The reporters/anchors and retired military on CNN have not been promoting a no fly zone or taking it lightly. l As far as I have heard and read, it is always pretty much taken off the table as escalation into war directly with Russia. Yesterday, I believe, one retired commander talked about a "limited" no fly zone which seemed much better from my layperson's mind.
That's great! I definitely feel like the coverage has gotten more "serious" and detailed what a NFZ would entail in the past couple days. Unfortunately, I do think the term was tossed around very loosely in the early days of the war, hence the high (74%) popularity of one.
I'm sure that is correct, because until I read more about it and listened more closely to the interviews, I was in favor of it, too. I don't think military personnel are known for their creativity, but they can't keep applying those same military principles and expecting a different result.
The reporters/anchors and retired military on CNN have not been promoting a no fly zone or taking it lightly. l As far as I have heard and read, it is always pretty much taken off the table as escalation into war directly with Russia. Yesterday, I believe, one retired commander talked about a "limited" no fly zone which seemed much better from my layperson's mind.
That's great! I definitely feel like the coverage has gotten more "serious" and detailed what a NFZ would entail in the past couple days. Unfortunately, I do think the term was tossed around very loosely in the early days of the war, hence the high (74%) popularity of one.
I'm sure that is correct, because until I read more about it and listened more closely to the interviews, I was in favor of it, too. I don't think military personnel are known for their creativity, but they can't keep applying those same military principles and expecting a different result.
Oops! Sorry, I posted twice...I'm not fully caffeinated!
No worries! We've all been there.