Rallyingcry

What parallels can be drawn between Winston Churchill's wartime rhetoric and Ukranian president Volodymyr Zelensky's video link address to the House of Commons (your report, March 9)? Whilst the former's much parodied speech about fighting on the beaches, landing grounds, in the hills and streets etc did stir emotions, it's important to remember that he did qualify his remarks. Churchill did not believe this island would be taken over in the summer of 1940. But if it was, “the Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle until, in God's good time, the new world, with all its power and might steps forth to the liberation of the old”.

Those last words were clearly a coded plea for the United States to provide more than simply moral support and equipment for the war effort. President Roosevelt, chastened by memories of the First World War, and facing an election In November of that year, was holding back. In a famous speech he told supporters, “I will say it again and again and again! Your boys will not get involved in any more foreign wars”. It took another 18 months and the monstrous attack on Pearl Harbor for his country to become fully engaged. A new international order today means that the United States will only become fully engaged if there is a direct threat to a Nato ally. Neil Anderson eloquently posed the dilemma (Letters, same day). If there is a direct threat to any of the surrounding allies – particularly Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia – will the US be prepared to protect them, by force if necessary?

President Zelensky's speech was met with the most widespread sympathy. That had to be qualified by the knowledge that Nato will not intervene directly to protect his country's freedom. That option should not exist if a member of the Alliance is directly attacked. We should want Ukraine's freedom to be upheld, but be prepared to defend it if actual Allies come under attack.

BOB TAYLOR Glenrothes, Fife