Follow us on social

Shutterstock_244396819-scaled

Biden is right to rule out a ‘no-fly zone’ in Ukraine

It would not only split NATO, but could end up being one of the most disastrous foreign policy gambits ever taken by the US.

Analysis | Europe

From Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to former NATO Commander Philip Breedlove, there are growing calls for the Biden administration to impose a no-fly zone in Ukraine as a way to protect civilians there and destroy the Russian air offensive that has largely grounded the Ukrainian air force and is doing so much damage to the Ukrainian army. 

On Tuesday** a group of 27 foreign policy analysts and former government officials, including Philip Breedlove, the former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, released an open letter that stated that a “U.S.-NATO enforced No-Fly Zone to protect humanitarian corridors and additional military means for Ukrainian self-defense are desperately needed, and needed now.” The letter says nothing about the risks of its recommended course of action.

Implementing a no-fly zone of any sort, whether for all of Ukraine or  “just” to protect humanitarian corridors and Ukrainian defensive systems, would mean that the U.S. Air Force would essentially become the Ukrainian air force, fighting alongside Ukrainian ground forces against Russia.

President Biden is right to resist these requests. At a recent press conference, White House spokesperson Jen Psaki gave a succinct answer as to why the administration has no intention of implementing a no-fly zone over Ukraine — because it would be an act of war:

“The no-fly zone . . . would require, essentially, the U.S. military shooting down Russian planes and causing a — prompting a potential direct war with Russia . . . the exact step that we want to avoid.”

In an interview with NPR, Philip Breedlove acknowledged the dangers of a no-fly zone, but argued for one nonetheless. But looked at closely, many of Breedlove’s points are reasons not to proceed with such a risky course:

“[W]hat Jen Psaki said is absolutely correct. 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] 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.” 

Writing in War on the Rocks, retired Air Force Col. Mike Pietrucha and soon-to-retire officer Mike Benitez further underscore the danger of a no fly-zone, noting that “a no-fly zone is not a military half-measure. It is a combat operation designed to deprive the enemy of its airpower, and it involves direct and sustained fighting.”

Shooting down Russian planes and bombing Russian anti-aircraft sites would greatly increase the risks of escalation, up to and including a nuclear confrontation. That’s reason enough not to go forward, regardless of how loud the demands to do so may be. As Breedlove himself noted in his NPR interview, “We are very reticent to have a war with a nuclear power that is already talking about using nuclear weapons” — a dramatic understatement if there ever was one.

Administration critics who advocate for a no-fly zone routinely understate the risk by arguing “we’ve done it before” — in Iraq, Bosnia, and Libya. But in those cases U.S. opponents had little or no capability to shoot down U.S. aircraft or take out U.S. anti-aircraft systems. Russia is capable of doing both.

The calls for a no-fly zone are a new indication of just how far a belief not just in U.S. unilateral dominance but U.S. invulnerability have become the default mode of thinking for some U.S. politicians and soldiers — despite the bitter lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan. Nobody thought that way during the Cold War; and if we are now engaged in a new cold war with Russia, we desperately need to remember the lessons of the old one.

If the U.S. Air Force put forth its full strength (including stripping U.S. forces in the Middle East and Far East of reserves), it could probably prevail eventually against Russian aircraft in the skies over Ukraine, though at severe cost. The greatest threat however would be Russian S-300 and S-400 ground-to-air missiles. The latest version has a maximum range of 400 kilometers, which means that they can cover most of Ukraine’s territory while remaining based within Russia.  

Therefore, in an air war with Russia, there would inevitably be heavy casualties among U.S. air crew. Some would be captured by Russia, giving Moscow leverage in any future negotiations over an end to the war in Ukraine. Many more would be killed. To eliminate this threat would necessitate destroying the missile launching sites, not only in occupied parts of Ukraine, but in Russia itself. 

Given the extreme risks to U.S. pilots of attacking targets in Russia, there would be an overwhelming argument for U.S. cruise missiles to be employed instead. Russia would then very likely retaliate using its own missiles to destroy both U.S. missile sites in Europe and the air bases in Poland and other countries from which U.S. aircraft were operating. 

Russia would probably not fire missiles at bases in America itself; but it would be very surprising if it did not use its powerful fleet of nuclear and conventional attack submarines to launch attacks on U.S. naval targets.

At this point, we would have reached the point that during the Cold War, generations of sensible U.S. and Soviet leaders took the greatest care to avoid: two nuclear superpowers, with the capacity between them to annihilate not just each other but the whole of humanity, exchanging missiles.

This would begin with conventional missiles; but the chances of this turning deliberately or more likely accidentally into nuclear conflict would be appallingly high. We should not forget the occasions during the Cold War when only the wisdom and caution of one U.S. or Soviet officer averted catastrophe. These likely consequences of a no-fly zone are entirely evident to sensible U.S. and European military analysts. 

We also need to consider the political consequences of a no-fly zone for the Western alliance. NATO’s European members have introduced surprisingly tough economic sanctions against Russia, and European publics have demonstrated overwhelming sympathy for Ukraine; but we should not forget that all of this is completely risk-free in physical terms. No serious West European politician is advocating a no-fly zone, precisely because they can see the probability of this leading to missile exchanges on the continent of Europe.

This means that if Washington did indicate that it was seriously considering a no-fly zone, the immediate consequence would very likely be a split in NATO. It is extremely likely that the Germans, French, and other European governments would prevent their bases being used for this purpose. This would make it very hard to deploy the U.S. forces necessary. 

For all these reasons, a no-fly zone over Ukraine would risk becoming one of the most disastrous foreign policy decisions ever taken by a U.S. administration.

** Editor's note: This story was updated on 3/8/22 to include new developments.


U.S. Air Force fighters patrol no-fly zone over Iraq.
Analysis | Europe
Trump tariffs
Top image credit: Steve Travelguide via shutterstock.com

Linking tariff 'deals' to US security interests is harder than it looks

Global Crises

In its July 31 Executive Order modifying the reciprocal tariffs originally laid out in early April, the White House repeatedly invokes the close linkages between trade and national security.

The tariff treatment of different countries is linked to broader adhesion to U.S. foreign policy priorities. For example, (relatively) favorable treatment is justified for those countries that have “agreed to, or are on the verge of agreeing to, meaningful trade and security commitments with the United States, thus signaling their sincere intentions to permanently remedy … trade barriers ….and to align with the United States on economic and national security matters.”

keep readingShow less
Kurdistan drone attacks
Top photo credit: A security official stands near site of the Sarsang oilfield operated by HKN Energy, after a drone attack, in Duhok province, Iraq, July 17, 2025. REUTERS/Azad Lashkari

Kurdistan oil is the Bermuda Triangle of international politics

Middle East

In May, Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that a strong Kurdistan Region within a federal Iraq is a "fundamental and strategic component" of U.S. policy. Two months later, that policy was set on fire.

A relentless campaign of drone attacks targeting Iraqi Kurdistan’s military, civilian, and energy infrastructure escalated dramatically in July, as a swarm of Iranian-made drones struck oil fields operated by American and Norwegian companies. Previous strikes had focused on targets like Erbil International Airport and the headquarters of the Peshmerga’s 70th Force in Sulaymaniyah.

The attacks slashed regional oil production from a pre-attack level of nearly 280,000 barrels per day to a mere 80,000.

The arrival of Iraqi National Security Advisor Qasim al-Araji in Erbil personified the central paradox of the crisis. His mission was to lead an investigation into an attack that Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) officials had already publicly blamed on armed groups embedded within the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF)—components of his own government.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Sudanese protester stands in front of a blazing fire during a demonstration against the military coup, on International Women's Day in Khartoum, Sudan March 8, 2022. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Sudan civil war takes dark turn as RSF launches 'parallel government'

Africa

In a dramatic move last week, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) announced the selection of its own prime minister and presidential council to compete with and directly challenge the legitimacy of the Sudanese government.

News of the new parallel government comes days before a new round of peace talks was expected to begin in Washington last week. Although neither of the two civil war belligerents were going to attend, it was to be the latest effort by the United States to broker an end to the war in Sudan — and the first major effort under Trump’s presidency.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.