Britain will be vulnerable to Russia until it finds other sources of energy

SIR – Britain’s energy policy has made the country vulnerable to the state that is most hostile towards it.

Vladimir Putin has hinted that he might restrict the flow of gas to Europe if sanctions are applied. It’s not only Britain that would suffer; Germany imports 55 per cent of its gas via Gazprom, and several of the old Warsaw Pact countries are even more dependent.

It is high time for radical changes to our energy policy. To be self-sufficient in energy, we must abandon our impossible decarbonisation targets, draw once more on our reserves of coal, establish small nuclear power stations and start fracking as soon as possible.

In the face of such a grave threat from Russia, politicians must get real and put aside the affectations and delusions that have engulfed them over the past two decades. Brian Clarke London W6 SIR – Con Coughlin (Comment, March 14) asks how the Government could leave us so exposed to Putin’s threat.

The answer is that the primary purposes of all departments of state are now made secondary to other aims. Energy production is secondary to ecological priorities. Education is secondary to the political agenda of the Blob.

Transport is about HS2 vanity projects, not helping solve the rail chaos suffered by millions daily. Law and order is secondary to fear and favouring cultural sensitivities. Actual defence is a very secondary issue for the Ministry of Defence apparatchiks.

Virtue-signalling is the main concern of post-Blair governance, and the public is starting to suffer the consequences of this tendency to prioritise activists over the commonsense majority. Tim Bradshaw

Oxford

SIR – Jeremy Corbyn’s response to the terrible events in Salisbury has been widely reported. Around the world there will be doubts as to whether he supports the West, Nato and liberal democracy, or hankers after something else.

Those with any knowledge of Mr Corbyn’s history are aware that for decades he has opposed the foreign policies of successive governments. In particular, he has condemned what he regards as “American imperialism”, and what he sees as Britain’s support for it.

Since the Second World War, our security services have operated a system enabling the interchange of intelligence material with the US, to the benefit of both countries. In the current situation, the US will provide what information it has, I am sure.

However, if Mr Corbyn became prime minister, would this cooperation continue? He has openly supported organisations which the US considers to be terrorist. Indeed, Mr Corbyn might prefer it if our security relationship with the US ended. Bernard Ideson

Keighley, West Yorkshire