage.
> it certainly does look like WW3 in Kyiv and Kharkiv.
But somehow it wasn't WW3 when it happened to Herat or Aleppo or Halabja or Hargeisa or Burao or Grozny.
It's almost as if an isolated conflict and a world war are different.
So in retrospect saying “it literally triggered WW2” provides zero informational context as to the situation as it is currently happening.
> Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
Which it did.
While the British assurance to Poland was:
> ...in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence, and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty's Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power.
That isn't remotely the same language.
The West is refusing to escalate the conflict which might trigger a world war. It isn't a world war yet and there is no appetite in the West for one.
Yes, the invasion of Ukraine. Have you not heard?
And, asserting NATO air dominance in Ukraine is easy and guaranteed to succeed with de minimis cost (in lives and/or military equipment). Whereas creating land dominance with tanks is another matter.
A no-fly zone is an easy win for NATO and would make Ukrainian civilians safe from aerial bombardment.
NATO protecting Ukraine would not trigger anything.
I think this is a sensitive area where acting like there is any certainty is dangerous. I can't agree with your assumptions about 2nd order and 3rd order effects because there are too many known and unknown variables to consider.
This is not true. No nuclear powers should engage in direct wars, I'm not a fan of proxy wars either but they are safer than direct conflicts which can easily escalate.
We have never had a world war between nuclear armed states and we should avoid the potential at all costs.
Iraq has been invaded for a lot less; Kuwait population back then was 1/20 than current Ukraine, but Saddam never had nukes (as any other WMDs, but I digress). So what happens if say 3 years from now Russia decides to invade an EU or NATO country? Will it make any difference that the invaded country is part of the EU or NATO? They still have nukes, so what would be the western response? Will the nuclear deterrent magically disappear because of a NATO or EU stamp somewhere? That is not a trivial issue; ignoring the nuclear threat is for sure the safest way, but can create a nasty precedent in which every nation with nuclear weapons could be entitled to do what they want if they become rogue as Russia is today.
Doing this feeds the narrative from Putin that NATO is an aggressive force and it would also go against what NATO is, a defensive alliance.
"The teacher punishing the bully feeds the bully's narrative that school is unfair."
"Feeding a narrative" is never a reason to not do the right thing.
Its not a misnomer at all - it is exactly what it says it is - might not be a good idea, but calling it a 'no-fly zone' is completely accurate.
Not really. Response to any Russian aircraft shot down would be sending a bunch of rockets to the place from where the aircraft was shot down; whether the destination is NATO or not.
From there, it would escalate quickly. That's why NATO generals and saner politicians are not enthusiastic about it.
TL;DR: trying to enforce no-fly zone would hurt. Too much to be worth it.