The importance of Europe in curbing Russia's might | Letters

"Since the late 1940s, responsibility for deterrence has always lain with the Pentagon and has succeeded in keeping the peace, though at times a very fragile version of it. The recent US statement on defence makes it clear that Europe is no longer seen as a priority by the Trump administration, the danger now being that doubt is crucially being raised as to the credibility of Nato's deterrent."

"Without certainty of a reaction in kind, Russia, under its ambitious and risk-taking president, might be tempted to chance its arm in what almost looks like a ceding of Europe by the US into a Russian sphere of influence. If Vladimir Putin triumphs in Ukraine, the future of the Baltic states will probably move up Putin's agenda and after that, who knows?"

"The suggestion by Timothy Garton Ash that Belgium is acting egotistically in resisting the seizure of Russian assets is somewhat harsh. The potential financial liability in the unlikely event of an adverse international legal ruling at some future date would virtually bankrupt the country. Surely it is the resistance of the other EU countries in sharing this liability that is the problem."

Responsibility for nuclear deterrence has rested with the Pentagon since the late 1940s and has largely kept the peace, albeit sometimes precariously. A recent US defence statement signals that Europe is no longer a US priority, raising doubts about NATO's deterrent credibility. Without assured allied response, an ambitious, risk-taking Russia might test limits and expand influence, threatening Ukraine and the Baltic states. Historical failure to confront existential threats in the 1930s serves as a warning. Europe must mobilize its superior economic and military resources to secure Ukraine and preserve continental stability. Concerns about seizing Russian assets stem from potential legal liabilities that could bankrupt a small state unless liability is shared.

Read at www.theguardian.com