Ask HN: Does No-Fly zone mean declaring a War with Russia? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Does No-Fly zone mean declaring a War with Russia?

5 pointshtml5web14 comments

Why West is saying no the no-fly zone over the Ukraine while sanctioning Russia? Are sanctions alternative to the No-fly zone?

View on HN

Here's a workaround which can be imposed by UN.

How might this work?

- Using Articles 5 and 6 of the UN Charter, Russia's membership in the UN and, in particular, in the Security Council, should be suspended.

- The UN Security Council could then approve the no-fly-zone according to Article 42 of the UN Charter.

- In accordance with Article 47 of the UN Charter, a Military Staff Committee is established.

- The newly created NFZ coalition is established, under Articles 45 and 49 of the UN Charter.

- The NFZ is designed in a way that can ensure the protection of Ukraine’s airspace and avoid the escalation of military activities on the territory of other states.

There are various ways to implement a no-fly-zone, including the exclusion of hostile aircraft within a clearly defined area. The only operations on the ground would be to suppress enemy air defenses posing a threat to allied aircraft.

https://cepa.org/no-fly-zone-now/

Do you think Russian aircraft will suddenly stop working because of a bunch of words written in a document in a computer at an organization that kicked them out? Legalese doesn't make the laws of physics stop working. Strongly worded letters don't deflect missiles. What you're asking for is a path to nuclear war because Russia isn't going to abide by any UN rule, especially if they've been kicked out. And if NATO, using UN legalese as an excuse, enters the fray, there's only one out come: nuclear war. All of these paper pushing, keyboard mashing fantasies where Russia cowers from a bunch of lawyers lead to one place and one place only: nuclear war. Just stop it before you and your legalese addicted compatriots get several billion people killed with your fantasies.

Yes, the thinking is that to actually enforce a no-fly zone would require NATO aircraft to attack Russian aircraft that attempt to violate the zone, thus escalating into a war between NATO and Russia. Supplying weapons or intelligence to Ukraine can be done "under the radar" so to speak, without engaging in actual fighting.

Yes, shooting down Russian planes means war with Russia.

No, it's a "special landing operation"

I withhold my own opinion, because I'm not an expert. Instead I can give you a link to another non-expert, Scott Alexander[1]. I like how he puts things together.

[1] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ukraine-thoughts-and-l...

This is what's confusing me, West already providing weapons to Ukraine. Doesn't that mean the same thing as providing the air defense, i.e. no-fly zone?

I have no expertise in the subject, but I assume the weapons stuff can be seen as simple economic relations between the West and Ukraine which is somewhat regulated (like buying food or petrol), whereas shooting down an airplane for them is not - that's a pretty direct war declaration. "Guns don't kill people..." and all that :)

This. Weapons supply is somewhat gray zone. Russian know about it, don't like it and have openly protested, but it is probably not a good strategy to retaliate for this reason alone. NATO providing intelligence to Ukraine is actually already deeper into the gray zone, but such thing is harder to prove. However a no fly zone means firing weapons at Russian aircraft and is already a direct confrontation that sooner or later will lead to a retaliation. A single incident will probably not lead to escalation (e.g. as the downed Russian plane in Turkey during the Syrian war), however a persistent confrontation that is interfering with their military strategy will definitely escalate things a lot.

A no fly zone needs enforcement.

With Russia threatening the Ukraine border, the US and other NATO countries pulled their people out. Military, diplomat, civilian - all out.

This cleared the space so that when Putin attacked, there would be no NATO personnel in the line of fire, and no excuse for a war.

If there was any interest in preventing what is going on, those people would not have been pulled out, and instead, additional exercises with Ukraine would have been conducted, sending a strong message to Putin.

Instead, a vacuum was created that would be hard for someone like Putin to resist.

It's now pretty much too late, except for possibly establishing a no-fly zone in the west of Ukraine to deal with the humanitarian crisis. But, you would need some leadership ability to do that, and that is severely lacking.

>>the US and other NATO countries pulled their people out. Military, diplomat, civilian - all out.

One exception that I know of: Poland's ambassador Bartosz Cichocki stayed in Kiev. Polish consulate in Lviv is still working.

And I still wonder why they did it. Maybe Ukraine is a trap in which Russia got caught, so that many people will die, Russia will get exhausted and then the West can interfere when the time and political climate is right. I am scared to think about this possibility. I would really like to hope that the plan of the West is that Ukraine will prevail and there isn't any plan B that includes the West directly confronting with Russia.

The sanctions don't directly threaten the lives of Russian citizens and soldiers (arguably they may indirectly threaten lives in some cases, though); whereas a no-fly zone that is actively enforced by NATO would almost certainly lead to war with Russia (you can't expect to shoot down Russian planes without military retaliation from them). IMHO, Putin doesn't want a war with NATO any more than NATO members want a war with Russia, so the distinction between perceived direct and indirect threats is important.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com