By Todd Lassa

Since Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy begged U.S. Congress and the United Kingdom’s parliament last week for a no-fly zone over his country, Russia’s army has shelled a maternity hospital and conducted an air strike on a military facility in Western Ukraine less than 15 miles from the Polish – and thus NATO – border, killing 35 and injuring 134 according to The Washington Post. Even as Vladimir Putin’s Russia suffers severe economic and trade sanctions, Ukraine is shedding blood, of civilians as well as its military.

Despite the obvious perils of a no-fly zone, proponents of NATO fighter jets closing Ukrainian airspace to Russia argue that the consequences of not doing so will be far deadlier. The proponents note that Ukraine agreed to give up its considerable nuclear arms stockpile in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in exchange for a guarantee of its security by the U.S., U.K. and Russia. Supporters of Zelenskyy’s pleas for a no-fly zone include retired Gen. Philip Breedlove, former commander of the U.S. European Command, who told MSNBC that Putin already considers the sanctions and weapons supplied by the U.S. and NATO to Ukraine to be acts of war. 

But the prevailing viewpoint by the Biden White House and among Western European leaders is that we can’t afford to turn this new cold war into a “hot war” with Putin, who has hinted about his nuclear might. The U.S., U.K and France combined have slightly fewer nuclear warheads compared with Russia. The violent use of but one of them, however, would be devastating. 

What to do about Zelenskyy’s pleas for help? 

Two of our pundits react to this grave issue, with Stephen Macaulay in the right and Eric Blair in the left. 

Tell us what you think with an email to editors@thehustings.news, and no matter what your position on a no fly zone, please indicate whether you consider yourself “left” or “right” in order that we place your comments in the correct column.

(MON-TUE 3/14-15/22)