The War in Europe

cause war is bad. yes and it would have lead to american planes shooting down russian planes. We don't want NATO forces to kill russians. NATO does not want a war with russia. stealth does not mean invincible.

You're repeating yourself, so I can only repeat myself. Backing down whenever war is threatened is the appeaser's answer, which doesn't work. You eventually find there's nowhere left to back down to and are forced to fight anyway. Better to fight sooner rather than later, because putting it off only makes things worse. No one said it did. Nothing in any military is invincible, I can't even guess why you would say that. The only one pushing something approaching invincibility is Tangle concerning NATO.--Percy

discretion is the better part of valor, maybe we shouldn't rush headlong into global nuclear exchange. great so you agree that any SAM system that targeted a NATO aircraft enforcing a no-fly zone over Ukraine would need to be eliminated to ensure the safety of said aircraft, which leads to NATO Forces attacking russian units on russian soil.

You're not addressing the appeasement problem. Maybe you think Kennedy shouldn't have stood up to Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Did you know that Soviet pilots flew against American pilots in the Korean war? Why would you think that?--Percy

I can imagine a lot of talk in NATO pro/con on a no-fly zone. A big big con would probably be just what you are talking about. If there is a no-fly zone then there are going to be Wild Weasels to enforce it. That means Russian SAM sites on Russian soil. Is Putin weakened militarily enough that he would have to accept NATO air superiority? Would he push the button or come to the table?You makes your bets and you takes your chances. Wild Weasel Anti-Air Suppression

yes and there was Soviet "advisors" operating NVA SAM sights during Vietnam. You're talking about proxy wars, not straight up conflict between NATO and Russia. you're not addressing the global nuclear war problem. I don't think we should just roll over and spread our ass cheeks for Russia like trump and his ilk would have us do. I also don't think we should just run towards open conflict with a nuclear armed adversary. This is not a black and white situation. because you admitted that aircraft enforcing a no fly zone over Ukraine would be at risk of attack by russian SAMs. Threats need to be eliminated to ensure the no-fly zone can be enforced.

Treaties are one of the three sources of laws of the land. The US does have treaties with NATO and so a responsibility to NATO member nations.The Ukraine is not part of NATO.There might be a moral issue that we should help a nation like the Ukraine but there is also a higher level responsibility which is to promote the welfare of the United States of America.To send troops or piloted air craft to Ukraine would require a direct confrontation with Russian forces. The issue is that no one posting in this thread can make a reasoned evaluation of the risk and threat such behavior on our part might make.What happens to Ukraine and Ukrainians has a limited impact on the US and US Citizens. It could lead to China invading Taiwan but even in that case our risk is limited to known (and perhaps undisclosed) treaties between Taiwan and the US.Finally, it is important to remember that the record of the United States honoring treaty obligations is pitiful.

Soviet and American pilots engaging each other in the skies over Vietnam is exactly the same thing as Russian and American pilots engaging each other in the skies over Ukraine. Yes, you're making my point for me. The situation is not black and white, but you're engaged in black and white thinking. Your logic runs, "We can't do anything that involves nuclear risk." That's as black and white as it gets. You're also arguing that a Russia/America military engagement of any sort within Ukraine introduces too much nuclear risk, and that position is also black and white.I'm arguing for something much more nuanced where all risks are assessed, weighted and balanced. We become appeasers when the level of risk we're willing to accept drops so low that we won't do anything effective enough to influence outcomes. You used the word "invincible," and I said, "Nothing in any military is invincible." In other words, it's never possible to reduce risk to zero. Even a lucky stray bullet can bring down the most sophisticated fighter jet. Your view is again black and white. You have to instead assess, weigh and balance risks, which are rarely zero. Stealth bombers and fighters are very effective against SAMs, and our fighters are very effective at avoiding missiles even without stealth technology. Out strategists would have to assess the risks of leaving SAM sites on Russian soil alone. The decision isn't cut and dried in the way you argued.If we believe our stealth technology is sufficiently effective against Russian SAMs then we'd leave them in place, and if we don't believe it's sufficiently effective then we'd have to decide between a number of alternatives, among them avoiding airspace too close to the Russian border, whether to just accept the estimated losses when we did get too close, taking out the SAM sites, etc.If we did decide we couldn't operate with the SAM sites in place then the decision about whether or not to take them out would be a complicated one involving a number of military and geopolitical factors.--Percy

I am more on Percy's side on this. I learned in the last couple of weeks that my love of humanity is stronger than my hate of war. The atrocities committed demand a response. Yes, I understand Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, the Rohingya, and multitudes of other people and places. But using those examples is a fallacious argument. We are talking about Ukraine.
There is a time to stand up to a bully and a horde. Maybe he will stop in the Donbas, maybe he will stop with Ukraine. Maybe he won't. What do you say next time? History shows that there is always a next time.
The threat of nuclear war is real. The threat is there whether we intervene more heavily or not. I refuse to look back in 20 years and listen to people say "If we only had known about the atrocities". We know. Our humanity demands we do something. Our humanity demands we take the risk.
You will not convince me otherwise. So be respectful or be ignored.

I don't know what the best decision is with regards to no-fly zones, but someone in NATO or the U.S. military has decided not to try that.What I'm wondering, have we (NATO or the U.S.) ever successfully enforced a no-fly zone in previous engagements where the Russians were involved?Do we really have the capability to do that?How many planes would it take?How many would have to be in the air at any given time?How many weeks or months could we maintain it?How many planes can we afford to lose?I know next to nothing about our military capabilities, but I did notice that after 20 years in Afghanistan and many trillions of dollars spent by our side, compared to miniscule amounts spent by our adversaries, we lost.I suspect the reason we will not see a no-fly zone in Ukraine is because the decision makers know we cannot enforce it and they are afraid of demonstrating that to the world.

Bit of history. The History Guy: The No-Fly Zone War (1991-2003)

quote:

---

The estimated, unofficial cost of this war to U.S. and British taxpayers is around $1 billion per year. As of August 1999, over 200 military planes, 19 naval ships and 22,000 American military personnel are committed to enforcing the "no-fly zones" and to fighting Iraq.

---

And some perspective. https://www.nbcnews.com/...ected-calls-one-ukraine-rcna18918

quote:

---

"We'd be flying dozens of aircraft, maybe hundreds of aircraft, over Ukraine and shooting at the Russians, and they’d be shooting at us," Cancian said.

​

"There’s tremendous reluctancy on the part of the Pentagon and the political establishment," Mark Cancian, senior adviser to the Washington-based think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in an interview. "The president and NATO have been very emphatic, and the reason is that it’s a combat mission."

​

“It would mean war!”

---

The appeasement question that Percy keeps bringing up is a reality. Bullies need to be confronted now or history says they get worse and bloodier and a hell of a lot more expensive. But past history never dealt with nukes.Being a battlefield general and moving pieces around is one thing. Being Shiva, Destroyer of Worlds, is something else.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

You all EU/UK folks, this stuff in Sweden.My limited understanding is that some alt-right groups started a campaign to burn a koran in an ethnic neighborhood.That is a rather intentionally hostile act with what seems to me to be a major over reaction. All this just when Sweden is wanting to join NATO.I’m sorry but I don’t believe the coincidence. I know there is a history of great tensions but having Sweden now tied up and burning, this looks too convenient for Russian political aspirations of the present.Maybe this Sweden thing is a Russian terror operation. Easy match to strike.Is this causing issues for NATO/Ukraine or is this more limited than I see?

No one here is making a link. Dunno about within Sweden.

Took me a while to find the story: Riots in Sweden by protesters angry about anti-Islam rallies : NPR. A known right-wing agitator in southern Sweden was able to start riots by burning Qurans. A tie-in to the Ukraine conflict doesn't appear clear.--Percy

I'm not looking at any particular stories, just recounting what I recall of what I've read over the past few days.The Russian assault in eastern Ukraine has begun and they've already taken a number of towns. There have been Ukrainian counterattacks, but it's unclear now effective they've been.A Russian general gave away the plan, saying that Russia's goal was to take the Ukrainian south, cutting it off from the Black Sea and creating a land corridor for Russia from the Crimea to Transnistria in Moldova, a breakaway state turned into a Russian enclave whose biggest city is Tiraspol, about 60 miles inland from Odessa on the Black Sea.Military materiel from the $800 billion American aid package has begun to be delivered. It includes some heavier weaponry than previously, such as large howitzers. Still no modern jets.I don't understand US, EU and NATO reticence in helping Ukraine. Should Ukraine fall it will make the European situation far more complex and fraught. We need to take some major risks and suffer some significant pain now if we're to prevent a return to an east/west cold war. We should be doing the utmost to achieve a free Ukraine, and Moldova, too. And we have to recognize that NATO is not some invincible shield protecting the Baltics - certainly the Baltic states recognize this fact.What we're doing now appears to be a lukewarm "let's make this as difficult for Russia as we can without taking any significant risks ourselves but eventually losing." What is the point of any aid at all if we know Ukraine is going to lose? If this is forgone then the compassionate thing to do is to provide no aid at all so that Ukraine can fall as quickly and tidily as possible to minimize the loss of life.--Percy