Thread by @MarkHertling

Many seem to be stuck on instituting a US/NATO No Fly Zone (NFZ) in Ukraine. Some asking for this compare doing so to what happened in Iraq and the Balkans.

I don't think it's a good idea, for several reasons. So here's a quick thread. 1/11

The concept of a NFZ is such that a nation puts aircraft into a contested area to prevent another nation from using aircraft against an ally.

It seems simple: Put aircraft in the sky, and stop someone else from using their aircraft from doing bad things. 2/

There's a couple problems to this:
First, in order to ENFORCE a NFZ, you have to be prepared to shoot the other aircraft down. If you're not worried about doing that because you have the power that nothing else bad could happen, you're okay. 3/

The US instituted a NFZ after Desert Storm in Iraq, and during the uprising in the Balkans.

In both those conflicts, it was understood by both Iraq (against the Kurds or Shia) and Serbia (over Bosnia/Herz) that if they tried to fly aircraft they would be shot down. 4/

The operation in Iraq - Northern & Southern Watch - covered about 70,000 square miles,required LOTS of a/c, a place to land (carriers, UAE, and Turkey), & the dangers of Iraqi Air Defense systems (not very good).

There were numerous engagements.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation… 5/

The Serb actions over Bosnia & Herzogovina - countries of a combined 21,000 square miles - also had some "sportiness," with Serbia having multiple engagements and a few aircraft (to include US) shot down by Air Defense. Here's a wiki readout on that: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation… 6/

In both of these operations, there was overt contesting of US Actions.

In Ukraine - a country big as Texas, 233,000 sq miles - there's this problem of active combat from two other sides.

Russian has a LOT of air defense, and a few capable aircraft missilethreat.csis.org/system/russian… 7/

But what Russia also has that neither Iraq nor the former Yugoslav states have is nuclear capabilities. And, unfortunately, Putin has implied he will use them.

Additionally, at every Russian "exercise" I ever attended, the commander always used nukes to "ENDEX." 8/

Now, responsible nation-states - when they go to war - determine risks...and then calculate ways to mitigate those risks.

Irresponsible nation states - like Russia under Putin - tends to gamble. There is no mitigation to a gamble...you either go big, or go home. 6/

Right now, horrific things are going on between RU & UKR. It remains a regional conflict & Russia has FAILED to achieve any of it's strategic objectives.
Putin has not:
1. Subjugated Ukraine
2. Divided NATO
3. Further divided the US
4. Gained any kind of economic advantage 7/

Changing the dynamic from a regional conflict to a potential global nuclear conflict is a pretty big gamble.

8/

Additionally, RU air force is no where near reaching Air Supremacy. It's a joke to say they even have Air Superiority, as they've had dozens of jets, helicopters, and a few transports shot down by UKR air and Air Defense Systems. 9/

What is causing the vast majority of the horrific civilian casualties in UKR today are RU Artillery, Missiles, and Rocket systems, some of which are in Russia or Belorus.

A NFZ does not address ground systems. 10/

Best to continue to provide Ukraine technologically superior weapons, intelligence & humanitarian aid.

The Russians are on the verge of culmination & Ukraine continues to have the spirit and will required to maintain their freedom 10/11

Bottom line: NFZ is a catch phrase, that most don’t understand. Zelesky wants any help he can get, and he sees this as a way to get allies into the fight. The US and NATO are not gambling on global nuclear war.