In recent days, Russia’s attack on Ukraine has intensified, with bombing and missile strikes on major cities and a military base in the west of the country just 12 miles from the Polish border. Moscow claimed that the base stored military equipment destined for Ukrainian forces and declared western supply lines into Ukraine were “legitimate targets.” More than 3 million Ukrainians have fled their war-ravaged country, seeking refuge in neighboring nations.
As the carnage in Ukraine continues unabated, both Democrats and Republicans have joined Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky in calling for the U.S. and NATO to enforce a no-fly zone over Ukraine. President Biden has been clear that while the U.S. will defend “every inch” of NATO territory, he won’t send soldiers or pilots into Ukraine that could lead to a broader, more deadly conflict. UN Secretary General António Guterres also opposes a no-fly zone, commenting that such a move risks escalation that could trigger a global conflict.
Between The Lines’ Scott Harris spoke with William Hartung, senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, who considers the extreme danger in enforcing a no-fly zone over Ukraine and the urgent need for a viable exit strategy from the war.
WILLIAM HARTUNG: I think a lot of people support a no-fly zone simply because they want to see an end to the killing. And I think that’s understandable, you know, we’ve seen these horrific pictures daily, hourly, you know, whenever essentially people want to look at media, they can see what’s happening to Ukraine. But the problem is a no-fly zone is not some sort of rule that Russia would have to abide by. It’s an act of war because you would be saying they’re gonna shoot down Russian planes over certain parts of Ukraine. It might lead to bombing Russian anti-aircraft systems, including Pantsir ones based in Russia. So there’s no kind of risk-free version of a no-fly zone. And, the advocates have said, “Well, it’ll just protect this humanitarian corridor. It’s not gonna be to cover all of Ukraine.”
But even in that version, you’re still committed to shooting down Russian planes. And so you still have that possibility of direct combat, which can escalate as suggested. You don’t want nuclear-armed powers because you never know where it’s gonna end.
SCOTT HARRIS: Right.
WILLIAM HARTUNG: So I think we’re still gonna hear calls for a no-fly zone. I think President Zelensky is still calling for it; he is supposed to address the Congress and may raise this issue. There’s some members of Congress here in front of their constituents on this.
But so far, the Biden administration has held firm, basically saying, “You know, this is an act of war and it’s further than we’re willing to go in this situation. Even Marco Rubio said,”You know, this could start World War III.” He may come to be an exception in the Republican camp, but so far that’s that doesn’t seem to be a strong congressional push for this either. So hopefully it won’t come to that, but I think it’s gonna be an ongoing debate.
SCOTT HARRIS: There are a lot of people hopeful that negotiations of some sort can end this conflict and the bloodshed, and there have been talks between Russia and Ukrainian representatives. And I’m wondering as you look at what’s going on with these talks, is there a viable option for an exit strategy for Russia to leave this conflict and save face? Because Vladimir Putin does not want to leave Ukraine as a loser. And as there was in the Cuban missile crisis, there needs to be some kind of win-win situation for those negotiating here.
WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, sort of the parameters of what seem to be under discussion are neutrality for Ukraine, no NATO membership, Russia continues to control Crimea, and there’s some sort of either autonomy or independence toward the territories in the Donbass.
And then, also Putin has introduced this notion of denazification. His view is that somehow the whole regime is, you know, imbued with Nazis when in fact, there are militias and so forth. There’s elements within Ukraine, but it’s not the government. I mean, I think Putin is well overstating that to justify the invasion.
But nonetheless, so if you’re the Ukrainian government, you have to figure out which of those demands you can live with. And I think particularly difficult will be what happens to the states in the Donbass. You know, there’s different options, from independence to going back to the Mintz agreements where there would’ve been a demilitarization of the area — autonomy relative to a central government. They weren’t able to pull that off before he invasion. So the question is, can they, after the fact do that. How would Ukraine feel about that given that Russia has now invaded their country?
So, you know, there’s elements that would have to come into play. I think the United States could play a constructive role so far. I think the Biden administration’s been pretty hands off in this stage of the talks. I think it should be clear that the sanctions will be lifted if Russia leaves and they’re not some sort of, you know, eternal punishment because if they’re not gonna be lifted, then there’s no leverage from having them.
So it’s a difficult moment, but I think, you know, to some degree, it’s up to the government of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine, what kind of deal they’re willing to accept. But there’s gotta be some element where Putin can walk away and say he accomplished something for all this blood and treasure that he’s thrown into this war.
Listen to Scott Harris’ in-depth interview with William Hartung (28:08) and see more articles and opinion pieces in the Related Links section of this page.
