Dear Editor,
I strongly agree with John Harris' view that "bellicose posturing on Ukraine is dangerous" (The Guardian, 20th March 2022, link below) but then, on The Guardian's front page, we learn about "Tank-busters / How British tech is helping Ukraine halt Russian attack".
This jars with me on several levels: First the "Tank-busters" headline is exactly the jingoism which John Harris criticises; second, surely those weapons will do little more than increase suffering, prolong the war and potentially lead to escalation; and third, that maybe our (prior) arming of the Ukrainians* was a contributing catalyst for the Russian action.
On this point, the "accepted wisdom" (also with The Guardian) seems to be that the war was "unprovoked". Here I would recommend reading John Mearsheimer's well-grounded article in The Economist (link below) which systematically maps the steps to war from this starting point: "The trouble over Ukraine actually started at NATOâs Bucharest summit in April 2008, when George W. Bushâs administration pushed the alliance to announce that Ukraine and Georgia 'will become members'. Russian leaders responded immediately with outrage ..."
So, yes, let's reduce the jingoism a little and, most importantly, switch from black-and-white positions to more in-depth analysis.
[Indeed, as Mr Mearsheimer mentions (regarding the war): "Understanding its root causes is essential if we are to prevent it from getting worse and, instead, to find a way to bring it to a close.]
Regards
