Our enemies reveal why a no-fly zone would be advantageous to Turandom:
https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/1504606529474883584?s=20&t=YllI57KdWf0cjN0tlyfZIgPutin is not an insane mad man bent on world destruction. He is a rational, though brutal, actor, who will use force, even nuclear force, if pressed. But he also understands the consequences of a nuclear exchange—which are dire for him.
Which makes it all the more advantageous for NATO to exert pressure on this front.
Continuing:
https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/1504606531068735489?s=20&t=YllI57KdWf0cjN0tlyfZIgCurrently, the Ukraine war amounts to a major power exerting its will over a small country—one with lots of friends and help but a small fighting force and no nuclear capacity. This could lead to a long-term, horrible insurgency. No one wants that—including Moscow.
https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/1504606532553478144?s=20&t=YllI57KdWf0cjN0tlyfZIgEstablishing a #NoFlyZoneOverUkraine—more precisely, over the territory not yet controlled by Russia—would transform the current conflict into a Cold War battle with established lines. Not ideal, but much better than the status quo.
https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/1504606538467459072?s=20&t=YllI57KdWf0cjN0tlyfZIgAt this point, three options are possible. 1) Russia wins over the next 3-6 months; 2) Ukraine becomes the site of a horrible, years-long insurgency; 3) Ukraine is divided and the bloodshed stops. Why choose options 1 or 2? Declare a #NoFlyZone!
If a no-fly zone would end the bloodshed, then I do not support it. As much as I would like to punish Russia, a no-fly zone would be ineffective in achieving this. The best option is the nuclear one (see first tweet).