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.
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.
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.
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?
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
@@StoutProper 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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."
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-sheep-of-christ 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.. )
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.
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.
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 !
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 "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?
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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!!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
“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.
@@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 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.
All tour comments were pertinent, well-considered, well spoken, and educated. I had forgotten to consider the range argument. Well done, well-done, sir!
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?
@@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 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.
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!
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.
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.
@@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
@@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
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.
Very good analysis with the BLUF: A No-Fly-Zone would mean war between NATO and Russia, the very thing we have been able to avoid since the late 1940s.
You did an EXCELLENT job on explaining the complexities of a no-fly zone. That said, on the part of Ukraine and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, I would be asking for the exact same thing if I were in their shoes. I would want a no-fly zone in Ukraine if I were Ukrainian. We can’t blame them, and we can’t hold that against them for demanding one. And my heart says, “YES!” Because I want to help support Ukraine with every fiber of my soul. But that doesn’t mean we, as in NATO, Europe, and the US, should do a no-fly zone. Doing so means all-out war with Russia, a country with the largest nuclear stockpile on the planet, with a cornered and wounded dictator, who is growing increasingly desperate. A potential nuclear war, with Ukraine in all likelihood at the epicenter, won’t help Ukraine, and it may just destroy us all. That is a HUGE risk to take, and we just can’t do that. I’m sorry, but risking civilization ending in a literal fireball is not something I’m willing to risk right now. I hope the sanctions work. I hope the oligarchs in Russia pressure Putin to pull back, and I hope cooler heads prevail, and I hope Ukraine can regain and maintain its sovereignty now, and in the future. But a no-fly zone will, in my opinion, guarantee the exact opposite of that.
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.
@@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.
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, 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.
Deine Arbeit ist sehr wichtig, und das meine ich ganz aufrichtig. Sie bildet, sie informiert und vor allem, sie ist nicht nur geistloses Hinklatschen irgendwelcher Sachen, die du mal auf Wikipedia gelesen hast, sondern fundierte, objektive Erkenntnisse. So eine Arbeit ist gerade im Heute dringend von Nöten. Dein Enthusiasmus für die Militärfliegerei ist dir immer anzumerken, was dich ganz nebenbei auch noch sympathisch macht. Weiter so, du machst das richtig richtig gut.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
@@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.
That is great work you did for this video. Thank you! I'm from Ukraine, in Kyiv now. Yes, we are highly concerned about the situation right now This and the previous video gave more clearer picture of what happening right now above my head, giving an understanding that No-Fly Zone, for now, can be made only by our resources. Maybe you can share examples of a successful air-defense system or an air defense organization that was made in other countries or in some projects ( open-source of course). Thank you! You are doing fantastic reviews:)
How many planes does Ukraine have left? The Russians have claimed your airforce fled to Romania on the first day of the conflict. If that's true, you might as well kiss them goodbye. Romanians are still hot that Ukraine occupies Snake Island, soi I doubt they'll give them back.
In the beginning, was around 90. For now, for sure we lost some (20-30) + some abroad (30-40). But we are making airstrikes on russian forces. Yes, we are not controlling our sky now for 100%, still, we have ground air defense. "The Russians have claimed" - not a very trustful source of information)) But you are right about Romania here/.
@@alextish4154 You need offensive power to knock out the long range artilleries first. Nato reasoned that nofly zone is useless against artilleries but in Libya, artilleries or even convoys were attacked. The condition that time was that civilised were threathened. Actually, Nato started in Libya for humanitarian grounds. US only joined later. So nofly zone is for humanitarian reasons as one US congressman, Republican Adam had pointed out. He was a former airforce pilot, so he knows a lot about risks of war.
A no fly zone is honestly harder to enforce than one would think. The reasons of mistaken identity and coming under friendly fire are just as real as anything out there. Good article.
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.
@@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?
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.
Very nice breakdown. It's tough watching Ukraine fend of this onslaught and assume a no-fly zone would be the cure for all these ills. The reality is much more complex in a convoluted battle theater, rich in geopolitical and military tripwires.
Does anyone honestly think that Putin would honor any agreements related to rules of engagement, etc of a NFZ? If anything, he would agree to only use it as a red flag even if one of our jets or NATO jet was simply on patrol and not engaging in any provocative actions. If a fighter were to turn on their radar the Russians would interpret that as a hostile action and respond as if they got attacked. Of course, their government's state-controlled media outlets will sensationalize any event and push out tons of disinformation to their masses. The more I learn about their media and political tactics, it reminds me of where Trump and his sympathizers got their ideas from. Thank you for breaking this down to the most logical conclusion you could expect if such an action was installed. The most practical option would be arming the Ukrainians with anti-armor weapons, sniper rifles, anti-aircraft missiles, long-range radar, intelligence, and the best weapons to take out long-range artillery.
I didn't even know that anyone was advocating/suggesting establishing a no-fly zone over Ukraine as a serious option. If so, whoever is doing this must be astonishingly uniformed about the military reality of the situation that Chris has described very clearly. It wouldn't look like the NFZ's over Iraq, Bosnia or Libya for sure. The closest historical analog would be history of flying missions over North Vietnam - only it would be much, much more difficult and costly due to the geography and sophistication of the opposing air defenses. For such an effort one should probably budget a couple of thousand aircraft losses and cross your fingers that we don't end up glowing in the dark...
General Breedlove, the NATO top military commander from 2013 to 2016, has advocated no-fly zones, as has Kurt Volker, the former U.S. ambassador to NATO and a special representative of Ukraine. There are some astonishingly stupid people in very high positions.
One big difference with Vietnam is that the country being flown over would be friendly territory. There'd be pretty decent information about where enemy air defenses are, and the russian airforce itself is not necessarily doing so hot itself over the territory. Doesn't make it a good idea, but it'd be relatively hard for the russians to fight back against NATO air power in the way that they'd like.
@@visassess8607 He asks for no fly zones as a negotiation tactic, ask for something impossible so your request for something possible looks reasonable in comparison.
@@Win32error854 What is the range of the air defence systems situated on the the Russian and Belurusian borders with Ukraine? A clue, the territory you would be flying over may be friendly, the air environment not so much. 1992 model S-300's have a range of 150 km so enforcing a no fly zone over Kyiv is going to be tricky. If the Russians drive a few S-400's up to the border you're looking at pushing that out to 400 km just to make life even more fun. Remember, these launchers are all sat inside Russian, or Belarusian territory, you can't just sling a HARM at the fire control radar without risking WWIII.
All those blindly asking/screaming for no-fly zones should remember that a true no-fly zone (patrolled by NATO aircrafts etc) can very well *escalate* the tensions & complicate the matters even more! It may even lead to a more widespread militaristic action from Russia & give Putin the justification to escalate the war, and actually lead to WW-3! This is not Libya, Syria or Afghanistan we're dealing with here!
And you should remember that the most prominent person "asking/screaming" for NFZs is the one who actually needs it; President Zelenskyy. He's the only reason this is being "discussed" because he's literally begging every media outlet in the world for it. And you know what? How can you blame him? C'mon man.
Oh of course it escalates things, but at some point, where is the line drawn? Is Ukraine supposed to be considered a sacrificial nation like Poland? Remember, that's the same excuse the nations in Europe gave to avoid WW2, and if Europe had instead immediately rallied against Germany, who knows how different things would have turned out. Sure, nukes change the equation, but the problem is that Russia's entire "justification" to this war has been keeping NATO off its borders. And that makes no sense, as Ukraine borders NATO nations and if Russia decides to annex ALL of Ukraine, that will mean he plans on taking a lot more than Ukraine as it's no longer about NATO in that case. Putin himself I think miscalculated the economic response he's received, but he's likely predicting that he can do this solely because no-one will directly interfere because of his nuclear arsenal. And at some point, we are going to have to call his bluff that he can freely take over whatever he wants solely because of his nukes. Putin doesn't want nuclear war but he's counting on the "Defensive" aspect of NATO and the threat of his own nukes to do whatever he wants. It'd be one thing if this was the first offensive action Russia post-USSR breakup has done, but of course it isn't. Russia post-USSR has been extremely aggressive over the years and has done everything it can to expand its borders.
@@jacksevert3099 a) Yeah, so? b) I'm not blaming him at all! In fact, his actions are quite rational & consistent with self-preservation. However, international diplomacy, power games & related decisions can (& should) not be taken on the cries of one person/peoples - howsoever rational they may be. There is more at stake here than one man or one group of people or one nation...
@@Kastev30 There is no real answer to that question howsoever good it may be... Such things are/can rarely be pre-decided, and one should NOT be inflexible & take hard stances or think in black or white terms (yes/no; right/wrong). I guess we'll all see what transpires over the next few weeks...
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.
Absolutely blows my mind how many people are super enthusiastic about pushing us into a huge military escalation for the sake of "closing the sky" without even really knowing what it entails and what the outcomes will be. Utterly depressing.
I have a feeling that 95% of people don't know what a No-Fly zone actually is, what it means, and what it would look like in reality. It's just a buzzword that people throw around like they know. That being said, you can't really blame Ukraine pushing for this to happen, because from their perspective they WANT everyone to be at war with Russia - I would want the same thing if my country was being invaded. Absolutely 0% blame to Ukraine. Remember when having nukes meant countries couldn't be aggressive? Instead of this "you can't stop me from invading my neighbors because then I'll just end the world". Fucked up...
Nukes never really stopped nations from being aggressive and many many interventions and invasions during Cold War pretty much prove it. They stopped them from being aggressive against nations who are allied to nuclear armed nations. And even then, it was allways an open question WHEN would a superpower use their nukes. As soon as another allied nation is attacked? As soon as it is clear they can't halt the enemy? As soon as it's clear conventional forces can't liberate the country quickly? As soon as enemy steps into your country? etc. In context of Cold War, if USSR invaded a non NATO allied nation NATO would raise hubbub in UN and media, and then proceed to send every single type of aid other than boots on the ground because nobody in NATO wants to die in a nuclear holocaust for some rando non aligned nation.
@@Blazo_Djurovic Nuclear powers will never fight an open conflict against one another. That's why we've only seen proxy wars for the past 80 years. When it's the US or another NATO member getting involved in some conflict, then it's China or Russia sending arms to support the other side. Putin's mistake was in thinking Ukrainians were going to roll over, and in thinking NATO members didn't have the political will to do anything substantial about it. Oops.
@@Marcel-eg9bz That's pretty much what I said. Nukes prevent nuclear armed alliances from going toe to toe against each other in open conflict, so they just tend to support whoever is the other side attacking or threatening with weapons and munitions.
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!
imho - no fly zone can only be called if Russia agrees to it (and must include the Ukrainian air forces in the directive). since i cannot think of any good reason for Russia to agree to it, ain't gonna happen (and a bad idea to try in 1-sided manner).
As the Ukraine is a separate country what say should Russia have in it at all? I still think providing SAMS could be a solution. There has to be some Russian ones exported to countries (ex Warsaw Pact) that could be 'persuaded' to provide them.
Former Air Defence here, You are a fountain of Knowledge You explained (to my civilian friends ) why we cannot have a NFZ, Thank you. War, War never changes!
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.
Some of those air defenses would be based on Russia soil. About half of Ukrainian airspace is within S-400 range of Russian territory. So that means a NATO "no fly zone" would necessarily require NATO airstrikes on Russian soil. That would be a massive and unprecedented escalation.
This one is simple; no. I'm very upset to hear members of my Government calling for a NFZ. Previous ones were from UN mandates. NATO has no jurisdiction to implement one short of a war declaration. as you stated, for it to work a strike at some point would be aimed at radar and missile sites in Russia, and I have no doubt NATO could, at a cost, do this...then what? war. The USA, for its part, would at first have to operate from the carrier battle group outside the black sea and would be a target for the subs that are surely tracking it. I go back to, short of a war declaration, without UN mandate (not a UN fan by the way) what legal grounds is a NFZ possible?
i find it rather interesting that the legal standard should only be held up to nations willing to comply but will never be enforced against those who break it so that everyone can just forget about it and go on making $$$$$MONEY$$$$$$ dealing with oligarchs and dictators, why die for Danzig indeed
"No Fly Zone" is a disingenuous misnomer for an otherwise clear act of war against a state or combatant in order to "work around" the legal implications of actually declaring war
No Fly Zone is really one of 2 things: a state imposed upon an area over a country which you're already at war with, or an act of refereeing when 2 militarily weak countries are at war. In the 1st case, it's obviously war and is only really a political statement that control of the air has been achieved, but the statement is really meaningless in itself. In the 2nd, the "refereeing" idea, it isn't war as it's imposed upon both sides. In that scenario though, it obviously only works when whoever declares the NFZ is so militarily superior to both sides that they can't do much about it. While the military power of NATO is obviously well beyond that of Russia, especially considering losses, it's got to be like a big guy with a sword vs a chicken rather than a smaller guy with a fork which is what it would be! Sword wins, but getting stabbed with a fork is still something to avoid (plus nukes, those are a thing!). Clearly I'm replying to someone who knew most of that, I just decided to expand a little on the ideas 🙂
Great and very informative. I think, when considering the map after 2014 (Crimea). The scenario on the map would looks even worse in terms of antiaircraft-missile and radar coverage.
Armchair Cheryl general here what about just having a stealthy F 22 playing in Ukraine air space just taking pop shots at Russian targets of opportunity as they appear. Russia itself will have no idea who is downing their fighter jets jets.
The absence of the Russian air force in the conflict so far makes that an nfz would have only little impact on the ground. But to be honest, there are different questions we need to ask ourselves... Combining events and analyses from the past 20 years, I see a larger picture emerging. The current war is a smoke screen, and a secondary objective to a much larger strategy. Ukraine was chosen because it would provoke much more reaction from the west than if they took Estonia, for example. The extra gas and oil they can mine is an added bonus, and they'll be able to restore water supply to their main military port at the south point of Crimea. But the relatively low tech attack tells me that Russia is holding back its main forces, and I see 3 reasons for that. Some of those forces have been moved to the south, where a much larger conflict could arise in the case of an all-out world war (which they are trying to provoke). So the stronger forces are being saved and positioned for what is to come. The current invasion is also a great way to probe NATO responses. Because even if there are no decisions made to join the fight - not yet - rest assured that the maps have already been drawn up and troops are being moved in position (not just air force, but all disciplines of the military). Last but not least, the lower tech troops are more expendable in case of a NATO retaliation, or in case Russia would decide to drop a nuclear warhead into the mix. As for the larger agenda, Russia will seek to reconnect geographically with Iran. With the recent deal between Russia and China, and together with Iran, they could control about 90% of the world's oil and gas (if Iran collaborates, Russia can seal off the strait of Ormuz). Such a desire would explain the movement of armor and troops to the south. The exercises around Ukraine were an ideal excuse to reshuffle large numbers of troops without clearly showing which and why. Invading Ukraine also provided the perfect diversion to complete the redistribution of troops to put them in position. But as has happened in Russia's past, I think their emperor is fed lies and misinformation by people who are stuck in a web of lies in order to remain in his good grace... I think Putin truly believes that NATO is an active enemy of Russia, still silently preparing an attack. That would explain his desire for better geographic defense lines and his absolute opposition against Ukraine joining NATO. It also explains some of his out-of-character statements lately. It's a dangerous person to be misinformed...
Truly believes Nato is a active enemy of Russia? numerous times in past US generals have called for preemptive nuclear strikes against the soviet union. And called Kennedy weak for not attacking Cuba. People have this order idea of the west is good guys we don't start trouble but evidence doesn't actually support that
Thank you so much for these videos. I am not an ex-military man and, although I understood aspects of the difficulties with no fly zones and was quite clear that they were unworkable in current conditions, I had not fully appreciated just how unworkable they were and are. It adds an additional message, albeit I appreciate that you did not make this point directly, about aspects of NATO's defence of our eastern borders which was also very sobering. Thank you again.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you! I found this very informative. The motive behind calling for a no fly zone is to do more to help Ukraine. This motive doesn't change if an NFZ is impractical, it only changes the optimal methodology. At a minimum "doing more" would mean a large increase in shipments of anti-tank and anti-air missiles, drones, jet aircraft and guns and ammunition of many types. In my opinion, the arguments against doing more beyond that suffer from the fallacy of "the riskless alternative". Putin's "playbook" over the last 20 years has been to never admit mistakes, never back down and "escalate to deescalate". If things go badly for him he will escalate in the belief that his enemies, being weak, will blink before he does. The French president, after speaking with Putin, announced that "this is going to get much worse". Given Putin's history, I am inclined to agree with him. Therefore, in my opinion, the west must begin by substantially increasing air defense in Poland and Romania should Putin attack the source of supplies flowing into Ukraine. Second, should Putin react to his military failures by slaughtering civilians, as he has done before and is starting to do now, we should not passively acquiesce. Doing so would convince Putin we are as weak as he believes us to be, encouraging more aggression and escalation. There are no risk free alternatives in this. NATO must be willing to respond to the use of aggressive force with force of it's own. Failing to do so repeats the failed efforts of Chamberlain in Munich.
Good counter argument. It seems to me that each possible way to help Ukraine is fractured by the eratic and unfathomable mind of whatever Putin is. As we will continue to witness each transgression from Moscow, we also see Putin (perhaps gleefully) watching the 'Free World' continue to lack resolve, or weakness in his eyes. I suggest, that if you get into a viper pit, it is essential to eradicate certain death by reducing the very thing that will end your life ASAP. I know that this is simplistic, but I truly believe that this man feeds on what he perceives as weakness.
The S-400s and S-300s operating from Belarus makes the idea of a NFZ a trip wire. Russia and Belarus have no issue dragging other nations into this war, the war which they chose. If the Ukrainians used air power to strike the IADS based in Belarus, it would be sound doctrine but used as an excuse by Russia and Belarus to widen the war. The ROE considerations voiced by Chris are very complex and legitimate concerns.
They already are widening it, bringing Belarus forces, attempting to hire Syrian forces for $300 lmao Chechens, etc it's sad how broad they are going while being the 5th largest military. Ukraine might be hard pressed though to hit the AA stations, only country I know that regularly defeats Rus AA is Israel in Syria and elsewhere. They fly sorties nearly daily in and around the area, and are hitting targets well within AA cover left and right. Supposedly s400 isn't deployed just yet, far as I've heard, but are the current Syrian AA are all Rus made regardless
A NFZ requires NATO to enforce it. This invites Russia to test NATO's resolve. If their probe is shot down then Putain has the initiative to start WW3. With no NFZ Russia might shoot down a NATO flight in neutral air space, say over Moldova, then NATO has the initiative to start WW3. A NFZ invites Russia to take the initiative and act. Not having a NFZ keeps the initiative with NATO which is then a deterrent for Russia to act. With the failure of his Blitzkrieg Putain now has a dilemma, to plow into a war of attrition or stand down. Given his "final solution" of the "Ukrain problem" language and statements about NATO's weakness, he is unlikely to stand down. He is more likely to plow ahead whether or not a NFZ is set up. As you point out, the success of a NFZ is dubious, as is the succes of a full on invasion of Ukraine, and it's down side means a greater disaster for humanity. If Putain goes ahead there will be a humanitarian disaster but his ability to pull it off is doubtful. This leaves us with not a good choice but a choice of the lesser of two evils.
It doesn't just invite Russia to test, it forces all out war. There is not a scenario in which Russia can allow a foreign nation to take their air power away during an active war just because they are told they can't use it. An NFZ is a declaration of war.
A very good summary of an impossibly difficult situation. Personally I think a no-fly zone only has one use - to initiate direct conflict at a time to suit NATO. That would require all of NATO's assets to be in place and ready, they always have had defensive focus - anti tank/submarine - and would take time to organise. Not that we would be told much about it of course.
It would be completely impossible to miss a major NATO build up near Ukraine. Just as it's impossible to miss Russia massing troops in Belarus. If war with Russia was on Nato's table, it would be obvious. Not the few thousand non Polish troops running around Poland, etc.
I think another part of this you only sorta touched on is that a No Fly Zone would mean that Ukraine cant fly aircraft either. While were seeing the dramatic footage of Russian jets over the large cities and population centers, Ukraine is claiming their aircraft are still flying, they're likely just flying in less populated areas and are less likely to get footage. If the US/NATO were to put a no fly in place, that means Ukrainian operations would either need to stop, meaning no Bayraktar strikes or strikes of any kind, or US/NATO would be obliged to shoot them down as well since if we only enforced the no fly against Russian jets thats not really a no fly, its just flying CAP/SEAD missions for Ukraine. Is that something Ukraine is willing to give up, especially given the success Bayraktar drones have seemingly been having interdicting Russian supplies and air defenses? Doubt it.
Ukraine can't fly planes over their own country? Well, they may decide not to do so because of organizational reasons. But this is a bit silly. I think this is why this notion of a no-fly zone is kind of silly. Like NATO is a neutral side. We already picked Ukraine's side. The question is if we keep helping indirectly until Ukraine loses. Or if we help directly to end the war in Ukraine's favour more quickly.
@@Prometheus4096 In a proper no fly zone you are incorrect. The point of a no fly zone is to demilitarize the skies completely, regardless of who is flying. Enforcing a no fly zone for one party and not the other is not a no fly zone, its simply joining the war.
No fly zones are not set in stone. A no fly zone can be set up to keep Russian aircraft out but not the Ukrainian drones necessarily according to what I have read about them and their uses in Syria and Libya. They are not an exclusively one way implemented strategy. That being said. They can evolve into mission oriented flights to protect assets or civilians as seen in Libya.
Ukraine calling for one isn't necessarily stupid, though. It produces the political appearance that Western countries are dragging their feet, refusing to do something the public misconceives as easy and effective.
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.
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?
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
@@StoutProper 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.
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 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."
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-sheep-of-christ Funniest shit I've heard today
There are no civilian airports in a war
@@a-sheep-of-christ 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.. )
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.
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?
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 !
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
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.
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
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
@@FeatheredDino 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.
@@FeatheredDino Yeah, let's start WW3...🙄
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.
by far the most informational aviation channel ive ever come across, great job :)
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!!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@DraftySatyr Well said, Satyr. They really ought to put us in charge. God knows we couldn't do much worse.....
“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.
All tour comments were pertinent, well-considered, well spoken, and educated. I had forgotten to consider the range argument. Well done, well-done, sir!
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.
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
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.
Thanks!
Thank you, Glen!
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
Thank you Chris - this was very informative.
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.
Very good analysis with the BLUF: A No-Fly-Zone would mean war between NATO and Russia, the very thing we have been able to avoid since the late 1940s.
The last time I was this early, the Russians hadn't depleted all their PGMs yet.
no fly zone means War3
This content is extremely valuable, thank you for putting so much of your time and talent into it
You did an EXCELLENT job on explaining the complexities of a no-fly zone. That said, on the part of Ukraine and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, I would be asking for the exact same thing if I were in their shoes. I would want a no-fly zone in Ukraine if I were Ukrainian. We can’t blame them, and we can’t hold that against them for demanding one. And my heart says, “YES!” Because I want to help support Ukraine with every fiber of my soul.
But that doesn’t mean we, as in NATO, Europe, and the US, should do a no-fly zone. Doing so means all-out war with Russia, a country with the largest nuclear stockpile on the planet, with a cornered and wounded dictator, who is growing increasingly desperate. A potential nuclear war, with Ukraine in all likelihood at the epicenter, won’t help Ukraine, and it may just destroy us all. That is a HUGE risk to take, and we just can’t do that. I’m sorry, but risking civilization ending in a literal fireball is not something I’m willing to risk right now.
I hope the sanctions work. I hope the oligarchs in Russia pressure Putin to pull back, and I hope cooler heads prevail, and I hope Ukraine can regain and maintain its sovereignty now, and in the future. But a no-fly zone will, in my opinion, guarantee the exact opposite of that.
Hitting it out of the park on the last two videos! Love them
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.
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, 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.
Deine Arbeit ist sehr wichtig, und das meine ich ganz aufrichtig. Sie bildet, sie informiert und vor allem, sie ist nicht nur geistloses Hinklatschen irgendwelcher Sachen, die du mal auf Wikipedia gelesen hast, sondern fundierte, objektive Erkenntnisse. So eine Arbeit ist gerade im Heute dringend von Nöten. Dein Enthusiasmus für die Militärfliegerei ist dir immer anzumerken, was dich ganz nebenbei auch noch sympathisch macht. Weiter so, du machst das richtig richtig gut.
A very important and well informed contribution to public discussion! Thanks mate!
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.
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.
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.
Very good concise video on a complicated topic Chris. Always quality work!
Thanks
Thanks!
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.
It’s a tremendously bad idea.
"No-fly zones" are something you know a lot about if you're American... us imposing one usually preceeds something bad.
Good job, thanks, Cris. Cheers from the Pacific West Coast of Canada.
Writing a comment just to promote this video in the algorithm. Very good arguments and research.
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.
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.
That is great work you did for this video. Thank you!
I'm from Ukraine, in Kyiv now. Yes, we are highly concerned about the situation right now This and the previous video gave more clearer picture of what happening right now above my head, giving an understanding that No-Fly Zone, for now, can be made only by our resources.
Maybe you can share examples of a successful air-defense system or an air defense organization that was made in other countries or in some projects ( open-source of course). Thank you! You are doing fantastic reviews:)
How many planes does Ukraine have left? The Russians have claimed your airforce fled to Romania on the first day of the conflict. If that's true, you might as well kiss them goodbye. Romanians are still hot that Ukraine occupies Snake Island, soi I doubt they'll give them back.
In the beginning, was around 90. For now, for sure we lost some (20-30) + some abroad (30-40). But we are making airstrikes on russian forces. Yes, we are not controlling our sky now for 100%, still, we have ground air defense.
"The Russians have claimed" - not a very trustful source of information)) But you are right about Romania here/.
We would obviously wipe out all their air-defenses assets all the way to Moscow on day 1.
@@DickCheneyXX sooner or later, Nato may need to do it any way. May as well be prepared now for that reality.
@@alextish4154 You need offensive power to knock out the long range artilleries first. Nato reasoned that nofly zone is useless against artilleries but in Libya, artilleries or even convoys were attacked. The condition that time was that civilised were threathened. Actually, Nato started in Libya for humanitarian grounds. US only joined later. So nofly zone is for humanitarian reasons as one US congressman, Republican Adam had pointed out. He was a former airforce pilot, so he knows a lot about risks of war.
A no fly zone is honestly harder to enforce than one would think. The reasons of mistaken identity and coming under friendly fire are just as real as anything out there. Good article.
Danke!
Danke Dir!
Imposing no fly zone in Ukraine is too risky.
Nato should limit it to "special military operation"
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?
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.
🤣👍
Oustandingly well presented and argued. Great work. Thanks.
Excellent presentation. This has certainly clarified my understanding of what a NFZ involves.
Very nice breakdown. It's tough watching Ukraine fend of this onslaught and assume a no-fly zone would be the cure for all these ills. The reality is much more complex in a convoluted battle theater, rich in geopolitical and military tripwires.
Imagine nato aircraft doing patrol circuits as the being tracked by hundreds Of Russian missile systems
@@decimated550 RWR overload.
Does anyone honestly think that Putin would honor any agreements related to rules of engagement, etc of a NFZ? If anything, he would agree to only use it as a red flag even if one of our jets or NATO jet was simply on patrol and not engaging in any provocative actions. If a fighter were to turn on their radar the Russians would interpret that as a hostile action and respond as if they got attacked. Of course, their government's state-controlled media outlets will sensationalize any event and push out tons of disinformation to their masses. The more I learn about their media and political tactics, it reminds me of where Trump and his sympathizers got their ideas from. Thank you for breaking this down to the most logical conclusion you could expect if such an action was installed. The most practical option would be arming the Ukrainians with anti-armor weapons, sniper rifles, anti-aircraft missiles, long-range radar, intelligence, and the best weapons to take out long-range artillery.
@@JohnS916 dumb
I didn't even know that anyone was advocating/suggesting establishing a no-fly zone over Ukraine as a serious option. If so, whoever is doing this must be astonishingly uniformed about the military reality of the situation that Chris has described very clearly.
It wouldn't look like the NFZ's over Iraq, Bosnia or Libya for sure. The closest historical analog would be history of flying missions over North Vietnam - only it would be much, much more difficult and costly due to the geography and sophistication of the opposing air defenses. For such an effort one should probably budget a couple of thousand aircraft losses and cross your fingers that we don't end up glowing in the dark...
Pretty sure Zelensky explicitly asked for no fly zones
General Breedlove, the NATO top military commander from 2013 to 2016, has advocated no-fly zones, as has Kurt Volker, the former U.S. ambassador to NATO and a special representative of Ukraine. There are some astonishingly stupid people in very high positions.
One big difference with Vietnam is that the country being flown over would be friendly territory. There'd be pretty decent information about where enemy air defenses are, and the russian airforce itself is not necessarily doing so hot itself over the territory.
Doesn't make it a good idea, but it'd be relatively hard for the russians to fight back against NATO air power in the way that they'd like.
@@visassess8607 He asks for no fly zones as a negotiation tactic, ask for something impossible so your request for something possible looks reasonable in comparison.
@@Win32error854 What is the range of the air defence systems situated on the the Russian and Belurusian borders with Ukraine? A clue, the territory you would be flying over may be friendly, the air environment not so much. 1992 model S-300's have a range of 150 km so enforcing a no fly zone over Kyiv is going to be tricky. If the Russians drive a few S-400's up to the border you're looking at pushing that out to 400 km just to make life even more fun. Remember, these launchers are all sat inside Russian, or Belarusian territory, you can't just sling a HARM at the fire control radar without risking WWIII.
All those blindly asking/screaming for no-fly zones should remember that a true no-fly zone (patrolled by NATO aircrafts etc) can very well *escalate* the tensions & complicate the matters even more! It may even lead to a more widespread militaristic action from Russia & give Putin the justification to escalate the war, and actually lead to WW-3! This is not Libya, Syria or Afghanistan we're dealing with here!
And you should remember that the most prominent person "asking/screaming" for NFZs is the one who actually needs it; President Zelenskyy. He's the only reason this is being "discussed" because he's literally begging every media outlet in the world for it. And you know what? How can you blame him? C'mon man.
Oh of course it escalates things, but at some point, where is the line drawn? Is Ukraine supposed to be considered a sacrificial nation like Poland? Remember, that's the same excuse the nations in Europe gave to avoid WW2, and if Europe had instead immediately rallied against Germany, who knows how different things would have turned out. Sure, nukes change the equation, but the problem is that Russia's entire "justification" to this war has been keeping NATO off its borders. And that makes no sense, as Ukraine borders NATO nations and if Russia decides to annex ALL of Ukraine, that will mean he plans on taking a lot more than Ukraine as it's no longer about NATO in that case. Putin himself I think miscalculated the economic response he's received, but he's likely predicting that he can do this solely because no-one will directly interfere because of his nuclear arsenal. And at some point, we are going to have to call his bluff that he can freely take over whatever he wants solely because of his nukes. Putin doesn't want nuclear war but he's counting on the "Defensive" aspect of NATO and the threat of his own nukes to do whatever he wants.
It'd be one thing if this was the first offensive action Russia post-USSR breakup has done, but of course it isn't. Russia post-USSR has been extremely aggressive over the years and has done everything it can to expand its borders.
@@jacksevert3099 a) Yeah, so?
b) I'm not blaming him at all! In fact, his actions are quite rational & consistent with self-preservation.
However, international diplomacy, power games & related decisions can (& should) not be taken on the cries of one person/peoples - howsoever rational they may be.
There is more at stake here than one man or one group of people or one nation...
@@Kastev30 There is no real answer to that question howsoever good it may be...
Such things are/can rarely be pre-decided, and one should NOT be inflexible & take hard stances or think in black or white terms (yes/no; right/wrong).
I guess we'll all see what transpires over the next few weeks...
@@jacksevert3099 Zelensky is a common gangster
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.
Excellent, very thorough. this should be a PSA.
Absolutely blows my mind how many people are super enthusiastic about pushing us into a huge military escalation for the sake of "closing the sky" without even really knowing what it entails and what the outcomes will be. Utterly depressing.
I have a feeling that 95% of people don't know what a No-Fly zone actually is, what it means, and what it would look like in reality. It's just a buzzword that people throw around like they know. That being said, you can't really blame Ukraine pushing for this to happen, because from their perspective they WANT everyone to be at war with Russia - I would want the same thing if my country was being invaded. Absolutely 0% blame to Ukraine.
Remember when having nukes meant countries couldn't be aggressive? Instead of this "you can't stop me from invading my neighbors because then I'll just end the world". Fucked up...
Nukes never really stopped nations from being aggressive and many many interventions and invasions during Cold War pretty much prove it.
They stopped them from being aggressive against nations who are allied to nuclear armed nations. And even then, it was allways an open question WHEN would a superpower use their nukes. As soon as another allied nation is attacked? As soon as it is clear they can't halt the enemy? As soon as it's clear conventional forces can't liberate the country quickly? As soon as enemy steps into your country? etc.
In context of Cold War, if USSR invaded a non NATO allied nation NATO would raise hubbub in UN and media, and then proceed to send every single type of aid other than boots on the ground because nobody in NATO wants to die in a nuclear holocaust for some rando non aligned nation.
@@Blazo_Djurovic Nuclear powers will never fight an open conflict against one another. That's why we've only seen proxy wars for the past 80 years. When it's the US or another NATO member getting involved in some conflict, then it's China or Russia sending arms to support the other side.
Putin's mistake was in thinking Ukrainians were going to roll over, and in thinking NATO members didn't have the political will to do anything substantial about it. Oops.
@@Marcel-eg9bz That's pretty much what I said. Nukes prevent nuclear armed alliances from going toe to toe against each other in open conflict, so they just tend to support whoever is the other side attacking or threatening with weapons and munitions.
People are so dumb lately with this practically begging for the world to end right now.
I learned a lot today.
Including that the Eurofighter is a naval aircraft...
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!
imho - no fly zone can only be called if Russia agrees to it (and must include the Ukrainian air forces in the directive). since i cannot think of any good reason for Russia to agree to it, ain't gonna happen (and a bad idea to try in 1-sided manner).
As the Ukraine is a separate country what say should Russia have in it at all? I still think providing SAMS could be a solution. There has to be some Russian ones exported to countries (ex Warsaw Pact) that could be 'persuaded' to provide them.
Former Air Defence here, You are a fountain of Knowledge You explained (to my civilian friends ) why we cannot have a NFZ, Thank you. War, War never changes!
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.
Thank you for explaining the realities and practicalities.
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.
Some of those air defenses would be based on Russia soil. About half of Ukrainian airspace is within S-400 range of Russian territory. So that means a NATO "no fly zone" would necessarily require NATO airstrikes on Russian soil. That would be a massive and unprecedented escalation.
Belarus is a Russian ally. The S-400 controls airspace over all the Ukraine and even over Warsaw. The NATO air forces would be blown out of the air.
@@KENACT1 Yeah if you include Belarus and Crimea, S-400 has 100% coverage of Ukrainian airspace.
This one is simple; no. I'm very upset to hear members of my Government calling for a NFZ. Previous ones were from UN mandates. NATO has no jurisdiction to implement one short of a war declaration. as you stated, for it to work a strike at some point would be aimed at radar and missile sites in Russia, and I have no doubt NATO could, at a cost, do this...then what? war. The USA, for its part, would at first have to operate from the carrier battle group outside the black sea and would be a target for the subs that are surely tracking it. I go back to, short of a war declaration, without UN mandate (not a UN fan by the way) what legal grounds is a NFZ possible?
i find it rather interesting that the legal standard should only be held up to nations willing to comply but will never be enforced against those who break it so that everyone can just forget about it and go on making $$$$$MONEY$$$$$$ dealing with oligarchs and dictators, why die for Danzig indeed
Neither the UNSC.
"No Fly Zone" is a disingenuous misnomer for an otherwise clear act of war against a state or combatant in order to "work around" the legal implications of actually declaring war
No Fly Zone is really one of 2 things: a state imposed upon an area over a country which you're already at war with, or an act of refereeing when 2 militarily weak countries are at war.
In the 1st case, it's obviously war and is only really a political statement that control of the air has been achieved, but the statement is really meaningless in itself. In the 2nd, the "refereeing" idea, it isn't war as it's imposed upon both sides. In that scenario though, it obviously only works when whoever declares the NFZ is so militarily superior to both sides that they can't do much about it. While the military power of NATO is obviously well beyond that of Russia, especially considering losses, it's got to be like a big guy with a sword vs a chicken rather than a smaller guy with a fork which is what it would be! Sword wins, but getting stabbed with a fork is still something to avoid (plus nukes, those are a thing!).
Clearly I'm replying to someone who knew most of that, I just decided to expand a little on the ideas 🙂
Great and very informative. I think, when considering the map after 2014 (Crimea). The scenario on the map would looks even worse in terms of antiaircraft-missile and radar coverage.
Armchair Cheryl general here what about just having a stealthy F 22 playing in Ukraine air space just taking pop shots at Russian targets of opportunity as they appear. Russia itself will have no idea who is downing their fighter jets jets.
The absence of the Russian air force in the conflict so far makes that an nfz would have only little impact on the ground. But to be honest, there are different questions we need to ask ourselves... Combining events and analyses from the past 20 years, I see a larger picture emerging. The current war is a smoke screen, and a secondary objective to a much larger strategy. Ukraine was chosen because it would provoke much more reaction from the west than if they took Estonia, for example. The extra gas and oil they can mine is an added bonus, and they'll be able to restore water supply to their main military port at the south point of Crimea. But the relatively low tech attack tells me that Russia is holding back its main forces, and I see 3 reasons for that. Some of those forces have been moved to the south, where a much larger conflict could arise in the case of an all-out world war (which they are trying to provoke). So the stronger forces are being saved and positioned for what is to come. The current invasion is also a great way to probe NATO responses. Because even if there are no decisions made to join the fight - not yet - rest assured that the maps have already been drawn up and troops are being moved in position (not just air force, but all disciplines of the military). Last but not least, the lower tech troops are more expendable in case of a NATO retaliation, or in case Russia would decide to drop a nuclear warhead into the mix.
As for the larger agenda, Russia will seek to reconnect geographically with Iran. With the recent deal between Russia and China, and together with Iran, they could control about 90% of the world's oil and gas (if Iran collaborates, Russia can seal off the strait of Ormuz). Such a desire would explain the movement of armor and troops to the south. The exercises around Ukraine were an ideal excuse to reshuffle large numbers of troops without clearly showing which and why. Invading Ukraine also provided the perfect diversion to complete the redistribution of troops to put them in position.
But as has happened in Russia's past, I think their emperor is fed lies and misinformation by people who are stuck in a web of lies in order to remain in his good grace... I think Putin truly believes that NATO is an active enemy of Russia, still silently preparing an attack. That would explain his desire for better geographic defense lines and his absolute opposition against Ukraine joining NATO. It also explains some of his out-of-character statements lately.
It's a dangerous person to be misinformed...
An extreme narcissist surrounded by "Yes Men"......what could go wrong there?
@@LuvBorderCollies You summed it up much more efficiently than I did ;)
Truly believes Nato is a active enemy of Russia? numerous times in past US generals have called for preemptive nuclear strikes against the soviet union. And called Kennedy weak for not attacking Cuba. People have this order idea of the west is good guys we don't start trouble but evidence doesn't actually support that
i think you are mostly wrong in your analysis
Thank you so much for these videos. I am not an ex-military man and, although I understood aspects of the difficulties with no fly zones and was quite clear that they were unworkable in current conditions, I had not fully appreciated just how unworkable they were and are. It adds an additional message, albeit I appreciate that you did not make this point directly, about aspects of NATO's defence of our eastern borders which was also very sobering.
Thank you again.
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.
Very timely and helpful video. Thanks!
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.
Thank you! I found this very informative. The motive behind calling for a no fly zone is to do more to help Ukraine. This motive doesn't change if an NFZ is impractical, it only changes the optimal methodology. At a minimum "doing more" would mean a large increase in shipments of anti-tank and anti-air missiles, drones, jet aircraft and guns and ammunition of many types. In my opinion, the arguments against doing more beyond that suffer from the fallacy of "the riskless alternative". Putin's "playbook" over the last 20 years has been to never admit mistakes, never back down and "escalate to deescalate". If things go badly for him he will escalate in the belief that his enemies, being weak, will blink before he does. The French president, after speaking with Putin, announced that "this is going to get much worse". Given Putin's history, I am inclined to agree with him. Therefore, in my opinion, the west must begin by substantially increasing air defense in Poland and Romania should Putin attack the source of supplies flowing into Ukraine. Second, should Putin react to his military failures by slaughtering civilians, as he has done before and is starting to do now, we should not passively acquiesce. Doing so would convince Putin we are as weak as he believes us to be, encouraging more aggression and escalation. There are no risk free alternatives in this. NATO must be willing to respond to the use of aggressive force with force of it's own. Failing to do so repeats the failed efforts of Chamberlain in Munich.
Good counter argument.
It seems to me that each possible way to help Ukraine is fractured by the eratic and unfathomable mind of whatever Putin is.
As we will continue to witness each transgression from Moscow, we also see Putin (perhaps gleefully) watching the 'Free World' continue to lack resolve, or weakness in his eyes.
I suggest, that if you get into a viper pit, it is essential to eradicate certain death by reducing the very thing that will end your life ASAP. I know that this is simplistic, but I truly believe that this man feeds on what he perceives as weakness.
The S-400s and S-300s operating from Belarus makes the idea of a NFZ a trip wire. Russia and Belarus have no issue dragging other nations into this war, the war which they chose. If the Ukrainians used air power to strike the IADS based in Belarus, it would be sound doctrine but used as an excuse by Russia and Belarus to widen the war. The ROE considerations voiced by Chris are very complex and legitimate concerns.
They already are widening it, bringing Belarus forces, attempting to hire Syrian forces for $300 lmao Chechens, etc it's sad how broad they are going while being the 5th largest military. Ukraine might be hard pressed though to hit the AA stations, only country I know that regularly defeats Rus AA is Israel in Syria and elsewhere. They fly sorties nearly daily in and around the area, and are hitting targets well within AA cover left and right. Supposedly s400 isn't deployed just yet, far as I've heard, but are the current Syrian AA are all Rus made regardless
A NFZ requires NATO to enforce it. This invites Russia to test NATO's resolve. If their probe is shot down then Putain has the initiative to start WW3. With no NFZ Russia might shoot down a NATO flight in neutral air space, say over Moldova, then NATO has the initiative to start WW3.
A NFZ invites Russia to take the initiative and act.
Not having a NFZ keeps the initiative with NATO which is then a deterrent for Russia to act.
With the failure of his Blitzkrieg Putain now has a dilemma, to plow into a war of attrition or stand down. Given his "final solution" of the "Ukrain problem" language and statements about NATO's weakness, he is unlikely to stand down. He is more likely to plow ahead whether or not a NFZ is set up.
As you point out, the success of a NFZ is dubious, as is the succes of a full on invasion of Ukraine, and it's down side means a greater disaster for humanity.
If Putain goes ahead there will be a humanitarian disaster but his ability to pull it off is doubtful. This leaves us with not a good choice but a choice of the lesser of two evils.
Bullshit.
did you intentionally spell Putin as Putain ^^ ?
It doesn't just invite Russia to test, it forces all out war. There is not a scenario in which Russia can allow a foreign nation to take their air power away during an active war just because they are told they can't use it. An NFZ is a declaration of war.
I like you clear explanation of the situation. You set out the problems nice and clearly.
Fraser
Yeah, Kuznetsov presence in the Mediterranean would complicate things for NATO... with massive black smoke cloud
A very good summary of an impossibly difficult situation. Personally I think a no-fly zone only has one use - to initiate direct conflict at a time to suit NATO. That would require all of NATO's assets to be in place and ready, they always have had defensive focus - anti tank/submarine - and would take time to organise. Not that we would be told much about it of course.
It would be completely impossible to miss a major NATO build up near Ukraine. Just as it's impossible to miss Russia massing troops in Belarus.
If war with Russia was on Nato's table, it would be obvious. Not the few thousand non Polish troops running around Poland, etc.
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 think another part of this you only sorta touched on is that a No Fly Zone would mean that Ukraine cant fly aircraft either.
While were seeing the dramatic footage of Russian jets over the large cities and population centers, Ukraine is claiming their aircraft are still flying, they're likely just flying in less populated areas and are less likely to get footage. If the US/NATO were to put a no fly in place, that means Ukrainian operations would either need to stop, meaning no Bayraktar strikes or strikes of any kind, or US/NATO would be obliged to shoot them down as well since if we only enforced the no fly against Russian jets thats not really a no fly, its just flying CAP/SEAD missions for Ukraine. Is that something Ukraine is willing to give up, especially given the success Bayraktar drones have seemingly been having interdicting Russian supplies and air defenses? Doubt it.
Ukraine can't fly planes over their own country? Well, they may decide not to do so because of organizational reasons. But this is a bit silly. I think this is why this notion of a no-fly zone is kind of silly. Like NATO is a neutral side. We already picked Ukraine's side. The question is if we keep helping indirectly until Ukraine loses. Or if we help directly to end the war in Ukraine's favour more quickly.
@@Prometheus4096 In a proper no fly zone you are incorrect. The point of a no fly zone is to demilitarize the skies completely, regardless of who is flying.
Enforcing a no fly zone for one party and not the other is not a no fly zone, its simply joining the war.
@@Chenstrapftw And you think Zelinsky is asking for NATO to shoot down his planes?
No fly zones are not set in stone. A no fly zone can be set up to keep Russian aircraft out but not the Ukrainian drones necessarily according to what I have read about them and their uses in Syria and Libya. They are not an exclusively one way implemented strategy. That being said. They can evolve into mission oriented flights to protect assets or civilians as seen in Libya.
Very good discussion of a very complicated subject.
Thank you for your conscientious work on this.
Stupid idea.
Ukraine calling for one isn't necessarily stupid, though. It produces the political appearance that Western countries are dragging their feet, refusing to do something the public misconceives as easy and effective.
@@grumpynerd I suppose that the west love their fascist spawn. I for one don't think that the fascist throwbacks should lead us in a world war.