Question: If NATO air power would be sufficient to secure victory for Ukraine...

[BlueCheeseAgain]

... would you be willing to use it?

I'm going back and forth on this myself. After Afghanistan, I figured that there are limits to what American military power can accomplish, and that there are going to be tragic situations in the world that we simply can't fix.

But it is very hard to watch a free, democratic country stand and fight an aggressive dictator and stand idly by. With Ukrainian forces putting up a valiant defense of their country, it seems that NATO support could give Ukraine the decisive edge it needs.

I know the argument that this could escalate to a nuclear conflict, and that is a terrifying thought. But taken to its logical conclusion, that reasoning says we can never fight Putin, even if it were for defending a NATO country.

So what do you all think?

[PortTack]

1. President Zelensky with good reason does not want US or NATO fire power in Ukraine

His country would become a bombed out shell, or worse.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

3. Is that really the case?

He seems to be broadcasting strident pleas for help of all kinds, and is accusing the West of turning their backs on Ukraine.

[Wingus Dingus]

7. That's for domestic purposes.

That's to let Ukrainians know they have to defend themselves and not wait for rescue from Europe or the US.

[Lithos]

2. No

But I would not mind the use of drones, even more so if control was given over to Ukrainian "pilots".

[uponit7771]

4. It would but Pentagon is reporting Russia does ***NOT*** have air superiority yet. Maybe UKR

... doesn't need it?

Jus sayin

[BlueCheeseAgain]

5. It's kind of a hypothetical question.

But what if Ukraine had air superiority in the form of NATO? If that would allow them to win the war, would you do it?

[uponit7771]

6. Not kinetically, but radar support would be MUCH needed and most likely used.

[Wingus Dingus]

8. That's called World War Three.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

9. Let's suppose Putin attacks Lithuania, a NATO ally next.

Do we fight him there? Or do we say that would lead to WW3, and also refuse to intervene?

[Wingus Dingus]

10. That's also WW3.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

12. So what would you do, then?

Defend Lithuania, or not?

[Wingus Dingus]

13. Defend Lithuania and prepare for the worst.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

17. Okay, thanks for the answer.

So I guess what you're saying is that we can risk WW3 for a NATO country, but not Ukraine. That's a reasonable position.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

15. NATO has been crystal clear that ANY ATTACK ON A NATO MEMBER WILL BE CONSIDERED

AN ATTACK ON ALL NATO MEMBERS AND WILL BE MET WITH EXTREME VIOLENCE.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

21. I know that.

I'm just trying to see if when people say, "We can't defend Ukraine-- that would be WW3.", that means we can never risk fighting WW3.

What I'm hearing is that people are willing to risk WW3 for Lithuania but not Ukraine, because of NATO. Which is reasonable.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

23. Spot on. nt

[Jedi Guy]

19. Under the terms of the NATO charter and Article 5 in particular, yes. We fight him there.

Otherwise NATO is revealed as utterly toothless and useless, and Putin can do as he likes. The risk of the conflict escalating and becoming widespread is certainly there, as is the risk of a nuclear exchange. But Article 5 must be the line in the sand that cannot be crossed.

If NATO stands around doing nothing after a member country is attacked, then the post-war liberal democratic order is well and truly dead, and it's every man for himself.

[Lancero]

38. The big question would be if Article 5 is in effect when the attack is retaliatory.

I wouldn't be surprised if certain NATO members who were once part of the USSR eventually go against NATO and declare war independently.

NATO was formed to protect member nations against Russian aggression - So would it really be in line with NATOs purpose to declare war on Russia, if all they've done is defend themselves against a NATO member that attacked them first?

[bottrott]

22. Requires attacking assets in both Belarus and Russia WWIII

By all reports, Russia has moved anti-air assets with a ranges of 250km up to 400km into Belarus and along the Russian border with Ukraine. In order to do what you propose, those assets and the shorter range anti-air assets as part of each battle group, would need to be eliminated. There's no reason to hold back armor at that point because they sure as hell won't just "let" NATO control the skies. No way NATO targets assets within Russia without a formal declaration of war nor flies missions under threat of attack.

[WarGamer]

11. Of course not.

WW3

[BlueCheeseAgain]

14. Okay, let me ask a followup that I've also posted above.

Would you defend Lithuania (a NATO ally) against Russian invasion?

[WarGamer]

16. Yes, because we're BOUND to it by treaty

[BlueCheeseAgain]

18. So something being WW3 is not necessarily a reason to avoid it.

[WarGamer]

20. Bottom line...

One, NATO air power wouldn't be the deciding factor.

The Russians can make a play for air superiority no matter who is trying to take it.

Two, the fact that NATO is a TREATY... is why IMHO, Putin doesn't EVER hit NATO.

Putin believes he has a "hall pass" re: Ukraine... possibly because no NATO or because of the US actions in Iraq where he didn't send military.

The best outcome is for Ukraine to jack up the Russians badly and make them retreat without completing objectives.

[Happy Hoosier]

26. I'll say this....

NATO air power would sweep the Russians from the sky rather quickly. No question IMHO.

But it's a moot point. We won't engage directly, unless Putin is stupid enough to cross that very deadly line.

[WarGamer]

27. I don't think people understand the issues here...

Experts recognize that Russian AA gear is the best on Earth... the S-400's etc.

And a Rand Study said that the new SU-35S could take out 2.5 F35's for every one lost.

I wish people wouldn't be so damn excited about a war.

No NATO wouldn't sweep the sky, sheesh. The Russians have 58 battalions of S400's alone

At best you've got a battleground with hundreds of downed NATO jets...

Good luck.

I've studied war for 40 years. War sucks but unfortunately, war IS the human condition.

[Happy Hoosier]

30. I work in tactical aviation

I work on tactical jets every day. I am an R&D engineer. I can assure you I know this issue very, very well. Thanksverymuch.

Any study that says the Su-35 can take out 2.5 F-35 for every loss is absolute crap and you should ignore it. And israeli F-35’s launched raids into Syria and the S-400’s never saw them.

[WarGamer]

31. Woohoo! Then war it is.

I prefer peace.

[Happy Hoosier]

32. I prefer peace too. Unfortunately there is a war.

Now I do not advocate for direct NATO intervention, but not because of some overblown regard for Russia’s supposed military prowess.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. The threat is that Putin would invoke the nuclear option to avoid a humiliating defeat

But everything I have read and heard is that we could own the skies over Ukraine if we wanted to. I'm for doing everything possible short of direct military involvement to help our Ukrainian friends

[Happy Hoosier]

36. I agree with you completely. NT

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. Is Putin a rational actor?

Does he attack a NATO member? He's like a suicide bomber who will blow himself up.and you if he doesn't get what he wants. How do you deter someone like that?

[Jedi Guy]

25. I see the argument you're making and to some extent, I agree.

You're arguing that, treaty obligations or not, aiding Ukraine militarily against Russia is the right thing to do. It's difficult to argue against the morality of that position, particularly when framed against an attack on a NATO member. The only difference between the two is a piece of paper. Morally they're pretty much identical.

Unfortunately, there's not really a "good" answer here. I think the West's secret hope is that Putin will stop short of attacking a NATO member, judging that the risks outweigh the benefits. But if he perceives that the West's reluctance to aid Ukraine means that it has no belly for a fight regardless, then things are going to get really, really interesting.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

29. Thank you. You expressed my point much better than I did.

[Happy Hoosier]

24. If NATO committed to an air campaign....

... that included targeting ground forces, we could certainly achieve air dominance and pound the crap out of ground forces. A no-fly zone would slow the advance down, but not sure it could allow the Ukrainians to push Russian forces back.

The Problem with a no-kidding air campaign in Ukraine is that in reality it would require attacking Forces in Russia. We won't do that.

What we could and SHOULD do, IMO, is supply the Ukrainians with Javelins and Stingers out the wazoo.

We could also supply them with real time surveillance data.

[Sgent]

28. Unlike other recent wars

Russia has capable air defense -- something even we don't have -- in the form of S300 and S400 anti-air batteries. To achieve air superiority we would by necessity have to bomb Russian positions directly, so its more than just establishing a "no fly zone".

[dwayneb]

34. Remember that only ground troops can actually hold ground

Air power can accomplish a lot of things and can help infantry achieve specific objectives, but at the end of the day it take infantry/ground forces to actually hold ground.

Russia actually has a more powerful ground force that we do in the USA. They have deliberately put their investment in their infantry because their intent has always been to rebuild the old Soviet empire in Europe.

US air power might slow down the process but the only way to stop Putin, either in Ukraine or in other parts of Europe is to deploy boots on the ground.

[maxrandb]

35. We may find out

It would be "dicey", but I think if Putin were to start indiscriminate bombing of civilians, NATO may impose and enforce a "no-fly" zone.

Without air support for Russian ground troops, Ukraine could very well repel the invaders.

If we wanted to, the United States alone could take control of the air space.

[roamer65]

39. Only to establish a safe zone for refugees in NW Ukraine.

Probably 25 to 50 miles into it.