Support Ukraine, But Don’t Implement a No-Fly Zone

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has prompted an outpouring of support from around the world, from the imposition of unprecedented economic sanctions on Moscow to the supply of military equipment to the Ukrainian military from 20 countries. Finding a way to end the war and the suffering of the Ukrainian people should be paramount in any further actions by the United States and the international community. But in seeking a solution, it is imperative that the U.S. and NATO avoid taking steps that could escalate the crisis into a direct conflict with Russia, with all the risks that would entail.

First and foremost, no U.S. or NATO troops should be sent to fight in Ukraine, where they would come into direct combat with Russian forces, vastly increasing the risks of escalation of the conflict — perhaps even to the level of a nuclear confrontation. So far, the Biden administration and NATO leaders are firmly against this option, and even Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenko has not requested U.S. or NATO troops.

One approach that is being advocated more forcefully in recent weeks is a no-fly zone. On March 5th, President Zelenko called for a no-fly zone over Ukrainian airspace in a briefing for over 280 members of Congress. This week, a group of 27 foreign policy analysts and former U.S. government officials, including former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe Philip Breedlove, have released an open letter urging President Biden to impose one. The letter states that a “U.S.- NATO enforced No-Fly Zone to protect humanitarian corridors and additional military means for Ukrainian self-defense are [sic] desperately needed, and needed now.” The letter is silent on the risks of its recommended course of action, but Philip Breedlove acknowledged them in a recent interview with National Public Radio:

“A no-fly zone, if it is truly a military no-fly zone, is essentially an act of war because that means you are willing to enforce it, meaning those who violate it you would shoot at. And probably what would happen even before that is if there are defense systems in the enemy’s territory that can fire into the no-fly zone, then we normally take those systems out, which would mean bombing into enemy territory. So, a no-fly zone is a big step, and we all acknowledge that.”

Advocates of a limited no-fly zone to protect “humanitarian corridors” and Ukrainian defensive systems will no doubt argue that this approach would be less dangerous than attempting to enforce one over all of Ukraine, but the risk of combat between U.S. or NATO forces and Russian aircraft would remain.

President Biden, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and key members of Congress are holding firm against a no-fly zone, which as Breedlove noted would be an act of war. But as the debate heats up there is always the possibility of a change in policy. So far bipartisan opposition to a no-fly zone remains strong, as evidenced by the following statement by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL):

“So basically a no-fly zone, if people understand what it means, it means World War III. It means starting World War III . . . It’s not some rule you pass that everybody has to oblige by. It’s the willingness to shoot down the aircrafts of the Russian Federation, which is basically the beginning of World War III.”

Calls for a no-fly zone will no doubt increase in the weeks to come. President Biden and members of Congress should firmly resist them. Implementing a no-fly zone in Ukraine would be one of the most dangerous and misguided steps the United States and NATO could take at this stage. President Biden is to be commended for ruling it out.