Should NATO Enforce a No-Fly Zone Over Ukraine?
- Thread starter jonboy1
- Start date
I don't agree with a no fly zone, just not for the reasons some of those on this thread who don't seem to live on the same planet with the same history and recent events as I do.
We can stuff Ukraine with enough material to fuck up Russia. Hell we are also sending surplus WP planes to them now.
Speaking of which, I believe Poutine has also claimed sanctions are a hostile act, he hasn't done shit about that. I am sure and he would be reasonable to believe that sending equipment to kill off his lads is a serious act of interference, he hasn't done shit. Because he knows he can't. Hell some people seem to think he would be going full nuclear as a result to read their posts.
sending equipment is considered a-okay in these circumstances.
This is not the first war in 21 century and the rules have been established. Everybody sends equipment to anybody.
Shooting down a Russian plane is a totally different ball game.
To put the size of Ukraine in perspective-it's the size of France approximately -235000 sq. miles/41 million people so attacking and conquering it is no easy task even for 15-17 Russian divisions and yes I believe Russia will stop at Ukraine because even after conquest it will have a daunting task to govern a hostile ,unwilling Ukraine/Ukrainians.Also virtually all of Eastern Europe's former Warsaw Pact nations have joined NATO thus protecting themselves via Article 5 in the NATO charter as their inclusion into the Soviet Union's sphere of influence was a result of the dividing of Europe after WW2.I say this not to say that Putin is a nice guy but to maybe objectively say his stated goals is indeed "just" Ukraine as a warning and as a triumph of Russia resurgent-BTW Russian counter-intelligence(KGB/GRU/SMERSH)is very good as many former Cold War Western cells were infiltrated an turned against CIA/MI6 etc with disinformation/misformation and ultimately the destruction of cells(i.e Stepan Bandera).Russia can be no less ruthless/efficient now.
Last edited:
Yes because I know if someone ever did a no fly zone against me I'd start up a war that not only would I have 0 chance to win, but would lead to a crushing curb stomp until I got overthrown by the adults in the room.
I can't believe how gullable some people are regarding Poutine's threats.
No, because.... that's what Russia wants.
Russia is conducting the majority of their strikes against ground targets with artillery and rockets. Those don't violate a NFZ. Part of the reason he's trying to give to justify his "special military operation" (aka invasion with bonus war crimes), is that NATO wants to go to war with and eliminate Russia.
NATO implementing a NFZ would mean playing into his hand for no real gain. By repeatedly ignoring the calls, NATO can say, "See? Look: defensive and not anti-Russia. We have a justifiable reason to attack Russia, and yet still we don't because it's not covered by our charter."
I wouldn't be surprised if it was some covert NATO that started the demands NATO implement a NFZ over Ukraine to diffuse and counter Putin's taking points.
In much the same way Ukrainian babushka's telling Russians to keep seeds in their pockets so flowers will grow when they're killed and throw Molotov cocktails at invaders disproving Putin's rhetoric that Russia are liberating them, I hope the demands for a NATO NFZ get louder and louder and NATO continues to frustrate Putin, even as he continues to threaten NATO nations.
Russia is conducting the majority of their strikes against ground targets with artillery and rockets. Those don't violate a NFZ. Part of the reason he's trying to give to justify his "special military operation" (aka invasion with bonus war crimes), is that NATO wants to go to war with and eliminate Russia.
NATO implementing a NFZ would mean playing into his hand for no real gain. By repeatedly ignoring the calls, NATO can say, "See? Look: defensive and not anti-Russia. We have a justifiable reason to attack Russia, and yet still we don't because it's not covered by our charter."
I wouldn't be surprised if it was some covert NATO that started the demands NATO implement a NFZ over Ukraine to diffuse and counter Putin's taking points.
In much the same way Ukrainian babushka's telling Russians to keep seeds in their pockets so flowers will grow when they're killed and throw Molotov cocktails at invaders disproving Putin's rhetoric that Russia are liberating them, I hope the demands for a NATO NFZ get louder and louder and NATO continues to frustrate Putin, even as he continues to threaten NATO nations.
It is just this word would not be someone use in this situation: it is most appropriate to use toward a policemen who gave you a ticket for 11km over a speed limit on highway. Basically, someone small who is doing something bad to you because he just a bad person and enjoys doing bad things. It is not applicable to a tyrans
Ukraine Needs Ground-Based Air Defenses Way More Than MiGs. Here Are The Best Options
Rushing highly mobile and familiar air defense systems to Ukraine is the key to keeping Russian aircraft at bay and under threat.
www.thedrive.com
After An Abysmal Start, Here Is How Russia’s Application Of Airpower In Ukraine Could Evolve
A rash of losses in Ukraine has increased questions about the competency and role of the Russian Aerospace Forces.
www.thedrive.com
You may be right but leadership is not about bluffing. It is about making informed decisions based upon intelligence. That does not mean that leaders do not make mistakes but that is very different than just playing poker.
It's going to be all NATO can do to enforce a no fly zone over Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Moldava....
At this point, the strategy is about money more than it is about military tactics. The occupation is taking the Russians longer than expected because they moved in with a measured amount of force. Their full military force would simply blow away any overt/regular Ukrainian military defence. However, that kind of operation would also be incredibly expensive. The West is doing their best to cut off Russia's money. We'll find out if that effort is effective enough to cause an actual withdrawal within a 2-4 weeks. If Putin has squirreled enough away to actually finance the invasion to the point of occupation, Ukraine would be better to sign a bogus peace treaty until domestic matters in Russia run their course. Should take all that long (a year).
To me, exploring specific issues like air support is more about exploring how close Putin is to his financial breaking point, more than it is about achieving victory on the battlefield.
To me, exploring specific issues like air support is more about exploring how close Putin is to his financial breaking point, more than it is about achieving victory on the battlefield.
I think that you're wrong. The Russians have a large, but shitty army. More like a 3rd World army than a NATO army. They gambled on the Ukrainians not fighting back and now they have to over-run a country of 40 million people and several million plus inhabitant cities with an army that failed in Afghanistan and had difficulties in Chechnya.
They might be able to do it just by laying siege to one large Ukrainian city after another and moving through the country in the next 6 - 12 months, essentially killing civilians and blowing apart cities - just like in Chechnya and Syria. But the economic, political and diplomatic cost is going to be ball-breaking.
It sounds like you're disagreeing with me by agreeing with me. You seem to agree that Russia's forces, however inefficient, would likely prevail given enough time and money. Time, they have. So the issue is money.
It maybe on Ukraine's best interest if Canada joins it's war with Russia, but it is not in Canada's best interest.You really think going to war with Russia is just sending troops in the Ukraine to fight? War means bringing conflict in Canada soil....
