Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has begged President Joe Biden and NATO for a no-fly zone for weeks — and for weeks now, American neocons, hotheads, Russia hoaxers, sitting congressmen, and corporate media figures eager for escalation with Moscow are calling for it too.
A no-fly zone in Ukraine means NATO would prohibit Russian warplanes from flying through Ukrainian airspace. To do that, NATO fighter jets would engage and shoot down any Russian aircraft they encountered.
As noted by multiple lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle, as well as other experts, a no-fly zone in Ukraine would be an act of war against Russia. It would quickly usher in a conflict between multiple countries with access to nuclear weapons. A no-fly zone wouldn’t just mean NATO warplanes shooting down Russian aircraft, it would also throw the door open for Russian warplanes to shoot down American aircraft and take American lives in retaliation.
“It means starting World War III,” Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said. “People need to understand what a no-fly zone means. It’s not some rule you pass that everybody has to oblige by. It’s the willingness to shoot down the aircraft of the Russian Federation.”
Despite the clear consequences of imposing a no-fly zone, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., who was censured by the Republican National Committee for buying into the Democrats’ lies about the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and targeting political opponents, is just one of the many proponents of this dangerous idea.
2) History teaches that taking a stand is inevitable and gets more costly with time. We own the skies, Russia cannot hold a candle to our Air power. Do this. Putin is too dangerous to hope he is satisfied with “just Ukraine.”
— Adam Kinzinger (@AdamKinzinger) February 25, 2022
To Kinzinger, who has nothing to lose because he isn’t running for reelection, a no-fly zone is an opportunity for political grandstanding.
This is a good moment to renew my call for a no fly zone, at the invitation of the Ukraine government. I fear if this continues, we will have to intervene in a bigger way
— Adam Kinzinger (@AdamKinzinger) March 4, 2022
Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, a likely candidate to become the next ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, was also quick to call for “a strong coalition of like-minded nations” to “step in and seriously consider” a no-fly zone.
Some congressmen have yet to fully embrace such a rash strategy but have signaled a willingness to move toward an air campaign against Russia if the Ukraine conflict worsens.
“To take anything off the table, thinking we might not be able to use things because we’ve already taken it off the table, is wrong,” Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said when asked by NBC’s Chuck Todd if he would support a no-fly zone in Ukraine.
South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who recently called for the assassination of Russian President Vladimir Putin, said he would endorse a no-fly zone if Putin turned to chemical weapons to fuel his invasion of Ukraine.
Bipartisan group of senators are calling for more support for Ukraine. Some favoring the no fly zone , delivery of the aircrafts and air defense system. @VOANews pic.twitter.com/FQEd35hYVK
— mgongadze (@MGongadze) March 14, 2022
Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio reportedly joined his congressional colleagues in demanding drastic action via flight restrictions in Ukraine.
⚡️Republican senior senator calls for no-fly zone over Ukraine.
While visiting Ukrainian refugees in Poland, Rob Portman urged the U.S. and NATO to close the sky over Ukraine contrary to Washington’s intelligence community worries that such a move would risk an escalation.
— The Kyiv Independent (@KyivIndependent) March 13, 2022
Other so-called experts and blue checkmarks on Twitter, egged on by war propaganda, have also endorsed the idea, as did retired U.S. Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, a former supreme allied commander of NATO.
The bombing of a nuclear reactor should at the very least bring a no-fly-zone back into play
— Richard Signorelli (@richsignorelli) March 4, 2022
Can’t NATO consider providing a No Fly Zone to prevent a massacre of innocents? At least give the Ukrainians a fighting chance! #StandWithUkriane 💛💙
— Amy Siskind 🏳️🌈 (@Amy_Siskind) February 26, 2022
It’s an escalation, but this idea of a NATO enforced no fly zone over western Ukraine and Kyiv @AdamKinzinger and others are talking about is an interesting idea. Russian AirPower is no match for NATO. Taking away air support ability would really hobble Russian invasion.
— Mike Murphy (@murphymike) February 25, 2022
Are we going to wait till they bomb Poland? Take out Lviv? It’s time . . .
No. Fly. Zone.
— Nate McMurray (@Nate_McMurray) March 14, 2022
Big guys, dear Allies, if for some reason you can’t or don’t want to close the sky, despite constant and repetitive #Ukraine’s prayers, stop useless blabla and give them finally jets, they’ll try to do it themselves.#Russia’s neo- nazis killing civilians every day and night.
— Linas Linkevicius (@LinkeviciusL) March 14, 2022
The Washington Post also amplified calls for a no-fly zone. Politico jumped on board by publishing an open letter by 27 foreign policy experts who claimed that the United States and NATO should enact a “limited” no-fly zone in order to provide humanitarian aid.
“What we seek is the deployment of American and NATO aircraft not in search of confrontation
with Russia but to avert and deter Russian bombardment that would result in massive
loss of Ukrainian lives,” the letter states.
In addition to the propaganda press calling for a no-fly zone, some supporters have turned to psychological operations such as lullabies and manipulated videos to emphasize their desire for taking out Russian warplanes.
If you don't close the sky I will die.
A lullaby from Ukrainian children for NATO, especially UK & USA. #ProtectUАSky @POTUS @BorisJohnson. Video: Banda pic.twitter.com/cRHU6kLpX8— Daria Kaleniuk (@dkaleniuk) March 9, 2022
#ifwefallyoufall ❗️@NATO close the sky over Ukraine! pic.twitter.com/kRWIQlU9Pn
— Defence of Ukraine (@DefenceU) March 12, 2022
Whether they believe it or not, these bureaucrats and talking heads claim that the only way to end the conflict is to choose the option that will escalate confrontation with Russia and might well lead to U.S. boots on the ground in a full-scale war.
Seventy-eight prominent professors, experts, and other foreign affairs pundits said as much in an open letter last week, which they penned in an effort to communicate just how volatile a no-fly zone would be.
“We deplore Russia’s aggression, admire the bravery of Ukrainians, mourn the loss of innocent life, and wish for a speedy end to the conflict. However, it strains credulity to think that a US war with Russia would make the American people safer or more prosperous,” the letter states. “To the contrary, going to war with Russia, a nuclear peer of the United States, would expose Americans to vast and unnecessary risks. A war that expands beyond Ukraine’s borders could also inflict damage across Europe and weaken America’s Nato allies. We call upon the administration to avoid such a gambit and continue to use appropriate diplomatic means and economic pressure to end the conflict.”
The type of escalation required by a no-fly zone in the Russia-Ukraine conflict is not only unnecessary, but it’s also unpopular with the American people. While propaganda press pollsters drum up support for a no-fly zone, which they promote as the best way to “protect Ukraine from Russian air strikes,” most Americans still do not want to go to war with Russia over Ukraine.
In that, Americans have demonstrated better sense than our talking heads and neocon politicians, who are willing to go to war with Russia under the guise of imposing a no-fly zone.
Source: The Federalist