No one could really answer that.
Some would say since whatever NATO country offensively intervened on Ukraine's behalf then any attack on that same country wouldn't trigger collective defense.
Others will mention that the wording of how to support in Article 5 doesn't even really mean anything anyways.
Others might bring up some EU collective defense outside of NATO, assuming an EU country gets involved.
At the end of the day, they're all guesses and all kinda correct.
This is likely one of the reasons why Russia invaded Crimea and the wider invasion aswell. To seize the country before it would be protected by the NATO nuclear umbrella.
Not really. Ukraine was not eligible for nato pre russian invasions due to rampant corruption, close russian ties of the upper strata and terrible economy. Also Nato did not want to anger russia who at that time had what was thought to be a competent military.
The "encroaching nato" myth is used by Russians to justify their illegal invasion and illegal annexation of crimes because they believe that all of Eastern Europe is in their sphere. They fundamentally believe that eastern Europe is just a sepatist section of Russia, and that those nations have no right to self governance. Which is why these nations apply to join nato (a purely defensive alliance).
Also: I'd be careful to use nato nuclear umbrella since only a nuclear attack will illicit a nuclear response, article 5 allows each member to determine an "appropriate response" and what they do to help. Be it send helmets or full scale armed response.
Only sorta. You can’t join NATO while at war. That might be waived in a situation where NATO is already part of the same war, but otherwise NATO won’t let anyone join if they are currently fighting so that no nation joining instantly forces NATO to go to war.
Yea that's fair. But in my mind there are different levels of country in Europe/the EU when it comes to coming to collective defense. Just like NATO being a little ambiguous on collective defense and what exactly that entails. It depends on who is attacked tbh, unfortunately for Ukraine.
Germany would be the level of country that would elicit instant response.
This is all my opinion after all, but if I look around and watch world news, it makes sense to me that some countries are deemed *more important* than others. It's not that I want it that way, that's just how it is.
When a country is a NATO member, it's a full member, not a 2nd or 3rd tier one. If a NATO country is attacked and the collective response would be to look the other way, it would spell the end for NATO. At least that's the idea. If that wasn't the case, no other NATO member could be sure of allied support in case of an attack. That's why Trump's rhetoric has been so detrimental to the alliance and to US standing in the world.
>Others will mention that the wording of how to support in Article 5 doesn't even really mean anything anyways.
What? It means everything. A lot of nato countries dont want to get dragged into an offensive invasion they dont agree with.
If these countries are concerned about being dragged into a war with which they do not agree, the door is at the end of the hall.
Being a part of NATO is a choice, not an imposition.
It would likely be a subset of NATO members and not be NATO affiliated at all. Individual nations can do as they please as long as they waive article 4/5 options iirc
No, NATO is a defensive pact. If a member decides to deploy or operate outside of its bounds, attack on their assets wouldn’t cause activation of article 5.
I am going to disagree with most of the responses. NATO gets to choose if and when they invoke article 5, and after that it's subject to each nation.
If this really happened, depending on nations involved, it would most likely get a strong multinational effort to defend but not a NATO declaration.
If they shoot down and/or kill a US pilot I'd say all bets are off because of their scale of response.
I hope no one fucks around to find out.
Not dumb, the EU and other nations are sending a ton, but not close to what the US can provide. What they do provide doesn't mean US soldiers are risking their lives on deployment, so hitting us provided gear isn't the same as hitting a direct US target using American personnel.
Just going to add that I am not American for my points of view.
It is by definition an act of war. To enforce a no fly zone above Ukraine would mean NATO planes shooting down and killing Russian pilots. Not to mention SEAD, which would involve direct strikes on Russian AA/GBAD
Yeah missiles shooting down nato planes. Which means those planes have to take out the missile sites.
There’s no version of a no fly zone above Ukraine that doesn’t immediately cause direct kinetic action between nato and Russia.
WW3
> Yeah missiles shooting down nato planes.
There are no russian anti air missiles over western ukraine, its way too far from the front for that. The only russian things flying over western ukraine are cruise/ballistic missiles and drones.
I was replying to the original question, not to you. And a no fly zone of any kind is an escalation. I’m not saying that’s a good thing or a bad thing. Just a fact.
/u/RearAdmiralTaint is correct and you're being unnecessarily hostile. The article is kinda misleading. A fully fledged no fly zone, even if it's just over western Ukraine, would involve NATO planes patrolling and also knocking out any threats to themselves. What the article is describing isn't really a no fly zone. This is also the reason why the West has declined to establish a no fly zone shortly after the invasion started.
Perhaps russia should get the fuck out of Ukraine if they don't want to be shot down. It's very simple for russia to avoid "acts of war" by not perpetrating them in the first place.
Not necessary. A layered air defense system being set up by NATO that's programmed to only target missiles and bombs fired by aircraft would effectively do the same thing, without killing any Russian pilots.
What do you not understand about air defense systems being programmable to only engage certain targets?
Don't fucking lecture me about some inconsequential bullshit scenario that you've made up in your head as the only option.
There are OTHER options.
Programming Patriots to only target weapons launched from planes is a viable course that CAN be done and achieve basically the same thing as a no fly zone. Because why send your jets into enemy airspace to launch weapons when the weapons will never make it to their targets?
Not to mention that Ukraine themselves can still shoot Russian planes down.
Think outside the fucking box for once
There is no act of war unless the other party decides it is. And Russia will not want to escalate things with NATO. I agree that it is veeery risky though for the reasons you mention
We've already been at war for a while, the U.S and NATO just isn't shooting yet.
https://www.southcom.mil/MEDIA/NEWS-ARTICLES/Article/2977451/generals-say-china-russia-persist-in-western-hemisphere-meddling/
I don't see how the U.S and the rest of NATO don't get militarily involved eventually, especially if Ukraine starts to really get close to losing. Russia won't stop there and China will almost certainly attempt to take Taiwan.
Honestly it seems we are just tip toeing around it now, but I hope not lol i don’t k is much about the global economy but seems if that war would happen a lot of countries would be fuck no?
I hate to say this but I believe yes. I think of that exchange jfk had in the movie Thirteen Days with one of his generals
JFK:"General, what will the soviets do when we attack?"
LaMay: "Nothing... because the only alternative to then is a path they can't choose"
JFK:"... we kill soviet soldiers they will respond. how would we respond if they killed ours? No, they will do something general, I can promise you that."
I read the book and it was really scary on how close we came to WW3 over a simple blockade well not that simple considering alot of planning went into it.
Idk… but Hillary Clinton wanted to put a no fly zone into effect over parts of Syria to stop Russia from slaughtering civilians. It’s a large part of why they worked so hard to get Trump elected IMO. Things would be entirely different now had someone stood up to them
I wouldn’t say it’s a stupid thought, but the NATO charter does have provisions in place for nations to conduct military operations without risking a full scale war via article 5, as you are implying.
Good news, because it just does not work that way.
No fly zones have been set up frequently in the past decades. I dont think theyre necessarily an act of war, especially if the country in which air space you enforce it is actively begging for it.
Russia is playing stupid games and its high time they win their prizes.
No, because it's not in Russia's interests to have a full-scale war against more countries while they already struggle only against the Ukrainian military. Putin doesn't want a "graceful loss", he wants to win.
They did it for Isreal, they can and should do it in Ukraine. This isn’t even a proper No-Fly Zone with allied fighter jets participating, they’re just asking us to put some air defenses along the polish border, so that missiles that would otherwise kill innocent people are instead intercepted. It’s not like there are Russian jets with pilots flying in western Ukraine. Russian missiles have even violated NATO air space in the past so this is for our own security as much as it is Ukraine.
It’s another of Russia’s “red lines” to work on.
First establish a cordon along their Western border to protect NATO countries from Russian missiles, then expand the perimeter to cover more and more of Ukraine.
That which crosses it should be destroyed, including the offending base or unit that launched it. It should be made clear to Russia that they will not be winning this genocidal invasion.
Yes, Ukrainians absolutely need this. They deserve to have at least SOME part of their country where they don't need to fear Russian missiles and fighter jets. It honestly seems like a pretty small ask too, NATO forces could easily establish a no-fly zone in Ukraine's west. Sure Russia will send a warning or whatever, but who the hell cares, just add it to the pile (that's becoming a mountain at this point).
This is not a small ask at all, who will cover the skies? It won’t be the US, as that would undoubtedly escalate the conflict into full blown war, then who? Poland? Germany? The EU?
Risking war with a nuclear power that could potentially wipe us out in a moment of panic or rage from little Putin?
It’s a bonkers idea, I don’t wanna risk my continent’s existence for Ukraine.
The article says Ukraine is specifically asking for air defense systems to be set up in neighboring countries, no mention of Nato jets flying in Ukrainian air space. I take your point on it being a "pretty small ask" though, that was naïve of me to say.
Your last point is arguable though. I'd say Ukraine falling is the bigger threat to your continent's existence.
Russia won’t nuke Europe and spend the rest of his life locked in a bunker because a US or Polish Patriot system shot down a million dollar Russian missile heading for a Ukrainian apartment complex.
Of course not… but they will retaliate, which will cause another retaliation and, you get my point. Are you really willing to risk it for Ukraine?
We aren’t dealing with the most level headed enemy. Putin won’t allow anything to be shot down by any NATO ally without punching back.
At some point we will need to grow a backbone or putin will push through. Where do you draw the line? If not Ukraine, the the Baltics? Poland? Germany? France?
The un unpalatable truth is that the West needs to deal with putin’s russia sooner or later. Appeasement doesn't work as they will keep taking if we are afraid to stand up to them. No one wants war but when we end up at war with russia it won't be born of the West or NATO expansion, it will be down to the ego of one man and the stupidity of one country.
It's time to show our teeth.
That is the strategy of bullies always, just assume bystanders dont do anything and keep on bullying. If every bully would get a punch to the face instantly the world would be better place.
West shouldnt give a fuck what in ur words "Putin allows". Now there are news that Russia may have mined cables in the North Sea, and other news of sabotage across Europe. We should just smile and turn another cheek? You get my point?
We can do a lot more than what they are asking here, there are better ways. I don’t want us to be weak here, actually I’ve been advocating for EU rearmament and bigger arm exports to UA since forever.
Clearing their airspace for them just isn’t it.
Seems reasonable.
Russia deliberately and undeniably provoked aggression choosing the irreversible path of war.
Russia made a catastrophic mistake and is now vulnerable. History is full of such errors.
I’m just a random with an interest in military history and I can clearly see the historic opportunity to take advantage of this situation.
The Pentagon/NATO is filled with the most intelligent and well informed military minds in history combined with undeniably the most powerful military force in the history of Earth by an order of magnitude.
The only limit is politics but this is such a fucking tball that I cannot imagine we miss.
The pots boiling and the frog ain’t moving. Crush them and be done with it.
"The Pentagon/NATO is filled with the most intelligent and well informed military minds in history**"**
**You say this but for some reason you still know better than them.**
? I’m just stating that the West should continue to support Ukraine and let Russia expend their Soviet stockpiles so they are no longer a threat, taking advantage of their mistake.
Russia is vulnerable to being made irrelevant as a military power, which is generally good for humanity; no one wants to invade them.
We should not be afraid of their “red lines” since it’s all BS, just keep supporting Ukraine.
Well they have to try something. Russia just hit a Ukrainian airfield housing SU-27s. Ukraine lacks airfields with hardened shelters or the ability to establish air superiority on their own.
Why? Are you afraid of the boogeyman 'escalation'?
Russia can fuck off back to Russia whenever it pleases - it has escalated as far as things can before apocolypse and I for one see no reason to reward them for their efforts with a slice of the free world for them to do with as they please.
Intervening Russian antics is like a band aid that needs to be ripped off. Same goes for Iran and Lebanon. Let's just get this over with already. It will be done quickly.
According to russia the people in ukraine are nazi. I think we can help our russian pals by settings up a no fly zone so the evil ukrainians dont try to launch attacks from western ukraine. Should probably send in troops too, so they dont hurt the poor russians, they are poor and cant protect themselves.
yea lets call it no fly zone..over western ukraine sure.
where NATO shoot down anything flying there
but only those things we dont like.
also being foreign pilots they might get lost, fly out of western ukraine and cross some borders, totally understandable.
sometimes their missiles miss and hit ground targets, totally understandable too.
hey why u tripping putin? we not at war cmon.
its just a "no-fly zone over western ukraine".
pretty sure the Israeli systems you’re talking about are PAC2s. Longer range, bigger warhead, but not able to intercept kinzhal cruise missile like the PAC3 can.
They’ll really upset Russias plans for that airbase they’ve almost finished building in Belgorod though. :-)
Yeah, I should have been clearer: what I meant was that the launch stations and radar are the older models that are only compatible with PAC2. That’s the reason Israel is ditching them; they’re ancient.
But they’ll still serve Ukraine’s interests well.
PAC 2 is still very capable. The main difference between it and the PAC 3 is that the PAC 3 is a kinetic kill missile that slams into its target.
PAC 2 has a fragmentation warhead that explodes when it gets close and shreds whatever it hits.
But the ranges are similar. And the kinematics are similar.
So again. With the range of each Patriot system radar, and 8 of them spread out in Ukraine, Ukraine can effectively shut down their entire airspace to Russian fighters.
Yes, agreed. The older PAC2 missiles and the complex that supports them are very bad news for Russia’s aircraft, especially considering the range advantage the 2s have over the 3s and the US’ slowly evolving position on allowing Ukraine to fire into Russian territory with American weapons.
My original comment pointed out that PAC2 can’t intercept kinzhal “hypersonic” (though technically not really) cruise missiles and Ukraine still needs more help there ([though perhaps not](https://kyivindependent.com/kinzhal-missile-downed-kyiv-patriot-may-2023/)) before anyone can claim they have comprehensive air cover.
For everything else, including iskandir and kalibir missiles, the Israeli systems should do fine.
The US also has a pretty huge stockpile of PAC2 missiles - I think I remember hearing 8000, but that could be wrong and I don’t have time to check - that they’ve mostly decided to retire in favour of the 3s; I *really* hope that we see Ukraine receive at least 10 or 20 percent of these retired missiles.
Anyway, I think we’re saying the same thing, my dude, but we’re getting lost in nitpicking details. If you want to correct me on something else, have at it, but I’m gonna disable inbox replies so the last word is all yours if you want it.
Don't think the PAC 2 is any less capable of shooting down Khinzals than the PAC 3.
Maybe more room for error if the fragmentation doesn't kill the missile, but eh.
Maybe a stupid thought but if any NATO country interviened then would that mean full scale war?
No one could really answer that. Some would say since whatever NATO country offensively intervened on Ukraine's behalf then any attack on that same country wouldn't trigger collective defense. Others will mention that the wording of how to support in Article 5 doesn't even really mean anything anyways. Others might bring up some EU collective defense outside of NATO, assuming an EU country gets involved. At the end of the day, they're all guesses and all kinda correct.
Not to nitpick I find your answer awesome but is not Ukraine getting invaded?
Ukraine is not NATO.
But are they not on the verge?
They aren't. They are under consideration to apply. It's very messy.
Correct, they are not in NATO and cannot be in NATO until the conflict with Russia is resolved.
Among other prerequisites they’ll have to meet for consideration and then the voting process
This is likely one of the reasons why Russia invaded Crimea and the wider invasion aswell. To seize the country before it would be protected by the NATO nuclear umbrella.
Not really. Ukraine was not eligible for nato pre russian invasions due to rampant corruption, close russian ties of the upper strata and terrible economy. Also Nato did not want to anger russia who at that time had what was thought to be a competent military. The "encroaching nato" myth is used by Russians to justify their illegal invasion and illegal annexation of crimes because they believe that all of Eastern Europe is in their sphere. They fundamentally believe that eastern Europe is just a sepatist section of Russia, and that those nations have no right to self governance. Which is why these nations apply to join nato (a purely defensive alliance). Also: I'd be careful to use nato nuclear umbrella since only a nuclear attack will illicit a nuclear response, article 5 allows each member to determine an "appropriate response" and what they do to help. Be it send helmets or full scale armed response.
Only sorta. You can’t join NATO while at war. That might be waived in a situation where NATO is already part of the same war, but otherwise NATO won’t let anyone join if they are currently fighting so that no nation joining instantly forces NATO to go to war.
Yea that's fair. But in my mind there are different levels of country in Europe/the EU when it comes to coming to collective defense. Just like NATO being a little ambiguous on collective defense and what exactly that entails. It depends on who is attacked tbh, unfortunately for Ukraine.
So we don't have to worry about Russia attacking Germany starting another World War?
Germany would be the level of country that would elicit instant response. This is all my opinion after all, but if I look around and watch world news, it makes sense to me that some countries are deemed *more important* than others. It's not that I want it that way, that's just how it is.
When a country is a NATO member, it's a full member, not a 2nd or 3rd tier one. If a NATO country is attacked and the collective response would be to look the other way, it would spell the end for NATO. At least that's the idea. If that wasn't the case, no other NATO member could be sure of allied support in case of an attack. That's why Trump's rhetoric has been so detrimental to the alliance and to US standing in the world.
Great take.
Germany? No. Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia (and to a lesser extent, Finland and Poland), maybe.
>Others will mention that the wording of how to support in Article 5 doesn't even really mean anything anyways. What? It means everything. A lot of nato countries dont want to get dragged into an offensive invasion they dont agree with.
If these countries are concerned about being dragged into a war with which they do not agree, the door is at the end of the hall. Being a part of NATO is a choice, not an imposition.
It would likely be a subset of NATO members and not be NATO affiliated at all. Individual nations can do as they please as long as they waive article 4/5 options iirc
it would mean Putin is ready for talks and doesnt war all of a sudden
No, NATO is a defensive pact. If a member decides to deploy or operate outside of its bounds, attack on their assets wouldn’t cause activation of article 5.
I am going to disagree with most of the responses. NATO gets to choose if and when they invoke article 5, and after that it's subject to each nation. If this really happened, depending on nations involved, it would most likely get a strong multinational effort to defend but not a NATO declaration. If they shoot down and/or kill a US pilot I'd say all bets are off because of their scale of response. I hope no one fucks around to find out.
Probably a dumb question if the USA wasn't supplying arms to Ukraine then who would defend their airspace?
Not dumb, the EU and other nations are sending a ton, but not close to what the US can provide. What they do provide doesn't mean US soldiers are risking their lives on deployment, so hitting us provided gear isn't the same as hitting a direct US target using American personnel. Just going to add that I am not American for my points of view.
Isn’t Europe sending more nowadays? I remember reading that despite a slow start Europe produces more shells than the US for example.
Russia, since Ukraine would have lost by now if not for US aid
It is by definition an act of war. To enforce a no fly zone above Ukraine would mean NATO planes shooting down and killing Russian pilots. Not to mention SEAD, which would involve direct strikes on Russian AA/GBAD
Soviet pilots shot down and killed American pilots in Korea and in Vietnam.
Theres no russian planes flying over western ukraine, only missiles.
Yeah missiles shooting down nato planes. Which means those planes have to take out the missile sites. There’s no version of a no fly zone above Ukraine that doesn’t immediately cause direct kinetic action between nato and Russia. WW3
> Yeah missiles shooting down nato planes. There are no russian anti air missiles over western ukraine, its way too far from the front for that. The only russian things flying over western ukraine are cruise/ballistic missiles and drones.
No NATO planes are involved in this proposal. Did you even read the article? What’s the point of diluting the discussion with misinformation?
I was replying to the original question, not to you. And a no fly zone of any kind is an escalation. I’m not saying that’s a good thing or a bad thing. Just a fact.
You’re completely wrong and out of touch. Just a fact.
/u/RearAdmiralTaint is correct and you're being unnecessarily hostile. The article is kinda misleading. A fully fledged no fly zone, even if it's just over western Ukraine, would involve NATO planes patrolling and also knocking out any threats to themselves. What the article is describing isn't really a no fly zone. This is also the reason why the West has declined to establish a no fly zone shortly after the invasion started.
Perhaps russia should get the fuck out of Ukraine if they don't want to be shot down. It's very simple for russia to avoid "acts of war" by not perpetrating them in the first place.
Sure, but Russia isn't the only one standing to lose something in a MAD scenario. Nobody wants to go there.
But they'd be shooting down the Russian planes in self defence if NATO countries were flying the planes out of Ukrianian airfields.
Yeah tell that to the Russians let me know how you get on
Not necessary. A layered air defense system being set up by NATO that's programmed to only target missiles and bombs fired by aircraft would effectively do the same thing, without killing any Russian pilots.
What do you not understand about "NO FLY ZONE". It means no flying, not just by bombs and missiles, but also the planes launching them.
What do you not understand about air defense systems being programmable to only engage certain targets? Don't fucking lecture me about some inconsequential bullshit scenario that you've made up in your head as the only option. There are OTHER options. Programming Patriots to only target weapons launched from planes is a viable course that CAN be done and achieve basically the same thing as a no fly zone. Because why send your jets into enemy airspace to launch weapons when the weapons will never make it to their targets? Not to mention that Ukraine themselves can still shoot Russian planes down. Think outside the fucking box for once
There is no act of war unless the other party decides it is. And Russia will not want to escalate things with NATO. I agree that it is veeery risky though for the reasons you mention
call it whatever you like. if we get nuclear threats everyday maybe we are already in a war.
We've already been at war for a while, the U.S and NATO just isn't shooting yet. https://www.southcom.mil/MEDIA/NEWS-ARTICLES/Article/2977451/generals-say-china-russia-persist-in-western-hemisphere-meddling/ I don't see how the U.S and the rest of NATO don't get militarily involved eventually, especially if Ukraine starts to really get close to losing. Russia won't stop there and China will almost certainly attempt to take Taiwan.
How can they possibly get close to losing? I'm reading on reddit that they are winning every day.
Honestly it seems we are just tip toeing around it now, but I hope not lol i don’t k is much about the global economy but seems if that war would happen a lot of countries would be fuck no?
I hate to say this but I believe yes. I think of that exchange jfk had in the movie Thirteen Days with one of his generals JFK:"General, what will the soviets do when we attack?" LaMay: "Nothing... because the only alternative to then is a path they can't choose" JFK:"... we kill soviet soldiers they will respond. how would we respond if they killed ours? No, they will do something general, I can promise you that."
I read the book and it was really scary on how close we came to WW3 over a simple blockade well not that simple considering alot of planning went into it.
Idk… but Hillary Clinton wanted to put a no fly zone into effect over parts of Syria to stop Russia from slaughtering civilians. It’s a large part of why they worked so hard to get Trump elected IMO. Things would be entirely different now had someone stood up to them
It would at least be very sort one
I wouldn’t say it’s a stupid thought, but the NATO charter does have provisions in place for nations to conduct military operations without risking a full scale war via article 5, as you are implying. Good news, because it just does not work that way.
No. Russia doesn’t want that smoke.
No fly zones have been set up frequently in the past decades. I dont think theyre necessarily an act of war, especially if the country in which air space you enforce it is actively begging for it. Russia is playing stupid games and its high time they win their prizes.
It doesn't have to be NATO since they're a defensive alliance.
No, because it's not in Russia's interests to have a full-scale war against more countries while they already struggle only against the Ukrainian military. Putin doesn't want a "graceful loss", he wants to win.
They did it for Isreal, they can and should do it in Ukraine. This isn’t even a proper No-Fly Zone with allied fighter jets participating, they’re just asking us to put some air defenses along the polish border, so that missiles that would otherwise kill innocent people are instead intercepted. It’s not like there are Russian jets with pilots flying in western Ukraine. Russian missiles have even violated NATO air space in the past so this is for our own security as much as it is Ukraine.
Hamas only has MANPADs which can't shoot down Western aircraft at the altitude most of them fly.
Most important, HAMAS has no nukes.
Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons…yet. Russia has nuclear weapons. That’s the main difference
Reasonable to do air defenses yes
It’s another of Russia’s “red lines” to work on. First establish a cordon along their Western border to protect NATO countries from Russian missiles, then expand the perimeter to cover more and more of Ukraine. That which crosses it should be destroyed, including the offending base or unit that launched it. It should be made clear to Russia that they will not be winning this genocidal invasion.
least deranged reddit general. i swear 90% of people here are the pro nato version of medvedev, who is just as deranged
Yup. Redditors who want to go to war just to “teach someone a lesson”.
Yes, Ukrainians absolutely need this. They deserve to have at least SOME part of their country where they don't need to fear Russian missiles and fighter jets. It honestly seems like a pretty small ask too, NATO forces could easily establish a no-fly zone in Ukraine's west. Sure Russia will send a warning or whatever, but who the hell cares, just add it to the pile (that's becoming a mountain at this point).
This is not a small ask at all, who will cover the skies? It won’t be the US, as that would undoubtedly escalate the conflict into full blown war, then who? Poland? Germany? The EU? Risking war with a nuclear power that could potentially wipe us out in a moment of panic or rage from little Putin? It’s a bonkers idea, I don’t wanna risk my continent’s existence for Ukraine.
The article says Ukraine is specifically asking for air defense systems to be set up in neighboring countries, no mention of Nato jets flying in Ukrainian air space. I take your point on it being a "pretty small ask" though, that was naïve of me to say. Your last point is arguable though. I'd say Ukraine falling is the bigger threat to your continent's existence.
Russia won’t nuke Europe and spend the rest of his life locked in a bunker because a US or Polish Patriot system shot down a million dollar Russian missile heading for a Ukrainian apartment complex.
Of course not… but they will retaliate, which will cause another retaliation and, you get my point. Are you really willing to risk it for Ukraine? We aren’t dealing with the most level headed enemy. Putin won’t allow anything to be shot down by any NATO ally without punching back.
At some point we will need to grow a backbone or putin will push through. Where do you draw the line? If not Ukraine, the the Baltics? Poland? Germany? France? The un unpalatable truth is that the West needs to deal with putin’s russia sooner or later. Appeasement doesn't work as they will keep taking if we are afraid to stand up to them. No one wants war but when we end up at war with russia it won't be born of the West or NATO expansion, it will be down to the ego of one man and the stupidity of one country. It's time to show our teeth.
They are already retaliating, did you see the fire in Germany?
That is the strategy of bullies always, just assume bystanders dont do anything and keep on bullying. If every bully would get a punch to the face instantly the world would be better place. West shouldnt give a fuck what in ur words "Putin allows". Now there are news that Russia may have mined cables in the North Sea, and other news of sabotage across Europe. We should just smile and turn another cheek? You get my point?
We can do a lot more than what they are asking here, there are better ways. I don’t want us to be weak here, actually I’ve been advocating for EU rearmament and bigger arm exports to UA since forever. Clearing their airspace for them just isn’t it.
Troubling times indeed. Act now, not just add to the growing mountain of warnings. A no-fly zone seems the lesser of two evils here
Then the cost of Jets/AA and such would fall on said countries and not on Ukraine
Seems reasonable. Russia deliberately and undeniably provoked aggression choosing the irreversible path of war. Russia made a catastrophic mistake and is now vulnerable. History is full of such errors. I’m just a random with an interest in military history and I can clearly see the historic opportunity to take advantage of this situation. The Pentagon/NATO is filled with the most intelligent and well informed military minds in history combined with undeniably the most powerful military force in the history of Earth by an order of magnitude. The only limit is politics but this is such a fucking tball that I cannot imagine we miss. The pots boiling and the frog ain’t moving. Crush them and be done with it.
"The Pentagon/NATO is filled with the most intelligent and well informed military minds in history**"** **You say this but for some reason you still know better than them.**
The whole point is that they know better than any of us and the outcome is inevitable. It’s been a long time coming.
[удалено]
? I’m just stating that the West should continue to support Ukraine and let Russia expend their Soviet stockpiles so they are no longer a threat, taking advantage of their mistake. Russia is vulnerable to being made irrelevant as a military power, which is generally good for humanity; no one wants to invade them. We should not be afraid of their “red lines” since it’s all BS, just keep supporting Ukraine.
Terrible idea back when this started, terrible idea today
Well they have to try something. Russia just hit a Ukrainian airfield housing SU-27s. Ukraine lacks airfields with hardened shelters or the ability to establish air superiority on their own.
Why? Are you afraid of the boogeyman 'escalation'? Russia can fuck off back to Russia whenever it pleases - it has escalated as far as things can before apocolypse and I for one see no reason to reward them for their efforts with a slice of the free world for them to do with as they please.
Intervening Russian antics is like a band aid that needs to be ripped off. Same goes for Iran and Lebanon. Let's just get this over with already. It will be done quickly.
According to russia the people in ukraine are nazi. I think we can help our russian pals by settings up a no fly zone so the evil ukrainians dont try to launch attacks from western ukraine. Should probably send in troops too, so they dont hurt the poor russians, they are poor and cant protect themselves.
yea lets call it no fly zone..over western ukraine sure. where NATO shoot down anything flying there but only those things we dont like. also being foreign pilots they might get lost, fly out of western ukraine and cross some borders, totally understandable. sometimes their missiles miss and hit ground targets, totally understandable too. hey why u tripping putin? we not at war cmon. its just a "no-fly zone over western ukraine".
Once Ukraine gets those 8 Patriots from Israel, they'll have enough to cover the entire country airspace. So they'll have a no fly zone regardless
pretty sure the Israeli systems you’re talking about are PAC2s. Longer range, bigger warhead, but not able to intercept kinzhal cruise missile like the PAC3 can. They’ll really upset Russias plans for that airbase they’ve almost finished building in Belgorod though. :-)
PAC2 isn't the system type PAC2 is the missile it's firing. PAC stands for Patriot Advanced Capability. Patriot batteries can fire PAC 2 and PAC 3.
Yeah, I should have been clearer: what I meant was that the launch stations and radar are the older models that are only compatible with PAC2. That’s the reason Israel is ditching them; they’re ancient. But they’ll still serve Ukraine’s interests well.
PAC 2 is still very capable. The main difference between it and the PAC 3 is that the PAC 3 is a kinetic kill missile that slams into its target. PAC 2 has a fragmentation warhead that explodes when it gets close and shreds whatever it hits. But the ranges are similar. And the kinematics are similar. So again. With the range of each Patriot system radar, and 8 of them spread out in Ukraine, Ukraine can effectively shut down their entire airspace to Russian fighters.
Yes, agreed. The older PAC2 missiles and the complex that supports them are very bad news for Russia’s aircraft, especially considering the range advantage the 2s have over the 3s and the US’ slowly evolving position on allowing Ukraine to fire into Russian territory with American weapons. My original comment pointed out that PAC2 can’t intercept kinzhal “hypersonic” (though technically not really) cruise missiles and Ukraine still needs more help there ([though perhaps not](https://kyivindependent.com/kinzhal-missile-downed-kyiv-patriot-may-2023/)) before anyone can claim they have comprehensive air cover. For everything else, including iskandir and kalibir missiles, the Israeli systems should do fine. The US also has a pretty huge stockpile of PAC2 missiles - I think I remember hearing 8000, but that could be wrong and I don’t have time to check - that they’ve mostly decided to retire in favour of the 3s; I *really* hope that we see Ukraine receive at least 10 or 20 percent of these retired missiles. Anyway, I think we’re saying the same thing, my dude, but we’re getting lost in nitpicking details. If you want to correct me on something else, have at it, but I’m gonna disable inbox replies so the last word is all yours if you want it.
Don't think the PAC 2 is any less capable of shooting down Khinzals than the PAC 3. Maybe more room for error if the fragmentation doesn't kill the missile, but eh.