Thread by @RichardBSpencer

Declaring a #NoFlyZone over Ukraine (more specifically, the western half) is realistic; it need not lead to WWII or nuclear winter; and should at least be in NATO's quiver of available options. I support it.🧵

As the saying goes, "In for a penny, in for a pound." The U.S. and NATO are already in for much more than a penny in Russia's invasion of Ukraine. This is not a far-off conflict of little relevance. The Cold War has remerged and territorial demarcations must be established.

NATO Countries are currently supplying materiel and aide, and there's serious talk of MiG fighter jets and more. There is, of course, a distinction between NATO pilots flying aircraft over Ukraine vs. just supplying arms; but again, we're already in for more than a penny...

This is a fairly recent map from a pro-Russian source. We can take it as a worst-case scenario for NATO or a best-case scenario for Russia. There are major areas, which don't border Belarus or Russia, that can be established as a NATO protectorate (i.e., a "no-fly zone").

Establishing, in effect, "West Ukraine" would do a tremendous amount of good for Ukrainians who haven't yet experienced the invasion. And it would prevent drawn-out insurgency.

In other words, Ukraine could be divided much as Germany was after WWII, between French, British, American, and Soviet zones; the first three congealed into one zone (West Germany) by the late '40s as the US vs. USSR War got underway.

Putin clearly is not seeking a "diplomatic off-ramp," and he's not just going to leave due to the sanctions and online condemnations. Russia is already "in for much more pound." Establishing a #NoFlyZone could effectively end the current war and stop the bloodshed.

Russia and NATO would both have to settle for a "German solution," with many people caught behind the lines. This is not an ideal scenario for either party, but, needless to say, things could be much worse.

Many are repeating the mantra that "enforcing a no-fly zones means shooting down Russian planes and that means WWII—and maybe nuclear annihilation!" That could be true... but two can play at that game.

Putin 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.

Currently, 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.

Establishing 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.

Public opinion went from "We need a no-fly zone now!" to "holy shit—let's not start WWIII." There's a lot of nuance in between those two positions. A #NoFlyZoneOverUkraine should be considered. I hope we establish it as soon as possible.

West Ukraine could be established as a NATO protectorate and eventually brought into the European Union. East Ukraine is already in the Russian sphere; that is, it's already been lost.

Public opinion is so strongly behind the Ukrainian cause that simply abandoning it now is impossible. Additionally, supplying millions of rounds of ammunition simply delays the inevitable.

At 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!