The threat of nuclear war won’t deter delusional autocrats like Putin

For all of my 70 years, we have been sold the line that having a nuclear deterrent is the way of securing world peace; that the threat of mutual assured destruction (MAD) would be enough to prevent anyone from deploying a nuclear weapon.

The war in Ukraine has shown how wrong we were. The possession of a nuclear arsenal allows amoral aggressors to use conventional weapons – including chemical ones – to obliterate innocent people while the world watches and does not intervene for fear of the nuclear nightmare that may ensue.

Let’s not forget that Putin has been testing the west’s capacity to respond for years – with incursions in Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, Syria and Salisbury – and been emboldened every time we backed off, granting him the freedom to invade Ukraine.

Having got so far without meeting meaningful resistance, he will know that if he is under pressure, the use of nuclear weapons is something he could deploy before anyone stays his hand.

The problem with MAD is that it assumes that those who have the power to use nuclear weapons are rational and sane human beings that value human life.

History tells us otherwise; that power-crazed, fundamentalist dictators will rise to positions of supreme power and that we should act uncompromisingly against them before their power and influence takes us all to the edge of annihilation. One hopes it’s not too late to learn but our capacity for self-delusion does not give much cause for hope.

Graham Powell

Cirencester

Putin justifies his invasion of Ukraine on the spurious grounds of seeking to liberate its people from a fascist government that’s a threat to Russia.

He might like to reflect on the words of another Russian, Leo Tolstoy, from his book What Then Must We Do?

They are: “I sit on a man’s back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means – except by getting off his back.”

Roger Hinds

Surrey

London homeowners who have been burgled would have been so encouraged by the heartening sight of 10 police vans and cars and over 30 officers rushing to respond to the illegal occupation of oligarch Oleg Deripaska’s mansion in Belgravia yesterday.

I would, however, guess that victims of housebreaking – who have probably waited in vain for a swift response from the police – would more likely have been surprised and somewhat miffed to see Dame Cressida’s finest rushing to the rescue with such enthusiasm, when a Russian oligarch was the victim.

Patrick Moore

Norwich

Seeing the kind and warm welcome given to exhausted Ukrainian refugees at Dublin airport, I felt utterly mortified.

We on the other side of the Irish Sea have been humiliated by our horrible government in the eyes of the world. I hope the world realises the British people are not any less moved by the Ukrainians’ plight than anyone else, and are anxious to help and welcome them in their desperate trouble.

Michael Gove can posture angrily and display false rage about claims of British callousness as much as he likes, but as we are not cold-hearted, neither are we stupid – and it is the government of which he is a member that is callous, incompetent and in hoc to their hard-right contingent. They have shamed us.

Penny Little

Oxfordshire

There are, seemingly, an ever-expanding number of “oligarchs” but, because of his profile and connections with the all-consuming national game of football, much of the focus is on Roman Abramovich and, quite rightly by association (no pun intended), Chelsea FC.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

This was all talked about when he was allowed to buy Chelsea way back when, but brushed under the carpet because of the total thrall of money, wherever it comes from and however it was made.

Today, I see stories about the corrupt nature that some of this money may have been made from (like it was never known until now!) including the “cheap” purchase of oil companies, as the USSR disintegrated, for millions which were then sold back to the state for billions.

The intimation that this was elaborate fraud stands, but I wonder where the millions came from to make the original purchases to eventually make the billions?

I was one of those, 19 years ago, who was queasy and wondering about this money. Initial thoughts then were: this is a Russian with Russian money, so why didn’t he use his largesse on a Russian football club?

Apparently, he investigated the “purchase” of other football clubs before Chelsea such as Barcelona and Real Madrid, but those clubs are owned by the fans, so it wasn’t ever a goer.

Undoubtedly, his period at Chelsea has brought enormous success and that is great for the supporters, but it has come at a price for English football. Overall inflation for a start but the opening of the doors to other dubious ownership “models” – Saudi Arabia and UAE (currently devastating Yemen) – and that’s only two. Lots of big money is dodgy and, it seems it’s all welcome in the UK.

John Moughton

Manningtree, Essex

I am pleased to see that the UK is finally doing more to help the Ukrainian people.

It’s a disgrace what is happening there, and I wish I could become a host but I only have a small house and don’t have the room. I applaud the Ukraine people – the fighting spirit they have shown is a lesson to us all.

Annette Langley

Address supplied