Reality Check: No-Fly Zone Ukraine
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 มิ.ย. 2024
- A No-Fly Zone over Ukraine is a very popular topic at the moment. But there is little information out there on what it actually means for Ukraine, Russia, and western countries. Let us look at it in more detail!
- Check out my books -
Ju 87 Stuka - stukabook.com
STG-44 Assault Platoon - sturmzug.com
German Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com/
- Support -
Patreon: / milavhistory
Channel Memberships: / @militaryaviationhistory
PayPal: www.paypal.me/MilAvHis
- Social Media -
Twitter: / milavhistory
Instagram: / milaviationhistory
Facebook: / militaryaviationhistory
- Sources -
BBC, No-fly zone: What it means and why the West won't act, 2. March 2022, available at: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-euro... (last accessed 7. March 2022).
Bronk, Justin, Is the Russian Air Force Actually Incapable of Complex Air Operations?, RUSI Defense Systems Vol. 24, 4. March 2022, available at rusi.org/explore-our-research... (last accessed 7. March 2022).
McLaughlin, Rob, United Nations Security Council practice in relation to use of force in no-fly zones and martime exclusion zones, in Weller, Marc (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law, Oxford University Press USA, Ebook: 2015.
Mike Pietrucha and Mike Benitez, The Dangerous Allure of the No-Fly Zone, War on the Rocks, 4. March 2022, available at warontherocks.com/2022/03/the... (last accessed 7. March 2022).
Mueller, Karl P., Denying Flight: Strategic Options for Employing No-Fly Zones, RAND Corporation Research Reports: 2013.
Schmitt, Michael N., Clipped wings: Effective and Legal No-fly Zone Rules of Engagement, in Schmitt, Michael N. (ed), The Law of Military Operations: Liber Amicorum Professor Jack Grunawalt, International Law Studies Vol. 72, Naval War College Press, US, Rhode Island, Newport: May 1998.
Sophy Antrobus, No-fly zones would escalate the Ukraine war - but they shouldn’t be off the table, 5. March 2022, The Guardian, available at: www.theguardian.com/commentis... (last accessed 7. March 2022).
- Visuals -
Department of Defense, NATO, Russian Military
Thumbnail Image: Robert Sullivan
- Timecodes -
00:00 - Intro
01:18 - What I will do in this video
02:23 - What is a No-Fly Zone?
03:58 - Assessment of past No-Fly Zones (Iraq, Kosovo, Libya)
05:21 - Situation in Ukraine
06:24 - Simulating a No-fly Zone over Ukraine
09:38 - A No-Fly Zone Reconsidered
11:46 - Russian advantage in a No-Fly Zone
13:23 - Open questions: Rules of Engagement / 'legal' targets
15:30 - It's more complex than the name implies
16:44 - Outro
- Audio -
Music and Sfx from Epidemic Sound
#noflyzone #militaryaviationhistory #russianairforce
Editing woops at 14:12 - Thanks Joe for pointing it out !
Yeah thanks Joe who doesn’t like someone pointing mistakes out constantly
If I were Putin I'd just nuke NATO and end the world if they dared shoot down a plane of mine.
You missed one fundamental aspect, a no fly zone does not win the war itself. So it is highly questionable already when it comes to the question what could be achieved by a no fly zone, even it worked out well for that part.
Why no fly Zone is such a big deal for Zelensky if russian airforce failed?
A few additional points to consider.
NATO/EU already have AWACS, ELINT, and tanker assets in the vicinity protecting NATO/EU airspace. If an NFZ was enacted these aircraft might be considered by the Kremlin to be combatants rather than legally operating in NATO/EU airspace. This would require either: additional security regarding these assets, or withdrawal to a safer distance where they would be less effective, and/or both.
NATO/EU would need to coordinate with Ukrainian air defenses to ensure that no NFZ aircraft were targeted by mistake. This possibly includes tracking down hundreds of MANPADS that have been delivered (not to mention those captured from Russian Army) and informing those employing them not to shoot NFZ aircraft. Even with this, it is still possible to have Blue-on-Blue (Yellow-on-Blue?) accidents. Two grey-painted aircraft (F-15 and Su-35 for example) would be hard to differentiate with overcast skies or poor visibility.
If AWACS/ELINT were to feed information to Ukrainian air defenses (they would have to because of the above, I think), they would almost certainly be considered hostile. First point complications would be doubled. Also, if already engaged in EWAR/ELINT activities against Russian Army (what's to say they aren't since NATO/EU are providing physical assistance, i.e. MANPADS, ATGMs) they would be less effective if forced to operate further away.
You mentioned ROE, but I don't know if you emphasized just how big a tactical advantage this would give Russian Air Force. Their ROE could be "kill that NFZ aircraft right there"; planned and briefed from the ground. Compare that to NFZ aircraft observing much stricter ROE. This says nothing of recent events which leave me questioning the Russian Military's REO or observance of.
If NATO/EU were to take any step that would escalate to a shooting war involving them, they would need to have sufficient forces in theater before taking that step. This includes "winning" that war should the Kremlin decide to employ NBC weapons. The Kremlin took months to build up those forces whereas NATO/EU have had 2 weeks. This is a problem which needs solving anyway since the Kremlin has consistently escalated the conflict. this problem can/will/is being solved while other questions are being answered.
The last point I can think of: we operate in an open society compared to Russia's current one. There are too many benefits of this to list here, but one downside is our leaders requirement to informing their constituency of what is planned. This can also inform those seeking to violate the NFZ or simply harass NFZ aircraft. If those aircraft knew NFZ's ROE they could do so with greater effect by "walking up to the line" over and over again.
Thanks for the great vid. I love the impartial take. You don't say we should or shouldn't, only that there are many questions left to be answered before an NFZ could be enacted. I look forward to further update videos.
If you're trying to bring the two nuclear superpowers into direct conflict this is an excellent way to do so.
Let's do that I'm getting sick of waiting for nuclear war
I don't think it's time to soil your pants about the nuclear option, it's time to take action.
Ok Neville.
@@spartanx9293 lol. its 2022 after all? how bad would it be right? 😂
@@spartanx9293 Tell you what - YOU go roll in some nuclear waste whilst the rest of us keep our sanity.
The most important point made in this video is when viewers are reminded that past, successful No Fly Zones were against nations with little to no air assets or competent SAM systems. Neither is the case when discussing Russia. A bellicose nation with a large air force, advanced SAM's, and thousands of nuclear weapons is far different than Yugoslavia, Iraq, or Libya.
Pretty sure it was enforced in Serbia, where SAM coverage was never truly degraded by destruction, just suppressed.
So far, corrupt Russian officers made sure all of their equipment is not operating properly. Any air defence system, will be quickly dispatched by NATO forces.
@@georgegalileo Attacking Russian air defense systems would be an act of war. And since they have a very large nuclear arsenal, that would be an incredibly bad idea.
Yet they have a 40 mile long line of military weapons and troops at a stand still because they've run short on fuel and food. Poor logistics will cause them the war.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD What kind or retort is that? How does it equivocate with the current circumstances even minutely? Do you score points by being a sliver of correct? Is that how petty and narrow your scope truly is?
My immediate thought when the calls for an NFZ went was, doesn't that mean we end up obligated to fight Russia to enforce it ? It's almost declaring war by itself. I thought I was missing something, thank you for this sober video, people need it.
yeah people don't understand that would mean Russian nukes would land on their heads if such a thing were to happen.
The major thing about this war I've seen so far is its unpredictability. In one scenario, Ruskis might even lose it. In an another scenario, Ukraine might be conquered. In the next one, who knows what can trigger a war between NATO and Russia. In that context, things get even more unpredictable. E.g. Poland's supply of Ukrainian forces with weapon could be a very dangerous game. Because, who knows how Russians can interpret that action. I always like to ask one question: What would nuclear members of NATO do if Russia lands a tactical nuke on a non-nuclear member? Would they start a full scale nuclear war with Russia or what? Something tells me that they wouldn't. What would happen if they detonate one above a non-nuclear member and shut down their electricity just to show they are ready to use nuclear weapon? Plenty of options, but it's always hard to guess what next is going to happen. And that's the scary part.
@@OverG88 actually if Russia or US fire a nuclear strike on any country, this will trigger the Mutual assured destruction doctrine. Because the implication of firing WMD means heighten security response and nuclear war
It would inevitably lead to some combat between Russian and NATO forces. It doesn't have to escalate into global war though, Putin always has the option of drawing back from Ukraine, we're not talking about a full scale invasion of Russia here.
They can bring air defence systems to Ukraine but claim that it's the Ukrainians who take down the missiles and planes.
I am a vietnam vet I learned it is not cowardice to run to safety when being shelled or mortared it is good judgement for personal survival. Chris makes sense saying the us and russia should us good judgement when confronting each other, one attack on on a missile battery in Russia itself could cause all hades to break loose. Especially with with Putin's judgement being in question. You cannot show capitulation either so our leaders have a big job and may have to earn their pay. Thanks Chris, you hit the nail on the head with your explanation of a tough topic that most folks do not understand.
Putin had reputation even as a child for having an extraordinarily violent & explosive temper which could be triggered by petty stuff that other people ignore. I saw that analysis on Ytube this past week but how to find it.... That concerns me to combine a violent tempered megalomaniac with the old Russia tradition of paranoia about being invaded.
Russia has a centuries long tradition of invading other countries but they have convenient amnesia about WHY they should worry about paybacks.
@N Fels I did not say capitulate I said use good judgement. I just got my first grandson. I would not fight and die for the people running this country now. I served with 4th Infantry division, 1/14 Infantry battalion, Ankhe as an RTO. If you want a nuclear war with fools in charge, Biden does not know what day it is, moreless how to conduct and win a war. The generals are more worried if you want to be transsexual than how to deal with Russia as an enemy.
@N Fels I take my pills for ptsd boy, What have you done to earn the name American, if all you can do is insult rather than discuss another point of view we will not have any conversation good by
@@LuvBorderCollies tell me about the countries Russia invaded over the past few centuries? Russia has lost more lives from being invaded than any other country and it’s not even close
@@GuinessOriginal Dig into history its all there. Just because you are too lazy does not mean I will spoon feed you like a baby. Put on the big boy pants and spend a couple hundred hours learning real history. Also propaganda does not qualify as history.
I think one important aspect that isn't really being discussed, is what exactly the purpose of a no-fly zone (NFZ) would serve. In previous operations where a NFZ was established, I'd argue that their (unstated) objective was to equalize the balance of power on the ground. While an NFZ wouldn't prevent hostile ground forces from engaging their foes, like the Iraqis did with the Kurds or the Serbians with the Croats, they did prevent they from utilizing airpower in that objective which had a disproportionate effect. To that end, an NFZ allowed the western powers to level the playing field without getting involved in such a way that would put "boots on the ground". I'd argue that for better or worse, it was a politically expedient way to get involved that would be acceptable back home.
But in this conflict, we've seen that Russia is not relying on it's airpower, rather, it's perfectly capable of inflicting severe harm on Ukraine without it. It's not the power imbalance it was in those conflicts. The Kurds and Croats did not have their own air defense or air force; the Ukrainians do.
That leaves me to believe that the real rationale behind the Ukrainian request for a NFZ is the hope that NATO would be drawn in on their side. From the Ukrainian position, this is a sound and logical diplomatic strategy given their dire situation. From NATOs position of course, for reasons you already stated, it would be a disaster.
No more evac.
A "sound and logical diplomatic strategy" that would certainly lead to WW3. Countries that Russia consider "traitors" such as the Baltic States, Ukraine or Poland would get the most nukes as punishment.
I am wondering whether it is possible to set up a no-Missile-zone, where NATOs could shoot down Russian cruise missles targeting Ukrainian targets
@@chm0225 no difference. the Russians don't even use misiles that much, they use artillery. and for you to impose that would mean bringing weapon systems that would trigger Russia more.
@@basketcase1235 Nothing says fiery but mostly peaceful like an MLRS battalion cued off counter-battery radars... because, apparently, casting _Gridsquarus Deletus_ is only acceptable when your gear says "Made in USA."
MUST WATCH video for everyone, TWICE.
Much watch to those who loves to watch Rambo movies... Enforce a No Fly Zone ? Russia is no Iraq ffs
G'day,
Yay Team !
I agree.
Backtrack me to my Videos, to see,
"Kangaroos Consider NATO Enforced No-Fly Zone Over Ukraine...!"
If you live in any NATO Country then look to your Bomb/Shelters...; because Russia started cleaning out, repainting, restocking, and preparing all theirs - readying them for immediate use..., 5 years ago.
Having noticed that, Finland and Switzerland followed suit.
Backtrack me and see what you think.
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
Haven't seen any experts in the field say a no-fly-zone is a good idea.. .And I concur. It seems like politicians just have no clue what they are talking about.
Very often politicians will support a thing they know has no chance of happening in order to score points with people invested in it happening, not because they think it's a good idea. Sometimes they end up with egg on their face when it does happen, and blows up badly as predicted, but they keep doing it.
@@poetryflynn3712 A no fly zone is made popular by real demands; that are created by Russian Aircraft attacking civilian buildings increasingly.
Airport in Vinnytsia was destroyed by 8 rockets. These are civilian airports.
Having provoked this war through catering Ideas of joining the EU to Ukraine we now have the obligation to provide military equipment if not
directly intervene. We in the West are not strategic: we are cowardly. This is about self-preservation while Scholz is still not backing down
from deals with Russia.
It always was and always will be about the Oil: on both sides.
@@a-sheepof-christ9027 Funniest shit I've heard today
There are no civilian airports in a war
@@a-sheepof-christ9027 That's not what happening. We are in a neutral status to Ukraine because we don't have any pacts with them (speaking out of Nato states).. Although they are civilian airports they are being used as military airports as well. You see that all around the world because it's part of their excersises to be able to land/start everywhere. The West is very strategic as a no fly zone is nearly a direct war declaration. It's perfectly understandable that Ukraine politicians ask for it (and they should) but I don't think (and hope) it's gonna happen... It would be great if the Ukraine would be in Nato so we would be able to help.
And btw Scholz is not the only one not backing down from deals with Russia. The whole western countries are not backing down. E.g. the US & France still import gas & oil from Russia. Without Russia they can't guarantee to create enough eletrical power. Maybe the perfect time for alternative energy sources? We gotta hope for the best and that includes no war with Russia at the moment. (Oh and btw I'm biased having an Ukraine gf so I'd love to see us intervene against Putin's Russia to help her family :) It's just not strategical as you claim it to be.. )
Approx. 14:00: There will be no such thing as "safe approaching NFZ". If such an operation is commenced, any asset used in NFZ, including approaching fighter planes, support planes, bases, airports, railroads, hubs, cargo ships, etc., becomes legitimate target. Don't forget the option to disrupt supplies by shooting down GPS constellation. Not to mention nuclear exchange that will probably start in the middle of that. As somebody already noted, it is quite a bad idea.
No fly zones must be established when conflict is arising, ideally pre-conflict. Doing it mid-conflict is just taking over the airspace.
Totally unrealistic here. If there is one thing that would make this worse is if NATO and Russia start shooting eachother directly. Escalation would be completely unpredictable.
The only real option would be long range strikes by NATO stealth aircrafts launched over the west Ukraine, but these strikes would need to be under false flag (Ukraine) and absolutely secret.
@@Trigger-vi6lb so, in other words, an act of war under the guise of covert espionage by force? Yeah sure dude, what could go wrong?
Amazing how none of this would've been an issue had the US de communised the Russians right after Japan.
General Patton was right, we never should never have stopped in Berlin and should've nuked them from Moscow to Vladivostok until peace was reached.
That’s incorrect. The conflict in Libya had already begun before NFZ operations began. Also this current conflict began in 2014 so it would have involved NATO aircraft in the same risk situations in any year.
I agree that an NFZ is not only an escalation, but a silly type of escalation. If NATO is going to have a war with Russia, it might as well pick a more practical plan. If not, it's probably a better idea to stop buying their oil/gas first.
and they should pick another place like over the bering strait. this would reduce civil death toll dramaticly
There is no “practical plan” between nuclear states, only oblivion
Ah yes, let's all stop buying Russian oil. Considering US and OPEC production is unlikely to increase that sounds like a great idea. Nothing like shooting ourselves in the gut and forcing a smile about how righteous we are.
@@billdewahl7007 USA only gets 4% of it's imported oil from Russia. It's a very very small amount easily compensated. Smh
@@billdewahl7007 we could get off oil all together, but no one wants to hear that.
乁( •_• )ㄏ
Dude, great breakdown of this topic!!! I'd thought about a lot of this, but you brought up several more points that I hadn't considered. Thanks for the coverage, and keep 'em coming!
by far the most informational aviation channel ive ever come across, great job :)
Outstanding and thoughtful presentation. The short answer to the basic question; it is not politically or logistically viable. Nor is it likely to change conditions on the ground.
Yes this was always the case the only reason it's in the news is because Zelenskyy is literally begging every media outlet in the world for it. Can't blame him either
It is both politically and logistically viable. The nice thing about a no-fly zone is that its a nice way to drag our cowards into a full scale war with Russia. This would just be an excuse and bait until we can bomb all their ground assets.
@@DickCheneyXX Username checks out...
@@ArawnOfAnnwn I just wish we still had real men in office...
@@DickCheneyXX obvious troll
A no fly zone may work when a major power tries to exert power over a much weaker country like Iraq or post-Yugoslav Serbia, but that's not going to work against another major, nuclear-armed power. Any attempt to do so will be starting a major war with said major power unless they back down like Khrushchev did during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Anyone in their right minds want a repeat of that incident? NATO might as well roll tanks into Belarus/Ukraine and start WWIII at that point. Hope you like your human race extra crispy and glow in the dark.
Glowing in the dark does sound cool tho.
Yeah, we spend billions on our military for decoration. Reminds me of douches who build "race cars" then putt them around town, showing them off, but never racing them. At least we can send lots of hardware to the ukrainians so I get to watch russian tanks/planes/helicopters crash and burn.
WW3? I think not. Russia knows it has no chance if NATO, never mind the entirety of the UN minus it and its puppets, go to war against it.
Its only option would be to commit suicide or back down while handing over territory it stole from others.
@@tremedar Dont underestimate a nutjob like Putin who doesnt care about his people. In his mind if he can cover in a hidden bunker and let them fly, the MAD after, if he survives, may still be considered a win in his disturbed mind. Its a chance that just cant be taken.
@@tremedar That assumes he is bluffing. Wanna bet the existence of civilization on it?
Simple - Actually enforcing a No Fly Zone, by definition, is an act of war against the forces you are attempting to keep out of a given airspace.
With all the consequences that entails
@N Fels Well put.
@N Fels stop daydreaming please
@N Fels The question comes down to if you are willing to risk nuclear war.
@N Fels "That's nonsense. Nobody's nuking anybody."
What are you basing that on, your gut feelings? That's not much to bet the lives of potentially billions of people on. You're calling for the United States and it's allies to go to war with Russia and yet somehow you think there's no possibility Russia could use it's most effective weapons in such a war. Why would that be, because Putin's a really nice reasonable guy who always does what's best for the world and has such concern for the preservation of human life?
@@cyphergames8743 i'm willing to call putin's bluff
Totally agree with how bad an idea this would be.
Two thoughts - you're not going to get UN Security Council approval for a no-fly zone because Russia would just use its veto; even if China didn't. So you'd be lacking UN Sanction; which would make it even easier for Putin to cast this as a NATO attack on Russia.
And also, at this time Ukraine is not yet without air power of its own - a no fly zone that was making any pretense at fairness would also have to stop any Ukrainian use of their airspace with their planes, helicopters or drones. I'm not sure that at the moment, even ignoring escalation risks, that Ukraine would necessarily view that as a worthwhile trade-off.
What air power does Ukraine have left? Every thing I've seen about Russian aircraft being shot down has been from ground based anti air systems
@@spencersmith4373 They've been using drones very effectively
@@MyMongo100 Yes. And Turkey can probably continue to get drones in via the long northwest border Romania has with Ukraine. This isn't covered by Russian ground forces at the moment. Both Turkey and Romania are in NATO, so it's an option for the alliance which doesn't involve direct confrontation with Russia or a NFZ.
@@ianstobie The Drones are not stopping the Russians, they are slowing them down, but they are not stopping them.
Ukraine is asking for a No-Fly zone, if you think about why it would, you would realize that it's likely because Ukraine has no Air Force left to mount more than a token defense.
If you want more about the topic, a TH-camr names Ward Carol made a good video discussing it, but this video is very good too.
Very nice and interesting video! Keep up that great work.
Very good concise video on a complicated topic Chris. Always quality work!
Very timely and helpful video. Thanks!
Thank you Chris - this was very informative.
On a side-note: the U.S. froze Japanese assets on July 26, 1941, and on August 1, 1941 established an embargo on oil and gasoline exports to Japan.
Literally nobody studies ww2 now, been replaced with woke ideology, or marxist doctrine. Check out the Putin Youth. Also invasion of Ukraine (and Poland).
@@tensevo WW2 is ubiquitous in our culture, switching TV caught a moment of Hogan's Heroes where a barmaid salutes "Heil Hitler". Amazon Prime has perhaps 300 documentaries on WW2. I agree on "woke" capture of the institutions, but something else is going on in the psyche of those watching Ukraine, even nearby in countries like Lithuania and Moldova. There's an acceptance of this behavior which to me boggles the mind.
Chris, THANK YOU for your responsible introduction in this video.
Namely, i. identifying the time and date of this post,
ii. Your use of the headings, 'Pre-Invasion Footage throughout.
Too many posts on the subject are very unclear on specifically when events being portrayed actually occurred. Sure the posts indicate when the post was posted but the material contained in the post is often old stock or filler footage which does not contribute to the factual validity of the said posts as to the 'current' situation.
You leave no doubt to the viewer in this regard.
TH-cam I believe needs to address this as requirement of those posting videos.
Lastly, thank you for your very informative analysis of this very important topic.
Keep up your excellent work!!
I appreciate your efforts in giving us analysis on this complex and changing set of topics
Totally agree. I know the heart says "enforce no fly zone" seeing the horror and suffering of the people, but there are so many things not taken into account. Apart from what you said already two things come to mind. First is artillery and missiles - they do not count towards the no fly zone. Shelling will just continue, iskanders will keep flying. Second thing is this would limit the Ukrainians themselves, as their drones wouldn't be able to fly either. And that is just to add to the whole list you already mentioned. Good video!
I think it'd would hurt the Russians more than it would hurt the Ukrainians. Most of the Ukrainian Airforce is incapacitated or unable to properly function ASIDE from just a few drones and limited airforce. They really don't have that many to make as much of a difference as a No-Fly Limitation would be for Russian forces. Artillery is nice but in urban warfare it stops really being as useful as you'd think as rubble will continue to function as proper barricades and defensive positions regardless of what it used to be.
You all sound like Biden and I disagree. Putin's army is shit. That is obvious to the world. Without air power Putin 's army will fail. Ukraine Does not need the air to defeat Russia.
@@gregspohn1236 This is what I keep thinking. I know it’s awful to have to throw Ukraine into the grinder but if it spares a direct confrontation between US and Russia it makes sense to let Russia lose through attrition. They’re never going to hold Ukraine and they certainly won’t be able to expand beyond its borders. These kinds of decisions are why I’d never, ever want to be involved in foreign policy.
@@gregspohn1236 yeah. Keyboard warrior. People with common sense know better than gambling with a mad man with nukes. Evidently you don't understand the risk.
@@jkholtgreve this all belies that Ukraine would be the first target in a nuclear exchange. If nuclear war begins, Putin will probably demolish Ukraine and move on to the rest of Europe. This no fly zone would get hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of Ukrainians killed imo, not thousands or tens of thousands.
Thank You for bringing this discussion back to a level of sanity.
One point that I think is very much ignored is about the conditions on which NATO can be activated.
Note that NATO is the "organization" of the treaty, and it can only activate according to the articles of the treaty itself.
It is not an "organization" that the member States can just use as they see fit.
The main article is the 5th, the collective defense activation if any member is attacked, of course this gives no possibility of establishing a NFZ, if it applies it is a matter of all-out war, not of a NFZ.
The precedent that we can look to is that of Libya. That is an activation following a UNSC decision calling for such action.
In my opinion it is not a completely honest reading of the treaty, it is stretching it, but the precedent is there.
The point is that NATO recognize "the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security" in article 7. Nowhere, afaik, it's written that NATO can activate to enforce a UNSC determination, but it did. The difference is that article 5 is explicit and automatic, this reading of article 7 is not, thus consensus is also a condition.
It is important that the reference is to the Security Council, because it is where Russia has right of veto, which means that the precondition for such an activation is effectively a moot point.
I think this is important to understand: NATO has no faculty to decide to impose a NFZ, the UNSC could decide to call for a NFZ (it won't), and then NATO can activate to enforce the UNSC resolution.
A completely different matter is if a coalition forms to impose a NFZ, which is stupid, as it means going to war with Russia thus we either have a coalition to make an offensive war on Russia (to defend Ukraine, but it is offensive nonetheless), or we have a delusional bunch of states that will find themselves at war with Russia. We won't have the second simply because, public opinions aside, the whole point is well understood in the west.
The additional problem for that hypothetical coalition is that a State that provokes a war cannot then invoke the protection of article 5. Another reason why this won't happen.
Note that the 1994 Budapest memorandum could have been invoked, but this should have been done already in 2014, and its implications are not clear when it comes to obligations to ensure the security of Ukraine. One major problem is that it does not bring NATO on the table.
Uuh, there is already a war going. Ukraine is a sovereign country. If they invite NATO to help fight Russia, no UNSC motion would ever be needed. Ukraine decides what happens in Ukraine, not the UNSC.
@@Prometheus4096 not how nato works the op is correct. nato can't just , "go because someone asked" that is not how the treaty works
@@michaellind3653 Yes they can. And they have many times.
@@michaellind3653 Yeah, that's true, NFZ is impossible. But WWIII Going to happen anyway, sadly, if Ukraine falls. Russia aims for Baltic countries
which are now in NATO, that seen in Russian propaganda in the last 5 - 10 years. Just like with Ukraine they claim that is their territory, and say they going to take it.
A lot of baseless ideaa about Russian attacks to baltic states are flying around, without any logical explanation.
If Russia hate so much Ukraine that decided to attack it, this doesn’t mean that then it will attack everybody. War is suffer for Russians either.
So No WWIII will happen because of Ukraine. And Russia know this and US either. And are both interested from own interests to not spread further.
And no Russian attack will happen to any baltic state, because Russia know that this would be WWIII, which Russia dont want.
Great talk. We're all learning how to think about Putin's war and your information videos are a great help. Thanks for the perspective. Keep up the goods work.
Oustandingly well presented and argued. Great work. Thanks.
The only thing I can see that this analysis misses are Russian SAM sites in Crimea (S-300/400) and Russian Naval SAM assets (SA-N-6/20 (really just S-300s)). Both of those introduce more no-no rings.
So to even start, you have to probably prosecute a massive SEAD and anti-ship campaign across a wide front.
It's doable, but would require months of prep (a la Desert Storm), and it means WW3.
On the whole though, your conclusion is spot on. The extra bits just hammer another nail in the nice coffin you built.
An even bigger problem with a SEAD operation is that all these air defences are based in Russia/international waters which would be beyond the territory of the no-fly zone(Ukraine). Hitting them is a guaranteed nuclear exchange.
@@stoyantodorov2133 yep spot on
It may take months but Nato still has to do it anyway. Not preparing for war with Russia is reckless. At least declare intentions that Nato is preparing for war if Russia continue committing crimes against humanity. Get the courts and legislators to side with the decision first after giving the warnings. Whatever the results of the preparations, just commit what are possible. If not the whole of Ukraine, just the western part. If not with planes, then with ground based missiles, or planes operating outside Ukraines.
@N Fels The worst part of it is that Russia is not even warned. No wonder it keeps on committing war crimes one after another. Furthermore, Russia already consider sanctions, any sanction, as an act of war. So technically Russia considers itself as already at war with a lot of nations.
@@othmanskn I agree preparations have to be made, and NATO is working to do so, but without being blatant with it. Putin just isn't the sort of guy to try brinksmanship with.
There are triple the fighter stages in the East, two Patriot batteries just went to Poland, and a lot of the troops sent to Europe are support and rear area guys meant to support an incoming wave potentially.
The real issue is the extreme logistical issues. After the fall of the USSR, NATO and especially the EU allowed forces, basing options, and support infrastructure to atrophy. Estimations are running to the range of 3 full size Armored Divisions plus Infantry and Mech support just for a defensive stance in Poland and the Baltics (the flattest and easiest areas for him to hit). Europe couldn't do that and foreword sustain that even if you combined all of them.
So lots of things have to be stood up, the EU and US have to prep and mobilize, and then a $H!T ton of stuff has to be moved to provide a proper defense before that air assault and no-fly goes into place.
Look to the prep and lead in to Desert Shield and the air campaign pre Desert Storm, and that was just for Iraq.
I find this channel to be the most intelligent and well researched one on air military matters. It’s evident that there is a lot of work done to create the videos. It gives us more understanding of what’s happening in the world. Thank you!
Thank you for sharing, as always your information is enlightening!
Hitting it out of the park on the last two videos! Love them
no fly zone means War3
Not to mention that a NFZ would have, even if implemented, a limited effect on the overall situation on the ground. Much of the bombardment of Ukrainian cities, which is prompting such calls to begin with, is being conducted by ground based artillery systems. So unless such policy advocates are also calling for airstrikes against the Russian army directly it wouldn't change much. At which point any notion of preventing runaway escalation is immediately thrown out the window.
If the sky was clear of Russian aircraft, NATO planes would be free too bomb and strafe Russian artillery units too their hearts content
@@PotatoeJoe69 now THAT would start a war.
@@gosquidgo1 a war has already started.
@@gosquidgo1 My friend, WW3 is already here. Putin has his sights on Moldova, Finland and Sweden, these three countries he either stated or showed interest in Invading, if he manages to take Ukraine. Putin is also rekindling old Soviet connections in Cuba..... whether it escalates now, or a couple years from now, it's set in stone --- it will escalate.
@@PotatoeJoe69 Yeah, let's start WW3...🙄
A very important and well informed contribution to public discussion! Thanks mate!
Thank you for your conscientious work on this.
“Imposing a NFZ over Ukraine would mean war with Russia”
Yes that is a good and grim reminder. I agree with you that for all intents and purposes a NFZ would be very little difference than boots on the ground shooting at russian boots on the ground which means war.
EU/NATO is effectively already at war with Russia. Given the support and military supplies it's war by proxy. We are just not prepared to accept that mindset yet.
Russia is already in a full on war. Hiding in a closet and pretending that's not happening won't make it go away.
@@TheStrategos You will know when we are at war with Russia. You will be able to look outside and watch Russian cruise missiles hitting targets up and down the east and west coast of the US. We aren't picking a fight with some low-tech Arab nation, we are picking a fight with a world power.
@@peted2770 Same on their side... NATO isn't Chechnya, Georgia or Syria.
@@peted2770 I would encourage you to take a look at Russias military spending v the US spending. There is a 10x difference. In terms of capability and threat, the cold war / Warsaw Pact idea seems to be pervasive in the minds of many. Russia might lob a few cruise missiles from a submarine that it might be able to spare from Europe (while it fights for survivial) but it would be little better than a terror tactic. It's not going to be effective at all.
Polician-speak has put in people's mind that a no fly zone is something other than war. When you're fighting a country like Libya that has no ability to strike outside it's own borders, then you can decide that the war should only include aircraft. Russia will not play ball like that.
Thank you for making this video. So much noise has been made in the reason days that it is really great to hear some facts about it.
Thank you for explaining the realities and practicalities.
A rational, well-informed analysis, as usual. Well done, brother. Now if only we could get all of the US Senate to watch this ... and maybe even understand it, though that might be too big an ask.
You are mean but unfortunately there's a chance to be right at the same time.
They have a attention span of a squirrel, some are wondering when happy hour starts this is when Nancy leaves her liquor cabinet open
Perhaps we should take the most warmongering chicken hawks in Senate, fly them over to Ukraine and let them duke it out. And don't forget their sons and daughters. Those who are acting most bloodthirsty are almost never to be found on the battlefield.
Not just in the US. The degree of idiocy shown by the majority of commentators, activist and politicians within Europe is beyond belief. It's largely borne out of the (sometimes wilful) ignorance of how complex military operations such as a No-Fly-Zone are, but also an (unforgiveable) inability to think through the consequences of such an action.
@@ThePhoenix198 Well said, Satyr. They really ought to put us in charge. God knows we couldn't do much worse.....
A no fly zone will just increase the probability that this conflict spirals out of control and should not be attempted.
exactly. why are so many people so dumb?
@@teru797 because war is the only solution to this problem. Its like with the Nazis or Imperial Japan there is just no other way
@@teru797 the media just likes to parrot things that gets people riled up for sensationalism. Even in times of war they still make profits off of views- if anything they probably make the most during times of war and they are capitalizing on it now. It's been explained by defense secretary Ben Wallace why he thinks a no-fly zone is a bad idea but the media and other political figures keep touting this suggestion without an understanding of how policy works nor the implications that will come of it politically, militarily, and logistically. Now other people on social media are also hooked onto this irresponsible idea because they don't care that it might make an already cornered and deranged, angry dictator, who threatened the use of the thousands of warheads at his disposal, upset. An alternative would be the export of jets and other aa capabilities to Ukraine, which is already being discussed. As for trained pilots, that's going to have to come out of the Ukrainian populace and volunteer force until the next development
pretty sure the conflict is expanding slowly.. but more every day.
@@patclark2186 certainly is, i think the world at large has yet to see what they russians are truly capable of. I think these last two weeks were a mixture of first contact (probing) and getting forward operating bases and supply lines set up. When that has been done armor and artillery will become a bigger part of the battles
Very well thought out and articulate
Useful information. Thank you.
A no-fly zone is by definition a military operation. If one party does not agree with the NFZ, the only way to enforce it, is to remove the disagreeing party from the air. And in this case, since the Russians would not accept an NFZ is would be escalating hostilities with Russia to full-out war. I wonder how much lack of progress Putin secretly blames on NATO and the EU and how much he already considers himself to be at war with us (without either side directly engaging or declaring).
I think it's great you used the 2014 borders. Wholly agree there.
NATO and the EU is at war with Russia, we're just not downing their air force and bombing their cities yet.
He will consider NATO and EU , and the world in general to have taken hostile acts against him. 100%. But it's Putin that prays with every fiber of his being that NATO or EU countries do not DIRECTLY enter the conflict, because he is finished if that happens (he may be finished now with just Ukraine to deal with), but if EU or NATO enter the conflict Putin is done. The threats are Putins 'escalate to de-escalate' strategy, he hold Ukrainian nuclear sites, those may "accidently" get shelled or he may release radioactivity/cause a meltdown and blame it on "Desperate Ukrainians". All of this bluster is designed to do one thing, keep EU countries and/or NATO OUT of the conflict. I suspect Putin didn't plan of having to deal with this pressure from 'The West' as he was expecting to be in Kyiv two weeks ago shaking hands with his puppet welcoming Ukraine back into Russia. What about GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR people say....Putin is not doing this because he wants to kill himself in nuclear fireballs...if he ever took that route he loses along with everybody else, also given what we are seeing with the Army and Airforce......are the people going to turn their keys and press their launch buttons? It's a bit of a gamble.
@@TheStrategos Even if they turn on the keys for the nukes they would do it as little scared bitches, as slaves under the whip of their master, while we will welcome their nukes laughing, as true wolf-warriors, knowing that our ancestors will be waiting for us in Valhalla!
@@TheStrategos Considering Russian maintenance habits one wonders if the keys will actually turn.
@@GholaTleilaxu and vice-versa too? don't think you will be sitting in your warm comfy home if that happens
The last time I was this early, the Russians hadn't depleted all their PGMs yet.
Great summary, thanks for that!!!
Brilliant explanation that the whole world needs to see. Got my sub and a like. Well done and thank you 👍
This content is extremely valuable, thank you for putting so much of your time and talent into it
Excellent video, with excellent points!
It has not been since the Cold War that the risk of Nuclear War being as close as we are now. Russia is not some minor nation with antiquated equipment and no hope of stopping a NATO or UN coalition No-Fly order, nor are they at a point where they wish for the No-Fly to support diplomacy. If your answer to a major problem is easy and simple, often you are missing some crucial details as to why your answer is wrong.
I don't agree that nuclear war is a valid concern. No one with responsibility is going to order a no fly zone.
Thanks for explaining this. You are so much more helpful than the talking heads on cable TV.
Great video, really informative!
Great video. I've been against a No Fly Zone since it was first brought up in a conversation with friends, the only one in Our Group actually. They unsurprisingly had no clue what it was actually was, or the implications of maintaining it. After I explained everything that would be involved, and another factcheck challenge, they agreed and understood why it wasn't a viable option.
Imposing no fly zone in Ukraine is too risky.
Nato should limit it to "special military operation"
Great analysis man. Thank you
Very good discussion of a very complicated subject.
"No-fly zones" are something you know a lot about if you're American... us imposing one usually preceeds something bad.
Excellent, very thorough. this should be a PSA.
I like you clear explanation of the situation. You set out the problems nice and clearly.
Fraser
I'm an aeronautical engineer who started his career in South Africa at the time of the Angolan/Namibian war. At the time the Russian backed Cubans had air superiority over Angola. You are 100% correct that air dominance (not just superiority) is necessary to impose a no fly zone. Back in the 1980's the Russians appeared to have a superiority in radar systems, anti aircraft systems, as well as having superior aircraft . During the Angolan war the Russian/cuban air superiority extended even to overhead nothern Namibia. South African air force aircraft scrambled whenever Angolan air forces were airborne, just to get away to avoid being caught on the ground.
Question for you Military Aviation History, if Poland gives Ukraine their Mi-29 will they need all new weapon points and wiring looms added while removing all the NATO weapon points, wiring looms, radios and aiming sites etc and has anyone got a Warsaw Pack weapon points and wiring looms etc from 1999 when USSR/Russia stoped supplying NATO countries with parts? and will these aircraft be useable due to use and storage over the years?
Even before you get to that point; the ukrainians are not going to have air Fields, fuel, logistics OR tech support. At this point, it's useless.
@@WALTERBROADDUS that was my next point but thank you for getting in first
@@WALTERBROADDUS generally Russia seems to have significantly dropped the ball on just about everything but maybe air fields except air fields are even these days exceptionally cheap to make
It would make more sense to send stealth aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 to Polish airbases and deploy them over Ukranian airspace during nighttime. It's still a bad idea but less bad than sending NATO-owned MiG-29s to Ukraine now. Not that it can't be done, it's just horribly impractical and can cause big collateral effects if Putin finds out where are all those Fulcrums coming from.
A Polish gov twitter dismissed this as a fake story.
Excellent presentation. This has certainly clarified my understanding of what a NFZ involves.
Very well presented Teach. Thank you.
Chris and Bernhard are the real MVPs of TH-cam. Offering real and substantiated analysis to current topics. TV networks scouring their adress books for retired generals better recognize.
The conversation is rather big currently in the US. I posted some thoughts on Facebook over the weekend for my friends and family to explain the issues. I focused more on the politics, than on the operations. I like your coverage on the operations. You were detailed and precise. I appreciate that. I focused on explaining that NFZs aren't magic. They don't by themselves prevent Russian from flying over Ukraine. They have to be enforced through force of arms. As you point out, a NFZ is an authorized act that would otherwise be an act of war. As such Russia would surely consider a shootdown to be an act of war against them by the US. Russia would be motivated to immediately engage in strikes outside of Ukraine - Polish airbases for example. A NFZ would immediately escalate into a European wide conflict and end in a nuclear holocaust. I suggest that instead of asking "why we don't we create a NFZ?"; we should be asking "why haven't we started WW3?" When you rephrase the question this way, the answer becomes obvious. I think that the biggest problem with the whole question is that it is a distraction from talking about other measures that actually can be implemented, such as a lend-lease program, where we fully arm the Ukrainians. Another solution is banning the purchase of Russian oil and natural gas, with sanctions for companies and governments in third countries that violate our sanctions. These measures take time, but with a strong will, they can prevail.
Neo Cons love this idea, regular folks will tell you to go to hell along side Biden the Demented.
Why don't you move/come to us in Europe? Then let's talk NFZ...
That's a cool story.
They're having enough trouble as it is in the Ukraine.
@@dallesamllhals9161 That's an emotional outburst, not a rational discussion. Where I happen to live has no weight at all on the accuracy of the analysis. I'm always open to being wrong, but you need to provide reasons and not just emote. If you live in Ukraine, then I sorry your country is going through this. I understand your emotion, but it doesn't change the analysis. The larger conflict that a NFZ would cause, would make it impossible for NATO to help Ukraine. If you live in Europe, but not in Ukraine, then you're actually being irrational, because a NFZ would increase your peril, without helping Ukraine. If you have a reason why you think I'm wrong, I would generally like to hear it. Otherwise you actually prove my point, that focusing on a NFZ is a distraction from real steps that can be taken that will actually help Ukraine. I believe providing Ukrainians with the means to fight back, combined with sanctioning Russian gas and oil, will give Ukraine a real chance to prevail. The Russian Army is large but fragile. Putin may be a sociopath, but he hasn't lost his grip on reality. If Ukraine can hold on long enough for the sanctions to cause general unrest, then self-preservation will force Putin to withdraw in order to save his regime. The sad part is that it will be brutal for Ukraine; many people will die and the country will be destroyed. However, I've yet to hear anyone present a better option that has a realistic chance of being implemented.
Thanks Chris much appreciated 👍
Writing a comment just to promote this video in the algorithm. Very good arguments and research.
Thank you! I am seeing way too many people asking for a no-fly zone without any real idea of it means/entails or the repercussions involved
Extremely ironic situation of people thinking they're asking for a half measure, when they're really asking for comprehensive and consequential government action. Normally it's the other way around, lol.
I would add that even if a No-Fly Zone was 100% achieved, it would not necessarily stop the war.
Yes it would. It would end all wars because nuclear escalation would result if we shot down Russian planes. We dont realize this but Russia views the conflict in Ukraine as life and death. If Ukraine joins NATO it's over for Russia. They'll stop at nothing to stop that. If we attack them, they believe they will die if they lose so why not MAD everything? Logically speaking
Not only that, it also wouldn't stop artillery and missile strikes from targeting cities, which is the main cause of civilian casualties. Russian aircraft are not conducting hundreds of sorties per day here.
The goal is not to end the war, but to stop civilian bombardements
@@woosix7735 Civilian bombardments are being acomplished by shelling and rocket artillery, so enforcing a no fly zone would not impact that activity.
@@AndresDrucho Maybe this is the primary reason so little of the Russian air force was committed to this war? To lessen the likelihood of Nato wanting to enforce a no-fly zone?
Thank you for the detailed information
Very interesting video. It really clarifies the issue
People are so dumb lately with this practically begging for the world to end right now.
It’s a tremendously bad idea.
Thank you so much for this explanation of a very timely issue.
Thank you for an excellent, objective summation of the pros and cons of a NFZ. I now understand the complications of the subject.
Thank you, and I agree with your analysis. Similar points are made in recent TH-cam videos posted by Ward Carroll, currently of the US Naval Institute and a former US Navy F-14 flier who flew in the NFZs in Iraq. He too considers it very high risk, extremely complex to implement and sustain and a major escalation/provocation that would lead to NATO being at war with Russia.
I watch Carroll quite a bit and heard his take on NFZ. Everyone in Congress and the US and Europe should be required to watch it. NFZ's are FAR more complex and rife with danger leading to disaster. The US lost a stealth F-17 and a F-16 to the relatively "primitive" Serbian air defense system.
Ward is well worth listening to.
There is a huge difference between imposing a no-fly zone over Iraq or Syria compared to a no-fly zone over Ukraine. The latter is simply not viable and would only put NATO pilots and planes into a high-risk, no-win situation. Even should NATO end up at war with Russia, a no-fly zone is not realistic.
Exactly
While it probably COULD be done against the apparently overhyped Russian Air Force and SAMs, it is not a reasonable solution. First, it would get the US and NATO into a war with Russia, but wouldn’t enable Ukraine’s army to actually win major setpiece battles and kick the Russian army out (at least without US/NATO actually launching air strikes against them). NATO found forces would have to get involved, and that would take months and cost many lives. Second, it would still incur a lot more casualties than a no-fly zone over Iraq or Kosovo. While Russia seems to be inept, they still have SOME good pilots, and they have enough numbers that some mediocre pilots would get lucky. Third, it’s very manpower and resource intensive to maintain a NFZ against a large adversary. Maintaining it would require a large part of the USAF (too far for carrier aircraft), and it would mean reducing strength in other areas. It would also mean tired pilots and lots of wear and tear (and down time for maintenance) on aircraft. It’s much easier and more strategically sound to just target strikes and air defense when and where needed, as the US and NATO would have decisive air superiority anyway.
@@bluemarlin8138 Not the Russian Air Force that I would be concerned with, far more concerned with Russian AAA and SAMs. And it would be for no purpose.
Yes... much better to watch Ukrainian civilians dying by thousands everyday, sit back and enjoy the sight, than "risk" standing for our values.
@@lp9280 A no-fly zone has no significant military impact. It is risk with no gain.
All tour comments were pertinent, well-considered, well spoken, and educated. I had forgotten to consider the range argument. Well done, well-done, sir!
EXCELLENT! Thank you!
Good job explaining this. I would have thought this should have been obvious to most, but apparently not, and your explanations were quite useful.
I appreciate finally seeing a mature discussion of this topic. If NATO were to undertake this program it would have to start with a coordinated attack against Russian air defenses in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia itself. Nato has the capability to do this, but it would be a de facto act of war with Russia, and all that entails.
Nevertheless, we must not let Russia win. This war is the end for Putin, whether we all go with him or not. Molly McKew wrote a compelling series on this subject on her "Great Powers" blog.
Good job, thanks, Cris. Cheers from the Pacific West Coast of Canada.
very useful explanation of a complex and relevant topic
In the past No Fly Zones have been imposed upon countries effectively in a state of civil war, where one side controls the air force or entire military. The intent was to even-up the ground war and limit civilian casualties from wide area bombing.
This is not the situation in Ukraine where two airforces & armies of two states are in active conflict. The FoF issue alone for NFZ enforcement makes intervention practically very difficult.
In this active combat area where is the NFZ line of control drawn? Ukrainian sovereign territory (which would include the Crimea & Donbas) or just the territory controlled by Ukrainian armed forces? The first is clearly very dangerous to implement, the second next to useless as most Russian air operations are in direct support of their ground war.
Real air supremacy would also be impossible in reality. And if NATO aircraft began to attack Russian ground-based air defenses, even if they are on Ukrainian sovereign territory, much of the restraint keeping Russia from retaliatory attacks on airforce targets in the Baltic states or Poland would be gone.
The other option suggested by Poland and possibly supported by America (not NATO sanctioned), of loaning Russian made aircraft to Ukraine, with American aircraft back-filling the Polish airforce, seems a less complicated option legally, if not logistically. Its equivalent to supplying anti-aircraft weapons to the opposition of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. How this would be viewed by Russia is another matter as that was a covert operation, whereas this current suggestion is blatantly public.
Russia would definitely whine about it, but I don't think they'd do much about it. As much as we don't want to get into a shooting war with Russia, Russia (for all their rhetoric) do not want to get into a shooting war with NATO, especially since their ground forces are performing poorly in Ukraine.
@@dasbubba841 That's why it would probably go nuclear. NATO can kick RUssia out of sky. But then Russia would lose. Russia does not want to cease to exist so might as well end the world if Russia cant win. They would afterall be defending themselves but all the who was right or wrong doesnt matter in a nuke winter
Besides, given the state of Polish MiG-29s its not super threatening to Russia - just more junk to blow up.
Leave the keys in the Polish Migs and hold a very public “Happy Friday party” for all the airbase staff half a mile down the road.
It was pure coincidence that a group of Ukrainian pilots were in town for refresher training and all happened to decide to steal themselves some Migs.
Wink wink nudge nudge.
Fantastic analysis and very hard to explain in a Tweet to those calling for a no fly zone. I'm glad we have adults in charge that can see this hence the messaging about no no-fly zones and direct NATO involvement. Our only tactical and stategic play is to make the whole experience so painful for the Russians that they will take an off-ramp. I have no idea what that off-ramp would look like but maybe trading Crimea + Donetsk/Luhansk for Russian withdrawl and allowing Ukraine to join the EU but not NATO. Any future incusions by Russia would invalidate the NATO agreement.
Don't worry, besides being corrupt, our Dummy is out of his mind. Either way, our "leaders" need to be restricted by the constitution, whoever they are and stop interfering in world affairs. I have no plan to go to war for this or another president. Sure, sell the Ukrainians all the weapons they want. And keep up the obligations, our leaders have already entered into on "our behalf". If Russia goes into a NATO country, then its go time. Can we get out of NATO?
I don't know about that last point giving them exclusion from NATO and all of the disputed territories is basically just a postponement and the Russians have hardly been trustworthy with their security guarantees when they repeatedly said they"weren't invading" Ukraine and gives them actual annexation of their already occupied areas. What is to say they just don't do it again?
What difference is that from victory for the Russians? And what difference is that from giving Sudetenland to the Nazis? Did it stop Hitler then? Did Germany become a peaceful member of the community of nations in 1938?
There is no way Russia would want to pull out of this without securing the coastline and territory east of river Dniepr for themselves (or at least making it a puppet state).
Russia wants the Black Sea oil/gas reserves around Crimea and Ukraine.
Allowing them to retain the disputed areas just plays into their long term strategy of enforcing EU reliance on their fuel supplies.
Thank you for this video.
To be clear I already have the same opinion as you for the same basic reasons. I really just wanted to listen to it all together so I could solidify my train of thought lol. Your diligence to reason is very appreciated. As with your other videos I've seen so far, amazing work. Thank you.
I'm at the beginning of the video. I thought I would put my two cents in before Chris gives me his thoughts. A no fly zone would be a direct confrontation against the Russians. NATO does not want a direct confrontation. If you look at how the Russian military is performed a direct confrontation would result very quickly in the possibility of tactical mix being used. A weak man with nuclear weapons is something that should be considered very closely. In normal discourse in a situation like this there are different threat levels that can be announced. You increased readiness of the fleet, increased readiness of the army's facing the NATO countries, increased patrolling of the borders by the air force of Russia. Putin went straight to nuclear alert. That tells you how much confidence he has in his conventional forces. Also tells you he's pretty rattled and dangerously unpredictable and what he'll do.
Good video. Given the current extremely high levels of information warfare, I would say that when you discuss the "alleged poor performance of Russian Aerospace", the operative word is "alleged". Ukrainian claims of massive Russian casualties seem highly unlikely, and there have been several proven instances of poorly-crafted falsehood. That "Ghost of Kiev" story is one obvious example, in which the supposed video turned out to be from a computer game called DCS World. There is also the matter of Russia's very good to excellent performance in Syria, which has provided them with experience for their aircrews, and opportunities to test and practice with all manner of equipment. Certainly, Ukraine has better equipment than Daesh, but it's all Soviet gear, and its capabilities are extremely well known to Russia. Finally, there is the advance of Russian ground forces and their Donetsk/Lugansk allies. Such progress on the ground argues strongly against the increasingly hyperbolic claims of the Ukrainian leadership.
Excellent point. The details (hopefully the truth) of equipment losses may only come about long after the fighting has finished (which I pray will be very soon). The information war is one-sided as Russian forces are largely forbidden from using mobile phones during combat. I have heard that the Russians avoided using 'shock and awe' tactics in hope of minimising damage and casualties against the Ukrainians, which apparently has not worked. They have, I understand, so far not used their most brutal non-nuclear weapons. The Russians play the long game, encircling the areas they wish to neutralise. I would imagine they have learned their lesson about urban warfare from Chechnya and Georgia.
From what I heard, the DCS footage of the ‘Ghost of Kiev’ originated as a tribute as opposed to a deliberate fake, in other words the story existed prior to it. That being said, deliberate or not I’m sure a lot of distortions and exaggerations are coming out of Ukraine, it’s almost inevitable.
@@ollimoore dude the ghost of kiev was started by a warthunder youtuber using dcs footage that was "cohencidentally" picked up by media
Ukraine side is producing fake news in extent that I lost any will to even follow them.
I understand their motives, but what is too much, it is too much.
What after some days surprieses me, that Russia is not in any hurry in this “operation”. First I was thought that is their error, but as i made second and third thought I found out that is probably part of their plan.
Why would be in Russians any hurry in war in Ukraine? With all superiority that have just over the birder.
Is Izrael ever in hurry when dealing with Palestinians?
I wouldn't call the attack on Syria "excellent performance" - it was carpet bombing mostly civilian targets in a country devoid of proper air defense. From the Syrian campaign highly decorated Russian pilots are now faced with that reality in Ukraine. Russia is still going to win air supremacy through numbers.
Great work!
Raised a bunch of points I hadn’t heard before 👍
I find the best way to implement a no fly zone is to not leave any fruit or food leftovers lying around. It seems to work and has never bothered any of my neighboring superpowers.
🤣👍
the key thing with no fly zones. you need to have complete air space control. the Russians may appear disorganized atm, but that doesn't mean that will stay like that for long.
NATO must not fall for the trap of Russians looking disorganized, the most advanced Russian capabilities are not used currently.
S 300, S-400 S-500 missiles are not used, bombers carrying hypersonic weapons that fire from bombers 2000km away, Cyberattacks, Nudol anti satellite missile, Electronic warfare & last Nuclear weapons.
The most advanced Russian military capabilities are not in used in Ukraine currently namely,
Advance air defence systems, electronic ware, advanced air craft, Cyberwarfare capability, anti satellite missile, hypersonic missiles.
Even Russian most advanced tanks T-90 are not in Ukraine, Russians looking weak is a trap.
They will throw everything in if NATO should do a no flight Zone, as a matter of fact it will lead directly to Nuclear war in the end
@@ifeoluwaoni7999 Actually, since like 2 or 3 days ago, there's a claim that Russian S-400 stationed in Belarus shot down a UA Su-27 over Zhytomyr. 150 km away! Plus, Russian Su-35/30SM's shot down a few more Su-27s over the same city. And let's not forget cruise missiles they used from the first day of war. The airport in Ivano-Frankivs was hit by one of those. That city is pretty far away from the Black Sea and the eastern Russian border. They can easily reach Czech Rep., Slovakia, Poland, Germany... The question is: Is any western country even ready for such scale of destruction even by these conventional weapons?
Great report.
Really great explanation. I'll need to link this to all the people I come across that think doing a no-fly zone is easy and costless.
The safer more logical way to help Ukraine is send them the weapons needed to contest the Russians or at least deny them air superiority. It would also allow Ukraine to be more flexible in her defence as she would not need to rely on someone else to do an important task like denying the enemy any airspace over her
Unfortunately that is the best option we have. Send them as many weapons as possible and let Ukraine and Volunteers do the fighting.
@@ieuanhunt552 I just hope that nato can send all the MiG-29s it still has is it’s inventory would be highly beneficial for Ukraine
@@manners7483 hey you drop this 🤡
@@manners7483 I like how you're trying to string all this together, but letting Russia have computer chips specifically to let them fight better in the next war goes a bit against the point of sanctions don't you think?
No one figured that it would make them more indiscriminate killers or specifically save military targets instead of civilian targets. It's also more Russia's responsibility than any sanction.
I have a sneaking suspicion that all the noise about a no-fly zone is a distraction. It's not as if the Russian air forces have been particularly effective thus far - artillery seems to have been the main danger. So I'm wondering if we have NATO special forces units - SAS, Green Berets, etc - already in Ukraine and supporting the Ukrainian forces with supplies and training, and that the calls for a no-fly zone are supposed to draw attention from what they're doing on the ground.
That's easy to watch - 1st if they got captured, will be all over the russian media - 2nd if many Russian airplanes fall out of the sky
considering that (at least) during the first days of the war US Black Hawks repeatedly flow into Ukraine without any clear destination - that's probably a very good assumption ;)
Doesn't really matter how effective they are, once there is open conflict between the United States and Russia the possibility of things going nuclear becomes much greater.
@@M167A1 That's the point - it's not open. It's covert. If anyone asks, they're volunteers, members of the International Legion of Territorial Defense of Ukraine.
Hopefully they are just sending crates of drones and not more people. They could easily strike without being identified and clean up that convoy in a day. They would also be effective at cleaning out cities and rural areas where every corner would be a bloodbath on the ground.
nice analysis , thank u man. the more i know.
Amazing incitful well concluded easy understood analysis.