Readers' Letters: Appeasement on Ukraine will only feed Russia's territorial ambitions

The parallel with Munich is not the city in Germany but the appeasement of Hitler, which only encouraged Hitler to take more land and territory, and cost us much more in monetary and human terms than the appeasement saved. Ukraine is not a small country far away from us, but it is in the front line of naked Russian aggression. Arming and supplying Ukraine is a smaller price to pay now than the bill will be if Russia is appeased – if it gets away with what it has done it will try it again and again. A new Cold War would be of Russia's making.

Keith WF Proborszcz-Maloney, Dumfries

Don’t poke the bear

It was fear of Nato expansion that provoked Russian action against Ukraine in the first place. Sending British troops to Ukraine will confirm Russia’s fear of Nato, and will lead to more extreme action and the death of our soldiers in action.

We are already at war with Russia, firstly as an ally of its enemy, and also by our economic actions. If we send troops we will then be in a shooting war and – in case our Prime Minister has not noticed – we are woefully ill-equipped for that on all fronts.

Malcolm Parkin, Kinnesswood, Kinross

Nonsense notion

Brian Wilson was right to deplore the nonsense that a Ukrainian peace deal carries the stench of appeasement returning to Munich; with Donald Trump cast as Neville Chamberlain and Vladimir Putin as Adolf Hitler. Former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace was almost hysterical in his analogy in which the flaws outweigh any similarities. We must ensure we are not going to have a future of entrenched hostilities and vastly increased defence expenditure. Trump and Putin will not be around for ever.

Wilson is also right in arguing that, if Trump lacks any interest in Europe, which leads to a greater British independence in foreign policy, it will be no bad thing. Some of us find it galling, at times, to see the two Royal Navy aircraft carriers – HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince Of Wales – almost incorporated into the American fleet.

The “special relationship” died many years ago and I welcome the efforts by John Healey, UK Defence Secretary, for increased European defence integration. The UK Labour Government’s decision to allow Ukraine to fire British Storm Shadow Missiles into mainland Russia was utterly naive.

The prospects of peace throw up another fundamental worry, however. What have the thousands of deaths, on both sides,since September 2022, when Premier Xi of China offered a realistic peace plan, been for? The proposals entailed a ceasefire, an exchange of prisoners, a Russian withdrawal but Russia retaining Donetsk and Luhansk (where 85 per cent of the people speak Russian and where 140,000 inhabitants fought on the Russian side), but subject to a referendum overseen by neutral nations (the UN?). Ukraine would not be allowed to join the EU nor Nato – not that they meet the criteria in any case.

During the US presidential election, Donald Trump and JD Vance advocated, similarly, a demilitarised zone with Russia keeping the two provinces. Today Russia has nearly all of Donetsk and Luhansk and, in the European media, there is some speculation that even the Ukrainian incursion into Russia was a ploy to get a bargaining chip at the inevitable peace talks. Some 57 per cent of Ukrainians now want peace talks and most reluctantly agree the two provinces should be conceded. (There is precedent. Finland held off the might of the Red Army in 1940 but lost 10 per cent of its territory).Talk of the UK and our European allies continuing the war is for the birds. Boris Johnson has argued that, to allow Russia to stay in 22 per cent of Ukraine will embolden him to turn to other parts of the Soviet Empire, but the Russian army is, clearly, in no position to. Most Ukrainians in Scotland want to return home and every war ends up at the negotiating table.

John V Lloyd, Inverkeithing, Fife

Grandad’s army

If I correctly recall my old History master, what finally tipped the USA onto the Allied side in the Second World War was the realisation that if that nation failed to deal with evil on our side of the Atlantic it would soon have to deal with it on its side. May I suggest our envoys remind Donald Trump that situation still obtains?

As for how to pay the billions as our contribution to a protected Europe I suggest that as we pensioners share a collective guilt for not obliging a succession of post-war governments to do the right thing defence-wise, the better-off should lose a portion of the state pensions in favour of a far better prepared Britain? I write as an 87-year-old OAP willing to at least make a small sacrifice for the greater good. There are enough of us to make a big difference – always provided the government doesn’t steal that contribution for a quite different purpose.

Tim Flinn, Edinburgh

Energy Utopia

GB Energy is doomed to fail Scotland unless the UK Labour Government “changes direction” and rebalances future UK energy and infrastructure investment.

Having a token administrative office in Aberdeen (with the boss based in Manchester) will be scant recompense for Scotland if the Acorn project is not progressed while carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects are advanced in England; if Grangemouth ceases to function while more refining is carried out in England; if the bulk of Scotland’s new renewable energy is transmitted (much of it above ground and scarring our precious natural landscape) to England; if major support infrastructure (from new railway lines to exascale computers for AI development) continues to be concentrated in England; and if costly nuclear energy is preferred to building a hybrid renewable energy network with calculable tidal energy at its core for independent reliable electricity supply.

A strategic energy supply plan for Scotland would immediately commit to the Acorn CCS project – which the UK Government initially backed – as pivotal to both environmentally exploiting oil and gas resources and sustaining the future of Grangemouth as an energy hub. Further development of wind and solar energy resources (beyond Scotland’s basic requirements and besides a progressive move to “zonal pricing”) would ensure “excess energy” did not lead to higher energy bills due to constraint payments to wind farm operators but fuelled hydrogen generation for chemical and refining feedstock, backup power generation and export to neighbouring countries. Localised energy generation projects, such as community heating, would be prioritised, while new research and development would seek to harness tidal power in an efficient and nature-friendly manner as nuclear power (with inherent and significant safety concerns) was phased out.

Comprehensive planning aimed at optimising the exploitation of Scotland’s energy resources will benefit both Scotland and the rest of the UK irrespective of political and constitutional changes.

Stan Grodynski, Longniddry, East Lothian

Babies needed

It's not surprising that school rolls are falling (“SNP told to cut teachers to save £500 million a year”, 14 February). We aren't producing so many children. The Scottish fertility rate has fallen to 1.3, down from 1.33 last year.

To maintain the population the rate would need to be 2.1. Nevertheless, due to immigration, Scotland's population is forecast to grow to 5.8 million by 2047. Perhaps immigrants don't have children.

Steuart Campbell, Edinburgh

Dark forces

I listened to a BBC Scotland Morning Call last week about unisex toilets in schools. Host Kaye Adams tried her best to give both sides an equal hearing but, just like the outcry about the scandalous Sandie Peggie case, it was clear the overwhelming view on all this, and much of the whole diversity, equality and inclusion agenda, is incredulity, horror and anger.

It makes you wonder just who it is that the “listening” SNP, Green and Labour cabal that is foisting this stuff on us are actually listening to, and why. The term “dark forces" springs to mind.

Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire

Milk monitored

Mark Boyle suggests the National Farmers’ Union starts a supply chain for the provision of milk (Letters, 15 February). I’m sure he is aware there was such a system, the Milk Marketing Board. However, it was discontinued due to the deregulation of the milk market following the Agriculture Act of 1993.

C Lowson, Fareham, Hants

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. 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 – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.