Thread by @mewalters101

I've been seeing a lot of calls for a #NoFlyZoneOverUkraine. On the surface this might seem a great option - no more Russia bombing civilians. But imposing a no-fly zone involves active combat. #NATO would be declaring war on Russia. So let's talk about no-fly zones. 1/

Step 1 - Determine what type of no-fly zone. An absolute NFZ with no aircraft allowed, no hostile aircraft (& hostile as any military aircraft vs actively engaged in hostilities, wh/ would allow for ISR platforms), fixed wing vs rotary wing, etc. 2/

Step 2 - Determine ROEs. Attack aircraft violating the NFZ vs striking airfields where they took off from. Is pursuit allowed? Ie could a NATO plane pursue a Russian plane into Belarus or Russian airspace? Could airfields in Belarus or Russia be bombed? 3/

Step 3 - the SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) problem. In addition to dealing with hostile aircraft, NATO would have to address ground-based air defense systems like SAMs. Russia has both fixed and mobile defenses - all of which are manned by Russian soldiers. 4/

With the fixed air defenses - again the question of bombing targets in Russia. And with air defenses - what are the ROEs? Strike them only if they target a patrolling aircraft? Are command and control facilities fair game? Does tracking a patrolling aircraft count as hostile? 5/

Will there be a threshold for response - ie ignoring more minor attacks? Would the retaliation have to be immediate or delayed after an approval process? 6/

Step 4 - NATO would have to actively enforce the NFZ. That means constant patrolling. Shooting down Russian planes and helicopters. Attacking Russian air defenses. Killing Russian soldiers. Given Russian capabilities, it also means almost certain NATO casualties. 7/

Caution - NFZs are typically imposed by a more powerful country/alliance on a weaker country, or at least one that has a weaker air force. That's because the aim is typically to coerce to launch a drag out fight. Even then, NFZs are challenging. 8/

Take the Deny Flight NFZ over Bosnia in the 1990s. NATO had overwhelming advantages & btw 1993-1995 flew over 50,000 patrols. BUT it mostly failed to deter short helicopter flights b/c there weren't enough planes in the sky at any given time. 9/

That is NOT the scenario NATO would face in Ukraine. Although we haven't seen it much in action in Ukraine to date, Russia has a highly capable air force. Gaining the air superiority necessary to impose a no-fly zone would be a hard fought slog with casualties on both sides. 10/

Pres Biden & NATO have been very clear - no NATO soldiers fighting in Ukraine. Unless that position changes, NATO literally can't impose an NFZ. Plus, b/c so many of Russia air assets and air defenses are in Russia, an NFZ would require massive escalation. 11/

Fundamentally it comes down to this: is a war between NATO and Russia the best way to save Ukraine? Is NATO willing to bear those costs? And frankly, with the serious risk of a NATO-Russia war going nuclear due to miscalculation/mistake/etc, is the world willing to risk it? 12/12