The value of an effective air defence system and of unwavering international support was crystal clear the night of Iran’s massive attack on Israel: most Iranian missiles and drones were destroyed before they reached Israeli soil. The US, the UK and France, as well as Jordan, participated in Israel’s defence.
Unlike Israel, Ukraine lacks sufficient air defences, and the west provides far less than it could or should to defend Ukraine against Russia. Ukraine is not dealing with one-off retaliation for striking a Russian consulate – as Israel is with Iran. Russia has been waging a war of aggression against Ukraine since 2014, aimed at eradicating its nationhood.
Thats complete bs this zone has to be enforced, this means taking out all enemy AA and all aircraft entering that zone, that is the most escalation possible without biden slipping and falling on the red button.
Idk what you guys think a no fly zone means but its basically saying " you go here and you will be shot down and your AA in and around the area is also gone now"
This won’t happen ever.
If aircraft or AA tried to engage, then yes, it would be targeted. If russia chose not to engage (eg. for fear of escalation) then it survives another day to be targeted by Ukraine instead. We know russia can turn off its AA and restricting by geography is normal.
My expectation is that the skies in Ukraine would quiet down very quickly for fear of an accidental engagement.
However, it would be like walking a tightrope. It’s not something the US is good at, and would be hard to sell politically.
No. A no fly zone means taking all of that the moment its declared. A no fly zone would mean war between Nato and Russia. That’s it.
That’s how it is traditionally enforced, but that is not the approach that must be taken, and likely wouldn’t be given the risks of a direct engagement. I’m sure the PR department would give it a catchy new name.
It’s all hypothetical though… no politician would sign up for it just now. If there were a disorderly collapse of the russian federation, I could see it though.
Nobody would do that ever because its either sending our soldiers into death without ever retaliating or causing WW3.
I think you underestimate the desire for russia to avoid a direct war with the west, and overestimate the west’s response (which would be devestatingly tactical, but limited)
We see how the west and russia go out of their way to avoid direct clashes in Syria, and have painted over the odd incident. This is officially still a SMO.
The challenge is how to better protect the cities, supplies and infrastructure in the rear without getting directly involved at the front.
More air defence is the approach that will most likely be taken, but it leaves everything in Ukraine as a target for russian aggression and terror. Every apartment complex, school and hospital is a valid target for russia.
There would be significant strategic and tactical ambiguity in having western countries regularly entering Ukrainian airspace to patrol and interept. It would be a huge morale boost for Ukrainians, and a blow to the russians.
It is still unlikely to happen without a significant change like the russian federation’s collapse or perhaps a true stalemate at the front. I don’t see either happening soon, but the ballet is notoriously hard to predict in russia.
edit: the realistic threat of direct involvement might be enough to achieve similar results, and being unsure whether they are tracking/targeting ukrainian equipment or not would give pause.