No Fly Zones. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Technicalities Are Only A Start. Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare Is On the Table

Ukraine used to have nukes.   They gave them up having gotten assurances of protection from the West if Russia decided it wanted Ukraine back.   Zelensky and others have mentioned this in their calls for a No Fly Zone and it’s hard to fault them for doing so.   It is however as they say complicated.   No doubt you’ve heard the pros and cons and even if you’ve made a decision one way or the other you probably have been torn about it.   As for me, I’d like to share my own thinking on the matter and hope you’ll indulge me for a bit as I cite my own background which I think informs my opinion more than the average person.

Once upon a time I was a grunt.   An infantryman in the Marine Corps.   If it seems like a lifetime ago it’s because my time on active duty ended three and a half decades ago.   I should add a bit more about that time however, and how it has influenced my interest in military affairs since then.   I wanted to become an officer and go on to become a Naval Aviator.   The Corps decided that at age 26 I was too old so I enlisted and volunteered (to prove a point) for infantry when I could have had any M.O.S. I wanted including some pretty cool ones in the Air Wing.  (Swing with the wing was a saying they liked)  I was assigned a weapons specialty, specifically anti-tank/assault and trained to use heavy duty anti-tank missiles (we’ve got much better ones now) and use explosives – sort of an amateur combat engineer.

After a time I was sent to the DC area on temporary duty and wound up attached to the Provost Marshal’s Office and won’t bore you with how all that happened.   However during that time I completed both the non-Resident Staff NCO Academy as well as The Basic School for officers.    The latter trains every new Marine Officer to become an infantry platoon leader before they go on to other training (if they aren’t going into infantry in the first place.   Why this matters is both courses do a deep dive into supporting arms including air power.

Finally, a couple of guys from my small hometown who recommended me for OCS were Naval Aviators.   One retired from the Corps after a full career, having started out in jets (A-4 Skyhawks) but switching to helicopters and eventually the Osprey.   The other left the Navy after completing his required time, and he flew Tomcats.   But regarding Marines, whenever possible FACs (forward air controllers) are Naval Aviators because as it’s said within those ranks (having gone through The Basic School) they will know better than any other Aviator in the world what it means to be a grunt who could use a little air support.   At the same time, any small unit leader worth a damn tries to get every NCO and as many non-coms as possible trained on how to call in supporting fire including air strikes.    And as I said I had to master what Staff NCOs and Officers have to master, and have known more who do the actual flying than the average person.  So I know a thing or two about air power for both logistics support and ground support for troops.

Having said all that I’ve had strong feelings both for and against establishing a No Fly Zone above Ukraine.   First of all it would quickly (as in within hours) shooting down Russian aircraft and attacking Russian anti-aircraft batteries.   So yes it would literally bring us and/or NATO into a direct shooting war with Russia and yes, could lead to unthinkable consequences.   On the other hand it could quickly end the war.   Russia’s air power would be smashed and they (even Putin) know it would be damned difficult to replace what they’d lose under the best of circumstances.   Given the scope of sanctions it would now be impossible unless Putin hands over the keys to the Russan Car to Xi/China.

At the same time, while the bulk of the conscripts never wanted to be in a war in the first place that’s where they’ve found themselves.   While I believe the majority would gladly lay down their arms and walk back to Russia (or Belarus) and eventually get to go home there’s another factor people aren’t talking about.   Sure, career Russian soldiers who are NCOs and Officers might have wanted this fight (although many who were truly professional surely had misgivings) I want to focus on those conscripts.    People change in war and while we don’t have reliable numbers it’s safe to assume Russia has taken heavy losses in combat troops as well as equipment.   Lots of these conscripts have seen friends killed or wounded, in some cases maimed for life.   That changes people and what they might do, as in want to extract some payback beyond fighting literally to save their own lives and someday go home.   The increased attacks on civilian areas in Ukraine at least partially bear this out.

What this means is that within a week, if not sooner the calls for a No Fly Zone (if established) will ratchet up to calls for ground support of Ukrainian forces, or at the very least to attack Russian units that are attacking cities.   Again, that means full on war between Russia and NATO/the U.S.

That, for me at least is a sobering thought, even though it’s clear the Russian army has been significantly if not vastly overrated.   Why?   Because NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical) warfare is suddenly on the table.   That’s right.   Nuke aren’t the only crime against humanity option Putin has at his disposal.   In fact, we might well need to be more concerned with non nuclear weapons of mass destruction.   But for now let’s focus on the one Putin has actually threatened to use.

I mentioned Ukraine once having nukes.   In truth, after the fall of the USSR the U.S. and Russia had the most nuclear weapons.   Guess who was third on the list?   That’s right – it was Ukraine.    Needless to say, in all the questions surrounding creating a stable Europe after the fall of the USSR Ukraine having all those nuclear weapons on its soil was a cause for concern.   Not just for the west but for Ukrainians who were afraid of Russia wanting them back and using “retrieving” them as a pretext to take over their country.   Of course, some in Ukraine wanted to keep those nukes, or at least enough of them to remain one of the world’s nuclear powers and have some clout.

The forces of non-proliferation prevailed and a treaty was agreed upon to decommission and remove nuclear weapons from Ukraine.   The signatories to that treaty were Ukraine (of course), the United States, Great Britain and Russia!   Yep, the Russian Federation was in on the deal, which I’m sure is a huge reason why with the U.S. and Great Britain de facto guaranteeing NATO would be at the ready if needed that Ukraine went along with it.

I’ve tried to make sense of the deal, and even had a conversation with a cousin who retired from the State Dept. even though his career was spent in Africa and Asia.   He had only limited experience with anything nuclear related and couldn’t really help other than in the broadest of diplomatic context but he thought my take made sense.   For what that’s worth.   Here’s the problem (referred to in the title) as I see it.   I could be wrong, but when you get down to the actual language of that treaty it says the west would respond to an attack on Ukraine with nuclear weapons.

Ukraine and most people interpret (with I think good reason) the gist of the agreement more broadly.   And the fact that on day one of the invasion Russia took over a nuclear facility (Chernobyl) in Ukraine and has since attacked and gained control of another might not exactly be detonating a nuke(s) over Ukraine but sure as hell violates the spirit, if not the hyper-technical diplomatic & legal language of the treaty.   I can’t help but wonder if this has been pointed out to Russia in diplomatic back channels since Putin hasn’t to my knowledge continued to rattle the saber containing the nuclear sword.

I’m old enough to remember the nightly news from Vietnam and especially the images from the Tet Offensive.   We would see more and more, and over time have seen more and more destruction caused by war.   We are now witnessing it almost in real time and the U.S., it’s NATO partners and other allies have the means to DESTROY Russian war making capability in Ukraine within 24 hours if given the go ahead.   And they could certainly have an effective No Fly Zone established within hours.   I’d bet everything I own (admittedly not much) that plans are already drawn up and updated several times a day.

The unanswerable question is how Putin would react if we acceded to the pleas of President Zelensky and others to make good on the promises made via treaty three decades ago.   Just as important is what would happen if he gave a nuclear launch order.   Would those who have to confirm and carry it out step in and stop it?

That’s an awful thing to have to ponder, but that’s where we are and have been for a couple of weeks now.   The urgency of coming up with an answer grows each day.   The weight on the shoulders of President Biden and other world leaders (including Xi) is something words can’t describe.   I doubt any President since Lincoln, not even FDR has faced what Biden is facing.  For all he had to deal with Lincoln didn’t have to factor in a narcissist with nukes into the equation.

So, for all the idiots out there who want a “regular” guy (or one day gal) “like me” in the Oval Office tell them just how stupid they are in their thinking.   Biden’s or any other leader’s job requires FAR more than an regular person who thinks in regular guy/gal terms.  It requires extraordinary people with extraordinary knowledge and political (not campaigning but governing) skills.   And the ability to deal with multiple crises and multiple nations all at the same time.

For now, I’m still standing on the edge of the razor blade when it comes to yes or no on the No Fly Zone.   I’m getting tired of that edge digging deeper into my feet, and have to admit I’m leaning towards the yes answer to that question.