It’s actually more or less the public expert consensus too. Albeit the expert consensus has a lot of nuance. We know from OSINT sources that they US Military taught the Ukrainian military Taliban tactics that they learned from fighting the Taliban.
This was going to be an asymmetric war from the very start.
As far as the nuke stuff goes, well that’s much harder.
Important caveat, we don’t know what the “real experts” i.e. people with access to classified information think. Because they aren’t talking to anyone but themselves and the long lens of history.
Those don't say that NATO should directly attack Russian forces, and that the risk of nuclear war is overblown and NATO should ignore it. If I'm missing something, please provide a quote.
Based on what I've read and on a lot of such reading in my past, I'm pretty confident nobody credible is saying anything like that.
Thanks for the link; very interesting. From that interview, the general seems to like the idea but also notes seemingly impossile obstacles to it ("PB" is retired U.S. General Philip Breedlove):
PB: I am actually a proponent of it [a no-fly zone]. But let me now tell you why it will probably not happen, because the reality of a no-fly zone is, it is an act of war. There are a lot of people who don’t understand no-fly zones. You don’t just say, “That’s a no fly zone.” You have to enforce a no-fly zone, which means you have to be willing to use force against those who break the no-fly zone. The second thing, which nobody understands, is if you put a no-fly zone in the eastern part of Ukraine, for instance, and we’re going to fly coalition or NATO aircraft into that no-fly zone, then we have to take out all the weapons that can fire into our no-fly zone and cause harm to our aircraft. So that means bombing enemy radars and missile systems on the other side of the border. And you know what that means, right? That is tantamount to war. So if we’re going to declare a no-fly zone, we have to take down the enemy’s capability to fire into and affect our no-fly zone. And few understand that. And that’s why, if you talk about a no-fly zone, it is a very sober decision because many in the world would interpret it as an act of war.
FP: Yet, in spite of all of that, you said you would actually support the idea of a no-fly zone?
PB: Are we going to sit and watch while a world power invades and destroys and subjugates a sovereign nation? Are we just going to watch? I mean, a friend recently said, “This is like biblical times, and the whole Colosseum is watching the lions and the Christians, and they’re pulling for the Christians, but they just watch.” So the question is, is the West going to tolerate Russia doing this to Ukraine? What if the Russians do what they did in eastern Syria and they drop barrel bombs and make rubble of cities and terrorize citizens and force them on the road and make them refugees across Europe? Where is the line that Russia crosses in its inhumanity such that the rest of the world reacts?
The analysis I was reading and where it was coming from was their experience in Syria where American and Russian forces have come into contact. But there's an asterisk here. They were Russian solders, but they were disavowed Russian soldiers acting under the Wagner group at an arm's length relationship, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham
I need to read up on how the no-fly zone was set up in Syria, but IIRC there were active clashes between American hardware and the Russians.
But that was a different context. It was a space far away from Russia's borders. It's another kettle of fish and it's not a good idea to do what was done in Syria here.
I apologize if I sounded too firm earlier, this is not my place of expertise. I am not an expert on geopolitics or foreign policy. It's not my area. I just like to read.
