The West must prepare for a Russia that has ditched Putin
IT would be wrong to criticise the humanity of Duncan Mcfarlane’s argument that Ukraine should give up territory to stop the war (Letters, May 5), but in practice I fear his suggestion is flawed.
For Ukraine to give up Crimea and effectively Donetsk and Luhansk would be difficult, given how much of their country has been damaged or destroyed, as well as the disruption to the lives of many of its citizens. However, Mr Mcfarlane’s suggestion seems to assume that Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk are all Vladimir Putin wants, when it seems he is looking for more. For instance, even were Luhansk and Donetsk fully absorbed, it would not give Russia a “land bridge” to Crimea.
Moreover, one of the first Ukrainian cities to fall to the Russians was Kherson, to the north-west of Crimea, between Crimea and the port city of Odessa. If Putin can secure the whole Ukrainian Black Sea coast, this would not only damage Ukrainian trade, but potentially bring Transnistria, a Russianbacked breakaway republic from Moldova into play, and thus spread the conflict to another former USSR republic.
Long-term peace is only possible if the sides are content and prepared to live with the solution implemented. It seems to me at least that the Ukrainians would not be content at losing territory and that neither would Putin, as he would be looking to complete what he sees as reclaiming Russian territory by force of arms.
Thus, while I share Mr Mcfarlane’s regret about “hundreds of thousands more dead Ukrainian civilians”, at the time of writing I see no solution acceptable to both. Difficult as it will surely be, is it not essential for Russia to make no gains from its attack on Ukraine?
However, caution is needed here, for if Putin fails, he will surely fall from power. On the one hand this is a matter for celebration, but it also raises the issue of the incapacity of the West to prepare for post-combat planning. Afghanistan and Iraq are testament to that. If Putin falls then the possibility is that he will be replaced by someone just as bad, or maybe worse. Alternatively, that the country will descend into the kind of chaos we saw in 1991. Neither is a good solution and, perhaps counter-intuitively, the West needs to be ready to support Russia in such circumstances. Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.
I HAVE problems with the sentiment expressed by Duncan Mcfarlane. Let us say I was walking to the shops and I came across this guy, coincidentally by the name of Vladimir, kicking the hell out of a toddler lying on the ground (an accurate representation of Ukrainian reality). What do I do? Reason with him while he is only two kicks away from killing the child obviously with no intention of stopping?
I must acknowledge nevertheless that there is no easy answer to the existential question “how far can we can go, even though we may be putting our own families at risk, in defending the weak?”.
John Milne, Uddingston.