Can’t anyone push Liz Truss back into her cage? In her speech on the British War at Mansion House, proposing to return Russia to its borders before 2014, she simply echoed Vladimir Putin’s sick dream of recreating a mythical imperial past (Putin threatens Ukraine’s allies as Trus insists on “doubling” “In support of Kyiv, April 27). But this is not 1945. The war in Ukraine will not end with the unconditional surrender of Russia – the only conditions under which Russia will leave Crimea. It will probably end in a confused stalemate, followed by murky diplomacy.
Crimea, accidentally transferred from Russia to Ukraine at the whim of the dictator in 1954, remained exclusively Russian in mood even before the 2014 referendum. Donbass may need to be divided under UN auspices (for the inevitable rage of both communities) ), as Upper Silesia was divided by the League of Nations in 1921. Trusse’s insistence on restoring the former borders of the “territorial integrity” of the countries supported by the United Kingdom – Georgia or Ukraine – is to allow a bloodbath if Georgia invade “lost” Abkhazia, or mass resistance if Ukraine tries to suppress Russian identity in Crimea. Neil Asherson London
Dan Sabag’s nuanced and sober analysis of the conflict in Ukraine (April 27) focuses on the expansive nature of the rhetoric used by both sides. Russia’s absurd claims of “denazification” of Ukraine have been rightly ridiculed, but the grandiose statements of Western leaders showing that we are now seeking Russia’s strategic defeat only help the Russian narrative that it is an existential war of national survival for them.
Instead, our leaders could do better to adopt a “speak softly and carry a big stick” approach; after all, bold words will not stop any Russian tank, but the timely and accurate delivery of anti-tank weapons can. This will require some discipline of communication, unprecedented: Liz Truss has speculated on a decade of war, and James Happy, reflecting on Ukrainian targets in Russia, is not helping to control the story.
Putin will receive the message that aggression will not work, but to declare that we intend to rub his face in it, especially since the war is still very active and he has not yet been defeated, is naive and dangerous; he needs the ladder to go down. It is better to stick strictly to the line that we support Ukraine to defend itself. Simon Diggins (retired colonel) Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire
Liz Truss ignored the UN’s peaceful role and the current efforts of its Secretary-General in a speech at the Mansion House. Instead, it offers the prospect of more war and dangerous escalation. The United Kingdom, as a member of the Security Council, shares “the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security” (Article 24 of the UN Charter). The vast majority of UN members who condemned Russia’s aggression in the General Assembly on March 2 want the war to end, not continue, and this must be at the heart of British diplomacy. John Gitts Author, The Glorious Art of Peace
Liz Truss seems to be pushing for leadership, not caring what the consequences might be for the country she seeks to lead. Giving weapons is the right thing to do, but there is a special kind of stupidity in saying exactly what is provided. Silence by Mrs Truss would be welcome and may show that she is worthy of the service she is striving for. Dr. Roger Slack Whistton, Cheshire
Do you have an opinion on everything you read in the Guardian today? Please send us an email with your letter and it will be considered for publication.
Add Comment