Front Burner - The risks of a no-fly zone over Ukraine

Episode Date: March 15, 2022

Russia is stepping up its bombing campaign against Ukraine. So for weeks, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has been making a desperate plea to the United States and its NATO allies to impose a “no-fly zone” over the country — to keep Russian warplanes out of the sky. But a no-fly zone hinges on the notion that if a Russian plane violates the terms, it will be shot down. And the idea of entering into armed combat with a nuclear power is a clear and potentially catastrophic risk for Western leaders. This week, Zelensky is planning a virtual address to Canada’s House of Commons and the U.S. Congress, in the hopes of winning more support in his country’s fight against Putin’s military. Today on Front Burner, we speak to University of British Columbia’s Allen Sens about the case for and against a “no-fly zone,” whether there’s a red line in this war, and the ways in which it could escalate.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Jamie Poisson. Russia is now stepping up its bombing campaign against Ukraine. The death and destruction is mounting by the moment. On Monday, Russian forces struck a nine-story apartment building,

killing two and hospitalizing three people. The building was hit about five in the morning. We're not quite sure yet if it was an airstrike or if it was artillery. It came a day after Ukrainian officials say Russia attacked a military base near the Polish border, killing 35 people. Russian forces are at the very least operating with reckless disregard for the safety of civilians as Russian units launch artillery and airstrikes into urban areas as they have done in cities across Europe. Last week, a maternity hospital in the eastern city of Mariupol was hit by an airstrike. An image of a pregnant woman carried on a stretcher made its way around the world,

followed by news that both the woman and her baby died. For weeks, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky has been making a desperate plea to the United States and its NATO allies to impose a no-fly zone over the country. He did it again on Sunday, the 18th day of this war. He said, if you do not close our sky, it is only a matter of time before Russian missiles fall on your territory, NATO territory. NATO territory.

Imposing a no-fly zone is something two out of three Canadians support, according to a recent poll by Abacus Data. Despite the fact that Western leaders have been incredibly clear that it is not on the table. Here's U.S. President Joe Biden. We will not fight a war against Russia in Ukraine. The direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is World War III. Today, we're talking to Alan Sens,

a political scientist at the University of British Columbia, about what a no-fly zone means, the arguments for and against it, and whether there is a red line in this conflict. Hi, Alan. Thanks very much for being here. And thank you for having me. So before we dive into whether or not it's a good idea, can you start by giving us a basic definition here? What is a no-fly zone?

So a no-fly zone is an area of airspace in which the aircraft and helicopters of one or more warring parties are not permitted to fly. No-fly zones are established by a state or a coalition of states over a country's entire airspace or parts of that airspace. And the key is the establishment of a no-fly zone is always accompanied by a commitment to enforce it. And this means using combat aircraft to shoot down any aircraft violating the no-fly zone. So if the Putin government chose to challenge the no-fly zone and NATO chose to enforce it, this would mean an air war over Ukraine between the air forces of Russia and NATO. Right. You would have a scenario where NATO planes are shooting down Russian planes and vice versa.

And this concept of a no-fly zone, it's a relatively new concept, I understand. We first started seeing no-fly zones in the 90s, right? And can you tell me about some recent examples? So no-fly zones have been used in Iraq beginning in 1991 after the Persian Gulf War. I would reject such establishment of such zone and would consider the invasion of our airspace as an act of aggression. A no-fly zone was established by the United States and its coalition partners over northern Iraq to protect the Kurds and over southern Iraq to protect Shia Muslims from attacks by the Iraqi Air Force. In Bosnia, beginning in 1993, a no-fly zone was established and enforced by NATO against aircraft used by Bosnian Serbs. And this will involve NATO for the first time

in its history in an operation which has the potential for combat in an out-of-area location. And in Libya in 2011, a no-fly zone was established and enforced by NATO. The League of Arab States called on the Security Council to establish a no-fly zone and take other measures to protect civilians. Today's resolution is a powerful response to that call. These past experiences with no-fly zones are quite positive. They actually worked. But of course, this was based on Western air dominance over much weaker air forces. The Ukraine case is different.

The aggressor state is Russia with a large air force, very capable air defense systems, and the world's largest nuclear arsenal. And I want to pull that apart with you in just one moment, what could potentially happen here. But first, can you just tell me when President Zelensky has repeatedly pleaded with NATO to impose a no-fly zone, like why is he desperate for this to happen? Why does he think a no-fly zone. Why is he desperate for this to happen? Why does he think a no-fly zone would help Ukraine fight this war? And I don't want this to sound like too obvious a question, but why it would protect Ukrainians. The Ukrainian government has every incentive to call for a no-fly zone. Ukrainian civilians are coming under indiscriminate attack and Russian military forces continue to advance on the ground.

The Zelensky government is making its appeal for a no-fly zone on humanitarian grounds and in the hopes that an intervention of this kind could help end the war and save Ukraine. are speaking about closing the sky. You have to phone us to our people who lost their children and say, sorry, we didn't do it yesterday. And believe me, believe me, if it's prolonged this way, yes, you will see they will close the sky, but we'll lose millions of people. So for Zelensky in Ukraine, the appeal for a no-fly zone is an existential appeal. Let's talk about what could potentially happen. You know, you mentioned that this is different from past conflicts in Yugoslavia and Libya and Iraq. Just game this out for me. Like, if NATO is suddenly shooting down Russian planes over Ukraine, how could that spiral? Ukrainian hope is a no-fly zone would reduce the attacks on their civilians and cities. They hope it would weaken the Russian military effort and perhaps force Moscow into a political settlement. Advocates of a no-fly zone are betting the house that Putin's government would back down,

that the Russian Air Force would not contest the no-fly zone, or if they did, they would be defeated in an air war over Ukraine. But the great risk as a no-fly zone would result in the escalation of the war, either widening the war geographically, possibly including NATO territory, or an escalation by intention or by miscalculation to the use of nuclear weapons. And that, of course, could escalate into a nuclear war between the United States and Russia. That is why NATO governmentsate into a nuclear war between the United States and Russia. That is why NATO governments have made it clear right from the outset that they will not send their forces to directly fight Russia in Ukraine.

That is why a no-fly zone is a dangerous idea. It could start a wider war that could engulf us all. And in the end, a wider war in Europe, of course, is no help to Ukraine. I wonder if you could give me an example of how the territory could broaden? Like, how could that happen? So the risks of escalation are significant because they could start an action-reaction cycle that escalates quickly. For example, the Russian military could commit their full air force into the conflict. They could use their ground-based air defense systems to target NATO aircraft. When that happens, the pressure will be on NATO to start attacking Russian air defenses on the ground. Another escalation.

Now, a lot of those Russian air defenses are located on Russian territory. Does NATO attack those too? That's another escalation this time into the territory of Russia itself. And furthermore, the Russian military could also attack NATO airfields with cruise missiles. That would mean a Russian attack on the territory of NATO itself. Russia could also launch a cyber war against Europe and North America. They could also choose to use chemical weapons in the Ukraine. So there's a lot of retaliation possibilities which could force a NATO reaction and up the escalation ladder we go at that point. How likely do you think that is?

Well, I mean, again, I think the hope is that Russia would back down. The hope is that the Putin government would back off, that the Russian military would not contest the no-fly zone. But we've already seen the Putin government make an enormous miscalculation by starting this war, and they've only escalated its stance. I don't think we can rely on that possibility. And the moment we have the prospect of a shooting war between NATO aircraft and Russian aircraft or Russian air defense systems in Ukraine, I think we are well on our way to an escalation. It's, of course, not an automatic that this is going to lead to a widening of the war. It's not automatic that it's going to lead to a nuclear war.

But the point is, we start walking up that escalation ladder at that point, and you start to lose control over events. You can't really carefully calibrate these kinds of things. You can get dragged in without really fully realizing where you're headed. So we have to be very clear on this. This is a real risk, although it is not an automatic eventuality. In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization. Empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix.

I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income? That's not a typo. 50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. When people talk about going up that escalation ladder, is there a scenario in which other countries could become involved to fight alongside Russia as well, to fight with Russia? I don't think there's much of a prospect that too many other countries would become directly involved in support of Russia. that is possible would be Belarus, having already allowed their territory to be used for the Russian offensive and invasion of Ukraine. But I think Belarus has also demonstrated a reluctance to

become directly involved. And the military of Belarus is not exactly one that would tip the overall balance of forces on the ground. So I think it's far more likely that in fact, if there were any imposition of a no-fly zone over Ukraine or the widening of the war, most of the countries that would become involved would actually be involved against Russia. The other possibility, of course, is that some of those countries like Moldova or Georgia may come under attack by Russia as another form of retaliation by the Putin government. And so moving into Moldova and Georgia is another possibility. You know, I think some people might look at this and say, look, then it's most of the world

against Russia. And so what are we really afraid of here? I appreciate that point. I think though, once we're in a discussion of a general war, we are talking about a World War III. And when we're talking about a World War III, and if the balance of the military campaign begins to go against Russia, of the military campaign begins to go against Russia, there's a very real risk that the Putin government will seize upon the use of nuclear weapons as a means to demonstrate its resolve. So one possible scenario is the Putin government decides to use a so-called tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine. And the use of that weapon would serve two purposes. It could severely damage the Ukrainian war effort, but also send a signal to Washington

and to other NATO and non-NATO capitals around the world that Russia is committed and that going any further would risk a general nuclear war. Once we're at that point, we've crossed the nuclear threshold and the possibilities for an intentional escalation to a larger nuclear war or miscalculation that leads us into a nuclear war increase immeasurably. When we talk about arguments that people are making for a no-fly zone, even with this incredible concern that it could lead to nuclear war. I've heard people argue that the West is already at war with Russia, that the West has imposed unprecedented sanctions on Russia. Putin has called these sanctions akin to an act of war.

By the way, the sanctions that are being imposed are similar to the declaration of war. The West is supplying weapons to Ukraine at breakneck speed. And in response, Russia has said that the convoys supplying these weapons are legitimate targets. So how are we not already at war? Why would a no-fly zone really be this incredible escalation up this ladder that you talk about? I think there's two reasons for the distinction. First, the forces of the United States and NATO are still not in direct combat with the military of Russia. So that's point one. word clumsy, but an understanding nonetheless that there is a certain threshold above which one should not go. And I think that threshold has been made quite clear. The support of Ukraine with weapons, with cyber defense capabilities, and by the provision of battlefield intelligence,

which are all things that we're doing, has not been enough to trigger a forceful Russian retaliation from the Putin government. But I think going that step further, opposing a no-fly zone would be that trigger. That is crossing that red line. And by crossing that line, we suddenly go into a very different world. So we are not at war with Russia at this point. We are assisting Ukraine in its war with Russia, but we have not yet crossed that red line into direct hostilities. That's an important distinction. That's an important distinction. What about Zelensky's argument that if NATO does not impose a no-fly zone, it is only a matter of time before Russian rockets fall on other territories? Basically, that Putin will keep going and the West has the opportunity now to stop this before countless other people die.

What do you make of that argument? I think there's a very real risk that he is correct, that Russia will not stop with Ukraine. But I think there's a couple of reasons to be cautious about this. First of all, the campaign in Ukraine has not gone very well for Russia. We already know Putin's war against Ukraine will never be a victory. He hoped to dominate Ukraine without a fight. He failed. He hoped to fracture European resolve. He failed. He helped to weaken the transatlantic alliance. He failed. And the evident shortcomings of both the Russian land forces and the Russian air forces, I think would give pause for Putin to risk them in a direct engagement with NATO countries. So I think the risk that NATO countries would be directly attacked by Russia is very low

at this point. It's possible they might escalate at a future time, but right now I think the prospects for the Russian military attacking NATO territory is low precisely because they know that that would trigger NATO's Article 5, the collective provisions, collective defense provisions of the alliance, excuse me, and that would mean war. does not help the Zelensky government. It obviously doesn't help Ukraine. But I don't think there's a direct link between a no-fly zone in Ukraine or not imposing a no-fly zone in Ukraine and, by extension, a follow-on attack on native territory. Is there a third way? You hear people talk about a limited no-fly zone to allow for humanitarian corridors, like ways for aid to get in to help civilians that are stuck inside the country and to help people get out. Do you think there is actually a distinction here? to help people get out. Do you think there is actually a distinction here? I don't think there is. I think the idea of a limited no-fly zone, it's an interesting idea,

but really it doesn't change anything. You are still declaring this zone over Ukraine, parts of it, or perhaps over a certain air corridor. You are still saying you're going to enforce it, which means if the Russian Air Force contests that limited no-fly zone, you're still going to be involved in aerial combat. So I don't see the distinction. And I think the idea that a limited no-fly zone is somehow better or reduces the risks of escalation is really a delusion at this point. I mentioned in the introduction that two out of three Canadians support the implementation of a no-fly zone, according to a recent poll from Abacus Data. And when Abacus put that question to people, they said there is concern that this could result in a greater war, including nuclear war. And as civilian casualties mount in Ukraine,

do you think there's a scenario in which public opinion continues to shift in the direction of a no-fly zone and it influences leaders' decisions? I think there's a very real prospect that increasing evidence of all the indiscriminate attacks in Ukraine and the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine is going to create increased popular pressure on governments for some kind of a more forceful response. I think public support for a no-fly zone is driven by the horror and frustration of what they're seeing and hearing every day on TV, radio, and social media. We really want that NATO close Skype on Ukraine because Russia kill our children, our parents. It tugs at our hearts, right?

I mean, people want to do something or have something done. But I think this is also influenced by the generally positive experience we have had with no-fly zones in very different circumstances, and by a loss of collective memory since the end of the Cold War about nuclear weapons and how nuclear wars might start. I'm not sure if people have fully grasped whether they would risk their own homes and cities for the sake of a no-fly zone in Ukraine. Alan, is there something that you think the West could do that it's not doing right now? I think there's a number of things that could be done, and they involve continuing to do what we're doing. We have continued to impose more and more

severe sanctions on Russia. We have continued to support Ukraine with a supply of weapons and with cyber defense support and with battlefield intelligence support. And we've continued to mount a major humanitarian response to the refugee crisis. And I think those are all things we're going to have to continue to do. Interestingly, a recent proposal to send combat aircraft from Poland to Ukraine was essentially cancelled by the United States government. some intelligence understanding that this would be regarded as a direct provocation by Russia that would lead to an escalatory response. I suspect that is why they backed off that. So we have to be very careful about what we do while continuing to support Ukraine in all of the ways we can continue to do so. There have been other possible suggestions

revolving around sending Ukraine more sophisticated air defense systems. I think there's a possibility there, but the Ukrainian military has to be able to use those systems. They have to be able to absorb them right away. They don't have weeks and months for training. So in many ways, the weapons we've been sending them, portable anti-tank missiles and portable surface-to-air missiles, have proved to be very effective. And they're exactly the kinds of weapons the Ukrainian military needs to fight the kind of fight that they're fighting. And in the end, our hope has to be that there is some kind of a military stalemate in Ukraine as a result that opens the opportunity for constructive negotiations. I think at this point, that has to be our preferred endgame.

Alan, before we go, you spoke earlier about a red line. And it seems clear that a red line obviously would be an attack by Russia on one of the NATO territories. Is there any other red line that Russia could do, that the destruction that Russia could unleash on Ukraine that would compel the West to go up that ladder of escalation? I do think that the use of chemical weapons by the Russian military in Ukraine would be a major escalation that would make it very difficult for NATO governments to not respond to. That would be a significant development. And the Biden administration's already indicated... Russia would pay a severe price if they used chemical weapons. Without specifying what its response would be, I might point out, but they've already indicated that that use of chemical weapons would be met by a forceful response. one of the things that Russia and the Putin government could do that could perhaps tip the scales towards a more forceful escalation of the war in Ukraine by NATO and by Washington.

Alan, thank you so much for this. We're very appreciative. Thank you. Thank you for having me. All right. So before we go today, more on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his calls for more Western aid in the fight against Russia. Today, he is expected to address the House of Commons and then on Wednesday, members of U.S. Congress. In similar addresses, he's called for a more aggressive response from NATO and the West, as well as requesting a no-fly zone over Ukraine. That's all for today. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening. We'll talk to you tomorrow.