Transpartisan Coalition Agrees No-Fly Zone Over Ukraine Would Be Disastrous

NATO and the U.S. have been urged to respond in light of Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine. NATO member countries already provide ample military assistance to Ukraine and place sanctions against Russia. Many Americans are calling for an end to the no-fly zone in some parts of Ukraine.

This idea is a success. Find it Willing supportersSens. Joe Manchin (D–W.Va.) and Roger Wicker (R–Miss.), as well as Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R–Ill.). Over two-dozen academics and professionals in foreign policy were present last week. SignatureThe letter calls for an “limited no-fly” zone over Ukraine. “Starting with protection of humanitarian corridors which were approved in talks between Russian officials and Ukrainian officials.”

Nearly three times the number of foreign policy practitioners and professionals have signed a petition opposing an U.S.-imposed no fly zone in Ukraine. The list of signatories includes former Russian ambassadors and Soviet Union staff members, as well as dozens former Republican and Democratic Hill staffers.

According to the letter, “A no fly zone would oblige the U.S. forces and NATO forces (to shoot down any Russian airplane that enters” It would be foolish to assume that simply declaring no-fly zones would persuade the Russian military into complying. In other words, it would mean that Russia will go to war if a no fly zone is declared.

This letter goes on:

As U.S. experts and officials understood during the Cold War when Russia was a stronger adversary, there must be a limit to escalation. Russian President Vladimir Putin is going to pay the price for Ukraine’s reckless gamble. It is important that the United States responds responsibly and not take a risky gamble.

Although implementing no-fly zones may seem appealing to the heart, signatories acknowledge that it would not stop Russian aggression. This must be implemented somehow. Even a limited no-fly zone, the U.S. or NATO might use military force to stop Russian aggression.

VoxZack Beauchamp These are the pointsThere are three main reasons that even a limited no-fly zone could prove counterproductive. Their track record for deescalation is poor. NATO declared a no flight zone over Bosnia in 1993. The NATO jets then had to kill any Bosnian Serb aircraft flying into this protected area. Second, NATO would likely need to strike anti-aircraft batteries on Russian and Belarusian territory—an obvious escalation. A third reason for the no-fly zone is that it ignores Russia’s history of attacking civilian areas with “artillery, not airstrikes”. No-fly zones miss the core of the problem.

Dan Caldwell is vice president for foreign policy at Stand Together, and one of the letter’s signatories. They would join together to oppose this proposal, which I believe reinforces the absurdity of NATO’s and U.S. attempts to impose an air no-fly zone above Ukraine.

All foreign policy specialists, regardless of political affiliation, recognize the risks of an air no-fly zone. Thankfully, the Biden administration was able to mitigate these dangers. similar mindSo far. Imposing a no-fly zone would do nothing to deescalate tensions in Ukraine—rather, it would push two nuclear-armed global powers ever closer to lethal conflict.