Should NATO create a no-fly zone over Ukraine?

[Uncle_Phil]

In his speech to the US Congress, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky made an impassioned plea for a "no fly zone" to be created over Ukraine. I have posted his own words below, to allow you to judge on its own merit.

"Remember Pearl Harbor — terrible morning of December 7, 1941, when your sky was black from the planes attacking you. Just remember it. Remember September the 11th, a terrible day in 2001, when evil tried to turn your cities, independent territories in battlefields, when innocent people were attacked, attacked from air. Yes, just like nobody else expected it. You could not stop it. Our country experienced the same every day, right now, at this moment, every night for three weeks now.

Various Ukrainian cities, Odessa and Kovel, Chernihiv and Sumy, (inaudible), Mariupol and Dnipro — Russia has turned the Ukrainian sky into a source of death for thousands of people. Russian troops have already fired nearly 1,000 missiles at Ukraine, countless bombs. They use drones to kill us with precision. This is a terror that Europe has not seen for 80 years, and we are asking for a reply, for an answer to this terror from the whole world. Is this a lot to ask for, to create a no-fly zone — zone over Ukraine to save people? Is this too much to ask — humanitarian no-fly zone, something that Ukraine — that Russia would not be able to terrorize our free cities?"

So the question is simple, should NATO respond to Ukraine's time of need by giving them what they ask for?

 

[Gatsby]

No, a no-fly zone is utterly crazy. That's a shooting war between the US and Russia, which have on the order of 10,000 nukes between them.

 

[MamboDervish]

So the question is simple, should NATO respond to Ukraine's time of need by giving them what they ask for?

This question of a no-fly zone has been asked and answered a dozen times in the past 3 weeks, and the answer is still NO! And three weeks from now, the answer will still be NO!
NATO should, and will, stick to the provisions of their charter.

 

[ttwtt78640]

No. That would amount to declaring war on Russia. If that is desired then it would (or should) require an act of congress to get US involvement, not simply a NATO decision. Once NATO decides to take preemptive military actions in nations outside of its member’s nations then it is time for the US to withdraw from it.

The NATO ‘training’ involvement in Iraq (2004 to present?) was a bad (precedent setting?) idea.

NATO announces expanded mission in Iraq on the heels of deadly rocket attack

The United States has 2,500 troops in Iraq.

www.cnbc.com

 

[BirdinHand]

NO.

 

[Uncle_Phil]

No, a no-fly zone is utterly crazy. That's a shooting war between the US and Russia, which have on the order of 10,000 nukes between them.

Nuclear war would be horrific, I completely agree. Estimates I have seen put NATO losses in an all-out nuclear war with Russia at about 10 million people, with about a third of those being in the United States. A high price indeed.

On the other hand, we can't make decisions based on fear and trepidation. The full-scale war that would follow a nuclear exchange would see Russia occupied and it would cease to exist as a nation. They know they cannot defeat NATO in a war and would never risk it.

We have to stand up for what is right and good, and we have to respond to Ukraine's call for help now in their hour of need. It's the right thing to do, both pragmatically and morally.

We need to put a stop to the bombings of maternity wards and theaters with "children" written on the sidewalk. It's times like these when your character is tested, and what does it say about the character of NATO if we do nothing?

 

[noonereal]

In his speech to the US Congress, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky made an impassioned plea for a "no fly zone" to be created over Ukraine. I have posted his own words below, to allow you to judge on its own merit.

"Remember Pearl Harbor — terrible morning of December 7, 1941, when your sky was black from the planes attacking you. Just remember it. Remember September the 11th, a terrible day in 2001, when evil tried to turn your cities, independent territories in battlefields, when innocent people were attacked, attacked from air. Yes, just like nobody else expected it. You could not stop it. Our country experienced the same every day, right now, at this moment, every night for three weeks now.

Various Ukrainian cities, Odessa and Kovel, Chernihiv and Sumy, (inaudible), Mariupol and Dnipro — Russia has turned the Ukrainian sky into a source of death for thousands of people. Russian troops have already fired nearly 1,000 missiles at Ukraine, countless bombs. They use drones to kill us with precision. This is a terror that Europe has not seen for 80 years, and we are asking for a reply, for an answer to this terror from the whole world. Is this a lot to ask for, to create a no-fly zone — zone over Ukraine to save people? Is this too much to ask — humanitarian no-fly zone, something that Ukraine — that Russia would not be able to terrorize our free cities?"

So the question is simple, should NATO respond to Ukraine's time of need by giving them what they ask for?

I see you voted yes. Why on earth would you vote to go to start a world war with a russia?

BTW, standing up for what is right and good is meaningless nonsense
I can't belive people post so sappy.

 

[Josie]

NO.

Whoa. Your avatar looks very familiar!

 

[Uncle_Phil]

I see you voted yes. Why on earth would you vote to go to start a world war with a russia?

BTW, standing up for what is right and good is meaningless nonsense
I can't belive people post so sappy.

Because when the bully is picking on a smaller kid, the high-character thing to do is to stand up for the downtrodden.

It's the right thing to do.

 

[Josie]

Because when the bully is picking on a smaller kid, the high-character thing to do is to stand up for the downtrodden.

It's the right thing to do.

Sounds like a Kamala Harris answer.

Should we also go to war with North Korea?

 

[Uncle_Phil]

No. That would amount to declaring war on Russia. If that is desired then it would (or should) require an act of congress to get US involvement, not simply a NATO decision. Once NATO decides to take preemptive military actions in nations outside of its member’s nations then it is time for the US to withdraw from it.

The NATO ‘training’ involvement in Iraq (2004 to present?) was a bad (precedent setting?) idea.

NATO announces expanded mission in Iraq on the heels of deadly rocket attack

The United States has 2,500 troops in Iraq.

www.cnbc.com

We are the only force on earth who can stop this. If we do nothing, nobody will because nobody else can.

We need to make a stand for what is right. That's my view. We need to hold values we can be proud of, and act with decency and high character.

 

[Uncle_Phil]

Sounds like a Kamala Harris answer.

Should we also go to war with North Korea?

Only if North Korea attacks somebody.

A Kamala Harris answer? I'm more toward the middle, though I tend Republican. But something like Ukraine should transcend political party, I believe. It's just right and wrong.

 

[Antiwar]

We are the only force on earth who can stop this.

Therein lies the main problem.

 

[Josie]

Only if North Korea attacks somebody.

They attack their own people.

A Kamala Harris answer? I'm more toward the middle, though I tend Republican. But something like Ukraine should transcend political party, I believe. It's just right and wrong.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Nuclear war would be horrific, I completely agree. Estimates I have seen put NATO losses in an all-out nuclear war with Russia at about 10 million people, with about a third of those being in the United States. A high price indeed.

On the other hand, we can't make decisions based on fear and trepidation. The full-scale war that would follow a nuclear exchange would see Russia occupied and it would cease to exist as a nation. They know they cannot defeat NATO in a war and would never risk it.

We have to stand up for what is right and good, and we have to respond to Ukraine's call for help now in their hour of need. It's the right thing to do, both pragmatically and morally.

We need to put a stop to the bombings of maternity wards and theaters with "children" written on the sidewalk. It's times like these when your character is tested, and what does it say about the character of NATO if we do nothing?

Who, exactly, is “we”? If “we” means NATO then such action would have to be unanimous among the 30 member nations. BTW, “now” was a few weeks ago.

 

[noonereal]

Because when the bully is picking on a smaller kid, the high-character thing to do is to stand up for the downtrodden.

It's the right thing to do.

Hooey. That is ignorant hooey. High character, so freakin stupid.
Right thing to do is to objectively set a course that will enable the greater good.

Where did you come up with these 3 childish clichés.

 

[Gatsby]

Nuclear war would be horrific, I completely agree. Estimates I have seen put NATO losses in an all-out nuclear war with Russia at about 10 million people, with about a third of those being in the United States. A high price indeed.

Yes. Too high a price, in fact.

On the other hand, we can't make decisions based on fear and trepidation.

We can and absolutely should. It is sheer madness to act without regard to the consequences.

The full-scale war that would follow a nuclear exchange would see Russia occupied and it would cease to exist as a nation.

A major nuclear exchange between the US and Russia would see Russia cease to exist as a nation, that's true. It would likely also see the United States, Ukraine, China, and most EU countries cease to exist as nations.

They know they cannot defeat NATO in a war and would never risk it.

Whenever someone proposes ratcheting up the aggression because the other side is too much of a ***** to do likewise, my alarm bells go off. You don't actually know how Putin would respond. Putin himself might not yet know how Putin would respond.

You are risking a world war that could kill tens of millions (possibly billions) of people on your assessment of what you think Putin would do. How sure are you that you're right? 90 percent? I don't like those odds.

We have to stand up for what is right and good, and we have to respond to Ukraine's call for help now in their hour of need. It's the right thing to do, both pragmatically and morally.

We are. We are sending Ukraine lots of weapons and assistance, we are sharing intelligence with the Ukrainian military, and we have implemented sanctions that have caused (or will soon cause) the Russian economy to completely implode, hampering their war efforts.

Russia cannot win this war, based on what is already happening. There is no reason to escalate into a shooting war between the US and Russia.

We need to put a stop to the bombings of maternity wards and theaters with "children" written on the sidewalk. It's times like these when your character is tested, and what does it say about the character of NATO if we do nothing?

It says that NATO is a defensive alliance.

 

[MamboDervish]

Nuclear war would be horrific, I completely agree. Estimates I have seen put NATO losses in an all-out nuclear war with Russia at about 10 million people, with about a third of those being in the United States. A high price indeed.

On the other hand, we can't make decisions based on fear and trepidation.

No - we have to make decisions based on logic and sanity.

The full-scale war that would follow a nuclear exchange would see Russia occupied and it would cease to exist as a nation. They know they cannot defeat NATO in a war and would never risk it.

Nor should we. It would be supremely stupid to force Russia into a war that everyone loses, and nobody wins.

We have to stand up for what is right and good, and we have to respond to Ukraine's call for help now in their hour of need. It's the right thing to do, both pragmatically and morally.

We have, we do and we are. In fact, most of the world is responding to Ukraine's call for help, and in every reasonable way.

We need to put a stop to the bombings of maternity wards and theaters with "children" written on the sidewalk.

So provoking a nuclear exchange will put a stop to the killing of pregnant women and children??!! What on Earth have you been smoking? Please . . . . put down the pipe.

It's times like these when your character is tested, and what does it say about the character of NATO if we do nothing?

We aren't doing nothing.

Is that you, Vladimir ??

 

[Uncle_Phil]

Hooey. That is ignorant hooey. High character, so freakin stupid.
Right thing to do is to objectively set a course that will enable the greater good.

Where did you come up with these 3 childish clichés.

If you don't like cliche, see my other answer above. Different communication styles work with different people.

 

[VySky]

I’m starting to waffle a little here. I find myself for the first time ready to support President Biden regardless of which decision is made. Both of them are problematic and he’s in a tough spot.

While I feel our red line should be at Ukraine’s existing border, Russia moves into the Baltic’s IMO its 3’Oclock school bell.

But for the no fly zone. For the Love of God I hope our Intel gets this one right.

What is Russia’s objective? If it’s the Baltic’s engage now via NFZ.

Why put off the inevitable?

Or Putin gives himself an off ramp by destroying the Ukraine military bases and infrastructure. Accept a no NATO Ukraine and go home claiming victory.

 

[Gatsby]

I often think about this scene from Thirteen Days. Whenever someone proposes an escalation with a nuclear power because "They wouldn't dare respond in kind," it makes me realize how close we have been to nuclear war in the past. And how close we could again be. The truth is that there is nothing preventing a nuclear war; we have just gotten lucky that cooler heads prevailed during the handful of close calls.

 

[Uncle_Phil]

Yes. Too high a price, in fact.

We can and absolutely should. It is sheer madness to act without regard to the consequences.

A major nuclear exchange between the US and Russia would see Russia cease to exist as a nation, that's true. It would likely also see the United States, Ukraine, China, and most EU countries cease to exist as nations.

Whenever someone proposes ratcheting up the aggression because the other side is too much of a ***** to do likewise, my alarm bells go off. You don't actually know how Putin would respond. Putin himself might not yet know how Putin would respond.

You are risking a world war that could kill tens of millions (possibly billions) of people on your assessment of what you think Putin would do. How sure are you that you're right? 90 percent? I don't like those odds.

We are. We are sending Ukraine lots of weapons and assistance, we are sharing intelligence with the Ukrainian military, and we have implemented sanctions that have caused (or will soon cause) the Russian economy to completely implode, hampering their war efforts.

Russia cannot win this war, based on what is already happening. There is no reason to escalate into a shooting war between the US and Russia.

It says that NATO is a defensive alliance.

Why would China cease to exist as a nation? Or the US?

Your response is heavy on opinion, to which you are entitled, but regrettably light on fact.

 

[ttwtt78640]

We are the only force on earth who can stop this. If we do nothing, nobody will because nobody else can.

We need to make a stand for what is right. That's my view. We need to hold values we can be proud of, and act with decency and high character.

We (meaning the US and some other NATO nations) are doing quite a bit to help support Ukrainian defense efforts, but short of having our military personnel fight Russian forces inside Ukraine.

 

[Evilroddy]

@Uncle_Phil

From what I have sussed out to date Zelensky is not really asking for a "No-fly Zone" over Ukraine but rather a Russian/Belorussian exclusion zone which will suppress Russian air power while allowing Ukrainian planes, drones and missiles to still operate.

How does NATO stop Russian aircraft from attacking Ukraine anyway? To do that means NATO will have to first attack and neutralise (destroy) Russian anti-aircraft guns and missile batteries plus their targeting systems in Ukraine and in both Russia and Belarus too. To attack anti-aircraft defences in Russia and Belarus NATO will have to first destroy forward airbases and Russian/Belorussian aircraft in their home countries. That's an act of war. Worse still Russia might use high altitude nuclear anti-aircraft missiles over its own territory to destroy large numbers of NATO aircraft. What then?

Even then Russian aircraft could still launch long-range standoff missiles from aircraft operating outside of Ukrainian air space to attack targets in Ukraine. Russia does not have huge inventories of such missiles so there would be an incentive for Russia to deliver tactical nuclear warheads with such missiles in order to get more bang from each missile. That would almost certainly trigger an escalation spiral towards thermonuclear war.

This No-fly zone notion is a very dangerous and bad idea, no matter how you look at it in my humble opinion. Best to rethink it.

Be well and stay alive.
Evilroddy.

 

[Uncle_Phil]

@Uncle_Phil

From what I have sussed out to date Zelensky is not really asking for a "No-fly Zone" over Ukraine but rather a Russian/Belorussian exclusion zone which will suppress Russian air power while allowing Ukrainian planes, drones and missiles to still operate.

How does NATO stop Russian aircraft from attacking Ukraine anyway? To do that means NATO will have to first attack and neutralise (destroy) Russian anti-aircraft guns and missile batteries plus their targeting systems in Ukraine and in both Russia and Belarus too. To attack anti-aircraft defences in Russia and Belarus NATO will have to first destroy forward airbases and Russian/Belorussian aircraft in their home countries. That's an act of war. Worse still Russia might use high altitude nuclear anti-aircraft missiles over its own territory to destroy large numbers of NATO aircraft. What then?

Even then Russian aircraft could still launch long-range standoff missiles from aircraft operating outside of Ukrainian air space to attack targets in Ukraine. Russia does not have huge inventories of such missiles so there would be an incentive for Russia to deliver tactical nuclear warheads with such missiles in order to get more bang from each missile. That would almost certainly trigger an escalation spiral towards thermonuclear war.

This No-fly zone notion is a very dangerous and bad idea, no matter how you look at it in my humble opinion. Best to rethink it.

Be well and stay alive.
Evilroddy.

I would publicly announce that a no-fly zone is going in to effect over Ukraine in 48 hours. That gives the Russians ample warning and time to get their assets out of the skies and make whatever preparations they need. I would make it clear that we do not intend to escalate further, but this is where we are drawing a clear line.

48 hours later, I would have air sorties taking off from NATO bases across Europe with orders to shoot down any hostile aircraft over the skies of Ukraine.

If Putin doesn't want to listen to the 48 hour warning and choses to confront us in the skies, then so be it. He is entirely to blame from that point, as he has been warned and given time.