SIR – Nick Timothy’s sobering article (Comment, March 17) poses no fewer than 30 questions about the Government’s approach to the Ukraine crisis, and how this relates to Britain’s future policies on defence and security.
Quite rightly, Mr Timothy concludes that “the casual ease with which our political leaders … are discussing decisions that could lead us to armed conflict should alarm us all”. Sir Keir Starmer has demonstrated strategic naivety – and the fact that ministers are already wavering over welfare reforms (report, March 17), following the first signs of dissent from within the Labour Party, suggests that his Cabinet is unlikely to be capable of the hard decisions involved in rearming the country to the required level.
Brigadier Rod Brummitt (retd)
Bournemouth, Dorset
SIR – Nick Timothy asks exactly the right questions about the political plan to commit British forces to a “coalition of the willing” in Ukraine. I have watched the Prime Minister when he has addressed the nation on this matter, and observed the barely suppressed irritation when he is asked for more details, at best dismissing them as an operational issue that military leaders will flesh out.
Yet rules of engagement are a political issue: clearly defining them is the responsibility of the Prime Minister. In this case, the most crucial ones relate to the circumstances in which British soldiers would engage Russian ones.
Sir James Dutton
Sherborne, Dorset
SIR – As discussions continue over ending the war in Ukraine (“Trump plans Ukraine ceasefire announcement after talks with Putin”, telegraph.co.uk, March 17), it needs to be restated that Russia’s unprovoked aggression should not be rewarded by “negotiations”. As a former history teacher, I recall that in neither 1918 nor 1945 was there any question of Germany having the right to discuss “terms” for the cessation of hostilities.
Andrew McLuskey
Ashford, Middlesex
SIR – When the Soviet Union collapsed, various attempts were made to ensure future peace, including the agreement designed to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty. Vladimir Putin has not honoured those, so why is he more likely to stick to any future agreements?
Jeremy Parr
Suckley, Worcestershire
SIR – I have visited the United States many times, and lived there for a period. With very few exceptions I found Americans to be decent and generous people, courteous and with a strong sense of right and wrong. I am unable to reconcile the Americans I knew with their current president.
Richard Hall FRCS
Egginton, Derbyshire
SIR – Nick Timothy’s sobering article (Comment, March 17) poses no fewer than 30 questions about the Government’s approach to the Ukraine crisis, and how this relates to Britain’s future policies on defence and security.
Quite rightly, Mr Timothy concludes that “the casual ease with which our political leaders … are discussing decisions that could lead us to armed conflict should alarm us all”. Sir Keir Starmer has demonstrated strategic naivety – and the fact that ministers are already wavering over welfare reforms (report, March 17), following the first signs of dissent from within the Labour Party, suggests that his Cabinet is unlikely to be capable of the hard decisions involved in rearming the country to the required level.
Brigadier Rod Brummitt (retd)
Bournemouth, Dorset
SIR – Nick Timothy asks exactly the right questions about the political plan to commit British forces to a “coalition of the willing” in Ukraine. I have watched the Prime Minister when he has addressed the nation on this matter, and observed the barely suppressed irritation when he is asked for more details, at best dismissing them as an operational issue that military leaders will flesh out.
Yet rules of engagement are a political issue: clearly defining them is the responsibility of the Prime Minister. In this case, the most crucial ones relate to the circumstances in which British soldiers would engage Russian ones.
Sir James Dutton
Sherborne, Dorset
SIR – As discussions continue over ending the war in Ukraine (“Trump plans Ukraine ceasefire announcement after talks with Putin”, telegraph.co.uk, March 17), it needs to be restated that Russia’s unprovoked aggression should not be rewarded by “negotiations”. As a former history teacher, I recall that in neither 1918 nor 1945 was there any question of Germany having the right to discuss “terms” for the cessation of hostilities.
Andrew McLuskey
Ashford, Middlesex
SIR – When the Soviet Union collapsed, various attempts were made to ensure future peace, including the agreement designed to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty. Vladimir Putin has not honoured those, so why is he more likely to stick to any future agreements?
Jeremy Parr
Suckley, Worcestershire
SIR – I have visited the United States many times, and lived there for a period. With very few exceptions I found Americans to be decent and generous people, courteous and with a strong sense of right and wrong. I am unable to reconcile the Americans I knew with their current president.
Richard Hall FRCS
Egginton, Derbyshire