Today I noticed more pundits saying a No Fly Zone

[BigmanPigman]

shouldn't be ruled out after all. There has been a slight change in opinions about the need for one.

[RockRaven]

1. The reality of no fly zones is that they are a state of war.

So there is that to consider.

[Nevilledog]

2. The pundits are being very reckless. Only change is because it gets more clicks.

It's disingenuous and dangerous.

[ZonkerHarris]

3. No-fly zones are authorised under Chapter 42 of the UN Charter

[former9thward]

4. Only if the Security Council agrees.

And they never would in this case.

[USALiberal]

9. Read more!

[roamer65]

5. If NATO does a no fly zone, it will only be northwest Ukraine.

Our planes will definitely not go into Eastern Ukraine, nor near the southern region of it either.

It would be under the pretense of a safe zone for refugees.

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. Majority of attacks are from artillery and guided missiles, not planes. Nt

[hlthe2b]

7. I'm not there (yet) but I just can't bear not to do MORE...

Putin isn't going to stop at Ukraine. He is in a murderous rage, it would appear and he must be stopped. I believe we are going to regret beyond all else a failure to stop him IN UKRAINE. And I say this as someone only 60 odd miles from one of the first strike Minuteman missile silos--which would surely be targeted if Putin totally loses it.

That is why I just go nuts when some of the talking head/supposed expert pundits (and a small number of reporters) are so matter-of-fact in their reporting--so lackadaisical. I can appreciate trying to keep down unnecessary emotion, but it serves only Putin's interests to downplay the significance of what is going on--especially when they continue to emphasize that Putin has already "won," sans any up-to-date detailed analysis of changing circumstances and situations. And to do so after reports of horrific civilian casualties and atrocities without any emotion whatsoever while pushing the same repetitive "consensus," opinion--sans any reexamination-- from two weeks ago

[USALiberal]

8. Who? Link??

K

[Celerity]

10. Obviously this is not entirely dispositive, but every time a no fly zone has been mentioned, every

expert or presenter I have seen today (and before as well) has said it would be an act of war and is a bad, bad idea.