NATO won't establish no-fly zone over Ukraine, Stoltenberg says

[zuul]

Source: Politico

NATO will not establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine, the alliance’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said Friday.

Ukraine has repeatedly called for Western powers to implement a no-fly zone to reduce the Russian military’s ability to attack Ukrainian targets from the air.

But speaking Friday following a meeting of NATO foreign ministers, Stoltenberg said the issue “was mentioned” but that “allies agree that we should not have NATO planes operating over Ukrainian airspace or NATO troops on Ukrainian territory.”

The secretary-general — who also warned that fighting in the coming days in Ukraine is likely to get worse — said that a no-fly zone would trigger a broader conflict.



Read more: https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-wont-establish-no-fly-zone-over-ukraine-jens-stoltenberg-says/amp/

[Scrivener7]

1. Then, as Zelensky said, we should send them the planes.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

11. That would counter this:

"allies agree that we should not have NATO planes operating over Ukrainian airspace.
Of course "Should" and "Won't" are 2 different things

Can the Ukraine win this without NATO?

[Igel]

31. These are two different things.

If you know this, other readers might not.

The no-fly zone is a conundrum as far as I'm concerned. I keep hearing, "If we do this, it will escalate the situation." Hundred of Ukr soldiers died in 2015 because of that logic--we sent blankets and bandaids, not lethal, defensive weapons. Because they might escalate the situation.

When in 2018 we *finally* sent anti-tank weapons, two things happened. (1) Russian tanks stopped being a serious problem along the Donbas line of control because (2) Russian tanks were pulled back from the LOC.

Now, it's not the same situation--but aspects that matter are similar or rather different. The question is, Which are the *important* aspects? That when threatened, the Russians and their "allies" pulled back? Or that the LOC was established and there wasn't any real attempt to take land? In other words, the threat wasn't thwarting ambitions, just causing gadflies to goad less and fly more.

Take the similarity, and a no-fly zone would mitigate Russian bombardment.

Start with the difference, and since it's a hot war perhaps it's less just dialing back the annoyance from 3 to 2 and trying to stop a full-fledged imperialist conquest.

So they're similar or completely different. (That's what I like about having no decision-making authority. I'm not important.)

But what irks me is the cowardice in not sending the Ukr planes of Soviet vintage to Ukr because there mere act of flying a plane from a NATO airfield into Ukr airspace might be taken as a NATO country participating in active military, hostile defense of Ukr. (So, great. Fly them from NATO to a non-NATO country. Then from there to Ukr. Or from a NATO country to an ad hoc air strip 8" inside Ukr border. Then video the pilots walking back to NATO, and some Ukr pilots sneaking up and "stealing" the planes.)

[LiberalLovinLug]

37. I'd go even further. What is NATO scared of?

If Ukraine invites NATO, and they agree, on a one time basis, to enter its county and impose a No Fly Zone on its own land that is between them, and after an advanced warning is given ....2 days?, the NFZ could take affect.

Then, its up to the Russians to "escalate" it isn't it? If they want to attempt to break a NFZ regardless,
Who is going to come to Russia's defence in order to help "escalate" the destruction and loss of life in Ukraine? Pretty much the whole planet is condemning Putin, with a few abstaining. China is a wild card. They also have one eye on Taiwan, and are no doubt curious about just how well Putin does. But I don't think they'd go to war and die for Putin's glory.

How is shooting down a few of their planes worse than the death and destruction those same planes would be doing by just siting back and watching it happen, worrying about things "escalating"?

[JohnSJ]

2. No surprise. Without a doubt that would expand the conflict and increase the probability of an

accident.

[atreides1]

3. Make no mistake

Putin plans to expand the conflict...Moldova will be the next country to be "liberated" by the Russians.

[Gore1FL]

5. I am sure that was part of the original plan.

I don't know where he will get the forces and how he will supply them.

[JohnSJ]

18. If he goes for Moldova, NATO will engage militarily with Russia

[blue-wave]

38. Moldova is not a NATO member

[Igel]

32. Possibly.

If Putin lives long enough.

I suspect this is his project, not "theirs."

But ...

(1) Transdnistria could just claim all of Moldova. It's fairly clear that Putin and proxies take the LNR's and DNR's territorial claims seriously. Why not TD's?

(2) Moldova was Soviet.

I'll hedge on (2). Moldova wasn't a serious part of the "tsar' vseia Rusi" drivel, nor Russian Orthodox. It was never part of the "Russian World" (one of those ironic phrases: "mir" means "world". It also means "peace." Ironic that in search of a Russian World Putin's extending Russian war; brother Russia loves brother Ukraine like Cain loved Abel. Oh. Right. "Mir" also means something like "village collective," not a Soviet-era term but a really old pre-Peter concept in which a ves' or 'village' (parallel to English 'wic', showing up as -wich in English place names) was also a group of people that pulled together for joint survival.)

[blue-wave]

39. I'm sure your assessment about expansion is correct

Putin might go for Moldova, but I think he really wants Poland and the Baltic states. Poland and the Baltics are NATO members. Pooty better be ready for the full might of NATO if he crosses that line.

[KurtSteiner]

42. Putin wants

Restoration of the USSR and Warsaw Pact.

[Happy Hoosier]

4. Translation: Russia, do what you will, we're wetting our pants over here. NT

[Lonestarblue]

6. Exactly!

[Gore1FL]

7. Russia is bleeding out in Ukraine.

Escalating would change that dynamic in an unknowable way that might benefit Russia. Time is not on Russia's side. Why should the west rush things?

[Happy Hoosier]

9. I'm not in favor of rushing things.

I'm also not in favor of telling the bad guys what you will not do.

What possible advantage is there in telling the Russians we will not ever consider a no-fly zone.

A basic strategic principle is that if you are unwilling to risk what your opponent is willing to risk, you lose. They are hoping that Russia runs out of steam before they succeed. Perhaps they have reason to believe that. I am very, very, skeptical. Putin has staked his reputation on Ukraine. He will not give up on it so long as he can escalate without consequence.

[RussBLib]

22. so NATO guarantees many more will die

oh well

I am feeling some compassion fatigue

[PortTack]

8. Irregardless of NATO in 1994 (Budapest memorandum) we promised that if Ukraine would

Give up it’s nukes we would defend them if attacked.

Can someone explain to me why we are not doing that? Is what we are doing arming them to the teeth considered defending them?

Doesn’t exactly make good allies when you go back on your word!

[OneCrazyDiamond]

10. I suspect NATO is worried Putin wants WW3

and for it to be nuclear.

[PortTack]

14. I did find my answer in another post.

Althou we promised, supposedly the Biden administration does not see the Budapest memorandum as legally binding.

Still it seems to me we promised! Doesn’t exactly make a good alliance when you promise, and in the end say no.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

20. Others are averse as well.

Canadian Foreign Minister Melanie Joly said that NATO's red line was to avoid triggering a wider conflict. France's presidential office described a no-fly zone as 'a very legitimate request and very difficult to satisfy.'

Lithuanian Prime Minister Ingrida Simonyte said calls to get NATO involved into military conflict now were 'irresponsible.'

[PortTack]

26. I get that..but this wasn't a deal NATO made. It was the US, Russia and I believe one other nation

[ripcord]

21. NATO ran a con job on Ukraine

All talk and no substance.

[Igel]

33. That goes to intent.

I don't think NATO had a con job or deceit in mind.

It wussed out.

There's a difference in intent, even if both are "all talk and no substance."

One's rooted in malice and self-interest, the other in cowardice and self-interest.

What bothers me most is how Russia seems tres Soviet to me--it's in a bubble. And bubbles are always a denial of information that ultimately is self-undermining. "Bubble" = fingers in ears, LA-LA-LA-LA! ("Ah, but that doesn't mean Putin's in a bubble." He's already in LA-LA-LA-LA burbuja.)

[RussBLib]

23. the language in the agreement was....

that we, the UK and Russia would "respect the territorial integrity" of Ukraine if they gave up their nukes.

Russia obviously broke their word, but as fast as I can tell, there was no language to say how we would respond if one of the parties, like Russia, violated the deal.

Standing back now, the language seems very weak. Rather surprised Ukraine agreed to it with such weak language.

[PortTack]

29. Thank you for the clarification...it helps some.

[olddad65]

34. Lets have all the NATO arm Ukraine to the teeth.

So the Russian can take the weapons away from them and use them against the NATO countries that supplied them. That sounds like a stupid idea.

[58Sunliner]

12. NATO should step up. Putin is a liar and this will only get worse. We promised to help Ukraine.

[onetexan]

13. +1 -K&R

The world cannot sit aside while a despot level another country to the ground.

[IronLionZion]

15. After witnessing Russian incompetence, NATO should stop fearing them

send planes and anti-aircraft weapons to Ukraine. I just saw an article saying the US should send them our retired A-10 warthogs. Those are great for defending their people on the ground.

This opinion piece claims 3 squadrons could be delivered within a couple days if Congress would authorize it and requires minimal new training.

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2022/03/03/transfer-three-a-10-aircraft-squadrons-to-ukraine-now/

[Wuddles440]

17. That sounds encouraging in theory...

but it's becoming a logistical nightmare to the point where it may well be nearly impossible. The Russians essentially control the air space/airfields and are not going to permit such equipment to simply be delivered without the prospect having it almost immediately neutralized. If the West was never going to defend Ukraine from Putin's aggression (similar to the mistake that was made with Hitler), this equipment and other material such as Stingers needed to be in place long before Putin made his move. The only hope now is that enough Ukrainians survive to form and maintain an effective insurgency.

[IronLionZion]

28. Turkey sent them more drones

https://defence-blog.com/ukrainian-army-receives-more-turkish-made-unmanned-combat-aerial-vehicles/

The US has ways of getting stuff into places, like supporting the Afghan insurgency against Soviet occupation.

[SmittyWerben]

30. I don't believe any country at this point fears Russia/

I also believe, with every fiber of my being, that Russia must absolutely be feared because THEY HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND WILL USE THEM. If NATO steps in this on the ground or in the air that will unify the people of Russia, and China btw, behind the idea that Putin was right to fear NATO invading Russia. This is invasion is horrible and is going very badly for Putin (there are even some cracks developing in China's support) and will eventually end with his downfall. But, if NATO enters the war, so many more will die and humanity may cease to exist. And no, I do not think that is hyperbole.

[Igel]

35. The USSR collapsed.

One point of bitterness is that it collapsed without a civil war. The core of the USSR could have waged war to reclaim seceding republics. It didn't.

This was a *huge* topic for discussion 30 years ago. Why did an empire just lay down and die?

Because the generals didn't believe that the stacks of bodies and ruins of cities were a reasonable price to pay for even a partial restoration of empire.

Gorbie? He would give orders to the generals, who would have shown him the fig. *They* weren't going to be responsible for the deaths and destructions at the altar of a god they doubted.

So the question isn't, "WWPD?" (What would Putin do?)

The question is, would the generals willing to bomb Ukraine into the Hitler-ages be willing to spread the gift and joy of radioactive fall-out across Eurasia as propitiation to their gods? I have no idea. None.

As for what "Russia" believes, that's tough. Russian news said that the Zaporizhzhia nuclear near-miss was because of Ukrainian saboteurs. Russia, Russia said, took possession of the nuclear plant on 2/28 without a fight, and held it peaceably until the Ukrainians tried to destroy it. And most Russians will believe that. The more they're cut off, the more they're in a bubble.

Bubbles are bad.

[barbtries]

16. so, Ukraine

is the sacrificial lamb in this story? help me understand why this is.

[JohnSJ]

19. I am sure glad Biden is president, instead of some of the posts here suggesting that we

implement a no-fly zone, which would immediately create a direct military engagement with Russia, and lead to unthinkable results

[groundloop]

24. NATO intervention would strengthen Putin's hand at home....

according to several intelligence reports I've seen discussed. They make a good point, Putin needs a boogeyman (NATO) to raise national pride in Russia and reinvigorate his support.

It seems that the best we can do for now is to supply Ukraine with defensive weapons and intelligence.

[Strelnikov_]

25. Me too, brother. Some of the naiveite on display regarding nuclear standoffs is scary n/t

[JohnSJ]

27. Yes, not really surprising

[Wuddles440]

36. So where's the red line?

And what point does one say enough is enough? How many innocent deaths are required before civil societies decide to fight the aggressor? How much destruction? How much pain and suffering? How many more concessions will be made to this murdering scum before one acts? He has no intention of satisfying his appetite for power just by consuming Ukraine; he lusts for world domination (possibly shared with Xi, of course). Without any forceful response he'll continue to extort the West with the threat of nuclear war (or an 'accidental' discharge from one of the nuclear power plants) and systematically gain control of one nation after another. In the near term, this certainly is his objective regarding the old Soviet Bloc nations. Appeasement only emboldens this sociopathic bully and is why blunt force is unfortunately necessary to stop his reign of terror.

[olddad65]

40. NATO needs to get involved. WW3 has begun.

What is NATO gonna do when Putin threatens them with nuclear weapons if they don't drop all the sanctions?
The longer NATO waits, the worse it will be.

[KurtSteiner]

41. In other words...

...NATO is throwing Ukraine to the wolves.

Neville Chamberlain 1938.