22

Zelensky has recently requested NATO to set up a no-fly zone over Ukraine hoping to reduce the bombing and NATO rejected this request. The main reason provided for this was not dragging the alliance in this conflict.

I am wondering about how could setting up such a no-fly zone actually be implemented in the current context. The announcement would be the easy part, but it is not clear how could NATO actually enforce it since it explicitly stated to not send any NATO troops to Ukraine.

Alexei
  • 52,716
  • 43
  • 186
  • 345
  • 9
    I don't understand the question. Are you asking how NATO would shoot down Russian planes if they declare a no-fly zone? If so, the obvious answer is "with long-range anti-aircraft weapons or with their own planes". Are you thinking about something else? – Allure Mar 05 '22 at 13:54
  • @Allure Yes, I am interested in how NATO can actually enforce it without troops on the ground and fighters in Ukraine's airspace (as repeatedly declared by NATO officials). I guess "long-range anti-aircraft weapons" would do the job, but I guess that would immediately involved NATO in the war. – Alexei Mar 05 '22 at 16:51
  • In a word, ww3 . – eps Mar 05 '22 at 22:49
  • 2
    @Alexei NATO would have to use anti-aircraft weapons or their own planes to shoot down Russian aircraft if they declare a no-fly zone. So yes, it would immediately involve NATO in the war. It does not have to involve NATO ground troops in Ukraine, however. – Allure Mar 06 '22 at 00:13
  • 2
    I upvoted this question because of the title- people literally need to know what a nfz would actually mean. – Damila Mar 06 '22 at 04:30
  • It would mean shooting down Russian warplanes. Which would draw anyone who did that into the war. – RBarryYoung Mar 06 '22 at 14:32

3 Answers3

30

Enforcing a no-fly zone would mean several things:

  • telling Russia that it can not fly its military aircraft over all, or portions, of Ukraine, a country that is not in NATO.

  • flying NATO aircraft over that airspace and using those NATO aircraft to shoot down Russian aircraft violating the no-fly order.

  • most likely it would also mean engaging with, and destroying, Russia surface to air missile systems (SAMs) that actively threaten NATO aircraft flying those interdiction patrols.

(the fact that the no-fly zone over Ukraine would be imposed at Ukraine's request, as an unjustly aggressed nation, changes zilch/nada/nothing to the above statements)

Further reading: THE DANGEROUS ALLURE OF THE NO-FLY ZONE

I am going to speculate here, but I suspect Zelinsky is well aware of the extreme nuclear escalation risks associated with this and only half-expects this to happen. However, he is also extremely media savvy and clearly understands that Western public opinion is distressed at "not doing enough" about Russia's aggression, especially as the war is progressing to a Grozny/Aleppo style of brutally leveling cities.

The fact that our leaders have no choice but to "meekly refuse to help" could be very helpful leverage to pressure Western countries to get more sanctions going against Russia as well as more lethal help.

Certainly while the unexpectedly dismal effectiveness of the Russian army is entirely due to Ukrainians' willingness to fight against overwhelming odds, the volume and severity of sanctions, boycotts and lethal aid against Russia - including from habitual foot-draggers like Germany - already far outweigh what anyone could have expected a month ago and may very well tip the balance in the long term. Maintaining the pressure on the West to keep up, and expand those sanctions is likely a key concern to Zelensky.

p.s. Previous no-fly zones, in Iraq and Yugoslavia, involved active shooting from NATO aircraft. There is no way around it unless the targeted nation submits from the onset.

p.p.s. No-fly zones aren't going to be enforced only by NATO surface to air missiles not located in Ukraine either. Even if that was technically possible, which I highly, highly, doubt (especially in a context where Russian planes being interdicted are flying low-level ground attack runs), that would just be inviting disaster like shooting down Russian medevac helicopters or the like. Additionally, it would only invite Russian to retaliate against units on NATO territory, not Ukraine, making this an even more daft policy. Last, Kiyv, the closest main fighting area is about 350km from Romania, the closest NATO country, while Odessa's area, closer to South Eastern Romania is still a considerable distance away (150k?) and sees no current fighting. Those are not within easy SAM ranges.

p.p.p.s As @llama points out, suppressing threatening Russian SAM batteries would be especially fraught for those based on Russian territory rather than in Ukraine itself.

Italian Philosophers 4 Monica
  • 83,219
  • 11
  • 197
  • 338
  • 2
    In some cases, a no-fly zone could also be monitored, but not enforced. This eg happened in Yugoslavia, where violations of the no-fly zone weren't acted on for 6 months (though that might not be a practical approach for the current situation). – tim Mar 05 '22 at 17:51
  • 14
    A no-fly zone that is not enforced isn't an actual no-fly zone in any meaningful practical sense. And, note how the Yugoslav mission ended up hot anyway. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Mar 05 '22 at 19:04
  • 1
    Enforcing a no-fly zone using missiles based outside Ukraine can't work. Patriot launchers firing the MIM-104D have a range of less than 160 km, barely enough to cover Lviv if fired from Poland, or Odessa if fired from Romania. The SM-6 (330 km) could cover most of western Ukraine, but not Kyiv. However, 1) it's ship-launched, not ground-launched, and 2) Russia has more airplanes than the US has SM-6s. – Mark Mar 05 '22 at 22:59
  • 9
    Might be worth adding that some of those Russian SAM launchers are going to be on the Russian side of the previously accepted border, so it would also almost certainly involve killing Russian troops on Russian soil, which is pretty reasonably considered to be an act of war – llama Mar 05 '22 at 23:57
  • @Mark: Depends on how destructive you want to be. If something that flies over Ukraine is answered with a cruse missile sent to the base it took off from, all bets are off. – Joshua Mar 06 '22 at 01:30
  • @Mark Yes, generally agree. The SAM-based enforcement is a dud. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Mar 06 '22 at 07:02
  • 1
    "unexpectedly dismal effectiveness of the Russian army" - I'm pretty sure this is Western propaganda. Russia seems to be doing a pretty reasonable job of invading, with minimal casualties to their own people and light damage to their opponent's infrastructure. Unless the benchmark is "took control of an entire country within a few days", obviously. – Valorum Mar 06 '22 at 09:43
  • 2
    @Valorum, Russia has a five-to-one advantage in numbers, a ten-to-one advantage in spending, and has better equipment across the board. Ukraine is flat, open country, and the only major defensive terrain, the Dnieper River, was bypassed by Russia's attacking through Belarus. By all rights, Russia should have steamrolled Ukraine rather than having almost every advance stall after a few days. – Mark Mar 06 '22 at 22:02
  • 1
    @Mark - All of the above suggests that their slow advance is based on a strategy of minimal destruction of their opponent rather than victory at any cost. – Valorum Mar 06 '22 at 22:08
  • @Valorum Hmmm. I agree that there's ample room for manipulation of Western opinion. Let's take Mariupol. Those are the facts. The reasons? Who knows? I can't see the benefit for Russia to keep refugees in. So who's to blame is hard to determine. What's not hard to determine is that Russia does shell cities, right now. And also that Kiev, only 150km within Ukraine is still not surrounded after 11 days by an army built for armored maneuver warfare. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Mar 06 '22 at 22:42
  • 1
    Contrast that with Iraq War 1 and 2 where a smaller US force attacked the huge Iraqi army very quickly, using maneuver warfare. Those are not the same outcomes at all, at this point in time. And keep in mind that US combat losses from ied and insurgent attacks were still far in the future at that point. So, no, for someone with a long interest in military affairs, this is not looking good, regardless of my sympathies. Great respect for Russians in many conditions, especially defending their homeland. But this set of conditions, for this Russian army, is not working out well, so far. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Mar 06 '22 at 22:46
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica - You're comparing apples with oranges. The first day of Desert Storm resulted in the deaths of over a thousand civilians, as compared to approx 300 civilian deaths in Ukraine by day #11 (at least some of whom are known to be irregular combatants). Just because it isn't the same sort of indiscriminate civilian-massacring-blitzkrieg that the US practiced in Iraq doesn't mean that the Russian army is somehow deficient – Valorum Mar 06 '22 at 22:52
  • I am talking about just military outcomes. This is looking like crap, sorry. I'd have have given you 5-1 odds two weeks ago that it wouldn't be looking like this, 11 days in, from what we know about the Russian military. They haven't even managed to wipe out Ukraine's air force. As to comparing civilian deaths, look at Grozny's suffering before drawing too many favorable conclusions to how this is going to play out. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Mar 06 '22 at 22:55
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica - If the Russians wanted to, they could be carpet-bombing and trashing towns and cities as they go, in a mad thrust to Kiev. The fact that they aren't doesn't suggest that they're weak, especially when you see that they're taking great chunks of Ukrainian territory for almost no casualties and inflicting minimal infrastructural damage and minimal civilian deaths. – Valorum Mar 06 '22 at 23:02
  • @Valorum I don't mind that you are bringing a differing opinion to what is more and more turning to be a lets-all-gang-up-on-Putin fest. But there is at this point no way to tell which one of us is right. Let's revisit this in 2-3 weeks, maybe. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Mar 06 '22 at 23:04
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica - At the present rate, in 2-3 weeks time there won't be much of Ukraine left in Ukrainian hands and the number of dead civilians will still be 95,000 below the number left dead in Iraq by the Allies. – Valorum Mar 06 '22 at 23:08
  • 1
    @Valorum 2 weeks later, looks like much of Ukraine is still left in Ukrainian hands. – gerrit Mar 21 '22 at 15:55
  • @gerrit - Yes, the Russians seem to be consolidating their gains and making steady but unspectacular progress. On the flip-side, they're losing almost no planes and very few troops and there's been very small numbers of civilian casualties. To compare with Desert Storm, by this point the Allies had killed more than 40,000 Iraqi troops, obliterated the country's infrastructure and more than 50,000 Iraqi civilians were dead, as compared to approx 900 Ukrainians. – Valorum Mar 21 '22 at 16:09
  • @Valorum please provide supporting sources for the numbers of civilian deaths at this point. I did not dispute your 200k finding, because it is from an excess deaths study by Lancet, which surprised everyone, including me. But I don't remember it being that specific on who died when so your compound 90k seems both excessive and overdetailed. Also, while you might find it convenient to quote UN numbers, they are presented with "actual death count expected to be much higher" disclaimers each and every time. Which you ignore. Just as you ignore that Mariupol on its own claims 2500+ deaths. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Mar 21 '22 at 19:29
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica - "The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights says 902 civilians have been killed and another 1,459 have been wounded so far in the war in Ukraine. The office warned that the actual number is likely "considerably higher." And while that might be true, it pales in comparison with the apocalyptic death count achieved by the Allies – Valorum Mar 21 '22 at 19:54
  • @Valorum again, put up your numbers, don't endlessly insinuate without sources. And, news to you, your fanboism isn't aging well : If the Russians wanted to, they could be carpet-bombing and trashing towns and cities as they go. They are. Just like Grozny, just like Aleppo. Chechny wars killed about 100k people, out of a population of 1.4M. Quite the number, innit? That's your "clean warfare" for you. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Mar 21 '22 at 19:54
  • @Valorum To contrast your sources, I've seen estimated from Mariupol that already 20k people have died there, including from hunger. – gerrit Mar 22 '22 at 09:38
  • @gerrit - The city has only been under "siege" for a couple of weeks. How, precisely, are people managing to die of hunger? – Valorum Mar 22 '22 at 09:42
  • @Valorum By being under siege and not getting food for a couple of weeks. – gerrit Mar 22 '22 at 09:44
  • @gerrit - It takes longer than that for people to starve to death. I've seen plenty of reports that people in Mariupol are hungry, but zero credible reports of starvation death. And making daft claims undermines the real claims. – Valorum Mar 22 '22 at 10:28
  • @Valorum Does dehydration count? there. happy? Now, while I kinda take anything Ukraine says about Mariupol with a grain of salt, I would still ask you to take your trolling somewhere else. Your constant pooh-poohing of this catastrophe, minus actual sources, is getting quite tiresome and that's not what comments are for. Write up your own answer if you are so clever. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Mar 22 '22 at 10:32
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica - I don't consider asking people to 'stop with the hyperbole' to be trolling, any more than your incessant insistence on sources for things that are blatantly obvious. Uncritically accepting any claim about the war because it comes from Ukrainian social media undermines the credibility of all claims. – Valorum Mar 22 '22 at 10:41
  • @Valorum there are tons of questions open about this war. Feel free to answer any of them and feel free to not comment endlessly and pointlessly here. That's the last I'm going to say to you on this question. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Mar 22 '22 at 10:43
26

That is exactly the point. There are a number of requests and suggestions which come down to let's have a war between the West and Russia, so Ukraine doesn't stand alone. They include

  • immediate NATO membership,
  • immediate EU membership,
  • NATO air forces over Ukraine to enforce a no-fly zone,
  • NATO air defense forces in Ukraine to enforce a no-fly zone,
  • NATO ground forces in Ukraine to protect people.

An enforced no-fly zone would make NATO either part of the war, or part of an international peace-enforcement mission. Without UNSC approval, there won't be an international peace-enforcement mission, and Russia would view it as a war, anyway. So the proposal comes down to a war between the NATO members and Russia. An entirely understandable request from Ukraine, who are in the war, but countries not yet at war with a major nuclear power might hesitate a bit. There is also the question if Putin would be more or less ready to nuke Paris, London, Berlin, or Washington rather than Kiev. If only because of the way the fallout travels.

o.m.
  • 108,520
  • 19
  • 265
  • 393
  • 11
    Absolutely. There seems to be a lot of people who either don’t know what a no-fly zone is or who pretend not to. – divibisan Mar 05 '22 at 16:50
  • 5
    You’re last sentence doesn’t make sense, though. Nuking a nuclear power is going to bring much more serious consequences than a bit of wind-blown fallout. Putin may be crazy, but there’s no way anyone could come to that conclusion – divibisan Mar 05 '22 at 16:52
  • 4
    @divibisan, Putin said approximately that he might use nuclear weapons if a third party intervenes. And my point is that we're talking about a major escalation. If Russian and NATO planes shoot at each other, how can it end without Russia escalating to nuclear weapons? – o.m. Mar 05 '22 at 16:55
  • 3
    Oh, I fully agree. I interpreted your last sentence to be that Putin would see less risk in nuking Washington than Kiev because Kiev is closer to Moscow and they might be hit by wind-borne fallout. If that wasn’t your intended meaning, then don’t worry – divibisan Mar 05 '22 at 16:58
  • 1
    Well, yes, in a way. He wants to re-conquer Kiev and to deter Washington. – o.m. Mar 05 '22 at 17:38
  • 4
    "how can it end without Russia escalating to nuclear weapons?" With Putin retreating from Ukraine. – Acccumulation Mar 05 '22 at 17:50
  • 1
    @Acccumulation, would Putin survive that, politically? And if he isn't worried about his place in the history books, then consider that a political defeat might lead to his death in the mess which follows. – o.m. Mar 05 '22 at 18:55
  • @o.m. I guess this is more a dream than a realistic scenario, but given that Putin's stated goals were "remove the Nazis from the Ukrainian government" and "stop the genocide of native Russian speakers", he could always decide to leave some Jewish native-russian-speaking dude in charge and declare mission accomplished. – Arno Mar 05 '22 at 23:23
  • 17
    @Arno so someone like Zelensky? Because he's Jewish and a native Russian speaker... – Stephen S Mar 06 '22 at 01:31
  • 1
    Since Putin said he already views the sanctions as equivalent to a declaration of war, him seeing a no-fly zone as a war would not change anything. He already sees the West's actions as a war -- assuming you believe him. – David Schwartz Mar 06 '22 at 07:00
  • This answer doesn't even attempt to answer the actual question of what the no-fly zone proposal actually entails It's just a political rant, can we do better? – Mavrik Mar 06 '22 at 11:27
  • @StephenS And he even as experience on the job. Seems like a good choice, doesnt he? – Arno Mar 06 '22 at 17:22
  • @o.m. Putin gets removed from power and someone else takes over and makes peace with Ukraine? As it is hardly see how any country would just immediately resort to using Nukes without trying to fight it out conventionally as that would doom their own people not to mention the rest of the world. – JMERICKS Mar 07 '22 at 22:33
  • @JMERICKS, do you expect him to go calmly? And Russia has long declared that they would use nuclear weapons to stop a conventional defeat (much as NATO did during the Cold War). – o.m. Mar 08 '22 at 06:04
10

Setting up a no-fly is a non-starter unless the balance of power is very asymmetrical. The following conditions must be met:

  • We can operate safely from airfields or carriers with impunity, the enemy has limited or no capabilities to strike the bases from which we operate.
  • Obtaining air superiority is easy to achieve, the enemy has limited anti-aircraft capability that our air force can easily suppress. The enemy's air force poses little threat to us.

When these two conditions are satisfied, we can impose a no-fly zone over the objections of an enemy with impunity. The enemy cannot operate their SAM systems as these would be destroyed, the enemy cannot fly their planes as these will be shot down.

In the case where a no-fly zone was imposed in the past, e.g. over Iraq, we started out with a situation close to this. Some limited military action like taking out SAM systems using cruise missiles was needed to pave the way for the no-fly zone.

In case of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, we're too far off from the conditions needed to get to a no-fly zone. Not only are Russia's SAM systems far more advanced than anything Western forces imposing a no-fly zone have had to deal with before, Russia also has a very robust capability of striking any point on Earth with pinpoint accuracy using ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. Taking out this capability would require a military defeat of Russia in a direct war, making the reasons for setting up a no-fly zone, moot.

Count Iblis
  • 4,737
  • 15
  • 30