Make no mistake. We libertarians believe in the non-aggression principle, and Russia's invasion of Ukraine is an egregious violation of it. Ukraine is well-justified to engage in self-defense. I don't buy into Russian rationalizations, and it's clear that civilian casualties are more than incidental in nature.
That being said, there are a number of reasons not to intervene, including widening the conflict, moral hazard, unintended consequences, limited resources, logistics problems of fighting a war on another continent, and policy inconsistencies, just to mention a few. For example, Ukraine, which has openly wanted to join NATO, a key Russian issue, could agree to neutrality. Afghanistan, initially a target for harboring UBL after 9/11, became the longest war in American history, costing more US war casualties than 9/11 victims and resulting in a failed nation building exercise, costing untold billions, if not trillions added to the national debt. Our military for the past generation was largely tied down in the Gulf Region, increasing vulnerability elsewhere to other security threats. Many of our decisions have been arbitrary: for example, Russia/USSR and China have brutally repressed their own populations or minorities. Biden, who recently banned imports of Russian oil, is reportedly looking to make up the difference by negotiating with Saudi Arabia, Iran and/or Venezuela which have had their own issues with the US in the recent past.
I'm reminded here of the Serenity Prayer:
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
The neo-con interventionist hawks in both parties try to argue if we don't support their hawkish policies against Russia, we are on the side of Putin or that we are this decades version of Neville Chamberlain, the WWII era British prime minister who appeased Hitler. No. This is just like the claim because I voted LP for POTUS in the last 2 elections, I bear responsibility for electing Trump and Biden respectively. No, I voted against the two; not only were there other choices on the ballot, but I could have written in any of millions of other people or chosen not to vote for any candidate. There are plenty of reasons we oppose the policies (like in the post title): we think they might be costly and ineffective, they target the wrong people, and they exacerbate the situation. There can be unintended consequences.
I think the first time I heard about a no fly zone for Ukraine, it was from a Republican Congressman. I thought we were back in the 1990's again with the policy over Iraq after the first Gulf War. No, we and/or NATO are not Ukraine's air force. Hostilities against Russian forces could easily touch off a major war between Russia and NATO or even a third world war.
There's a related offer from Poland, a NATO member, to transfer its MiG's to Ukraine, more recently through a USAF base in Europe. There was an earlier discussion the Polish doing so, with its older MiG's being replaced with US-made F-16 fighter jets. (Note that Poland ruled out a direct transfer for fear of Russia's response.) The US response was that the same risk of war expansion doesn't change based on the NATO location of the MiG's: flying war jets into a war theater from NATO would be regarded by Russians as an act of war, the 28 MiG's would not materially augment capability of Ukraine's existing air squadrons, and Ukraine has been supplied with highly effective anti-aircraft weapons. The focus has been on augmenting Ukraine with defensive weapons, not providing Ukraine with the means to launch an offensive in Russian territory.
Then there's the question of economic sanctions. I'm fond of quoting “When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will”, which seems a derivation from Mallery's “If soldiers are not to cross international boundaries, goods must do so. Unless the Shackles can be dropped from trade, bombs will be dropped from the sky.” Russia has already accused the US of launching an economic war. Keep in mind trade is win-win. Embargoes aren't good for exporters or Russian consumers; moreover, "embargoes tend to have little effect on changing the actions and policies of the country they are placed on". Similarly, bans or other neo-mercantilistic policies on Russian goods and services can limit choices and/or raise prices for American consumers. Granted, tariffs on Russian goods can adversely affect sales for suppliers. But note that economic sanctions are double-edged swords. We saw this in China's response to Trump's tariffs where they cut purchases of American agricultural goods which hurt Trump's farm state constituency.
Biden's oil ban in an already tight global supply market is a classic example of counterproductive policy, with American consumers paying a price in an already inflationary economy. Oil is fungible, and many of Russia's trading partners, like China and India, are not part of the boycott. Europe itself is dependent on Russia for roughly a third of its energy supplies. The US is actually a net exporter of crude and Russia only accounts for about a tenth of our oil imports. Biden is looking at Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and possibly Iran to make up the difference, all of them posing their own foreign relations issues.
In addition to the various US and state/local government sanctions on Russian products, you see a number of corporations symbolically showing their support for Ukraine by restricting supplies and/or suspending Russian-based operations, including credit cards and stores. I sent out a related tweet, mocking the McDonald's move (cf. earlier discussion on effectiveness of embargoes), pointing out I'm not sure Putin and his oligarchs eat at or own franchises. It has more of an impact on Russian employees or consumers who may not even have supported Putin or his policies.
[A personal aside: I and my MBA business strategies class partner had chosen McDonald's for our major project. I had been brought up as a USAF brat in a large family living on an NCO Dad's limited salary. We rarely ate out but we went to McDonald's on special occasions like First Communion's and Confirmation's. My partner lived in a different city than his future wife, and during his courtship, they would often meet at a McDonald's between cities. I also participated in a McDonald's DRIP program until I had to liquidate my position during the Great Recession.]
