By Daniel DePetris
There are no magical solutions in foreign policy. As much as U.S. policy-makers would like to flip a switch and watch all the world’s problems disappear, that’s not how the world works. Sometimes problems fester and grow more entrenched regardless of what the United States does. On other occasions, U.S.-imposed solutions can open up a Pandora’s box and create even more problems in the future.
Russia’s ongoing military assault on Ukraine is no exception. Assuming a diplomatic miracle doesn’t occur between Kyiv and Moscow (Russian and Ukrainian delegations met for peace talks on February 28 and agreed to meet again in the next several days), the Russian offensive is likely to get bloodier and more indiscriminate as Ukrainian army forces stall what Russian president Vladimir Putin likely thought would be a quick and relatively painless victory in the first two days. The Biden administration has responded to Russia’s invasion by imposing an ever-stronger sanctions regime against the Russian financial and banking system, including blocking Moscow’s access to whatever foreign reserves it may have in U.S. jurisdiction. Others, however, want to go beyond economic measures. Retired generals George Joulwan, Wesley Clark, and Philip Breedlove, three former NATO supreme allied commanders, have recommended a no-fly zone (NFZ) in Ukraine to protect civilian populations that could otherwise find themselves targets for Russian air and ground attacks. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky reportedly requested that President Biden institute a no-fly zone to aid Kyiv’s defense against the mighty Russian military.
This piece was originally published in National Review on March 1, 2022. Read more HERE.