> Admittedly, this situation presents a new set of challenges compared to the German invasion in 1938–1939, the main being a threat of a potential nuclear war.

> Admittedly, this situation presents a new set of challenges compared to the German invasion in 1938–1939, the main being a threat of a potential nuclear war. However, at some point, the Western allies will have to make a calculated military decision to take a stance against Putin’s violation of numerous fundamental norms of international law because inaction in this instance threatens the entire global order. This seems to be underselling the potential for nuclear war or the start of a larger, direct/hot NATO-Russia war. Shooting down Russian aircraft is an act of war, and it would bring the U.S./NATO into direct conflict with Russia, a nuclear state. Russia could choose to respond by using nuclear weapons. A “limited” no-fly zone does not change anything. If it is enforced by NATO forces, then it will start a direct conflict with Russia. If NATO doesn’t shoot down planes that violate the zone, then what is the point? Asking Russia to self-enforce a no-fly zone is pointless - if they are already violating international norms, why wouldn’t they just violate this one, too? The fact that this article only mentions the threat of nuclear war in passing and offers no proposals to help avoid this is a major omission. Putin’s threat to “global order” would grow massively as a result of this because it escalates the conflict. The “calculated decision” would be to not risk nuclear war. It just seems insane to me that this is even being discussed. The efforts should be to attempt to negotiate a ceasefire and avoid escalating the conflict outside of Ukraine (i.e. not NATO forces shooting down Russian planes).