Letters: We have to convince Putin that the West does have a red line

Putin is not the kind of negotiator familiar from the classic business deal scenario in which I ask for a £100, you offer £80 and we settle for £90 plus or minus a pound or two. For all the speculation about his mental health, he has been utterly consistent from the very outset. He wants Donetsk, Lukhansk, and Crimea to be ceded to Russia; he wants Ukraine disarmed and permanently barred from joining either the EU or Nato. And we can be utterly confident that any Ukrainian citizens who express dissent in a future "Ukraine" will be labelled "Nazis" and treated in the same way that Putin critics like Navalny are treated in Russia. In other words, he wants Ukraine to cease to exist as a normal sovereign nation. In the meantime he pursues a policy of relentless bombing of Ukrainian cities, reducing thriving cities of the size of Edinburgh and Glasgow and larger to rubble. Sanctions will not stop this. So what does "stand with Ukraine" mean if we are not prepared to confront Putin more directly?

The technicalities of no-fly zones or other options are for the experts. But whatever the means, it is surely time for Putin to be convinced that there is a point, a "red line", at which the West will deploy its overwhelming force. I’ve long been sceptical of the line that we have Nato to thank for keeping the peace in Europe. Yet it is precisely Nato in its present structure that has stopped us preventing war. And, yes, I know where that possibly leads – but with each day that passes it’s becoming clearer that Putin himself is pushing for the escalation and internationalisation of the conflict. I fear that this will happen, whether we like it or not. If that is so, the question is only whether we are to be acting on the basis of our own choices or merely reacting to him – regrettably, the story thus far.

George Pattison (Dr), St Monans, Fife.

THE WORLD NEEDS RESOLUTE ACTION

THE parallels between 1935-39 and the last few years tell us that we face something far more sinister than a little local difficulty over Ukraine. For years Hitler and Mussolini amassed arms while Britain complacently allowed its armed forces to dwindle. They preached the right to space and the freedom to take it by force. They held in contempt the rule of law and their promises were lies, as Poland found. The point is, her fall was just the start of an obscene trajectory, and so is the current situation.

An evil gospel has awful power, and Vladimir Putin’s newspeak is no less chilling for being delivered at conversational volume. Right now he is slaughtering the innocent but the trajectory includes chemical, biological and nuclear weapons; and the destruction of Ukraine’s people as only step one. We should be under no illusions.

Bullies don’t need non-retaliation, they need control. The world needs resolute, overwhelming action if we are not to descend into something much worse than currently fills our screens. As a mere first step, if Nato could impose a non-fly zone over non-Nato Bosnia, it can do so over Ukraine. If President Putin can be given a dignified way out, so much the better; but the lives of the innocent come first.

Pascal’s words stand. "Justice without force is a myth, because there are always bad men; force without justice stands convicted of itself. We must therefore put together justice and force, and so dispose things that whatever is just is mighty, and whatever is mighty is just."

C Peter White, Torrance.

* WHY are we sanctioning Russia and certain of its citizens when we have no dispute with that country?

We are doing more damage to ourselves than to anyone else, particularly on the financial and energy fronts.

Russia can sell all its energy to China, and it can bank elsewhere. Having turned the City of London into the world’s foremost facilitator and clearer of international money, we are now undoing that with our virtue-signalling action.

Can Britain really afford to indulge itself for the sake of demonstrating an opinion that will alter nothing and cost us a lot?

Malcolm Parkin, Kinross.

* AFTER last year’s award to the respected Russian journalist, Dmitri Muratov, the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize surely belongs to Marina Ovsyannikova, for her courageous demonstration on Monday night’s Russian state TV “News” programme.

John Birkett, St Andrews.

SCOTLAND WILL JOIN WITH EUROPE

I NOTE with interest three letters today (March 15), two from unionists; Alex Gallagher, with his often-repeated too wee, too poor, no currency, no EU trope, and another from Bill Brown and his no-ferries, strength of the Union mantra. Does Mr Brown ever look south of the Border at the various public projects which have foundered and cost billions (not millions) in overruns, HS2 and Crossrail to name just two? And one wonders what arguments Councillor Gallacher would use if he ever looked around him at the small (and smaller than Scotland) nations who are thriving mightily, somehow, without all the benefits of being attached umbilically to Westminster and England; how on earth do they manage?

Thank goodness for Alasdair Galloway then; with his explanation of why unionists desire to avoid a vote at all costs by gerrymandering and manipulation, he correctly describes their motivation: fear.

Ironically though, I am in agreement with Mr Brown and Councillor Gallacher on one thing: now is not the time for a referendum. We are about to experience a period of instability and social stress that we have not experienced in my 72 years of life, much of it down to the policies of successive Tory and right-wing Labour governments, namely de-industrialisation, austerity, and the catastrophic pursuit of the wealth that Russia's oligarchs have stolen from their people.

As Mr Galloway suggests, such upheaval is usually followed by political and social realignment. Here are a couple of predictions: after Vladimir Putin is defeated the need for a United Europe will be clearer. We will see a European defence force established as part of Nato, quite quickly followed by moves to a United States of Europe. The UK will be isolated as an anachronism in a world of super states, and Scotland will take the opportunity to join with Europe as part of that process. If all of that takes 10 years or more then so be it, I just hope I live to see it.

If I were a unionist I would take the SNP at its word and force a referendum through now; it might well be their last best chance.

John Jamieson, Ayr.

WHY WE NEED A SUPERMAJORITY

I AM constantly disappointed and dismayed when advocates for any particular cause become so committed to their goals that they fail to accept obvious truths. Alasdair Galloway (Letters, March 15) once again fails to accept the fundamental difference between a major, possibly once in a lifetime, constitutional vote and a General Election. Surely even he can see that Brexit, inconceivable had a supermajority been required, has been something less than an outstanding success. There are several good reasons why a majority significantly greater than 50% +1 is needed when seeking major long-term constitutional change.

First, as already mentioned, there is the permanence of the change. Secondly, it is more likely to reflect “the will of the people” and not some temporary blip in public opinion which can be effected from day to day, by all sorts of news, some of which might not be accurate or true; some of which will be carefully timed misinformation. Thirdly, the vote is less likely to be hijacked by extremists. They are unfortunately more likely to vote than those quietly content with the status quo. Fourthly, minority interests are more likely to be protected under a qualified majority. Finally, a supermajority is far more likely to be harmoniously accepted by those on the losing side.

I know committed supporters of Scottish independence who share these views and would not relish victory if not wholeheartedly endorsed by the Scottish public.

Jim Meikle, Killearn.

Read more: Face facts over indy and start tackling real problems