Simon Jenkins (Keir Starmer’s missile bravado could jeopardise Nato’s careful balancing act in Ukraine, 16 September) is right that the west must be delicate in its approach to the Russia-Ukraine war to avoid escalation, but the article ignores the impact of the current policy of refusing the use of British and American weapons against Russian territory.
Russia has been abusing that policy to use its territory as a free iron dome, courtesy of Nato, using Ukraine’s imposed limits to allow it to freely bombard Ukrainian cities from just across the border, where Kyiv is unable to retaliate. Putin knows that in a long-term war of attrition under the status quo, Russia will win by default.
Simon is probably correct in that changing these rules would cause Russia to retaliate by bombarding Ukraine, but this would be a temporary, symbolic response to a permanent shift in the dynamic of the war, which would be performed out of anger, not strategic effectiveness. The availability of munitions is already a limiting factor on Russia’s ability to bomb Ukraine over the longer term, and a change in Nato’s policy would not relieve this limitation on their resources.
What it would do, however, is allow Ukraine to force Russia to pull back its artillery from the border, or risk allowing Ukraine to squeeze Moscow’s resources where they are actually limited, rather than allowing the war to proceed on Russia’s terms. In the medium term, this would reduce the impact of the artillery strikes that have already been a staple of the war, not increase it.
Nato needs to change the equation for Putin so that the war is not worth the cost, or there is no hope of Russia coming to the table to negotiate a lasting peace.
Edward Jones
London
• Simon Jenkins is correct in his analysis that is extremely unlikely that either Russia or Ukraine will win the war, as defined by full territorial control. Unless a settlement is achieved, further huge loss of life and destruction will continue for many years. Those who believe this would be a policy of appeasement, which failed in the 1930s, should note this historical comparison is of limited value as Russia is a nuclear superpower and Putin’s future is dependent on him being able to claim some degree of success. However unpalatable it is to start negotiations with Putin, it is the least bad option.
Rear Admiral (ret’d) Philip Mathias
Southsea, Hampshire
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
