Despite the ongoing war in Ukraine that has seen the Russian armed forces steadily ratchet up attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, NATO members have repeatedly refused to intervene and introduce a No Fly Zone over the country.
While the arguments put forward by the White House and echoed in European capitals vary in nuance, they boil down to avoiding a direct conflict with the Russian Federation, seemingly at all costs.
Russia’s possession of a nuclear arsenal, and repeated threats to use it, seem to have precluded rational discussion of military options available to the Alliance. However, the idea that a No Fly Zone, one of the first steps in thwarting Russia’s illegal and aggressive military ambitions, will automatically result in a catastrophe must be reevaluated.
We examine key arguments put forward by the Alliance and its member states for avoiding the enforcement of a No Fly Zone and explain why it is necessary to not only do it, but think beyond it as well.
Argument 1: NATO is not a party to the war in Ukraine
If this is the case, why did Russia initially address its ultimatums toward NATO, and the US in particular, demanding that they issue a guarantee against further expansion?
NATO’s eastward expansion to the former Soviet bloc has been central to Putin’s justification for the invasion of Ukraine, from the time Russian troops began amassing at its borders. He made it clear that he views the ‘demilitarisation’ of Ukraine, as he cynically refers to his illegal war, as a legitimate response to the security threats posed by NATO’s expansion.
The negotiations held throughout December 2021 and January 2022 mainly involved representatives of NATO, the US, and the Russian Federation, meaning that NATO and the U.S. have been deeply involved in the conflict all along.
Argument 2: Introducing a No Fly Zone would mean direct confrontation with Russia, expediting World War III
In the 21st century, the concept of ‘confrontation’ is not restricted to military actions. Sanctions aimed at crippling and isolating economies are potent weapons as well.
Given the amount and scope of sanctions introduced by the West since the war’s outbreak, it is clear that the West is already directly confronting Russia, with Putin already stating that he regards the sanctions as ‘akin to an act of war’.
Furthermore, the continuous in-flow of defensive weapons from NATO countries and beyond, including anti-tank and anti-aircraft weaponry, as well as the Turkish-made TB2 Bayraktar combat drones, means that Russian soldiers are already being killed with the weapons provided by NATO and other international partners. And Russia has made sure to emphasize this.
This begs the question: how long can NATO really sustain the argument that combat air support is somehow different?
Furthermore, failing to stop Russia now, – and it is increasingly clear from the facts on the ground that non-military means are insufficient to achieve this, – will only expedite a ‘full –fledged war in Europe’ that, despite our wishful thinking, looks more likely with each Russian atrocity.
Back in January, many were skeptical of Putin’s ultimatums that encompassed a number of countries beyond Ukraine, including the Baltic States, Sweden, Finland, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and others, believing it to be some sort of elaborate tactic to attain strategic goals not immediately visible to the public.
It took the world some time to realize that it is dealing with an aggravated state that is clinging on to unrealistic goals based on an act of unprecedented aggression which will only keep spreading, regardless of what Russia promises. This must be clearly understood by everyone.
Argument 3: It’s nuclear weapons, stupid
The likelihood of a nuclear exchange is among the central and understandable fears shared by Western capitals, and it precludes them from contemplating military intervention, including in the form of a No Fly Zone.
But, as we argue above, NATO and Russia are already engaged in a direct confrontation.
The question we must ask ourselves candidly now is where is all this going?
Because Russia’s invasion into Ukraine and undeclared war with NATO are at its core ideological, there is no clear way of stopping them. Even if Ukraine accepted Putin’s demands to recognize the independence of the enclave republics in the east and Crimea’s membership in the Russian Federation (which would amount to the destruction of the sovereignty of a democratic state), there is zero guarantee that Putin would pull his troops out of the Ukrainian cities and towns they will have potentially managed to occupy.
Grinding Russia’s war machine to a halt, despite the severe sanctions, would still take months as the West keeps buying Russian gas and it still has access to the enormous Chinese and Indian markets, meaning that the Russian military would continue to be met with a determined, protracted and bloody resistance in Ukraine. This, in turn, would create a new reality on the EU’s borders – akin to the current tragic state of Syria, but on a much bigger scale and much, much closer to European capitals.
This is not only deeply destabilizing, but also carries indisputable spillover to NATO territory, especially if Russia, failing to achieve military success on the ground, resorts to using tactical nuclear or chemical weapons in Ukraine, the effects of which are hazardous for the entire region.
It is, therefore, difficult to escape the conclusion, recently reached by the retired British Army General Sir Chris Deverell, that the choice for NATO is increasingly about ‘fighting Putin now or fighting him later.’ Except the ‘later’ part entails ever-rising costs for NATO and its partners. The highest costs are, of course, being paid by Ukraine with the lives of its citizens.
Accordingly, the only option to thwart not just nuclear, but also chemical blackmail, is to act at the early stages. Not only by introducing a No Fly Zone that would significantly undermine Russia’s considerable military superiority and save innocent civilian lives, but also by kindly reminding Russia that nuclear weapons are primarily a deterrent that the U.S. and its Allies have, as well. And NATO has confidence in the effectiveness of its deterrence.
Undoubtedly, it is a difficult decision in this low-certainty, high-risk environment, and more so since Putin’s ultimatums took by surprise the entire world which is now coming to terms with a new reality. It does carry risk, which must be clearly understood.
But letting the aggressor play the nuclear card to enable its wars of expansion is an even more dangerous course of action, not least because it also serves as an inspiration for other autocratic, totalitarian and nuclear-armed regimes like China and North Korea.
The more the U.S. and Allies continue to downplay clear signs of continued escalation by Russia, such as the seizure of the Chornobyl nuclear plant that has been disconnected from the power grid and the Zaporizhian Nuclear Power Plant, the more dire the situation will become up to the point that NATO would have to intervene if Putin decides to launch a tactical nuclear strike against Ukraine – a credible scenario and response, according to the Director of Chatham House International Security Program and nuclear non-proliferation expert Dr Patricia Lewis.
Do we really want to let that happen?
Dr Julia Muravska has 12 years of experience in the field of defence and security, working across research institutions, academia, and the private sector.
Lesia Dubenko is a Ukrainian political scientist and analyst. A graduate of Lund University (MSc in European Affairs), she covers issues relating to international affairs, migration, and disinformation and is a correspondent with Kyiv Post.
