The following op-ed is written by Col Owens, of Ft. Mitchell, a retired legal aid attorney who teaches poverty law at NKU’s Chase College of Law.
When the Ukrainian conflict began, I initially thought that NATO and U.S. decisions to stay out of direct involvement in it, to limit support to military assistance and economic sanctions, were smart, providing support for future non-militaristic solutions to similar circumstances while protecting against an inadvertent stumble into World War III.
However, watching the situation unfold is leaving me increasingly uncomfortable with that position. The horror in human cost of the aggression is beyond dispute. Putin’s assertions that he is attacking only military targets are totally belied by the video we are watching daily. He lies.
The no-fly zone option puts the issue in bold relief. How different are U.S. planes flown by U.S. pilots in the skies over Ukraine, from Polish planes – replaced by U.S. planes – flown by Ukrainian pilots, flying those same skies? Some of whom are trained by the U.S.
There appears to be a divergence of opinion over the usefulness of this approach, regardless of who is flying the planes. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has repeatedly asked the West, in particular the U.S., for the planes to enable the no-fly zone to be enforced. The U.S. argues that the planes are not needed, that Ukraine’s own planes are not in full use, and that ground-based anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons are sufficient to address the Russian bombing and invasion. To which is added the West’s great concern about provoking Putin inti a nuclear or chemical warfare confrontation.
In the end it appears to be all about trying to read Putin’s mind. What will trigger his deciding to do the unthinkable, to revert to nuclear weapons? Or chemical weapons? He has already said that imposing economic sanctions is participation in the war. Could not the infusion of substantial additional ground-based weapons and capabilities also trigger such a response?
As an American citizen trying to be thoughtful and open-minded in analyzing this complicated situation, I find myself increasingly ambivalent. Which makes me wonder about the thinking of our national leaders. While they are much better trained and informed about such matters, in the end they must answer the same questions from the same basic set of facts.
What do they know that I don’t, about how Putin thinks? Are their insights so much better regarding where he might draw the line, between the conflict now playing out in Ukraine, and its escalation into a chemical and/or nuclear exchange?
I do not pretend to know the answers to these difficult questions.
But this is precisely the kind of question that we, as citizens in a democracy, must grapple with, and try to achieve clarity, in order to carry out our citizen role effectively and help achieve the best policies possible.