• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ukraine No Fly Zone?- Yes or No (1 Viewer)

VySky

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
36,055
Reaction score
13,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Do you support sending American aircraft to enforce no fly zone in Ukraine?

There you have it.
 
No, but where's the poll?
Should any EU Nations enforce a Ukraine no fly zone?
 
Do you support sending American aircraft to enforce no fly zone in Ukraine?

There you have it.
Who is going to enforce it? No.
 
No. It would inevitably end up in a Russian / US shoot down, and only make matters escalate from there.
 
I apologize for dorking up the poll.

Thanks for the responses
 
No, you would have to have a death wish to support that.
 
Do you support sending American aircraft to enforce no fly zone in Ukraine?

There you have it.

No. It is my understanding that such a No Fly Zone would require American aircraft to not only shoot down Russian aircraft which violate the airspace, but to also attack any anti-aircraft defenses that might target our aircraft. Including if those defenses are on Russian soil. So, no. Such a proposal would almost certainly lead to a hot war between NATO and the Russian Federation.
 
I apologize for dorking up the poll.

Thanks for the responses
No.

And posting polls is not really that difficult.

At least tabulating the results is easy.
 
Do you support sending American aircraft to enforce no fly zone in Ukraine?

There you have it.
At this point, no. The danger of Russian and American forces firing upon one another escalating into a full conflict are too great. But on the other hand if Russia persists in relentlessly targeting civilians coupled with a refusal to provide safe passage or humanitarian relief for refugees attempting to flee the violence that it begins to border on state sponsored genocide, then we may have to do what we have to do. And judging from the Russian air force's relatively poor performance in the skies of Ukraine given the huge superiority they enjoy over them in terms of numbers and modern aircraft, I suspect American pilots would likely inflict large losses upon any Russian formations that attempt to challenge them.
 
Do you support sending American aircraft to enforce no fly zone in Ukraine?

There you have it.

I want to augment my answer: If the Russian Army indiscriminately shells or bombs Ukrainian nuclear facilities which could lead to a meltdown, I think it would be incumbent on NATO to attack Russian forces. But it would be limited only to those forces directly attacking the facility with the apparent intent to destroy it.
 
@VySky

No, Russia is a nuclear-armed country and possesses the most nuclear weapons of any state in the world. To enforce a no-fly zone would mean suppressing and destroying Russian surface to air missile batteries and anti-aircraft gun batteries both in Ukraine and in Russia proper. It would also require shooting down Russian aircraft in direct combat. Finally the Russians could swarm any NATO no-fly aircraft over Ukraine with hundreds of their aircraft from behind the Russian frontier so such a no-fly policy would have to suppress and destroy Russian air bases in Russia proper as a prerequisite too.

All of these actions above would amount to one nuclear-armed super-power in direct conflict with another group of nuclear-armed super-powers and that would likely escalate into wider war at best, and possibly near global thermonuclear war at worst. In the brutal calculus of war and near-war in the nuclear age, some significant fraction of 44 million Ukrainian lives lost or subjugated do not balance against the possibility of hundreds of millions or possibly billions of lives lost or ruined from a wider European war and potential near-global nuclear-war.

'The strong shall do what they will, while the weak shall suffer what they must.' I am ashamed to paraphrase that old and cynical idea here and now but it is nonetheless true even today.

The best we can do is to throttle Russia economically, isolate Russia politically, build up military forces in Eastern Europe to deter Russia for the long haul while expanding NATO to Russia's western neighbour, possibly undermine Russia's political stability covertly and open our borders to as many Ukrainian refugees and immigrants as we can.

With shame and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
No, Russia is a nuclear-armed country and possesses the most nuclear weapons of any state in the world. To enforce a no-fly zone would mean suppressing and destroying Russian surface to air missile batteries both in Ukraine and in Russia proper. It would also require shooting down Russian aircraft in direct combat. Finally the Russians could swarm any NATO no-fly aircraft with hundreds of their aircraft from behind the Russian frontier so such a no-fly policy would have to suppress and destroy Russian air bases in Russia proper too. All of these actions would amount to one nuclear-armed super-power in direct conflict with another group of nuclear-armed super-powers and that would likely escalate into wider war at best, and possibly near global thermonuclear war at worst. In the brutal calculus of war and near-war, some significant fraction of 44 million Ukrainian lives lost or subjugated do not balance against the possibility of hundreds of millions or possibly billions of lives lost or ruined from a wider war and potential near-global nuclear-war.

The strong shall do what they will while the weak shall suffer what they must. The best we can do is throttle Russia economically, build up military forces in Eastern Europe for the long haul, possibly undermine Russia's political stability covertly and open our borders to as many Ukrainian refugees and immigrants as we can.

With shame and be well.
Evilroddy.

I would add, continue arming the Ukrainian military and make the holding of Ukraine as painful an exercise in bloodletting to the Russian Army as possible.
 
Do you support sending American aircraft to enforce no fly zone in Ukraine?

There you have it.
You might as well change this poll to: "Start WW3- yes or no?"
 
I would add, continue arming the Ukrainian military and make the holding of Ukraine as painful to the Russian Army as possible.
Felis Leo:

I am not sure about continuing that policy after Ukraine has fallen to Russia (assuming it does fall). Such a foreign-supplied insurgency could lead to brutal, asymmetrical reprisals against civilian combatants and non-combatants alike in occupied-Ukraine. It could also trigger forced mass-migrations in order to separate suspected Ukrainian fighters from access to Western-supplied weapons. Do we really know how far Mr. Putin and Russia would sink in order to achieve his wicked goals? I fear he would go as far as gassing resisting villages, towns and cities. I suspect that he would shift millions at the point of guns into trains bound for Siberia, etc. When does the cost of hurting Ukrainians surpass the benefits of hurting Russia? I don't know the answer to that question; do you?

I think a better policy would be to invite any Ukrainians who are former soldiers, sailors, airmen or supporting arms, plus any Ukrainians of military age or of three years less than military age (who wish to continue to fight Russia) to come west with their families. Then we train them and equip them and integrate them into either covert special operations commands to infiltrate back into Ukraine for hit and run operations or as a standing army under NATO protection which is also under a Ukrainian Government in Exile's command as a post-invasion partner or perhaps member of NATO. We'll need them when Mr. Putin crosses the next red-line in a few years after we goad him enough with the infiltration attacks.

More shamefully but be well.
Evilroddy.
 
Do you support sending American aircraft to enforce no fly zone in Ukraine?

There you have it.
Are you OK with sitting back and watching as a free nation is overrun by the Russians, (former communist, and that's being nice since their leader is a KGB communist from the old days.
No FLY Zone may stop the killing and prevent the slaughter that will come if Putin is not stopped. There are ways to do it with as little provocation as possible. NATO doing it will just give Putin an excuse to start a war and blame it on the NATO . The UN could pass a resolution to enforce a No Fly Zone and Putin would be hard pressed to war against the community of nations represented by the UN. The UN can also expect Russia to have to abstain from voting on the security council because they are one of the agressors in the conflict and the resolution would only take 9 yes votes. This resolution can't be stopped by a single veto as with usual security council so china voting against wouldn't be enough.
Not saying this doesn't have some risk but not as much as if the US just goes it alone or with NATO.
The right thing to do is stop Putin. He's murdering thousands and not telling how high it will go. The free nations need to put an end to this. If they don't I'm afraid they will let Ukraine go and all those people die and still have to face Putin in the long run.
 
I’m a no as well.

I do however start to get an itchy trigger finger when I think of Russia moving in on Finland or Romania.

The fat lady is warming up
 
Are you OK with sitting back and watching as a free nation is overrun by the Russians, (former communist, and that's being nice since their leader is a KGB communist from the old days.
No FLY Zone may stop the killing and prevent the slaughter that will come if Putin is not stopped. There are ways to do it with as little provocation as possible. NATO doing it will just give Putin an excuse to start a war and blame it on the NATO . The UN could pass a resolution to enforce a No Fly Zone and Putin would be hard pressed to war against the community of nations represented by the UN. The UN can also expect Russia to have to abstain from voting on the security council because they are one of the agressors in the conflict and the resolution would only take 9 yes votes. This resolution can't be stopped by a single veto as with usual security council so china voting against wouldn't be enough.
Not saying this doesn't have some risk but not as much as if the US just goes it alone or with NATO.
The right thing to do is stop Putin. He's murdering thousands and not telling how high it will go. The free nations need to put an end to this. If they don't I'm afraid they will let Ukraine go and all those people die and still have to face Putin in the long run.
Integrityrespect:

Russia has a veto on the UN Security Council, so no UN mandated No-Fly Zone is going to be authorised by the UN.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
At this point, no. The danger of Russian and American forces firing upon one another escalating into a full conflict are too great. But on the other hand if Russia persists in relentlessly targeting civilians coupled with a refusal to provide safe passage or humanitarian relief for refugees attempting to flee the violence that it begins to border on state sponsored genocide, then we may have to do what we have to do. And judging from the Russian air force's relatively poor performance in the skies of Ukraine given the huge superiority they enjoy over them in terms of numbers and modern aircraft, I suspect American pilots would likely inflict large losses upon any Russian formations that attempt to challenge them.
The Russians have made no attempt to stop civilian evacuations. The stopping of refugees is exclusively being carried out by nationalist ukranian militia and military forces
 
Nope. I'm all for giving Ukraine what they need to shoot them down themselves though.
Why? You’re only prolonging what for Ukraine is a hopeless situation. The western countries should put full sanctions on Ukraine and make any form of war fighting impossible so they sue for peace and end the conflict
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom