Over in the House, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, has emphatically endorsed a U.S. no-fly zone over Ukraine. Fellow Republican Senator Roger Wicker has endorsed the notion, even “in the absence of a U.N. resolution,” which would render the proposed no-fly zone arguably illegal under international law. Former top foreign policy officials are trying to dress up the idea as a “limited” no-fly zone.
“NATO leaders should convey to Russian officials that they do not seek direct confrontation with Russian forces, but they must also make clear that they will not countenance Russian attacks on civilian areas,” reads a letter signed by, among others, Kurt Volker, the former American ambassador to Ukraine, and Bill Taylor, the former American ambassador to Ukraine implicated in the first impeachment of then-President Trump.
Legally, the case for a no-fly zone over Ukraine is dubious. In practical terms, it’s a disaster.
Before we ask every single NATO ally to consider joining us in another world war, let’s at least see if they will follow Joe Biden’s lead and stop actively funding Putin’s war machine through Russian oil imports. After all, total war is a hell of a lot more costly than a constrained oil supply.
More importantly, a no-fly zone means we shoot down Russian planes that fly over Ukraine. That’s a “hot” or shooting war with a known nuclear power. That’s something we managed to avoid for the entire Cold War — do we really want to try it now?
Putin is not one of the Eighth Century warlords or radical ideologues with whom our failed foreign policy establishment got to spend the past two decades playing Risk with. He is somewhat more formidable and has nothing left to lose. That makes him a good deal more dangerous.
Could we win a war against him? Probably. Should we risk total nuclear annihilation on the possibility of such a victory?
I hope I don’t live long enough to find out.
