The Case for a No-Fly Zone in Ukraine

https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2022/03/christina-alam-ukraine-russia-no-fly-zone/

by HellDunkel • 4 years ago

7 2 4 years ago

cmurf• 4 years ago

This makes a stronger summary of just what Russia has done and how it's blowing up the post-WW2 era and U.N. system.

But anyway, I completely support the U.N. General Assembly coming to this conclusion - i.e. there should be a NFZ, and then start with it being self-enforced by Russia. If the U.N. can't be more relevant and convincing than becoming a nuclear armed country to deter aggressive war like this, then the post-world-war institutions are lost. And that means WW3 is pretty much inevitable because the whole point of the U.N. is to prevent world wars.

So yeah, let them be relevant, if they can be. Even better if they can find a way to enforce it somehow that doesn't trigger a NATO article 5 response, i.e. WW3 happens anyway. Pretty much most of the roads lead to WW3 at this point, the trick is figuring out which one(s) don't.

Note that this has no chance in the Security Council where Russia as a permanent member has a veto.

csb6• 4 years ago

Admittedly, this situation presents a new set of challenges compared to the German invasion in 1938–1939, the main being a threat of a potential nuclear war. However, at some point, the Western allies will have to make a calculated military decision to take a stance against Putin’s violation of numerous fundamental norms of international law because inaction in this instance threatens the entire global order.

This seems to be underselling the potential for nuclear war or the start of a larger, direct/hot NATO-Russia war. Shooting down Russian aircraft is an act of war, and it would bring the U.S./NATO into direct conflict with Russia, a nuclear state. Russia could choose to respond by using nuclear weapons.

A “limited” no-fly zone does not change anything. If it is enforced by NATO forces, then it will start a direct conflict with Russia. If NATO doesn’t shoot down planes that violate the zone, then what is the point? Asking Russia to self-enforce a no-fly zone is pointless - if they are already violating international norms, why wouldn’t they just violate this one, too?

The fact that this article only mentions the threat of nuclear war in passing and offers no proposals to help avoid this is a major omission. Putin’s threat to “global order” would grow massively as a result of this because it escalates the conflict. The “calculated decision” would be to not risk nuclear war.

It just seems insane to me that this is even being discussed. The efforts should be to attempt to negotiate a ceasefire and avoid escalating the conflict outside of Ukraine (i.e. not NATO forces shooting down Russian planes).

The Case for a No-Fly Zone in Ukraine

Related Stories