European-led Ukraine air protection plan could halt Russian missile attacks
Sky Shield, its proponents argue, would be a European-led air protection zone operated separately from Nato to halt Russian cruise missile and drone attacks on cities and infrastructure, potentially operating as part of the 'truce in the sky' proposed by Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, this week.
It would cover Ukraine's three operating nuclear power plants and the cities of Odesa and Lviv, but not the frontline or the east of the country – and, according to a newly published paper, it could 'achieve greater military, political, and socioeconomic impact than 10,000 European ground troops'.
Supporters include Philip Breedlove, a former US Air Force general and Nato supreme commander in Europe, and Sir Richard Shirreff, a former British army general and deputy Nato supreme commander at the beginning of the last decade, as well as former Polish president Aleksander Kwaśniewski.
Another backer, Gabrielius Landsbergis, a former Lithuanian foreign minister, said in a statement: 'The implementation of Sky Shield would be an important component of Europe's stepping up, guaranteeing Ukraine's security effectively and efficiently.'
Though variants of the proposal have been discussed without making progress since Russia launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, a fresh version of the plan has gained renewed impetus this week after Zelenskyy's acrimonious meeting with US president Donald Trump on Friday.
Since then the US has halted military aid and curbed intelligence sharing with Kyiv, prompting a rapid realisation in Europe that the continent will have to take the lead in supporting Ukraine while the war continues and by providing security guarantees to the country as part of any peace deal.
It is understood Sky Shield has been drawn up by former RAF planners working in conjunction with Ukraine's armed forces, and it has been canvassed before European defence ministries. However, there has been no real appetite from European leaders to sanction patrols of Ukrainian skies while the war is ongoing.
Those involved believe the pace of events in the last week means that ideas about protecting some of Ukraine's airspace can now get a fresh hearing, though the plan also serves to highlight how important and efficient air protection would be as part of providing security guarantees to Kyiv in the event of a ceasefire.
The concern in western political circles is that it would risk placing fighter jets from Nato member states directly in conflict with Russia, and could lead to a dangerous escalation of hostilities if a jet from either side was attacked or shot down.
However, backers of the scheme argue the 'risk to Sky Shield pilots is low' because Moscow has not dared to fly its combat jets beyond the existing front lines since early 2022. The de facto separation from Russian aircraft would be 'more than 200km' according to the scheme's designers.
Russia routinely attacks Ukraine with missiles and long range drones and the belief is that fighter patrols could help Kyiv eliminate them. Knocking them out is a burden on Kyiv's existing air defence, some of which – most notably Patriot interceptors – are manufactured in the US and whose resupply is covered by the White House ban.
On Wednesday, Ukraine's military said 181 drones and four missiles had been launched by Russia. Though most of the drones were shot down, one person was killed in the southern city of Odesa and infrastructure was targeted in the region, the local authorities said.
Ukraine has fewer missiles than Russia but has used US Atacms and Anglo-French Storm Shadow missiles to strike targets inside Russia since the autumn. It has also conducted a string of long range drone attacks on military and other infrastructure, such as refineries.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
20 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump's reckless nuclear performance is high-stakes but low cost
In normal times, this would be an extraordinary, epoch-changing and terror-inducing moment. Not even during the Cold War did a US president publicly move nuclear submarines towards Russian waters. Never before has a US leader chosen to engage in nuclear brinkmanship of this kind. True, the Soviet Union famously triggered a nuclear showdown in 1962 by moving nuclear warheads to within 90 miles of the US shoreline during the Cuban Missile Crisis. For 13 days, the world feared Armageddon. But given Donald Trump 's quixotic style of governing, few are panicking today. A Cuban Missile Crisis Mark II, this quite patently is not. Yet, that does not mean that what the US president has just done is risk-free. He has shifted Washington's nuclear posture towards Russia in a way that none of his predecessors dared, climbing – almost casually – the first rung of the nuclear escalation ladder. Should Vladimir Putin choose to respond in kind, a major crisis could follow. That seems unlikely – a calculation Mr Trump has presumably made. In fact, he appears to be borrowing from the Russian playbook. Putin has long used nuclear posturing as a tool of coercion. During bouts of tension with the West, he has deployed Iskander missiles, capable of firing nuclear warheads, to the exclave of Kaliningrad on the border with Poland, a Nato member. In 2023, he stationed tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus – the first time since the Cold War that Russia has placed nuclear weapons outside its own territory. He has also repeatedly hinted at using a tactical weapon in Ukraine. And on Friday, Putin announced that Russia had started producing Oreshnik hypersonic intermediate-range missiles, reaffirming plans to deploy them to Belarus this year. He boasted he had already selected sites for their deployment. In recent days, Dmitry Medvedev, the former Russian president and now Putin's social media attack dog, who has previously rattled the nuclear sabre, warned that Mr Trump's threats could spark war between the US and Russia. Mr Trump, who has recently tempered his admiration of Putin, made it clear that he was calling Russia's bluff. In so many words, he told Moscow he was taking its threats literally rather than figuratively – an inversion of the advice his supporters usually give about him. He wrote in a social media post directed at Mr Medvedev: 'Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences.' Mr Trump's threat is therefore best seen as performance – high-stakes, reckless performance, but performance all the same. Other motives may be at play. In the coming days, the US president will have to unveil how he intends to counter Russia's continuing aggression in Ukraine, underscored on Friday after an attack on Kyiv killed 31 people. Secondary sanctions on countries buying Russian energy – chiefly China, India, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates – pose a major diplomatic headache. Should Mr Trump choose to retreat on these threats, he can point to the submarine deployment as proof he is serious about Russia – a strategy whose stakes are higher but costs potentially much lower than escalating tariffs on allies Washington needs for goodwill in other arenas.
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
WW3 fears as Vladimir Putin is trying to 'justify a Russia war with NATO'
Vladimir Putin could have NATO member states in his sights as he aims to rebuild the old Russian Empire and justify expanding its borders beyond where they are currently World War 3 fears continue to mount as Russian President Vladimir Putin could attempt to justify a war with NATO, experts have warned. Amid the ongoing war in Ukraine, Moscow "continues to promote an informal state ideology centred on Russian nationalism," which officials said "may intend to use in justification of a protracted war in Ukraine and a future conflict against NATO," the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) said. The move is designed to "shape and galvanise future generations" in Russia and parts of occupied Ukraine. Kremlin bosses may warn of a future military conflict with the alliance, the ISW added. It comes after Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu 'completely lost it' with angry response to Keir Starmer. It wrote: "The Kremlin seeks to foster national exceptionalism and further isolate Russia from the West, including by portraying the West as the enemy with whom Russia is engaged in an existential conflict." They will use elements from Russian history such as World War 2 which Russians call the "Great Patriotic War." Experts said the Russian government continued to portray the country as being in a "direct geopolitical confrontation with the West in order to generate domestic support for the war in Ukraine and future Russian aggression against NATO." It comes as Russia continues to court Iran, North Korea and China, which constitutes "a growing threat to Western security." The ISW added Russia was "actively pursuing a global anti-Western alliance" and that Moscow's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov wanted to "install an informal sate ideology that perpetuates the idea that the West is in an existential conflict with Russia in order to foster unquestioning support of the Russian government." Foreign analysts have become increasingly concerned about Putin's appetite for war following his invasion of Ukraine and willingness to throw as many Russians into the meat grinder as possible in order to complete its revised war objectives of occupying eastern Ukraine. There are fears he could turn his sights on the Baltic States - made up of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - in a bid to revise the borders to those of the old Russian Empire. Officials have been "setting informal conditions" to justify potential aggression against Moldova and the Baltic States.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Hostage families: Releases will play ‘no part' in UK plan to recognise Palestine
Members of four British families met with Foreign Office officials on Thursday night seeking clarification on whether conditions would also be placed on Hamas, their lawyers said in a statement. 'However, it was clear from the meeting last night that the British Government's policy will not help the hostages, and could even hurt them,' they said. 'We do not say this lightly, but it was made obvious to us at the meeting that although the conditions for recognising a Palestinian state would be assessed 'in the round' in late-September, in deciding whether to go ahead with recognition, the release or otherwise of the hostages would play no part in those considerations. 'In other words, the 'vision for peace' which the UK is pursuing… may well involve our clients' family members continuing to rot in Hamas dungeons.' The statement also raised concerns that the UK offer would disincentivise Hamas from agreeing to a ceasefire deal. Sir Keir had said the UK would only refrain from recognising Palestine if Israel allows more aid into Gaza, stops annexing land in the West Bank, agrees to a ceasefire, and signs up to a long-term peace process over the next two months. While he also called for Hamas to immediately release all remaining Israeli hostages, sign up to a ceasefire, disarm and 'accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza', he did not explicitly say these would factor into whether recognition would go ahead. He stressed on Friday that 'our demands on Hamas have not changed' and said that when the UK assesses how far the parties have met the steps set out ahead of the UN General Assembly 'of course that includes the terrorists of Hamas'. 'Everything we do in the Middle East is aimed at getting the hostages out, getting humanitarian aid to civilians, and accelerating the process towards peace,' he wrote in an op-ed for Jewish News. The families have a range of views on what the future political settlement should look like but their priority is to keep the hostages 'above political games,' their lawyers said. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds has said that the UK will not get into a 'to and fro' with Hamas over the recognition plans (Jordan Pettitt/PA) They are now urging the Prime Minister to 'change course before it is too late'. 'At a minimum, the British hostage families request that the Government confirm that without the hostages being released, there can be no peace, and that this will be an important part of its decision as to whether to proceed with recognition and its current plan.' Sir Keir said that he 'particularly' listens to hostages after criticism of his plans from Emily Damari, a British-Israeli who was held captive by Hamas. The families of Ms Damari and freed hostage Eli Sharabi were among those who met with the Foreign Office. Also present were relatives of Nadav Popplewell, who died while held captive, as well as those of Oded Lifshitz, who died, and Yocheved Lifschitz, who was released. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds has said that the UK will not get into a 'to and fro' with Hamas over the recognition plans and that 'we don't negotiate with terrorists, Hamas are terrorists'. US President Donald Trump disagrees with Sir Keir's plans, as well as those of France and Canada, which have also pledged their countries will recognise Palestine. 'He feels as though that's rewarding Hamas at a time where Hamas is the true impediment to a ceasefire and to the release of all of the hostages,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. A Government spokesperson said: 'We have announced our intention to recognise Palestine in September to protect the viability of the two-state solution. The first step in that process must be a ceasefire and there is no question about that. 'Our demands on Hamas have not changed. For there to be any chance of peace, the hostages must be released. Hamas must lay down its weapons and commit to having no future role in the governance of Gaza. 'We must also see significant progress on the ground including the supply of humanitarian support and for Israel to rule out annexations in the West Bank, and a commitment to a long-term sustainable peace. 'We will make an assessment ahead of UNGA on how far both Israel and Hamas have met the steps we set out. No one side will have a veto on recognition through their actions or inactions.'
