2022.03.02 在乌克兰上空设立禁飞区

shiyi18

By Invitation | Russia and Ukraine
Anatoliy Grytsenko calls for a no-fly zone over Ukraine
The country’s former defence minister believes the risks of creating one are justified

Mar 2nd 2022


In recent days Ukraine has demonstrated unprecedented morale, national unity and an ability to contain Russia’s aggression. Western military assistance, including the supply of anti-tank weapons, unmanned aerial vehicles, portable surface-to-air missiles, tank and artillery ammunition, enhances our defence capabilities. Ukraine does not expect or want nato forces to fight our war. Ukraine is not asking the West to deploy its forces to defend Kyiv, Kharkiv, Chernihiv or Mariupol. This is our country and it is our duty to defend it.

What Ukraine vitally needs is for its allies—including America, Britain and France—to join together and impose a no-fly zone over our country. This will stop Russia from launching devastating missile strikes, dropping bombs or undertaking large-scale air-assault operations using helicopters and aeroplanes.


This would prevent further decimation of our military and civilian infrastructure. It could protect Ukraine and the world from the destruction of dams, nuclear power plants and hazardous chemical facilities. A no-fly zone would help protect residential neighbourhoods, schools, nurseries and hospitals and save thousands of lives. It could avert a humanitarian disaster.

nato allies have the capability to impose and maintain a no-fly zone. Those capabilities are provided by aircraft-carriers and destroyers deployed in the Mediterranean. They are equipped with highly efficient capabilities for the long-range detection and destruction of air targets. The same capabilities also can be provided by fighter aircraft from airfields in nato countries neighbouring Ukraine, and fighter squadrons deployed to them from western and central Europe. And striking air-defence systems would be needed on the ground too in order to keep patrolling planes safe.

We know, and so does nato, that America is able to close the sky over a vast area and against an enemy as powerful as Russia. With American goodwill and consent from other nato allies, a no-fly zone over Ukraine is entirely feasible. So it is up to America to decide whether it is ready to introduce and enforce one.

What are the chances of America hearing Ukraine’s plea? Just a week ago, it was close to zero. But after multiple missile strikes and air raids, a no-fly zone has become more imaginable. As Russia commits war crimes, and as a tide of public protests sweeps around the world, the likelihood of America, Britain and other nato members establishing a no-fly zone has increased.

The main argument against such a step among nato countries is that it is too risky. As nato has stated, its soldiers will not fight in Ukraine or engage in a direct confrontation with Russia as this would trigger a third world war. This is a weighty argument, particularly since nato members are not legally committed to fight for Ukraine. Nobody wants another world war. But the past few days have changed calculations.


First, although imposing a no-fly zone would be a change of nato’s policy, it would be justified by the magnitude of Russia’s aggression. A number of world leaders have already distanced themselves from their initial statements and stances, as Vladimir Putin flagrantly broke his promise not to attack. Some countries, such as Germany, have not merely adjusted but have also started to take tougher action. This is because leaders have observed both the scale of Russia’s deployments and the strength, unity and dedication to freedom demonstrated by the Ukrainians.

Second, a no-fly zone could command popular support in nato member states. Consider that citizens of nato countries now volunteer to fight for Ukraine; their governments do not bar this (and Britain’s foreign minister even declared her support). Just a week ago, one could hardly imagine such a turn. Western leaders, sensitive to public opinion, should listen to those who rally in their thousands demanding more resolute action.

Third, I believe that there is enough at stake in the current conflict for the West to take the risk of introducing a no-fly zone. Joe Biden, America’s president, said after President Putin’s first strikes on Ukraine that it was a dangerous moment for “freedom around the world”. He said that President Putin had “committed an assault on the very principles that uphold global peace”. This is a claim that has immense political meaning and significance. It should have commensurate consequences that stop Russia’s attack on humanity and freedom—rather than just exhausting it economically over the next few years. Russia’s crimes are taking place right now, as you read this article.

Fourth, the risk of introducing a no-fly zone is one that has been reckoned with before. In the Soviet era, there was a risk of confrontation at the Bay of Pigs during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. More recently, America, Britain and France imposed and sustained a no-fly zone in Libya in 2011. And fighting has happened on other occasions. In 2018 in Syria American forces killed perhaps 100 combatants of the Wagner group, a private military company with close ties to the Kremlin.

Perhaps most important, as far as President Putin is concerned, he is already engaged in conflict with nato after its refusal to respect his demand that the alliance respect pre-1997 boundaries. Instead nato moved its troops closer to Russia’s borders. And despite President Putin’s objections, nato members are continuing to supply Ukraine with arms. A closure of the sky over Ukraine could come next.

A no-fly zone should come with a commitment not to deploy nato troops on Ukrainian soil or in Ukrainian skies. In contrast to Russia’s aggression, the aim of nato’s no-fly zone would be to protect the population and to prevent a humanitarian crisis. With this message, America and nato will not trigger war, but contain it. He who violates the rules of the no-fly zone is the aggressor and must be neutralised or destroyed. The greatest risks are taken by our soldiers, who are fighting for our principles.

Surely, everybody must see now that President Putin will not be stopped with persuasion or sanctions. Force is the only argument that he understands. The time has come to take the first really effective step and to impose a no-fly zone.■



Anatoliy Grytsenko is an associate professor in national security studies at Kyiv-Mohyla Academy in Ukraine. Between 2005 and 2007 he served as the country’s defence minister, and between 2007 and 2012 he was the chairman of its Parliamentary National Security & Defence Committee. He is also a retired colonel.



应邀参加｜俄罗斯和乌克兰
阿纳托利-格里琴科呼吁在乌克兰上空设立禁飞区
该国前国防部长认为设立禁飞区的风险是合理的

2022年3月2日



最近几天，乌克兰表现出前所未有的士气、民族团结和遏制俄罗斯侵略的能力。西方的军事援助，包括提供反坦克武器、无人驾驶飞行器、便携式地对空导弹、坦克和火炮弹药，增强了我们的防御能力。乌克兰不期望也不希望北约部队来打我们的战争。乌克兰并不要求西方国家部署其部队来保卫基辅、哈尔科夫、切尔尼戈夫或马里乌波尔。这是我们的国家，保卫它是我们的责任。

乌克兰迫切需要的是其盟友--包括美国、英国和法国--联合起来，在我国上空实施禁飞区。这将阻止俄罗斯发动破坏性的导弹袭击，投掷炸弹或使用直升机和飞机进行大规模空中突击行动。


这将防止我们的军事和民用基础设施进一步被摧毁。它可以保护乌克兰和世界免受水坝、核电站和危险化学设施的破坏。禁飞区将有助于保护居民区、学校、幼儿园和医院，拯救成千上万的生命。它可以避免一场人道主义灾难。

北约的盟国有能力实施和维持禁飞区。这些能力是由部署在地中海的航空母舰和驱逐舰提供的。它们配备了高效的远距离探测和摧毁空中目标的能力。同样的能力也可以由来自乌克兰周边的北约国家机场的战斗机以及从西欧和中欧部署到这些国家的战斗机中队提供。为了保证巡逻飞机的安全，地面上也需要打击性防空系统。

我们知道，北约也知道，美国有能力在广大地区关闭天空，并对抗像俄罗斯这样强大的敌人。在美国的善意和北约其他盟友的同意下，在乌克兰上空设立禁飞区是完全可行的。因此，应由美国来决定它是否准备好引入和执行禁飞区。

美国听到乌克兰的请求的机会有多大？就在一周前，它接近于零。但在多次导弹袭击和空袭之后，禁飞区已经变得更加可以想象。随着俄罗斯犯下战争罪行，以及公众抗议的浪潮席卷全球，美国、英国和其他北约成员国建立禁飞区的可能性已经增加。

北约国家中反对这一步骤的主要论点是，这太冒险了。正如北约所言，其士兵不会在乌克兰作战或与俄罗斯进行直接对抗，因为这将引发第三次世界大战。这是一个有分量的论点，特别是由于北约成员在法律上没有承诺为乌克兰而战。没有人想要另一场世界大战。但过去几天的情况改变了人们的计算。


首先，尽管实施禁飞区将改变北约的政策，但由于俄罗斯侵略的规模，这将是合理的。一些世界领导人已经与他们最初的声明和立场保持距离，因为弗拉基米尔-普京公然违背了他不进攻的承诺。一些国家，如德国，不仅进行了调整，还开始采取更严厉的行动。这是因为领导人既看到了俄罗斯部署的规模，也看到了乌克兰人表现出的力量、团结和对自由的奉献。

第二，禁飞区可以在北约成员国获得民众支持。考虑到北约国家的公民现在自愿为乌克兰作战；他们的政府并不禁止这样做（英国的外交部长甚至宣布支持）。就在一周前，人们很难想象会有这样的转变。对公众舆论敏感的西方领导人应该倾听那些成千上万的人要求采取更坚决的行动的呼声。

第三，我认为，在目前的冲突中，有足够的利害关系让西方冒着风险引入禁飞区。美国总统乔-拜登在普京总统首次打击乌克兰后说，这对 "全世界的自由 "来说是一个危险的时刻。他说，普京总统 "对维护全球和平的原则进行了攻击"。这是一个具有巨大政治意义和重要性的说法。它应该产生相应的后果，阻止俄罗斯对人类和自由的攻击--而不仅仅是在未来几年在经济上耗尽它。在你阅读这篇文章的时候，俄罗斯的罪行正在发生。

第四，引入禁飞区的风险是以前就已经估计到的。在苏联时代，1962年古巴导弹危机期间，在猪湾存在着对抗的风险。最近，美国、英国和法国于2011年在利比亚实施并维持了禁飞区。而战斗也发生在其他场合。2018年在叙利亚，美国军队杀死了瓦格纳集团的大约100名战斗人员，这是一家与克里姆林宫关系密切的私营军事公司。

也许最重要的是，就普京总统而言，他已经与北约发生了冲突，因为北约拒绝尊重他关于联盟尊重1997年以前边界的要求。相反，北约将其部队移到了俄罗斯的边界附近。尽管普京总统反对，北约成员仍在继续向乌克兰提供武器。接下来可能会关闭乌克兰的天空。

禁飞区应该伴随着不在乌克兰土地或乌克兰天空部署北约部队的承诺。与俄罗斯的侵略相反，北约禁飞区的目的是保护人民，防止人道主义危机。通过这一信息，美国和北约将不会引发战争，而是遏制战争。违反禁飞区规则的人是侵略者，必须被消灭或摧毁。最大的风险是由我们的士兵承担的，他们是为我们的原则而战。

当然，现在每个人都必须看到，普京总统不会因为劝说或制裁而被阻止。武力是他所理解的唯一论据。现在是采取第一个真正有效的步骤并实施禁飞区的时候了。
_______________

Anatoliy Grytsenko是乌克兰基辅莫希拉学院国家安全研究的副教授。2005年至2007年期间，他曾担任该国国防部长，2007年至2012年期间，他是议会国家安全与国防委员会主席。他也是一名退役的上校。