Comments by "King Ace" (@kingace6186) on "How a no-fly zone would change the war in Ukraine" video.

  1. To be clear, "no-fly zones" (or limited ones) have been established in proxy conflicts involving Russia and U.S. as enemies -- ie: Syrian & Yemeni Civil Wars. The most significant differences, in this case, are: 1) Ukraine is literally on the doorstep of the Russian heartland and a huge part of the strategic European plain. This makes NATO / US involvement here a threat to Russian civilization's national security. 2) Unfortunately, to the International Community, the fact that this war is taking place in Europe makes every "relevant" nation break a sweat. After all, everyone knows that World Wars always start in Europe, and the Ukrainian Conflict is the worst war the continent has seen since the 1940s. 3) Russia -specifically Putin- is and has been growing more and more desperate over the years making him erratic, unreasonable, and stubborn. This desperation might lead the globe into a nuclear crisis more intense than at any point during the Cold War -- and every leader in NATO and beyond knows it.
    2
  2. That's why most are for it. In idealities, we think a no-fly zone would be a huge relief for Ukraine. However, when you get to the specifics of how it's gained + enforced and the risks like nuclear escalations + European disability.
    1