Refugees form Ukraine walk to the Polish border on March 1, 2022. (Photo: Jana Cavojska/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Why We Must Continue to Say 'No' to a No-Fly Zone in Ukraine
Rather than cheering for a potentially catastrophic escalation, there are other options for the United States to help the Ukrainian people.
As Russia's war on Ukraine drags on, calls have grown for the United States to impose a "no-fly zone" over the country.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made an impassioned plea for this when he addressed Congress recently. Though President Joe Biden has thus far secured a bipartisan consensus against imposing a no-fly zone, a number of U.S. politicians on the right, including Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, have picked up the cause.
We could use the billions of dollars Congress allocated to the Ukrainian war to help refugees instead. We could send humanitarian aid and rally our allies to do the same.
People in Ukraine, including children, are being injured or killed in Ukraine by Russian airstrikes every day. So a no-fly zone to literally clear the air of bombers sounds like a good idea, right?
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. As Biden and others have warned, it could actually make the war much bloodier than it already is.
Let's first be clear about what a no-fly zone is. It's not some sanitized, Star Wars-style force field that keeps enemy planes out of the sky. It means bombing anti-aircraft defenses and shooting down planes -- acts of war.
Such actions can have serious unintended consequences.
A little more than a decade ago, protests erupted against Moammar Gadhafi's government in Libya. When Gadhafi cracked down and the conflict turned into a civil war, some figures in Washington, D.C., lobbied then-President Barack Obama to launch a no-fly zone over the country. The goal, they said, was to protect civilians.
Opposition came from the Pentagon, of all places. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wisely cautioned: "A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses." It would require, he said, "a big operation in a big country."
But Gates's caution wasn't heeded: the United States and its NATO allies went ahead with the attack to establish a no-fly zone in Libya, and the ensuing escalation had immense and terrible consequences.
As NATO bombs fell, an already brutal war got bloodier. NATO's mission to "protect civilians" quickly escalated into supporting the rebel factions fighting to depose Gadhafi, who was eventually captured and executed.
The collapse of the Libyan state followed as the country dissolved into warring factions. In the ensuing disorder, open air slave markets popped up in Libya while weapons flowed out of the country, fueling conflict all over the region. The country still doesn't have a stable government.
Ultimately, this didn't protect civilians but further endangered them.
And a no-fly zone in Ukraine could turn out much, much worse. It would have to begin with an attack on the Russian anti-aircraft defenses now in place throughout Ukraine. Then the United States would have to shoot down Russian warplanes currently in the sky there. That would put the world's two largest nuclear powers into open warfare.
Whether or not either side intended it, an open war between the United States and Russia could all too easily escalate to a direct nuclear exchange. Ukrainians would be no safer. Indeed, the entire world -- and every living thing on it -- would be put at risk.
Rather than cheering for a potentially catastrophic escalation, there are other options for the United States to help the Ukrainian people.
For example, we could open our doors to the millions of Ukrainians and other refugees in need of safety. We could use the billions of dollars Congress allocated to the Ukrainian war to help refugees instead. We could send humanitarian aid and rally our allies to do the same.
Above all, we must push for diplomacy. The basic elements of an agreement -- where Russia withdraws and Ukraine agrees not to join NATO -- are generally known by all parties.
We could get there with committed diplomacy. We just have to avoid starting a nuclear war first.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
As Russia's war on Ukraine drags on, calls have grown for the United States to impose a "no-fly zone" over the country.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made an impassioned plea for this when he addressed Congress recently. Though President Joe Biden has thus far secured a bipartisan consensus against imposing a no-fly zone, a number of U.S. politicians on the right, including Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, have picked up the cause.
We could use the billions of dollars Congress allocated to the Ukrainian war to help refugees instead. We could send humanitarian aid and rally our allies to do the same.
People in Ukraine, including children, are being injured or killed in Ukraine by Russian airstrikes every day. So a no-fly zone to literally clear the air of bombers sounds like a good idea, right?
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. As Biden and others have warned, it could actually make the war much bloodier than it already is.
Let's first be clear about what a no-fly zone is. It's not some sanitized, Star Wars-style force field that keeps enemy planes out of the sky. It means bombing anti-aircraft defenses and shooting down planes -- acts of war.
Such actions can have serious unintended consequences.
A little more than a decade ago, protests erupted against Moammar Gadhafi's government in Libya. When Gadhafi cracked down and the conflict turned into a civil war, some figures in Washington, D.C., lobbied then-President Barack Obama to launch a no-fly zone over the country. The goal, they said, was to protect civilians.
Opposition came from the Pentagon, of all places. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wisely cautioned: "A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses." It would require, he said, "a big operation in a big country."
But Gates's caution wasn't heeded: the United States and its NATO allies went ahead with the attack to establish a no-fly zone in Libya, and the ensuing escalation had immense and terrible consequences.
As NATO bombs fell, an already brutal war got bloodier. NATO's mission to "protect civilians" quickly escalated into supporting the rebel factions fighting to depose Gadhafi, who was eventually captured and executed.
The collapse of the Libyan state followed as the country dissolved into warring factions. In the ensuing disorder, open air slave markets popped up in Libya while weapons flowed out of the country, fueling conflict all over the region. The country still doesn't have a stable government.
Ultimately, this didn't protect civilians but further endangered them.
And a no-fly zone in Ukraine could turn out much, much worse. It would have to begin with an attack on the Russian anti-aircraft defenses now in place throughout Ukraine. Then the United States would have to shoot down Russian warplanes currently in the sky there. That would put the world's two largest nuclear powers into open warfare.
Whether or not either side intended it, an open war between the United States and Russia could all too easily escalate to a direct nuclear exchange. Ukrainians would be no safer. Indeed, the entire world -- and every living thing on it -- would be put at risk.
Rather than cheering for a potentially catastrophic escalation, there are other options for the United States to help the Ukrainian people.
For example, we could open our doors to the millions of Ukrainians and other refugees in need of safety. We could use the billions of dollars Congress allocated to the Ukrainian war to help refugees instead. We could send humanitarian aid and rally our allies to do the same.
Above all, we must push for diplomacy. The basic elements of an agreement -- where Russia withdraws and Ukraine agrees not to join NATO -- are generally known by all parties.
We could get there with committed diplomacy. We just have to avoid starting a nuclear war first.
As Russia's war on Ukraine drags on, calls have grown for the United States to impose a "no-fly zone" over the country.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made an impassioned plea for this when he addressed Congress recently. Though President Joe Biden has thus far secured a bipartisan consensus against imposing a no-fly zone, a number of U.S. politicians on the right, including Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, have picked up the cause.
We could use the billions of dollars Congress allocated to the Ukrainian war to help refugees instead. We could send humanitarian aid and rally our allies to do the same.
People in Ukraine, including children, are being injured or killed in Ukraine by Russian airstrikes every day. So a no-fly zone to literally clear the air of bombers sounds like a good idea, right?
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. As Biden and others have warned, it could actually make the war much bloodier than it already is.
Let's first be clear about what a no-fly zone is. It's not some sanitized, Star Wars-style force field that keeps enemy planes out of the sky. It means bombing anti-aircraft defenses and shooting down planes -- acts of war.
Such actions can have serious unintended consequences.
A little more than a decade ago, protests erupted against Moammar Gadhafi's government in Libya. When Gadhafi cracked down and the conflict turned into a civil war, some figures in Washington, D.C., lobbied then-President Barack Obama to launch a no-fly zone over the country. The goal, they said, was to protect civilians.
Opposition came from the Pentagon, of all places. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wisely cautioned: "A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses." It would require, he said, "a big operation in a big country."
But Gates's caution wasn't heeded: the United States and its NATO allies went ahead with the attack to establish a no-fly zone in Libya, and the ensuing escalation had immense and terrible consequences.
As NATO bombs fell, an already brutal war got bloodier. NATO's mission to "protect civilians" quickly escalated into supporting the rebel factions fighting to depose Gadhafi, who was eventually captured and executed.
The collapse of the Libyan state followed as the country dissolved into warring factions. In the ensuing disorder, open air slave markets popped up in Libya while weapons flowed out of the country, fueling conflict all over the region. The country still doesn't have a stable government.
Ultimately, this didn't protect civilians but further endangered them.
And a no-fly zone in Ukraine could turn out much, much worse. It would have to begin with an attack on the Russian anti-aircraft defenses now in place throughout Ukraine. Then the United States would have to shoot down Russian warplanes currently in the sky there. That would put the world's two largest nuclear powers into open warfare.
Whether or not either side intended it, an open war between the United States and Russia could all too easily escalate to a direct nuclear exchange. Ukrainians would be no safer. Indeed, the entire world -- and every living thing on it -- would be put at risk.
Rather than cheering for a potentially catastrophic escalation, there are other options for the United States to help the Ukrainian people.
For example, we could open our doors to the millions of Ukrainians and other refugees in need of safety. We could use the billions of dollars Congress allocated to the Ukrainian war to help refugees instead. We could send humanitarian aid and rally our allies to do the same.
Above all, we must push for diplomacy. The basic elements of an agreement -- where Russia withdraws and Ukraine agrees not to join NATO -- are generally known by all parties.
We could get there with committed diplomacy. We just have to avoid starting a nuclear war first.