3 ms·
I really doubt that NATO would be willing to enforce this no-fly zone in a non-NATO nation, that would mean being willing to shoot down Russian military aircraf
by Johnny555 5y ago
I really doubt that NATO would be willing to enforce this no-fly zone in a non-NATO nation, that would mean being willing to shoot down Russian military aircraft, which would surely escalate the war.
- ethbr0 5y agoNeither Iraq (1991+) nor Bosnia and Herzegovina (1993+) were NATO members, and it served its purpose there. And hence declaring it before Russia invaded. Which forces Russia to choose to shoot down NATO aircraft, or operate outside those zones.
- Johnny555 5y agoWhen Iraq invaded Kuwait, we were willing to fight (and eventually did fight) a war with Iraq. NATO is not prepared or willing to start a war with Russia.
- aszen 5y agoYou are forgetting the fact that the odds are heavily against NATO, in a RAND wargame it was found that russia can occupy the baltic States within 48 hours while nato would be still warning up
- Johnny555 5y agoIt's not clear what I'm forgetting when I said "NATO is not prepared or willing to start a war with Russia."
- aszen 5y agoIt is simply not in their favour, why would they be willing to lose their face over something like Ukraine. It seems that many in the West think they have unlimited power to do anything and interfere in any conflict. Reality is those days are over now.
- fancifalmanima 5y agoYou seem to explicitly agree with the person you're replying to, but are claiming they're forgetting something. That's the disconnect here.
- the_snooze 5y agoWhat you're describing is setting up a shooting conflict between nuclear powers. That is bad. Like really bad. It doesn't matter who shoots first because everyone dies.
- ethbr0 5y agoThat cuts both ways. NATO air assets over Western Ukraine would have forced Russia to start a shooting conflict with a nuclear alliance. As is, they were able to move into Ukraine without nuclear risk, because the US explicitly said we wouldn't put troops there. And let's not pretend Russia shooting down a US plane or vice versus would start a nuclear war. It happened fairly commonly during the Cold War, quietly.
- Johnny555 5y agoAnd let's not pretend Russia shooting down a US plane or vice versus would start a nuclear war. It happened fairly commonly during the Cold War, quietly. This is not the cold war, I don't think anyone can predict what Putin will do if provoked and he needs to save face.
- the_snooze 5y agoNATO forces in or above Ukraine would be the modern equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and we would be the aggressors setting up shop right next to a nuclear power. A lot of our fighter aircraft are nuclear-capable, and the Russians would have no way of telling which missiles are conventional-tipped or nuclear-tipped. What you're describing is reckless brinksmanship. One mistake or misread and the world ends.
- ethbr0 5y agoNATO forces have been above Ukraine for the last several years. The US et al. were flying ISR missions right up against the borders of Belarus, Russia, and eastern Ukraine rebel-held areas up to a couple days ago. "Reckless brinkmanship" is an odd phrase, when we're talking about responses to Russia invading a sovereign country.
- aszen 5y agoSimple fact is western powers don't have the capability to maintain any sort of airspace over ukraine or other nearby countries. Russia is not a weak country that can be deterred by a no fly zone.
- ethbr0 5y agoRussia has been trying to produce PAK-FA / Su-57 fighters since 2010. They currently have ~4. There's a reason Russia invests so much in SAM systems. They expect NATO to have air superiority.
- aszen 5y agoRead some latest defence blogs, Russia not only has the best air defence systems but leading electronic warfare technologies. Many countries buy Russian weapons even facing western sanctions. They are cheap and effective.
- ethbr0 5y agoSee earlier point about air defense systems being a priority due to lacking fighter parity. Which EW systems are you talking about?