SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki speaks during the daily press briefing on February 28, 2022 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Psaki Says Biden Has No Intention of 'No-Fly Zone' for Ukraine
"A no-fly zone is not a magical umbrella that prevents planes flying in a given area," said one expert. "To put in a no-fly zone is to go to war."
Feb 28, 2022
Emphasizing U.S. President Joe Biden's desire to avoid a war with Russia, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki repeatedly made clear Monday that the administration does not plan to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine.
Following Russian President Vladimir Putin's long-awaited invasion of Ukraine last week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has urged Biden and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to take such action.
Psaki told reporters during a Monday press briefing that "the president has been very clear that he is not intending to send U.S. troops to fight a war with Russia, and I think what's important to note here is that is essentially what this would be a step toward, because a no-fly zone would require implementation."
Implementation "would require deploying U.S. military to enforce" the no-fly zone (NFZ), she said. That could lead to a direct conflict and "potentially a war with Russia, which is something we are not planning to be a part of."
Psaki made similar remarks in an interview with MSNBC on Monday, highlighting that an NFZ "would essentially mean the U.S. military would be shooting down planes, Russian planes."
"That is definitely escalatory. That would potentially put us into a place where we're in a military conflict with Russia. That is not something the president wants to do," she said. "Those are all the reasons why that's not a good idea."
"We are not going to have a military war with Russia with U.S. troops," and Biden believes it is "vitally important" to be direct with the American public about that, the press secretary added.
Psaki's explanations Monday echoed recent statements from other members of the administration.
Asked about a potential NFZ on Sunday, Linda Thomas-Greenfield told CNN's Dana Bash that "the president has made clear that we're not going to put boots on the ground. We're not going to put American troops in danger. So that means we're not going to put American troops in the air as well."
Warning that "a Ukraine no-fly zone would put the world on the brink of nuclear war," Vox's Zack Beauchamp reported Sunday:
The U.S. and its allies have used no-fly zones three times in the recent past: Iraq after the Gulf War, Bosnia during the mid-90s conflict, and Libya during the 2011 intervention. In each of those cases, the U.S. and its partners were facing vastly inferior military forces. There was no real question about their ability to take control over the skies.
Russia is an entirely different story. Its air force dwarfs Ukraine's; it is second in size only to the U.S. Air Force. An attempt to impose an NFZ in Ukraine would be nothing like these previous engagements, and it's not even clear that it would be possible.
...[The] risks of a direct U.S.-Russia shooting war are apocalyptic. In his speech this week declaring war on Ukraine, Putin all but openly vowed that any international intervention in the conflict would trigger nuclear retaliation.
"To anyone who would consider interfering from the outside: If you do, you will face consequences greater than any you have faced in history," the Russian president said. "I hope you hear me."
Experts have issued similar warnings of the dangers of an NFZ in recent days.
"Don't know who all needs to hear this, but a no-fly zone is not a magical umbrella that prevents planes flying in a given area," tweeted Olga Oliker, the International Crisis Group's program director for Europe and Central Asia.
"It's a decision to shoot at planes that fly in a given area, including with one's own planes," Oliker added. "To put in a no-fly zone is to go to war."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Emphasizing U.S. President Joe Biden's desire to avoid a war with Russia, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki repeatedly made clear Monday that the administration does not plan to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine.
Following Russian President Vladimir Putin's long-awaited invasion of Ukraine last week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has urged Biden and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to take such action.
Psaki told reporters during a Monday press briefing that "the president has been very clear that he is not intending to send U.S. troops to fight a war with Russia, and I think what's important to note here is that is essentially what this would be a step toward, because a no-fly zone would require implementation."
Implementation "would require deploying U.S. military to enforce" the no-fly zone (NFZ), she said. That could lead to a direct conflict and "potentially a war with Russia, which is something we are not planning to be a part of."
Psaki made similar remarks in an interview with MSNBC on Monday, highlighting that an NFZ "would essentially mean the U.S. military would be shooting down planes, Russian planes."
"That is definitely escalatory. That would potentially put us into a place where we're in a military conflict with Russia. That is not something the president wants to do," she said. "Those are all the reasons why that's not a good idea."
"We are not going to have a military war with Russia with U.S. troops," and Biden believes it is "vitally important" to be direct with the American public about that, the press secretary added.
Psaki's explanations Monday echoed recent statements from other members of the administration.
Asked about a potential NFZ on Sunday, Linda Thomas-Greenfield told CNN's Dana Bash that "the president has made clear that we're not going to put boots on the ground. We're not going to put American troops in danger. So that means we're not going to put American troops in the air as well."
Warning that "a Ukraine no-fly zone would put the world on the brink of nuclear war," Vox's Zack Beauchamp reported Sunday:
The U.S. and its allies have used no-fly zones three times in the recent past: Iraq after the Gulf War, Bosnia during the mid-90s conflict, and Libya during the 2011 intervention. In each of those cases, the U.S. and its partners were facing vastly inferior military forces. There was no real question about their ability to take control over the skies.
Russia is an entirely different story. Its air force dwarfs Ukraine's; it is second in size only to the U.S. Air Force. An attempt to impose an NFZ in Ukraine would be nothing like these previous engagements, and it's not even clear that it would be possible.
...[The] risks of a direct U.S.-Russia shooting war are apocalyptic. In his speech this week declaring war on Ukraine, Putin all but openly vowed that any international intervention in the conflict would trigger nuclear retaliation.
"To anyone who would consider interfering from the outside: If you do, you will face consequences greater than any you have faced in history," the Russian president said. "I hope you hear me."
Experts have issued similar warnings of the dangers of an NFZ in recent days.
"Don't know who all needs to hear this, but a no-fly zone is not a magical umbrella that prevents planes flying in a given area," tweeted Olga Oliker, the International Crisis Group's program director for Europe and Central Asia.
"It's a decision to shoot at planes that fly in a given area, including with one's own planes," Oliker added. "To put in a no-fly zone is to go to war."
Emphasizing U.S. President Joe Biden's desire to avoid a war with Russia, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki repeatedly made clear Monday that the administration does not plan to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine.
Following Russian President Vladimir Putin's long-awaited invasion of Ukraine last week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has urged Biden and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to take such action.
Psaki told reporters during a Monday press briefing that "the president has been very clear that he is not intending to send U.S. troops to fight a war with Russia, and I think what's important to note here is that is essentially what this would be a step toward, because a no-fly zone would require implementation."
Implementation "would require deploying U.S. military to enforce" the no-fly zone (NFZ), she said. That could lead to a direct conflict and "potentially a war with Russia, which is something we are not planning to be a part of."
Psaki made similar remarks in an interview with MSNBC on Monday, highlighting that an NFZ "would essentially mean the U.S. military would be shooting down planes, Russian planes."
"That is definitely escalatory. That would potentially put us into a place where we're in a military conflict with Russia. That is not something the president wants to do," she said. "Those are all the reasons why that's not a good idea."
"We are not going to have a military war with Russia with U.S. troops," and Biden believes it is "vitally important" to be direct with the American public about that, the press secretary added.
Psaki's explanations Monday echoed recent statements from other members of the administration.
Asked about a potential NFZ on Sunday, Linda Thomas-Greenfield told CNN's Dana Bash that "the president has made clear that we're not going to put boots on the ground. We're not going to put American troops in danger. So that means we're not going to put American troops in the air as well."
Warning that "a Ukraine no-fly zone would put the world on the brink of nuclear war," Vox's Zack Beauchamp reported Sunday:
The U.S. and its allies have used no-fly zones three times in the recent past: Iraq after the Gulf War, Bosnia during the mid-90s conflict, and Libya during the 2011 intervention. In each of those cases, the U.S. and its partners were facing vastly inferior military forces. There was no real question about their ability to take control over the skies.
Russia is an entirely different story. Its air force dwarfs Ukraine's; it is second in size only to the U.S. Air Force. An attempt to impose an NFZ in Ukraine would be nothing like these previous engagements, and it's not even clear that it would be possible.
...[The] risks of a direct U.S.-Russia shooting war are apocalyptic. In his speech this week declaring war on Ukraine, Putin all but openly vowed that any international intervention in the conflict would trigger nuclear retaliation.
"To anyone who would consider interfering from the outside: If you do, you will face consequences greater than any you have faced in history," the Russian president said. "I hope you hear me."
Experts have issued similar warnings of the dangers of an NFZ in recent days.
"Don't know who all needs to hear this, but a no-fly zone is not a magical umbrella that prevents planes flying in a given area," tweeted Olga Oliker, the International Crisis Group's program director for Europe and Central Asia.
"It's a decision to shoot at planes that fly in a given area, including with one's own planes," Oliker added. "To put in a no-fly zone is to go to war."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.