Putin: No-fly zone would be seen as "participation in the armed conflict"

[Calista241]

Source: Axios

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Saturday that Moscow will consider a declaration of Ukraine as a no-fly zone by any third-party as "participation in the armed conflict."

Driving the news: Russia would view "any move in this direction" as an intervention that "will pose a threat to our service members," Putin said Saturday, speaking at a meeting with female pilots, AP reports.

"That very second, we will view them as participants of the military conflict, and it would not matter what members they are," Putin said.

The big picture: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has urged Western leaders to impose a "no-fly zone" over Ukraine, but the U.S. and other major powers have ruled out doing so as it could trigger a widespread war with nuclear power Russia.

"It would require, essentially, the U.S. military shooting down Russian planes and causing ... a potential direct war with Russia — something we want to avoid," White House press secretary Jen Psaki said on Thursday in ruling out creating a NFZ.

Read more: https://www.axios.com/russia-putin-no-fly-zone-declaration-of-war-f7979ba5-1925-4b49-86d2-70089a6c7e2f.html

[C_U_L8R]

1. The bully says "whatcha gonna do about it"

He seems to think he presents a greater threat to the west than vice-versa.

[paleotn]

7. Conventionally, absolutely not....

as Afghanistan, Chechnya, Desert Storm (Russian proxy) and now Ukraine show. The west, particularly the US, would pound them to dust. Our doctrine and training are own the sky night and day and we more than have enough assets and technology to do just that. "The convoy" would be a 40 mile burned out junkyard, SAM batteries and all. But....the temptation for the Russians to use tactical nukes might be overwhelming. In short, it will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.

kind of an ironic twist. When I was young and in uniform, conventional wisdom was NATO would have to resort to tactical nukes to stop a Red Army hordes surging into western Europe. Now NATO has by far the conventional advantage and the Russians might have to resort to nukes to stave off collapse and defeat.

[former9thward]

14. We also lost in Afghanistan -- and in Vietnam.

And in Iraq. So I am never confident about anyone pounding anyone else into "dust".

[paleotn]

21. You forgot the Soviet collapse and its drivers. We didn't collapse....

In fact, other than the cost in lives and limbs, it had zero impact back home. We absorbed the cost and didn't break a sweat. We didn't have our aircraft knocked out of the sky by the Mujaheddin. We owned the the Afghan skies and did ground support at will. The Soviets most certainly did not. We spent 20 years there with very limited impact on our military, our economy, or our society. The Red Army was roughed up when they finally pulled out. The outcome was the same for Afghanistan, but the impact on each invader is light years different. Vietnam? That was 50 years ago.

We spend greater than a factor of 10 more than the Russians on our military and that buys a whole host of advantages. Add the rest of NATO and we're approaching 1 TRILLION per year. The Russians? 65 billion estimated. Should we spend less? Maybe so, but that's not the point.

Our technological and organizational advantages over the Russians are staggering. When did US formations EVER run out of freaking gas??? They can't even get basic logistics right. The Russian VKS has been missing in action in the skies through much of the conflict, giving the Ukrainians breathing space. Their planning, doctrine and tactics are garbage. It's been humiliating for the Russians. A paper tiger.

[former9thward]

23. If you read about the history of WW II

the U.S. ran out of gas, food supplies and other materials all the time when invading Germany. If you remember it took almost a year to get to Berlin and that was when the Germans were fighting a two front war.

[paleotn]

25. This isn't the 1940's.

And we were fighting a war an ocean away. The Russians are fighting next door. That would be like us running out of gas invading Mexico. Embarrassing to the extreme. We fought for 20 years in Afghanistan, a landlocked country where many of the neighbors aren't US friendly, yet we had mountains of logistics and ran out of nothing.

Also, blame the Brits for the 1944 shortages by pushing Market Garden when they should have been clearing out the Scheldt, making Antwerp a working port, free of German interference. If only Ike had stuck to his good sense and told Monty to shut the fuck up with the Market Garden crap.

[bluewater]

31. It took 19 days for the US to take Baghdad in the Iraq war

While Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24th, 9 days ago.

An honest assessment is that invading Ukraine is a major major undertaking and the Russian advances are not that much slower than the US's during the Iraq war, certainly in the same rough ballpark.

And Ukraine is bigger than Iraq, larger than Texas in fact.

And Ukraine has more people than Iraq, 44 million compared to 28 million.

It's important to not get caught up in the news cycle that expects things to all happen instantly.

Russia is progressing relentlessly in their invasion and Ukraine needs more help, that is the fact of the matter.

[paleotn]

35. It's the strategic and tactical stupidity I've mentioned, not the length of time.

My point is, any way you slice it, the "vaunted" Russian military is running a shit show of epic proportions that's got analysts across the globe scratching their heads. Well known that they weren't all that great in many areas, command and control, data integration between units and sister services and just general battle space awareness, things the west excels at....but damn.

One can go on and on and on about Russian mechanized units running out of gas, their abandoned vehicles being made off with by Ukrainian farmers. Russian soldiers surrendering at first contact since they're just conscripts and didn't want to be there.

The Russian air force has been MIA for long stretches, given the Ukrainians time to breath and regroup. Possibly they're petrified of Stingers when it comes to close air support. We have means and tactics to counter such threats. The Russians? Apparently not so much. They've lost a number of aircraft like the one below...

Thus, the Russian air force apparently won't do total commitment of resources nearby. Tough way to run a modern war.

They're also short on targeting pods and precision guided munitions, the go to systems of the US military. They're dropping a lot of dumb bombs when they actually do show up flying ground support. That greatly reduces their effectiveness.

[bluewater]

36. So actual results on the ground do not matter? Just what remote pundits say?

Russia continued to make advances on Saturday in southeastern Ukraine, pushing into the areas around Melitopol and continuing to move toward Mykolaiv, another strategic port city on the Black Sea.



On Friday Russia attacked the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, the largest nuclear plant in Europe, and Ukrainian officials said the plant is now under control of Russian forces.

Russian forces... are now reportedly pushing toward the South Ukraine nuclear power plant. These are Ukraine’s two largest nuclear power plants, together responsible for one-third of Ukraine’s electricity generation.



Ukraine has a total of four nuclear power plants consisting of 15 reactors that generate roughly 50 percent of the country’s electricity. After nuclear power, coal is the largest source of electricity generated in the country. Many of Ukraine’s coal-fired power plants lie in the Donbas region, where Russian-backed separatists have been fighting Ukrainian forces since 2014.
Control over Ukraine’s electricity generation would give Russian forces another tool in their effort to gain control of the country.


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/world/europe/ukraine-maps.html

Apparently, the Russian invasion is on going and relentless. The 169,000 strong Ukrainian ground forces have been fighting heroically but are being ground down, anecdotal stories about plucky farmers stealing tanks and grandmothers taking out Russian drones with a jar of cucumbers not withstandding.

This is just day 9 of the Russian invasion so perhaps it's informative to remember that it took the US 19 days to capture Baghdad in the Iraq War. What will the situation on the ground be in the Ukraine in ten more days? Or twenty?

Putin badly miscalculated the amount of resistance the Ukrainian army and the Ukrainian people would put up, but that does not mean that Ukraine has repelled the Russians or even stopped the invasion.

President Zelensky has been making daily and sometimes hourly statements on how desperate the situation actually is for Ukraine.

I believe him whole heartedly and he's not anywhere as optimistic as some posters here on DU are.

Ukraine needs more help now, the entire country is in danger.



Pardon me for re-posting this, it was as a reply in another thread, but it makes the point that many commentators are ignoring the facts on the ground.

Cheers.

[manicdem]

38. This guy is right

A video of a helicopter or plane getting shot down doesn't tell the whole story. What's important is how many total are getting destroyed and is it more than Russia's acceptable losses.

If we think they're winning when they're actually not, then we become complacent and have less urgency to stop the war.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

26. Not even comparable,

Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were all insurgencies, whereas, a conventional war with Russia would be armored, Naval, Interdiction, air power, which the Russians would lose big time.

[former9thward]

27. Which is what Hitler thought.

And Germany had a far superior military to the USSR.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

28. Again, not comparable,

NATO would have no intention of invading Russia proper, just defeating the Russian Military.

[paleotn]

2. Ya think?

Incredibly tempting as it is, we all know where that might lead. None of us, including the Ukrainians want that.

[yaesu]

3. Zelenskiy makes "desperate plea" for aircraft and calls for no fly zone and Russian oil ban in call

with US senators

Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy reportedly made a “desperate plea” for eastern Europe to provide Russian-made aircraft to Ukraine during a call with US senators. He is also understood to have called for a no fly zone, lethal aid, a ban on Russian oil and a suspension of Visa and Mastercard in Russia.

Reuters reports that Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, said after the call on Saturday: “These planes are very much needed. And I will do all I can to help the administration to facilitate their transfer.

He also reportedly called for more US businesses to leave Russia in the call which reportedly included Schumer, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar.

[SheltieLover]

13. Heartbreaking that Zelensky has to beg for help

[IronLionZion]

4. The best way to keep his service members safe

is to send them back home. Dude can't even get food and fuel to the front lines. A lot of them have had enough and don't want to be there.

[Calista241]

5. Just wait until they find out their pay in rubles is worth 1/3 of what it used to be.

[bluewater]

39. The US is still buying Russian oil

Seemingly unbelievably, but a fact.

So maybe they won't get a big pay cut after all?

Blinken says White House discussing prospect of a Russian oil ban as pleas increase
Source: MSN

U.S. leaders showed increasing support for a ban on Russian oil imports on Sunday, indicating what could be a step forward in heeding one of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s pleas, as the invasion of his country continues.

Zelenskyy on Saturday spoke with members of Congress, asking for actions to knee-cap Russia and aid the Ukrainian resistance to Vladimir Putin's attacks. Though White House leaders initially appeared resistant to one of his major asks — sanctions on Russian oil imports — the U.S. secretary of State on Sunday morning struck a less averse tone. He said he spoke with the president and other Cabinet officials on “exactly this subject” the day prior.

“We are now talking to our European partners and allies to look in a coordinated way at the prospect of banning the import of Russian oil, while making sure that there is still an appropriate supply of oil on world markets,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “That's a very active discussion as we speak.”

Previously, White House press secretary Jen Psaki had told reporters Friday that the administration was looking at actions to cut U.S. consumption of energy from Moscow, but added that the White House was “very focused on minimizing the impact to families” and expressed concern that a ban could raise gas prices.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/blinken-says-white-house-discussing-prospect-of-a-russian-oil-ban-as-pleas-increase/ar-AAUGQmR

[Calista241]

40. 400 rubles yesterday is not the same as 400 rubles today.

and most oil purchases are paid upon delivery. So while we haven't cancelled any contracts, the Russians are struggling to actually deliver oil to their customers. So unless that can magic it over here, we're not paying for any Russian oil anytime soon.

[bluewater]

41. The US is paying in dollars for the oil it buys.

That oil is still being delivered too:

Blinken says White House discussing prospect of a Russian oil ban as pleas increase
Source: MSN

Previously, White House press secretary Jen Psaki had told reporters Friday that the administration was looking at actions to cut U.S. consumption of energy from Moscow, but added that the White House was “very focused on minimizing the impact to families” and expressed concern that a ban could raise gas prices.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/blinken-says-white-house-discussing-prospect-of-a-russian-oil-ban-as-pleas-increase/ar-AAUGQmR

So Jen Psaki said just this past Friday that banning Russian oil imports would raise gas prices on US consumers so we are not prepared to do that yet!

[eggplant]

6. Is there some reason we can't fly AWACS over Poland and share information with Ukraine?

[Calista241]

8. Sure we can, and we probably are.

[IronLionZion]

12. NATO is doing plenty of clandestine support they can't share publicly

especially intelligence sharing

[paleotn]

16. Range probably...

They may not be able to see much beyond Kyiv from the Polish border. Maybe not that far. Limited from Romania as well and we shouldn't even consider the Black Sea. Then they have to be protected by NATO fighters. Lots of NATO and Russian assets in close proximity with a war going on. Then there's timely integration of the info with Ukrainian air defenses. That's seamless in NATO. We'd probably have to put people and assets on the ground in Ukraine to get it to work. There's ground based and satellite intel, but we have to be careful what we tell them to protect methods and sources. Sucks really. Be a lot easier if we'd just get involved, but god knows where that would lead.

[dutch777]

19. We have many airborne intel assets over border states looking inside. I would expect we have also

repositioned KH-11 and other satellite intel platforms over the Ukraine also. How well we are sharing info with Ukraine and how able they are to effectively exploit it is a separate issue. B52s have been seen circling in the vicinity NE of Bucharest as well.

[Cognitive_Resonance]

20. NATO recon aircraft and drones are patrolling the eastern borders of the conflict region. Tracker:

https://www.flightradar24.com/50.11,21.89/5

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

29. Yeah, been checking on it...

... RAF and USAF KC tankers hanging out north of Bucharest...

[JohnSJ]

9. This is what a no-fly zone means

[padah513]

11. I saw that last night

He's right. It would escalate quickly, and when he's defeated, Putin will push the button. Russia would be gone but so would a lot of other places here at home and abroad

[JohnSJ]

15. It also doesn't take into account the radiation that would affect the entire world.

While an entirely different situation, this reminds a lot of the Cuban missile crisis, where a fair
number of not only Americans, but Generals, like Curtis E. Lemay, wanted to do a first strike at Russia

Thank goodness Kennedy had the wisdom to slow things down.

[Chainfire]

10. In this case, he is right.

For the first time that the no-fly zone was enforced by shooting down a Russian plane, then it would be an act of war, by which ever country was flying the plane. Of course, if it were a Ukrainian plane, they are already at war... I make no judgement as to whether an act of war with a nuclear power is smart policy, it may be. Putin may be bluffing, but I, personally, wouldn't want to bet the farm on it. I am willing to leave that to people in a higher paygrade.

My reptilian brain says, "Go after the rotten bastard with no holds barred." Go after them like Steppenwolf goes after the pusher. My kinder and gentler (maybe smarter) side says, lets think it over first. This war will not be decided by Russian air power, for airplanes can not occupy state houses. I think that too many people are obsessing over that particular issue.

WWIII may have already started, it will be up to future historians to select the date. We do not have to commit suicide to deal with this present threat. It has been a week, give it time for Russian store shelves to empty, give it time for the Oligarch to cry about their losses. Let the Ukrainians wash their streets with some Russian blood. We always have an option to go to war with Russia, it is just a push of the button away.

We all, myself especially, tend to be armchair generals, but I will leave the decisions to those that know the whole story. I trust our President to do the right thing and I will back his decisions. If he decides to place Planes over Ukraine, I will be in the cheering section.

[Polybius]

17. Well he has nothing to worry about hopefully

The "no-fly-zone" was dismissed by NATO yesterday.

[Igel]

30. Which isn't a trivial observation.

Side A, Monday: "We're not going to do it."

Side B, Tuesday: "Don't do it--otherwise I'll get pissed off and we'll fight."

Side A, late Tuesday: "We said we're not going to do it!"

Side B, even later on Tuesday: "See, we threatened them and they backed down--the cowards. We rule!"


Close information economy.

Like the announcement after the nuke power plant battle and concerns--Putinian state media said Russia seized it without a fight, on 2/28, and that the *entire* problem was because of Ukrainian saboteurs who wanted to create a nuclear incident. But Russia stopped them.

[58Sunliner]

18. He is a deranged pos. What else would he say.

I find it interesting that he thinks he has to state the obvious. Speaking to his own. Sounds weak.

[turbinetree]

22. Hey Putin your losing the BS, we are coming for you, C-17's landed and we are re-supplying

a democratically elected government and their people with weapons and humanitarian aid ....so go pound sand....

[ancianita]

24. He STARTED the "fly zone." Who in the West gives a shit what our side "will be seen as" -- he

started the "participation in armed conflict." No double standard.

[EarthFirst]

32. Which military conflict; Vlad?

We were told this was a “peacekeeping” mission…

[LetMyPeopleVote]

33. Putin likens sanctions to a 'declaration of war,' says invasion pushback risks future of Ukrainian s

According to Putin, a no-fly zone will be a declaration of war on Russia

Link to tweet

The United States, Britain and others have so far ruled out supporting a no-fly zone, stating that it would be likely to severely escalate the conflict.

But Putin went one step further Saturday, saying that any countries enforcing a no-fly zone over Ukraine would be considered “participants in a military conflict.” The Russian president claimed that his country would see “any movement in this direction” as an intervention in its military operations in Ukraine that would “pose a threat to our service members.”

“We’ll instantly view them as participants in a military conflict,” Putin said.

[oasis]

34. Vlad's idle threats shall not pass, we'll put a boot in Putin's ass.

[aggiesal]

37. I thought they were peace keepers? n/t

[EndlessWire]

42. Then they need to take care

that they do not invade Swedish airspace. Just sayin'.