> a no-fly zone could only be enforced by sending NATO planes to shoot down Russian ones, adding that the risk of escalation would be too big.
That's the thing that people seem to be missing when calling for a no-fly zone to be declared by NATO. A no-fly zone means nothing if you're unwilling to enforce it. NATO is not going to start shooting down Russian planes.
It's understandable that Ukraine is demanding extreme measures from any international body they can talk to, but no-fly zones would literally do no good to anyone.
I think less people are missing that than those arguing against an NFZ think. I think the real debate is between people that think that Russia is going to stop (either because of limited goals or capacity) once they have sufficiently beaten Ukraine (and maybe Georgia and Moldova) without intervention, and thus think the choice is between shooting down Russian planes over Ukraine and not fighting Russia at all, and those who look at Putin’s rhetoric and think that unless internal Russian political collapse prevents it, Putin isn't going to stop there and the choice is beating Russia back now over Ukraine or later on land somewhere like the Baltics.
(Disclaimer: geopolitics and IR are not my field, and I don't really know what I'm talking about.)
I was trying to picture a scenario where Putin "wins" this in a way that he considers an actual victory, and I couldn't come up with one. Sanctions are not going to stop any time soon, Ukraine is unlikely to give up, Russia can't hold Ukrainian territory long-term... I just can't see a win for Putin, no matter what happens.
What I can see happening is the Russian elites deciding that they've had enough of the old man, and they just want to go back to "normal". With him out of the picture, Russia has an "out" and I'd imagine the West would be willing to go down that road instead of prolonging the conflict.
The part that sucks is that, even if there is a regime change in Russia in the near future, millions of lives have already been turned upside down in Ukraine. Telling them to "hold on a little longer" is a slap in the face, but that seems to be the West's strategy right now.
sure it would, it might escalate to the point we could do something about putin and get regime change. right now without more pressure ukraine will just get absorbed but if the russians lose badly people might turn on him.
It might escalate to that point, or it could escalate to something much worse that the current situation—a shooting war between NATO and Russia, for example. I don't imagine anyone in the West is eager to take that gamble.
reminds my of 2008 (Gerogian invasion) or 2014 (Ukrainian invasion) - If you don't deal with issue, it's becoming a bigger issue. Sonner or later NATO will have to deal with Russia, the question is when.
That's the thing that people seem to be missing when calling for a no-fly zone to be declared by NATO. A no-fly zone means nothing if you're unwilling to enforce it. NATO is not going to start shooting down Russian planes.
It's understandable that Ukraine is demanding extreme measures from any international body they can talk to, but no-fly zones would literally do no good to anyone.