Reality Check: No-Fly Zone Ukraine

A No-Fly Zone over Ukraine is a very popular topic at the moment. But there is little information out there on what it *actually* means for Ukraine, Russia, and western countries. Let us look at it in more detail!

- Check out my books -

- Support -

- Social Media -

- Sources -

McLaughlin, Rob, United Nations Security Council practice in relation to use of force in no-fly zones and martime exclusion zones, in Weller, Marc (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law, Oxford University Press USA, Ebook: 2015.

Mueller, Karl P., Denying Flight: Strategic Options for Employing No-Fly Zones, RAND Corporation Research Reports: 2013.

Schmitt, Michael N., Clipped wings: Effective and Legal No-fly Zone Rules of Engagement, in Schmitt, Michael N. (ed), The Law of Military Operations: Liber Amicorum Professor Jack Grunawalt, International Law Studies Vol. 72, Naval War College Press, US, Rhode Island, Newport: May 1998.

- Visuals -
Department of Defense, NATO, Russian Military

Thumbnail Image: Robert Sullivan

- Timecodes -
00:00 - Intro
01:18 - What I will do in this video
02:23 - What is a No-Fly Zone?
03:58 - Assessment of past No-Fly Zones (Iraq, Kosovo, Libya)
05:21 - Situation in Ukraine
06:24 - Simulating a No-fly Zone over Ukraine
09:38 - A No-Fly Zone Reconsidered
11:46 - Russian advantage in a No-Fly Zone
13:23 - Open questions: Rules of Engagement / 'legal' targets
15:30 - It's more complex than the name implies
16:44 - Outro

- Audio -
Music and Sfx from Epidemic Sound

#noflyzone #militaryaviationhistory #russianairforce

[MilitaryAviationHistory]

Editing woops at 14:12 - Thanks Joe for pointing it out !

[ideologybot]

My immediate thought when the calls for an NFZ went was, doesn't that mean we end up obligated to fight Russia to enforce it ? It's almost declaring war by itself. I thought I was missing something, thank you for this sober video, people need it.

[Chilly_Billy]

The most important point made in this video is when viewers are reminded that past, successful No Fly Zones were against nations with little to no air assets or competent SAM systems. Neither is the case when discussing Russia. A bellicose nation with a large air force, advanced SAM's, and thousands of nuclear weapons is far different than Yugoslavia, Iraq, or Libya.

[pricelesshistory]

MUST WATCH video for everyone, TWICE.

[digitalman]

I think one important aspect that isn't really being discussed, is what exactly the purpose of a no-fly zone (NFZ) would serve. In previous operations where a NFZ was established, I'd argue that their (unstated) objective was to equalize the balance of power on the ground. While an NFZ wouldn't prevent hostile ground forces from engaging their foes, like the Iraqis did with the Kurds or the Serbians with the Croats, they did prevent they from utilizing airpower in that objective which had a disproportionate effect. To that end, an NFZ allowed the western powers to level the playing field without getting involved in such a way that would put "boots on the ground". I'd argue that for better or worse, it was a politically expedient way to get involved that would be acceptable back home.
But in this conflict, we've seen that Russia is not relying on it's airpower, rather, it's perfectly capable of inflicting severe harm on Ukraine without it. It's not the power imbalance it was in those conflicts. The Kurds and Croats did not have their own air defense or air force; the Ukrainians do.
That leaves me to believe that the real rationale behind the Ukrainian request for a NFZ is the hope that NATO would be drawn in on their side. From the Ukrainian position, this is a sound and logical diplomatic strategy given their dire situation. From NATOs position of course, for reasons you already stated, it would be a disaster.

[WALTERBROADDUS]

Outstanding and thoughtful presentation. The short answer to the basic question; it is not politically or logistically viable. Nor is it likely to change conditions on the ground.

[kgjung]

A no fly zone may work when a major power tries to exert power over a much weaker country like Iraq or post-Yugoslav Serbia, but that's not going to work against another major, nuclear-armed power. Any attempt to do so will be starting a major war with said major power unless they back down like Khrushchev did during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Anyone in their right minds want a repeat of that incident? NATO might as well roll tanks into Belarus/Ukraine and start WWIII at that point. Hope you like your human race extra crispy and glow in the dark.

[jordanreeseyre]

Simple - Actually enforcing a No Fly Zone, by definition, is an act of war against the forces you are attempting to keep out of a given airspace.

With all the consequences that entails

[johnmoorefilm]

This content is extremely valuable, thank you for putting so much of your time and talent into it

[InzaneCaver]

Chris, THANK YOU for your responsible introduction in this video.
Namely, i. identifying the time and date of this post,
ii. Your use of the headings, 'Pre-Invasion Footage throughout.
Too many posts on the subject are very unclear on specifically when events being portrayed actually occurred. Sure the posts indicate when the post was posted but the material contained in the post is often old stock or filler footage which does not contribute to the factual validity of the said posts as to the 'current' situation.
You leave no doubt to the viewer in this regard.
YouTube I believe needs to address this as requirement of those posting videos.
Lastly, thank you for your very informative analysis of this very important topic.
Keep up your excellent work!!

[ThePinkus]

Thank You for bringing this discussion back to a level of sanity.

One point that I think is very much ignored is about the conditions on which NATO can be activated.
Note that NATO is the "organization" of the treaty, and it can only activate according to the articles of the treaty itself.
It is not an "organization" that the member States can just use as they see fit.
The main article is the 5th, the collective defense activation if any member is attacked, of course this gives no possibility of establishing a NFZ, if it applies it is a matter of all-out war, not of a NFZ.
The precedent that we can look to is that of Libya. That is an activation following a UNSC decision calling for such action.
In my opinion it is not a completely honest reading of the treaty, it is stretching it, but the precedent is there.
The point is that NATO recognize "the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security" in article 7. Nowhere, afaik, it's written that NATO can activate to enforce a UNSC determination, but it did. The difference is that article 5 is explicit and automatic, this reading of article 7 is not, thus consensus is also a condition.
It is important that the reference is to the Security Council, because it is where Russia has right of veto, which means that the precondition for such an activation is effectively a moot point.
I think this is important to understand: NATO has no faculty to decide to impose a NFZ, the UNSC could decide to call for a NFZ (it won't), and then NATO can activate to enforce the UNSC resolution.

A completely different matter is if a coalition forms to impose a NFZ, which is stupid, as it means going to war with Russia thus we either have a coalition to make an offensive war on Russia (to defend Ukraine, but it is offensive nonetheless), or we have a delusional bunch of states that will find themselves at war with Russia. We won't have the second simply because, public opinions aside, the whole point is well understood in the west.
The additional problem for that hypothetical coalition is that a State that provokes a war cannot then invoke the protection of article 5. Another reason why this won't happen.

Note that the 1994 Budapest memorandum could have been invoked, but this should have been done already in 2014, and its implications are not clear when it comes to obligations to ensure the security of Ukraine. One major problem is that it does not bring NATO on the table.

[olegalferov]

Approx. 14:00: There will be no such thing as "safe approaching NFZ". If such an operation is commenced, any asset used in NFZ, including approaching fighter planes, support planes, bases, airports, railroads, hubs, cargo ships, etc., becomes legitimate target. Don't forget the option to disrupt supplies by shooting down GPS constellation. Not to mention nuclear exchange that will probably start in the middle of that. As somebody already noted, it is quite a bad idea.

[Ixidor]

The only thing I can see that this analysis misses are Russian SAM sites in Crimea (S-300/400) and Russian Naval SAM assets (SA-N-6/20 (really just S-300s)). Both of those introduce more no-no rings.

So to even start, you have to probably prosecute a massive SEAD and anti-ship campaign across a wide front.

It's doable, but would require months of prep (a la Desert Storm), and it means WW3.

On the whole though, your conclusion is spot on. The extra bits just hammer another nail in the nice coffin you built.

[jonathan_]

Totally agree with how bad an idea this would be.
Two thoughts - you're not going to get UN Security Council approval for a no-fly zone because Russia would just use its veto; even if China didn't. So you'd be lacking UN Sanction; which would make it even easier for Putin to cast this as a NATO attack on Russia.
And also, at this time Ukraine is not yet without air power of its own - a no fly zone that was making any pretense at fairness would also have to stop any Ukrainian use of their airspace with their planes, helicopters or drones. I'm not sure that at the moment, even ignoring escalation risks, that Ukraine would necessarily view that as a worthwhile trade-off.

[hazy]

by far the most informational aviation channel ive ever come across, great job :)

[stephen]

Not to mention that a NFZ would have, even if implemented, a limited effect on the overall situation on the ground. Much of the bombardment of Ukrainian cities, which is prompting such calls to begin with, is being conducted by ground based artillery systems. So unless such policy advocates are also calling for airstrikes against the Russian army directly it wouldn't change much. At which point any notion of preventing runaway escalation is immediately thrown out the window.

[wiryantirta]

“Imposing a NFZ over Ukraine would mean war with Russia”
Yes that is a good and grim reminder. I agree with you that for all intents and purposes a NFZ would be very little difference than boots on the ground shooting at russian boots on the ground which means war.

[OriginalWarwood]

Excellent video, with excellent points!

It has not been since the Cold War that the risk of Nuclear War being as close as we are now. Russia is not some minor nation with antiquated equipment and no hope of stopping a NATO or UN coalition No-Fly order, nor are they at a point where they wish for the No-Fly to support diplomacy. If your answer to a major problem is easy and simple, often you are missing some crucial details as to why your answer is wrong.

[oisnowy]

A no-fly zone is by definition a military operation. If one party does not agree with the NFZ, the only way to enforce it, is to remove the disagreeing party from the air. And in this case, since the Russians would not accept an NFZ is would be escalating hostilities with Russia to full-out war. I wonder how much lack of progress Putin secretly blames on NATO and the EU and how much he already considers himself to be at war with us (without either side directly engaging or declaring).

I think it's great you used the 2014 borders. Wholly agree there.

[QuaimeVLee]

Thanks for explaining this. You are so much more helpful than the talking heads on cable TV.