It’s a plea that has been heard around the world: Ukraine wants its allies to set up a no-fly zone in its airspace. They believe it would give them the tactical advantage in the war that Russia started. But NATO, U.S. President Joe Biden and other leaders have decisively said no to the idea.
What would establishing a no-fly zone over the country actually look like? Who would be responsible? What’s exactly the case for – and against – it?
Dr. Stacie Pettyjohn is a senior fellow and director of the defence program at the Center for a New American Security. She joins The Decibel to explain the complexities of the no-fly zone concept.
What exactly is a no-fly zone?
Stacie Pettyjohn: A no-fly zone is a bit of a euphemism. It is a term that emerged after the Cold War, when the U.S. began creating airspace where it excluded hostile aircraft. If any aircraft violated it and entered the no-fly zone, they would end up being shot down. It’s actually a form of combat and a hostile act, but is normally intended to help and protect people on the ground that are being persecuted by an aggressive state.
Practically, what does a no-fly zone look like?
Stacie Pettyjohn: There is a bit of circling above in the sky and patrolling the airspace to watch for any potential incursions. But it goes beyond just protecting against hostile aircraft because they’re going to be loitering in the airspace for so long and circling above. The aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone need to be sure that they are safe, which means that they need to neutralize any potential threats that may emanate from the ground or the air. Those systems have to be neutralized to enforce a no-fly zone. Otherwise, there is a risk that they could be turned on and engage the patrolling aircraft and shoot them down.
What are some of the common misconceptions around no-fly zones?
Stacie Pettyjohn: I don’t think people realize that they require active enforcement, and that normally means that you have to be willing and able to shoot down hostile aircraft or air defence. Otherwise, they end up being toothless.
NATO doesn’t back a no-fly zone right now, but this is something that Ukraine, both its leader and its people have been calling for. Why does Ukraine want a no-fly zone?
Stacie Pettyjohn: Ukraine knows they’re not in a fair fight.
They are very overmatched by Russian forces quantitatively and qualitatively. They’re pleading for help to defend their country and to protect their citizens because there is a terrible human tragedy unfolding on the ground.
I’ve heard people make the case that if the international community or NATO would intervene and at least neutralize Russian air power, that would enable the Ukrainian forces to have a better fighting chance of standing up to the Russian ground forces. There’s some truth in that.
But at the same time, one of the striking things about the war thus far is that the Russians haven’t actually employed their air force as many anticipated. It’s not the Russian air force doing most of the damage.
What’s the case against a no-fly zone for Ukraine right now?
Stacie Pettyjohn: The case against it is is twofold.
It’s not going to have the intended effect. The greatest threat is coming from Russian ground forces. Unless the international community is going to intervene in the war and directly attack Russian ground troops, it’s probably not going to change the outcome.
The second piece is the escalatory risk. Putin, in the first days of the invasion, engaged in a lot of nuclear saber-rattling. Putin directly, explicitly threatened to use nuclear weapons against any state that intervened on the side of Ukraine or attacked Russia.
Both of those eventualities could happen if a no-fly zone were established and Russia challenged it.
For the best listening experience and to never miss an episode, subscribe to The Decibel on your favourite podcast app or platform: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, Stitcher, Google Podcasts, iHeartRadio, Pocket Casts and Youtube.