Do you support NATO enforcing a no fly zone in Ukraine?

[ColinC]

Last edited Tue Mar 22, 2022, 11:35 PM - Edit history (3)

Yes, this includes potentially shooting down Russian jets if they don't leave the airspace. The original rationale for not doing it is escalation to nuclear war. Lately, there is increased talk that Russia will likely use smaller nuclear weapons anyways -regardless of whether the west is directly involved.

Edit: Interesting change so far from last Wednesday's poll. The last one showed 86% against and 14% for.
https://democraticunderground.com/100216490323

44 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	16 (36%)
	No
	28 (64%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[doc03]

1. If Pootin uses nukes yes.

[ruet]

4. What?

If Putin uses nukes, which is ridiculous BTW, then there will be a hell of a lot more going on than a NFZ.

[doc03]

8. I agree if he uses nukes NATO will destroy what is left

of his army and drive them back to Russia.

[ColinC]

16. It is not ridiculous

Publications have increasingly discussed this idea I think with the intention to possibly desensitize us to the possibility.

From NYTimes: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2022/03/21/science/russia-nuclear-ukraine.amp.html

[roamer65]

9. I agree with you.

Nukes/chem/bio should be a hard red line.

[marie999]

41. Tactical nuclear weapons are legal if used against the military.

Chem/bio are illegal.

[denbot]

2. They are not going to stop until stopped by force.

Why stand back while they slaughter the men women and children of Ukraine?

[ColinC]

3. Agreed.

[hamsterjill]

23. Another agreement here.

We are already at a place we don’t want to admit we are at. Might as well engage.

[LuvLoogie]

5. Whatever NATO decides, I support.

And I will support them if they change their collective minds.

This is one that is up to the leadership. There are pluses and minuses in either case, and those change over time.

There's a whole range of variables, from the refugee situation to the dwindling readiness of the Russian military. Corporate greed and impatience.

NATO leaders have more real-time information.

Putin may be close to writing his own pink slip.

We removed trump on our own. We have to break through the propaganda wall.

Putin has to lose support of his people.

We have people in our country salivating over Putin's nuclear threat's

[PortTack]

10. Excellent summation! We need to fully support NATO and President Biden in their positions to

Defend and protect!

[intrepidity]

6. And what about having to bomb targets within Russia?

Because that's what's required for a NFZ.

[denbot]

47. They are launching thermobaric warheads from Russia

It’s already on.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

7. Call it what it is, a combat air patrol that shoots other planes out of the sky.

No "this includes" about it. It's what it is.

[ColinC]

11. They will not shoot down other planes in the sky if there are no planes to shoot

If Russia wants a conflict they will keep their planes there. If they want to avoid a conflict, they will move their planes. It seems wrong but not counterintuitive to assume that sending our military there would necessarily result in direct conflict.


Also consider that most Russian planes flying over Ukraine are already mostly getting shot down. Our planes would serve as a deterrent to any planes entering the air space.

[Chuuku Davis]

54. Most Russian planes are NOT getting shot down

They are flying over 300 sorties a day. Seem to be losing about one a day.
That is why UKR desperately needs SAMs .

[ColinC]

55. They need anything that could shoot down jets, absolutely.

SAMs, other jets...ANYthing.

Air defense is becoming an enormous liability. And it seems like it would be no surprise that Russia will do everythign in whatever diplomatic power it has left to stop Ukraine from getting any of it.

[BlueIdaho]

12. Russians are using their aircraft to commit war crimes. nt.

[ColinC]

13. Yep

[anarch]

14. ooh, can we do a poll about a first-strike nuke attack next?

I'm not going to make such a poll, but I feel like this one here is more or less a "should we go ahead and just get WWIII started?" kind of question, so how far off is it really from asking "who supports going ahead and launching the missiles?"

[ColinC]

15. Assuming the presence of NATO jets in Ukrainian airspace would start ww3

Would mean ww3 already started. Don't forget that Ukraine IS a NATO partner and has been for a while, and we have for the most part abandoned them.

[anarch]

19. in a sense I think you could say WWIII started twenty years ago

it's just that the main combatants haven't faced each other in a traditional military combat sense, aside from proxy wars in various colonialized parts of the world.

but Putin has certainly carried out what I think can objectively be considered acts of war against various nations he considers to be enemies, via cyber attacks, propaganda efforts, espionage and blackmail, etc. And he's had a great deal of success--I mean he basically had a puppet government installed in the U.S. for four years.

But that doesn't mean I'm in favor of nuking Moscow or something. Openly having NATO forces shoot down Russian aircraft and bomb locations in Russia does not seem like a great idea to me.

I feel as frustrated as anyone else, but we need to find a way to deal with this without escalating the situation to the point of bringing on global annihilation.

I wouldn't say we've abandoned Ukraine; I'm sure the CIA is doing what they do, and probably elements of special forces as well. This has to end in Ukraine, and the world needs to do more collectively to prevent this kind of thing (and I dunno, things like Iraq, Yemen, Palestine, etc. etc. etc.).

[ColinC]

20. I think that all the things we have done should have been done in 2014 and werent

And we would not be in this situation. I think that direct involvement will happen no matter what, and the only way to prevent escalation to annihilation is to intervene sooner rather than later...

[Gore1FL]

24. NATO Partner NATO Ally. We don't share a mutual defense treaty with them. nt

[sarisataka]

17. Why ask the intermediate question?

Ask the real question- "Do you support a war with Russia?"

[ColinC]

18. That is not the same. If we put planes in Ukraine and Russia refuses to leave

Then it is likely war. But there is still a considerable amount of decision making before an actual war with Russia occurs. For instance, there have been plenty of skirmishes with US and Russian troops in the past, and that did not result in WW3. The likelihood of Russia remaining in Ukraine while US jets enter with an ultimatum would mean Russia is already prepared for war with the US and will likely attack us anyways. If they leave, they are not prepared and will not attack us.

[sarisataka]

28. Plenty?

Name some.

Officially the Russian advisors in Korea never engaged in combat, a fiction to keep the two nations from dropping atomic bombs.

The first time an F-22 takes down a flight of Su-24s or an A-10 unleashes a GAU-8 on an S-300 there will be no fiction to provide a buffer.

If US jets enter Ukrainian airspace they will knowingly be entering a combat zone. Don't hide behind a mental fig leaf- they won't be looking for Ukrainian planes.

[ColinC]

29. "Officially" is a very important word.

"officially" these were just Russian mercenaries fighting US commandos in Syria. Unofficially, they were likely not just mercenaries involved. If Russia wants a war with us, they wouldn't need an excuse to do it. They would fight us. And if they didn't want a war with us, then any planes shot down would go in the "unofficial" category of "they were mercenaries" or unaffiliated.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american-commandos-russian-mercenaries-syria.html

https://www.voanews.com/a/middle-east_us-russia-skirmish-northern-syria-leads-minor-us-injuries/6195086.html

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/01/27/fresh-russian-us-skirmish-reported-in-syria-a69048

[sarisataka]

35. Quite possible if not even likely

Last edited Tue Mar 22, 2022, 07:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Yet so far you have not given and instance of a military force operating under the Russian or Soviet flag directly engaging an American military unit in a skirmish.

USAF aircraft shooting down a Russian airforce plane is quite different than operating through proxies and deniable assets.

[ColinC]

42. Probably

I just don't think that Jets entering Ukraine necessitates they will shoot down a Russian airplane since that is still dependent on Russia's choice to stay even with NATO forces in the territory.

But I am also incredibly doubtful direct conflict with NATO is avoidable by any measure, and the sooner that conflict is threatened or occurs, the better things will likely be. Russia only will respond to force, and to assume that they will not continue to escalate the situation is at best naive, and at worst negligently homicidal.

[Bettie]

21. Perhaps not now

But it may become necessary at some point.

[ColinC]

22. When it is necessary, I imagine it will likely be too late.

[Bettie]

26. That's my fear

All these people fearing Putin using nuclear weapons.

I fear him taking all of Europe, piece by piece because everyone is so afraid of him using nuclear weapons, so they let him take what he wants out of that fear.

I mean, if he gets all of Ukraine, he'll still have nuclear weapons and thus the threat when he gets around to declaring war on a NATO country, the threat will still be the same.

OH, and other countries that are eyeing various tracts of land that don't belong to them are watching what happens, closely. If Putin gets away with this, other nations and people will be destroyed just like Ukraine.

[ColinC]

34. Exactly.

It's very bad right now and is likely to get far worse ESPECIALLY if we get more involved later as opposed to sooner imho

[Willto]

25. WW3

If you declare a no fly zone then you would have to enforce it. That's a nice way of saying that you would have to shoot down any Russian aircraft that violate it. The second a Nato country shoots that first plane down you are looking at the start of WW3.

So the question isn't do you support a no fly zone. The question is do you feel this is worth just going ahead and having WW3.

[uponit7771]

27. No, wont stop shelling or cruise missiles that is doing most of the damage

[ColinC]

31. I think it would allow the Ukraine defenses to focus on shelling and cruise missiles if they

didn't have to also worry about jets (300 Russian sorties in the last 24 to 48 hours according to DOD)

[uponit7771]

38. VERY Few "dog fights" happen today most downed jets by AA missiles or ballistics. UA doesn't have

... enough long range AA.

Plenty of short range shoulder fire that down helis and slow moving jets.

[ColinC]

39. While I support a no fly zone, I understand it is not going to happen. Neither are migs.

I accept that. But by God,if we make the same arguments against sending them SAMs like S-300s and S-400s, I'm gonna flip my biscuit.

[uponit7771]

50. Migs can happen but slow, the AA ... Can happen now. Prolly is already

[ColinC]

51. The AA is just starting to look like the mig situation to me

Hope I'm wrong. I'm just on edge for any news of Ukraine actually receiving them.

[uponit7771]

52. Hope not, they can change the whole matter with long range AA. Word is up north

... they could be routing the Russian troops

I want them to win... I loath predator human behavior

[David__77]

30. I would certainly hope that Congress would vote on it before any US involvement.

I would hope many would come together with a resounding “no.”

[ColinC]

33. I agree on the vote, but differ on what i would hope it would be.

But definitely congress must make the decision ultimately.

[Downtown Hound]

32. Bad idea and not necessary.

Russia's air force is having minimal effect as it is, why risk nuclear war over it?

The best strategy is what we've been doing. Ship Ukraine weapons and bleed Putin dry. It's working. I honestly am beginning to think Russia is heading for one of the greatest defeats in human history even without the no fly zone. No need to escalate.

[AntiFascist]

36. Minimal effect? Tell that to the civilians left in Mariupol...

Russian strikes turning Mariupol into 'ashes' as West plans more sanctions

LVIV/KYIV, Ukraine, March 22 (Reuters) - Intense Russian air strikes are turning besieged Mariupol into the "ashes of a dead land", the city council said on Tuesday, as the United States and Europe planned more sanctions to punish Moscow for its invasion of Ukraine.

https://www.reuters.com/world/russian-air-strikes-wreak-havoc-mariupol-turning-ukrainian-city-ashes-2022-03-22/

[Downtown Hound]

43. So, would you rather start a nuclear war?

Rumor has it, that would cause quite a few civilian casualties.

Russia's air force may be causing some civilian casualties, but it's nothing compared to artillery and missile strikes. And it's had practically zero effect militarily.

[AntiFascist]

45. I was merely trying to point out that the effect of air strikes has been catastrophic, not minimal..

and the fear is that Russia may do this to other cities besides Mariupol. This has contributed to a humanitarian disaster with up to 10 million Ukrainians being displaced, not to mention the thousands who die or are being terrorized that stay behind.

[Downtown Hound]

48. Most of that is being done by artillery and missiles

Not air power. So taking Russia's air force out of the equation would have minimal effect. But the potential for escalation if we start shooting down Russian planes is huge.

If you value the lives of billions of civilians at all instead of just millions, keep that in mind.

[AntiFascist]

49. We are already providing AA defenses to shoot down Russian planes....

so I guess Putin is free to start WWIII any time he likes.

Also, the greatest amount of damage at a single blow is being done by airstrikes. Cases in point being the maternity hospital bombing, the shopping center at the edge of Kyiv...

Ukrainians Flee Mariupol as Russian Forces Push to Take Port City

ZAPORIZHZHIA, Ukraine—The battle for the southern port city of Mariupol intensified Tuesday with fleeing civilians describing Russian and Ukrainian forces locked in street-by-street warfare through the city’s downtown as Moscow’s airstrikes gutted entire neighborhoods.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukrainians-flee-mariupol-as-russian-forces-push-to-take-port-city-11647947707?mod=politics_lead_pos1

[ColinC]

44. Starting a nuclear war does not mean entering territory of an ally in order to protect it from

humanitarian atrocities. Starting a nuclear war means shooting a nuke at a country with nukes. This is not being proposed. Every other interpretation of "starting nuclear war" is assuming that a specific action will only be met with escalation to nuclear conflict. This is a fallacious interpretation in my opinion.

[48656c6c6f20]

37. No because Pootin says he'll use nukes.

And if we don't do a no fly he'll use nukes. Also if his tasters don't taste his food properly he'll use nukes. Oh and if the Russian people don't stop protesting he'll use nukes.. And if the long table isn't made longer he'll use nukes. And if Ukraine wins he'll use nukes. And if Tuesday it rains he'll use nukes. So see he's a madman that just wants to launch nukes. We should just let him be and now to his every whim so he doesn't use nukes. It's simple really.

[ColinC]

53. Unfortunately poignant.