Do you support the US enforcing a no fly zone in Ukraine?

[ColinC]

Generally the way I'm starting to feel about this is that we are not the ones being attacked. We are not fighting this war, and we are not directly on the border with a country that has made clear they think we belong to them. eastern European countries have been increasingly supportive of intervention such as no fly zones and peacekeeping missions entering the country.

These are the countries that are under direct threat, and if attacked even in a small way, would trigger a direct war with Russia. To me, all of the assumptions about a no fly zone are skipping several steps of escalation, some of which are already occurring without further action. To assume direct intervention would result in world war seems to be ignoring the fact that no intervention could also lead to the same thing. It is possible to consider options of greater involvement like a no fly zone in a risk-informed manner which does not directly result in world war 3 -as none of the previous skirmishes with Russian and NATO troops ever actually resulted in such a thing.

28 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes NATO should enforce a no fly zone in Ukraine.
	7 (25%)
	No. NATO should not enforce a no fly zone in Ukraine.
	21 (75%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Wingus Dingus]

1. Still no. It gets harder every day to resist the urge for

us to intervene in the face of Russia's terror campaign, but we shouldn't add oxygen to a fire that's starting to go out.

[Ohio Joe]

2. Pass

I think President Biden has worked excellently with our NATO partners dealing with the invasion of Ukraine and right now they are not going for it... I'll continue to defer and support their handling of the invasion, and keep my ignorant opinion of the subject to myself.

[orwell]

3. Please watch this video from the 40 minute mark...

...it is extremely relevant to this issue.

A NFZ is a gift to Putler at this point.

&t=2470s

[Celerity]

26. +10000000000000000

[Torchlight]

4. It's far too difficult for me to determine the consequences

both immediate as well as long-term.



Though it certainly would have helped stem the tides of death in the Second Congo War, the oppression of the Uhgyars, Darfur, Second Sudanese Civil War, etc., those conflicts never seemed quite as popular among the prime-time-audiences as this particular conflict. Obvious reasons, I'd guess.

[marie999]

5. A no fly zone is you can't fly over the White House. This would be combat NATO against Russia.

[ColinC]

6. Only if Russia is stupid enough to stay

They have been the main escalators of this situation since day one primarily because they have gone unchallenged. Intervention like this would likely immediately end the conflict, as Putin is pathologically opportunistic but not suicidal.

[marie999]

11. And if they stay? What if Russian planes shoot down a couple of American planes?

[ColinC]

18. They are more likely to attack Poland. Again. They aren't that stupid.

Russia has avoided NATO troops at every opportunity. This wouldn't be different. However, the recent attack on the training center was only 10 miles from Poland. If they are stupid enough to attack NATO, they will do it entirely the same way they did with Ukraine: completely unprovoked and claiming they won't. Either way would cause is nuclear war, but only one would more likely prevent it.

[relayerbob]

19. You don't understand Russian war planning

They WANT to provoke us into this. They believe that a limited tactical nuclear war is winnable, and have been practicing it for years.

A frightening prophetic article from 2015. Biden has deliberately pushed the Russians out of their planning and comfort zone. https://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8845913/russia-war

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

22. I think this is a problem for many in general

People in the West are looking at things through a Western mindset, not a Russian one. We differ quite a bit culturally and philosophically and this extends into their military mindset as well. We think using a nuclear weapon is absolutely horrifying and only to be done under the most dire of circumstances. The Russians do not think that at all. They see tactical nuclear weapons and strategic nuclear weapons as very different things and believe that escalating to the use of tactical nukes during a conventional war is a valid strategy to get get things to go in their favor. As you have said, they believe a limited nuclear war is winnable.

[relayerbob]

28. EXactly, in fact

they are trying to use that revulsion against us, to divide the West. A country that can take hospitals hostage and bomb cities into ruins, will not have qualms about taking out an airbase with a tactical nuke, and then (they would hope) that NATO would be so horrified that we do anything and agree to anything, to prevent another one from getting used.

[FakeNoose]

7. You're asking the wrong question

If we declare Ukraine a "no-fly" zone, we are effectively declaring war on Russia. It means we'll go in and shoot down Russian planes, missiles, etc. Putin will then be free to declare war on us and bring out the nukes.

Are we ready to do that? Hell No!

[ColinC]

10. How else would you "enforce" a no fly zone?

[FakeNoose]

20. That's the point, we cannot declare a "no fly" zone

... unless we're ready to start World War III.

[relayerbob]

8. The "No Fly Zone" is a misleading term

As far off the mark as "Special Military Operation". It requires 24/7 combat air patrols by hundreds of fighters, plus AWACS and tankers, covering a country the size of Texas. The Russians will shoot planes down with SAMs, even if they withhold flying planes (which they probably won't). To prevent that, we have to hit SAMs in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. A "No Fly Zone" is effectively a declaration of an air war against Ukraine. They will then be justified in telling their people they are fighting NATO and might even strike Ukraine with a nuke, killing WAY more people than are dying now. Yes, Ukraine will be first on the list, to try to frighten everyone off. After that, if we don't back off, airfields in Poland, etc.

Hard pass on that. I support sending them MiGs, even if they aren't really all that useful, every S-300 we can get our hands on, and drones for taking out artillery.

[ColinC]

9. How else would you "enforce" a no fly zone?

[marie999]

13. You don't have a no fly zone.

[relayerbob]

15. You can't. That's the point

So, you're OK with triggering a much wider war in Europe? One that will actually unify the Russian people against the West and supporting Putin. Tactically bad, strategically worse.

[MineralMan]

12. Way, way over my pay grade.

Not a decision I can vote on. I don't have enough information.

[sarisataka]

14. What previous NATO/ Russia skirmishes?

[RocRizzo55]

16. Absolutely no way!

A no-fly zone would equate to a hot war with Russia. A hot war with Russia would be nuclear suicide for the human race.

[HAB911]

17. Yes

it's now or later, and later will be worse

[ColinC]

21. It will definitely be later.

[BlueTsunami2018]

23. No.

I don’t want another war.

[Celerity]

24. Hell no. Hard pass on WWIII starting through something this avoidable.

To assume direct intervention would result in world war seems to be ignoring the fact that no intervention could also lead to the same thing.

False choice dilemma as the 2nd part is pure speculation, versus the VERY high probability that shooting down Russian jets (will will deffo occur if we do a no fly zone over Ukraine) WILL kick off WWIII.

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. I don't support the idea of WWIII. Which is REALLY what you're asking.

And a no-fly zone would not be effective anyway, not against artillery and missiles (which is what the Russians are actually using, mostly, and not planes).

[Torchlight]

27. What previous NATO/Russian military engagements are you referring to?

Or are you just up-selling previous and documented NATO/Russia conflicts of interest?

[ColinC]

30. Only asking if anybody agrees with Zelenskyy about the no fly zone.

Apparently nobody thinks he should have what he is asking for.

[Talitha]

29. I defer to the professionals in charge.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

31. For me, it's still a hard NO. nt