A new European military initiative, dubbed Operation Sky Shield, has been proposed as a way to protect Ukraine from Russian missile and drone attacks.
The plan, developed by European military experts, calls for a force of 120 fighter jets to defend Kyiv and western Ukraine, covering key areas such as Odesa, Lviv, and Ukraine’s operational nuclear power plants.
However, it notably excludes the front line and eastern Ukraine. Crucially, the plan’s architects emphasise that “Sky Shield would be an explicitly European air protection zone, operating separately from NATO.”
The proposal, if implemented, would mark a significant escalation of European involvement in the war. It would also increase the risk of direct confrontation with Russia.
As Lt Col Stuart Crawford, a defence analyst and former British Army officer, explains, “If Russia chooses to escalate in response, that risk becomes very real.” However, he notes that this initiative builds upon the broader European Sky Shield initiative, first launched by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in 2022, which aims to establish an integrated air defence system across Europe.
How Would Sky Shield Work?
The plan does not call for 120 fighter jets continuously patrolling Ukrainian airspace, but rather for a rotational system. As Lt Col Crawford explains, “In air operations, you can either have all your jets airborne for one-third of the time or one-third of your jets in the air at any given moment.” The actual number of jets airborne at any one time would be far lower.
However, the proposal is not just about fighter jets—it also involves integrating air defence networks, missile interceptors, and radar systems into a cohesive European air defence strategy. This aligns with the broader European Sky Shield initiative, which has already been endorsed by 23 European countries.
Challenges and Risks
Despite its technical feasibility, Sky Shield raises serious political and military concerns. One of the biggest unanswered questions is how European leaders will respond if a Russian missile downs a European jet operating under the scheme. Lt Col Crawford warns: “That is ultimately a political decision, but under established Rules of Engagement, I would expect retaliation.” He stresses the need for clear mechanisms to prevent unintended escalation, as “mistakes do happen, and we do not want to stumble into a larger war simply because a pilot—on either side—fired a missile in error.”
There is also the challenge of public opinion. Many European leaders may struggle to justify to their citizens why their air forces should be involved in Ukraine. “How do democratically elected leaders persuade voters in distant capitals that their sons and daughters might be killed in a war that, at first glance, does not directly involve them?” Crawford asks. However, he argues that Ukraine is already fighting a proxy war on NATO’s behalf, whether or not Western politicians admit it.
Would Europe Act Without the U.S.?
A key factor in the feasibility of Sky Shield is whether Europe would act independently of the United States. Lt Col Crawford raises a troubling question: “If Putin were to attack Brussels, would a Trump administration be willing to risk Washington, D.C., in order to defend the European Union?”
The uncertainty surrounding U.S. commitments to NATO has pushed many European nations to consider their own air defence solutions.
Could It Happen?
In theory, Sky Shield could be implemented rapidly if the political will exists. A coalition of willing nations, including the UK, France, Germany, and the Baltic states, could contribute enough aircraft to meet the 120-jet requirement. But Lt Col Crawford warns that “the real challenge remains ensuring a clear command and control structure and, above all, defining ironclad Rules of Engagement.”
Sky Shield is a bold and risky proposal, but it signals Europe’s growing recognition that it must take responsibility for its own defence. Whether it moves from concept to reality now depends on the willingness of European leaders to take that step.
The UK needs a full, layered, short and long-range integrated air defence system – including exoatmosperic capabilities. Until Starmer starts to kick start that, and putting in an immediate order for Typhoon production at say rate of one per week and pilots – then it will end badly.
I’m more concerned with why we are not placing an immediate order for T1 replacement Typhoons than some fictitious plan that is unlikely to see the light of day.
Define Europe, is it the Europe including UK and Hungary or the EU member states in the union, what about Turkey or Azabazan ?
It’s a total minsnomer that sky shield and European sky shield proposed for Ukraine are linked. They are completely separate. One being a ground based three layered missile system largely based on ballistic missile interception and the other beings and aircraft based policing mission.
Sticking British or any European forces in range of Russia is a terrible idea. Most European countries won’t respond to Russia flagged vesell cutting sea cables much less taking out Russian air defences in response to them shooting down one of our planes.
The US are even bigger pussies than most European countries, even if they gave a guarantee it’s worthless. They just finished surrendering to the Taliban and their president is currently busy surrendering to a third world power he is not even fighting. Some how I can’t see them engaging a nuclear armed power for shooting down a foreign jet.
If we put British jets anywhere near Russia and they shoot them down we will be humiliated because no way we are going to direct war with Russia.
The only thing we should send Ukraine is guns and money to stay in the fight.
The best outcome for us is a Russia so badly chewed up it starts to break apart.
CyOps campaigns in the caucuses with “Ukrainian” weapons drops to rebels should be the order of the day. We could easily pull in 1 million Russian soldiers to Quek uprisings
Open discussions with China or how we think eastern Siberia should really still be part of China. Both countries hate each other and are terrified of each other. We played this in 72 to win the Cold War.
We use to be really good at this stuff. Time to phone M and dust off the old play book.
We shouldn’t be sending guns and money to Ukraine to stay in the fight, we’ve been doing this for 3 years.
We should be sending guns and money for Ukraine to win the fight; to annihilate all Russian forces on its territory and to retake every square metre.
If that causes the toppling of Putin or the fragmentation of the Russian Federation, that’s a welcome bonus.
The only way to win the fight is to take Moscow, that ain’t happening. Won’t matter what we send Ukraine.
Not so. If the Russians can’t sustain their supply lines into Ukrainian territory then they can’t continue to hold territory. If they can’t produce fuel for their vehicles then they can’t continue to hold territory. If they can’t supply enough troops to feed the meat grinder they’ve created then they can’t continue to hold territory. There are many ways to make the occupation untenable. They could withdraw their troops but keep lobbing missiles and drones I suppose, but then so could Ukraine.
Unless you make a giant drone army – including land combat drones – Russia cannot be defeated, they have every natural resources they need and technical know how is expanding to many world population, they can gt engineers and workers from many countries.
“Open discussions with China or how we think eastern Siberia should really still be part of China. ”
Russia made very clear that any China war will be a nuke war.
Yes but those all take along time. There is nothing Ukraine can do quickly no matter what we give them to end the war fast.
I think if anything we’ve been guilty of doing ‘almost enough but not quite enough’ to help the Ukrainians push back against the Russian invaders. We should now aim to give Ukraine everything they need to take back their stolen lands and deter future invasion.
To make all of this work, any renaissance in UK defence should include a long-term industrial strategy to make us an defence industry powerhouse, a preferred supplier of not just of high-tech items but also bread-and-butter items like drones and ammunition.
@Jim
That is the biggest load of incoherent crap that I’ve read on this site for yonks. Why do you bother?
I actually think you are correct ….. I tried to read it, digest it and understand it but actually, I came to pretty much the same conclusion. And just WTF is a “Minsnomer” ?
Anyone ?
A misnomer, mate.
nothing, really.
i bet this sort of operation won’t go forward without some clandestine talks between the Europeans and the Russians.
“They just finished surrendering to the Taliban . . .”
Yet, the British had a disasterous withdrawal from Kabul too.
“ What happens if Russia shoots down a European jet?”
Well it’s already shot down a Malaysian Airliner, killing all 298 aboard – many Europeans.
Seems a click bait article. It talks about this “Operation Sky Shield” proposal, but completely fails to name who is actually proposing it!!!
The piece names a Lt Col Crawford, but he points out issues with it this proposal, so probably not his.
Even the name seems purposely chosen to cause confusion with the European Sky Shield, which is something very different.
Must do better U.K. Defence Journalist, articles like this don’t help your credibility.
Can you post a link to your own “Better” site please ? I’m sure we would love to see how you do it with better credibility.
Maybe you could just Beam us all up there ?
There is a Guardian article with greater detail and some of the proponents named.
In reality there is a very long history of Russia and NATO nations shooting down each others aircraft. The USSR even had a decorated and acknowledged missile ACE whose missile battery shot down, I think it was 6 US aircraft…soviet forces shot down an estimated 48 U.S. aircraft when it deployed an anti aircraft regiment into North Korea. During the wider Cold War soviet Russia shot down 15 US aircraft and the U.S. 3 soviet.
So is it likely that there would possible be an aircraft shot down..not sure where it would it lead to…after all turkey shot down a Russian fighter in 2015 and the world did not end and everyone knows a Russian pilot tried to shoot down an RAF rivet joint in 2022.
Another piece pleading for war and confrontation on a site supposedly about DEFENCE.
Europe should show it’s might and glory by helping saving Ukraine with it’s own military equipment and tactics, leaving US aside,,, only this idea will make Europe gain respect from US and beyond
At the end of the day Ukraine is not part of NATO. The Ukrainians have jets let them look after they own airspace.Don’t get me wrong I support Ukraine and have no problem with sending them more weapons specially AD Systems . For Boots on the ground no NATO troops , if it’s only peace keeping plenty of other nations.
Agreed.
I have a growing suspiscion Canada won’t be able to help in Europe/Ukraine with what little we have. I am honestly starting to believe the Orange Buffoon intends to invade my country if he can’t break us economically. Which he won’t.
I heard or read somewhere that one of Trump’s MAGA apologists claimed that the Canada obsession is all about fentanyl factories in Canada but didn’t disclose them publicly or to Canadian Authorities. This is almost a repeat of the Ukraine chemical weapons factories nonsense that was claimed prior to that invasion. Clearly that was rubbish as well and a case of “if it’s said some gullible fools will believe it..” point being this is one of several recent examples where putin playbook gobbledyshite methodology had been employed. This coalescing of opinions and statements from Putinia to the kingdom of Trumptown is worrisome.
We are witnessing a psychopath’s power trip, with added destructive intent.
Have you all got a safe place to bug out ?
I have.
I honestly believe, that anyone who looked at long term trends with a bit of paranoia would always be slightly worried.
To be honest a U.S. Canada flashpoint was always a consideration in regards to global warming in the longer term..modelling suggest that within 50- 100 years many parts of the US are not going to be pleasant places to live..infact the central continental plains will be hell in 100 years… the US in 100 years will be a nation that cannot grow its own food..has mass population movement and water insecurity..Canada in 100 years will essentially defrost over winter and have vastly extended growing seasons it will become the new North American grain belt.
What Donald seems to have done is skip forward 50 years and started early…but essentially as china is going to come for Russia ( its food security and liveable areas will collapse in the same timeframe) the US was alway likely to come for Canada.
We have had similar situations many times before. We imposed a no fly zone of the Balkans, Iraq, Libya and to an extent the Falkland Islands exclusion zone should also be included. The rules of engagement are very clear, in that the interloper has to be visually identified, are they carrying weapons under the wings etc, then given a clear warning on the guard channels. If they ignore this, then warning shots are allowed in front of the aircraft. The final act is a missile up the pipe.
The problem here is I don’t see Russia playing ball. They will do their normal tricks of pushing how far they can get away with things and would probably try to get in to a mock dogfight.
The no fly zone statement must be clear as crystal, you fly over the line you will be targeted and shot down.
Nothing, they know it and we know it. There are multiple reports of them sinking a British ship full of ammo but we are now saying it’s all ok because it went British registered