What does /k/ think about this. Are the people in this artic

>>31802889

If we fired upon them first, which we would. Thus begins WW3 due to NATO mutual defense agreements.

>>31802904
If a NATO member starts shooting they can't call for article 5 once the ennemy riposts.

>>31802889
They would test the no fly zone and see if the US actually shoots them down or not. Sort of a no-win for the US, since they either back down and lose face or start shooting and start a war.

>>31802960
Realistically neither France or the UK are going to back down over Syria either.

>>31802889
"enforcing a no-fly zone" means shooting down Russian aircraft that violate that zone.

Yes, they would violate that one, since Syria is their ally, and it's a situation they can't back down from.

And yes, they would in turn shoot down American aircraft if they got fired upon first.

It would probably not turn into WW3, but definitely a shit situation anyway. You might start seeing a lot of airliners get shot down all over Europe and the US, due to Igla missiles getting into the hands of radical islamist groups in some mysterious ways.

>>31802960

That only applies if a NATO member initiates the conflict entirely unprovoked, like if we outright attacked Russian.

A No fly zone is something different altogether. The UN would have to be on board with that for it to be legal.

>>31803125
No. The article 5 is worded and understood so that it can only be invoked if the attack against you is (somewhat) unproked, and over the sovereign territories of the NATO members in Europe or North America. Flying over a foreign country waiting to be shot down then throwing a tantrum and asking for the other members to pile on the shooter is a clear abuse of the word and spirit of the Article 5. And the UN has absofuckingly nothing to do with NATO.

It doesn't matter if America fires first or not. The media will portray it as America the good guys and Russia the big bad.

>>31802889
>enforcing a no fly zone when the only forces flying are trying to stabilize the situation

Hillary is a fucking idiot and so is anyone trying to heat up the civil war even further.

Enforcing a no fly zone means threatening to shoot down aircraft violating it.

Either Russia complies and accedes to America's demands or they continue to fly and declare they will shoot down any aircraft attempting to enforce such a zone.

A no fly zone will not have UNSC backing because Russia will veto it. If the USA unilaterally declares one, Putin will call their bluff.

>>31806042
Well no, some anti war hippy will play us as the bad guys instead of the Russians, when this has been their fault since day one.

Assad was their pet, they should have kept him in line.

>>31806042
It's kind of easy to picture russia as big bad as they ARE objectively evil.

>>31806539
>when this has been their fault since day one

What?

>>31806042
This. Perception is the only thing that matters, and it can be created or manipulated.

>>31802889
What makes you think they'll shoot down a fucking US airplane if they don't even have the balls to do the same to the fucking Turks.

>>31806539
>Assad is attacked by US-backed kurdish seperatists and Saudi-backed jihadists

>it's his fault because he peacefully and prosperously ruled a country for a few decades

>>31802889
>Would Russia actually shoot down our aurcraft if we tried to enforce a no fly zone?

no. they'd just ignore the no fly zone and see what happens. if america shoots them down for violating the nfz, it's pretty much a declaration of war.