General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAmericans Want a No-Fly Zone--Until They Learn What That Actually Means
Last edited Mon Mar 21, 2022, 12:21 PM - Edit history (3)
I apologize if this has been posted elsewhere, but I've looked and can't find it. I saw this a couple of days ago and thought about posting it but didn't. Here it is now.
Source: Mother Jones/Noah Y. Kim
Toward the end of his address to Congress yesterday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy played a disturbing and graphic video that interspersed clips of the Russian aerial bombardment with footage of its human fallout: children screaming, an injured pregnant woman on a gurney, a body being tossed into a mass grave. As the video concluded, text appeared on the center of the screen: Close the sky over Ukraine.
Zelenskyy has been making similar calls for a no-fly zone for more than a week now, emphasizing the death and devastation raining down on Ukraine from above. But the overwhelming bipartisan consensus in Washington and throughout Europe is that a no-fly zone simply isnt tenable. (Even Sen. Lindsey Graham, who called for Russians to assassinate Putin, has deemed a no-fly zone to be a bridge too far.)
Its fully understandable that Zelenskyy would endorse any measure that would help Ukraine beat back Russias assault. Whats startling, though, is that his favored policy seems to enjoy the broad support of the American public. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, 74 percent of Americans across the political spectrum said they supported a no-fly zone to protect Ukraine. But theres a problem here: most people dont seem to know what a no-fly zone actually is and what it would entail.
A no-fly zone is essentially a commitment to ensure that no enemy aircraft can enter a designated area. In order to make good on this pledge, the U.S. and NATO would have to patrol the skies above Ukraine with thousands of flights and shoot down any Russian planes that violated the banned airspace. Given that Putin has already ignored Americas warnings not to invade Ukraine and not to target Ukrainian civilians, its exceptionally unlikely that he would suddenly heed threats to stop sending planes into Ukraine. And destroying Russian aircraft would trigger all-out war between Russia and the West.
Read more: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/03/zelenskyy-no-fly-zone-ukraine-putin-definition-war-invasion/
elleng
(130,126 posts)Lawrence O'Donnell did a good explanation recently.
kairos12
(12,817 posts)Russia.
WW3.
bottomofthehill
(8,261 posts)The US will not put its pilots in harms way with out first doing all it can to provide for the safe success to the mission. Targeting SAM sites both in Ukraine and Russia would be necessary. That would require American military neutralizing Russian troops and assets. This is would be an Act of War. The US would be engaged in an Act of War against Russia.
For those of you in the environmental or green community, I would ask your thoughts on the potential for the damage that a few, even low yield tactical nukes would have on climate change let alone the fallout in immediate area where used.
We have the ability to support Ukraine and limit the potential use of nukes. We are on that path, but it is a thin line.
Also, for those talking about WW III, I would say, Russia has very few nations supporting them. Very few. The fear here is not WW III the fear in Nuclear War. Lets not fuck this up. Lets let the CIA do what they have been training to do and we have spent Billions of dollars supporting them.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)I fear that constantly discussing it makes the public both assume and expect that that Putin will use nukes. Russia nuking Ukraine is being normalized, and THAT needs to be stopped.
He will not use nukes until and unless his armies are both driven out of Ukraine AND the Ukrainians are pursuing them into Russia.
This is because a) absent a clear and immediate threat to Russia the people that actually man the ICBMs and drop the bombs will refuse to follow orders, fearing Western nuclear retaliation; and b) considering the state of their military, how sure are they that whatever they launch will actually go where it's supposed to, and that it will detonate even if it gets there?
We don't need to target Russia-based SAM systems; we can stay away from the Russian border and keep our planes fairly low so they are in the radar shadow of the curve of the Earth. We can deploy our own SAM systems as well to enforce the no-fly zone. Over-the-border radar systems operating at long range should be relatively easy to jam, as well.
It's ballsy, but humanitarian considerations are starting to really mount. I don't know if the Ukrainians can wait for Russian logistical competence or a sudden "resignation" by Putin to turn the tide in their favor.
bottomofthehill
(8,261 posts)I am no expert, I have a little bit of knowledge but no expert, I thought that Keiv to the Belarusian border was about 75 miles and both the SAM 300 and 400 had a range well past that. The 400 has a range closer to about 250 miles. If we put our pilots and our troops on the ground and begin to engage the Russians, it is an Act of War. As we don't put our people in harms way with out first doing everything to ensure a positive outcome, we would have to cross international borders.
It would be a ballsy move, but much like your thought on normalizing the use of nukes, I think we have to stop normalizing the thought that we can start running Combat Air Patrols over Ukraine with out escalating an already horrible situation.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)It doesn't matter how powerful a radar beam is, it can't see through the ground. And if a plane is below the radar horizon, a SAM site can't guide a missile to it because it can't see it.
I found this:
In addition, the F-22 is a stealthy aircraft; it has a very small radar cross-section and thus has to be relatively close to the radar dish before it's detected.
Regardless, the Russian planes are engaged in an illegal war of aggression on foreign soil. I am very confident that the Air Force can handle anything the Russians can throw at them, and that in a few days of combat the Russian air wings would be rendered ineffective from heavy losses.
We've done this before, you know. During the Korean War, UN air forces had to deal with Chinese, Soviet, and North Korean fighters and bombers without going over (or too close to) the Yalu River, which separates China from North Korea. UN aircrews were expressly forbidden to cross the international border, even though the Chinese military was actively intervening in the war on the North Korean side.
Anything Chinese that was in North Korea was fair game to the UN forces. Planes, soldiers, trucks, trains, tanks, etc. But at no point did the UN attack anything that was across the boundary, even though our photo-recon planes could aim their cameras sideways and take pictures of Chinese air bases and other military targets just inside Chinese territory.
I don't really want to do this, but I feel it's inevitable. And if it's inevitable, then get it done soon and fast.
I don't think we have to jump in and go hunting. Fly an E-3 Sentry radar plane (AWACS) into the middle of Ukraine, heavily escorted by fighters and dare the Russians to come and get it. If they don't attack, we have prime radar coverage of all of Ukraine and can directly report all Russian air movements to the Ukrainians to improve their air-defense response.
The Ukrainians will inflict a sudden sharp increase of pain on the Russians and the Russians will either have to come gunning for the AWACS or sharply curtail their attacks in Ukraine. If they attack, they'll lose, and we can stay there with an AWACS plane over Ukraine 24/7 and the Russians unwilling to mount a challenge anymore.
I don't think we have to go MiG-hunting, but we can set up a situation where we can vastly help the Ukrainian air-defense system while being defensive.
I don't know, I'm just a self-certified internet expert. But I think we can put the Russians in a position where either they attack us as we fly (with permission from Kiev) in Ukrainian airspace, or they're forced to cut way back on air attacks.
Shermann
(7,355 posts)But the answer will be no. It is an aggressive military operation which forcibly removes an opponent from an airspace (the Russians are already there).
Zelenskyy has also recently characterized it as a "humanitarian no-fly zone" which spins it even more.
bottomofthehill
(8,261 posts)Zelenskyy would be derelict in his duty if he was not asking for it. We would be derelict in ours if we try impose a CAP. Both Biden and Zelensky are doing what they have to do.
Celerity
(42,638 posts)normal copy n' paste:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/03/zelenskyy-no-fly-zone-ukraine-putin-definition-war-invasion/
here is the same link inserted into text via the link button:
Americans Want a No-Fly ZoneUntil They Learn What That Actually Means
ificandream
(9,192 posts)Celerity
(42,638 posts)David__77
(23,214 posts)I think that many of those who don't agree with in retrospect come to understand the correctness of that decision.
ificandream
(9,192 posts)It takes a little more than memes to handle some problems.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Large majorities supported other U.S. policy responses (as we are doing) including deploying more military forces to the region.
The only U.S. policy response less popular than a no-fly zone was a more general military campaign against Russian forces. Support for cyberattacks against Russian forces was also quite low, with just 29 percent of respondents backing the idea.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/16/poll-no-fly-zone-ukraine-zelensky-speech-biden/
64% believed establishing a no-fly zone would cause Russia to engage in conventional war against NATO.
87% believed Russia would continue massive attacks on Ukraine in spite of a NFZ.
Smaller percentages believed it would cause Russia to launch nuclear and/or biochemical attacks in Ukraine.
A point made is that Russia has to date been flying few planes over Ukraine.
Mosby
(16,158 posts)Turkey would be perfect but erdegan is too close to putin.