Well it is, but not among those in a position to actually do it. So Ukrainian politicians have been asking for it since the beginning, I see Al de Pfeiffel getting hassled at a press conference about it and I see lots of the Kommentariat on social media talking themselves into a frenzy over it.
5 Likes
Richard Engel loudly mourned the end of the Forever War in Afghanistan, now he’s agitating for a shooting/nuclear war with Russia. NBC really needs to move him to a different assignment, preferably cleaning the basement.
11 Likes
You don’t know that. It happens all the time that dictators get in over their heads, scramble around until they find a way to mostly save face, and slink back into the holes they crawled out of. That is the resolution we should be working toward and hoping for for Ukraine. Otherwise you are talking about war or assassination.
11 Likes
He’s part of the bipartisan Washington DC “blob”, which is what right-wingers would call the American military-industrial complex and foreign policy establishment if they weren’t warmongers themselves.
7 Likes
I don’t know how anybody goes about “volunteering” somebody else. That sounds very cynical.
If its going to happen the Russian people have to do it. Not us.
You are right - it could resolve that way, but I don’t see Putin doing that. It would be a huge admission of failure, and a setback in his vision of taking back all the USSR territory.
3 Likes
Exactly. The US has been lulled into thinking that the “No-Fly Zone” in 1990s Iraq meant “no planes allowed” instead of “shoot to kill.” And, it should be noted, the Zone was established based on a narrow reading of a UN Resolution that the Sec-Gen’l later called “illegal.”
The reality was that Iraq simply didn’t have much of an air force, and when planes went up they got shot down. And the victims of the no-fly zone in Iraq were mostly civilians.
7 Likes
Note say Biden did do that then he’d be weak for falling into the trap and bringing us into a nuclear war. There’s just no pleasing these people.
11 Likes
I’ve been reading a lot of takes on this and just cannot see the logic in it. The fact is that, regardless of NATO expansion, Putin had already invaded and committed genocide at will for his entire time in office. NATO expansion was done specifically because of the threat he posed to other independent nations and ethnicities and his stated goals of trying to stitch the USSR back together.
The flip side of this argument would be Putin’s point of view; admission of former Soviet Bloc states represents an existential threat to the Russian Federation. Absolute bullshit. There was always less than zero percent chance of any aggression toward Russia or even an attempt to liberate areas like Chechnya. NATO presents no threat to Putin other than stalling his imperialist adventuring.
The fact is that, at some point Putin was going to invade Ukraine no matter what. Whether NATO enjoined more bordering states or not, the pretext would have been fabricated from some other perceived grievance. NATO is a response to over 100 years of Russian aggression. The fault is 100% Putin’s and he is the culmination of that generations-long ambition.
21 Likes
Yep, we can’t, at this point, directly involve ourselves. Only lend support to Ukraine.
Though I saw plea for private satellite owners to give Ukraine Russian troop movement positions - why isn’t NATO doing that already? Surely passing along information is ok?
5 Likes
I’m sure there’s a whole lot of intel sharing happening that we’re not privy to for strategic reasons. Same as the “why don’t they just strafe that 40 mile column?” question. There is a lot we don’t know and Ukraine is operating from a defensive position and with a scarcity mentality; every single bullet and mortar counts right now. All I can see in my mind is a million US A-10s turning that highway to rubble and watching a column of half-naked Russian troops shame-walking back to the border, but fortunately I am not in charge.
11 Likes
It is.
6 Likes
Dear god I am glad 45 is not in a position of power right now.
A no fly zone implies control of the airspace, which implies eliminating AAA on the ground. Given the range of current AAA, that means multiple strikes against targets INSIDE RUSSIA. The US or other NATO forces striking targets inside Russia is WWIII.
I have little doubt NATO would win a conventional war against Russia - better equipment, better training, better doctrine, vastly better logistics. Which would inevitably lead to escalation. Knowing that, NATO would be smart to strike first. Knowing that, Russia would strike first. And then we all die.
So, support for a proxy war in Ukraine is one thing, with lots of precedent. Actual NATO troops killing and being killed by Russians is a short walk to the end of the world. No thank you.
12 Likes
I want to weigh in. But every time I start to write, I think of the citizens of Ukraine who are suffering tonight. I think of the citizens of Iraq and Syria and Afghanistan who suffered before. Georgia. Chechnya. Everywhere we or the Russian’s have meddled and destablized. The hundreds of thousands of lives lost for wars, police actions, coups. I’m not expert on any of this, so I will think of them and give money where I can to help them and I hope Ukraine can hold on to its nation. They’ve been inspiring the last week. We didn’t win their hearts and minds, but they’ve won ours.
Slava Ukraini.
11 Likes
Good point. The person putting the call out was a private tech company owned by a Ukrainian that said it could analyze the photos, ID what vehicles are what, and pass it to the MOD.
Maybe they are already getting that from the Pentagon or NATO. It would be a shame if they were not getting troop movement intel when they could be.
Yes, that column would be fodder for an A-10 and their 30mm cannon. Which, I found out, uses ALUMINUM cases and they get dumped into a storage tank to be reused. Who knew.
4 Likes
I didn’t! Seeing A-10s running combat simulations was, by far the most impressive thing I saw in the Army (aircraft-wise anyway). Sure, the Apache and fighters are scary, but you likely wouldn’t even see them in most cases. Watching an A-10 crest a hill and bear down on you has got to be one of the most terrifying experiences I could imagine.
6 Likes
7 Likes
A no fly zone explicitly means shooting down every Russian aircraft over Ukraine from NATO territory.
That is what a No Fly Zone is. That’s how it works. And it’s not “implied”.
It isn’t some magic thing where we say “No Fly” and Russia says OK.
It’s NATO in a shooting war with Russia.
9 Likes
No fly also means enforcing it by flying NATO airplanes over Ukraine. In turn that means eliminating Russian AAA capability, much of which is in Russia and Belarus. So yeah, we actually agree.
5 Likes
And we better do right by them once this is all over
7 Likes
I’d love it if we could start doing right by the whole world. Too much to hope for given our history, but that’s where I land. The world had GOT to be tired of this shit from Russia and the United States.
5 Likes
