As Russia’s invasion continues, there has been a growing chorus of calls to institute a no-fly zone over Ukraine. Estonia’s defense minister acknowledged that **“Sending fighters to guard the airspace counts toward getting involved in the war” but that “if you were to ask his personal opinion, he would take that step.”** Meanwhile, a Reuters poll from March 4 found that **74% of Americans support** instituting such a no-fly zone. However, a survey of international relations scholars showed **only 7% support** it. And full disclosure, I was one of the 93% surveyed here who said that he did not support it.
This is consistent with the key actors. **Joe Biden, Boris Johnson, and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenbergare** all firm “nos”. So why isn’t NATO instituting a no-fly zone? The answer is three fold. Let’s start with the operational problems. Past attempts at no-fly zones have been relatively straightforward.
Following the **Gulf War in 1991**, a US-led coalition imposed two no fly zones in Iraq, **one in the north to protect Iraq’s Kurdish population, and one in the south to protect Iraq’s Shia population.** These were relatively easy to implement because the war had just enfeebled Saddam’s military.
<code>map of countries with no-fly zones </code>
Meanwhile, in 2011, **NATO enforced a no-fly zone over Libya to protect a rebel uprising in the middle of the Arab Spring**.This was also relatively easy to implement because decades of sanctions had left Libya’s military in shambles. In 1992, NATO imposed a no-fly zone over sections of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Again, this was relatively easy. The target was using outdated anti-aircraft technology, and the area of operations about the size of Connecticut.
None of these advantages are present in the current situation. **Ukraine is the largest country entirely within Europe**, and is roughly equivalent to the size of Texas. And Russia, for all its troubles in fighting this war, still has modern military technology. Easy enforcement of a **no-fly zone is far from a foregone conclusion**.
The second reason is that the benefit is not as obvious as it may seem. In those past examples, **no-fly zones have been pivotal for turning the tide in battle**. Without protection from Gaddafi’s air force, Libyan rebels would have quickly lost the civil war. Instead, they won. Without protection from Saddam Hussein, Iraqi Kurds would have faced endless bombing runs. **Instead, they controlled their own de facto country.**
Ostensibly, the motivation for a no-fly zone in Ukraine is to protect civilian targets. The problem here is that the **main concerns for those civilian targets are artillery and missiles. A no-fly zone would not affect those**. Moreover, Libyan rebels and the out-of-power Iraqi ethnic groups did not have their own air forces to combat their governments’. Ukraine has not completely lost air superiority yet, until they do, a NATO no-fly zone only reduces Russia’s advantage.
The final reason is a key strategic consideration. A no-fly zone is not a simple military operation.Normally, you begin by bombing the anti-aircraft instillations of the target state. That way you ensure the safety of your own planes. Then you commit to shooting down any enemy planes that challenge the no-fly zone. **Both of these would kill Russian soldiers so both of them invite World War III**.
NATO could try a no-fly zone without eliminating the anti-aircraft installations, and challenge Russia to escalate the conflict from there. But Russia can still put the onus back on NATO to make the first kills by sending planes into the air. And that’s a general strategic problem with nuclear-armed states. **If you have nuclear weapons, you want to escalate up to the point where the other has to initiate the war.**
For example, during the Berlin Blockade, the United States began airlifting supplies to keep West Berlin afloat. This allowed the US to fuel and feed the enclave. The brilliance of the strategy is that it put **the ball in the Soviet Union’s court.** If they wanted to stop the deliveries, they would have to shoot down U.S. planes. And that would mean **World War III against a nuclear-armed United States.**
**This is also why the U.S. stationed a small number of troops in Berlin during the Cold War**, and why the US inserted 3000 troops in Poland and Romania at the start of the current conflict. It puts the ball in Moscow’s court to start World War III and allows the United States to obtain a good outcome in the meantime. In contrast, a no-fly zone is not the last word. **It gives Russia the opportunity to escalate a step further by flying their bombing runs** and ignoring the presence of NATO planes. That puts the initiative back on NATO, and that is not where they want to be.
hiveblocks