Ukrainian former world heavyweight boxing champ Wladimir Klitschko declared that Ukraine will "close the sky on our own" amid Russia's war with the eastern European country after the US and its allies have rejected pleas to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine's skies.
"[If] allies and partners cannot close the sky [over Ukraine,] we will constantly get bombarded with rockets and air strikes," Klitschko, the brother of the mayor of the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv, told CNN on Tuesday.
Klitschko added, "So if you don't close the sky, just give us the weapons. We're going to close the sky on our own. And we have enough of our will to defend our country. We just need the equipment to do it," according to the news outlet.
The ex-boxer and member of the Kyiv Territorial Defense called on world leaders to continue supplying weapons to Ukraine and to ramp up economic sanctions against Russia.
Read more at:
Wladimir Klitschko Says Ukraine Will 'Close the Sky on Our Own'
Showing posts with label No Fly Zone. Show all posts
Showing posts with label No Fly Zone. Show all posts
4/20/22
3/9/22
Ukraine War: Why doesn't NATO impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine? - by Jorge Liboreiro
In his address to British lawmakers in the House of Commons, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said: "Please make sure our Ukrainian skies are safe. Please make sure you do what needs to be done."
With his impassioned plea, delivered via video link, Zelenskyy was once again calling for a no-fly zone, under which his Western allies would deploy their fighter jets to chase away Russian forces, which for the past two weeks have been bombarding Ukrainian cities.
Kharkiv, the country's second-largest city, has been ravaged by indiscriminate air attacks, leaving the streets filled with rubble and bomb craters and dashing all hopes of a fast reconstruction.
So far, however, Zelenskyy's call has been rebuffed.
Read more at: Why doesn't NATO impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine? | Euronews
With his impassioned plea, delivered via video link, Zelenskyy was once again calling for a no-fly zone, under which his Western allies would deploy their fighter jets to chase away Russian forces, which for the past two weeks have been bombarding Ukrainian cities.
Kharkiv, the country's second-largest city, has been ravaged by indiscriminate air attacks, leaving the streets filled with rubble and bomb craters and dashing all hopes of a fast reconstruction.
So far, however, Zelenskyy's call has been rebuffed.
Read more at: Why doesn't NATO impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine? | Euronews
10/31/16
Middle East - Syria: Will a No-Fly Zone Help the People of Aleppo?
Media coverage has recently been saturated with distressing scenes showing the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo, where aerial bombardment has led to a heavy loss of civilian life. The severity of the crisis instinctively makes us want to help – scores of protesters gathered outside the seat of the British prime minister on Saturday holding signs calling on the government to “Save Aleppo” and impose a “No-Bomb Zone Now”. While the anger is understandable, the way it is being channeled reflects a circumscribed policy debate – there are other options than a No-Fly Zone, which should be avoided as it would harm rather than help efforts to alleviate the suffering of Syrian civilians.
In any area of policy, the mainstream debate revolves around policy alternatives that reflect establishment divisions. For example, in economics, ‘there is no alternative’ to neoliberalism, at least there wasn’t until Keynesianism was rediscovered by some elites after the 2008 crisis. The debate over what is to be done over Syria revolves around two policy alternatives: the hawks, including likely next U.S. president, Hillary Clinton, advocate a NFZ and the doves, including the current U.S. administration, maintain that the sanctions regime should be increased. This effectively reflects a division within the establishment on how to proceed. Serious policy alternatives are not discussed. In particular, discussion of increasing aid and support to refugees, surely the most obvious way of directly helping civilians in Syria, and what the UN has called on industrialized countries to do, is curious by its absence.
This circumscribed debate does not logically follow from its supposed pretext – stopping civilian loss of life. In fact, a NFZ is a policy that would unavoidably lead to civilians dying. Enforcing a NFZ means destroying air defenses, which are located to defend cities – i.e. they are located in areas where there are many civilians. Even the flagbearer for the hawks, Hillary Clinton, has admitted privately that with a No-Fly Zone “you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians”; such intervention will “take a lot of civilians”. This realization would seem inconsistent with the often-used humanitarian pretext, but it makes sense given Hillary Clinton’s recent admission that her top priority in Syria is removing Syrian President Assad.
There is a clear parallel with the imposition of a NFZ in Libya, which prolonged the conflict and worsened the situation for civilians. NATO bombing directly led to scores of civilian deaths and facilitated the overthrow of the regime by rebel militias that have killed, and are continuing to kill, thousands. Particularly repugnant was the ethnic cleansing of black people, including through public lynching. In a 2013 paper, Alan Kuperman, a Harvard academic, argued that NATO intervention extended the war by a factor of 6 and increased the death toll 7 to 10 times; given that Libya is now a failed state, torn apart by warlords, we can safely say that these estimates were too conservative. President Obama privately calls the situation in Libya a “shit show”. Only last month a report from the Foreign Affairs Committee of the British Parliament found that the humanitarian justification was an insufficient pretext and based on falsehoods, the supposedly limited intervention led “ineluctably” to regime change, and that the (British) government, and by implication other participating Western powers, did not seriously consider diplomatic alternatives to military action.
Regardless, the mantra of Western foreign policy is “it will be different this time” – unlike all recent Western military interventions this one will be limited, successful and won’t leave a worse humanitarian situation in its wake. Although, if the dire humanitarian situation in Aleppo necessitates immediate action, then why are there not equally loud calls for action for civilians facing similar situations? U.S. bombing in Manbij and Kobane in Syria and Ramadi and Fallujah in Iraq has resulted in thousands of civilian deaths and flattened entire neighbourhoods; more than a third of US and UK backed Saudi airstrikes in Yemen have hit civilian sites, including schools, hospitals, weddings and funerals.
The U.S. and its allies want to remove Syria from Russia’s orbit, so therefore the dictator there must go, but airstrikes to support the dictator in Yemen are fine, because the dictator there is a friend of close U.S. ally Saudi Arabia.
Read more: Will a No-Fly Zone Help the People of Aleppo?
In any area of policy, the mainstream debate revolves around policy alternatives that reflect establishment divisions. For example, in economics, ‘there is no alternative’ to neoliberalism, at least there wasn’t until Keynesianism was rediscovered by some elites after the 2008 crisis. The debate over what is to be done over Syria revolves around two policy alternatives: the hawks, including likely next U.S. president, Hillary Clinton, advocate a NFZ and the doves, including the current U.S. administration, maintain that the sanctions regime should be increased. This effectively reflects a division within the establishment on how to proceed. Serious policy alternatives are not discussed. In particular, discussion of increasing aid and support to refugees, surely the most obvious way of directly helping civilians in Syria, and what the UN has called on industrialized countries to do, is curious by its absence.
This circumscribed debate does not logically follow from its supposed pretext – stopping civilian loss of life. In fact, a NFZ is a policy that would unavoidably lead to civilians dying. Enforcing a NFZ means destroying air defenses, which are located to defend cities – i.e. they are located in areas where there are many civilians. Even the flagbearer for the hawks, Hillary Clinton, has admitted privately that with a No-Fly Zone “you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians”; such intervention will “take a lot of civilians”. This realization would seem inconsistent with the often-used humanitarian pretext, but it makes sense given Hillary Clinton’s recent admission that her top priority in Syria is removing Syrian President Assad.
There is a clear parallel with the imposition of a NFZ in Libya, which prolonged the conflict and worsened the situation for civilians. NATO bombing directly led to scores of civilian deaths and facilitated the overthrow of the regime by rebel militias that have killed, and are continuing to kill, thousands. Particularly repugnant was the ethnic cleansing of black people, including through public lynching. In a 2013 paper, Alan Kuperman, a Harvard academic, argued that NATO intervention extended the war by a factor of 6 and increased the death toll 7 to 10 times; given that Libya is now a failed state, torn apart by warlords, we can safely say that these estimates were too conservative. President Obama privately calls the situation in Libya a “shit show”. Only last month a report from the Foreign Affairs Committee of the British Parliament found that the humanitarian justification was an insufficient pretext and based on falsehoods, the supposedly limited intervention led “ineluctably” to regime change, and that the (British) government, and by implication other participating Western powers, did not seriously consider diplomatic alternatives to military action.
Regardless, the mantra of Western foreign policy is “it will be different this time” – unlike all recent Western military interventions this one will be limited, successful and won’t leave a worse humanitarian situation in its wake. Although, if the dire humanitarian situation in Aleppo necessitates immediate action, then why are there not equally loud calls for action for civilians facing similar situations? U.S. bombing in Manbij and Kobane in Syria and Ramadi and Fallujah in Iraq has resulted in thousands of civilian deaths and flattened entire neighbourhoods; more than a third of US and UK backed Saudi airstrikes in Yemen have hit civilian sites, including schools, hospitals, weddings and funerals.
The U.S. and its allies want to remove Syria from Russia’s orbit, so therefore the dictator there must go, but airstrikes to support the dictator in Yemen are fine, because the dictator there is a friend of close U.S. ally Saudi Arabia.
Read more: Will a No-Fly Zone Help the People of Aleppo?
6/11/12
Syria: US accelerates preparations for 'no-fly zone' in Syria
The United States may soon take on a formal role in the Syrian uprising after reports surfaced this week that suggest the White House wants an air offensive targeting the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.
After over a year of unrest in Syria, Israel’s Debka news agency reports that US President Barack Obama has asked the US Navy and Air Force to accelerate plans that would aid in the ousting of Assad. According to their sources, President Obama hopes that by initiating a temporary air strike in locales instrumental to the Syrian government, the US may be able to decimate Assad’s control by attacking his regime’s military command centers. The US would call for a no-fly zone over Syria, reports Debka, then send their own personnel to strike Assad-aligned targets.
Murmurings of the latest plans out of Washington come less than two weeks after Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) called for the implementation of a no-fly zone. Speaking to reporters last month, Sen. Graham said that ousting Assad from control in Syria is much more crucial for America’s interests than the issue of Libya; last year the US aided in the removal of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi from Libyan rule.
Read More: US accelerates preparations for 'no-fly zone' in Syria — RT
After over a year of unrest in Syria, Israel’s Debka news agency reports that US President Barack Obama has asked the US Navy and Air Force to accelerate plans that would aid in the ousting of Assad. According to their sources, President Obama hopes that by initiating a temporary air strike in locales instrumental to the Syrian government, the US may be able to decimate Assad’s control by attacking his regime’s military command centers. The US would call for a no-fly zone over Syria, reports Debka, then send their own personnel to strike Assad-aligned targets.
Murmurings of the latest plans out of Washington come less than two weeks after Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) called for the implementation of a no-fly zone. Speaking to reporters last month, Sen. Graham said that ousting Assad from control in Syria is much more crucial for America’s interests than the issue of Libya; last year the US aided in the removal of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi from Libyan rule.
Read More: US accelerates preparations for 'no-fly zone' in Syria — RT
3/18/11
Libya Declares Immediate Ceasefire After UN No-Fly Resolution - by Leon Mangasarian and Zainab Fattah
Libya said it is ceasing all military action and will start talks with rebels, reacting the day after a United Nations vote allowed strikes against leader Muammar Qaddafi’s regime.
Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa made the announcement in a televised news conference carried by Al Arabiya TV today, adding that the UN resolution authorizing a no-fly zone violates the UN’s charter.
Note EU-Digest: the cease fire offered by Gaddafi is completely bogus and only intended to win him time.
For more: Libya Declares Immediate Ceasefire After UN No-Fly Resolution - Bloomberg
Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa made the announcement in a televised news conference carried by Al Arabiya TV today, adding that the UN resolution authorizing a no-fly zone violates the UN’s charter.
Note EU-Digest: the cease fire offered by Gaddafi is completely bogus and only intended to win him time.
For more: Libya Declares Immediate Ceasefire After UN No-Fly Resolution - Bloomberg
3/17/11
Libya: UN approves no-fly zone as British troops prepare for action
Western forces could launch bombing raids against the Libyan regime as early as Friday after the UN backed international military action.
The first raids, possibly conducted by unmanned drones, could happen within hours if Colonel Gaddafi acts on his threat to "show no mercy" to rebels in Benghazi.
The RAF could become involved in any operation by this evening, according to British sources. However, the raids may be spearheaded by an Arab nation such as Qatar or the UAE. Last night, Col Gaddafi threatened to launch retaliation attacks against passenger aircraft in the Mediterranean if foreign countries launch air strikes against Libya.
Note EU-Digest : Mr. Gaddafi....the party is over ....
For more: Libya: UN approves no-fly zone as British troops prepare for action - Telegraph
The first raids, possibly conducted by unmanned drones, could happen within hours if Colonel Gaddafi acts on his threat to "show no mercy" to rebels in Benghazi.
The RAF could become involved in any operation by this evening, according to British sources. However, the raids may be spearheaded by an Arab nation such as Qatar or the UAE. Last night, Col Gaddafi threatened to launch retaliation attacks against passenger aircraft in the Mediterranean if foreign countries launch air strikes against Libya.
Note EU-Digest : Mr. Gaddafi....the party is over ....
For more: Libya: UN approves no-fly zone as British troops prepare for action - Telegraph
U.N. to Vote on Libya Airstrikes; U.S. Readies Forces - by ADAM ENTOUS, JOE LAURIA, YAROSLAV TROFIMOV and SAM DAGHER
The United Nations Security Council was set to vote at 6 p.m. on a resolution that would authorize airstrikes on Libya, several diplomats said, as Col. Moammar Gadhafi's air force bombed the opposition's capital of Benghazi in a push to end the month-long revolt against his rule.
The U.S. joined Britain and France Thursday in pushing for the vote. "We need to act quickly," said Chinese Ambassador Li Baodong, the current Security Council president. Mr. Li didn't indicate how China would vote. Beijing has been considered a possible obstacle to passage of a resolution.
French Ambassador Gerard Araud said there would no unanimity. "There will be some suprises and more than one abstention," he said. Diplomats speculated that as many as five nations could abstain, including China, Russia, Germany, India and South Africa.
For more: U.N. to Vote on Libya Airstrikes; U.S. Readies Forces - WSJ.com
The U.S. joined Britain and France Thursday in pushing for the vote. "We need to act quickly," said Chinese Ambassador Li Baodong, the current Security Council president. Mr. Li didn't indicate how China would vote. Beijing has been considered a possible obstacle to passage of a resolution.
French Ambassador Gerard Araud said there would no unanimity. "There will be some suprises and more than one abstention," he said. Diplomats speculated that as many as five nations could abstain, including China, Russia, Germany, India and South Africa.
For more: U.N. to Vote on Libya Airstrikes; U.S. Readies Forces - WSJ.com
3/12/11
Arab League backs Libya no-fly zone
A special meeting in Cairo the Arab League voted to ask the UN Security Council to impose a no fly policy above Libya and to keep that policy into effect until the current crisis ended.
The UK and France have pushed for the idea, but have failed so far to win firm backing from the EU or Nato. Libyan rebel forces have meanwhile suffered fresh setbacks including the loss of the key oil port of Ras Lanuf.
For more: BBC News - Arab League backs Libya no-fly zone
The UK and France have pushed for the idea, but have failed so far to win firm backing from the EU or Nato. Libyan rebel forces have meanwhile suffered fresh setbacks including the loss of the key oil port of Ras Lanuf.
For more: BBC News - Arab League backs Libya no-fly zone
3/11/11
Europe wary of force - by Gavin Hewitt
David Cameron had wanted this emergency summit to show ambition and will in dealing with Colonel Gaddafi. Certainly Europe's heads of government were united in calling on the Libyan leader to give up power without delay. That was the easy part. There will be, too, further financial sanctions against the regime.
The UK prime minister had wanted a more robust European response. He described Colonel Gaddafi as a "pariah... still on the rampage, waging war against his own people".
He and the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, had urged planning for a no-fly zone - if it became necessary.
For more: BBC - Gavin Hewitt's Europe: Europe wary of force
The UK prime minister had wanted a more robust European response. He described Colonel Gaddafi as a "pariah... still on the rampage, waging war against his own people".
He and the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, had urged planning for a no-fly zone - if it became necessary.
For more: BBC - Gavin Hewitt's Europe: Europe wary of force
3/7/11
The ethics of oil in a time of turmoil
"Only a few weeks ago, instability in the House of Saud seemed inconceivable. But the generational divide that is driving regional protests is perhaps greatest in Saudi Arabia. Nearly half of its people are 18 or younger, and 40 per cent of Saudis aged 20 to 24 are unemployed. At the other end of the divide, the country’s top three rulers are aged 76 to 83. Saudi activists want jobs, democracy and greater rights for women. Through Facebook, they are calling for a “day of rage” on March 11.
No wonder U.S. President Barack Obama’s congratulatory speech after the overthrow of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak was so poorly received in the Saudi capital of Riyadh. And when American diplomats threatened to end U.S. financial support for the Egyptian military if it intervened to support Mr. Mubarak, the Saudis immediately offered to replace that financing – a notable schism in the long-standing close relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States. With countries producing nine million barrels of oil a day facing instability, any serious disruption to Saudi Arabia’s 11 million barrels would send oil prices to stratospheric heights. Already high food prices would follow suit, pushing the world into unthinkable economic and political turmoil.
The West needs to avoid this nightmare scenario, even if it means compromising democratic ideology with the reality of preventing global economic meltdown."
Note EU-Digest: compromising democratic ideology to prevent global economic meltdown? what nonsense - that is what we have been doing all the time and look what happened. It is precisely what we should not be doing.
In this context it was interesting to hear financial reporters and analysts on CNBC this evening promoting a no-fly-zone above Libya. They based their assessments on the fact that even though it would cost the US Government and its "partners" about eight billion dollars a year to implement a no-fly-zone above Libya, the drop in oil prices as a result of this no-fly-zone could make Wall Street more money in one day than what would be invested into this no-fly-zone for a full year. Obviously, self interest once again taken to great heights by our "compassionate" financial community.
Lets face it, the fact of the matter is that the financial community has no ethics and the problems the world is facing today are just about all of their making. The only way to make the financial industry understand is through their pocketbooks. So its not a question of the West having to avoid "Nightmare Scenarios", it is really about the financial industry having to make changes. Lets hope some event, maybe even this present Middle East crises, will bring them to their knees. Only than might they start showing some more humility and compassion towards the people they serve.
For more: CTV News | The ethics of oil in a time of turmoil
No wonder U.S. President Barack Obama’s congratulatory speech after the overthrow of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak was so poorly received in the Saudi capital of Riyadh. And when American diplomats threatened to end U.S. financial support for the Egyptian military if it intervened to support Mr. Mubarak, the Saudis immediately offered to replace that financing – a notable schism in the long-standing close relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States. With countries producing nine million barrels of oil a day facing instability, any serious disruption to Saudi Arabia’s 11 million barrels would send oil prices to stratospheric heights. Already high food prices would follow suit, pushing the world into unthinkable economic and political turmoil.
The West needs to avoid this nightmare scenario, even if it means compromising democratic ideology with the reality of preventing global economic meltdown."
Note EU-Digest: compromising democratic ideology to prevent global economic meltdown? what nonsense - that is what we have been doing all the time and look what happened. It is precisely what we should not be doing.
In this context it was interesting to hear financial reporters and analysts on CNBC this evening promoting a no-fly-zone above Libya. They based their assessments on the fact that even though it would cost the US Government and its "partners" about eight billion dollars a year to implement a no-fly-zone above Libya, the drop in oil prices as a result of this no-fly-zone could make Wall Street more money in one day than what would be invested into this no-fly-zone for a full year. Obviously, self interest once again taken to great heights by our "compassionate" financial community.
Lets face it, the fact of the matter is that the financial community has no ethics and the problems the world is facing today are just about all of their making. The only way to make the financial industry understand is through their pocketbooks. So its not a question of the West having to avoid "Nightmare Scenarios", it is really about the financial industry having to make changes. Lets hope some event, maybe even this present Middle East crises, will bring them to their knees. Only than might they start showing some more humility and compassion towards the people they serve.
For more: CTV News | The ethics of oil in a time of turmoil
3/6/11
Britain, France seek 'bold' EU action on Libya
France and Britain want to put "bold and ambitious measures" to next week's emergency European Union summit on the Libyan crisis, British Foreign Minister William Hague said on Thursday.
For more: AFP: Britain, France seek 'bold' action on Libya
For more: AFP: Britain, France seek 'bold' action on Libya
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)