A chara, – Vladimir Putin ordered his tanks into Georgia in 2008 and annexed Crimea in 2014 and faced very limited consequences. He sanctioned the use of a deadly nerve agent on UK soil and yet the UK continued to allow Russian money to influence the UK economy and politics. The EU signed deals for Russian gas, ignoring the undemocratic, violent suppression of any opposition in Russia. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, we wanted to believe that Mr Putin shared some of our values or could be seduced by trade with Europe.
We were wrong. When somebody shows you who they are, believe them. – Is mise,
KAY CHALMERS,
Douglas,
:fill(white):background_color(white)/static.themebuilder.aws.arc.pub/irishtimes/1647534191476.png)
Cork.
Sir, – The decision by Mick Wallace and Clare Daly to vote against the European Parliament’s resolution condemning Russian aggression is perplexing. Their reason for voting against the resolution was to prevent “a retaliatory spiral of military escalation”.
It seems both MEPs aspire to the noble cause of “peace” and demilitarisation, but their enemy is the EU, not Mr Putin.
Tell that to the millions of Ukrainians who are trying to defend their country from a Russian military invasion. – Yours, etc,
MIKE MORAN,
Clontarf,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – Are Clare Daly and Mick Wallace to be included in the long list of the Kremlin’s “useful idiots”? They have taken an extraordinary attitude to recent events, such as Belarusian air piracy and the illegal invasion of Ukraine. Neither of them seems particularly noted for their acquaintance with 20th-century Eastern European history. Bedfellows of the extreme right in the European Parliament, they genuflect toward Moscow, motivated by a virulent anti-Americanism.
In our country, contrarians such as these are rightly free to express their opinions, however unsavoury they may be, a privilege no longer allowed to Russian society. – Yours, etc,
Dr PATRICK MALONE,
Killarney,
Co Kerry.
Sir, – The epochal tragedy that is unfolding in Ukraine following Russia’s invasion has swept from public consciousness the litany of atrocities perpetrated in recent decades, from Libya to Iraq and from Belgrade to Afghanistan. Political amnesia is a terrible thing. It means that questions that need to be asked, and answered, are stymied.
These questions include: was this war foreseeable, could it have been prevented, was there a moment – or two – when a different narrative, directed towards peace across greater Europe and a rapprochement of the interests behind the conflict, was within our grasp – and, if so, what happened.
If the answers are “Yes”, “Yes” and “Yes”, then we are indeed facing a “Munich Moment”. This atrocity, and all the other atrocities, are deflecting us from actually envisaging a still greater one – the possible use of nuclear weapons to prosecute a war. No one “wins” that kind of war, at least not with the present generation of nuclear-enabled weapons and the almost inconceivable devastation they threaten.
The “politics of the last atrocity” are always destructive. If we are to learn lessons, the only way back to peace is to reflect on these questions and to revisit, appallingly difficult as it may now be, the opportunities that have been missed – opportunities tragically denied to the lives wrenched from their families by this war. – Yours, etc,
RAY KINSELLA,
Ashford,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, – Whenever I hear the hackneyed phrase “first world problem”, I am reminded of JK Galbraith’s view that, in “the affluent society” no meaningful difference can be drawn between needs and wants. It’s an insightful point, one which challenges the classical economists’ world view where needs are the priority, with further desires tantamount to luxuries. And it also serves as a shorthand definition of a highly developed society – one in which the basics of life are largely met, and people can be as likely to worry about what to wear, or where to eat, as about being fed or clothed.
The sanctions now facing Russia ostensibly involve the imposition of an array of “first world problems”. They have lost the opportunity to host the Champions League final. They are unable to use the Swift banking system. Russian ballet and opera companies are having performances cancelled. Their athletes, and top sports stars, are excluded from international competition and they will not be permitted to enter the Eurovision Song Contest. Hollywood films will not be shown. Nike and Apple are limiting product sales. On the one hand, such responses to the invasion of a sovereign state seem utterly absurd. And yet, because it is now a relatively affluent country, these sanctions may place the Russian government under intense public pressure, as they take from ordinary citizens the joy of normal life. These are losses they may feel, as per Galbraith, almost as keenly as the loss of the basic provisions of life, or of the effects of currency devaluation.
Precisely because Russia has advanced so much in the last generation or so, these factors may, in synergy, apply significant pressure to their leadership. They may prompt a re-evaluation of the current, seemingly anachronistic form of crude attack. Were this to happen it would be an astonishing victory for modernity over antiquity, and for sophisticated thinkers over a despot, as well as a reminder of Galbraith’s prescience. – Yours, etc,
BRIAN O’BRIEN,
Kinsale,
Co Cork.
Sir, – There is a price to be paid for freedom, and while we are still free, we should stand with the other free nations of the West and join Nato, and not find ourselves like Moldova, wondering if and when the Russian jackboot will land on our necks. – Yours, etc,
TREVOR TROY,
Baile Átha Buí,
An Mhí.