Ok, I am all for expanded aid to Ukraine. But imposing a no-fly zone is insane. Because a no-fly zone involves targeting airfields that aircraft, in this case Russian aircraft, take off from.
That's all well and good, but there is no way for a Russian radar crew to see an incoming missle or an incoming wing of bombers aimed at an airfield…
Ok, I am all for expanded aid to Ukraine. But imposing a no-fly zone is insane. Because a no-fly zone involves targeting airfields that aircraft, in this case Russian aircraft, take off from.
That's all well and good, but there is no way for a Russian radar crew to see an incoming missle or an incoming wing of bombers aimed at an airfield and know whether the strike being carried out is conventional or nuclear. And sure, the U.S. says that it won't start a nuclear war, and I for one believe that statement, but I have the nagging suspicion that Russians are not so optimistic about U.S. policy declarations.
And I've also jeered the current administration's 'self-deterrence', and that aid was too little and too slow and too afraid of Russian nuclear escalation. But that was because the level of ratcheting up by giving aid is tiny and its effects hard to mistake. A no-fly zone is a very different beast and markedly ramps up the actuality of this escalating beyond control and not empty sabre-rattling that Putin is so fond of.
Amen. I am just so surprised when people make comments about what we should or shouldn’t do when it comes to escalation management and deterrence. We are deterred. Russia is also deterred from attacking nato. It goes both ways.
Also people don’t realize how saturated Ukraine air environment is with middle defense systems. What happens when those systems shoot down American and nato planes. I hope we are prepared for losses and not escalate further.
Also the comparison between Israel and Ukraine was a bit out there. We have a 75 year relationship with Israel. They are embedded in our politics. Ukraine was something most Americans heard about 2 years ago and we still gave them a 100b over 2 years. Israel is also far more powerful than every other countries in nato other than us
A limited no-fly zone would not have to strike targets in Russia, or any Russian ground assets necessarily; we could just say that we will shoot anything airborne west of a given line.
Unless that line is within Russia itself, it's not likely to do much. As it is, most of the Russian aerial attacks are glide bombing ones from 40ish km out of the targets. And you can bet that whatever aerial forces are tasked with enforcing the no-fly zone will quickly start to insist that they can't do their jobs properly without striking at the support network helping the Russian planes stay in the air.
I'd rather do it carefully than "properly," in that sense. The point would be to make Russian pilots and their commanders not want to risk getting in the air so much, or to run away faster when they did cross the line. Not to actually destroy their capability, just to keep them operationally limited over most of Ukraine.
I'm continually amazed at the degree to which commenters underestimate the ability of US and NATO forces to project conventional force over distance with precision. I think that the kind of limited no-fly zone that you suggest here would surprise many Americans on both sides with its effectiveness; the Russians and Ukrainians, who are probably better informed, would be much less surprised. The Russians would probably drastically reduce sorties after the initial losses, or maybe even reduce them pre-emptively to avoid the losses.
Ok, I am all for expanded aid to Ukraine. But imposing a no-fly zone is insane. Because a no-fly zone involves targeting airfields that aircraft, in this case Russian aircraft, take off from.
That's all well and good, but there is no way for a Russian radar crew to see an incoming missle or an incoming wing of bombers aimed at an airfield and know whether the strike being carried out is conventional or nuclear. And sure, the U.S. says that it won't start a nuclear war, and I for one believe that statement, but I have the nagging suspicion that Russians are not so optimistic about U.S. policy declarations.
And I've also jeered the current administration's 'self-deterrence', and that aid was too little and too slow and too afraid of Russian nuclear escalation. But that was because the level of ratcheting up by giving aid is tiny and its effects hard to mistake. A no-fly zone is a very different beast and markedly ramps up the actuality of this escalating beyond control and not empty sabre-rattling that Putin is so fond of.
Amen. I am just so surprised when people make comments about what we should or shouldn’t do when it comes to escalation management and deterrence. We are deterred. Russia is also deterred from attacking nato. It goes both ways.
Also people don’t realize how saturated Ukraine air environment is with middle defense systems. What happens when those systems shoot down American and nato planes. I hope we are prepared for losses and not escalate further.
Also the comparison between Israel and Ukraine was a bit out there. We have a 75 year relationship with Israel. They are embedded in our politics. Ukraine was something most Americans heard about 2 years ago and we still gave them a 100b over 2 years. Israel is also far more powerful than every other countries in nato other than us
A limited no-fly zone would not have to strike targets in Russia, or any Russian ground assets necessarily; we could just say that we will shoot anything airborne west of a given line.
Unless that line is within Russia itself, it's not likely to do much. As it is, most of the Russian aerial attacks are glide bombing ones from 40ish km out of the targets. And you can bet that whatever aerial forces are tasked with enforcing the no-fly zone will quickly start to insist that they can't do their jobs properly without striking at the support network helping the Russian planes stay in the air.
I'd rather do it carefully than "properly," in that sense. The point would be to make Russian pilots and their commanders not want to risk getting in the air so much, or to run away faster when they did cross the line. Not to actually destroy their capability, just to keep them operationally limited over most of Ukraine.
I'm continually amazed at the degree to which commenters underestimate the ability of US and NATO forces to project conventional force over distance with precision. I think that the kind of limited no-fly zone that you suggest here would surprise many Americans on both sides with its effectiveness; the Russians and Ukrainians, who are probably better informed, would be much less surprised. The Russians would probably drastically reduce sorties after the initial losses, or maybe even reduce them pre-emptively to avoid the losses.
id rather 3d print f16s for em.