Readers' Letters: Ukraine can’t win, so it’s time for realpolitik

John F Kennedy said: “Nuclear Powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war.”

Appeasement has been a dirty word since 1938, but if we are to avert World War III, the time has come for realpolitik. It is difficult to ask Ukraine to make concessions after witnessing scenes of genocide, but the reality is that Ukraine cannot win the war against superior Russian forces.

It is evident that President Putin has badly miscalculated not least because 21st century drones can destroy 20th century tanks, but how will he react to the huge unexpected losses? While the tabloids, irresponsibly, speculate Putin will declare the Third World War on 9 May, experts do think Russia will fully mobilise and extend conscription. He boasts that Russia has got the sarmat nuclear weapon with multiple warheads and claims they have developed frightening hypersonic weapons. Certainly Russia does have thermobaric bunker-busting weapons like the ones the USA used in Afghanistan.

Against that background, it is inappropriate for Liz Truss and Ben Wallace to make wild remarks about returning Ukraine to its 2014 status (Scotsman, 29 April). Equally irrelevant were Anthony Blinken and Lloyd Austin in the United States openly saying they want Russia's military capability to be reduced. To say sanctions should remain after the war ends is ridiculous and hardly an incentive.

Ukrainian soldiers unload their guns as they arrive at an abandoned building to rest and receive medical treatment after fighting on the front line for two months near Kramatorsk, in eastern Ukraine

Reports elsewhere suggest that Russia is amenable now to concessions at the Antalya peace talks. In a fortnight the people of Donetsk and Luhansk will vote to join Russia. Were that to be accepted and, provided Ukraine does not join the EU or Nato; there is a prospect of peace. The alternative is an endless war of attrition with more modern military supplies going from Nato to Ukraine.

John V Lloyd, Inverkeithing, Fife

War of attrition

“Years and years”: that’s how long the Ukraine war will last according to Angus Roxburgh, the BBC’s former Moscow correspondent and ex-PR advisor to the Kremlin. In his book on Putin titled The Strongman, Roxburgh describes the dictator as pursuing policies akin to the old Soviet Union, and recently suggested comments by him were “Stalinesque”.

Like Stalin, Putin has little intention of negotiating except from a position of strength, firstly securing the objectives of the Donbas region and the Ukrainian Black Sea coast including the strategic port of Odessa. Beyond that Moldova would hand him a de facto border with Romania and crystallise his sphere of influence towards the Mediterranean.

While the West treads a fine line between providing sufficient heavy military aid to help deflect Russian advances and riling Putin to the point where he starts using chemical or tactical nuclear weapons, its objective is to grind down Putin’s military and economic resources. A long conflict would see Russia severely weakened and provide time to strengthen Nato both militarily and diplomatically, extending its membership to Sweden and Finland.

Once again, however, Putin showed his volatile side, after a visit by the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, by delivering a missile strike on Kyiv while Guterres was in the city. It must be tempting for the UN to bar Russia from being a permanent member of the Security Council so that it can’t veto resolutions. This, however, would mean China exercising a greater influence to counterbalance the West.

Following years of appeasement a policy of attrition is now being followed to weaken Putin. It’s not clear, however, how long he will tolerate the West’s continued intervention, and moreover what further hardships the Ukrainian people will be forced to endure.

Neil Anderson, Edinburgh

EU on the march

During the 2016 referendum to leave the European Union the public was reassured that the EU would never have an army and never remove the veto. These steps are now being taken as the organisation centralises more power in Brussels to the determinant of the member nations’ democratic accountability.

These are not surprise steps taken due to unforeseen circumstances. Ever-closer union has been the goal ever since it was stated in the opening line of the 1957 Treaty of Rome.

Tom Walker, Loanhead, Midlothian

Marriage vows

Neil Barber (Letters, 30 April) loses no opportunity to attack Christianity. It is deplorable that the Church of Scotland has gone away from the clear teaching of the Bible about marriage. That is their affair.

However, it is not for the State and its laws to override freedom of conscience as to whom ministers or priests may or may not marry.

Colin McAllister, St Andrews, Fife

A flickering lamp

I would agree with Archibald A Lawrie (Letters, 26 April) regarding the sad proposal to closure of so many of our beautiful and historic church buildings.

Divisions and squabbling within the Church of Scotland has driven our congregations elsewhere or reduced faith in the support of their Church. The Church of Scotland used to be a pillar of strength within our communities but no more; not even for weddings, christenings or funerals. We all await our fate with bated breath.

Fearn Abbey, close to Hill of Fearn in the north of Scotland, established in 1238, is the most northerly Premonstratensian foundation in Scotland and the oldest foundation in the UK still in continuous use for worship to this day. It is now under threat.

Known as “The Lamp of the North”, Fearn Abbey has been a shining beacon of the Christian faith in the north of Scotland for almost 800 years. The very first martyr of the Scottish Reformation, Patrick Hamilton, was in fact Abbot of Fearn Abbey. Patrick was burnt at the stake, age 24, in 1528 in St Andrews for revealing the truth in relation to the translation of the Bible.

The Church of Scotland cannot make armchair decisions at 121 George Street without consideration to the damage caused over the years and, at least, consider the understanding of their responsibility to rural and scattered communities.

It was Patrick Hamilton who sparked the flame that lit the lamp of the Scottish Reformation of 1560. The light from the Lamp of Fearn Abbey may be flickering at this moment but must never die.

Jean W Cheyne, Barbaraville, Highland

No to quotas

Once again we are inundated with suggestions of quotas to equalise the number of women in political establishments. However, does achieving a balance between male, female and transgender mean many will have to forego their “choice” of “best” candidate? It seems to me that a move to encourage increased female representation (welcome) has not led to increased standards of behaviour, a focus on big issues or quality of debate and has only focused on “differences” and “rights”.

Whilst highlighting the desirability of a breadth of representation, surely it would be better to seek candidates focused on serving and who have appropriate attributes for the job – not to mention a focus on full attendance and not distracted by other jobs or seeking self-promotion.

Perhaps linking pay to attendance and participation with the banning of mobile phones in the chamber might improve the status quo!

James Watson, Dunbar, East Lothian

Intelligence test

I was filled with despair when I read that Sir John Curtice thinks SNP incompetence is unlikely to change voters’ minds (Scotsman, 30 April). The SNP's poor education policy, brainwashing and smoke and mirrors approach appears to be reaping dividends. What does this say about the intelligence of some Scots?

Should voting give a certain acknowledgement of the IQ of voters above a certain level? Should a similar acknowledgement be given to those who live in Scotland and actually pay tax to support the country? Should other non-financial values contributed by residents to the wellbeing of the country also be taken into account ?

Before the howls of outrage are aired, such a scheme does not discriminate against any political Party and I do not support a "Brave New World". Is there not a case for the governance of a country being determined by the head rather than the heart?

Fraser MacGregor, Edinburgh

Blinkered Scots

Sir John Curtice‘s evaluation of SNP support comes as no surprise to anyone opposing the break-up of the UK who has viewed the endless constitutional debate since the referendum with ever mounting despair.

Those who have campaigned for opposition parties will be familiar with the blinkered hostility, bordering on hatred of the English, they have encountered on doorsteps across Scotland.

His view that continued support for the SNP is due to the assumption they won’t be in government after independence is simply wrong. It confers a sophistication on many SNP voters that is, to say the least, unwarranted. Scotland’s problems are not solely due to the SNP government but to the continued unquestioning support of their blinkered electors.

Kit Fraser, Dunbar, East Lothian

‘Nyet’ losses

Angus Robertson MSP has blamed “recent world events” for more than a quarter of Scottish households not returning their census forms (Scotsman, 29 April).

Yes Angus, that’ll be it! Did anyone else have a Russian Spetsnaz trooper rappel into their home and scream "nyet, nyet” when you typed the first few letters of “census.gov.scot” into Google before swan diving through a window – or was that just me?

David Bone. Girvan, South Ayrshire

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.

A message from the Editor

Thank you for reading this article. If you haven't already, please consider supporting our trusted, fact-checked journalism by taking out a digital subscription. Click on this link for more details.