The "No-Fly Zone": How Mass Media's Lust for War Carries Nefarious Implications

        Unless you've been living under a rock for the past few weeks, you may have noticed that Russia's invasion of Ukraine has flooded American political discourse. Between the media's Volodymyr Zelenskyy hero-worship (which I find quite weird by the way) and its unhinged comparisons between Putin and Hitler, many Americans are starting to feel like our country MUST save Ukraine from Russian imperialism. Besides the fact that such an intervention would escalate war with nuclear power and America's imperialist track record, many media outlets have touted the idea of a No-Fly Zone (NFZ). However, what is a No-Fly Zone and what are its implications? According to Mike Pietrucha and Mike Benitez, a No-Fly Zone "is a combat operation designed to deprive the enemy of its airpower, and it involves direct and sustained fighting." Moreover, the establishment of an NFZ requires the enforcement of it, such as shooting down enemy planes and/or, in the case of Ukraine, removing "anti-aircraft batteries in Belarus and Russia...[which] have enough range to cover the entirety of Ukrainian airspace." Of course, this is something that the media has *conveniently* forgotten; their lust for war is beginning to echo the coverage of Iraq in the early 2000s (see video). Therefore, in this article, we will explore the media's coverage of the NFZ and the ideological motivators behind the media's lust for war. 

        

    

        As previously mentioned, media outlets have touted the idea of an NFZ as a "purely diplomatic mutual agreement," either advocating for a "limited NFZ" or claiming that an NFZ would merely "avert and deter Russian bombardment." Obviously, these sentiments have no real basis in reality; however, they are starting to prove quite effective toward manufacturing the consent of the American public. By weaponizing Ukrainian resistance and struggle in favor of the business class' imperialist aims, it comes as no surprise, at least to me, that approximately 59% of Americans support a No-Fly Zone over Ukraine according to a CBS poll. Interestingly enough, that same poll found that only 38% would support an NFZ if it was viewed as an act of war. Despite the overall absurdity of 4 out of 10 Americans longing for a war with Russia (a nuclear power), this poll does highlight the media's inconsistent coverage toward NFZs. Namely, the poll implies that a No-Fly Zone is NOT viewed as an act of war among the majority of the American public. Given the media's parroting of "limited fly zones" with claims that they will be different and non-confrontational, it makes sense why much of the American populace has reached this conclusion. There's no such thing as a "limited" NFZ or "half-measure," either you enforce an NFZ or you do not. If your explicit purpose isn't to shoot down enemy aircraft, then an NFZ is pointless. With Zelenskyy's calls for a No-Fly Zone and Putin's warning that he will view "any third-party declaration of a no-fly zone over Ukraine as participation in the war there," there is grave room for concern. Yet again, when has the business class ever cared about innocent lives instead of their profits? To them, war is just a game; the people are merely an afterthought, an "unfortunate" loss. Although it seems that the U.S. isn't likely to become involved in Ukraine at the very moment, I am worried that manufactured public opinion could eventually sway the U.S. government to do so. 

       

        Before we wrap up, I do want to highlight why media outlets are covering Ukraine in the way that they are. As I have stated in previous blog posts, legacy outlets tend to reflect ruling-class viewpoints primarily because they are owned and run by ruling class ideologies. The media is advocating for war primarily because Russia threatens NATO's interests in Europe. You'll never see such outrage toward the U.S.'s backing of Saudi Arabia's war crimes in Yemen or Israel's active ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. At the end of the day, the conflict between NATO and Russia is merely inter-imperialist fighting; the voices and perspectives of actual people in both Russia and Ukraine are rarely considered. As students of political science, it is imperative that we are aware that the media's coverage of foreign affairs often contains an ideological spin, in favor of one country or another. When you see epithets that describe a foreign adversary as "oligarchs" or "militarily aggressive," it is important to realize that many of those terms/concepts are just as applicable to us. We should be against NATO and Russia, with the understanding that states/capital often don't have their populations' best interests at heart. Solidarity to the people of Ukraine and shame on the U.S. media portraying war, which would absolutely result from the enforcement of a No-Fly Zone, as something without any real-world consequences.