What utter nonsense. In a long list of escalations stretching more than a decade – escalations in which the West systematically and obtusely refused to acknowledge and/or take seriously stated Russian concerns and ultimatums – this would be just another miscalculation. Only the cost of miscalculation has now risen to where it may well threaten all of humanity.
Whatever one may or may not think, ideologically, about whether Russian concerns about Western geopolitical designs are well grounded or not, the plain observable fact is that they a) have and b) will act on those concerns. They have not bluffed, and I don’t wish to find out where the line lies. And that is the reality we all face, rather than the fantasy world ideologically blinkered strategists wring their ignorant and bloody hands about.
The time for abstract moralizing and word games passed well more than a decade ago.
Steven Pinker writes in the chapter on Existential Threats, in his book Enlightment Now:
“The fundamental fact of the nuclear age is that no atomic weapon has been used since Nagasaki. If the hands of the clock point to a few minutes to midnight for seventy two years, something is wrong with the clock.”
The clock is nonsense, created as a bit of drama.
The real world just doesn’t work like that; it does work with stakes being ramped up on the basis of a view of the other person’s reaction. Mearsheimer called Ukraine right..others didn’t, and they were the ones in charge.
Able Archer was very dangerous…but not known until much later.
And that’s why attacks on Russia itself are unwise…who knows if a missile has a nuclear warhead…until you do…too late if retaliation has already been launched.
UnHerd Reader
1 month ago
Uh, no.
Matt Hindman
1 month ago
Hey guys don’t worry! This “no-fly zone” totally does not work like and will not have any of the same grave implications as what is well defined as a no-fly zone. Dude, trust me on this.
Carlos Danger
1 month ago
.
Janko M
1 month ago
The fact that gradual escalation keeps being pushed, rather than an acknowledgement that things have become as dangerous as at any time during the Cold War and that maybe for the sake of Ukraine this war ought to be brought to an end, is particularly worrying.
I understand that nobody wants Ukraime to lose, but pushing Europe and the US into an open confrontation with Russia is delusional. We had lost before the first bullet was fired with our nations disarmed (except US) and highly indebted. For us to bait WW3 is outright madness. I do think we need to rearm massively to reassert deterrence, but confronting Russia openly would end in absolute disaster for everyone.
The west would defeat Russia very easily in a conventional conflict (and a nuclear one if that could be considered a victory, given Russian incompetance).
The West would prevail, but millions of Europeans, Russians, and Americans would die and vast areas of each would be decimated. Is that really what you want to risk?
I didn’t say I *want* such a scenario, only that if such a war occurred, Europe would win. I would argue pretty quickly as well, but that’s a different subject.
I very much doubt it because we would be fighting in Russia’s backyard. Our lines of communication would be a lot longer than their’s. Further, in a war of attrition, as is currently occurring, it is very likely that the west would run as soon as the first body bags came home.
Nick Russell
1 month ago
A sensible and measured suggestion: a dome of iron to protect innocent civilians and infrastructure. Putin is too ‘steeped in blood’ to stop now. He must be stopped.
You come across as an avid supporter of Putin’s barbarism, for that is what it is.
From Timothy Snyder’s book – ‘On Tyranny and on Ukraine. Lessons from Russia’s War on Ukraine’.
“A nuclear power had attacked a state that had given up its nuclear weapons. An empire was trying to halt European integration. A tyranny was attempting to crush a neighboring democracy. On occupied territories, Russia perpetrated genocidal atrocities with clear expressions of genocidal intent.”
And Putin’s genocidal intent continues.
Very far from a supporter of barbarism, by Russia or anyone else currently engaged in it.
But the idea that Russia can be “beaten” is nonsense and always was. Soviet doctrine was always that a nuclear war can be fought…and won. I doubt that in the final analysis that doctrine has changed.
Ukraine could have had a good future as a neutral country like Austria…not any longer.
There was a “sensible and measured suggestion” almost two years ago, but the US sent Boris over to tell Zelenskyy that it wasn’t happening. And it’s not like Putin arbitrarily decided to take action for no particular reason. How many more Ukrainians must die while you continue tilting at this windmill?
Tyler Durden
1 month ago
The moral question seems quite simple to me: base a peace treaty on the autonomy of the Russian-speaking Donbas republics and stop the destruction of this tragic country. Millions of Ukrainians may then be able to return to their country too.
But for their arms, security and shale gas corporations at least, the war is vital for American global interests. The military strategy for the Ukraine has been poor but the US has successfully mobilised the post-Soviet states (and misguided Western European partners) into a state of enhanced paranoia extending beyond the reality of their NATO membership.
No, the war has somewhat crippled Russia’s military, but the US has spent many billion$ and depleted stocks of military hardware that would be critical in an all-out war with Russia or China. The US is not gaining from this war, except for shocking Europe starting to man-up to defend itself rather than resting on America’s protection. Time to leave the nest, little rabbits.
Jürg Gassmann
1 month ago
This is beyond delusional.
First of all, it is very clear that Russia is not targeting civilians – the death toll would be by orders of magnitude high, on the scale of Gaza, if they did. They are targeting Ukraine’s war-making infrastructure, including its power system (which runs the trains, essential for logistics). If that is a war crime, then so was NATO’s bombing campaign in Serbia and the “Coalition’s” “shock and awe” campaign in Iraq (bearing in mind that both those actions were war crimes already by virtue of being unprovoked wars of aggression).
Then, it is clear even from Ukrainian reporting that most civilian deaths occur when a spent AA projectile falls back down to earth (that will happen, you can’t do anything about it), or a hit attacking missile or drone is thrown off its course and impacts in a civilian area.
Furthermore, the West has exhausted its anti-aircraft resources – they were never very good or plentiful to begin with, now what was on hand is pretty much gone.
Finally, the Russian missiles cannot be intercepted with today’s technology. Russian attacks feature a mix of slow-moving drones which attract the Ukrainian anti-aircraft artillery, while the devastating projectiles reach their targets.
Absolutely – not to mention smearing the country with depleted uranium too.
Mr Sketerzen Bhoto
1 month ago
> How long can the West allow this to happen, risking further escalation that may include weapons of mass destruction?
Imposing a no fly zone is more likely to risk further escalation leading to weapons of mass destruction. It might work for missiles only. Killing Russians with NATO planes manned by NATO is clearly going to be a war – the day that happens NATO is at war with Russia.
Allison Barrows
1 month ago
The US State Department started this for-profit war. They have a long, ignominious history of destabilizing foreign governments and societies for their own evil purposes, the suffering of the victims be damned.
The only president in decades who didn’t start a war was Donald Trump. Once he got in the White House and discovered what was going on behind the scenes – not just with foreign policy, but with the boarder, the total corruption in Washington, the money flowing in from and to our enemies – he tried to stop it.
Look what’s happened to him.
No, the US inspired this war to start when Biden would not say that “We have no intention of bringing Ukraine into NATO”. The demented fool is at fault. Don’t blame the rest of us, we are going to get rid of him pronto.
Does it matter? Trump won’t achieve anything he or you wants…he won’t be allowed to…
Alex Lekas
1 month ago
Since the first day of Putin’s war,
That’s the point where I stopped reading. It’s as if people like this guy think nothing ever happened in that region before Feb 2022. You can dislike Putin all you like, but you cannot make up a particular set of facts that discount everything that led up to this wholly avoidable conflict.
Philip May
1 month ago
Looking ahead, the presence of Western troops in Ukraine could complicate negotiations when this war nears its end.
It seems to me that the end game is being played out right now. Nato, and especially the US and Canada, have really dropped the ball on this one.
Dennis Learad
1 month ago
What planet are you on Ryan, this is a proxy war take KAK out of your eyes and give the money back to the Western media sponsor who you are writing this rubbish for. There are only two terrorists involved in this military conflict not a war if it was a war Ukraine would be destroyed along with any NATO warmongering country that puts foot on Ukraine soil. We have France Germany the UK bringing Europe and the UK to nuclear annihilation threatening Russia with the USA Warmongers weapons, when neither country would ever think of standing toe to toe with Russia, instead of supplying Ukraine with tax payers money which these governments have no mandate to do from the voting masses, why don’t they fire the missiles direct?? let’s see what happens then, let’s see when missiles destroy and kill their citizens such as London destroyed Birmingham, then we will see what the UK public support is for the foul corrupt Ukraine. Ryan you are part of the foul Western Media trying to bull shit the public, unfortunately what you stand for disinformation has long been sussed out by those who take time what is beyond the trees!! You will probably be supporting the Nazi Jewish Apartheid Israel State calling HAMAS a terrorist?? Now that is where there should be a no flight zone!! I don’t here you mention that?? You will probably be one of those foul apologists for GAZA, who when asked “Well it’s not ideal conditions for the Palestinians and there is not enough Aid getting through AS YOU WESTERN MEDIA LIKE TO DESCRIBE what is happening in GAZA and the West Bank!! Instead of shouting from the roof tops a GENOCIDE is taking place. LET’S Imagine you Ryan similar situation 1939-45 your western hypocrisy reporting this would be you and your colleagues visiting Treblinka, Auschwitz, Bergen, Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, Majdanek, Mauthausen, Ravensbruck, etc etc “WELL THE PEOPLE IN THESE CONCENTRATION CAMPS CONDITIONS ARE NOT IDEAL” AND THERE CERTAINLY ISNT ENOUGH AID GETTING TO THEM!! Don’t you apologists realise ISRAEL IS STARVING THE PALESTIANIANS!! They are no different from HITLER they are murderers. Like Zelensky and the PANDORA PAPER revelations he does not care for his people the regime is corrupt to the core. SO, RYAN start at the source and cut the head of Medusa which as you know is the USA and its puppies the NATO warmongers.
You still can’t get away from the fact that it was Russia that invaded.
And while Ukraine is quite high on international lists of corruption, Russia is even higher.
Dash Riprock
1 month ago
It has always been a question of how much help the West would give Ukraine and what the actual objectives of the help are. Many think Russia will fight to achieve some kind of result, which it can present as ‘victory’, no matter what the cost. Others think Putin is transactional and if the cost and risk become too great he will withdraw or at least offer easier terms in an armistice.
Charles Stanhope
1 month ago
So let’s try another UNNECESSARY WAR,
Third time* lucky?
(*1914-18, and 1939-45.)
KM
1 month ago
Actually I disagree with almost all of the comments here which are clearly based from the point of departure that the West should have let Putin do whatever in Ukraine.
But so be it and obviously we can agree to disagree.
However, I still note a very clear logical inconsistency in the article. Though noble in its intentions, and I am actually for more material and economic support to Ukraine from West to ensure that Russia cannot win, I see that the proposed tactical moves in the article would actually escalate things even more.
Put simply and in the same arguments made by the article. What happens if indeed NATO deploy these anti-air missile units in Ukraine and then Putin switches from the current strategy of attacking these locations with missiles and drones to actual Russian aircraft just for provocation? Putin clearly could not care less for the lives of Russian pilots so then the ball is to NATO anti-air units. Do they shoot them down? Do they stand down? The former would be an act of war, the latter, well…. would make NATO a joke.
The West MUST avoid at all costs giving Putin grounds for such a provocation from which only he would win. But the West should quit the current humpty-dumpty attitude and either go in all the way with material and financial aid to Ukraine or just push for a peace settlement – which Putin will of course violate.
Rocky Martiano
1 month ago
What could possibly go wrong? The good general seems to be blissfully unaware of the law of unintended consequences (otherwise known as ‘Sod’s Law’).
Citizen Diversity
1 month ago
Getting desperate?
If the war hasn’t gone well for the Kremlin, it hasn’t gone well for the Allies. An A-level student could list the reasons. But particularly pitiful is the UK’s prime minister failing to convince African leaders and others that they are involved in a global war.
What about a no-fly zone over Gaza?
But thank God the general has retired.
Citizen Diversity
1 month ago
Adding Western troops in penny packets to Ukraine, hoping that the Russians don’t think it worthwhile to respond fiercely at each increment.
James S.
1 month ago
Spoken like a card-carrying member of the Military-Industrial Complex. Pray tell, what defense contractor do you work for now, General?
Johann Strauss
1 month ago
Anybody with any sense would realize that a no-fly zone over Ukraine is a recipe for disaster. Do we really want NATO planes confronting Russian ones and risking WWIII. For what? To interfere in what is effectively a civil war (in all but name) between the Russian Federation and Ukraine.
Peter Lee
1 month ago
Very strange war. The terms of the Peace treaty are known and were known before the war started. A neutral Ukraine (no NATO Membership) and the Russian area east of the Dnieper River would be annexed by Russia.
A D Kent
1 month ago
The reason why the West will not attempt to enact a no-fly zone across Ukraine is the same as for why they won’t be enforcing it with X-Wing fighters – the munitions necessary don’t exist.
Frank Scavelli
1 month ago
Typical Russophobic bullshit.
Jim McDonnell
1 month ago
With Russian missiles skirting and even penerating Polish air space it seems the skies of western Ukraine must be secured for the sake of Ukraine’s western neighbors.
Christopher Edwards
1 month ago
Shock and awe. Completely destroy Moscow with nukes, tell him to stop the war ,retreat to original borders with Ukraine or St Petersberg next. Note to button pusher, make sure wind is in right direction.
Worked in WW2 with Japan.
There solved it for you….
Utter madness, from General Ripper.
“War is too important to be left to politicians “.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TrrlQc4xvmE
I think we should surrender now just to be on the safe side
What utter nonsense. In a long list of escalations stretching more than a decade – escalations in which the West systematically and obtusely refused to acknowledge and/or take seriously stated Russian concerns and ultimatums – this would be just another miscalculation. Only the cost of miscalculation has now risen to where it may well threaten all of humanity.
Whatever one may or may not think, ideologically, about whether Russian concerns about Western geopolitical designs are well grounded or not, the plain observable fact is that they a) have and b) will act on those concerns. They have not bluffed, and I don’t wish to find out where the line lies. And that is the reality we all face, rather than the fantasy world ideologically blinkered strategists wring their ignorant and bloody hands about.
The time for abstract moralizing and word games passed well more than a decade ago.
Your plane facts are not so plane neither very actual facts..!
Steven Pinker writes in the chapter on Existential Threats, in his book Enlightment Now:
“The fundamental fact of the nuclear age is that no atomic weapon has been used since Nagasaki. If the hands of the clock point to a few minutes to midnight for seventy two years, something is wrong with the clock.”
The clock is nonsense, created as a bit of drama.
The real world just doesn’t work like that; it does work with stakes being ramped up on the basis of a view of the other person’s reaction. Mearsheimer called Ukraine right..others didn’t, and they were the ones in charge.
Able Archer was very dangerous…but not known until much later.
And that’s why attacks on Russia itself are unwise…who knows if a missile has a nuclear warhead…until you do…too late if retaliation has already been launched.
Uh, no.
Hey guys don’t worry! This “no-fly zone” totally does not work like and will not have any of the same grave implications as what is well defined as a no-fly zone. Dude, trust me on this.
.
The fact that gradual escalation keeps being pushed, rather than an acknowledgement that things have become as dangerous as at any time during the Cold War and that maybe for the sake of Ukraine this war ought to be brought to an end, is particularly worrying.
I understand that nobody wants Ukraime to lose, but pushing Europe and the US into an open confrontation with Russia is delusional. We had lost before the first bullet was fired with our nations disarmed (except US) and highly indebted. For us to bait WW3 is outright madness. I do think we need to rearm massively to reassert deterrence, but confronting Russia openly would end in absolute disaster for everyone.
The west would defeat Russia very easily in a conventional conflict (and a nuclear one if that could be considered a victory, given Russian incompetance).
The West would prevail, but millions of Europeans, Russians, and Americans would die and vast areas of each would be decimated. Is that really what you want to risk?
I didn’t say I *want* such a scenario, only that if such a war occurred, Europe would win. I would argue pretty quickly as well, but that’s a different subject.
Nobody would “win,” and Europe would be uninhabitable for 500 years.
Europe would not “win”…it would be a smoking radioactive wasteland..
There’s also a huge risk with doing nothing.
Is there really..?
I very much doubt it because we would be fighting in Russia’s backyard. Our lines of communication would be a lot longer than their’s. Further, in a war of attrition, as is currently occurring, it is very likely that the west would run as soon as the first body bags came home.
A sensible and measured suggestion: a dome of iron to protect innocent civilians and infrastructure. Putin is too ‘steeped in blood’ to stop now. He must be stopped.
When are YOU joining the Ukrainian army? Or do you intend someone else should do it?
You come across as an avid supporter of Putin’s barbarism, for that is what it is.
From Timothy Snyder’s book – ‘On Tyranny and on Ukraine. Lessons from Russia’s War on Ukraine’.
“A nuclear power had attacked a state that had given up its nuclear weapons. An empire was trying to halt European integration. A tyranny was attempting to crush a neighboring democracy. On occupied territories, Russia perpetrated genocidal atrocities with clear expressions of genocidal intent.”
And Putin’s genocidal intent continues.
Very far from a supporter of barbarism, by Russia or anyone else currently engaged in it.
But the idea that Russia can be “beaten” is nonsense and always was. Soviet doctrine was always that a nuclear war can be fought…and won. I doubt that in the final analysis that doctrine has changed.
Ukraine could have had a good future as a neutral country like Austria…not any longer.
There was a “sensible and measured suggestion” almost two years ago, but the US sent Boris over to tell Zelenskyy that it wasn’t happening. And it’s not like Putin arbitrarily decided to take action for no particular reason. How many more Ukrainians must die while you continue tilting at this windmill?
The moral question seems quite simple to me: base a peace treaty on the autonomy of the Russian-speaking Donbas republics and stop the destruction of this tragic country. Millions of Ukrainians may then be able to return to their country too.
But for their arms, security and shale gas corporations at least, the war is vital for American global interests. The military strategy for the Ukraine has been poor but the US has successfully mobilised the post-Soviet states (and misguided Western European partners) into a state of enhanced paranoia extending beyond the reality of their NATO membership.
Err…millions of Ukrainians are not going to go back to Ukraine…but yes, the war has benefited the USA hugely.
No, the war has somewhat crippled Russia’s military, but the US has spent many billion$ and depleted stocks of military hardware that would be critical in an all-out war with Russia or China. The US is not gaining from this war, except for shocking Europe starting to man-up to defend itself rather than resting on America’s protection. Time to leave the nest, little rabbits.
This is beyond delusional.
First of all, it is very clear that Russia is not targeting civilians – the death toll would be by orders of magnitude high, on the scale of Gaza, if they did. They are targeting Ukraine’s war-making infrastructure, including its power system (which runs the trains, essential for logistics). If that is a war crime, then so was NATO’s bombing campaign in Serbia and the “Coalition’s” “shock and awe” campaign in Iraq (bearing in mind that both those actions were war crimes already by virtue of being unprovoked wars of aggression).
Then, it is clear even from Ukrainian reporting that most civilian deaths occur when a spent AA projectile falls back down to earth (that will happen, you can’t do anything about it), or a hit attacking missile or drone is thrown off its course and impacts in a civilian area.
Furthermore, the West has exhausted its anti-aircraft resources – they were never very good or plentiful to begin with, now what was on hand is pretty much gone.
Finally, the Russian missiles cannot be intercepted with today’s technology. Russian attacks feature a mix of slow-moving drones which attract the Ukrainian anti-aircraft artillery, while the devastating projectiles reach their targets.
Yes, in 1999 under NATO, the Dutch air force launched several cluster bomb attacks in the former Yugoslavia against civilian targets.
Absolutely – not to mention smearing the country with depleted uranium too.
> How long can the West allow this to happen, risking further escalation that may include weapons of mass destruction?
Imposing a no fly zone is more likely to risk further escalation leading to weapons of mass destruction. It might work for missiles only. Killing Russians with NATO planes manned by NATO is clearly going to be a war – the day that happens NATO is at war with Russia.
The US State Department started this for-profit war. They have a long, ignominious history of destabilizing foreign governments and societies for their own evil purposes, the suffering of the victims be damned.
The only president in decades who didn’t start a war was Donald Trump. Once he got in the White House and discovered what was going on behind the scenes – not just with foreign policy, but with the boarder, the total corruption in Washington, the money flowing in from and to our enemies – he tried to stop it.
Look what’s happened to him.
No, the US inspired this war to start when Biden would not say that “We have no intention of bringing Ukraine into NATO”. The demented fool is at fault. Don’t blame the rest of us, we are going to get rid of him pronto.
Does it matter? Trump won’t achieve anything he or you wants…he won’t be allowed to…
Since the first day of Putin’s war,
That’s the point where I stopped reading. It’s as if people like this guy think nothing ever happened in that region before Feb 2022. You can dislike Putin all you like, but you cannot make up a particular set of facts that discount everything that led up to this wholly avoidable conflict.
Looking ahead, the presence of Western troops in Ukraine could complicate negotiations when this war nears its end.
It seems to me that the end game is being played out right now. Nato, and especially the US and Canada, have really dropped the ball on this one.
What planet are you on Ryan, this is a proxy war take KAK out of your eyes and give the money back to the Western media sponsor who you are writing this rubbish for. There are only two terrorists involved in this military conflict not a war if it was a war Ukraine would be destroyed along with any NATO warmongering country that puts foot on Ukraine soil. We have France Germany the UK bringing Europe and the UK to nuclear annihilation threatening Russia with the USA Warmongers weapons, when neither country would ever think of standing toe to toe with Russia, instead of supplying Ukraine with tax payers money which these governments have no mandate to do from the voting masses, why don’t they fire the missiles direct?? let’s see what happens then, let’s see when missiles destroy and kill their citizens such as London destroyed Birmingham, then we will see what the UK public support is for the foul corrupt Ukraine. Ryan you are part of the foul Western Media trying to bull shit the public, unfortunately what you stand for disinformation has long been sussed out by those who take time what is beyond the trees!! You will probably be supporting the Nazi Jewish Apartheid Israel State calling HAMAS a terrorist?? Now that is where there should be a no flight zone!! I don’t here you mention that?? You will probably be one of those foul apologists for GAZA, who when asked “Well it’s not ideal conditions for the Palestinians and there is not enough Aid getting through AS YOU WESTERN MEDIA LIKE TO DESCRIBE what is happening in GAZA and the West Bank!! Instead of shouting from the roof tops a GENOCIDE is taking place. LET’S Imagine you Ryan similar situation 1939-45 your western hypocrisy reporting this would be you and your colleagues visiting Treblinka, Auschwitz, Bergen, Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, Majdanek, Mauthausen, Ravensbruck, etc etc “WELL THE PEOPLE IN THESE CONCENTRATION CAMPS CONDITIONS ARE NOT IDEAL” AND THERE CERTAINLY ISNT ENOUGH AID GETTING TO THEM!! Don’t you apologists realise ISRAEL IS STARVING THE PALESTIANIANS!! They are no different from HITLER they are murderers. Like Zelensky and the PANDORA PAPER revelations he does not care for his people the regime is corrupt to the core. SO, RYAN start at the source and cut the head of Medusa which as you know is the USA and its puppies the NATO warmongers.
You still can’t get away from the fact that it was Russia that invaded.
And while Ukraine is quite high on international lists of corruption, Russia is even higher.
It has always been a question of how much help the West would give Ukraine and what the actual objectives of the help are. Many think Russia will fight to achieve some kind of result, which it can present as ‘victory’, no matter what the cost. Others think Putin is transactional and if the cost and risk become too great he will withdraw or at least offer easier terms in an armistice.
So let’s try another UNNECESSARY WAR,
Third time* lucky?
(*1914-18, and 1939-45.)
Actually I disagree with almost all of the comments here which are clearly based from the point of departure that the West should have let Putin do whatever in Ukraine.
But so be it and obviously we can agree to disagree.
However, I still note a very clear logical inconsistency in the article. Though noble in its intentions, and I am actually for more material and economic support to Ukraine from West to ensure that Russia cannot win, I see that the proposed tactical moves in the article would actually escalate things even more.
Put simply and in the same arguments made by the article. What happens if indeed NATO deploy these anti-air missile units in Ukraine and then Putin switches from the current strategy of attacking these locations with missiles and drones to actual Russian aircraft just for provocation? Putin clearly could not care less for the lives of Russian pilots so then the ball is to NATO anti-air units. Do they shoot them down? Do they stand down? The former would be an act of war, the latter, well…. would make NATO a joke.
The West MUST avoid at all costs giving Putin grounds for such a provocation from which only he would win. But the West should quit the current humpty-dumpty attitude and either go in all the way with material and financial aid to Ukraine or just push for a peace settlement – which Putin will of course violate.
What could possibly go wrong? The good general seems to be blissfully unaware of the law of unintended consequences (otherwise known as ‘Sod’s Law’).
Getting desperate?
If the war hasn’t gone well for the Kremlin, it hasn’t gone well for the Allies. An A-level student could list the reasons. But particularly pitiful is the UK’s prime minister failing to convince African leaders and others that they are involved in a global war.
What about a no-fly zone over Gaza?
But thank God the general has retired.
Adding Western troops in penny packets to Ukraine, hoping that the Russians don’t think it worthwhile to respond fiercely at each increment.
Spoken like a card-carrying member of the Military-Industrial Complex. Pray tell, what defense contractor do you work for now, General?
Anybody with any sense would realize that a no-fly zone over Ukraine is a recipe for disaster. Do we really want NATO planes confronting Russian ones and risking WWIII. For what? To interfere in what is effectively a civil war (in all but name) between the Russian Federation and Ukraine.
Very strange war. The terms of the Peace treaty are known and were known before the war started. A neutral Ukraine (no NATO Membership) and the Russian area east of the Dnieper River would be annexed by Russia.
The reason why the West will not attempt to enact a no-fly zone across Ukraine is the same as for why they won’t be enforcing it with X-Wing fighters – the munitions necessary don’t exist.
Typical Russophobic bullshit.
With Russian missiles skirting and even penerating Polish air space it seems the skies of western Ukraine must be secured for the sake of Ukraine’s western neighbors.
Shock and awe. Completely destroy Moscow with nukes, tell him to stop the war ,retreat to original borders with Ukraine or St Petersberg next. Note to button pusher, make sure wind is in right direction.
Worked in WW2 with Japan.
There solved it for you….
Shock and awe. Only way forward…