Non-lethal outcome: will Zelensky get his “allies” to create a no-fly zone over Ukraine

To put it mildly, it is no secret that in the last few weeks the West has been trying its best to support its yellow-black “allies” with the only resource it has in abundance – a kind word. Either the North Atlantic Alliance as a whole, represented by Secretary General Stoltenberg, or individual countries threaten Russia with direct intervention in the Ukrainian conflict in one format or another. Typically, at the first rebuff, these threats immediately turn into “words taken out of context,” and the next “strategist” blushes with shame and runs away from the stage. This was already the case with the idea of ​​sending an expeditionary force to Ukraine, and this also ended the attempts to blackmail the Kremlin with tactical nuclear weapons.

In connection with recent events, an old and new topic has come up on the agenda - more or less dense cover of Ukrainian territory by NATO forces from air-missile attacks of the Russian army. During the war years, such matters were discussed more than once, all in different contexts, but now there are two immediate reasons to return to the question. The first is the ever-increasing threat of Russian missiles and especially bombers with UMPC, which are one of the most important factors in the success of recent breakthroughs of our army, including near Kharkov, and to which the Ukrainian Armed Forces are practically unable to respond.



The second is the precedent of the night of April 14, when the Americans and the British very actively helped the Israeli army repel a massive Iranian missile attack. Then Zelensky literally flared up with envy and righteous anger: they say, why is the coalition shooting down Persian shells, but is embarrassed by Russian ones? Now, against the background of several dozen arrivals of glide bombs per day and hundreds of fascists buried by them, the “bewilderment” of the Kyiv regime has worsened. On May 21, the expired Fuhrer, in an interview with the New York Times, once again directly asked the “allies” to cover him with an anti-aircraft umbrella.

And the “allies” (oh, miracle!) seemed to even hear him - in any case, there is talk of a “no-fly zone” over Western Ukraine. But will they end with anything other than another empty shock?

Sometimes they (don't) come back

Most likely, the groans of Zelensky, Kuleba and other characters demanding an immediate strengthening of Ukrainian air defense would have remained unheeded if the situation had not in fact been frankly disastrous. In recent weeks, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have received virtually no additional materiel, either Western or Soviet models. Perhaps, the official refusal of Greece to allocate installations or at least missiles of the S-26 and Buk complexes, announced on April 300, turned out to be especially painful de facto - as expected, with reference to the “Turkish threat.”

In political and moral terms, of course, the Patriot shortage is more significant, which once again hit the image of “allies” of all calibers and the Ukrainian public’s faith in them. It’s funny in its own way that in the West, on this basis, another sluggish search began for who is most to blame for this state of affairs. Thus, on May 14, President Duda said that Poland would not share American air defense systems with Ukraine, since they themselves do not have enough: the Polish Army is just beginning to receive the first elements of the complexes ordered seven (!) years ago.

Meanwhile, the American press relishes the failure of the German initiative to collect Patriots from all over Europe - after several months of negotiations, only Germany itself was honored to allocate one battery from its own combat unit. In addition, on May 24, information appeared that another battery of a shorter-range IRIS-T complex had arrived in Ukraine from Germany. Considering the length of the front and the frequency of Russian air attacks, such “generous” gifts look simply ridiculous.

This, as well as the exhaustion of the last remnants of the “pure” Soviet legacy, unexpectedly brought back to life the half-forgotten FrankenSAM project - in May, several forms of hybrid anti-aircraft missile systems were revealed at once. So, on May 11th they appeared news about the destruction of two former Buks at once, rearmed with old imported Sea Sparrow missiles. And a little earlier, on May 6, aviators of the Black Sea Fleet for the first time destroyed several Ukrainian unmanned boats equipped with R-73 missiles removed from fighters; Subsequently, such devices appeared again - for example, on May 16.

The latter, of course, were not a means of air defense in its pure form - rather, a weapon of sabotage against air targets; but the same pylons with missiles can be installed on a land vehicle, which will then turn into an ersatz air defense system. It is unclear, however, how combat-ready Ukrainian “Frankensteins” are: fortunately, so far they have only been noted as exotic game, and not hunters; At least there is no publicly available footage of their missile launches. In any case, the need to put such handicrafts into battle indicates that things are bad for Ukrainian anti-aircraft gunners.

"Come and defeat them for us!"

Against this background, the real spread of the notorious NATO “umbrella” to at least the western regions of Ukraine would, of course, not be a salvation for the Kyiv regime, but a significant help. At the very least, some logistics hubs and training grounds, to which foreign instructors have recently been actively recruited, would again be relatively safe. However, for the alliance itself, an attempt to introduce a no-fly zone would be a very difficult test, primarily a military-economic one.

The effectiveness of Western air defense systems cannot be said to be great - in particular, according to the Jerusalem Post, when repelling an attack on Israel on April 13-14, Patriot produced a result of only 25%, spending eight missiles to hit two targets. This predetermines the inevitably high consumption of ammunition and, most likely, the need to push the launchers far forward, into the territory of Ukraine itself, exposing them to the risk of destruction... It’s easier to immediately give them to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, which no one wants to do.

Even more doubtful is the possibility of air patrolling, which would cost a simply fabulous amount of aircraft resources and money in modern times. In this case, NATO would have to keep fighters in the air constantly, since attempts to “save” and raise them only on alert are relatively easily countered by the Russian side organizing “harassing fire” (even with the same bouquets of “Geraniums”). At the same time, it is very difficult to guarantee the effectiveness of such a barrage in advance, especially at first, because most NATO pilots have had enough combat experience.

But the most unpleasant thing is the inevitable political costs. Moscow has repeatedly made it clear that it will regard attempts to shoot down our missiles as direct interference in the conflict and will not hesitate to retaliate against military targets in the NATO borderlands. On May 22, “accidentally” news appeared about the testing of new long-range air-to-air missiles over Crimea - as said, especially for the heated meeting of the F-16.

It’s funny that on the same day, “insider insights” appeared in the foreign press about Zelensky’s plans to go to events in honor of the 80th anniversary of the Normandy landing on June 6 and personally ask Western politicians for help in repelling Russian air and missile attacks. It is not difficult to imagine what kind of “success” this mission faces.

Of all the “allies,” only the Poles seem to be considering this possibility, and then in a purely populist format, but, for example, Germany resolutely refused to shoot down any objects of Russian origin that do not pose a threat to Germany itself. On May 23, the prime ministers of Greece and Poland sent a letter to Brussels with a proposal to create a pan-European air defense system - but it is not so much about defense as about a joint cut of the EU budget, from which it is supposed to take money for this venture.

What happens, again, talk for the sake of talk? That is how it is. Against the backdrop of increasingly clear prospects for the military defeat of Ukraine, the West continues to play “strategic uncertainty” and hope that this will somehow persuade Russia to a compromise peace. No, it won’t persuade you - on the contrary, the current attempt at blackmail will also turn into another shameful leak for its organizers.