Ukrainian President Zelenskiy has repeatedly used the media in public to apply to the United States, Britain and other NATO countries for a no-fly zone, with the aim of offsetting Russia's air superiority. In the face of ukraine's repeated requests, recently US President Biden finally said that he would not consider setting up a no-fly zone in Ukraine, because the United States would not clash with Russia.
The no-fly zone is a term used during hot-spot conflicts. The operation steps are very simple, nothing more than a scratch on the map, a marker, and then tell the world that it is OK. But the consequences are serious, because all aircraft in the no-fly zone are not allowed to go to the sky without permission, and if they violate the rules, they will face forced eviction.
The background of the no-fly zone setting, only those who control the air supremacy, or the air superiority, can have the right to set. Otherwise, the war party without this capability, even if it establishes a no-fly zone, will not be able to maintain order in the no-fly zone. Generally speaking, daring to set up a no-fly zone is more of a deterrent of force than military needs.
I'm in charge of this space, you can only listen! The more famous ones are the no-fly zone in Iraq and the no-fly zone in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as the very controversial no-fly zone in Libya. Iraq's no-fly zone is after the Gulf War, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and other air bases to serve the patrol of NATO fighters. At least 50 aircraft will need to be deployed in each no-fly zone to complete routine patrols, and if it is a round-the-clock patrol, the number of aircraft required will be more. And that's not counting the E3 AWACS that exists 24 hours a day in the sky.
In the face of such a huge disparity, the humiliated Iraqi Air Force still fought back, and from 1991 to 1993, NATO was able to shoot down Iraqi military aircraft flying "illegally" in the no-fly zone every year. Of course, the no-fly zone is not set up on the spot, even if it is the territorial airspace of one's own country, and it must be authorized by an international organization to be legal. However, this provision has also been challenged.
For example, the Libyan no-fly zone just mentioned earlier, whether it has been officially authorized by the United Nations, is still a mystery. Moreover, the daily maintenance cost of the no-fly zone is very large, but the money burned in the Libyan war zone is not the military expenses of the participating countries, but the sponsorship of the Arab League. Libya was in the midst of a civil war, and the Arab League was the financier behind the opposition. In other words, the establishment of a no-fly zone in Libya is to help the opposition win the final civil war victory.
If this is the case, its international legitimacy and justice are really beyond explanation. Let's talk about the "No-Fly Zone in Ukraine" this time. Once a no-fly zone is set up in the Ukrainian theater, it is standard that the United States and other NATO countries must deploy forces to eliminate all Russian aircraft and air defense systems in the region, which is equivalent to the NATO group sending air power to help Ukraine fight the war.
The United States has been avoiding an open military conflict with Russia, and U.S. think tanks have been fully prejudged that setting up a no-fly zone in Ukraine is tantamount to formally declaring war on Putin, so the United States will not take this risk. Even if the United States is willing to take this risk, the objective conditions will not allow it. The air forces and air defense systems of countries such as Iraq, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Libya are basically paralyzed and unable to resist, so the United States can make rules at will with its own advantages.
Ukraine, on the other hand, is more than twice the size of Iraq's no-fly zone, and routine patrols alone require at least hundreds of aircraft, which mean thousands of pilots and ground support personnel, multiple bases for refueling, replenishment, maintenance and so on. Who can afford such a cost? Ukraine? Or let Russia?
The above is still the ideal state, which is the premise of Russia's loss of air supremacy. The problem is that Russia not only has not lost its air supremacy, but also firmly controls it. NATO not only needs to face the soviet 35, su 57 and other fourth-and-a-half generations of fighters, but also the S400 air defense weapon. As well as the "little baby" that may also be pulled out to make a bright appearance - nuclear weapons. No one in the world dares to bear the cost of such a war.
To put it bluntly, Ukraine wants to set up a no-fly zone, and the main purpose is to get NATO into the war. Now the drama of "Ukraine's accession to NATO" is getting more and more intense, but everyone is only talking and not moving.
Taking a step back, even if Ukraine joins NATO, will NATO countries really dare to send troops to face the Russian army? No kidding.