Russia invades Ukraine

[Tester]

This is why the poll is pointless, the average person doesn't understand that enforcing a no-fly zone IS military intervention and WILL involve firing on enemies to enforce it. And in any case it doesn't really matter, wars may not be conducted in a cultural vacuum but what Joe on the street thinks will be of almost no consequence whatsoever whether NATO decide to declare a no fly zone (read: shoot down Russian aircraft and effectively join the war).

Indeed.

It is why a poll on the restoration of capital punishment is not a good idea.

And indeed a poll on Brexit is not a good idea.

Oh, wait.....

 

[najaB]

In the end, if you're not willing to take the risk that hostilities might escalate, then you have no defence against any aggressors - and the irony is, you therefore have the near-certainty that eventually you will be faced with war.

As you say, it's about risk. And, sad to say, the risk isn't worth the benefit. In the big picture - meaning ignoring the individual suffering and instead focusing on the populations en-masse - the West is much better served by helping the Ukrainians give the Russian forces a massive bloody nose in a conventional war in Ukraine, than we are taking Putin on directly.

Consider the Baltic states. I'm sure that Putin would love to bring them back 'where they belong'. What's stopping him? The fear of starting a war with NATO. If we start the war, what does he have to lose?

 

[DustyBin]

While I understand the fear of that, the problem is, that if you take the line that you're not going to do anything because you fear the small possibility that it might escalate, then you're in exactly the place that @Annetts key pointed out - where you may as well just tell Putin to take whatever he wants because you will always roll over. In the end, if you're not willing to take the risk that hostilities might escalate, then you have no defence against any aggressors - and the irony is, you therefore have the near-certainty that eventually you will be faced with war.

The thing is that he hasn’t crossed any “red lines” as of yet (although morally he certainly has) and I don’t think he wants to. Let’s assume Ukraine (or at least Kyiv) falls; his forces have been seriously roughed up in the process, his economy is in tatters and he’s isolated on the world stage. He’ll also most likely still be fighting a fierce and well equipped insurgency. What makes you think, off the back off this, he’d have any appetite to take on a NATO country, and by default NATO itself?

 

[DarloRich]

As much as I would love to see it and would love even more to unleash NATO air forces against that column crawling towards Kyiv it is a terrible no good bad idea

I agree - I want to say bomb them back to Volgograd but we simply cant.

 

[tommy2215]

While I understand the fear of that, the problem is, that if you take the line that you're not going to do anything because you fear the small possibility that it might escalate, then you're in exactly the place that @Annetts key pointed out - where you may as well just tell Putin to take whatever he wants because you will always roll over. In the end, if you're not willing to take the risk that hostilities might escalate, then you have no defence against any aggressors - and the irony is, you therefore have the near-certainty that eventually you will be faced with war.

So you are prepared to intervene at absolutely whatever the cost? As great as it would be to, we cannot save every country in the world. You seem to be ignoring all the massive wider implications

 

[DynamicSpirit]

As you say, it's about risk. And, sad to say, the risk isn't worth the benefit. In the big picture - meaning ignoring the individual suffering and instead focusing on the populations en-masse - the West is much better served by helping the Ukrainians give the Russian forces a massive bloody nose in a conventional war in Ukraine, than we are taking Putin on directly.

Consider the Baltic states. I'm sure that Putin would love to bring them back 'where they belong'. What's stopping him? The fear of starting a war with NATO. If we start the war, what does he have to lose?

But wouldn't the same logic you're using apply to the Baltic States? Say, once Ukraine is conquered, Putin decides to invade Estonia. He tells us that if any other NATO countries interfere, the response will be like nothing we've ever seen. So, agreement to defend a NATO country notwithstanding, you have a choice. You can leave Estonia to its fate and withdraw the non-Estonian NATO forces there, knowing that by doing so you've definitely prevented humanity from suffering a civilization-destroying nuclear war. Or you can defend Estonia and repel the Russian attack, but with the fear that it just might escalate and end up in a nuclear war. If you're not willing to defend Ukraine, why would you be willing to defend Estonia, knowing that the risks are exactly the same. Ditto Latvia. Then Lithuania. And so on....

 

[Iskra]

But wouldn't the same logic you're using apply to the Baltic States? Say, once Ukraine is conquered, Putin decides to invade Estonia. He tells us that if any other NATO countries interfere, the response will be like nothing we've ever seen. So, agreement to defend a NATO country notwithstanding, you have a choice. You can leave Estonia to its fate and withdraw the non-Estonian NATO forces there, knowing that by doing so you've definitely prevented humanity from suffering a civilization-destroying nuclear war. Or you can defend Estonia and repel the Russian attack, but with the fear that it just might escalate and end up in a nuclear war. If you're not willing to defend Ukraine, why would you be willing to defend Estonia, knowing that the risks are exactly the same. Ditto Latvia. Then Lithuania. And so on....

The difference is Nato membership. But, yes I agree with what you are saying. You are either committed to the defence of the free world, or you aren't in my opinion. And disappointingly, we don't seem that interested. However, it could well come out in the future that we have done x, y and z covertly, but it's not solving the immediate Ukrainian air defence issues and it isn't decisively stopping the green snake approaching Kiev.

 

[najaB]

But wouldn't the same logic you're using apply to the Baltic States? Say, once Ukraine is conquered, Putin decides to invade Estonia. He tells us that if any other NATO countries interfere, the response will be like nothing we've ever seen.

The difference is that it would now be Putin testing our resolve to defend a NATO member state. Which is a completely different situation to our resolve to get involved in a third-country.

Even a conventional war between NATO and Russia, in a NATO country (meaning super-short supply lines for us and extremely long ones for them) wouldn't end well for Russia.

 

[brad465]

With the exception of their oil and gas still being imported somewhat, I think the West is more or less doing everything it can reasonably do for now, even if some action is belated.

EDIT: It turns out a lot of "self-sanctioning" is going on, with Russian crude being shunned:

Subscribe to the Financial Times

A subscription to the Financial Times provides you with the insights and perspective you need to succeed, now.

on.ft.com

Big energy consumers are boycotting Russian crude following Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in moves that helped to push oil prices above $110 a barrel on Wednesday.

This does create a delicious irony that Putin's war has driven up oil prices, but his country isn't benefitting.

 

[Yew]

Please can you provide evidence for this. And that doesn't mean some random posting on Twitter. Has there been a poll done? Can we see the results? Is there really a huge public support for shooting down Russian aircraft and starting World War 3?

Who said anything about starting world war three? It’s a no fly zone, not an amphibious assault on St Petersburg.

 

[yorkie]

A no fly zone cannot simply be 'declared'; it has to be enforced. In effect, it would likely be the start of a war.

 

[najaB]

Who said anything about starting world war three? It’s a no fly zone, not an amphibious assault on St Petersburg.

What do you think Russia's response will be when a NATO fighter takes down some Russian attack aircraft? Or an Il-76 full of paratroopers?

 

[Yew]

What do you think Russia's response will be when a NATO fighter takes down some Russian attack aircraft? Or an Il-76 full of paratroopers?

You seem to have some vivid ideas, what exactly do you think? Bearing in mind that a group of part time soldiers have brought the Russian army to a standstill…

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm struggling to understand why people don't seem to be able to process that if you establish a no-fly zone you have to enforce it and what that then means. if you enforce it against aircraft which ignore the no-fly zone that will require shooting down aircraft that fail to abide by the requirements of the no-fly zone. Once you do that whoever's aircraft you've shot down will respond in kind and begin trying to shoot down the aircraft of the enforcer of the no-fly zone. At that point you are in a shooting war with the other party. Surely it is not a difficult concept to grasp how that happens? And then further how that could lead to significant escalation?

Or are we honestly suggesting that if NATO starts dropping Russian helicopters and fighter jets that they'll just pack up their things and go home? Really? Is that what we'd do if the position was reversed?

Of course it won't be we shoot down a Russian aircraft and Putin nukes London. But it the escalation that is the threat. Getting into a shooting war with Russia, which is what we'd be doing, is inherently extremely dangerous.

 

[najaB]

You seem to have some vivid ideas, what exactly do you think? Bearing in mind that a group of part time soldiers have brought the Russian army to a standstill…

You'll note that the Russian Air Force has been largely absent from this conflict (which make a no-fly zone largely irrelevant), but a conflict between them and NATO has the potential to escalate very rapidly.

 

[Darandio]

You seem to have some vivid ideas, what exactly do you think? Bearing in mind that a group of part time soldiers have brought the Russian army to a standstill…

This sums up precisely the point I was making in post #1102.

 

[DustyBin]

I'm struggling to understand why people don't seem to be able to process that if you establish a no-fly zone you have to enforce it and what that then means. if you enforce it against aircraft which ignore the no-fly zone that will require shooting down aircraft that fail to abide by the requirements of the no-fly zone. Once you do that whoever's aircraft you've shot down will respond in kind and begin trying to shoot down the aircraft of the enforcer of the no-fly zone. At that point you are in a shooting war with the other party. Surely it is not a difficult concept to grasp how that happens? And then further how that could lead to significant escalation?

Or are we honestly suggesting that if NATO starts dropping Russian helicopters and fighter jets that they'll just pack up their things and go home? Really? Is that what we'd do if the position was reversed?

Of course it won't be we shoot down a Russian aircraft and Putin nukes London. But it the escalation that is the threat. Getting into a shooting war with Russia, which is what we'd be doing, is inherently extremely dangerous.

Exactly, and in addition there's the point made by @adc82140; a no fly zone means just that. No more Ukrainian drone strikes. Given the limited involvement of the Russian Air Force to date (what's going on there I've no idea) it would hurt Ukraine as much as it would Russia. Unless of course people think it's only Russian aircraft that should be prohibited from entering, in which case NATO would to all intents and purposes be joining the war....

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'm struggling to understand why people don't seem to be able to process that if you establish a no-fly zone you have to enforce it and what that then means. if you enforce it against aircraft which ignore the no-fly zone that will require shooting down aircraft that fail to abide by the requirements of the no-fly zone. Once you do that whoever's aircraft you've shot down will respond in kind and begin trying to shoot down the aircraft of the enforcer of the no-fly zone. At that point you are in a shooting war with the other party. Surely it is not a difficult concept to grasp how that happens? And then further how that could lead to significant escalation?

Or are we honestly suggesting that if NATO starts dropping Russian helicopters and fighter jets that they'll just pack up their things and go home? Really? Is that what we'd do if the position was reversed?

Of course it won't be we shoot down a Russian aircraft and Putin nukes London. But it the escalation that is the threat. Getting into a shooting war with Russia, which is what we'd be doing, is inherently extremely dangerous.

Sure, and I totally get that if we did something like enforce a no-fly zone or something similar (assuming doing so is helpful to the Ukrainians, and I'm aware there are questions about that), that may involve shooting down Russian aircraft, and that may lead to them shooting back. But I'm pretty confident that in such a conflict, we would easily win, and Russian aircraft would then no longer be able to operate over Ukraine.

But the fear people are expressing is that that will somehow lead to a (nuclear?) conflict in NATO countries, outside Ukraine. How could that happen? Well if we went in on the request of the Ukrainian Government, on the strict basis that we are defending Ukraine, and we are not doing anything other than defend Ukraine against invading forces that are actually inside the country, then clearly that means we would not be shooting at anything that isn't already illegally in Ukraine. So any escalation outside Ukraine would be entirely Russia's doing. If we have made our inside-Ukraine-only rules of engagement clear from the start, then it would be a huge and dramatic escalation by Russia to attack any NATO forces outside Ukraine. Would Russia do that? Obviously there are no certainties, but one very strong pattern in Putin's behaviour seems to be that he never escalates to anything that he doesn't believe he will win, so on that basis an escalation outside Ukraine seems extremely unlikely. I get that we are dealing with risks of extremely unpleasant things, but that's the case whatever we do or don't do. And ultimately we have to ask, are we willing to defend the free World or aren't we?

 

[najaB]

Well if we went in on the request of the Ukrainian Government, on the strict basis that we are defending Ukraine, and we are not doing anything other than defend Ukraine against invading forces that are actually inside the country, then clearly that means we would not be shooting at anything that isn't already illegally in Ukraine. So any escalation outside Ukraine would be entirely Russia's doing.

To borrow a quote: War doesn't prove who was right, just who is left.

 

[DustyBin]

To borrow a quote: War doesn't prove who was right, just who is left.

Very succinct!

 

[TheEdge]

The only way I see any military intervention happening is if it's a UN Peacekeeping force led by a non-NATO country that is politically acceptable to Russia.

Israel, China, India, Japan, South Korea, maybe.

 

[najaB]

The only way I see any military intervention happening is if it's a UN Peacekeeping force led by a non-NATO country that is politically acceptable to Russia.

Israel, China, India, Japan, South Korea, maybe.

Not so sure about Israel, and Russia and Japan are still at war, are they not?

 

[TheEdge]

Not so sure about Israel, and Russia and Japan are still at war, are they not?

They are the ones that jump to mind as militarily strong enough and not actual NATO member's. Although Israel, SK and Japan are probably too aligned with the US.

 

[nw1]

I'm struggling to understand why people don't seem to be able to process that if you establish a no-fly zone you have to enforce it and what that then means. if you enforce it against aircraft which ignore the no-fly zone that will require shooting down aircraft that fail to abide by the requirements of the no-fly zone. Once you do that whoever's aircraft you've shot down will respond in kind and begin trying to shoot down the aircraft of the enforcer of the no-fly zone. At that point you are in a shooting war with the other party. Surely it is not a difficult concept to grasp how that happens? And then further how that could lead to significant escalation?

Or are we honestly suggesting that if NATO starts dropping Russian helicopters and fighter jets that they'll just pack up their things and go home? Really? Is that what we'd do if the position was reversed?

Of course it won't be we shoot down a Russian aircraft and Putin nukes London. But it the escalation that is the threat. Getting into a shooting war with Russia, which is what we'd be doing, is inherently extremely dangerous.

Exactly. Thankfully in this case, I doubt the NATO and the military are going to listen to ignorant journalists and uninformed members of the public who do not understand these issues.

 

[DustyBin]

The only way I see any military intervention happening is if it's a UN Peacekeeping force led by a non-NATO country that is politically acceptable to Russia.

Israel, China, India, Japan, South Korea, maybe.

My thoughts exactly, as per my previous posts on the subject. Unlikely to happen though sadly.

 

[Butts]

I wonder if the Ukranians regret giving up their once formidable Nuclear Arsenal ?

 

[DarloRich]

You'll note that the Russian Air Force has been largely absent from this conflict (which make a no-fly zone largely irrelevant), but a conflict between them and NATO has the potential to escalate very rapidly.

An interesting article from Royal United Services Institute on the Mysterious Case of the Missing Russian Air Force : https://rusi.org/explore-our-resear...ary/mysterious-case-missing-russian-air-force

The Russian invasion of Ukraine began as expected in the early hours of 24 February: a large salvo of cruise and ballistic missiles destroyed the main ground-based early warning radars throughout Ukraine. The result was to effectively blind the Ukrainian Air Force (UkrAF), and in some cases also hinder aircraft movements by cratering runways and taxiways at its major airbases. Strikes also hit several Ukrainian long-range S-300P surface-to-air missile (SAM) batteries, which had limited mobility due to a long-term lack of spares. These initial stand-off strikes followed the pattern seen in many US-led interventions since the end of the Cold War. The logical and widely anticipated next step, as seen in almost every military conflict since 1938, would have been for the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) to mount large-scale strike operations to destroy the UkrAF.........

Instead, the roughly 300 modern combat aircraft which the VKS have positioned within easy range of the main contact zones in northern, eastern and southern Ukraine appear to have largely stayed on the ground throughout the first four days of fighting. This has allowed the UkrAF to continue flying low-level defensive counter-air (DCA) and ground-attack sorties, and these appear to have had some successes in intercepting Russian attack helicopters.

However reports now seem to show that Russian Aircraft are becoming more involved in the fight - perhaps because as the article suggests they aren't bothered about precision attacks.

 

[the sniper]

I think they held off the air force either because they didn't intend to use them en masse (going in relatively softly, imagining that they'd keep the Ukrainian public onside/less hostile) and/or because they didn't want to show their hand to the West in using them.

 

[TheEdge]

My thoughts exactly, as per my previous posts on the subject. Unlikely to happen though sadly.

Problem is I can think of one that isn't very US aligned (Korea, Japan, Israel), less US aligned but still very Anglosphere (Australia), stable enough at home to run a multinational military operation (Brasil, South Africa, Mexico, maybe African Union?) or willing to work with others that would probably include NATO forces (China). India maybe is the best of the bunch.

 

[Caboose Class]

The only way I see any military intervention happening is if it's a UN Peacekeeping force led by a non-NATO country that is politically acceptable to Russia.

Israel, China, India, Japan, South Korea, maybe.

And how many Peacekeepers would be required to keep the peace in a country the size of Ukraine? 25,000 Peacekeepers were deployed in Bosnia. Ukraine is about twelve times the size of Bosnia, so you would need somewhere in the region of 300,000 Peacekeepers which automatically rules out Israel, Japan & South Korea who don't even have that number of active military.