While I'm mostly repulsed by the kind of responses that have come out of the isolationist wings of the right and left, I do think it's worth noting that some of the things people in the internationalist wings have been saying show a lack of engagement with the realities of how things work.
Notably, when people are demanding to know why the US and NATO don't set up a no-fly zone over Ukraine so that there can be a "fair fight", I think they are not considering that a no-fly zone is not just some good sense rule that can be thrown up. A military no-fly zone is a declaration by a stronger power that they will potentially shoot down any military aircraft operating in a region.
The US was well able to enforce no-fly zones over Iraq because the US had massive air superiority over Iraq and no real qualms about shooting down Iraqi planes if necessary in order to enforce it.
While I don't have any doubt the USAF could take on Russia's air force successfully, it would certainly be a much more difficult task, but that's not the real question here. The issue with trying to create a no-fly zone over Ukraine is that this would mean telling Russia that if they fly military aircraft over Ukraine in support of their invasion there, we would shoot those aircraft down. There is a word for telling another country that you'll shoot down their aircraft, and that word is "war". Trying to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine would essentially mean entering the war on an aerial basis, and getting into a hot war with Russia is something which we've been at pains to avoid since 1945 and 1949 when Russia first tested nuclear weapons.
The US was well able to enforce no-fly zones over Iraq because the US had massive air superiority over Iraq and no real qualms about shooting down Iraqi planes if necessary in order to enforce it.
While I don't have any doubt the USAF could take on Russia's air force successfully, it would certainly be a much more difficult task, but that's not the real question here. The issue with trying to create a no-fly zone over Ukraine is that this would mean telling Russia that if they fly military aircraft over Ukraine in support of their invasion there, we would shoot those aircraft down. There is a word for telling another country that you'll shoot down their aircraft, and that word is "war". Trying to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine would essentially mean entering the war on an aerial basis, and getting into a hot war with Russia is something which we've been at pains to avoid since 1945 and 1949 when Russia first tested nuclear weapons.
Because the US has been so used in recent decades to acting as the force behind international standards in dealing with small rogue regimes, it's easy to think that something like a no-fly zone is simply something that can be imposed like a speed limit. But the ability to do that is very much dependent on situations where we're dealing with a country we're not really that worried about antagonizing. Sure, Iraq did not appreciate having a no-fly zone imposed on it after the Gulf War in 1991, but since the US and Iraq were still in a state of suspended quasi war, and Iraq had no ability to hurt the US in any significant way, the fact that they didn't like having a no-fly zone enforced against them didn't matter all that much.
Russia, on the other hand, would have serious ways of making their displeasure felt. And there are good reasons for the sake of the US and the rest of the world, to avoid getting into a hot war with Russia, even if that means letting them get away with really bad behavior in the meantime.
Indeed, this is the very bad situation we find ourselves in again after a thirty year break in the Cold War. Russia is no longer exactly the "evil empire" which President Reagan dubbed it. Not it's a corrupt petrol state with retains many of the remnants of an imperial military, and along with that the desperate national desire (at least among some of its leaders) to reclaim that imperial place in the world.
The Soviet empire was never a "coalition of the willing". Consider, after all, that the Warsaw Pact was a coalition notable for repeatedly invading its own members. In that light, it's hardly surprising that former members have become quite eager to join NATO.
But all this creates a dangerous balance. On the one hand, Russia is a regional bad actor whose neighbors would naturally want to enter into defensive alliances for protection against it. On the other, if sufficiently desperate Russia has the ability to plunge the world into all out nuclear war.
This means that unlike countries like Iraq or Afghanistan, or even rogue regimes with smaller nuclear capabilities like Pakistan or North Korea, in any confrontation with Russia the US and its allies have to decide: is this something worth risking nuclear war over. That would not be a rational or moral escalation for Russia to make as a result of having their planes and helicopters shot down as they're invading a neighbor, but Putin is not a leader notable for always being moral or rational.
I don't know what the answers are here. I wish there were easy solutions to the problem of a powerful and malign country wanting to dominate countries which only recently escaped its shadow. The fact that Russia has nuclear weapons cannot become a reason to simply let them do whatever they want. And yet, as we try to navigate this world we must at least recognize its difficulties.
I don't know what the answers are here. I wish there were easy solutions to the problem of a powerful and malign country wanting to dominate countries which only recently escaped its shadow. The fact that Russia has nuclear weapons cannot become a reason to simply let them do whatever they want. And yet, as we try to navigate this world we must at least recognize its difficulties.
1 comment:
A thoughtful and intelligent response. It's a really bad idea to ignore or fail to consider the long-term consequences (some of which can actually come about frighteningly quickly).
Post a Comment