Why does Zelenskyy urge NATO to impose a no-fly zone?

Question

Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, asked again on last Monday for a no-fly zone. Based on this article from The Guardian:

So far the war in Ukraine has not depended heavily on air power, on either side. In its invasion Russia has relied mostly on long-range missiles and surface artillery fire to attack Ukrainian targets.

So what is the reason behind Zelenskyy's insisting on imposing a no-fly zone if the war is largely based on missiles?

Edited

The question closed as duplicate of this question. These are not the same. My question is about cause of Zelenskyy's insisting on imposing no-fly zone. But the question that is considered to be same to my question is about how NATO can impose no-fly zone while it explicitly stated to not send any troop to Ukraine.

I am wondering about how could setting up such a no-fly zone actually be implemented in the current context. The announcement would be the easy part, but it is not clear how could NATO actually enforce it since it explicitly stated to not send any NATO troops to Ukraine.

Answer 1

Well, the contribution of Russian aircraft to the war is not zero. I've read about a week ago that they fly some 200 combat missions daily, compared to 5-10 by Ukrainian side.

Also, the supply routes from Poland aren't so easy to target just with ballistic & cruise missiles. The Russians did hit some depots and barracks in that area that way, but interdicting actual road traffic is harder without involving aircraft or combat drones (which Russia doesn't have that many, although they have some Israeli ones built under license.) According to some accounts Russian observation drones have already entered NATO territory (in Poland and Romania).

Furthermore, if NATO forces get further drawn into the conflict that is good news for Ukraine, as long as that stops short of a nuclear exchange, I guess.

Answer 2

From a practical perspective, as noted by Fizz, a no-fly zone would be incredibly helpful to Ukraine in defending their country.

But the political reasons for continuing to ask for a no-fly zone are really important as well.

Locally, #1. it makes Ukrainians feel their leaders are actively asking for big things to help defend them; but also #2. It illustrates that long-term, the likelihood of NATO accepting Ukraine is low, so they’ll need to arrange alternative defensive strategies either internally - improving the pride and ownership and in turn motivation for defending their lands - or with other non-NATO neighbours.

Externally, #1. It repeatedly makes the west/NATO states feel incredibly guilty for not helping them in this way, so we’re more inclined to send as much as we can of everything else to help (and it is quite impressive how much is being sent both militarily and for humanitarian purposes; alongside sanctions, boycotts, etc); #2. It distracts the focus from the concrete military aid that is actually being delivered, and by being in the back channels, Russia will be less aware of what’s being sent.

Personally, I think its a brilliant approach.

(Aside: I don’t have the time to provide citations/sources - feel free to edit/add as desired)

Answer 3

As the other answers pointed out, a "no-fly zone" means a shooting war between NATO and Russia. Which is probably to Ukraine's benefit. Unless it goes nuclear on their territory.

But Ukraine has been very good in tailoring their public diplomacy to different audiences. In the UK they quote Churchill. In Israel they warn of a Final Solution and a country being wiped off the map. They ask for German helmets and then complain that they got helmets and not howitzers. They demand that an end to buying Russian gas while gas is pumped through Ukraine.

All perfectly understandable when one assumes that they are the most recent victim of Russian aggression, not the only one, and need to keep the Western public attention focussed for the benefit of them all. But Ukrainian interests in this differ from those of NATO and the EU, especially where it comes to a direct confrontation with Russia.

Answer 4

Setting up a no-fly zone is likely to start a war. "No-fly zone" is a less aggressive term than just war.

Questions about people's internal motivations are hard to answer. However, from a purely rational perspective, one would stand to gain:

• A slim chance that it will actually happen.
• Extreme requests setting an anchor, making less-extreme decisions seem mild in comparison.
• If it actually happens, pathway to further escalation.

A no-fly zone can lead to response strikes against NATO air defenses. Combat pilots are trained to counter-attack hostiles, and national borders aren't visible from the cockpit of a fighter jet.

All warfare includes collateral damage. Planes shot down, missiles deflected by countermeasures, can eventually lead to hits on NATO soil. Once that happens, there is likely to be more support for NATO entering a full-scale war.

For Ukraine, it would mean distracting Russian forces and a considerably better chance of winning.

Answer 5

Feelings (of indignation, betrayal, etc.), are for the general public. Decision makers in international relations do their decisions based on rational interests rather than emotions. However, they have to placate the general population.

Sooner or later, there will be a peace deal. This means they will have to make concessions. The main Russian demands are (and have been for many years) Crimea, and some kind of guarantee that Ukraine won't join NATO. They might or might not have other goals depending on how well the war would go in their favor, but the above two goals are goals they won't likely back out of, ever.

This means, that if Zelenskyy wants an end to the war, he will have to concede in some way along these points. He recently already stated to be ready to concede in the topic of NATO membership.

However, after the end of the war, the government has to justify their decisions to the public, otherwise they will lose the next election, or maybe even be ousted in a coup if those decisions are too unpopular.

So, if he accepts the Russian demands from the get go, he will likely be considered a coward and a traitor. However, if he says "look, NATO promised a lot of help, but they aren't helping, they betrayed us", then he can justify agreeing to the "don't enter NATO" demand the Russians are pressuring him about, without losing face. Demanding action from NATO which he knows NATO will never agree to (because NATO doesn't want to start WW3), allows him the possibility to say that he won't pursue NATO membership, not because the Russians forced him, but because NATO "betrayed him". Several of his recent statements support this narrative of him.