The west defends Israel’s skies, not doing the same for Ukraine is a deadly mistake: If Europe doesn’t share its air defence systems now, Putin’s threat will only spread. ( www.theguardian.com )

The value of an effective air defence system and of unwavering international support was crystal clear the night of Iran’s massive attack on Israel: most Iranian missiles and drones were destroyed before they reached Israeli soil. The US, the UK and France, as well as Jordan, participated in Israel’s defence.

Unlike Israel, Ukraine lacks sufficient air defences, and the west provides far less than it could or should to defend Ukraine against Russia. Ukraine is not dealing with one-off retaliation for striking a Russian consulate – as Israel is with Iran. Russia has been waging a war of aggression against Ukraine since 2014, aimed at eradicating its nationhood.

Ultragigagigantic ,
@Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world avatar

You don't understand, Palestinians suffering is more important. /$

UnfortunateShort ,

I love how people are concerned about nukes. A lot of air-defense equipment has been delivered to Ukraine and for some time they were able to defend their skies quite well. There were/are much more direct problems than any potential escalation:

  1. Russia is firing much, much more (and prob. more lethal) stuff at Ukraine than all of Israels foes combined.

  2. Ukraine is a much, much bigger country than Israel, with many potential targets spread throughout. This massively complicates defense and logistics.

  3. Israel already had excellent air-defense when the conflict began, while Ukraine needed to arm up with whatever western nations feel they could spare.

  4. Many if not most of these nations weren't really prepared the sudden spike in anti-air demand, lacking the capabilities to replenish their equipment. At best they can provide munition, but getting new systems is a problem at this point. That's why for example a new Patriot production line is build in Germany.

Pilferjinx ,

Let's not pretend Israel gets the royal treatment while Ukraine can barely get the scraps. I agree that nukes are very unlikely though

Dremor ,
@Dremor@lemmy.world avatar

I agree that Ukraine deserves way more than Israel, but there is some important difference that explains why there is no such defense possible.

First, there is a lot of friendly countries between Israel and Iran, which allowed the interception of the missiles in their airspace. As such, aircraft could intercept those missiles with close to no risks. Is it possible in Urkraine ? No it isn't.

Secondly Israel and Russia or both nuclear power, which Ukraine and Iran aren't. Intercepting those missile make US and allies cobelligerent, which they seem ok with as Iran cannot meaningfully hurt them. It the case of Russia, it will mean having a war between two nuclear "superpower", which mean a possible escalation toward whipping humanity, or at least a good chunk of it, from earth. No one can afford that.

Mikufan , (edited )
@Mikufan@ani.social avatar

Difference is that Russia has nukes and the middle east doesn't. Defending the sky's would mean shooting down Russian aircrafts. Thats a direct confrontation between Russia and USA. Nobody gains from that.

downvoted for the truth...

Woozythebear ,

These morons don't live anywhere near Ukraine so when nukes drop they think they will be safe and they don't care how many billions of people die overseas.

Idiots don't realize they are not safe in America either and Russia has enough nukes to destroy the entire planet 10 times over.

Mikufan ,
@Mikufan@ani.social avatar

They don't realize that as soon as one guy starts pushing the red button, everyone else does so as well. They are idiots.

jbloggs777 , (edited )

NATO (edit: or "coalition") jets intercepting russian aircraft in russia or international airspace would be very escalatory.

Declaring zone X (in Ukraine) as protected-by-coalition airspace and intercepting foreign objects within it (or imminently approaching it), less so.

If russia then attacked a manned western aircraft within zone X directly, that would be a serious escalation, and would demand a suitable response (eg. goodbye, illegal bridge and new railway line). Still not nuclear, but one step closer.

Such active air defence is not without risk, but I'd like to see it anyway. Preferably two years ago.

Mikufan ,
@Mikufan@ani.social avatar

Thats complete bs this zone has to be enforced, this means taking out all enemy AA and all aircraft entering that zone, that is the most escalation possible without biden slipping and falling on the red button.

Idk what you guys think a no fly zone means but its basically saying " you go here and you will be shot down and your AA in and around the area is also gone now"

This won't happen ever.

jbloggs777 ,

If aircraft or AA tried to engage, then yes, it would be targeted. If russia chose not to engage (eg. for fear of escalation) then it survives another day to be targeted by Ukraine instead. We know russia can turn off its AA and restricting by geography is normal.

My expectation is that the skies in Ukraine would quiet down very quickly for fear of an accidental engagement.

However, it would be like walking a tightrope. It's not something the US is good at, and would be hard to sell politically.

Mikufan ,
@Mikufan@ani.social avatar

No. A no fly zone means taking all of that the moment its declared. A no fly zone would mean war between Nato and Russia. That's it.

jbloggs777 ,

That's how it is traditionally enforced, but that is not the approach that must be taken, and likely wouldn't be given the risks of a direct engagement. I'm sure the PR department would give it a catchy new name.

It's all hypothetical though.. no politician would sign up for it just now. If there were a disorderly collapse of the russian federation, I could see it though.

Mikufan ,
@Mikufan@ani.social avatar

Nobody would do that ever because its either sending our soldiers into death without ever retaliating or causing WW3.

jbloggs777 , (edited )

I think you underestimate the desire for russia to avoid a direct war with the west, and overestimate the west's response (which would be devestatingly tactical, but limited)

We see how the west and russia go out of their way to avoid direct clashes in Syria, and have painted over the odd incident. This is officially still a SMO.

The challenge is how to better protect the cities, supplies and infrastructure in the rear without getting directly involved at the front.

More air defence is the approach that will most likely be taken, but it leaves everything in Ukraine as a target for russian aggression and terror. Every apartment complex, school and hospital is a valid target for russia.

There would be significant strategic and tactical ambiguity in having western countries regularly entering Ukrainian airspace to patrol and interept. It would be a huge morale boost for Ukrainians, and a blow to the russians.

It is still unlikely to happen without a significant change like the russian federation's collapse or perhaps a true stalemate at the front. I don't see either happening soon, but the ballet is notoriously hard to predict in russia.

edit: the realistic threat of direct involvement might be enough to achieve similar results, and being unsure whether they are tracking/targeting ukrainian equipment or not would give pause.

sirico ,
@sirico@feddit.uk avatar

Putin's win's carry more global weight, and every leader looking to just take land from other countries is watching.

maculata ,

Israel doesn’t deserve a penny of protection, unlike Ukraine.

autotldr Bot ,

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The value of an effective air defence system and of unwavering international support was crystal clear the night of Iran’s massive attack on Israel: most Iranian missiles and drones were destroyed before they reached Israeli soil.

A recent missile attack on a power generation plant in the north means that hundreds of thousands, if not a million more Ukrainians could be forced to leave their homes by next winter.

Now that the US House of Representatives has finally passed a long-awaited package of military aid worth $61bn for Ukraine after months of stalling, it could hold the line, perhaps losing some more territory in the Donetsk region.

Making a state and a society function with a halved population, while fending off an invasion by one of the world’s largest armies, requires unimaginable resilience.

Belatedly, the realisation of a long war has dawned on the west, and arms production is being ramped up: by next year, European governments should be able to compensate for some of the current mismatch.

A diplomat stationed in Kyiv told us that when the EU moved to open accession negotiations with Ukraine last December, soldiers on the frontline were jubilant.

The original article contains 1,182 words, the summary contains 194 words. Saved 84%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • ukraine@sopuli.xyz
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •