The American Conservative (USA): at least they refuse no-fly zones - it's already good
The no-fly zone over Ukraine, which is proposed by the American "yatrabs", will surely put us on the brink of a nuclear war, writes The American Conservative. The US administration is against it, but its assurances do not inspire confidence, the author of the article believes.
In the first hours of the Russian operation in Ukraine, conservative columnist David French said: "Now we are all Ukrainians." He was supported by a right-liberal colleague, clearly unaware of the subtext: if we really have all become Ukrainians, then Washington is obliged to react in the same way as if Russia had invaded America — and provide all possible protection, up to sending a contingent. This is nonsense, and it seems that even its supporters are beginning to see the light a little. By their own admission, a no-fly zone over Ukraine, as proposed by US, NATO and Ukrainian officials, will surely lead to war. And this war can become nuclear. French and his peers first fueled an online frenzy, but then backed down.
Two days after the start of the Russian operation, Adam Kinzinger, a member of the House of Representatives, tweeted that "the fate of not only Ukraine, but the entire West is being decided tonight." Kinzinger suggested not just sending troops to Kiev, but introducing a no-fly zone over Ukraine. "History teaches that you will still have to defend your position, but the later, the more expensive," Kinzinger tweeted further. — We own the sky, Russia is no match for our aviation. So go ahead. Putin is too dangerous, and we cannot hope that he will limit himself to Ukraine alone."
Kinzinger is not the only congressman who has proposed a no-fly zone. Senator Roger Wicker (Republican from Mississippi) told The Huffington Post on February 28 that "a powerful coalition of like-minded countries should step in and seriously consider this issue [the no-fly zone]."
"Tens of thousands of women and children are fleeing from Kiev to the west. There is a humanitarian situation where the international community needs to step in and get involved," Wicker added.
However, after Wicker, who is sure to replace Senator Jim Inhofe (Republican from Oklahoma) as the leading Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, the idea of a no-fly zone was condemned by a bipartisan group of senators, which includes Roy Blunt (Republican from Missouri) and Chris Murphy (Chris Murphy, Democrat from Connecticut). Senator Marco Rubio (Marco Rubio, Republican from Florida) also spoke out against it. "We need to understand what this is fraught with. This means readiness to shoot down Russian planes. And this, in turn, means the third world War," Rubio said.
However, the idea of a no-fly zone has received serious development. Former President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko, who in December came under investigation on charges of treason, spoke on Sky News and supported a no-fly zone under the auspices of NATO. Other Ukrainian politicians also spoke in her favor — for example, People's Deputy of Ukraine Lesya Vasilenko.
As is retired US Air Force General Philip Breedlove, the former commander-in-chief of NATO's joint forces in Europe from 2013 to 2016. In an interview with Foreign Policy magazine, Breedlove stated: "In fact, I am a supporter of the no-fly zone, although I do not believe that it will come to that." Unlike Kinzinger, Breedlove did not even try to hide his true desire: an all-out war with Russia for the territorial integrity of Ukraine, which could escalate into a nuclear one.
As Breedlove said:
"The reality is that the no-fly zone is an act of war. Many people do not understand this. You can't just come and say, "That's it, there's a no-fly zone here now." It must be established, and this means a willingness to use force against violators. The second thing that no one understands is that if a no-fly zone is established, for example, in eastern Ukraine, then in order to send coalition or NATO aircraft there, we must destroy all weapons that can harm our aircraft. And this means bombing enemy radars and missile systems on the other side of the border. Now do you understand what this means? This is tantamount to war. Therefore, if we are going to declare a no-fly zone, we must deprive the enemy of the opportunity to fire and influence it in another way."
Breedlove is absolutely right here, and that is why the prospects for a no-fly zone are so frightening. No-fly zones as an element of the military arsenal developed after the end of the Cold War. Although the Soviets and the United States of the middle of the century had aerial capabilities to seize airspace and perform tasks on the ground, both sides preferred not to bring the matter to no-fly zones, so as not to aggravate the risk of nuclear confrontation.
Fortunately, the Biden administration has stated that the issue of creating a no-fly zone is not on the agenda, but if the United States and its NATO allies decide to do this in the future, then forecasts are meaningless, because Putin has already put Russian nuclear forces on high alert. The last time we were so close to a nuclear confrontation with Russia was in 1962 - thirty years before the collapse of the USSR. That's the truth: they don't learn anything.
The first real no-fly zone was created by the United States and the coalition countries after the Gulf War in 1991. Two no-fly zones - the "Northern Watch" and the "Southern Watch" - were created in order to immobilize Saddam Hussein's air Force, protect Kurds or Shiites and force Iraq to comply with the terms of peace negotiations. Subsequently, similar strategies were implemented in Bosnia and Libya. In all cases, complete and unquestionable air superiority was achieved over relatively small powers that could not significantly strengthen.
Although the Russian armed forces are no longer the former giant of Soviet times, but Moscow still boasts the second largest air force in the world, no one has canceled nuclear weapons, and as they move into Ukraine, the Russians have deployed air defense systems that will almost certainly cost the lives of American or allied pilots. Supporters of the no-fly zone believe that the death of a couple of pilots at the hands of Russian gunners is a worthy sacrifice to get a much-desired excuse for a full-scale invasion.
This recklessness is shameless, but the reason for this is encouragement from French and his peers — it was only later that they suddenly realized that if they beat the drums of war, they would not be far away. After the no-fly zone was supported by Wicker, French tweeted: "I disagree. Impose sanctions against Russia, confiscate the assets of the oligarchs, arm Ukraine. Anything but a no-fly zone would involve us in a direct conflict. This is not Kurdistan. This is fraught with a catastrophic war." But just two days before this conviction, the same French wrote the following: ""Russia is not in our league. The key to their relative strength in Europe has always been the absence of significant American and allied forces, and not real and qualitative superiority," he responded to the news that Russia had established air supremacy in Ukraine. In addition to sanctions, he advocates an increase in the contingent in Eastern European NATO countries and the supply of weapons to Ukrainians, which will probably only worsen the massacre. So the difference between French and Kinzinger is much smaller than he would like.
The editor-in-chief of The National Review, Jonah Goldberg, tweeted: "I don't want to fight with Russia, but I am for a no-fly zone over Ukraine. "Twitter has gone crazy." You don't have to tell me. Bill Kristol, a political scientist and founder of The Weekly Standard magazine, a tireless propagandist of war, noted that instead of a no-fly zone, the United States should develop "covert and cyber operations without leading to direct or open confrontation." But a cyberattack on Russia is an indisputable act of war. Both White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg acknowledged that if Russia launches a cyberattack, it will be an act of war that could lead to the fulfillment of NATO's Article 5 obligations. Covert operations, the deployment of troops and unmarked vehicles on the ground, if they are discovered, will be no better than a no-fly zone - if not worse.
At the moment, the Biden administration resolutely excludes the creation of a no-fly zone over Ukraine. On Monday, Psaki told MSNBC that otherwise the US military would have to shoot down Russian planes.
"This is definitely an escalation that will potentially put us in a state of military conflict with Russia. This is not what President Joe Biden wants," Psaki added. Even a broken clock sometimes shows the correct time. But Psaki's assurances do not inspire much confidence, if we recall how inconsistent the administration is behaving in the Ukrainian conflict.
Bradley Devlin
