8 ms·

"A no-fly zone" is one of the worst misnomers out there. In this case, it means that NATO - and specifically the USA - will start shooting Russian aircrafts. Se

"A no-fly zone" is one of the worst misnomers out there. In this case, it means that NATO - and specifically the USA - will start shooting Russian aircrafts. Sending NATO aircraft is not different from sending tanks. I understand why Ukrainians are asking for it but there is a reason NATO can't get involved.

pmalynin 5y ago
Not a good reason
- vetinari 5y ago
  "not starting the ww3" is not a good reason?
  - pmalynin 5y ago
    We need to get rid of the illusion that WW3 isn’t happening already. I would rather die standing up for my freedom so that me, my family, my children — you — can live in a free world with no warmongering dictators, than cower and live in fear, which the West is collectively doing. So yes, it is not a good reason.
    - unmole 5y ago
      > We need to get rid of the illusion that WW3 isn’t happening already. Checks outside. No, WW3 definitely isn't already happening. > with no warmongering dictators So, once Putin is dealt with, you're headed off to depose the Saudi and Emirati regimes?
      - pmalynin 5y ago
        Once they start invading (erghm I mean performing special operations) other countries, sure. Add China to that list as well. I asked my relatives to show me outside and it certainly does look like WW3 in Kyiv and Kharkiv.
        unmole 5y ago
        > erghm I mean performing special operations So, the Saudis haven't been bombing Yemen since 2015? I mean it's only a conflict that resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 people. One would think that would cause more outrage. > it certainly does look like WW3 in Kyiv and Kharkiv. But somehow it wasn't WW3 when it happened to Herat or Aleppo or Halabja or Hargeisa or Burao or Grozny. It's almost as if an isolated conflict and a world war are different.
        pmalynin 5y ago
        Given your attitude you would have said the same thing about Poland, Sudetenland or when Austria invaded Serbia.
        unmole 5y ago
        Invasion of Poland literally triggered WW2 with the UK and France declaring war against Germany. Has anything comparable happened yet? No? Then how is it different from any of the dozens of wars fought since WW2?
        xdennis 5y ago
        > Has anything comparable happened yet? No? Yes, the invasion of Ukraine. Have you not heard?
        pmalynin 5y ago
        The UK guaranteed the independence of Poland with an agreement that in language is the same as the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. The West is refusing to fulfill its current obligations under the spirit of that agreement, the same way the UK could have failed to fulfill their agreement in 1939. So in retrospect saying “it literally triggered WW2” provides zero informational context as to the situation as it is currently happening.
        unmole 5y ago
ejb999 5y ago
>>A no-fly zone" is one of the worst misnomers out there. Its not a misnomer at all - it is exactly what it says it is - might not be a good idea, but calling it a 'no-fly zone' is completely accurate.
- wrycoder 5y ago
  Yeah, it means, “We fly, you don’t.” Or maybe, “No Ukrainian or Russian aircraft - NATO aircraft will shoot down both.”
  - vetinari 5y ago
    > Or maybe, “No Ukrainian or Russian aircraft - NATO aircraft will shoot down both.” Not really. Response to any Russian aircraft shot down would be sending a bunch of rockets to the place from where the aircraft was shot down; whether the destination is NATO or not. From there, it would escalate quickly. That's why NATO generals and saner politicians are not enthusiastic about it. TL;DR: trying to enforce no-fly zone would hurt. Too much to be worth it.
javert 5y ago
It's not a misnomer. And, asserting NATO air dominance in Ukraine is easy and guaranteed to succeed with de minimis cost (in lives and/or military equipment). Whereas creating land dominance with tanks is another matter. A no-fly zone is an easy win for NATO and would make Ukrainian civilians safe from aerial bombardment.
- yonaguska 5y ago
  A no fly-zone officially drags NATO into the conflict and WW3 kicks off.
  - xdennis 5y ago
    As per Putin, there is no war in Ukraine, and as per Lavrov, the Russians have not invaded Ukraine. NATO protecting Ukraine would not trigger anything.
  - javert 5y ago
    - FpUser 5y ago
      >"The only potential caveat is if Russia uses nukes. But that doesn't start World War III" Of course not. It'll just vaporize millions of people. Pocket change.
    - vetinari 5y ago
      > What that sums up to, is that it's weak militarily. Hitler thought the same ("elephant with clay feet"). So did Napoleon. Also Charles XII. See the pattern?
    - stjohnswarts 5y ago
      lol lots of countries thought Russia was a pushover. Also if Russia starts losing they will start launching nukes. Maybe not a "end all civilization" nuke but say one aimed at a middle sized US city like say Portland or Little Rock to prove a point. Are you ready for that? Same for European cities.
mech422 5y ago
That depends if you violate the no fly zone... No one would be forcing Putin to violate it.
- FpUser 5y ago
  I do not think he would give a flying fuck about zone. And if planes will be downed he will have to answer and the war starts. Russia's army can not hope to win conventional conflict with NATO and is ruled by a rabid man at the top. the only thing it can do in response is to use nukes. After that say goodbye to a world.
  - zip1234 5y ago
    In the Vietnam war there were actual Soviet troops shooting down American aircraft with SAMs and it didn't lead to nuclear war. Why do people think even providing Ukraine with aircraft will lead to WW3?
    - FpUser 5y ago
      I suggest you do dangerous experiments in your own backyard. I have no idea why they did not start war over Vietnam but I have a feeling the situation now is vastly different.
  - mech422 5y ago
    I think it stands a better chance of keeping us OUT of a NATO conflict then starting one.. Violating a no-fly zone requires authorization, and hopefully thought.. Whereas, right now, we're simply waiting for a bomb to mistakenly land on the wrong side of a border. No thought, no intention, no authorization...just one of those things that happen during war. I think this is a much more likely outcome.
    - FpUser 5y ago
      >"Violating a no-fly zone requires authorization, and hopefully thought.." Putin did not sign for no flying zone. For him it is not a violation and as much as I hate this maniac he is under no obligation to respect NATO laws on non NATO territory. Violating Ukraine the way he did required way more than "hopefully thought" and yet it did not stop him. I think that no-fly zone is a guarantee to get nuked.
Mordisquitos 5y ago
Even though a no-fly zone would certainty imply a warning of violence, it is not in itself an act of violence when established only in the airspace of a willing nation to the detriment of an aggressor. Russia has no inalienable right to fly over Ukrainian territory. I am not a supporter of the no-fly zone request from Ukraine, and it would almost certainty escalate the situation to the point of NATO being at war with Russia. However, it would be theoretically possible for the no-fly zone to be imposed without a single Russian plane being shot down—all Russia would have to do is to cease flying over Ukraine.
- gruez 5y ago
  >I am not a supporter of the no-fly zone request from Ukraine, and it would almost certainty escalate the situation to the point of NATO being at war with Russia. However, it would be theoretically possible for the no-fly zone to be imposed without a single Russian plane being shot down—all Russia would have to do is to cease flying over Ukraine. Why not go further? Why stop at the air? Why not make the whole country a DMZ? After all, "it would be theoretically possible for a demilitarized zone to be imposed without a single Russian soldier being injured—all Russia would have to do is to pull all military out of Ukraine."
  - catlikesshrimp 5y ago
    Ah, you get it. Russia should do that, go back into their own border. Of course, withdrawing all russian military from Ukraine would take days. Declaring a no-fly zone is faster and a good start.
    - gruez 5y ago
      > Ah, you get it. Russia should do that, go back into their own border. My point is that "no fly zone" is pretty similar to "boots on ground", even if they're "peacekeepers". It's not some sort of special military operation you can declare that won't provoke a response from putin.
  - yywwbbn 5y ago
stjohnswarts 5y ago
That is just an opinion. An often under-informed opinion, and I certainly hope NATO is not dumb enough to put in a no-fly zone in a non-NATO country. However that's not the same as calling for assasination of a country and its people. I have met many wonderful Russian people and I wish them all long and happy lives; obviously not Putin though.

pmalynin 5y ago

Not a good reason

vetinari 5y ago
"not starting the ww3" is not a good reason?
- pmalynin 5y ago
  We need to get rid of the illusion that WW3 isn’t happening already. I would rather die standing up for my freedom so that me, my family, my children — you — can live in a free world with no warmongering dictators, than cower and live in fear, which the West is collectively doing. So yes, it is not a good reason.
  - unmole 5y ago
    > We need to get rid of the illusion that WW3 isn’t happening already. Checks outside. No, WW3 definitely isn't already happening. > with no warmongering dictators So, once Putin is dealt with, you're headed off to depose the Saudi and Emirati regimes?
    - pmalynin 5y ago
      Once they start invading (erghm I mean performing special operations) other countries, sure. Add China to that list as well. I asked my relatives to show me outside and it certainly does look like WW3 in Kyiv and Kharkiv.
      - unmole 5y ago
        > erghm I mean performing special operations So, the Saudis haven't been bombing Yemen since 2015? I mean it's only a conflict that resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 people. One would think that would cause more outrage. > it certainly does look like WW3 in Kyiv and Kharkiv. But somehow it wasn't WW3 when it happened to Herat or Aleppo or Halabja or Hargeisa or Burao or Grozny. It's almost as if an isolated conflict and a world war are different.
        pmalynin 5y ago
        Given your attitude you would have said the same thing about Poland, Sudetenland or when Austria invaded Serbia.
        unmole 5y ago
        Invasion of Poland literally triggered WW2 with the UK and France declaring war against Germany. Has anything comparable happened yet? No? Then how is it different from any of the dozens of wars fought since WW2?
        xdennis 5y ago
        > Has anything comparable happened yet? No? Yes, the invasion of Ukraine. Have you not heard?
        pmalynin 5y ago
        The UK guaranteed the independence of Poland with an agreement that in language is the same as the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. The West is refusing to fulfill its current obligations under the spirit of that agreement, the same way the UK could have failed to fulfill their agreement in 1939. So in retrospect saying “it literally triggered WW2” provides zero informational context as to the situation as it is currently happening.
        unmole 5y ago

ejb999 5y ago

>>A no-fly zone" is one of the worst misnomers out there. Its not a misnomer at all - it is exactly what it says it is - might not be a good idea, but calling it a 'no-fly zone' is completely accurate.

wrycoder 5y ago
Yeah, it means, “We fly, you don’t.” Or maybe, “No Ukrainian or Russian aircraft - NATO aircraft will shoot down both.”
- vetinari 5y ago
  > Or maybe, “No Ukrainian or Russian aircraft - NATO aircraft will shoot down both.” Not really. Response to any Russian aircraft shot down would be sending a bunch of rockets to the place from where the aircraft was shot down; whether the destination is NATO or not. From there, it would escalate quickly. That's why NATO generals and saner politicians are not enthusiastic about it. TL;DR: trying to enforce no-fly zone would hurt. Too much to be worth it.

javert 5y ago

It's not a misnomer. And, asserting NATO air dominance in Ukraine is easy and guaranteed to succeed with de minimis cost (in lives and/or military equipment). Whereas creating land dominance with tanks is another matter. A no-fly zone is an easy win for NATO and would make Ukrainian civilians safe from aerial bombardment.

yonaguska 5y ago
A no fly-zone officially drags NATO into the conflict and WW3 kicks off.
- xdennis 5y ago
  As per Putin, there is no war in Ukraine, and as per Lavrov, the Russians have not invaded Ukraine. NATO protecting Ukraine would not trigger anything.
- javert 5y ago
  - FpUser 5y ago
    >"The only potential caveat is if Russia uses nukes. But that doesn't start World War III" Of course not. It'll just vaporize millions of people. Pocket change.
  - vetinari 5y ago
    > What that sums up to, is that it's weak militarily. Hitler thought the same ("elephant with clay feet"). So did Napoleon. Also Charles XII. See the pattern?
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    lol lots of countries thought Russia was a pushover. Also if Russia starts losing they will start launching nukes. Maybe not a "end all civilization" nuke but say one aimed at a middle sized US city like say Portland or Little Rock to prove a point. Are you ready for that? Same for European cities.

mech422 5y ago

That depends if you violate the no fly zone... No one would be forcing Putin to violate it.

FpUser 5y ago
I do not think he would give a flying fuck about zone. And if planes will be downed he will have to answer and the war starts. Russia's army can not hope to win conventional conflict with NATO and is ruled by a rabid man at the top. the only thing it can do in response is to use nukes. After that say goodbye to a world.
- zip1234 5y ago
  In the Vietnam war there were actual Soviet troops shooting down American aircraft with SAMs and it didn't lead to nuclear war. Why do people think even providing Ukraine with aircraft will lead to WW3?
  - FpUser 5y ago
    I suggest you do dangerous experiments in your own backyard. I have no idea why they did not start war over Vietnam but I have a feeling the situation now is vastly different.
- mech422 5y ago
  I think it stands a better chance of keeping us OUT of a NATO conflict then starting one.. Violating a no-fly zone requires authorization, and hopefully thought.. Whereas, right now, we're simply waiting for a bomb to mistakenly land on the wrong side of a border. No thought, no intention, no authorization...just one of those things that happen during war. I think this is a much more likely outcome.
  - FpUser 5y ago
    >"Violating a no-fly zone requires authorization, and hopefully thought.." Putin did not sign for no flying zone. For him it is not a violation and as much as I hate this maniac he is under no obligation to respect NATO laws on non NATO territory. Violating Ukraine the way he did required way more than "hopefully thought" and yet it did not stop him. I think that no-fly zone is a guarantee to get nuked.

Mordisquitos 5y ago

Even though a no-fly zone would certainty imply a warning of violence, it is not in itself an act of violence when established only in the airspace of a willing nation to the detriment of an aggressor. Russia has no inalienable right to fly over Ukrainian territory. I am not a supporter of the no-fly zone request from Ukraine, and it would almost certainty escalate the situation to the point of NATO being at war with Russia. However, it would be theoretically possible for the no-fly zone to be imposed without a single Russian plane being shot down—all Russia would have to do is to cease flying over Ukraine.

gruez 5y ago
>I am not a supporter of the no-fly zone request from Ukraine, and it would almost certainty escalate the situation to the point of NATO being at war with Russia. However, it would be theoretically possible for the no-fly zone to be imposed without a single Russian plane being shot down—all Russia would have to do is to cease flying over Ukraine. Why not go further? Why stop at the air? Why not make the whole country a DMZ? After all, "it would be theoretically possible for a demilitarized zone to be imposed without a single Russian soldier being injured—all Russia would have to do is to pull all military out of Ukraine."
- catlikesshrimp 5y ago
  Ah, you get it. Russia should do that, go back into their own border. Of course, withdrawing all russian military from Ukraine would take days. Declaring a no-fly zone is faster and a good start.
  - gruez 5y ago
    > Ah, you get it. Russia should do that, go back into their own border. My point is that "no fly zone" is pretty similar to "boots on ground", even if they're "peacekeepers". It's not some sort of special military operation you can declare that won't provoke a response from putin.
- yywwbbn 5y ago

stjohnswarts 5y ago

That is just an opinion. An often under-informed opinion, and I certainly hope NATO is not dumb enough to put in a no-fly zone in a non-NATO country. However that's not the same as calling for assasination of a country and its people. I have met many wonderful Russian people and I wish them all long and happy lives; obviously not Putin though.