Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
“Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy summoned memories of Pearl Harbor and the Sept. 11 terror attacks Wednesday in an impassioned live-video plea to Congress to send more help for Ukraine’s fight against Russia. Lawmakers stood and cheered, and President Joe Biden later announced the U.S. is sending more anti-aircraft, anti-armor weapons and drones.” AP News
Many on both sides argue that the US should send Ukraine additional weapons but refrain from establishing a no-fly zone:
“It was impossible to listen to Zelensky's appeal and not be moved. But that doesn't mean we should let ourselves be moved to change course… Enforcing a no-fly zone means engaging and possibly shooting down Russian planes. It also means exposing our pilots to anti-aircraft batteries on the ground, which we would have to neutralize. That means war. Not necessarily involving nukes, but war nonetheless. It's hard to imagine anything more likely to revitalize popular support for Putin and his misbegotten escapade in Ukraine than its transformation into a battle with NATO for Russian honor… The last thing Zelensky should want to see now is a widening of the war that gives Russia something bigger to fight for.”
Damon Linker, The Week
“Ukraine’s suffering is terrible, but it does not rise to the level that we should risk a global economic or shooting war for which we are not prepared. But we should provide all other arms necessary to Ukraine’s defense. We can arrange for NATO to supply the S-300 air defense systems Zelensky asked for. And we should send Ukraine the MiG-29 fighter jets and other Soviet-produced aircraft in NATO countries’ arsenals and immediately backfill those countries with U.S.-supplied F-16s…
“The United States should also prepare Ukraine for the long game. It should allow Ukrainians to come to America to begin training on U.S. weapons systems such as F-16s or the Patriot missile defense system, which would likely become the foundation for a postwar Ukrainian military. Ukrainian pilots and technicians cannot use sophisticated Western arms in this war because they need extensive training to employ. Starting that process now would show Putin we will be with Ukraine for the long term and raises the specter that the almost unlimited supply of U.S.-made arms could be deployed in this war if fighting continues.”
Henry Olsen, Washington Post
“Putin’s threats of new actions in response to the transfer of MiG-29 fighter jets or S-300 surface-to-air missile systems are cheap talk. The transfer of planes or air defense systems will not trigger World War III. Given how poorly the Russian army has performed against Ukraine’s relatively small army, would Putin really escalate and attack the most mighty alliance in the world, anchored by the strongest military power in the world, the United States? Putin may be angry and unhinged, but he’s not suicidal. Threats to NATO front-line states become serious only if Putin wins in Ukraine…
“In all [likely] scenarios, Ukrainians eventually win. Our task in the West — those of us standing on the sidelines, watching Ukrainians bravely fight invading Russian armed forces alone — is to do all that we can to hasten the end of the war, and thus save Ukrainian (and Russian) lives. More weapons and more sanctions do just that."
Michael McFaul, Washington Post
“If comparisons to World War II are irresistible, we might take inspiration from the period before the Pearl Harbor attack drew the United States into direct combat with the Axis powers. Under Lend-Lease and other policies, America provided financial and military support to Britain without engaging in combat. Despite the best efforts of the British government — including lobbying efforts and media campaigns — the United States avoided war until we were actually attacked. That's a less exciting script than The Longest Day, Top Gun, or Independence Day. But it's the best option we have.”
Samuel Goldman, The Week
Other opinions below.
“I’m against a traditional no-fly zone, with American or NATO jets actively engaging Russian forces, for the now familiar reason that it would involve, well, American or NATO jets actively engaging Russian forces. I think Biden has made a terrible mistake publicly ruling it out preemptively. I have no problem with the White House ruling out a no-fly zone privately. But why reassure Putin that, no matter what he does, we won’t ‘escalate’ in a way that would devastate Russia? Putin and his generals should be terrified of provoking us.”
Jonah Goldberg, The Dispatch
“Biden keeps demonstrating that he has no real strategic approach to this crisis. On the MiGs, the Biden administration first offered a ‘green light’ on a transfer, only to backpedal days later after Poland set up the transfer. They’ve vacillated ever since, although no one can really figure out why other lethal-weapons systems are acceptable for transfer but somehow MiGs are a bridge too far…
“Speaking of other weapons systems, Biden’s only just getting around to sending over weapons systems that can counter Russian air attacks and artillery units. If those weapons systems can be transferred to Ukraine now, they should have been transferred to Ukraine two weeks ago, when it might have saved Ukrainian population centers from Putin’s brutal attacks…
“And again, why did it take Zelensky begging Congress for action to shake loose the weapons, rather than Biden acting on his own at the beginning of the conflict — or better yet, before it as a deterrent? That’s not strategic caution. It’s not strategic anything. It’s called winging it.”
Ed Morrissey, Hot Air
"Biden has made clear that his red line is NATO and that the United States will fight to defend ‘every inch’ of member countries. The attack on Kyiv, grievous as it is, is not an attack on Berlin, Paris or London. We are not obligated by treaty to respond…
“Biden’s greatest skill is showing empathy, but the current crisis has proved that he’s also capable of hardheadedness. We must be clear-eyed about where our interests align with — but also diverge from — Ukraine’s. We climb the escalation ladder at our peril. That’s why Biden’s response to Zelensky was so wise: The most we can realistically do is give David more slingshots…
“The new package [Biden] announced includes 800 antiaircraft weapons, 9,000 anti-armor weapons, 7,000 small arms, 20 million rounds of ammunition and an unspecified number of drones. That’s not beanbag. But it is not a declaration of war, either.”
James Hohmann, Washington Post
“Less than four years ago, then President Donald Trump repeatedly told senior staff that he wanted to withdraw the United States from NATO. (The world’s most powerful military alliance, which includes thirty countries home to a billion people, hosts roughly a hundred thousand U.S. troops in Europe.) Other Republicans had previously expressed skepticism about U.S. cooperation with Western allies, Pew noted. Today, seventy-three per cent of Republicans favor working closely with allies on the Ukraine crisis—and doing more for Ukraine… Ukraine has emerged, almost overnight, as the singular major policy issue uniting Republicans and Democrats.”
Robin Wright, New Yorker
