Do you support sending American aircraft to enforce no fly zone in Ukraine?
There you have it.
No.Do you support sending American aircraft to enforce no fly zone in Ukraine?
There you have it.
Who is going to enforce it? No.Do you support sending American aircraft to enforce no fly zone in Ukraine?
There you have it.
No.Do you support sending American aircraft to enforce no fly zone in Ukraine?
There you have it.
Do you support sending American aircraft to enforce no fly zone in Ukraine?
There you have it.
No.I apologize for dorking up the poll.
Thanks for the responses
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.
Do you support sending American aircraft to enforce no fly zone in Ukraine?
There you have it.
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.
You might as well change this poll to: "Start WW3- yes or no?"Do you support sending American aircraft to enforce no fly zone in Ukraine?
There you have it.
Felis Leo:I would add, continue arming the Ukrainian military and make the holding of Ukraine as painful to the Russian Army as possible.
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.Do you support sending American aircraft to enforce no fly zone in Ukraine?
There you have it.
Integrityrespect: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.
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 forcesAt 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.
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 conflictNope. I'm all for giving Ukraine what they need to shoot them down themselves though.