
Europe considers the perils of flying fighters in Ukraine's airspace
Ukraine's European allies are considering the possibility of using their air forces to defend the country's western skies from drone and missile attacks without the help of the United States, sources familiar with the talks tell Al Jazeera.
The plan, known as Skyshield, could put NATO planes and pilots into Ukrainian airspace for the first time, sending a powerful political message to Russia that Europe is committed to Ukraine's defence.
Skyshield is more likely to come into effect as part of any ceasefire, especially if European ground forces are committed. But it was designed by Ukrainian and British aviation experts to work under combat conditions as well.
'It's being taken very seriously into consideration by the UK, France,' said Victoria Vdovychenko, an expert on hybrid warfare at Cambridge University's Centre for Geopolitics, who has sat at some of the meetings. 'German colleagues and Italian colleagues also do know about that, as well as the Scandinavian colleagues,' she said.
When it comes to implementing Skyshield in wartime conditions, she admits, 'some of the partners are still fluctuating in their decision making'.Skyshield was published in February and is the brainchild of Price of Freedom, a Ukrainian think tank founded by Lesya Orobets. She came up with the idea during an air defence crisis last spring, when Republican lawmakers in the US delayed the passage of a $60bn bill to send more aid to Ukraine.
During a phone call with the head of Ukraine's air force, Orobets was told, 'We are in the middle of a missile crisis. We don't have enough [interceptors] to shoot down the missiles.'
Skyshield calls for the deployment of 120 European aircraft to protect Ukrainian civilian infrastructure and export corridors along the Danube River and the Black Sea, freeing up the Ukrainian Air Force to focus on the first line of defence in the contested east of the country.
'There would be a piece of land of 200 kilometres [125 miles] between them at least,' said Orobets.
European jets would be based in neighbouring Poland and Romania, and fly mostly west of the Dnipro, protecting Kyiv on both sides of the river in the north of the country.
Western commanders are wary of costs, casualties and military implications.
Hourly flight costs, which include training, parts and maintenance, range from $28,000 for an F-16 to about $45,000 for a fourth-generation Rafale jet, Colonel Konstantinos Zikidis of the Hellenic Air Force told Al Jazeera.
'We'd have to pay for people to be there, several shifts a day in all specialities … it will be exhausting,' he said, referring to aircraft technicians and pilots.
'On the other hand, the proposal downplays the effectiveness of air defence systems, which are very effective against cruise missiles and have a far lower hourly operating cost than aircraft,' Zikidis said.
'It's also not really the job of aircraft to hunt down cruise missiles. They can do it if they are given coordinates by air command. They can't go out on flight patrol and spot them by chance. So you need a very thick radar array to cover a given area, especially at low altitude.'
European NATO members do not operate AWACS airborne radar, which would be the ideal tool for the job according to Zikidis, but Ukrainian pilots have already downed Russian cruise missiles using air-to-air missiles, suggesting the ground-based radar assets are there.
Europe has provided Ukraine with Patriot and Samp-T long-range air defence systems and Iris-T medium-range systems, but these are enough only to protect larger urban centres, said Vdovychenko. Russia is also stepping up its attacks. Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on May 4 that Russia had launched almost 1,200 long-range kamikaze drones and 10 missiles in just a week.
These types of weapons are routinely directed at civilian and industrial infrastructure, not the front lines, and Russian President Vladimir Putin is increasing production. Last year, Russia's factory at Alabuga produced 6,000 Shahed/Geran long-range drones, said Ukraine's head of the Center for Countering Disinformation, Andriy Kovalenko, last month. He said Putin set production at 8,000-10,000 drones this year.
The effects are visible. High-profile attacks on Kryvyi Rih, Kharkiv and Kyiv have killed dozens of people this year.
The second problem European air forces would face is that of casualties.
'If one European plane falls and a pilot is killed, it will be very difficult for a European government to explain it,' said Zikidis. 'For a Greek pilot to go and get killed in Ukraine could bring the government down,' he added.
'I don't think that there is a political will [for that], and that is what stops this partially,' said Vdovychenko.
But Orobets put this risk in a wider context.
'We're talking about catching cruise missiles and putting down the offensive drones, which is quite an easy target for trained pilots,' she told Al Jazeera. 'So we do consider Skyshield to be less risky [than enforcing a no-fly zone] or any participation of the European troops closer to the front line.'
Thirdly, there are the military implications. Skyshield is partly about freeing up the Ukrainian Air Force to strike deeper inside Russia, deploying the estimated 85 F-16s it is being given.
That is because Russia has this year intensified its use of controlled air bombs (CABs), which are directed against front lines, reportedly dropping 5,000 in April versus 4,800 in March, 3,370 in February and 1,830 in January.
Ukraine would target the airfields from which Russian jets take off to drop the CABs. It would also move missile launch systems closer to the front lines, increasing their reach inside Russia.
CABs are Russia's most effective weapon at the front, and it has successfully leveraged its nuclear arsenal to intimidate NATO into allowing them to be flown in.
The Biden administration had refused to allow Ukraine to deploy Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMSs), which have a range of 300km (190 miles), because Russia considered their use dependent on US intelligence, in its view, making the US a cobelligerent in the war.
It has expressed exactly the same view of Germany sending its 500km (310-mile) range Taurus missile to Ukraine.
In the same vein, Russia has threatened to act against any European force deployment to Ukraine.
Russian Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu last month told a summit of the foreign ministers of the BRICS group of states in Rio de Janeiro that 'military units of Western states on Ukrainian territory … will be considered as legitimate targets'.
These threats have been effective. The Biden administration was against the idea of allowing the Polish and Romanian air forces to shoot down drones and missiles in Ukrainian airspace that were headed into Polish and Romanian airspace, Orobets said.
The Biden administration 'thought that if any American pilot on any American jet or any Western jet would enter the Ukrainian airspace, then America or another country would become cobelligerent', she said.
The same applied to the notion of Europeans entering Ukraine's airspace.
'They were scared that Russians would then escalate to the level of a conflict they could not sustain. So that was the only reason. There was no reason like, 'Oh, we cannot do that',' she said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Qatar Tribune
15 hours ago
- Qatar Tribune
Kiev says over 1mn Russian troops killed or injured in war
Kiev: More than 1 million Russian soldiers have been killed or injured since the start of Moscow's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the General Staff in Kiev said on Thursday. It said 1,000,340 Russian soldiers had either died in battle or been injured. The figure cannot be verified. A single 24-hour period saw 1,140 Russian soldiers killed or injured, bringing the toll above the psychologically significant 1-million-mark, according to Kiev. Ukraine released the figure on Russia Day, a national holiday that marks the founding of the Russian Federation following the collapse of the Soviet Union. In April, NATO put the number of Russian casualties at around 900,000. A senior NATO official said the dead numbered up to 250,000. Russia does not release figures on casualties. (DPA)


Qatar Tribune
20 hours ago
- Qatar Tribune
Prime minister, French FM discuss bilateral relations, Gaza developments
PARIS: Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs HE Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani has met with French Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs HE Jean-Noël Barrot, on the sidelines of the third Qatari-French Strategic Dialogue, held in the French capital, Paris. During the meeting, they reviewed relations between the two countries and ways to support and enhance them. They also discussed the latest developments in the Gaza Strip and the occupied Palestinian territories, in addition to a number of topics of common interest. The two sides emphasised the importance of the high-level international conference on the peaceful settlement of the Palestinian issue and the implementation of the two-state solution, scheduled to be held this June in New York, and the real opportunity it represents for peace that must be seized to chart a course toward implementing the two-state solution.


Al Jazeera
21 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Why Ukraine peace talks are failing
This month's peace talks between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul have once again failed to bring the war any closer to a ceasefire. The only outcome – a limited agreement on prisoner exchanges – underscores a troubling truth: the current negotiation framework is not working. Meanwhile, military escalation on both sides shows no signs of slowing. In such an atmosphere, diplomacy becomes increasingly difficult. A ceasefire feels out of reach, and uneasy comparisons with the Korean Peninsula's frozen armistice are beginning to surface – a scenario that would only entrench division, fuel resentment, and leave key territorial issues unresolved. That is why we must fundamentally rethink how these talks are structured and led. Yes, a full, unconditional 30-day ceasefire – as Ukraine proposed in Istanbul – is the bare minimum needed to create space for diplomacy. Talks must be convened without preconditions, offering all parties a seat at the table on neutral ground. There is no shortage of thoughtful policy proposals in Western circles outlining feasible paths to peace. We support calls for stronger international engagement, particularly from the United Nations, the United States and the European Union. What is needed now is urgent, coordinated global action – before tit-for-tat escalations spiral even further out of control. But there is a deeper flaw in the way current negotiations are being facilitated – often by foreign ministers approaching the conflict as a technical problem to be solved: add a concession here, subtract a demand there. Each side calculates whether the outcome adds up in its favour. That arithmetic approach cannot work – not in a conflict defined by trauma, identity, loss and justice. What continues to be absent from these discussions is any real conversation about justice, accountability and healing. There can be no sustainable peace without a process of transitional justice. As scholars and practitioners have long noted, a frozen conflict without accountability only prolongs suffering and sets the stage for future violence. Likewise, there is too little attention paid to societal trauma – the emotional and psychological toll of war on civilians, soldiers and entire communities. Too much blood has been shed to exclude these dimensions from the peace process. A negotiation cannot succeed if one side is focused on saving face at the expense of the truth. A durable outcome is only possible when facts are acknowledged – the aggression, the occupation and the suffering of millions. What is required now is a new kind of diplomacy – one that accounts for the deep trauma of this war. The mood in Ukraine is heavy, haunted by daily reminders of loss: the sirens, the shattered homes, the soldier's coffin quietly passing by on an otherwise ordinary street. Peace must begin with recognition – not only of legal borders and security guarantees, but of pain. This is the essential – and too often overlooked – precondition for any meaningful dialogue, in Turkiye or elsewhere. Recognising the human cost is not weakness; it is strength. Without it, any ceasefire will remain fragile, any agreement incomplete. Peace in Ukraine requires more than a political settlement. It demands social reconciliation – a process as vital as the diplomatic one. History, language, identity: these are not peripheral issues in this war; they are its heart. That means rethinking everything – who hosts the talks, where they happen, and how they are facilitated. We need less of a closed-door negotiation in Istanbul and more of a public-facing truth and reconciliation process, with real international backing. It all hinges on who convenes this process, and how. The United States is uniquely positioned to lead, perhaps more effectively than a divided European Union. But recent statements from the Trump camp – seen by many in Ukraine as indifferent or incendiary – have only inflamed tensions. They do more harm than good. What is needed now is serious, strategic engagement – led by the US, in concert with the EU and UN – that meets this moment with the gravity it demands. This is not a maths problem. It is a matter of justice, healing and human survival. It is time we approached it that way. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.