and america sort of leading from behind. tom, you want to respond to that? i understand garry s, points, and i m certainly not gonna argue about the hesitancy of american policy over the past ten years. but the issue now, and by the way, he was right, nobody is arguing for boots on the ground. on the other hand, when we talk about no-fly zone s, we are talking about u.s. and potentially nato forces, directly engaging russian military forces, not only in the sky, but if you want to help the ukrainians, you want to type ground positions. we re talking about a no-fly zone that is not some kind of peaceful bubble over ukraine, you re talking about a no-fly zone that is gonna look more like libya where nato air assets attacked anything that could hurt civilians on the ground. and i completely accept garry s sincerity about this, i understand his feelings about it. i think we all have to be clear that we are really talking about is going to war against russia. if that s the argument, the
have it now. only now they are contemplating sending some sort of modern technology. ukrainian cities are turned into rubble. i don t buy this argument, and also we have more and more trouble with with america trying to convince zelenskyy to accept troops. the rest of your cannot act without united states, though great britain is trying. but it s one voice, and of course other european nations are waiting for the lead, and america sort of leading from behind. tom, you want to respond to that? i understand garry s, points, and i m certainly not gonna argue about the hesitancy of american policy over the past ten years. but the issue now, and by the way, he was right, nobody is arguing for boots on the ground. on the other hand, when we talk about no-fly zone s, we are talking about u.s. and potentially nato forces, directly engaging russian military forces, not only in