Electric Kool-Aid ‘No Fly’ Test

It seems this issue needs to be written about yet again.

Daily we are scolded for not imposing a ‘no-fly zone’ over Ukraine by the president of Ukraine, pundits, interviewees, some Americans as well as some of our Congresspeople….daily these people are calling for all out war with Russia.

I understand their urgency but a bigger picture needs to be seen as well…..Ukraine could become the Serbia of the 21st century.

I have given my opinion and explanation of the ‘no-fly zone’ here on IST……

 
But since no one wants to heed the warnings of the dangers of this situation let me try one more time…..
 
In an article written by Paul W. Singer for defenseone.com……

Many are calling for a “no-fly zone” over Ukraine. Few appear to be grappling with the details required to make it an actual policy proposal. If you’re proposing an NFZ, here are some of the questions you need to answer first:

1. What are the historic cases of NFZ success that you seek to emulate? 

2. How will your proposal work differently from the failed versions (Iraq, Bosnia, Libya), which didn’t alleviate most of the civilian harm, nor end the fighting, and ultimately led to participation in the ground war itself?

3. What organization will operate your NFZ? If the UN, how will you get past the certain Russian and Chinese veto? If NATO—whose current unity is a clear Russian target—how to handle the alliance division that it would spark, and likely non-unanimity in approving and then implementing it? 

4. Does your proposal call for shooting down aircraft, but not suppressing the ground-based Russian radar, surface-to-air missiles, electronic warfare, and command-and-control units and systems that would endanger the aviators who are enforcing it? If you do propose to attack these Russian targets, what do you expect to happen next? 

5. What are the zone’s rules of engagement and geographic area? (Note: Simply adding a creative adjective like non-kinetic or limited does not answer this.)

6. How will the NFZ handle Russian aircraft that enter the zone? Shoot first to prevent civilian harm? Or wait for the bombs or missiles to drop, and then respond after the fact? 

7. How will the NFZ handle the likely edge cases and deliberate provocations, such as our jets being lit up with targeting radar, making them potentially dead in seconds if they don’t fire first?

8. Most of the Russian aircraft that are striking Ukrainian targets launch their weapons from inside Russian or Belarusan airspace. Will you shoot down those too, or let them operate freely, as long as they fire from just across the border? A similar question applies if your plan includes suppression of Russian air defenses, which can strike at aircraft across the border?

9. The vast, vast, vast majority of Russian military activities that cause civilian harm are not air strikes but missiles, artillery, and especially MLRS rockets. Will your NFZ fly over all that activity with no action? How will you answer the inevitable criticisms about watching civilians die from overhead? If you do attack the overall Russian ground force, what do you expect to happen next? 

10. In all past NFZ cases, only one side had airpower. But the Ukrainians still have an operative air force. Notably, its drones are striking Russian forces to valuable effect in the very same areas of the proposed NFZ. As well, Ukrainian civilians are flying hundreds of their own drones to provide reconnaissance to the military, spotting for Russian troops and targets. Will your zone also ban these official and unofficial Ukrainian forces? If so, will you shoot them down if the Ukrainians fly them to defend their cities? If not, will you run escort missions when Russians target them? 

I want to aid Ukraine too, but to do so we need policy options that are both implementable and of actual military and political utility. These include rushing resupplies of ammunition, equipment, and all the other supplies in their logistics system that are already running low; more antitank weapons and SAMs, especially of longer-range types that Ukrainian forces are already trained to use; donating easily transferable and deployable counter-UAS systems as Russia increases its use of drones for ISR and strikes; and holding NATO exercises on Russia’s other borders to tie down its forces outside of Ukraine and thus divert potential reinforcements to the invasion. 

What doesn’t help embattled Ukraine are bumper-sticker proposals and op-eds that may sound tough but simply wave “jazz hands” over all the actual elements needed to make them real.

(defenseone.com)

Time for people to understand what this issue will lead to in the very near future…..do they want to try and start WW3?

It is only those two things that have prevented this conflict from becoming a repeat of World Wars I and II, when mutual assistance treaties among countries in Europe (like NATO’s Article 5 today), and the lack of an existential reality of global destruction, led to attacks against one country leading inexorably to a world-wide conflagration.

If the US or NATO Put Fighters in the Air Over Ukraine We’d Have World War

A report has come out about the ‘airstrikes’ carried out by Russian planes…..

An unnamed US official told Defense One that most Russian warplanes firing on Ukraine are doing so from inside Russian airspace. The official claims that Russia is flying about 200 sorties a day and is mostly launching long-range missiles from its airspace.

If this report is true then the ‘no-fly zone’ is a moot point…..the zone will  not stop Russia from sorties in their own airspace.

I’m not saying you’d learn *more* about what’s going on in Ukraine by turning off all cable news, but your knowledge deficit would be much lower.

Stop drinking the stupid kool-aid…..

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Trapped Between The Moon And Syria

Hey this election is NOT long on ideas for the fighting in Syria…but the one that seems to get more attention than it deserves is something that Clinton seems to champion during her dash to the White House…..a No-Fly Zone.

The first time I wrote about this horrendous idea was when Libya was in revolt……

Source: How About That “No Fly” Zone? – In Saner Thought

And we see how well that worked huh?

Then last year the idea was floated for Syria……

Guess what idea is making the rounds with the people that have failed to contain ISIS?  (I’m waiting…..the title can help if you are suffering from brain farts)….

There are those in the US and elsewhere that are pushing the idea of a “no fly zone” or a “buffer zone”…the excuse is that it will help protect innocent civilians from the ravaging of war……(I have my doubts on the validity of the promise)…..

Source: Syria: “No Fly, Schmo Fly” – In Saner Thought

I have been pointing out the lack of thought this plan is……and yet with all the info available it seems that it is still an idea that will not die…..

Much was made in this week’s Commons debate on Syria of the need for a no-fly zone over Aleppo. Given that the Syrian government and the Russians have a monopoly of air power over the city, the idea of denting or deterring it might seem attractive. Hillary Clinton also advocated such a zone in Sunday’s presidential TV debate.

In 1991 the US and Britain imposed a successful no-fly zone over northern Iraq to protect the Kurds. But they were already at war with Saddam Hussein, having just defeated him in Kuwait. Saddam was on his own internationally, despised and isolated. He had no support from Russia or any Arab allies. The last thing he wanted was to confront the US any further. Enforcing a no-fly zone (even though it had no clear UN security council authorisation) involved no risk to the US or UK. Saddam made little effort to resist and not one of their manned aircraft was shot down.

Source: A no-fly zone for Aleppo risks a war that could engulf us all | Jonathan Steele | Opinion | The Guardian

Maybe that is what the plan is all along…..draw Russia into a real confrontation…..but is a war in Syria really in America’s best interests?

The calls for U.S. military action against Syrian government forces have become more vociferous in recent weeks, as outrage over the current Russian and Syrian military offensive in rebel-held eastern Aleppo mounts. The calls are not new: critics have been urging President Barack Obama to become more involved in the Syrian civil war since it began in 2011, and have since become louder amid glaring human rights abuses.

Source: Is War in Syria in America’s Interest? | The National Interest

Thoughts?

 

Will There Be A New Plan?

I have been writing for months if not years about the ineptitude of the US plan for Syria…..others have joined in that criticism…..this whole plan of airstrikes and the training and arming ‘moderate’ rebels was just a short-sighted band-aid that would, never be successful…..

Recent events have shown that my prediction was accurate….the massive airstrikes in Syria has produced nothing that could be pointed to and called a success….then there is the ‘moderate’ rebel thing…..rebels trained and returned to Syria are either captured immediately or the cut and run at the first sign of opposition….not the success that the war party and Obama had predicted…..

The big wheels have retired to their lairs and licked their wounds and tried to think of the next big plan to fight ISIS and save Syria…..

The news these days is an old reliable tactic of a “no fly zone” over Syria…..it seems that Assad has his air force drop barrel bombs on the population and now Russia has entered the fray and attacked the rebels fighting Assad (not a good idea to the US)…..it appears that Turkey has decided to join the air campaign against their enemies….the Kurds…..

So basically the major players are all fighting a different foe….and in all that confusion the best idea they have is a no fly zone…..seriously?

What is a “no fly zone”?

The general term no-fly zone means different things in different countries. Broadly speaking, a no-fly zone is an airspace in which aircraft are forbidden. Acknowledged as a step towards war, the declaration of a no-fly zone is quite similar to a demilitarized zone in that encroaching on the territory could justify military retaliation.

That sounds like a good idea, right?

Check out a detailed report on the “no-fly zone” scenario…….

Source: A Syrian No Fly Zone: Options and Constraints | United States Institute of Peace

There is one draw back……..No-fly zones don’t have to apply to military engagements.  Take a moment and think about that statement……(pause here for reflection)……

How would that work in Syria?  Since all planes flying are conducting a military engagement in one form or another.  What happens if no one lives by the no-fly ruling?  Could this be the start of something big?  Nerves will be on the ragged edge…….in a short amount of time things are already tense……

A Russian military aircraft was too close for comfort in the skies above Syria, forcing two US F-16s to move out of the way and scuttling their mission, CNN reports. The Pentagon made the announcement Wednesday but would only say the incident occurred in the past few days. All US pilots have been warned to keep 20 nautical miles away from any Russian plane over Syria. With Russia beginning airstrikes in country Wednesday, NBC News states there is “the greatest threat of an accidental clash between Russian and Western forces since the Cold War.” According to the network, it’s the first time Russian and US military aircraft are flying combat missions over the same country since WWII.

CNN reports the F-16s were on their way from Turkey to a location near an ISIS stronghold, but the mission had to be called off after the Russian plane forced them to divert. The US and Russia are still working on coming up with mutual rules for flight safety over Syria. According to USA Today, the Pentagon met with Russia about flight rules last Thursday but are still waiting on a second meeting. “We will keep the channel open because it’s a matter of safety and security for our pilots,” Pentagon spokesperson Jeff Davis says. CNN reports Russia has a history of intercepting US aircraft, and the Pentagon wants to be extra cautious until mutual rules are in place.

The War Party is a big proponent of this tactic….from McCain to Rubio to Trump (God who knows what this douche thinks)  and now Hillary Clinton (that should be very telling of her foreign policy in the future).

The big plus of this is to protect the population from death and destruction……if true how will it protect them from the ground forces of ISIS?

Personally, this sounds like another band-aid for a sucking chest wound……..or the worst case scenario is a beginning of another “Cuban” stand-off……..and finally the unthinkable……

Any thoughts?

Turn The Page!