Sir, – The letter from Lynn Boylan, Sinn Féin MEP, on Ukraine presents itself as measured and principled (Letters, February 20th). In reality, it rests on a dangerous naivety about the nature of this war and the character of the regime prosecuting it.
No one disputes the value of diplomacy. No one celebrates war. But to speak airily of a “credible diplomatic strategy running in parallel” while casting suspicion on sustained military support is to ignore a basic and brutal fact: negotiations have meaning only when both sides believe they cannot improve their position through force.
How, precisely, does Sinn Féin propose that Ukraine negotiate without the military resources necessary to hold its ground? From what position of strength? On what leverage? Words do not stop artillery. Appeals to international law do not intercept missiles. A nation being invaded cannot negotiate effectively if it is steadily losing territory and infrastructure to an aggressor that has shown utter contempt for sovereignty and treaty obligations.
Russia has demonstrated, repeatedly, that it responds to weakness with escalation. It violated the commitments it made in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. It ignored diplomatic entreaties before launching its full-scale invasion in 2022. It has targeted civilian infrastructure and sought to grind down Ukraine’s capacity to resist. To imagine that such a regime will agree to a “just and durable conclusion” absent sustained military pressure is not realism; it is wishful thinking.
READ MORE
Of course wars end through negotiation. But they end on terms shaped by the balance of power on the battlefield. If Ukraine is denied the means to defend itself effectively, the likely outcome is not peace with justice, but settlement by exhaustion – one that rewards aggression, entrenches occupation and invites future destabilisation.
It is easy, from the comfort of neutrality, to warn against “open-ended escalation”. It is far harder to explain to Ukrainian families why the weapons that allow them to defend their cities should be curtailed in the name of an abstract fear of EU militarisation. The uncomfortable truth is that without credible deterrent force, there will be no meaningful diplomacy – only diktat.
Supporting sanctions and humanitarian aid is necessary. It is not sufficient. Humanitarian assistance rebuilds what bombs have destroyed; it does not prevent the next barrage. Reconstruction funding is vital; it cannot substitute for air defences. If we truly believe Ukraine has the right to self-defence under international law, then we must accept the material implications of that principle.
The lesson of history is not that more weapons are always the answer. It is that aggressors rarely concede at the negotiating table what they are winning on the battlefield. A just peace requires that Ukraine be able to defend its sovereignty not only in theory, but in fact.
If we genuinely seek a “just and durable conclusion that allows the people of Ukraine to live in security and peace”, then we must be honest: such a conclusion will not emerge from rhetorical balance or procedural caution. It will emerge only when Russia understands that it cannot prevail through force.
Anything less risks mistaking hope for strategy – and asking Ukrainians to pay the price. – Yours, etc,
EOGHAN CAFFREY,
Terenure,
Dublin 6W.
