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
NATO Summit 2025
Top photo credit: NATO Summit, the Hague, June 25, 2025. (Republic of Slovenia/Daniel Novakovič/STA/flickr)

Will NATO survive Trump?

Europe

Over the weekend, President Donald Trump threatened to place new punitive tariffs on European allies until they acquiesce to his designs on Greenland, an escalation of his ongoing attempts to acquire the large Arctic island for the United States.

Critics loudly decried the move as devastating for the transatlantic relationship, echoing Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Fredericksen’s earlier warning that a coercive U.S. seizure of the semi-autonomous Danish territory would mean the end of NATO.

keep readingShow less
Tony Blair Gaza
Top photo credit: Britain's former Prime Minister Tony Blair attends a world leaders' summit on ending the Gaza war, amid a U.S.-brokered prisoner-hostage swap and ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, October 13, 2025. REUTERS/Suzanne Plunkett/Pool/File Photo

Phase farce: No way 'Board of Peace' replaces reality in Gaza

Middle East

The Trump administration’s announcements about the Gaza Strip would lead one to believe that implementation of President Trump’s 20-point peace plan, later largely incorporated into a United Nations Security Council resolution, is progressing quite smoothly.

As such, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff announced this month on social media the “launch of Phase Two” of the plan, “moving from ceasefire to demilitarization, technocratic governance, and reconstruction.” But examination of even just a couple of Witkoff’s assertions in his announcement shows that "smooth" or even "implementation" are bitter overstatements.

keep readingShow less
Trump Polk
Top image credit: Samuele Wikipediano 1348 via wikimedia commons/lev radin via shutterstock.com

On Greenland, Trump wants to be like Polk

Washington Politics

Any hopes that Wednesday’s meeting of Greenland and Denmark’s foreign ministers with Vice President Vance and Secretary Rubio might point toward an end of the Trump administration’s attempts to annex the semiautonomous arctic territory were swiftly disappointed. “Fundamental disagreement” remains, according to Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen.

That these talks would yield no hint of a resolution should not be surprising. Much of Trump’s stated rationale for seeking ownership of Greenland — the need for an increased U.S. military presence, the ability to access the island’s critical mineral deposits, or the alleged imperative to keep the Chinese and Russians at bay — is eminently negotiable and even achievable under the status quo. If these were the president’s real goals he likely could have reached an agreement with Denmark months ago. That this standoff persists is a testament to Trump’s true motive: ownership for its own sake.

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.