And it's apparently a lot more complicated than I thought.
When I first heard about it, I thought of Serbia. Oddly enough, the Wikipedia for it isn't working, but I did find an old news article.
It was something NATO did in the region without escalation or leading to a declaration of war, so I pretty much thought it was a legit option for Ukraine...
And yet I repeatedly see people talking like it's a bad idea. I'm not entirely sure what the difference is, either...
The belief that Putin is guaranteed to consider it escalation?
Is it because Russia is bigger, has nukes, and could respond in a way that the participants in the Balkan fighting couldn't?
It just seems weird that it was considered perfectly fine for the Balkans, but somehow a very bad idea for Ukraine. Especially because most of the reasons aren't saying 'we're scared Putin will use nukes if we try it', and instead try to act like it's just well known (among experts) that it's a bad idea because the way you enforce it would lead to the escalation we're all worried about.
(Not that it's not a more subtle way of saying 'we're afraid it'll lead to ww3/nukes, but again... Guess there was no such concern in the Balkans.)
Seems it's less about any consistent foreign policy and more about how likely the other side will retaliate.
(also. Usage in the Balkans, iirc, did favor one side more than another. And in a similar fashion one in Ukraine would probably favor Ukrainians.)
I'm not saying I'm for it.
I'm not saying I'm against it, either.
Given Putin's remarks about supplying Ukraine, it does seem like a No Fly Zone carries a high risk of escalation.
At the same time, I've seen some concerning reports indicating Putin may try to escalate anyway...
And if we're going to get sucked into a war anyway, then it's time to start thinking about how to position ourselves best for success. (Another warning - that doesn't mean to ignore Putin's threats, necessarily. In some ways the moral high ground of proving you did everything reasonable, and even maybe things a bit unreasonable, to avoid war is an advantage not to be lightly dismissed. There are nations who might jump in to aid an ally if they aren't considered the aggressor, but might delay or refrain if the side they lean towards is.)
That's all getting complicated, and requires knowledge of the situation I don't actually know.
I'll just say it's all very delicate, and although avoiding the potentially devastating consequences of ww3 and/or nukes is a worthy goal, I'd want to think long and hard about what we're willing to accept in order to do so.
If we can, great.
If we can't, then we need to make sure the moronic fools sounding the drumbeats of war lose, and lose decisively.
So much so that nobody is willing to entertain this foolishness for a very, very, very long time.
No comments:
Post a Comment