THE suggestion by Bill Eadie (Letters, March 1) that the mobilisation of nuclear weapons by western powers is the way to respond to Vladimir Putin's actions is surely the worst possible reaction.

I well remember the confrontation between the USSR and the US when nuclear warfare was on the brink and both sides were pumping up the rhetoric, with US nuclear armed bombers heading towards Russia while the USSR's missiles were being primed in Cuba. False or misunderstood messages could have led to Armageddon and almost did, when a USSR submarine commander was wrongly advised that an attack on his country had commenced and only the bravery of the third officer required to arm a nuclear missile for firing, in refusing to do so, saved the day.

Mr Eadie's use of the word lunacy in relation to Mr Putin is pertinent and if indeed he is deranged, dramatic reactions by the West are more likely to inflame rather than defuse the situation. Surely the best hope is that the worldwide sanctions on Russia will persuade the Russian people to take action to remove this despot who has made their country a pariah and isolated them from all political, commercial, social and sporting links with the outside world. Thousands have already demonstrated their rejection of Mr Putin's actions on the streets of Russia's cities, risking the fate of the 6,000 already arrested for doing so.

In closing, as someone a decade older than JA Smith (Letters, March 1), and having been opposed to nuclear weapons all my life – I witnessed the horrific effects of their use in Japan – I remain steadfastly against them as a so-called deterrent and find it sad that any satisfaction could be derived from thinking that in the worst possible scenario the retaliatory killing of millions of other innocents would occur.

James Graham, Clydebank.

WE SHOULD EXPAND NATO

IN recent weeks Vladimir Putin seemed like a psychopath, but one in touch with reality who made rational calculations. I thought perhaps we could come to a compromise with him on Ukraine being made a permanently neutral country, in return for ending the Russian invasion.

His threats of war against Finland and Sweden using the same pretext (that they might one day join Nato), and his attempt to annex the whole of Ukraine, show he’s neither rational nor responding to perceived threats to Russia. Finland and Sweden have been neutral countries ever since the Second World War ended. Only Russian threats could change that.

Within days, both countries had responded, rationally enough, by sending arms to the Ukrainians, because if he wins in Ukraine, he’ll come for them next.

Mr Putin’s demand that Nato leave all former Soviet bloc states or he’ll force them to can’t be dismissed as posturing any more. He believes he can reimpose Russian domination of these countries by war and threats of war.

If he isn’t deterred or defeated he’ll invade all the neutral countries in Europe, then likely trigger World War Three by invading Nato members Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

Nato should rapidly admit all remaining neutral countries that want to join, and get US, British or French troops deployed in them as a deterrent. Ukraine obviously is an exception, as if it joined we could be in World War Three right away, but the more support and arms it’s given the better. Leaving him with a pretext to attack neutral countries but no deterrent against doing so will mean more Ukraines.

Duncan McFarlane, Carluke.

BLAME THE FAILED POLITICIANS

IN my lifetime the countries of the "West", actually the United States and Britain, have started more wars, invaded and bombed more countries than you can shake a stick at. They have overthrown more governments and installed more dictators than Vladimir Putin ever has.

The justification for this is invariably the need to remove some madman or make the world "safe for democracy". I don't recall Allende in Chile as falling into the category of madman. Chile, however, has the geographical misfortune of being in the continent of America and therefore falls within the scope of the Monroe Doctrine, meaning the US feels entitles to a free hand to act in the interests of freedom and democracy (or big business and rapacious capitalism, take your pick).

Is this war Putin's war or Russia's war? This is up for debate; what is not up for debate is that the tragedy unfolding in Ukraine could only arise in a world suffering from an absence of effective and meaningful institutions and mechanisms for conflict resolution and negotiation. In this vacuum figures such as George W Bush, Boris Johnson, President Putin, Donald Trump and Tony Blair strut the world stage. Mr Trump, the leader of the "Free World" for four years, actually tried to overthrow his country's political and constitutional system, Mr Blair routinely lied to Parliament while Mr Johnson couldn't distinguish the truth from the Erskine Bridge. I would, to coin a phrase, go die in a ditch if I felt I had any values, western or not, in common with someone like Mr Trump.

Some of the recent letters in The Herald on the subject of nuclear weapons have, quite bluntly, been disgraceful. As for democracy, in this country it is something that ordinary men and women have fought for it, is not something that fair-minded politicians have gifted. It is something that Mr Johnson with his attempt to prorogue Parliament and Mr Blair with his culture of spin have sought to undermine.

It is a central part of Russian history that it has no tradition of elective politics or institutions based on this practice; an eminent historian of the country has suggested this is why the revolutions of 1905 and 1917 failed. Expanding Nato and missile deployment won't assist progress in Russia. Building strong international institutions and repudiating politicians like Messrs Bush, Trump, Blair and Johnson might be a start.

Brian Harvey, Hamilton.

WE MUST NEVER GIVE UP HOPE

WITH the despicable assault on Ukraine continuing I remember, as a young man with tears in my eyes, being restrained from travelling to Hungary in 1956, as the Russian tanks blasted their way into Budapest.

More than a decade later in 1968 the same happened in Prague. However, in the late 1980s the Soviet Empire began to disintegrate and by the 1990s democratic freedoms returned.

Therefore, as the madness of one man explodes over Ukraine, we must never give up hope in the ultimate goodness of mankind. As we salute the courage of Ukraine let us support its people, in every way possible, remembering there is more good in the world than evil and that hate is always the loser.

Grant Frazer, Newtonmore.

WE NEED THE UK UMBRELLA

THE SNP's defence spokesman, Stewart McDonald, has boldly and righteously stated that previous armed forces cuts by the UK Government were a “mistake” and “short-sighted”. This from a member of the SNP that wants to get rid of Trident from Faslane and wants independence which could and more than likely would result in Scotland being outside Nato.

Further, quite where Mr McDonald would grow the money tree to provide the necessary resources to fund Scotland’s defences and armed forces is anyone’s guess. If we ever needed convincing that the UK as a whole and as part of Nato can demonstrate strong defences it is now in the face of the most dangerous military action in Europe since the Second World War. Mr McDonald would do well to remember, that at this time, he can make such comments under the umbrella of UK security.

Richard Allison, Edinburgh.

FOLLOW THE EU'S EXAMPLE

WHAT a mean-spirited letter from Jane Lax (March 1), who grudges the Scottish Government giving humanitarian aid to Ukraine in this most desperate of times. I think that the vast majority of the compassionate, generous Scottish public will support the Scottish Government's aid package to Ukraine, and I would point out to Ms Lax, who contends that the First Minister is letting down people on our streets, that the Tory Government cut Universal Credit by £20 per week, while the SNP Government is doubling the Scottish Child Payment, along with other measures to combat poverty.

Nicola Sturgeon is also right to plead that anyone from Ukraine fleeing for their lives should be welcomed to the UK, and that "the paperwork can be sorted out later on". On top of its historic announcement that it is sending weapons to Ukraine as well as humanitarian aid, the EU's announcement that all its member countries will take in Ukranian refugees for up to three years without needing to apply for asylum is truly admirable, and should be emulated without delay by the UK Government.

Ruth Marr, Stirling.

Read more: Sturgeon is letting down her own people