The U.S. will not be setting up a no-fly zone over Ukraine

[beschizza]

Originally published at: The U.S. will not be setting up a no-fly zone over Ukraine | Boing Boing

…

[Doctor_Faustus]

Well, d’uh! I hadn’t even known such a stupid idea was even being discussed.

[smulder]

Tom Lehrer - We Will All Go Together When We Go

[dabeyc]

there are a few people out there who might not hesitate to unleash nukes, and i believe putin is one of them. as horrible as it is to sit by and watch what is happening right now, maybe not testing the
would he/wouldn’t he scenario is the smarter course for the present.

[anon33932455]

It’s well on it’s way to becoming a right wing Biden-bashing talking point. Which is, of course, ironic given the right-wing chatter of the last few weeks regarding Putin.

[Otherbrother]

I agree with the assessment.

A "no-fly zone" in Ukraine is a catastrophically bad idea

Anyone using the term “no fly zone” rather than “declaration of war” in this context is either ignorant or intentionally misleading about what is entailed.

This is a catastrophic idea. Stripped of cant, the US announcing a no-fly zone in Ukraine would be an American declaration of war on Russia — the first major conflict between the two nations that, put together, control 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons.

“A No Fly Zone is not a magical umbrella that prevents planes flying in a given area. It’s a decision to shoot at planes that fly in a given area,” explains Olga Oliker, the International Crisis Group’s director for Europe and Central Asia. “To put in a no fly zone is to go to war.”

[smulder]

@anon33932455

a right wing Biden-bashing talking point

“Not fighting a nuclear war with Russia is WEAK”

[lava]

I doubt that Putin will see the shade of difference of shooting down russian aircraft in a no-fly zone, and sending palettes of shoulder mounted missiles and artillery shells, especially when he is already threatening nuclear weapons over economic sanctions.

No good way out except getting rid of putin.

[smulder]

There is precedent for arming each others’ enemies during active conflict—it’s been done before and it didn’t lead to World War III

[gracchus]

Putin will do what he does. If he doesn’t distinguish between the two and escalates it’s outside the control of Western leaders. But if they don’t offer him the opportunity to distinguish between the two that’s a failure on their part.

@lava

No good way out except getting rid of putin.

Correct. Let’s hope that some in his inner circle realise that and have the bravery to follow through.

[lava]

I don’t dispute that, but thats not the putin talk right now, is it.

[smulder]

It is a great big mess problem bad thing

[lava]

@gracchus

But if they don’t offer him the opportunity to distinguish between the two that’s a failure on their part.

they are offering him the opportunity to distinguish - by continuing to send weapons in.

He is refusing and claiming his fictional victim-state status to justify any move in retaliation.

I am not saying that we should be doing something different - there is no solution we can implement, because Putin is only interested in escalation until he has Ukraine. The only solution is putin goes away.

[gracchus]

@lava

they are offering him the opportunity to distinguish - by continuing to send weapons in.

Correct. Mostly defensive weapons and no Western tanks or planes and certainly no troops or pilots.

@lava

He is refusing and claiming his fictional victim-state status to justify any move in retaliation.

He was claiming victim status for Russia long before this invasion – it’s how he got into power. If the West did nothing he’d still be claiming this was all its fault.

[lava]

don’t be surprised if russia begins striking those supply lines

[KathyPartdeux]

Well, I’m not volunteering to go to Moscow and remove him personally.

Nor am I volunteering others to do so.

[Papasan]

Putin is doing a great job of shooting himself in the foot & creating a quagmire, the fly zone is a none issue today, tomorrow maybe different.

[gracchus]

I won’t be surprised. Neither will the Western nations, who already have plans in place if one of their cargo planes is shot down by the Russians over Ukrainian airspace.

That last concept is an interesting one. Despite making it clear that he considers Ukraine to be part of the Russian Federation, Putin hasn’t been explicit about the airspace over it being Russian to the point where he’s officially declaring his own no-fly zone. That may just come down to the fact that five days in Russia still doesn’t have air superiority and can’t enforce one.

[smulder]

It is possible that sending arms to Ukraine will turn out to be strategically foolish

(as some have long argued extending NATO eastward was strategically foolish, for reasons that are now obvious)

but at this point it’s almost politically impossible not to send arms to Ukraine

Putin has made himself a cartoon villain and no decent person wants to be seen as appeasing him

[deltaecho]

At best, there’s going to be aggressive NATO air patrols along line of Ukraine-Europe borders, so Russia cannot interdict/reconnoiter resupply convoys (well, until it actually enters Ukraine).

Forget No-Fly Zone. Why isnt sale of Reaper drones w/ Hellfire missiles (with all-Ukrainian crews, operated in Ukraine) discussed at all? (Its still provocative, but not the immediate WW III creator that a No-Fly Zone would be.)

But, yeah, major blunder by Engel. So short-sighted, so ridiculous. In a sober frame of mind, Engel is not that stupid a person to advocate this. (Or “advocate” anything: that’s not generally journalism’s purpose!) He clearly is not thinking clearly. He should be pulled.