How a no-fly zone over Ukraine could lead to World War III

OTTAWA—After pleading with Canada’s Parliament and the United States Congress this week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s dream to “close the skies” over his country to Russian airstrikes remains just that — a dream.

Yet the emotional appeals from Ukraine’s wartime leader continue, with Zelenskyy airing a graphic video during his address to American politicians Wednesday that juxtaposed serene images of his country at peace with the horrors it is facing under the ongoing Russian invasion.

At every public appearance, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is asked whether Canada will try to help Ukraine secure a “no-fly zone” above the country. But Trudeau and other Western leaders are hesitant to do so; Russia is a nuclear power, and experts and government officials alike say the risk of direct combat with President Vladimir Putin’s warplanes is too great.

The cost of that assessment is borne out in the images Zelenskyy played for the Americans Wednesday: ruined cityscapes, slain civilians in mass graves, wounded children wrapped in bloodied bandages.

“These are heartbreaking decisions and choices that we have to make, and I can assure you that NATO is constantly talking about what more we can do,” Trudeau told reporters Wednesday in Alliston, north of Toronto.

What is a no-fly zone, and why — so far — have Canada, the US and their NATO allies been so hesitant to impose one over Ukraine, despite the pleas of the country’s president?

A post-Cold War idea

A “no-fly zone” is pretty self-explanatory, said Jane Boulden, a professor at the Royal Military College of Canada in Kingston, Ont. It is an area over which military aircraft are banned from flying, often enforced through the use of radar to detect errant planes and coupled with the threat that such planes will get shot down if they enter the restricted airspace, Boulden explained.

The modern notion of a no-fly zone has often been linked to humanitarian sensitivities, she said. The first example was imposed in northern Iraq by the US and United Kingdom, with a stated goal to protect civilians from Saddam Hussein’s bombs in the aftermath of the First Gulf War.

A similar rationale was used when NATO imposed a no-fly zone over Bosnia in 1992 — this time with the direct authorization of the United Nations — as well as over Libya in 2011, which Canadian pilots helped enforce as part of a NATO mission. That deployment was also supported through a UN declaration to protect civilians from the Muammar Gaddafi regime.

“There’s not a huge history much beyond that,” said Boulden of no-fly zones. “This is part of the way in which conflict, and the international response to conflict has evolved, particularly in the post-Cold War period.”

In Ukraine, a dark calculus

So what about Ukraine?

For Boulden, there’s a critical, obvious and unavoidable aspect to this war that prevents the West from imposing a no-fly zone: Russia’s arsenal of nuclear weapons.

“There’s zero question that to engage in some kind of no-fly zone over Ukraine is to effectively enter into a war with Russia,” she said. “And the moment you enter into a war with Russia, you’re into the nuclear possibility… I have a colleague who says, if we get that wrong, everybody dies. Maybe not. But it’s possible.”

There would also be no precedent for the possibility of NATO jets fighting Russian planes in the sky, she said. While there have been many close encounters, that is something that has never happened, she said, not even during the proxy wars of the Cold War such as in Vietnam and Korea.

The risks of direct conflict have been perceived as too high, given how the US and other NATO countries, sworn to protect alliance members if any of them are attacked, have nukes of their own to match Russia’s. And that aversion to conflict — often referred to as the consequence of “Mutually Assured Destruction” — is what is holding back Canada and other countries from accepting Zelenskyy’s demands for a no-fly zone, Boulden said.

“What we’re watching is exactly the outcome of a Mutually-Assured-Destruction nuclear age, which is that a state like Ukraine gets sacrificed, if sacrificed is the right word — is vulnerable,” she said.

Fen Hampson, a professor of international affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa, said the risk of nuclear confrontation exists even if such an unprecedented conflict wouldn’t happen automatically if NATO and Russian jets were locked in dogfights in the skies above Ukraine. As Russian forces see more tanks, plans and equipment destroyed in Ukraine, an existing imbalance in military power between NATO and Russia — where the West has the upper hand — grows, Hampson explained.

That creates twisted incentives for an outgunned Russia to reach for the nuclear option, he said.

For that reason, Hampson predicted Western countries likely won’t enforce a no-fly zone over Ukraine — even a limited one to protect paths of escape for civilians under bombardment.

“We’re not on the cusp of World War III just yet, but we’ve got to be really prudent and careful not to go there.”