Zelensky has earned the accolades he has received throughout the West, through grit, courage, stagecraft, and determination.

It did not start out that way. This is from the February 21st New York Times:

Two-and-half weeks later, this is what The New York Times was saying:

But it's no insult to say that performance is part of leadership. Rhetoric isn't ammunition, but it can keep soldiers fighting and move the world to arm them. Mr. Zelensky's dramatic speeches to European leaders helped galvanize the continent's response and moved a translator to tears. His address to the British Parliament echoed Winston Churchill's words as the Nazis advanced

He has become, like the title of his television series hit, a "Servant of the People."

But, which people?

The question is not to diminish him, in fact it's high praise. He is literally placing his life on the line for his people.

His people.

We need to embrace that reality if we are to understand what motivates him.

He is, after all, an actor. That too, is not a dig, all politicians are actors to some extent, but he has done it professionally, and like Ronald Reagan, he's really, really, good at it.

Mr. Zelensky's appearances throughout the war, from handmade videos to interviews, have had a similar personal feel. He wears fatigues, not a suit...

At a March 2 news conference, he sits next to the podium, instead of standing behind it. The Ukrainian people "elected me to have access to me," he says. "You're not a czar. You did not get this power from somebody up high."

He's not posturing as Rambo. If anything, he accentuates his vulnerability. He's tired. He's unshaven. Like Holoborodko, he puts himself forward as a manager, hired by Ukraine to do a job that Vladimir Putin just made that much lousier. He's showing up for work.

It's all very genuine, but it's also all in the service of a goal, but what's that goal?

To get the West, and in particular, us, involved.

It starts with a "no-fly zone."

It's not exactly clear what purpose that would serve. The vast majority of damage appears to have been done through the use of missiles, artillery, and weapons launched by Russian fighters while still in Russian airspace.

There are few if any dramatic dogfights over Ukraine à la World War I.

The "Ghost of Kyiv" was a fairy tale.

So, what exactly, would a no-fly zone accomplish other than pulling the United States into a direct war with Russia? Are we going to shoot down Russian planes flying over Russian air space?

There are certainly far more strategically productive things we could do, and are doing, without dancing on the edge of WWIII.

What about sending those Polish MiG-29s to Ukraine, the subject of much chest beating and bravado on the part of politicians who will not be flying them?

Much has been made of the fact that Russia has not established "air superiority." Western military leaders are mystified as to why, given the complete mismatch in air power between the two countries.

That is because the Russians aren't fighting like we fight. They are fighting like they fight, they are fighting like they did against Napoleon and like they did against Hitler, with pure brute force and with little regard for innocent life. They don't need air superiority, or at least, don't need it badly enough to needlessly expose their fighters to Stinger missiles.

Most of Ukraine's fighter aircraft are still in the fight, with Ukraine's Air Force flying approximately five to 10 missions per day using a pool of about 50 jets. By contrast, Russian aircraft are flying nearly 200 missions per day but keeping their planes primarily within Russian airspace.

This raises the question as to what difference, exactly, a couple dozen of additional aged MiG-29s from Poland would make in the conflict other than to draw us into it.

But, oh my, do we ever have our war paint on! (Extremely mild language warning.)

And of course, to merely question the wisdom of sending the MiGs is to invite accusations of being some kind of Putin stooge.

The claim by some U.S. and NATO officials that sending Polish Mig-29s to Ukraine will not likely change the effectiveness of the Ukrainian Air Force against the Russians is simply not accurate. It is an unfortunate example of just how effective the Russians have been in deterring U.S. and NATO actions that would contribute to Ukraine's defense.

You mean like sending billions in lethal aid including LAWS, Javelins, and Stingers?

It's almost as if these former military personnel believe this is their one last chance to finally fight the Russkies, if only vicariously.

It has been a common refrain among proponents for giving Ukraine MiGs that "Zelensky knows better whether or not he needs them."

Let's assume for the sake of argument that he does know better.

That still leaves open the question as to why he thinks he needs them.

If it does not serve a strictly strategic military purpose, which I think is at least a valid argument, then what purpose do they serve?

Zelensky needs our help. His people need our help. He is facing potential death and the obliteration of his country. Those are his stakes.

But our stakes are different, and much larger.

At a bare minimum, these are discussions we need to be having. We need to move past the war fever, the macho nonsense, the dangerous and all-too casual accusations of treason, the childish framework of good vs. evil, which even if true is unhelpful, and have a genuine, national conversation about these issues.

Because right now, we're not.

P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇