**'It means the end of Putin': Former NATO commander Wesley Clark explains Ukraine war.
((Pardon length, edited.))
Q: What moves could the United States make beyond sanctions right now that would help protect Ukraine?
A: The most important move now is for the president to announce Vladimir Putin is a war criminal. Really. This gives enormous diplomatic leverage and a greater incentive to help the campaign. . .
Q: NATO seems to be wimping out slightly — they’re saying members, such as Poland, cannot even fly fighter planes to Ukraine through NATO airspace.
A: This is wrongheaded. This is driven by the United States, and I would urge the United States to reconsider this. Russia does not own the borders of Ukraine. They belong to Ukraine. Ukraine is a nation under threat. And under the United Nations Charter, nations have the right to request assistance for self-defense.
How would the Russians know a fighter plane has been transferred using NATO airspace? How do they know it didn’t fly in over the Black Sea? How do they know it didn’t come in over Belarus?
Look, for 30 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the breakup of the Soviet Union, the United States has operated as the world’s superpower. . . As NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said, this is the new normal. . . We have to learn and understand how to deal with situations like this. This won’t be the last.
Q: You advocate a no-fly zone?
A: Absolutely. The airspace belongs to Ukraine. If they ask for help, why can’t we fly airplanes in there? Say, oh, it’s because of the Russians, they might come up and contest it. That’s the Russians’ problem. They’re going to get shot down. Okay, then what? Putin says he’s going to use a nuclear weapon. If we back away from that challenge, if we don’t confront it, this is like a two-pair poker bluff, for incredibly high stakes.
Q: Would Putin use a nuclear weapon?
A: If he was losing, I think he might. And if we think there’s a chance a guy would use a nuclear weapon against us, I guess we just need to give up on the concept of extended deterrence. Why would we want to defend Estonia if Putin might want to use a nuclear weapon? Is Estonia worth it? . . . The United States has to recalibrate its understanding, leadership and processes to work in this new area or we will lose the rules-based international system, . . .
Q: Is there something we can do, at least let’s say to degrade Russian capabilities, if they continue to escalate and they continue to kill civilians?
A: We could certainly use cyber. Here’s the problem. Anything you do that has an effect on Russian operations will cross the so-called red line of Mr. Putin. Here’s the thing. Ukraine is the toughest opponent he will face . . If you can’t find a way to deal with his threats now, you have to find a way to deal with them later. . .
Q: With advocating a no-fly zone, it sounds like you think we should be willing to risk a certain amount of escalation.
A: I think we have to. We have to think about our situation and measure what actions we can take against what risks they incur both immediate and long-term.
Q: The ultimate question is: Does the West stand by and watch innocent people slaughtered?
A: I think that’s the conundrum that the administration is facing. What can we do without provoking a red line? And the answer to that is: It doesn’t just depend on us. It depends on Putin. I’d say it’s more than a little unpredictable.'
https://nypost.com/2022/03/02/former-nato-commander-wesley-clark-urges-us-to-reconsider-no-fly-zone/?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Thank you for posting! 
