Europe mustn’t build its own house of dynamite | Letters

It is good to see Jonathan Freedland calling out the thuggery of the Trump administration (Donald Trump is pursuing regime change – in Europe, 12 December). To safeguard its security and values, Europe must act swiftly to prepare for a post‑Nato Europe. Most Europe-centric alternative proposals approach the issue from a traditional hard security perspective, not fully severing Nato ties but prioritising EU-led decision-making, often starting as a “Nato-plus” complement before evolving into a standalone entity.

Such thinking also generally proposes major increases in military spending, an EU-based command structure independent of the US, integrated European military capabilities, a shared European nuclear deterrent, and binding mutual defence commitments. However, recreating a European-led “house of dynamite” will simply compound existing insecurities. A radical departure from traditional power politics is needed, drawing inspiration from successful neutral states (Austria, Ireland and Switzerland) and human security frameworks pioneered by the UN and Nordic countries.

While challenging to implement, a compelling model for sustainable security without nuclear deterrence or offensive military capabilities could be developed. It would embrace a highly credible and transparent whole-society deterrence-by-denial and resilient-resistance approach, rather than a far less credible all-or-nothing threat of dominance and absolute mutual annihilation. This proposed European architecture is based upon ideas that human creativity, solidarity and moral courage can replace nuclear terror and offensive might. It is visionary, but not naive – grounded in proven concepts and successful neutral states. The question is: do European societies have the wisdom to choose long-term human security over short-term military superiority?
Dr Ian Davis
Director, Nato Watch

Jonathan Freedland writes that the Trump administration is seeking to break up the EU by supporting ultra-rightwing parties in European nations. This view seems to be correct. He also states that Vladimir Putin has long wished to weaken, if not destroy, the EU. Is that view also correct? Russia objects strongly to Ukraine joining Nato, a military alliance directed against it, but far less if at all to Ukraine joining the EU.

There is a dissident view of the Ukraine conflict put forward by reputed international relations experts such as Profs John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs, which seems to be denied coverage in mainstream UK media. Their view is that the Ukraine war is largely the consequence of the US project from the end of the cold war in 1991 to incorporate Ukraine in Nato, thus pushing it to Russia’s border.

The EU continues to pursue this goal even though the US seems now to have lost interest in it. It would surely be to the advantage of both the EU and Russia to re-establish constructive relations with one another, for which acceptance of a neutral Ukraine is surely the precondition. Wouldn’t it be a good idea for European governments to explore this possibility?
Prof Michael Rustin
University of East London

Jonathan Freedland’s article is a call to action that our government ignores at our national peril. The incompatibility of Keir Starmer’s position of sucking up to Donald Trump while also attempting to participate in a “coalition of the willing” that does not include the US is unsustainable, as is his position of continually talking of increasing defence expenditure in years’ time instead of now.

Parliament must put extreme pressure on Starmer to accept these realities and act on them now. It is essential that some sort of alliance of European nations prepared to support Ukraine and deal with Trump is formed. He should bargain his way into the European Defence Fund. Also, France and Germany are reintroducing forms of military service due to security concerns. We should be doing the same.
Jon Duke
Pocklington, York