IAN Gillies (Letters, February 16) considers that Vladmir Putin "is right to argue that peace is best served by Russia agreeing to remove its threat of annexing the Ukraine in exchange for the buffer state of Ukraine not being aligned to Nato". So is he saying that if Nato, or more pertinently, Ukraine does not agree to this bullying threat, Russia is entitled to launch an aggressive war and invade Ukraine?

Of course, it has already invaded the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine (the latter with soldiers lacking insignia), which does not seem to trouble Mr Gillies. The irony is of course that it is precisely the threat posed by its bullying neighbour that has driven Ukraine to seek membership of Nato. And what then, Vladimir Putin demanding that Poland, which will abut the new enlarged greater Russia, not to mention the Baltic countries, must leave Nato, under threat of force of arms ?

Mr Gillies seems to think that big bullies like Russia are entitled to have a buffer zone, free of nuclear missiles adjoining their territories and draws comparisons with the Cuban crisis. However, all that has been superseded by missile technology. Mr Putin has been boasting recently that Russia now has "invincible" hypersonic nuclear missiles, which would be impervious to any defensive system.

Of course, the present crisis has nothing to do with Mr Putin being fearful of an encroaching Nato. Ukraine is reckoned to be years away from joining Nato, which is in any case a defensive organisation, with no unified armed forces. He does not really fear an invasion by the Baltic countries, or indeed Ukraine, if it ever joined Nato. In any event, what on earth would be the motive for attempting to invade Russia?

In the 1930s, many people expressed surprise when the territorial ambitions of Adolf Hitler became apparent, yet it was all there, written down years before in Mein Kampf. Similarly, Mr Putin is on record as saying that the biggest geopolitical disaster in his lifetime was the demise of the Soviet Union, and last year, he wrote a 5,000-word essay, in which he in effect denied Ukraine's right to exist as an independent nation. He believes that the Russian people are indivisible from the Ukrainian people, and indeed the Belarusian people, whose corrupt dictator Russia currently supports. Ultimately, he wishes to absorb Ukraine into Russia.

This is what this crisis, manufactured by Mr Putin, is all about. That, and the fact that this dictator, in charge of a mafia state which is in effect a third world country armed to the teeth, cannot afford to have on his borders a free and democratic Ukraine (with which many Russians have familial connections), and which, particularly if it ever joins the European Union, is likely to become increasingly affluent.

R Murray, Glasgow.

* I DO not understand why Isobel Lindsay (Letters, February 15) refers to the entirely legal and greatly welcome presence of US and Nato forces in Europe in relation to the Russian military activity on the Ukraine border.

Russia has already invaded Crimea and partially occupies Eastern Ukraine at the cost of many innocent lives, has been implicated in the breach of the EU border at Poland/Belarus and was widely reported to have been party to the shooting-down of a passenger aircraft over Ukraine in 2014. Vladimir Putin has been in power for about 20 years and his state apparatus has, most likely, poisoned and now imprisons the leader of his opposition. Would any of us wish to face the consequences of a US withdrawal from European involvement?

Having in recent history been invaded by Stalin, Hitler and again by Stalin and now, partially, by Putin, all at the cost of many innocent lives, Ukraine may well wish to seek international help to fend off Russia's further attentions. It might satisfy Mr Putin in the short term for Ukraine to become a neutral state but Ukraine’s long-term peace and stability seems likely to be best served by Nato membership.

Michael Sheridan, by Strachur, Argyll.

NO CONCEALING THE TORY DAMAGE

ANDREW Dunlop writes that the "Tories are doing more for Scotland than the SNP ever will" (The Herald, February 15). That explains why Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross wouldn't meet with Boris Johnson on his latest foray into "North Britain".

The post-Brexit reality is grim and no amount of furious political spin can conceal it. Before leaving the world’s largest free trade bloc, exports accounted for a fifth of Scottish GDP. In the year to June 2021, exports had plunged 25% compared to 2019. James Withers, head of Scottish Food and Drink, said many firms have simply “given up” on trading with EU companies because of the “tsunami” of red tape and said the worst is yet to come.

As for replacing the annual £2.1 billion Scotland lost from EU structural funds, a Westminster cross-party report said the UK Shared Prosperity Fund will fall short by 40%.

The loss of free movement has cost thousands of jobs, particularly in the hospitality, care and road haulage sectors, and has resulted in price increases and widespread shortages.

And because the UK Government rejected an offer of visa-free travel for touring musicians across the EU, Scottish artists can no longer afford to travel to and perform in Europe. The termination of the Erasmus scheme means thousands of Scottish students no longer have the chance to live and study in the EU.

Mr Johnson says he is "working very hard" to unite people. In Scotland he is succeeding. He is uniting us against Westminster rule.

Leah Gunn Barrett, Edinburgh.

SO WHERE IS THE OPPOSITION?

IT is becoming clear that unionism is a transmissible disease. What started with the shared opposition of Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats to the desire of the people of Scotland, expressed through more than a decade of electoral victories, for an independence referendum now extends to the other great issue of our times, namely our relationship with the European Union.

Sir Keir Starmer has at last come off the fence, assuring voters in the north-east of England that there is no going back on Brexit (“Labour leader Starmer says there is no case for rejoining the European Union”, The Herald, February 15), while Ed Davey has said that the Liberal Democrats, of all people, are not the party of rejoining the EU.

An easy ride for the Conservatives, then, leaving us all to wonder what grounds the other national parties have for taking the money as Her Majesty’s Opposition at Holyrood or Westminster.

James Scott, Edinburgh.

STURGEON IS ALL ABOUT IMAGE

I DON’T know if you deliberately placed these two articles next to each other on Page 4 today, but it was interesting to note the headlines – “SNP ministers urged to act faster to mitigate £570 real terms cut to Universal Credit” and “FM boosts global hub spending ahead of plans to hold IndyRef2” (The Herald, February 16).

Take a moment to consider that we have a Scottish Government that is more interested in boosting its image abroad by spending an eye-watering £9 million on overseas offices. This is a reserved matter and none of our taxes should be squandered in this way.

While we have people in need of financial support due to the increase in the cost of food and energy, the SNP should not be wasting our money on such self-aggrandisement. The people who vote for Nicola Sturgeon should take note that she would rather further her own aims than help them pay their heating bills.

Politics is all about choices and Ms Sturgeon’s choices are all about her image, not about caring for the less well-off.

Jane Lax, Aberlour.

THE TRUE SIZE OF GREEN SUPPORT

MARK Smith ("Scotland's nationalists could learn from Northern Ireland, The Herald, February 14) states that the Green Party attracted an "execrable" 1.3% of the constituency vote at the 2021 Scottish Parliament election. This is of course literally true, but as a representation of Green Party support is dishonest. Most voters didn't even have the opportunity to vote Green on their constituency vote and those who did knew that they had no chance of electing any Green MSP through this route. It's arguably remarkable under these circumstances that even 1.3% of voters voted for them there.

The real Green support is shown in the list vote, where everyone could vote for them and where votes are not wasted in the same way. There, they received more than eight per cent of the vote – still a minority, but considerably larger than Mr Smith represents.

David Clinton, Hamilton.

Read more: Johnson cannot escape the contempt of the people of Scotland