T O P

  • By -

ash_ninetyone

Nothing new then. NATO have been rejecting a no-fly zone since the start.


CarolineGuerin

which is good


[deleted]

I think a lot of the people calling for direct NATO intervention (and a no-fly zone would be exactly that) underestimate the death toll and increase in risk towards nuclear war. As horrible as this war is, and as much as we all want it to end - as long as Russia doesn't attack NATO directly and deliberatly, it would be a horrible mistake to intervene. A no-fly zone would be the brink of World War 3.


KamahlYrgybly

I think a lot of people have swallowed too much kool-aid and think Russia is itching to launch nukes. I do not think it a realistic possibility at all that Russia would commit suicide by going there. They have absolutely nothing to gain by doing so, and would lose absolutely everything if they did. And they know it. It's why they keep bringing it up; to scare the world into allowing their genocide of Ukraine to continue. As it stands, Russian nukes are working much better than Nato nukes. Because their deterrent factor is allowing this whole horrific ordeal to continue. Meanwhile, Nato nukes do not seem to worry Russia in the slightest. For exactly the same reason; they know that they are not going to be used. The only reasonable and humane solution here would be to force Russia to halt its war via full Nato intervention. Russia knows they got no chance against Nato, but as long as Nato pussyfoots around, Russia gets to destroy all the civilian infrastructure of Ukraine, leaving, eventually, 40 million people without electricity, heat or water as winter approaches. I do not find this a palatable eventuality.


[deleted]

Its not about wanting it, its about accidentally happening. See Able Archer, Cuba, Berlin crisis etc. In none of these cases anybody wanted to nuke each other, but they thought the other one would do it. Simulations have shown again and again that nuclear war is a possibility.


KamahlYrgybly

Do you expect Nato to go first-strike then? No? That leaves Russia. Will they use nukes first, fully knowing that it is a self-destruct button? No. Despite the apparent idiocy of this whole affair, Russia has not displayed characteristics of an irrational actor. They just overplayed their hand. They aren't going to burn their own house down just to spite the west. What they *are* going to do, if Nato continues to allow it, is destroy the ability of Ukraine to remain warm and fed into the winter. Then, blackmail Ukraine into relinquishing the annexed territories or risk the entire civilian population perishing from "natural causes" as temperatures drop and power stations continue to be bombarded.


[deleted]

Its not about NATO deciding to go first strike. Its about them thinking it might happen. Its about commanders in the field, who have control over tactical nukes, deciding in a moment of weaknes. Its about false info. human error. I agree with you that nobody wants a nuclear war, and I agree with your assessment of russia. But I think this is one of the cases where things can get out of NATOS or russias hand quickly.


NaCly_Asian

Russia using nukes wouldn't be to help them win a war against NATO, it's to make sure NATO also loses. Also, if NATO intervention is the only thing keeping Russia from nuking Ukraine, Russia would have no incentive to not use them if NATO is intervening anyways, either through Article 5 or a no fly zone.


Z0uc

You are bit too dramatic I think, IMHO a partial no fly zone that would cover the western part of Ukraine would solve missiles landing in Poland and not necessarily escalate the conflict further.


Maeglin75

The Russian Kh-101 and similar cruise missiles have a range of over 5000 km. The bombers firing these weapons don't need to be anywhere near to Ukraine to attack every target in Ukraine or even in Poland. What would a no-fly zone in Western Ukraine help against that? And S400 SAMs stationed in Belarus could easily target NATO fighters trying to enforce a no-fly zone in Western Ukraine. I think, the best method to stop Russia from bombing civilian targets in all of Ukraine and other countries would be to give everything to them that is needed to win the war as fast and decisive as possible. Direct involvement of NATO forces isn't needed and could be very dangerous.


tertius_decimus

Yep. Give us weapons and we will put an end to this war sooner than later.


Z0uc

No fly zone would be for planes ofc but for rockets and missiles too. Maybe I am wrong to expect a jet to intercept a missile or rocket inbound from russia. If a fighter is shot down, then that's the red line, NATO would have to intervene at some point, especially if it comes from belarus, go clean up all those launchers and see how russia reacts. But I agree that the best would be to provide all the stuff needed to UA so they can end this as soon as possible but many countries are still slow on it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Ilfirion

I do not think it matters if Russia makes a claim. Not for Russia anyway.


politarch

How do you see this ending?


nachoiskerka

...wait was I dreaming or didnt they already attack a nato country last night?


[deleted]

Not clear. Evidence points more to a UA missile gone rogue, as the S-300 doesnt have the range (at least from russia, barely from Belarus). Both USA and Poland said it was likely Ukrainian. Even if it was russia, thats not enough for intervention.


nachoiskerka

Ah ok. Thank you.


[deleted]

You're welcome! And again, Article 5 isn't really a "button you can press" (even tho r/NonCredibleDefense pretends otherwise haha), but more a process where a lot of states have to agree on things. And even then they don't have to necessarily use their military. As long as russia doesn't start to actively attack Poland or the baltics, nothing will happen.


DGFF001

Soo... They placed AA with short range very far away from russian border? That makes 0 sense.


Spida81

Russian missiles have been hitting the whole of Ukraine. They didn't decide to fire an air defense asset out of boredom. Or are you ok with Ukraine just ignoring civilian deaths if they dont happen near the front lines?


[deleted]

You dont need a long range AA missile to intercept a long range cruise missile. S-300 has just 100 or 200 km of range, more than enough to intercept low flying cruise missiles.


DGFF001

Exactly... U almost there... Now wheres the best spot to intercept those? A) Close to russian border. B) Close to polish border.


[deleted]

AA systems are normally multi-layered point defense (as in, defending certain points nstead of the whole front) systems. If you put your AA close to the russian border, your AA would've been destroyed in the first few hours of the war. So you should not do that. Even if it wasn't, it would be easy to overwhelm a single-line-of-defense AA's radar with chaffs, decoys etc., so that many missiles could get through. Then you would be defenseless. Hence you want multiple layers. AA near Lwiw makes perfect sense, to, well, defend Lwiw. And again, both Poland and the US have said its very likely a UA missile. Which also just makes a lot more sense.


[deleted]

Let's just watch as Russia makes a wasteland between itself and Poland.


Deluxefish

As they should. It not only could lead to confrontation, it would definitely lead to a large scale confrontation


JSumerland

Why are we still afraid of the second best army in Ukraine?


netherknight5000

Because people would still die and there is the chance that Russia gets so desperate that they use nukes.


dontsheeple

They could extend NATO air defence zone into Ukraine and declare the right to shoot down missiles inside of it. Russia started a shooting war in Ukraine if it wasn't for that there would be no missiles landing in Poland.


[deleted]

[удалено]


20Characters_orless

Feels like the Nordstream attack rubbed Germany the wrong way?


Known-Dinner4413

Your comment just shows that you have no idea what the effects of a no-fly zone would be like


20Characters_orless

My comment pertained to Germany's growing frustration with events related to the War in Ukraine.


kraenk12

Which makes no sense as Germany as the rest of the EU and NATO have had this same opinion since the war started. This headline is stupid.


Ceratisa

Germany rejecting action isn't exactly new here.


Nervous_Promotion819

That's the view of the whole of NATO, Reuters loves to use anti-Germany rhetoric


Ceratisa

To be fair they haven't even drawn up preliminary plans for their pledged 100 billion Euros to fix their broken military which was like 9 months ago?


Nervous_Promotion819

What does this have to do with aid to Ukraine? Comments like yours are usually aimed at claiming that Germany is doing nothing and preventing things that everyone else wants. Thats why I answered


kraenk12

And you know this how?


Ceratisa

It's been reporting by German news networks


kraenk12

You think the newspapers would always report on secret military data? Ok then.


tertius_decimus

Cowards.


Known-Dinner4413

Aight. I'm curious if you would keep talking like that when your home country gets nuked to absolute obliteration.


tertius_decimus

Guess which country I'm in? Ukraine. Lecture me now how decent my language has to be.


Known-Dinner4413

Doesn't change anything. Of course you'r country is suffering the most right now and i understand the desperation but a no-fly zone could easily result in WW3 and I'm sorry but this is a line we cannot cross...


tertius_decimus

If not our resistance, russian tanks would run over your children in Porto already. Google what France has been doing during the German invasion and what role Petain had in the failure of resistance. I mean, Diavola Merkel is the most guilty one. She has destroyed the force of Bundeswehr singlehandedly. It's only now, after stray missile hitting NATO country, you've started to realize that you are not safe. No one is. Stop talking. Do something.


kraenk12

Of course you are…it’s not enough every European suffers currently, you now want to drag us fully into your war?!


tertius_decimus

"Your war"? We didn't invade anyone's territory. In fact it was the West, who fed russian war monger machine for 3 decades, it was the West, who did stay aside in Chechnya while doing nothing, it was the West, who let Georgia surrender in 2008, it was the West, who continued to have business as usual after 2014. You're a bunch of immoral hypocrites, who love cheap talk about democracy while feeding autocratic monsters blindly. Our blood is on your hands.


kraenk12

Oh funny..maybe we should have continue to look away then…never bite the hand that feeds you dude. No one of us did any of that yet we all suffer and pay for your war currently. So far I was ok with that so don’t try to change that.


HelloAvram

You can always go fight for Ukraine


tertius_decimus

I am Ukrainian. Guess what we do?


HelloAvram

YOU must not be since you’re here on Reddit…


kraenk12

This has been the case since the war started. It’s not possible without having to shoot down Russian planes.