At Britain’s iNews Georgina Littlejohn reports that Ukraine’s president has asked NATO to impose a “no-fly zone” over Ukraine:
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has called for allies to help enforce a no-fly zone over Ukraine and said his country is being left to fend for itself.
The UK and US have ruled out the move as they are seeking to avoid direct conflict with Russia.
But Mr Ellwood, who chairs the Commons Defence Committee, has said there are “many ways†Ukraine can be assisted other than “putting in boots on the groundâ€.
Speaking to ITV News, he said: “We need to reconsider this no-fly zone, let’s say west of the Dnieper River, because that would change the optics here.
“If we don’t stand our ground now, where will this go? And don’t forget there are other adversaries around the world, namely China, watching very carefully how the West reacts here.â€
He said if the West is seen to be “timid†or “risk-averse†then China “will take full advantage of that weakness tooâ€.
Vadym Prystaiko, the Ukrainian ambassador to the UK, has asked Nato for a “no-fly zone†over the country amid the Russian invasion.
Speaking from London, Mr Prystaiko said his request was “something only Nato can provideâ€.
Just before writing this post I heard an American legislator giving his support to the idea, claiming that NATO has air supremacy.
I can hardly think of anything more foolhardy than this. That our involvement would stop with a “no-fly zone” even if we were able to enforce one is not credible. I believe that our direct military involvement with the war in the Ukraine should be limited to negative reciprocity with respect to nuclear weapons.
Yes, it’s very dumb, so of course it’s supported by a lot of pundits on Twitter.
This is not happening. Also, Ellwood is a Tory backbencher who has called on Boris Johnson to resign. I don’t think he speaks for anyone but himself.
This brought to mind your earlier post that included Libya in the list of actions the US and NATO had taken which were considered illegal by Russia and China. I did some reading to refresh my memory of that period and realized that even the establishment of a no-fly zone in Libya was a watershed moment which probably split Putin off from Medvedev and removed any chance of more cooperative relations between the US and Russia (goodbye “resetâ€.)
No fly zone?
No. Just no.
For those more versed in Russian and European issues what do people think about the fact that Russia is encountering stiffer resistance than expected? My view is that Putin will go animal on Ukraine if this continues. I don’t think he fears the PR fallout like we would.
With each of these issues there are actually multiple questions
– was it actually benign?
– was it the right policy?
– was it legal? Not just legal in our eyes but legal through international eye
– how would the Russians, Chinese, etc. see it?
Intelligent people may differ on this but IMO Libya failed all of those tests. I think it was intended to be benign but didn’t work out that way (unless you believe that people being sold as slaves on the block in Benghazi is benign). That it was not the right policy should be obvious to all. That our actions went well beyond the UNSEC resolution is pretty obvious–that means it was illegal. And the Russians and Chinese took it VERY seriously. As you note it soured relations with Russia permanently.
I guess a reasonable question is whether relations with Russia COULD have been better? I think they could without harm to the U. S. or U. S. interests but, obviously, that’s a matter of opinion. How do you prove a counter-factual? But I am pretty well-informed.
Drew:
stiff resistance from the Ukrainians doesn’t surprise me. Is it surprising Putin? I have no idea. I doubt it. I think John Mearsheimer is correct. Putin’s objective isn’t to occupy Ukraine, it’s to wreck it. And consider this:
Find more statistics at Statista
Putin’s present approval rating in Russia is 71%. I believe it. He’s doing things the Russians agree with. He’s not just a rogue. That kind of approval furnishes him substantial leeway in Russia.
Dave- is Kazhakstan’s reaction a surprise though? I would think Putin probably expected support there.
I also wonder, as things turn ugly will the Russians still back Putin?
No, Kazakhstan’s reaction is not surprising. Things WILL turn ugly and you’re right, Russian approval might decline. Or it might increase through “rally ’round” effect. Unfortunately, we’ll probably know soon.
What prompted my query were the comments of two relatively sober sounding military men, musing about Putin “biting off more than he could chew” etc etc. Further, we all recall the slogging battles with insurgents in Iraqi cities.
If Putin wants to wreck Ukraine he could have gone in more robustly day 1, unless he is sensitive to appearances. But I don’t think he waits long to end it by doing whatever is necessary. I know I sound like a broken record, but if the humanitarian aspects resonate with NATO and the world too long people like Germany might actually source oil elsewhere, if Biden would get his head out of his ass. After all, Germany is now sending stinger missiles after previous hesitancy. Putin may not care about international opinion, but he cares about cash flow.
And by the way, anyone who has seen Russia media propaganda the last two days would believe Russian polls. Talk about sanitized.
“I guess a reasonable question is whether relations with Russia COULD have been better? I think they could without harm to the U. S. or U. S. interests ”
I think it could have been but there are limits due to the internal politics of both countries. As Mearsheimer noted, which fits my readings, there is a strong element of nationalism in Russia and a big group of hardliners. They want to see Russia ascendent and return to its glory days as a pre-eminent superpower. That will limit the ability of Russia to compromise or join with those seen as old foes. On our side we have plenty of old Cold Warriors left.
Steve
“On our side we have plenty of old Cold Warriors left.”
Indeed. Like Joe Biden, who has been a dyed in the wool Cold Warrior for, oh, 5 or 6 days now……………….once the business had gotten done.
NEWS ITEM
President Biden and his allies received campaign cash from a top Russia lobbyist in 2020, just months before his administration’s decision to scrap sanctions on a controversial firm building a Russian oil pipeline to Germany.
Richard Burt, a managing partner at McLarty Associates and a former US ambassador to Germany during the Reagan administration, ponied up $4,000 for Joe Biden in October 2020 and dropped another $10,000 in the left-aligned political action committee Unite The Country in March 2020, FEC records show.
In addition to violating Biden’s own campaign pledge not to take lobbyist cash, the money from Burt is particularly noteworthy as he is currently directly engaged in lobbying activities for Nord Stream 2 AG.
“When Richard Burt donated to the Biden Victory Fund, he failed to acknowledge that he was a registered foreign agent and was therefore ineligible to contribute,†said a Democratic National Committee spokesman. “Because Burt also listed a different employer than on his [Foreign Agents Registration Act] registration, he was not flagged during our vetting process.â€
The DNC said they had returned the cash on Thursday.
Thanks for the laugh. Meeting secretly with Russian agents. That’s a nothing. You have a pipeline that was 90% finished under Trump’s admin but that last 10% makes the whole deal Biden’s fault. What a maroon.
Steve
Thank you for your bullshit spin, steve. The last time I looked the final decision, the only one that matters, was Joe Bidens. You may not be aware that he is President. He may be in a similar predicament…..
The final decision to sanction a pipeline that was almost done on your guy’s watch and that Germany wanted finished? What exactly would that accomplish? As a member of the cult I know you have to defend Trump at all costs and find a way to blame Biden but good grief you can at least try to avoid sounding like a cultie.
Steve