Thread by @MMazarr

Agreed--a dangerous proposal, offering no compelling reason why escalation would be controlled. Much like the open letters calling for unseating Saddam in 2002-2003: An understandable, well-intentioned, but poorly thought-through appeal

https://twitter.com/zackbeauchamp/status/1501186021060395008

2/ Partly the issue is that NFZ's typically *do not work* to achieve their humanitarian goals. Air power often isn't the major threat to civilians. Even if it is, the aggressor can pivot and rely more on ground forces, missile strikes, other means
warontherocks.com/2022/03/the-da…

3/ "Operations to protect civilians during war are often much costlier and carry much greater risk than anticipated. No-fly zones ... seldom provide substantial protection to civilians without additional and significant military efforts on the ground"
tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…

4/ So we begin an NFZ, it fails to protect civilians, and then either (1) we admit failure or (2) we escalate further, striking ground targets and intervening w/NATO forces. An invitation to an escalatory spiral--with NATO in a poor posture for ground operations

5/ Putin has staked his legacy on this invasion. There is a strong chance he simply cannot back down. In which case, the assumptions of the letter are dangerously mistaken--and they give us *no reason* to believe those assumptions, only assertions
foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukrai…

6/ Then, too, NATO allies are unlikely to support this, at least not as a bloc. A NFZ carries a high risk of fracturing the impressive coalition + consensus assembled so far. If that occurs, the NFZ may collapse anyway, and alliance solidarity will have been ruined

7/ Talks are underway between Ukraine and Russia. Ukraine shouldn't have to accept extreme concessions at the point of a gun, but a highly imperfect negotiated settlement may be better than any other realistic outcome. We should not escalate before we see if that is possible

8/ The US properly decided that, while it would seek to punish this criminal aggression + help Ukraine in many ways short of direct combat, US interests + escalatory risks did not recommend going to war. Reversing that judgment on the fly would be dangerous and irresponsible

9/ It cannot be stressed strongly enough: The powerful moral obligation to aid a beleaguered people is matched by a parallel obligation to avoid a larger war that would cause vastly greater human carnage (*including* in Ukraine). We must seek a balance between these obligations

10/ The Iraq case offers another warning: The role of "value driven imperatives," the sense of urgency that overrides careful analysis + generates a "leap of faith," often into tragedy. The consequences of such a leap in this case could be catastrophic
publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/michael…

This letter begs us to take just such a leap of faith. That Putin will not escalate. That Russian aircraft won't hit NATO planes, and ground escalation won't be needed. That wider war can be avoided. There's no evidence for that. And if they are wrong, tragedy awaits, yet again