The creation of an air zone over Ukraine has become President Volodymyr Zelensky’s main international demand since the start of the Russian invasion of that country. But what does this request imply concretely and what could be its repercussions? Three experts are looking into the matter.
What is a no-fly zone?
“It’s the taking over of a country’s airspace by another country or by a coalition of states”, summarizes the founder of the Raoul-Dandurand Chair in Strategic and Diplomatic Studies at UQAM, Charles -Philip David.
It then becomes prohibited for any aircraft to fly over the territory targeted by an aerial exclusion. Such a measure is usually put in place in times of war, for example to prevent the bombing of civilians over all or part of a country. This prohibition is legal when it is based on a UN resolution. However, it can be considered an act of war if it is implemented without going through this diplomatic channel.
Once an air exclusion is applied, any planes or helicopters that do not respect the ban on flying over a territory can be shot down. It is moreover a complex and costly operation which involves continuous aerial rotations.
Is this a measure that has been used in the past?
The use of this measure is relatively recent, but a few historical examples should be highlighted. The United States, France and the United Kingdom notably set up jointly from 1991 a no-fly zone over part of northern and southern Iraq during the bloody reign of Saddam Hussein. The latter then had “no embarrassment in bombing Iraqi Kurdish cities”, recalls Mr. David. Air exclusion ended in 2003, when the United States invaded Iraq.
NATO also banned all flights in Bosnia-Herzegovina airspace between 1993 and 1995, resulting in the downing of several enemy aircraft. More recently, a no-fly zone was imposed by the UN and implemented by NATO in Libya in 2011 as civilian populations were threatened by attacks by forces of the Muammar Gaddafi regime.
“In all of these cases, no-fly zones have worked well,” agrees UBC political science professor Allen Sens, who specializes in international security issues.
In all these situations, however, the West was dealing with “small powers” compared to Russia, which has an imposing military arsenal, notes Mr. David. “It didn’t involve embarking on a major war,” adds Mr. Sens. “It’s very different now. »
The risks of a nuclear war remain low, but they are increasing considerably. I worry more and more about myself every day […] We are on the edge of the precipice and governments must be very careful.
Why does the Ukrainian president insist on this request?
The Ukrainian president has repeatedly called for the creation of a no-fly zone over the Eastern European country since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24. Two days in a row, Tuesday and Wednesday, Volodymyr Zelensky delivered poignant speeches before the Canadian Parliament and then the American Congress to urge the elected representatives of the two Western countries to “close the sky” above Ukraine. A request that comes at a time when the toll of civilian victims of the Russian invasion continues to grow despite the holding of talks between kyiv and Moscow.
“It’s the best NATO security guarantee he can get other than being in it. If there are no more missiles that can be launched by Russia, that weakens the Russian military system, that’s obvious, ”said Charles-Philippe David.
“Their civilians are victims of indiscriminate attacks, their towns are destroyed. So for [les autorités ukrainiennes]the establishment of a no-fly zone by NATO would be major” to reduce the imbalance of forces in Ukraine with Russia, also notes Allen Sens.
Would a no-fly zone really help keep Ukrainians safe?
The positions of the experts consulted vary on the question. If Charles-Philippe David considers that such a measure would be “a game changer in the protection of civilians in Ukraine, the two other professors consulted by The duty are more nuanced.
The associate vice-rector for research at the Royal Military College of Canada, Pierre Jolicoeur, recognizes, for example, that air exclusion could curb Russian bombardments. The invasion of Ukraine could continue by land, however, as many Russian soldiers are still inside the country, surrounding cities like Mariupol and nuclear power plants in addition to attacking civilians by the through artillery fire, particularly in the suburbs of kyiv, underlines the expert.
“Most of the attacks against civilians have indeed been carried out from the ground,” also recalls Allen Sens, of the University of British Columbia.
In short, air exclusion “would limit the scale of the humanitarian disaster”, but would not necessarily put an end to the suffering of Ukrainians, Mr. Jolicoeur said.
Why does the West oppose a no-fly zone over Ukraine?
In order for a no-fly zone over Russia to be effective, Western powers implementing the measure may have to attack not only Russian planes flying over Ukraine, but also military installations in Russia and Belarus. from which missiles are launched at Ukraine, explains Mr. Jolicoeur. “The risk of escalation is very great,” he notes.
A point of view shared by Allen Sens, who underlines the possibility that air exclusion could lead to the extension of the ongoing conflict to the rest of Europe. The expert also believes that the possibility of Russia using atomic, “even nuclear” weapons, in response to a possible direct involvement of the West in this conflict should not be underestimated.
“The risks of a nuclear war remain low, but they are increasing considerably. I worry more and more about myself every day […] We are on the edge of the precipice and governments must be very careful, ”insists Mr. Sens.
What alternative measures could be put in place?
In addition to supplying more military equipment to Ukraine ‘to defeat the Russian army’, Western countries could consider implementing a no-fly over humanitarian corridors set up to facilitate the movement of civilians , evokes Charles-Philippe David.
“The idea is not to say that we want to attack Russia, but to save civilians and to thank Russia for letting us do it”, illustrates Mr. David. A “half-measure” which could effectively facilitate the evacuation of civilians, also believes Pierre Jolicoeur. “We can’t completely rule it out as a scenario,” he believes.