Over the weekend, Russian bombers flying inside Russian airspace deployed long-range cruise missiles against Ukrainian targets, proving that even a NATO-enforced no-fly zone could not prevent Russia from leveraging its airpower in the ongoing war.
For nearly three weeks now, Russian forces have poured over the Ukrainian border in what has become the largest ground conflict to hit Europe since the conclusion of World War II. However, despite Russia’s massive numerical and technological advantage, the aggressive nation’s forces have faced significant resistance, thus far failing to capture Ukraine’s embattled capital and proving largely unable to dominate the entirety of Ukraine’s airspace. But despite Ukraine’s successes, the odds remains stacked against them.
Related: Russia’s focus on perception is costing them the skies over Ukraine
A NATO no-fly zone was already a bad idea
The idea behind calling for a no-fly zone over Ukraine is largely based on previous NATO no-fly zone operations like those placed over Iraq, Bosnia, and Libya in past conflicts. These no-fly zones were fundamentally different than a no-fly zone over Ukraine for one glaring reason: they were enforced against minor regional powers with no real means to contest them, while Russia’s air force is among the largest in the world.
Instituting a no-fly zone over Ukraine sounds like a good idea because, in theory, it bars Russia from operating tactical aircraft and conducting airstrikes over Ukraine. But in practice, it means sending American fighters to war against Russian aircraft, and likely more.
Russia’s invasion force, which numbered somewhere near 190,000 troops at the onset of fighting, are bolstered by an air force that absolutely dwarfs that of Ukraine by a ratio of more than 20 to 1. However, a series of shortcomings have thus far limited Russia’s ability to dominate the skies over Ukraine, which has allowed some Ukrainian pilots to continue taking to the skies, as well as permitted a number of Ukrainian drone strikes against Russian convoys operating within the nation.
Throughout the conflict, Ukrainian officials have called on NATO and the United States to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine. NATO officials have repeatedly rejected the proposal, citing the high likelihood that instituting a no-fly zone would place NATO forces in direct combat with Russian troops, resulting in a rapidly growing conflict that could result in a global war—or worse—a nuclear exchange.
There are a number of reasons why a NATO-enforced no-fly zone over Ukraine would offer a great deal more risk than reward. Thus far, Russian aircraft have been less effective than Russian mortar and artillery attacks, which would continue undisturbed under a no-fly zone. Further, Russian air defense systems like the advanced S-400 Triumf have a range of some 250 miles, which means they would be able to engage NATO aircraft from inside Russian territory. That means, enforcing the no-fly zone would likely lead to airstrikes inside Russia and further escalation toward large-scale war.
There’s really no way around it: a NATO no-fly zone over Ukraine would almost certainly lead to a larger conflict, and now, it seems clear that it wouldn’t even stop missile strikes from taking place within Ukraine.
Related: Meme Fog Of War: Stories out of Ukraine become viral folklore
Russian bombers are now launching cruise missiles at Ukraine from inside Russia
Over the weekend, a shift in Russian tactics has now poked yet another hole in the concept of enforcing a no-fly zone over Ukraine. Russian strategic bombers have begun launching long-range cruise missiles at targets inside Ukraine from within Russian airspace. NATO aircraft would not be able to intercept or shoot down Russian aircraft flying over Russia under the guise of enforcing a no-fly zone over Ukraine, and while American air defense systems may be able to intercept Russian cruise missiles, operating them would mean sending American troops into Ukraine to join the fighting—something President Joe Biden has repeatedly stated will not happen.
Russia has previously demonstrated the capability to launch Kh-555 cruise missiles from both their Tu-95MS “Bear H” and the Tu-160 “Blackjack” bombers. The Kh-555 cruise missile is a modified iteration of a nuclear-cruise missile with the NATO reporting of AS-15 Kent. Considered a long-range standoff weapon, the Kh-555 has an operational range of nearly 2,200 miles, meaning Russian bombers can deploy these weapons while literally thousands of miles from Ukraine’s border and still engage their targets.
Why is the debate over NATO establishing a no-fly zone? Zelenskyy already implored NATO to supply Ukrainians with aircraft instead, to establish their own no-fly zone. How is that different than NATO supplying weapons, which they have already done?
Dan Farrand says
Talk about advocacy – your unstated position is that a no-fly zone is desireable, would impact the outcome in Ukraine and would be accepted passively by Russia is advocacy masquerading as wishful thinking.
The Russians clearly view the outcome in Ukraine as existential. That suggests they will actively contest imposition of a no-fly zone. If it makes things more costly on the ground, their answer will be more-firepower and so what ?
Contesting the no-fly zone would certainly extend to a willngness to attack the large vulnerable bases in europe from which the operation will have to be staged.
The idea that this wont quickly escalate is delusional. Therefore, in the end you must ask what exactly are the US interests in Ukraine (besides Hunters paychecks) that are at stake that justify a general War in Europe and perhaps WWIII ?
Another Armchair General says
It’s not surprising that the average contemporary American is dangerously uninformed as to the principle of MAD and the consequences of disregarding it, but it is dismaying. Plato’s Kyklos is as true now as it was then, and it’s going to eventually end us all; the likelihood of WWIII gets closer and closer as the west continues its inexorable march to absolute democracy.
Russia uses helo’s to move material, personnel and provided ground cover. That can’t be done from inside Russia. The only think the author offers is advocacy masquerading as journalism.
James Drouin says
The author’s premise that Russia’s ability to launch cruise missiles from Russian territory proves that a no-fly zone over Ukraine won’t work either demonstrates supreme ignorance or something far more nefarious and insidious than supreme ignorance.
For a FACT, not supposition, but “FACT”, ALL branches of the US military have had the ability to shoot down cruise missiles for DECADES. Even the US Army, the least airmobile of the military branches, recently demonstrated the ability to shoot down cruise missiles with artillery fire.
You beat me to it. The author oviviously started with the view he does not want a ‘no fly zone’ and then failed his attempt to rationalize his bias.
Frank Blangeard says
There is already a ‘no fly zone’ over Ukraine. It is being enforced by Russia.
Then why are they risking aircraft over Ukraine at all? Honestly, self…why do you keep clicking on this trash website>
Another Armchair General says
Then why are they risking aircraft over Ukraine at all?
Because they have to fly CAS sorties, and those have to be done low and slow.
“Honestly, self…why do you keep clicking on this trash website”
The only “trash” is your Dunning-Kruger analysis – you really don’t know what you’re writing about. I bet you believed in the “Ghost of Kyiv,” too.
So the Russians could now and always could launch cruise missiles from their own air space and this is some come to Jesus moment for you? They have far less cruise missiles than dumb bombs I would guess. Not for a no fly zone myself by to use this as the flaw in the plan is rather inane.
“The no-fly zone is a bad idea because then Russia can do xyz if we put it in place.”
They can do all of that already. Placing restrictions will not grant magical powers to the Russians. They can launch missiles from within their borders RIGHT NOW. I guess the sky is green and the grass is blue though.
One can certainly shoot down the cruise missiles themselves.
A ground to air missle system that can engage aircraft and missles would be able to enforce a no-fly-zone.
Not sure if hive armed drone air-to-air technology is advanced enough to do that.