Please Biden arrange a humanitarian no fly zone for Ukraine

[boston bean]

Close they skies!

[MarineCombatEngineer]

1. And when the Russians start shooting down US/NATO aircraft,

then what?
Oh, and by the way, it wouldn't be a no fly zone, that's the wrong terminology, it would be a CAP, Combat Air Patrol.

[Tickle]

9. then let's guve urkraine

the planes to create their own no fly zone. I don't understand why Biden says no to that

[MarineCombatEngineer]

16. Because aircraft are not what's needed,

AA missiles are what's needed to intercept the cruise missiles they're launching against the cities, like the Patriot or the Russian S-300, which have the capability to shoot them down.

I'm all for sending them the AA systems, that's what they need in conjunction with the Stinger MPADS.

[boston bean]

27. Why is Zelensky begging for it, then?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

29. Because, in his view,

it's what's needed, as opposed to Pres. Biden, our Military leaders, our NATO partners, etc.

And please, stop referring to it as a no fly zone, that's not what it would be.

[boston bean]

35. I'll use the verbiage I please to use. News calls it that.

We all know what we are talking about.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

37. Then you're lying to yourself about the true nature of it.

Here's the difference, a no fly zone can encompass many scenarios, Intl. Airports are no fly zones, the White House is a no fly zone, a volcanic eruption can be classified as a no fly zone, whereas, a CAP serves one purpose only, to deny an enemy of airspace usage, which would require fighters to enforce it up to and including combat strikes against enemy air assets.

[boston bean]

38. I am not lying to myself about one damned thing. I understand it. And I still believe the US should

it.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

41. I'll tell you what,

when you've walked in the same boots I walked in for 35 years, then get back to me about the proper terminology, in the meantime, you are dead wrong about the terminology and are lying to yourself about what a CAP would entail.

Have a great Wednesday.

[boston bean]

49. I am not walking in your boots. I am walking in Zelensky's and the people of Ukraines boots.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

50. Well then,

we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[boston bean]

54. Yep.

[Stinky The Clown]

55. Let me offer some advice I hope you will take the way it was intended

Your answer comes off as arrogant. You hold yourself up as some expert. And maybe you are. I don't know you or anything about you. But what I DO know is you literally lost the argument with that.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

56. Advice taken.

I just get a little peeved at the incorrect terminology when it's been pointed out by myself and others what the correct term is.

Thanks and have a great Wednesday.

[Polybius]

59. Because he has nothing to lose

Right now, he's likely to lose. With a no-fly-zone, there's a 30% chance he'll win, and a 70% chance of a nuke war. The US, on the other hand, has plenty to lose.

[Celerity]

17. Why the US scrapped Polish plans to give Ukraine fighter jets

NATO countries are weighing military assistance to Ukraine carefully.

https://www.vox.com/2022/3/13/22975269/ukraine-poland-us-mig-fighter-jets-military-aid-escalation



The Pentagon this week rejected a proposal from Poland to provide the Ukrainian Air Force with MiG-29 fighter jets, which Defense Department spokesperson John Kirby described as not “tenable” because of the risk of open conflict between NATO and Russia. The deal, had it gone through, would have seen Poland transfer 28 MiG jets to Ukraine via the United States, while the US would have sent replacement F-16s to replenish the Polish Air Force. However, Biden administration concerns about escalating US involvement in the conflict appear to have stalled the deal.

Although Ukraine’s air defenses have held surprisingly well over the past two and a half weeks, particularly given the size and capabilities of the Russian Air Force, the Ukrainian government has requested additional fighter jets as Russian forces pummel cities like Mariupol, Kharkiv, and Kyiv with aerial bombardments in addition to shelling attacks. Ukrainian pilots are trained to fly the Soviet-made MiG-29s, some of which are already in service in Ukraine, so Poland’s offer theoretically could have had an immediate impact for Ukraine.

But the proposal isn’t as simple as it seems and apparently caught US diplomats off guard when Poland announced the plan Tuesday. Previously, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken had indicated that Poland sending jets to Ukraine would get “the green light” from the Biden administration, and Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the US ambassador to the United Nations, also supported the plan in an appearance on ABC’s This Week last Sunday. “We have been in close consultations with the Polish government as well as with our other NATO allies on this issue,” Thomas-Greenfield said at the time. “We have not in any way opposed the Polish government providing these jets to Ukraine, and we’re working, as you noted, to see how we can backfill for them.”

The proposal Poland floated on Tuesday, however, would have involved the US more directly than the plan initially backed by Blinken and Thomas-Greenfield. Poland’s updated plan would have sent the MiG-29s to Ukraine via the US’s Ramstein Air Base in Germany, which also houses NATO’s Allied Air Command headquarters. Such a move could have more directly linked both parties to Ukraine’s war effort. That added level of risk appears to have ultimately sunk the deal, though as Politico’s Alexander Ward and Joseph Gedeon point out, Poland could still unilaterally deliver the jets if it wishes to do so.

snip

[mysteryowl]

2. Yes!

[Patton French]

3. Powerful speech and video

Comparing to when the US was attacked from the skies.

Close the skies!

[AngryOldDem]

11. Especially considering we were extremely reluctant to enter WWII....

…until we had to. Same situation here. This genocide has to stop.

[Zeitghost]

72. This terrible war is a lot of things

Including an international war crime. But it's not genocide and using that term is inappropriate and waters down it's definition.

[AngryOldDem]

73. Okay...mass slaughter then.

[Calculating]

74. It's not?

What else do you call bombing cities into rubble, destroying infrastructure, and turning millions of civilians into desperate refugees? Russia is trying to basically replace the Ukrainian population.

[Zeitghost]

75. No, it's not

My family (the few that were able to escape) survived a genocide by the Turks, I am intimately familiar with the term through first hand accounts by those who did survive. Not every evil territorial war is a genocide.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

4. "Arrange."

[boston bean]

6. For lack of a better word, yah. You have is better one provide it and I will edit.

You do get the gust though right? Zelensky has asked for it. You do understand, no?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

14. Call it what it is, a combat air patrol that shoots planes out of the skies and would be seen as

an act of war from whoever is doing the shooting.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

19. Thank you!!!!

I get a little peeved with the mis-use of the term no fly zone, which encompasses many reasons for closing the airspace, whereas the sole purpose for a Combat Air Patrol is to deny the enemy of the use of an airspace, which requires fighters whose task is to enforce that CAP with deadly force.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

34. I'm convinced people think a no fly zone means standing there with a squirt bottle and saying

"no no!" to planes like you scold a cat, and the planes then turn back just because you asked. And I don't think people know that what they're calling for is war. If they're down for it and all that it means, okay, call for it. But I'm not sure they are.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

36. 100% agree.

A no fly zone encompasses many reason for closing the airspace while a CAP is for one purpose only, to deny the enemy the use of airspace, which means using deadly force.

It's usually those with no military experience that makes this mistake.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

47. Yep. Crushing a country's air force has consequences, and it's clear some aren't thinking through

them.

[Johnny2X2X]

5. The skies are not the problem.

Russia is using artillery almost exclusively right now. A no fly zone would do nothing to help.

[boston bean]

7. No way. Completely wrong.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

13. Air Artillery includes cruise missiles, AA guns, AA missiles, not just aircraft,

so yes, completely right.

[boston bean]

23. Why is Zelensky begging for it? Do you not believe him?

He knows where his greatest threat exists. Do you think he is lying?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

24. No I don't think he's lying

but a CAP, call it what it really is, would draw the US/NATO into direct combat against Russia, and I am 100% opposed to this due to my experiences and the real possibility of nuclear strikes.

[boston bean]

25. I disagree with you. And I support Zelensky' s request.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

28. And I disagree with Pres. Zelensky's request for a CAP,

I'm all for sending him the AA systems to knock down the cruise missiles and aircraft, but a CAP is a no go for me and, thank our lucky stars, a no go for Pres. Biden so far.

I trust our Pres. and the Military high command, they're much more in a position to make the necessary decisions as opposed to you or I or anyone here.

[tman]

20. mostly right.

[DemocraticPatriot]

26. Reports indicate that the vast majority of the Ukraine bombardment is coming

from artillery, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles fired from Russian aircraft, from WITHIN Russian airspace, because Ukrainian airspace is too dangerous for their aircraft already.

No "no fly zone" or combat air patrol in Ukrainian air space, would solve any of these 3 problems ---

--unless we were prepared to attack Russian aircraft in Russian air space, or attack Russian artillery on the ground-- either of which would begin direct warfare between Russia and the United States, something we have managed to avoid for the 70-some years of the atomic age.

I am opposed to sending US-manned aircraft in Ukraine, absent a direct Russian attack on NATO territories.


I will support arranging for the Ukrainians to receive combat aircraft. Sorry that the Polish arrangement fell through.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

30. A voice of reason.

[uponit7771]

58. +1,

[uponit7771]

57. Completely right, the BIGGER problem is MOBILE artillery and cruise missilles and no airplanes

... are effective against those targets IE why Zel asked for S300s too

[AngryOldDem]

8. YES! A thousand times yes.

It is the LEAST we can do.

[Tickle]

10. not doing anything

is much worse

[gab13by13]

18. Not doing anything is what Trump did,

surprise, Trump is no longer president and thank god for that. President Biden united our allies and NATO to take on the Russian invasion. The United States is not in this fight by itself, let NATO countries take a vote for a no fly zone and those countries that vote yes can send planes into Ukraine. I guarantee NATO will not back a no fly zone and we are not in this fight by ourselves.

A no fly zone will do something, escalate the war.

[bottomofthehill]

32. The US and NATO are not "not doing anything"

They are providing billions in support we see and more that we do not.

We are providing them with what we can. If NATO or the US decides to put a CAP on, there is also the need to suppress Russian SAMS. That alone is direct combat with Russian troops. We will and should not put our planes in the air if we are not willing to do ALL that is necessary to protect them. There is no way to do that with out direct combat with Russian troops and most likely on Russian soil. We are not helping the Ukraine or anyone else if this ends in a nuclear exchange, even in a limited, tactical sense.

We are worried about cafe standards for cars, start tossing nukes around and think about not only the immediate fall out but the long term climate change

[MarineCombatEngineer]

33. +100. nt

[Tickle]

42. we can provide them with mig planes

but we won't . Poland wanted to provide Ukrainian air force with MIG-29 fighter jests but John Kirby thought it was too dangerous.

[bottomofthehill]

44. John Kirby is a spokesman not a policy person

We have no MIGS to give, Poland has MIGS and can give them to Ukraine any time.

[Tickle]

48. That is not true

you need 100% approval and Biden said no

[bottomofthehill]

60. What 100 percent approval are you talking about.

They are Poland’s Jets. The President of the US has no say in what Poland does with the Jets they bought from Russia years ago. If Poland wants to give the MIGS, they give the MIGS.

[DemocraticPatriot]

63. "Biden said no" to Poland's proposal to route the planes

through the NATO Air Command headquarters air base, not to the transfer itself.

https://www.vox.com/2022/3/13/22975269/ukraine-poland-us-mig-fighter-jets-military-aid-escalation

[bottomofthehill]

68. Yes, the President

Thought it not a good idea to fly Polish Migs to a US Airbase in Germany to transfer them to Ukraine. That does not prohibit the Polish from giving them to Ukraine.

[Liberal In Texas]

12. No.

Malcolm Nance doesn't think it's a good idea. He's an expert and has better ideas. Like send them arms. The new UAVs could be a game changer.

[gab13by13]

15. A no fly zone is not going to happen,

Mitch fucking McConnell is pushing for a no fly zone, that should give a hint to people. McConnell never does anything unless it is politically beneficial. Just wait until the election and I guarantee that Republicans, who are members of the Putin party, are going to say that president Biden should have done more.

People had better think about the consequences about a no fly zone, it will expand the war not reduce it.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

21. And calling it a no fly zone is a mischaracterization of the term,

the correct term would be a Combat Air Patrol, CAP.

[Ray Bruns]

22. The war is here. WE can either fight it, or let the Ukrainians stand alone.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

31. Well then,

here's a suggestion, Ukraine is asking for volunteers to help defend the country, so why don't you skedaddle on down to the nearest UKR embassy and volunteer?

[Ray Bruns]

43. First off: I am a veteran and did my part for my country

Second: At my age, I would be more of a liability than an asset. Maybe if I were thirty years younger.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

46. I am also, 35 years in the Corps with 3 combat tours under my belt,

and I stand by my post.

[Ray Bruns]

51. I stand by mine.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

52. ....

Back atcha and thank you for your service.

[Calculating]

76. I'm 32 and have no combat training

How useful would I be? Better to use my tax dollars to support Ukraine with a no fly zone.

[lark]

39. Don't listen to this person.

No fly zone = us shooting down Russians = Russia shooting us = potential world destruction when Russia rains nukes on us and England Germany and France and we rain them back on Russia. How does destroying the world help Ukraine?

I understand the impulse - totally, who would not want to help them out of these dire circumstances. However, any no fly zone will increase the war, not stop it as Putin's ego can't tolerate that and he is obviously not sane.

[BGBD]

40. The first step to enforcing a no fly zone

It's not possible without first entering all out war to disable the Russian AF.

[bottomofthehill]

61. And their ground controlled SAMS which are on Russian Soil

[PSPS]

45. Fortunately, we have adults in charge know better.

Everyone, me included, understands how you feel. But we can't start a world war over this. The "red line" would be an attack or invasion involving a NATO country. In the meantime, we're doing the right thing.

[MoonlitKnight]

53. The time for it was pre-invasion.

If we were flying CAP over Ukraine Russia would not have proceeded with the invasion. Or most likely would not have. As it would have put the onus on Russia to start a shooting war with the US.
But I doubt that our NATO partners would have approved.

I think the main reason for restraint is that we don’t want to feed the Russian narrative that NATO is a threat to Russia.

I do disagree with the definitive statements of what we will not do. There should have been more ambiguity and all options should always remain on the table.

I think the pressure for direct involvement is useful as it seems to have made Russia more restrained. Combined with the effective use of stingers and other anti-aircraft systems it has largely diminished the ability and will of the Russian Air Force.

I also disagree with the failure to provide aircraft. Not just MiGs but helicopters and attack jets. We have clearly decided not to provide what are considered offensive weapons. They also need anti-ship capabilities and Naval resources. Hopefully that is being done quietly as it requires training crews and a heck of a lot of other stuff. But I doubt it due to the original thinking that this would quickly become a resistance relegated to tactics like Afghanistan in the 80’s.

I think we should be planning for a long conventional war that will require those offensive capabilities that include air and sea power to drive Russia out of Ukraine- and that includes Crimea.

I also firmly believe that if we have actionable intelligence and the capability to destroy any chemical or biological attack that is about to be deployed we should strike. If we have the capability and allow it to happen it would be morally wrong to not act and honestly we would have to act afterward anyway.

I also believe that we should push for a UN General Assembly vote to invoke the “duty to protect” provision of the UN Charter. Let the world vote. Then our Congress needs to approve.

We are all well aware of the risk of escalation to nuclear conflict. That must be considered but cannot override the moral obligation of defense of a peaceful, democratic, sovereign nation. Waiting to draw the line at NATO members ignores our obligation to humanity, international law, and the very foundation of our nation. It also has the feel of ignoring an ally in need because they didn’t get the paperwork done in time and we are using them to weaken Russia and strengthen ourselves.

[JCMach1]

62. Only as part of a cease-fire/peace deal...

[Hortensis]

64. Boston Bean, before any of us facilely call for the deaths of OTHERS,

I believe we should imagine choosing a loved one we'd be willing to sacrifice to the cause. To make what we're asking for more real to us.

By now I'm assuming you realize a no-fly zone would require sacrifices of human lives for the hopeful purpose of saving far more lives. But that it could work out far differently and cost many more lives.

Humility.

I'm very glad these are not my decisions to make.

[boston bean]

66. War is hell and the Ukrainians are living with death. We can do things to help.

Zelensky is asking the same of us that he is asking if his own people. They are the buffer between Russia and US. We should be doing everything possible to save that country from Russia to also save ourselves.

[Hortensis]

67. Yes, we should do "everything possible." The question is what

that should mean. We can see Putin's definition of "everything possible" may set no limits on deaths.

How about our own? Which is why I suggest we try to make sacrificed lives even slightly more real for ourselves before we call for them. No cheating and pretending they wouldn't exist. The people who make these decisions have estimates of lives lost for every scenario.

Btw, we have 3 teen grandsons who would be draft age while a world war was still raging. Imagining my own sacrifices to maybe save Ukrainian lives isn't hard for me at all.

[boston bean]

69. I have a son and nephews of that age. You think I am not afraid. Of course I am.

You think my love for them is less than yours for your family? we are looking at an inevitability if Russia succeeds, and will be in a worse place.

[Hortensis]

70. I do suspect imaginations of those who like to think we have no

choice but to leap right in are less. As for humility in people who disagree with Biden and his military advisors...!

I'm wondering, how could people who really considered we must inevitably go to war with Russia be talking about anything except how to turn back the clock, and where to flee? Is faith that Biden's just plain wrong when he says it would lead to WWIII THAT strong? No doubts about that?

I'd have better things to do about now if I really believed that before long we'd all be Ukrainians, and not in some soppy, pom-pom waving way from complete safety. America can be reached easily now, and two oceans would confine a hundred million and more deaths and starving refugees here, so Putin would not have to worry about them spilling over into the nations of his hegemony. And what're we doing for Ukraine then?

The Biden administration is right to avoid the real possibility of planetary conflagration by not escalating a local war into a war between nuclear superpowers. They and all the nations that agree with that policy are the grownups trying to save the world, and that kind of thinking has saved the world so far, 70 years into the era of WMD. If Biden announces we will be doing a no-fly zone, I'll be glad but because it'll mean they believe it can stop the local war AND stop escalation to WWIII.

Btw, UAE's buying more fighter planes from China so they can pound the starving people of Yemen better.

[BlackSkimmer]

77. Thank you. nt

[Elessar Zappa]

65. No way.

[David__77]

71. I'm confident Biden will continue to say no to this.

And it’s a good thing that he has and will.