Follow us on social

google cta
Transpartisan group hits back at calls for no-fly zone over Ukraine

Transpartisan group hits back at calls for no-fly zone over Ukraine

Imposing it would be akin to declaring a war with Russia, they write, and it "strains credulity" to think this would make America, or the world safer.

Reporting | Europe
google cta
google cta

Plenty of voices in official Washington continue to push for a no-fly zone over Ukraine — the most recent public call came earlier this week when over two dozen former U.S. officials and ambassadors penned an open letter pressing for limited airspace restrictions to open up “humanitarian corridors” and pathways for “additional military means for Ukrainian self-defense.” So far, the Biden administration has resisted these calls. A new letter, signed by nearly 80 scholars and journalists from across the political and ideological spectrum, explains why he needs to keep resisting.

“A no-fly zone would commit the U.S. and NATO forces to shoot down any Russian aircraft that enter. It would be naive to think that merely declaring a no-fly zone would convince the Russian military to comply voluntarily," reads the letter. "In short, a no-fly zone would mean going to war with Russia.” 

Read the full letter, led by Stephen Wertheim of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Will Ruger of the American Institute for Economic Research, here.

The wide ranging group includes QI president Andy Bacevich, National Review's Michael Brendan Dougherty, Emma Ashford, Peter Beinart, Jack Matlock, Aaron David Miller, Michael O’Hanlon, Ben Judah, Nora Bensahel — lots of individuals who may not agree with each other on a host of other foreign policy issues — said they “deplore Russia’s aggression, admire the bravery of Ukrainians,” but “it strains credulity to think that a U.S. war with Russia would make the American people safer or more prosperous.”

“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 missive has joined what is turning out to be a battle of letters on the subject. Former Ukrainian parliamentarian Hanna Hopko joined a group of former female officials and politicians pleading with President Biden to impose a NFZ, reminding him that when they met during his time as vice president, he had promised to assist her fellow Ukrainians against Russia. 

"I implore the American people to act!" Hopko wrote, calling on "every American to help us defend Ukraine’s future from an evil Russian attack." 

Critics of a no-fly zone say a fighting war over Ukraine would actually make the humanitarian situation worse. Furthermore, it could bring the U.S. and Russia to a nuclear confrontation for the first time since the Cuban Missile Crisis — “two nuclear superpowers, with the capacity between them to annihilate not just each other but the whole of humanity, exchanging missiles,” wrote QI’s William Hartung and Anatol Lieven, also signatories, earlier this week. 

“Russian President Vladimir Putin will pay for his reckless gamble in Ukraine,” today’s letter concludes. “The United States should respond in responsible ways, not make a reckless gamble of its own.”


Planes fly in Russian May Day Parade 2010 (Creative Commons/Amarhgil)|View of a Russian MiG-29 fighter parked on the ramp in front of the Russian AN-225 transport along with many other multi-national aircraft that participated the Abbotsford Air Show. Exact Date Shot Unknown
google cta
Reporting | Europe
United Nations
Monitors at the United Nations General Assembly hall display the results of a vote on a resolution condemning the annexation of parts of Ukraine by Russia, amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, New York, U.S., October 12, 2022. REUTERS/David 'Dee' Delgado||

We're burying the rules based order. But what's next?

Global Crises

In a Davos speech widely praised for its intellectual rigor and willingness to confront established truths, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney finally laid the fiction of the “rules-based international order” to rest.

The “rules-based order” — or RBIO — was never a neutral description of the post-World War II system of international law and multilateral institutions. Rather, it was a discourse born out of insecurity over the West’s decline and unwillingness to share power. Aimed at preserving the power structures of the past by shaping the norms and standards of the future, the RBIO was invariably something that needed to be “defended” against those who were accused of opposing it, rather than an inclusive system that governed relations between all states.

keep readingShow less
china trump
President Donald Trump announces the creation of a critical minerals reserve during an event in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, DC on Monday, February 2, 2026. Trump announced the creation of “Project Vault,” a rare earth stockpile to lower reliance on China for rare earths and other resources. Photo by Bonnie Cash/Pool/Sipa USA

Trump vs. his China hawks

Asia-Pacific

In the year since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, China hawks have started to panic. Leading lights on U.S. policy toward Beijing now warn that Trump is “barreling toward a bad bargain” with the Chinese Communist Party. Matthew Pottinger, a key architect of Trump’s China policy in his first term, argues that the president has put Beijing in a “sweet spot” through his “baffling” policy decisions.

Even some congressional Republicans have criticized Trump’s approach, particularly following his decision in December to allow the sale of powerful Nvidia AI chips to China. “The CCP will use these highly advanced chips to strengthen its military capabilities and totalitarian surveillance,” argued Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), who chairs the influential Select Committee on Competition with China.

keep readingShow less
Is America still considered part of the 'Americas'?
Top image credit: bluestork/shutterstock.com

Is America still considered part of the 'Americas'?

Latin America

On January 7, the White House announced its plans to withdraw from 66 international bodies whose work it had deemed inconsistent with U.S. national interests.

While many of these organizations were international in nature, three of them were specific to the Americas — the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, the Pan American Institute of Geography and History, and the U.N.’s Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. The decision came on the heels of the Dominican Republic postponing the X Summit of the Americas last year following disagreements over who would be invited and ensuing boycotts.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.