Russia will have to be punished for its barbaric assault on Ukraine

SIR – I cannot agree with Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury (Commentary, February 24), who warns against punishing Russia when the conflict in Ukraine ends.

No, Russia will have to pay to restore Ukraine to how it was before the illegal invasion – otherwise there is no deterrent against a repeat, in Ukraine or elsewhere.

John Hinchsliff Longridge, Lancashire

SIR – For the last 12 months Vladimir Putin has threatened the West with nuclear Armageddon to prevent the flow of modern high-tech weaponry to Ukraine’s armed forces.

Nato, in particular, is supplying an ever-increasing amount of ordinance and armour, which is tipping the balance in Ukraine’s favour. Nothing has happened on the nuclear front, and nothing is likely. It is time certain world leaders recognised this.

Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons may not in fact be usable, because they have been poorly maintained for the last 30 years. In any case, to use them, Putin would need to move them hundreds of miles under the glare of Nato intelligence assets. We also learnt this week that Putin’s much vaunted Satan II hypersonic nuclear missile does not work either.

We must give Ukraine everything it needs to prevail and ignore Putin’s bluff and bluster.

Col Hamish de Bretton-gordon (retd) Tisbury, Wiltshire

SIR – I would agree with Archbishop Welby if he had said that, when Russia is defeated, its people must deliver Putin to be tried in the international courts, along with his murderous henchmen and soldiers who committed atrocities in Ukraine.

Janet Milliken Folkestone, Kent

SIR – Welcome debate has begun on the endgame of Russia’s defeat. It must of course pay reparations for the damage inflicted upon Ukraine, and Russian individual and collective brutality must be punished. But what next? With Putin still in power, so-called peace talks are futile, but no postwar Russian regime will be secure unless based on Russian consent.

In securing that, we can learn from our two past failures and (more importantly) from our one major success. German reparations after 1918 merely accumulated resentment at unexpected defeat, and created Hitler. After the Soviet collapse in 1989, chaos was allowed to ensue, and this Putin turned to his advantage.

Very different was the West’s response after 1945 to the defeat of authoritarianism in Germany and Japan. Then, in the most unpromising territory, a secure democratic regime was established in West Germany. The democracies responded, not with triumphalism, but by collaboratively calling out from the Germans the decent and humane conduct that is latent in all societies.

Can the West now replicate 1945? Three approaches would help to prevent war within Russia. First, there would need to be a peaceful, sophisticated campaign inside Russia to undermine Putin’s ongoing hold over public opinion.

Secondly, mobilising opinion on Russia’s residual colonial fringes would help to terminate its empire: here the one-time Soviet citizens of Georgia, Kaliningrad, Moldova, Belarus, Kazakhstan and others could seize their moment, working from several directions to prevent the Russian repression that has hitherto stifled their aspirations.

Thirdly, many Russian democrats and libertarians fled Russia rather than risk torture, poisoning or suicide. They will be central to the civilised postwar regime, and they need cautiously to return so as to help restore their country’s shattered reputation.

Brian Harrison Oxford