Europe can’t keep ignoring Putin’s nuclear threats

President Vladimir Putin’s latest reference to the potential use of nuclear weapons is variously described by Western pundits as “sabre rattling” or “playing to his domestic audience”. But a series of recent statements by influential people ought to give pause for thought.

President Macron recently openly discussed the prospect of sending Nato troops into Ukrainian territory and leaked German defence documents admitted the presence already of UK troops on the ground in Ukraine. Meanwhile, UK defence chiefs have warned repeatedly that the British army is not capable of conducting a conventional land war in central Europe.

European countries overall are sending less than promised to Nato chiefs, provoking the possible next US president to suggest Russia is free to attack countries not paying their dues to the Nato club. Leaders have warned about escalation and the risk of miscalculation while reassuring themselves that all-out nuclear war is impossible.

According to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Russia has an arsenal of about 2,000 small tactical battlefield nuclear weapons, each with a capacity of up to 300 kilotons – or 20 times the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in the Second World War. The Federation of American Scientists estimates that the USA has 100 such weapons deployed across five European countries.

So the scene is set not for all-out planet-destroying nuclear war, but for localised use of tactical nuclear weapons with the capacity to destroy major urban centres across Europe and kill hundreds of millions of people.

Steven Walker

Essex

It is commendable of the government to move so swiftly to prevent future donations by individuals such as Frank Hester to organisations such as the Conservative Party. The new definition of extremism appears to meet the issue head-on, addressing “groups or individuals deemed to promote an ideology based on intolerance, hatred, or violence”. Surely given that this is such a key point in the Tory culture wars, Hester will soon face the consequences. Right?

Phil Whitney

Cromford

Let me get this straight: the government defines extremism as anyone who undermines the democracy of the UK. Surely that would include anyone who seeks to make it difficult and dangerous to take part in a peaceful protest? I must be missing something...

Jane Penson

Chalfont St Giles

While I agree with Kiloran Murrell’s recent letter to The Independent about the absurd interest in the Princess of Wales, I would go further. We see time and again that the royal family are treated like animals in a zoo. It is time to abolish an institution that reflects no credit on anyone. Let them retire to their estates and get on with their lives.

For all that the late Queen was an exceptional woman who did a remarkable job, the fact remains that the UK is in a far worse state now than it was in 1952. Monarchy is no panacea.

Joanna Pallister

Durham City