THE DANGEROUS ALLURE OF THE NO-FLY ZONE
A press conference with U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson captivated the world when Daria Kaleniuk, a Ukrainian activist, implored him and other Western leaders to set up a no-fly zone over Ukraine to shelter its people from Russian aircraft. The tragedy of the current situation, the sincerity and sadness of the activist, and prime ministers delicately worded but practical response in which he told her that there would not be a no-fly zone due to the risk of a NATO-Russian war made footage of the press conference go viral.
The internet has since buzzed with the question: Why hasnt a coalition established a no-fly zone?
Contrary to what so many in the commentariat seem to believe, a no-fly zone is not a military half-measure. It is a combat operation designed to deprive the enemy of its airpower, and it involves direct and sustained fighting. The fact is, a general European war has not started, and we must do everything we can to ensure it does not. That means that a no-fly zone should be off the table.
Part of the reason that no-fly zones keep being brought up as solutions is that the nature of airpower is so poorly understood. Advocates have trumpeted airpower as a strategic and tactical shortcut for nearly a century the way to win battles and even wars without the messy complications inherent in the operations of other military arms.
There is much more at the link below. I find this piece to be a very well reasoned explanation of why this concept is a very bad and a very dangerous idea.
https://warontherocks.com/2022/03/the-dangerous-allure-of-the-no-fly-zone/
orwell
(7,753 posts)...but this is far more comprehensive. Thanks.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)I have noted numerous folks here and on other social media insisting that this is the way to go and this piece lays out many strong and in my opinion convincing arguments as to why it simply is not.