Thread by @gregbagwell

A Ukraine NFZ 🪡🧵- How could it work? I have shifted my view on this and believe that there is now a case to explore this option and soon.

1. It would have to be under UN “responsibility to protect” auspices and cannot be a purely NATO initiative. una.org.uk/r2p-detail contributions from non NATO nations would greatly assist here, but recognise that NATO nations/systems best placed.

2. It carries huge risk of escalation and needs to be approached with that clearly in mind. That could mean taking losses without retaliation in the extreme case. A NFZ that “turns the other cheek” is not a usual approach but may the only way here and would further alienate 🇷🇺

3. It would have to state clear intent that anything “flying” in the designated area (I would go for the entire country border of Ukraine but some may argue for a buffer) is considered hostile and will be engaged.

4. It would not engage aircraft over 🇷🇺 or 🇧🇾 territory, nor would it engage Air Defence systems in those countries. However, it would reserve the right to engage any ground based AD attacking from within 🇺🇦 territory. This carries high risk for both NFZ enforcers and escalation

5. This approach would require either: close co-ordination with 🇺🇦 military or, in extremis, the ceasing of all and any 🇺🇦 air or air defence activity so that there is no confusion or fratricide.

6. Raising the question, would the potential benefits of an International NFZ working outweigh the desire for 🇺🇦 to maintain any indigenous air capability?

6. Benefits: it is action this day and a meaningful act which could have significant and immediate impact on course of war and certainly morale of Russian troops and 🇺🇦. It would be “the right thing to do” for the International community.

7. Threats. Russia uses this a pretext to escalate either against Ukraine or wider. This is clearly the strongest reason to not choose to implement a NFZ. But limiting its ROE might keep it below this threshold.

8. Be under no illusion this would not be easy or without huge risk. At best we could lose aircraft and aircrew without being able to retaliate. That would be the price of acting with “courageous restraint”.

9. Escalation must be avoided and that may prohibit this option. However, right now, can we really sit back and not act? What could we say to Ukrainians if we failed to help them in their hour of need. This is no longer about power politics, it’s about freedom and principles.

@threadreaderapp unroll