This is all fine and dandy, but I can guarantee you the average person answering the no fly zone question is just saying Yes without thinking about the implications it would have. Of course it sounds good on paper. On paper, I believe in am eye for an eye. Every murdered should get the death penalty. But then you bring in things like falsely convicted, false confessions, errant police work or coercion, self-defense, etc and it gets a bit muddled, no?
Unless you have some ability to predict the future I don't know about, the "less advantageous circumstances" seems unlikely. Isolating Russia economically will not allow him to build militarily. Our recovery and rebuild/refocus would help immensely. Thanks to canceling the F-22, the majority of our air superiority fleet is from the 70's/80s. Our military has been made to fight small insurgencies, not Cold War of Russia rolling tanks on NATO like it was in the 90's. We just got out of a 20 year war, some time would get people out of this war fever they are currently in.
This is a great point. I fully support the private sector making their own choices. I am willing to contribute to the Ukraine cause only in humanitarian efforts however I am unwilling to support anything that will contribute to the war efforts. There are those who are ready to join Ukrainians and fight along side with them which is completely their choice. Its going to get interesting over the next couple decades as governments lose their control of economic influence and power to decentralized systems. Over the last decade the internet has completely changed the flow of information.
The next time, Russia is unlikely to assume their own superiority and actually come up with a proper attack plan that includes not running out of fuel, etc. Right now, you have the following: 1. Worldwide moral support and authority 2. A Russian army in disarray and often turning on its own leadership 3. Russian officials publicly turning on Putin who's increasing isolated 4. A united West that's willing to endure short-term pain of sanctions to make their point 5. A heroic leader and country standing their ground to defend their land that has rallied the world's imagination. Will any of these things be true in a few years when Russia invades Moldova (his next likely target)? The world will move on to their own problems in a few weeks/months. Putin will correct his strategic military mistakes and purge disloyal people. The sanctions regime is only going to hold together for so long when the west starts feeling the economic pain from this and Ukraine falls to Russia. You might also have Trump as President the next time, willing to let Europe fend for itself and giving Putin free reign. All of the current fluky circumstances combined are what has made standing up to Putin now strategically advantageous.
so you would have some understanding of the Korean War, and why it was fought, and which in turn influenced why we fought the Vietnam War.
On that whole "how can a no-fly zone save civilians" topic... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...tured-troops-condemn-invasion-TV-cameras.html Western officials have confirmed Russia has been forced to resort to indiscriminate aerial and artillery assaults on densely populated urban areas because its military campaign is floundering. ... Evidence has also emerged to suggest that Russian jets have been downed near Chernihiv in northern Ukraine. The bombing has been so extensive there that local officials have likened it to the German Army's bombardment of Stalingrad during the Second World War. On Friday at least 47 people were killed and hundreds more injured when Russian jets fired missiles into high-rise apartments in the city, reducing them to piles of blazing rubble, with residents trapped underneath. Yesterday heartbreaking pictures emerged of men, women and children hiding under a destroyed bridge to escape Russian air strikes on Irpin, on the outskirts of Kyiv. Hundreds of residents sheltered in the darkness beneath the bridge which had been blown up by the Russians. They were forced to seek refuge there – even though the bridge could collapse – because Russian warplanes were circling overhead.
Further aggression into Europe would logically result in more reaction from the west. A Russian army with 5-10 years of additional lack of funds and even more outdated older equipment. Putin might be dead in 2 years. A west that has it's markets adjusted for operating without Russia as a part of the world economy. A NATO with 5-10 years of 2% spending from Germany and realization their security is actually still in question. Our military adjusting from an insurgency fighting role, back to it's real role of homeland/NATO defense. Russia has shown these logistics mistakes time and time again.
What are the implications? I don't think Putin's generals will use nukes. That is suicide. Also the russian economy is done. At this point putting a no fly zone won't likely make it any worse.
Yes I don't think most people know what it takes to impose a no-fly zone. For that matter we've only imposed no-fly zones on smaller countries where we have overwhelming superiority. That isn't Russia. Keep in mind we didn't impose a no-fly zone over Syria even though the Syrian military and Russian allies devastated civilians and rebels from the air. Largely because the Russian military was there flying planes. What worries me though is that no one knows what happens as soon as a NATO plane shoots down a Russia plane or vice versa. We don't know how much it could escalate from there.
That's a really big gamble that if Russia isn't pushed to the brink of defeat that Putin won't decide to try a battlefield nuke or that his generals might not be invested enough to do so. I know we're all experts here but I will admit I have no idea what the psychological makeup of Russia's command and control is, how loyal they are and how closely they are tied to Putin. I would like to believe that they wouldn't risk using nukes but I don't think any of us know that for sure. Even if nukes are never used there is enough conventional firepower to devastate Ukraine and much of Europe. We know that Russia has thermobarric weapons, we know they have things like fuel air bombs, cruise and other missiles that strike deep into Europe. Submarines in every ocean. In an all out war with Russia while Russia can't project power like we can they still have other forces in parts of the World that could cause problems. Russia could decide to use forces in Asia and the Pacific to attack our interests there. They have forces in the Middle East that could cause more problems. They have allies who could cause problems. It wouldn't take much for this thing to spill into a WWIII that leads to the deaths of millions even without nukes. I will stress again we have no idea how this ends.
This idea that the Russian army is in disarray and falling apart is overblown. While the attack on Kyiv has literally stalled they are making a lot of progress in the South. We need to remember it took us about 3 weeks to take Baghdad and there we were mostly driving unopposed in the desert. That Ukraine hasn't fallen in a week is a testament to the skill and tenacity of the Ukrainians fighting and to missteps by the Russians but this isn't indicative that the Russians are falling apart.
I know that's the technical definition, but in media reporting, it gets messy. As I said, the Pentagon has said over 500 missiles have been launched into Ukraine from within Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus ground systems. It seems to me most of the damages are from those (and artillery) and a no-fly zone (which is you shoot down Russian aircraft and defend yourself from Russian attack on your aircrafts) doesn't stop that. Russia hasn't established air superiority. That's one of their multiple failures in this war. The Ukraine gov claimed they have shot down 44 planes, 48 helicopters, and 4 UAVs. Their air defense is still operational. The US and West are bolstering Ukraine's air defense with fighter jets and portable anti-aircraft missiles military weapons. It's the lack of air superiority and failures in this war that has changed Russia's plan to just bomb the hell out of everything, and from what I have read, mainly from afar where they can launch rockets safely. https://warontherocks.com/2022/03/the-dangerous-allure-of-the-no-fly-zone/ A No-Fly Zone in Ukraine? Today, in Ukraine, the air defense threat does not appear to have materialized against Ukrainian aircraft, at least in terms of ground-based threat. That may be because, at this time, Russian forces still only control a small part of Ukraine, and they cannot emplace air defenses in the territory they do not control. Army air defenses move along with the forces that they defend and require some degree of protection against ground threats. Nevertheless, the Russian Aerospace Forces do possess long-range air defenses that can reach well into Ukraine from Russia (and perhaps Belarus). The Russian air force operate long-ranged S-300 and S-400 variants. These mobile systems can cover large swathes of Ukrainian airspace without entering Ukraine, although low-altitude coverage would be spotty and limited. Escalation The establishment of a no-fly zone over Ukraine would unquestionably be a major escalation in the conflict and would bring NATO and possibly other European forces into direct conflict with Russian forces. It’s also not clear what military advantage might accrue. The majority of Ukrainian civilian casualties seem not to be inflicted by airpower but by artillery. Russian precision strikes seem to be inflicted by ballistic and cruise missiles, which once fired cannot be interdicted by aircraft in a no-fly zone. The fact that Russia does not yet have air superiority has not significantly impeded its advance. Ukraine does not control its skies either — the two sides have air parity. Enforcement of a no-fly zone would require overflight of Ukrainian airspace, putting coalition forces directly in the air space both sides are fighting over — and at extreme risk from both Russian and Ukrainian air defenses. Surface-based air defenses in bordering nations could only command airspace where Russian aircraft aren’t flying, having no practical effect except to commit NATO. The obvious Russian response, attacking aircraft over Ukraine from outside Ukraine, would be yet another escalatory element that would render Russian air defenses politically immune from counterattack. From a distant viewpoint, the no-fly zone might seem like a somewhat impersonal option for the employment of military force. The reality is that effective enforcement involves flying over territory where fighting is occurring, and enforcing a no-fly zone means the intent to kill anything that opposes it — whether a fighter in the air or a missile system on the ground. In Ukraine, the potential no-fly zone is fundamentally a political statement. In this case, the political statement is much more than the threat of escalation — it is a direct escalation against Russia and a general widening of the conflict to include NATO as a direct combatant. As such, a no-fly zone imposition serves only Ukraine, which would gain NATO as a co-belligerent without the precursor of a formal alliance. In effect, this political use of airpower would mirror the entangling alliances that brought Europe into World War I. The no-fly zone is the wrong tool for the wrong job and would create dangerous and destructive outcomes for the United States and its NATO allies.
Good point. If I remember correctly their no fly-zone wasn't that effective as Turkish jets would fly sorties to attack Kurdish forces and also Turkey shot down some Russian jets.
