A slight quibble: if I understand correctly, what Russia doesn’t currently have is air supremacy. I’d be somewhat surprised to learn that they don’t have air superiority—at least I’ve not seen anyone making that case. My impression is that they are able to conduct air operations without prohibitive interference (though not without significant risk), but that, as you say, that’s not how their military is designed to operate.
Supposing that’s the case, it makes an important difference that ”...is using the air in ways you want to prevent...” isn’t all you have to worry about: there’s also ”...has the option to use the air in ways you’d want to prevent...”.
Completely agree on no-fly-zone being a bad option for reasons of escalation. But “Might not even be net helpful” seems a stretch (escalation aside). [I could easily be wrong in my assumptions here; I’d welcome a better model]
Thanks for this. Pre-model thoughts are helpful.
A slight quibble: if I understand correctly, what Russia doesn’t currently have is air supremacy. I’d be somewhat surprised to learn that they don’t have air superiority—at least I’ve not seen anyone making that case. My impression is that they are able to conduct air operations without prohibitive interference (though not without significant risk), but that, as you say, that’s not how their military is designed to operate.
Supposing that’s the case, it makes an important difference that ”...is using the air in ways you want to prevent...” isn’t all you have to worry about: there’s also ”...has the option to use the air in ways you’d want to prevent...”.
Completely agree on no-fly-zone being a bad option for reasons of escalation.
But “Might not even be net helpful” seems a stretch (escalation aside).
[I could easily be wrong in my assumptions here; I’d welcome a better model]