We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Russia escalates in Donbas in push to take eastern Ukraine
As Russia is launching a new phase of war, will eastern Ukraine fall? What is the West's last resort if the war further escalates? With US airlines dropping mask requirements for passengers, is this a bold move? Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
As Russia is launching a new phase of war, will eastern Ukraine fall?
Well, first of all, they said they were going to launch the new phase like a few weeks ago. What gives? It's like weeks for the new phase but yeah, they're now really moving into military escalation across the Donbas. Remember, this is the territory that the Russians have declared, recognized as independent. It's about two-thirds more than the territory they had occupied from 2014 until just before the war started, February 24th. And yeah, the Russians clearly have learned some lessons from mistakes that were made in the last eight weeks of the war. They've got new leadership on the ground. They've sent some additional troops, but they also have poor morale. The troops have been depleted and the Ukrainians have an awful lot of military capability. I'll tell you, I think it's very unlikely that east Ukraine will fall by May 9th, which is when Putin wants to make his announcement of victory on Victory Day. I think eventually yes, it's more likely than not that eastern Ukraine will fall, but this is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. And that's a very sad thing.
What is the West's last resort if the war further escalates?
Well, I mean the biggest thing that the West can do is Europe can cut off all of the remaining energy that they're getting from Russia, which is continuing to fund the war. And the problem is that that's going to happen anyway. I mean if the Russians use chemical weapons or, God forbid, or if the Russians decide that they're going to engage in just scorched earth across major Ukrainian cities like they have in Mariupol. Maybe it happens faster. If they don't, then it happens over another year, two years. But if you're Russia, does that really change the way you think about your relationship with the West or your behavior on the ground? It probably doesn't. So, I mean, short of the West actually engaging in the war directly, a no-fly zone or troops on the ground, there's really very little additional that they can do. And that's part of the reason why it's unlikely that the Russians are going to change their behavior in any way here. It's hard to come up with a deterrent effect.
With US airlines dropping mask requirements for passengers, is this a bold move?
No, it's not a bold move, it's a stupid move in the sense that it was made arbitrarily by a Trump-appointed justice on the ground in Florida. It's a horrible way to actually decide that you're suddenly getting rid of a mandate. I personally think that the implementation of the mandates has been pretty arbitrary. It's been badly enforced. It's not N95 or KN95 masks, people wearing bandanas for Christ's sake. And they're on an hour-long shuttle to Washington DC and they're having drinks while they're barely wearing masks at all. So, it doesn't feel very effective to me. And in that regard with all the vaccines we have, this is not something that I'm worked up about. I'm kind of glad they're gone. I understand that given how nuts everyone has been over the pandemic the last two years and how politicized it's gotten that people are angry. But no, I don't think it's a bold move. I think it's just one more thing that shows that the United States does not have its political shit in order if you don't mind, because we are just so politically divided and dysfunctional. It's yet one more example of that.
- COVID hypocrisy & misinformation - GZERO Media ›
- Zelensky plea for additional Ukraine support puts US in a bind ... ›
- Zelensky knows how to talk to the West - GZERO Media ›
- What We're Watching: Battle of Donbas, Turkish attack on Kurds in ... ›
- Risks of Russia losing: Putin, Ukraine, and potential for escalation ... ›
- Putin punishes Ukraine to avoid looking weak - GZERO Media ›
Russia-Ukraine: What’s a “no-fly zone” and why is it a terrible idea?
Russia-Ukraine: What’s a “no-fly zone” and why is it a terrible idea?
During a call with a bipartisan group of more than 300 U.S. members of Congress on Saturday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky urged the U.S. and its allies to establish a “no-fly zone” over Ukraine to help the country defend against Russian airstrikes.
“Close the sky over Ukraine! Close it for all Russian missiles, Russian combat aircraft, for all these terrorists, make a humanitarian air zone, without rockets, with air bombs,” Zelensky pleaded again on Sunday following Russian missile strikes on the city of Vinnytsia.A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 74 percent of Americans (including majorities of Democrats and Republicans) support imposing a no-fly zone in Ukraine.
But while a small number of U.S. lawmakers, including Sens. Roger Wicker (R-MI) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), have called for the measure to be considered, the vast majority of American and European policymakers have rebuffed the idea as dangerous.
Want to understand the world a little better? Subscribe to GZERO Daily by Ian Bremmer for free and get new posts delivered to your inbox every week.
The Biden administration has repeatedly ruled out imposing a no-fly zone, citing the risk of triggering a “potential direct war with Russia,” while British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said enforcing a no-fly zone is "not on the agenda of any NATO country.” On March 4, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg conclusively rejected Zelensky’s pleas for a no-fly zone, saying doing so “could end in a full-fledged war in Europe.”
What is it? A no-fly zone is an area over which aircraft are banned from flying. The point of imposing a no-fly zone over Ukraine would be to prevent Russian airstrikes and airdrops and to enable Ukrainians and their allies to safely move supplies and people across the country.
Here’s the catch: a no-fly zone isn’t just declared. It has to be enforced. In practice, this would require deploying NATO fighter jets to patrol Ukrainian airspace and shoot down any trespassing Russian planes. That’s right, shoot down Russian planes.
If that sounds...serious, it’s because it is: a no-fly zone over Ukraine would put American and European troops in direct military confrontation with Russia.
A no-fly zone is “not some rule you pass that everybody has to oblige by. It’s the willingness to shoot down the aircraft of the Russian Federation,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) explained. “It means starting World War III.”
Why is it a bad idea? Although Russian President Vladimir Putin views other Western measures like military aid and economic sanctions as “akin to a declaration of war,” he believes that a no-fly zone would be a declaration of war. Imposing a no-fly zone would therefore make NATO a combatant in a war against Russia. This isn’t speculation: Putin explicitly laid out the red line on March 5, saying that a no-fly zone would “be viewed” by the Kremlin as “participation in the armed conflict.”
While the U.S. has enacted no-fly zones in the past—notably in Iraq between 1991 and 2003, in Bosnia between 1993 and 1995, in Kosovo in 1999, and in Libya in 2011—it has never done so against a nuclear-armed adversary or an air force of Russia’s caliber. The stakes are much higher, and the risks greater, in Ukraine.
“For everything we’re doing for Ukraine, the President also has a responsibility to not get us into a direct conflict, a direct war with Russia, a nuclear power, and risk a war that expands even beyond Ukraine to Europe,” U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken told NBC’s “Meet The Press” on Sunday.“What we’re trying to do is end this war in Ukraine, not start a larger one,” Blinken said.
You might wonder, ‘What’s the difference between NATO shooting down Russian planes and providing planes and surface-to-air missiles to Ukraine so that Ukrainians do it themselves?’
Sure enough, in the eyes of the Russians both measures are acts of war. But the latter—like sanctions and real-time intelligence-sharing—is qualitatively different, with a built-in ceiling on escalation. Russia will retaliate, but the retaliation will be somewhat proportional to the intervention: cyberattacks, economic countermeasures, energy shutoffs, proxy terrorism, and so on. The risk of the conflict spiraling out of control will be capped. With direct confrontation? It’s a much greater risk.
None of this means that the West should or will idly sit by as Ukraine gets invaded. NATO has already provided a tremendous amount of humanitarian aid, essential supplies, and military support, with much more to come. Congress is reportedly close to approving a $14 billion aid package to Ukraine, and the U.S. and U.K. are set to ban Russian oil imports. These are significant steps.
But even (and, indeed, especially) in war, there have to be guardrails. Implementing a no-fly zone would bring the U.S. and Russia much closer to nuclear confrontation. Let’s say no to that.
🔔 And if you haven't already, don't forget to subscribe to my free newsletter, GZERO Daily by Ian Bremmer, to get new posts delivered to your inbox.
A Polish Air Force MiG-29 pilot performs during an exhibition.
Russia and the West at war
As we enter Day 13 of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it has become obvious that Russia and the West are already at war. US and European leaders continue to reject calls to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine to avoid a NATO-Russian collision that triggers World War III. But the combination of exceptional Western military support for Ukraine and historically harsh sanctions on Russia have already given way to a new Cold War.
The US and NATO have supplied Ukrainian fighters with thousands of anti-tank weapons and have set up a secret cybercorps to wage digital war on Russian disinformation and hacking campaigns. The Biden White House has talked openly of working with Poland to supply Ukrainian pilots with Soviet-era jets to challenge Russian aircraft for air supremacy.
Sanctions, particularly on the country’s central bank, threaten to send Russia’s already wobbly economy into a spiral toward depression. The White House is also busy on the oil front. Senior US officials reportedly visited Venezuela over the weekend, and the administration has publicly floated a possible trip to Saudi Arabia. In both cases, the goal is to try to peel away Russian partners and to increase oil production to push prices lower. Meanwhile, on Tuesday, energy giant Shell became the latest big corporation to pull out of Russia. Shell announced plans to withdraw from Russian oil and gas, and it apologized for having bought Russian oil since the invasion.
Despite all this, President Vladimir Putin shows no signs of giving an inch in his drive to control Ukraine’s future. Offers to set up humanitarian corridors that lead to Russia and Belarus have been rejected as “immoral,” although Russia finally allowed civilian evacuations from two Ukrainian cities to begin on Tuesday. Putin’s military, meanwhile, continues to shell civilian areas in multiple cities, and his diplomats are offering to halt the war only if Ukraine lays down its weapons, gives up a lot of territory, and rewrites its constitution with promises never to join NATO. In other words, if Ukraine surrenders. For all these reasons, the temperature in this conflict continues to rise.A protester holds up a sign calling for NATO to create a no-fly zone over Ukraine.
Should the West say no to a no-fly zone?
Debates are raging about whether the US and its allies should enforce a no-fly zone over Ukrainian airspace. Some observers say it is the surest way to protect Ukrainians and push back against a Russian air campaign. Others say that such a move would be catastrophic, ushering in a third world war.
What is a no-fly zone, and what are the risks of enforcing one?
A no-fly zone designates specific airspace “off-limits” to aircrafts. This can be done to protect certain geographical areas, foil attacks against civilians, or prevent surveillance.
Essentially, this means that a military alliance will force violators to ground their aircraft – even shooting them down if necessary.
Some analysts say that enforcing a no-fly zone is a proven way to denigrate an enemy’s military capabilities and lower the temperature of combat. But, in reality, this move can significantly raise the risk of escalation and miscalculation.
For Russia, a US-led no-fly zone would undoubtedly be viewed as a declaration of war. What’s more, if Biden were to give US and NATO forces the go-ahead to shoot Russian planes out of the sky, this would bring Washington into direct conflict with Moscow, an escalation the White House has desperately sought to avoid. Indeed, this is an extremely dangerous place to be, particularly as Russia has experienced a series of military setbacks in recent days – and an increasingly erratic President Vladimir Putin has put Russia’s nuclear defensive forces on “high alert.”
When have they been enforced before?
The US has taken part in implementing no-fly zones in Iraq, Bosnia, and Libya to varying degrees of success. (The Obama administration refused to enforce one in Syria, citing the threat of a dangerous escalation with Syria and Russia.) But it’s one thing to up the ante on lone despots like Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qadaffi. It’s quite another to raise the stakes with Russia, which has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal and a very strong air game (though its oft-lauded air force has still not gained superiority over Ukraine).