@realMurphyMc@Reuters No - air combat does not equal escalation and WW3 - US and Soviet planes fought multiple times through the cold war without escalation https://t.co/dOOPOoKx8u
@BenKirk_48 @Reuters No - air combat does not equal escalation and WW3 - US and Soviet planes fought multiple times through the cold war without escalation https://t.co/dOOPOoKx8u
@DrumnDan@Reuters No - air combat does not equal escalation and WW3 - US and Soviet planes fought multiple times through the cold war without escalation https://t.co/dOOPOoJZiW
@shashj Correct to acknowledge the distance but don't underplay the difference between 450km to Baghdad from a starting point on the other side of the world vs 100km to Kiev from your front yard.
@yolo_wolfe@AlexLuck9 Which is my point also. So many saying enforcing NFZ = compulsory nuclear war. It's not that simple and evidence suggests that would not be a likely outcome.
@AlexLuck9 My issue with the anti-NFZ narrative is it is painted as automatic nuclear war which is far from likely given history such as this. To be fair you didn't say that directly though but we need to escape the "anything the west does is WW3 narrative"
@HugoScrotius@LevHavryliv It's not that I propose this action but my point is that air to air combat does not automatically and in all likelihood would not lead to nuclear war.
@HugoScrotius@LevHavryliv If you want to nitpick painting a Ukrainian flag on a US F-35 would make it 100% comparable. Everyone knew what was happening then and would know now. Point is it is not automatic escalation beyond that.