Russia’s reckless attack is causing growing anger in the West and is increasing the pressure to even consider establishing a no-fly zone, writes ‘s foreign journalist Mika Mäkeläinen.
It is difficult to look at the traces of the Russian bombing without anxiety. In Ukraine and elsewhere, there is a growing question about how the West could support Ukraine more effectively.
Last Tuesday, the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyi called on NATO to establish a no-fly zone. He told CNN and the news agency Reuters in an interview (you move to another service).
However, the reaction of the United States is absolute.
From a Pentagon spokesman for the Department of Defense From John Kirby was asked on Monday whether the United States is considering establishing a no-fly zone in Ukrainian airspace.
A Pentagon spokesman has explained in the background (you switch to another service)that the implementation of the no-fly zone would mean US involvement in the fighting in Ukraine, and the president said Joe Biden the answer is a resounding no.
The matter is reportedly not even discussed in the Pentagon, and the United States will never establish any no-fly zone in Ukraine.
According to Johnson, the no-fly zone would lead to the crash of Russian fighter jets, with consequences “very difficult to control.”
Johnson didn’t say it out loudbut he meant a war between NATO and Russia.
Despite this risk, among others, the former commander of NATO’s European forces, the American Philip Breedlove supports the Foreign Policy magazine in the article (go to another service) the establishment of a no-fly zone.
He is in favor of a no-fly zone, even if it calls for the destruction of Russian radars and anti-aircraft missiles near the Ukrainian border.
An outsider does not have to be as careful in his proposals as those in office and those in charge.
During the Libyan war, I reported a ride on a U.S. AWACS air surveillance aircraft off the coast of Libya. Technically and militarily, the controls worked, but the legitimacy of the operation was disputed.
No wonder the congressional report called on future decision-makers to carefully consider, among other things, the legal grounds for the no-fly zone.
It would be clearest if it were based on a UN Security Council decision. Now, however, there is no hope for that, because Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council. With its right of veto, it would block the decision.
Many would have a flight ban in Ukraine way different from previous operations. First of all, it would be very difficult because the area is so large.
Lieutenant General of the United States Dave Deptulawhich led to a no-fly zone in Iraq in the late 1990s, rate (switch to another service) the operation will require several hundred fighters.
A more significant and serious difference is that in the past, the United States sovereignly controlled airspace. The challengers were few and far between as underdogers.
Russia would be facing now.
Establishment of a no – fly zone Ukraine should therefore be a startling and very risky decision.
Surveillance of the no-fly zone would be a force to be reckoned with, for which only the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee would be ready for the top foreign policy map in Finland. Jussi Halla-aho (ps). He has insisted on stopping Russia.
However, Russia’s blindfold attack is causing growing outrage in the West and increasing pressure to even consider a no-fly zone.
What has still seemed a politically impossible retaliation today may become possible tomorrow – it has been seen in the past week.
There is a frightening decision in one direction or another ahead.
This analysis is the seventh in a series that News continues during the Russian invasion. We publish a brief but in-depth and context-sensitive analysis every day at about 12 noon.
You can discuss the topic until Thursday, March 3 at 11 p.m.