I wholly support the plea to Europe by Timothy Garton Ash (Only Europe can save Ukraine from Putin and Trump – but will it?, 6 December). One aspect he did not mention was the strategic nuclear balance. Since the late 1940s, responsibility for deterrence has always lain with the Pentagon and has succeeded in keeping the peace, though at times a very fragile version of it.
The recent US statement on defence makes it clear that Europe is no longer seen as a priority by the Trump administration, the danger now being that doubt is crucially being raised as to the credibility of Nato’s deterrent. Without certainty of a reaction in kind, Russia, under its ambitious and risk-taking president, might be tempted to chance its arm in what almost looks like a ceding of Europe by the US into a Russian “sphere of influence”.
If Vladimir Putin triumphs in Ukraine, the future of the Baltic states will probably move up Putin’s agenda – and after that, who knows? In the 1930s, Europe ignored a clear existential threat, and millions paid for it. Europe has to realise that its superior economic and military potential has to be mobilised to secure not just the future of Ukraine, but the stability of Europe.
Bill Jones
Honorary professor of political studies, Liverpool Hope University
• The suggestion by Timothy Garton Ash that Belgium is acting egotistically in resisting the seizure of Russian assets is somewhat harsh. The potential financial liability in the unlikely event of an adverse international legal ruling at some future date would virtually bankrupt the country. Surely it is the resistance of the other EU countries in sharing this liability that is the problem.
Robin Wilson
London
• 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.
