18 ms·
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
by 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 agoAh, 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 agoIf NATO declared a no fly zone, assuming the Russian government is rational and primarily concerned about about their military objectives, it would immediately remove all their planes from Ukraine because it’s almost certain that the Western powers would obtain full aerial supremacy very fast. And any full scale attempt by Russia to contest it would lead to the destruction of their airforce. With ground forces it’s not that clear, Russia could still try to and potentially succeed to achieve some military objectives (especially if they are able to occupy any densely populated areas before NATO forces show up) because NATO countries would be 100x times less willing to sacrifice the lives of their soldiers and probably much less willing to risk civilian casualties. Also, assuming there is a guarantee (which is obviously impossible) I assume most people in western countries would support a no fly zone. I expect much fewer would support actual boots on the ground even given the same guarantee. Of course the risk of escalation is too great in either case..
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago> assuming the Russian government is rational and primarily concerned about about their military objectives I'm not sure we can assume that much, given how the invasion has been planned and how it's being executed. Even mainstream Russian media started to criticize it with at least one commentator saying there are no good ways of getting out of this war: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkK0YuqxqMw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkK0YuqxqMw
- pydry 5y ago>Russia has no inalienable right to fly over Ukrainian territory. It's not about rights. It's about whether you want to wake up to a mushroom cloud.
- Mordisquitos 5y agoThe discussion was not about wants, predictions, or evaluation of pros and cons. It was about whether or not declaring a no-fly zone over a country that requests it is an act of violence.