I FUNDAMENTALLY agree with David Pratt’s assessment of the need to continue supporting Ukraine as outlined in his article on February 9. He hasn’t, however, gone far enough in questioning the motives or logic of those who suggest that this support should stop.
One of the criticisms of this support is that “backing Ukraine only serves to perpetuate the war”. This is clearly true as the war may have come to a swifter end without the means to defend those who were invaded.
However, those who advocate this should have enough courage in their conviction to explain what such an outcome would lead to for the citizens of Ukraine in the short term, for Europe in the medium term and the world in the longer term. Do we really want a Europe where tens of thousands can be killed and millions can be forced from their homes on the whim of dictators? It’s less than 80 years since we faced this in Europe and many of us have past family members who paid the price of previous appeasement.
READ MORE: Edinburgh events to mark anniversary of Russian invasion of Ukraine
Arms manufacturers are clearly also benefiting for now, but once again those who use this as a criticism must explain what the alternative looks like in the short term for Ukraine and eventually for the rest of us.
Let’s not forget that the now proven threat from Russia would feather the nests of arms manufacturers anyway, and a return to “normal” plays to the self-interest of those in Western capitals who had their noses deeply in the dirty money trough playing butler for Russian criminals robbing their own people blind.
The initial justifiable concern over escalation in Ukraine and now elsewhere did and should have made us examine the rationale for our support, but our uncertainty also allowed Putin to gamble that the final outcome would be similar to what had happened before ... eventual capitulation.
The so-called “red lines” have been created by ourselves. Any enemy in Russia’s position will threaten whatever is required to affect our thinking but the stakes are far too high for anyone to allow threats to be seen to work. If they work ... how long before North Korea takes advantage of our dither and blather? Far worse, each time we have set these “red lines” we have convinced the gambler that doubling down may eventually result in a win in Ukraine worth the costs so far.
READ MORE: Reference to Ukraine 'invading' its territory Crimea was a giveaway
This war has gone way past the point where economic sanctions can change Russian behaviour. Both sides have suffered so many casualties that the enmity between them will last generations. Most important, though, is that Russia’s losses have already fixed this conflict in Putin and Russia’s mindset as an overdue clash with the West which has far wider meaning than a few bases in Crimea. So this war will not end any time soon and we need to prepare ourselves for this. We need to ensure that dictators the world over both now and in future understand where OUR red lines are and recognise that they should not mistake our natural reluctance to engage in kinetic conflict as an unwillingness to do whatever needs to be done when we recognise its time to hold firm and do the right thing; as is the case now in Ukraine.
Gus McSkimming
North Ayrshire
GEORGE Kerevan’s article “West has unleashed political and military tides it can’t control over war in Ukraine” rightly pointed out the effect of a mass peace movement in the 80s forcing governments east and west to scale back the arms race.
Scottish CND supporters will hold a vigil in Edinburgh on Princes Street, by Castle Street, from 4.30-6.30pm on Friday, February 24, the anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine, with placards reading “NO NUCLEAR WAR”,” STOP BOMBING UKRAINE”, and “END ALL NUCLEAR THREATS”, messages aimed at both sides. Join us!
What a great shame we seem to lack people nowadays such as the late and highly respected Professor John Erickson of Edinburgh University, who kept open channels of communication with all sides during the Cold War when, like today, the future looked extremely grim.
Malcolm Bruce
Edinburgh CND
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here