Some seem to be in favor of us imposing a no-fly zone in Ukraine, but let's take it a step

[JohnSJ]

further.

If we were to impose a no-fly zone over parts or all of Ukraine, and one or more of those planes were shot down by the Russians, what would the next step be then?

Is American public willing to engage in a long term war with Russia that could last years?

[Tomconroy]

1. You're right. We should just get into the damn thing.

[JohnSJ]

2. What I am asking Tom is are we willing to engage in a war directly with Russia, and are the American

people behind such an engagement that could last for years?

[ColinC]

3. It would probably be the only no fly zone that can actually

Easily be justified.

[JohnSJ]

6. Sure, but regardless whether it is the right thing to do or not, would the American public support a

possible long term war with Russia, because that is a very real outcome of imposing a no-fly zone in a war zone

[ColinC]

7. I believe they would.

[JohnSJ]

8. I don't know

[Tomconroy]

27. A month ago I didn't feel this way but now I do. I don't want these

.people to be crushed. I can only speak for myself but sometimes a minority can help move the country.

[Happy Hoosier]

4. Why not ask the question from the other side?

Why would the Russians risk drawing us further into a conflict?

It's good to consider the risks from our side, but we need to make sure we are making sure the enemy must consider the risks to THEIR side. Right now, we are totally ceding that space.

[JohnSJ]

9. Because I am an American, and not a Russian. I don't think anyone today know what the hell Putin's

mindset is

He certainly doesn't seem rational, since he seems hell bent to take over Ukraine regardless of the consequences

The entire Russian economy will collapse from his actions

[Happy Hoosier]

10. So, that's the answer... you are willing to cede that space.

That's an answer for sure. But it's not really a strategy. It's just "we're afraid of what e will do." Which is, of course, EXACTLY where he wants us to be..... afraid of him.

Lemme edit to add: I think NATO is hoping beyond hope that Russia gets battered by sanctions before they can totally subdue Ukraine. Maybe that happens. If it does, I'll eat crow and gladly. But I wasn't wrong about Georgia and I wasn't wrong about Crimea. That's what we call a pattern.

[JohnSJ]

14. I didn't say that, but do you know what Putin is thinking? It is pretty obvious that he has his

mind set to completely take over Ukraine

It is pretty clear that Putin is not someone that can be negotiated with.

The question will be, is the American public willing to go into a full war against Russia?

[uponit7771]

5. SA and MPad missiles are WAY more effective than policy that would include

... UKR planes also

[kiranon]

11. Support a no-fly zone

Don't believe Russia wants an all out war with the USA. Should have established no fly zone when the Russians first went in. Maybe too late now but could establish over part of Ukraine. Maybe a divided Ukraine in the future and resistance in the parts Russia has?

[JohnSJ]

17. Isn't the question what is Putin willing to risk to take over Ukraine?

[lagomorph777]

12. You're assuming we'd enforce with planes flown by onboard humans.

Why would we do that? Not the most efficient method anymore.

[JohnSJ]

15. Are drones effective in shooting Russian planes down?

[Torchlight]

13. I think at this point, any step in any direction made by anyone

is already a potential trigger for the greater conflict. I think a No-Fly zone is merely one possibility not yet added to an already volatile mix of many other real-world examples currently happening driving us to the edge of the cliff.

I don't think it would make anything worse than it will be.

[JohnSJ]

16. I agree

[Torchlight]

22. The real-world precedents of the conflict exapanding already exist.

The No-Fly Zone is simply one among many. So I don't understand the argument that it would lead directly and unequivocally to a larger conflict when the seeds for that same expansion of the conflict are already being deployed.

It would hurt no more than throwing a match on a blazing fire fire, but it would allow measurable and relevant help and assistance.

[andym]

18. No fly zone can be enforced by drones and missiles. NT.

[JohnSJ]

20. Good point

[fightforfreedom]

19. People are calling my post crazy?

Putting in a no fly zone means shooting down Russian planes and that means all out war.

My post was about threatening to move more nuclear weapons closer to Russia as a deterrent to see if Putin would back down.

[JohnSJ]

21. Once we cross that line, there is no turning back

[Torchlight]

23. That line was crossed last week. By Putin.

The line will not exist much longer. Prioritizing that ill-fated line above all else seems a concentration over a tree rather than the forest as a whole.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

24. The next step would be Russia using a tactical nuke on Kyiv

Russia has adopted an "escalate to de-escalate" strategy in their nuclear doctrine. Essentially, they will use threats of a nuclear strike or an actual limited nuclear strike during a conventional war in order to force the opposition to surrender or make concessions. This was further reported within our 2018 Nuclear Posture Review.

From page 7 of the NPR 2018

While nuclear weapons play a deterrent role in both Russian and
Chinese strategy, Russia may also rely on threats of limited nuclear first use, or actual first
use, to coerce us, our allies, and partners into terminating a conflict on terms favorable to
Russia. Moscow apparently believes that the United States is unwilling to respond to
Russian employment of tactical nuclear weapons with strategic nuclear weapons.

From page 30 of the NPR 2018.

Moscow threatens and exercises limited nuclear first use,
suggesting a mistaken expectation that coercive nuclear threats or limited first use could
paralyze the United States and NATO and thereby end a conflict on terms favorable to
Russia.

Russia believes that its threats or the use of tactical nuclear weapon can put it in an advantageous position in a conventional military conflict. They do not regard tactical nuclear weapons the same way as strategic ones.

[fightforfreedom]

25. Could you please post this on my recent post, thank you.

[Calista241]

26. If we start shooting at Russian planes, they'll start shooting back.

What if they damage one of our planes, and it crashes in Poland on the way back to base. Is that an article 5 violation?

What if they shoot down a tanker that's fueling combat aircraft, is that an article 5 violation? Are airfields in Germany and Poland that operate these aircraft legitimate military targets of the Russians? That would definitely be an article 5 violation.

[JustAnotherGen]

28. I wouldn't support US Military involvement

But with over $300M people - I'm sure there are quite a few who do.