A Ukraine NFZ - busting some myths - A thread… #NoFlyZoneOverUkraine #NoFlyZone #NoFlyZoneInUkraineNow
A No Fly Zone response to Russian actions in Ukraine is being dismissed out of hand. The arguments against are being parroted by politicians and commentators alike, but is it that black and white. Let’s unpick the 4 main arguments:
1. It’s escalatory. Really? A NFZ that defends sovereign Ukraine airspace, and in respect of soviet ground based air defence in Ukraine would be acting in Self Defence. That looks pretty defensive to me.
2. It would trigger a war between NATO and Russia. Firstly this should be badged as a UN enforced NFZ, and, for the avoidance of doubt, any NATO participation could revoke Article V in the event of an attack on a NATO aircraft.
3. It would effectively ground the Ukrainian Air Force. The NFZ could make provision for restricted operating zones and safe corridors, which allowed Ukraine to continue to operate aircraft over Russian ground troops in Ukraine.
4. It will result in nuclear exchange. Russia knows the outcome of that if it does so on NATO soil. In order to deter It from doing so on Ukrainian soil then we should remind Russia that this would invoke clause 4 of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. 
Final. I know this is a major step, would undoubtedly result in the loss of NFZ aircraft, and would raise the stakes significantly. However, the reasoning being used by others to not act deserve greater inspection, especially as the situation worsens.
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
