contents
The Russian attacks in Ukraine are increasingly claiming civilian casualties. However, NATO has ruled out a no-fly zone.
Fighter aircraft attacks, missiles, artillery, drones, tank guns – the Russian armed forces are firing on all cylinders. A no-fly zone could at least end aerial attacks.
Such “no-fly zones” exist in times of peace, for example above government buildings or during major events such as the Olympic Games. But in times of war, simply declaring a no-fly zone is not enough. You have to use force to enforce them.
Direct involvement in war should be avoided
If necessary, enemy aircraft would have to be shot down if they entered the zone. It is also important to eliminate enemy radar and anti-aircraft positions to protect your own fighter jets.
This would involve NATO directly in the war over Ukraine and would even have to attack military installations in Russia itself. It is therefore not a question of a harmless middle course, of cheap military engagement with few sacrifices. Especially since it is impossible that Moscow would simply respect a no-fly zone.
No no-fly zone in Syria
In 1991 there was a no-fly zone in Iraq to prevent dictator Saddam Hussein from launching airstrikes on the Kurds. In 1992 there was one over Bosnia, in 2011 over Libya. In all these cases, the West far outnumbered the enemy forces.
In the Syrian war, on the other hand, the United States hesitated to eliminate the ruler Bashar al-Assad’s air force with a no-fly zone. Because that would inevitably have led to a direct confrontation with Russia, which was behind Assad.
NATO position clear
To avoid such a scenario, the West is now firmly opposed to a no-fly zone over Ukraine. According to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, there is no intention of intervening directly, either on the ground or in the air. US President Joe Biden does not want US troops to fight against Russia. And the British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace even fears a war “across Europe”.
Whether the Western attitude will change if the Russian armed forces carry out massacres and the number of victims becomes huge is speculation. It probably isn’t.
nuclear threat from Russia
The fear that the war will continue to escalate is too great. That head of state Vladimir Putin will ultimately carry out his threat to even use nuclear weapons. And it is too uncertain that NATO could successfully enforce the no-fly zone.
This would require powerful air force bases near the border, from which thousands of combat aircraft missions could start. But such bases are missing. In the immediate war region, Russia is militarily much stronger and better positioned than the western military alliance.
Calls for a no-fly zone will grow louder as Russia cracks down on civilians and accepts collateral damage. But what seems morally necessary is not necessarily politically wise. The refusal of NATO and the USA to provide direct military assistance to Ukraine may seem outrageous. But outrage is not good political advice.