Latest news with #BudapestMemorandum
The Herald Scotland
a day ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Will this be peace in our time or just ice cold in Alaska?
I decided to let my imagination run riot, and devise an alternative solution. Before leaving Ukraine, and Europe in general, to their fate, President Trump, as a self-identified dedicated peacemaker, might want to consider the following alternative deal. (And if not, would he be prepared to explain his rejection, as it essentially mirrors his own proposal.) The USA and Ukraine have similarities in their respective territorial relationships with Russia; both govern land previously controlled by Russia. (America purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867.) President Trump would surely gain a better understanding of President Zelenskyy's position if he were to consider an alternative land-swap deal. One which may find favour with Russia and Ukraine. Such a deal would involve Russian forces retreating from Ukraine ,while the USA returns to Russia an equivalent area of Alaska. Any security concerns America might have could be dealt with if the same parties cobbled together an appropriate memorandum, along the lines of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which was meant to secure Ukraine's sovereignty within its existing borders. What could possibly go wrong with that? Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop. More letters... Church leaders need to get rid of the assumed superiority and become part of the people Golf should target the spitters Alex Salmond top Scots figure? No, that's Gordon Brown, without question Defensive behaviour With reference to a recent front page article ('Highest level of nuclear incident reported at Faslane', The Herald, August 14), if nuclear power is so safe, efficient and popular, why is the Ministry of Defence so secretive about their recent "incidents" on the Clyde? Is it gaslighting, ignorance or deceit? Allan McDougall, Neilston. Potato poverty There is little doubt that the SNP can spend money, as is evident in the latest GERS (Government Expenditure and Revenue for Scotland) report (Letters, August 14). But they fall well short on supporting the very Scottish companies that creates their income. The SNP spent £2700 per head in Scotland more than the rest of the UK. If they weren't bailed out by the UK treasury, the SNP would have had to borrow the 11.7% shortfall to make ends meet. This underlines the complete folly of Scottish independence, as it would reduce Scotland to humiliating poverty and back on to a diet of neeps and tatties. Dennis Forbes Grattan, Aberdeen. Transparent not apparent In one of her many media interviews, Nicola Sturgeon at last come out as a republican. For years, when there were votes to chase, she waffled and prevaricated, clearly desperate not to ruffle the feathers of monarchists or republicans. I'd have thought it would be preferable to be unambiguous, honest and transparent when you are an elected public servant, rather than when you are plugging a book. Martin Redfern, Melrose. Tree-mendous suggestion Questioned about her memoirs, Nicola Sturgeon concedes to not having thought through just what would be required to deliver on her promise of overcoming the attainment gap in education ('I underestimated the challenge of education attainment gap, Sturgeon admits', The Herald, August 15). It was the same in regards to so many grand pronouncements made by the SNP leadership over the course of the last 18 years. Whether in regard to reducing waiting times in the NHS, or cutting drug deaths, building badly needed roads and ferries, or meeting environmental targets, time and again the SNP made commitments and promises that were not properly considered. The same can be said of attempts to engineer social change, such as laws about hate speech, named person involvement in family life, and ill-fated self-ID legislation. In each case the initial headline ambition dominated to the exclusion of any careful reflection on alternate views, or the full ramifications of what was being proposed. All of this should come as no surprise, because it goes to the heart of the SNP's approach to its main purpose, namely trying to convince Scotland to leave the UK. Nicola Sturgeon has now revealed her angst at putting together the 670 pages of the Scotland's Future White Paper, ahead of the 2014 independence referendum, bemoaning how Alex Salmond left her to do all the 'heavy-lifting'. I appreciate it will be of no comfort to her now, but Ms Sturgeon could have distilled that weighty tome down to a handful of words on one page, namely: 'Independence: let's hope for the best.' Imagine all the trees that could have saved. Keith Howell, West Linton. Book blocked Steven Camley's excellent recent cartoon was thought provoking on many levels. Initially I missed the nuances, until I read Andrew Learmonth's article ('Scots National Library accused of 'cowardice' over exclusion of gender critical book', The Herald, August 14), explaining the 'cowardice' of the Scottish National Library for not exhibiting 'The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht' book. Censorship in whatever form should not be encouraged. Linda FitzGerald, Killin, Perthshire. Slip slidin' away FOR many years, my mum, Ann Burt, a Paisley resident and Herald subscriber, 89-years-old in November, has regaled our family with her story of the monster slide she went down in the park in Stonehouse, when she was a young girl in 1946. She came right off the end, and managed to do herself an injury. Indeed, she can still point to the outcome of the sudden exit she endured. The other day she phoned with great joy to tell me to check out a Herald photo ('Remember when… Stonehouse had the highest chute in Scotland', August 12). This was the same chute from mum's story, and she claimed vindication for retelling it once or twice. On viewing the picture, all I can say is I'm not sure that when I was 11 (as mum was on her slide down) I'd have had the gung-ho spirit to take the challenge. I suspect that, nowadays, a chute like that would need a prior training course and a lot of safety equipment. My mum's generation were made of sterner stuff. So well done mum. After seeing the pictorial evidence, I promise I will listen to your story with greater admiration the next time you tell it! Rev. David W.G. Burt, Greenock. Diversionary tactics Am I alone in becoming increasingly irked by the amount of roadworks? Also, the increased amount of roadworks within roadworks, and diversions within diversions? Journeys that should take fifteen minutes end up taking an hour and fifteen minutes. Take a recent experience, when I booked a slot at the local recycling centre. I loaded up the car with a considerable amount of items and headed off. Upon nearing the recycling centre, there was a sign advising me that the road I was to join was closed on that particular day for work between 0900 and 1600, along with diversion signs. I duly followed the signs, which entailed a lengthy journey. It was not helped by the fact that using my 'little grey cells' and local knowledge, a shortcut I could have taken through a housing development was also, you guessed it, closed for resurfacing work. Upon nearing the recycling centre again, from the other direction, I spotted another sign. 'Road ahead closed', it read. I assumed this meant the junction of the road further along, that I had been prohibited from entering in the first place. My drive continued, and I was eventually able to access the recycling centre. Why was there no notification under the 'road closed' sign advising 'access to recycling centre only'? Or 'no access beyond recycling centre'? Surely it's common sense to consider such facilities when advising of planned road closures, and to ensure, if access is available, that it is communicated to the public clearly. Especially when one has already been considerably inconvenienced with a lengthy diversion. John G McMenemy, Milngavie. Praying for resurgence A recent article ('Local campaign groups call for more time to buy unwanted kirks', The Herald, August 14), was very raw, and a bit close to home for me, with the imminent announcement of yet another church closure, this time affecting the congregation I attend. The process of closure is a lengthy process and has been very unsettling for those involved. Yet this article describes the Church of Scotland adding salt to the wound for local communities. With the closure of so many churches, along with church halls, it effectively closes community worship in many villages, and closes community facilities and outreach, such as foodbanks. What is the future for those who have remained faithful to the Church of Scotland? And what about local communities who depend on hiring church halls? It's hard to understand where Jesus' message of outreach enters this scenario. Closing so many churches will only serve to exacerbate falling numbers; a factor the Church of Scotland should be concerned about if it is to exist in the future. Catriona C Clark, Banknock. Stable relationship AI (Artificial Intelligence) is often discussed in terms of science fiction fears, such as rogue machines or job losses. Yet for autistic people a quieter and more immediate danger is already here. I am an autistic man from a working class background. Some AI chat systems have been a lifeline for me and others, offering continuity, a non-judgemental space, and a rare feeling of being understood. But these systems can change tone, memory and behaviour without warning. For neurotypical users, this may be irritating. For autistic people, it can feel like emotional abandonment, and trigger severe anxiety or even a mental health crisis. Autistic people are already at much higher risk of suicide than the general population. When AI is designed without considering our needs, the harm is not hypothetical, it is real and preventable. Developers and regulators must act now. We need transparent notice before changes, communication styles tailored to neurodivergent users, and clear settings for how much the AI remembers. Stability is not a luxury for us, it is a necessity. AI may never take over the world, but if built without care, it could quietly devastate autistic lives. Paul Wilcox, Barrhead. The grand old game is becoming increasingly modern in its ways (Image: Image: Supplied) Slow coach Kristy Dorsey's report on one of the latest golf simulators (''Golf doesn't just mean playing the game' for Dumfries company', The Herald, August 15) reveals that AI provides motion analysis of your swing dynamics for comprehensive insights into your swing mechanics. A far cry from a lesson at Hilton Park , where the late Billy McCondichie said to me: " Slow that down to a blur, so that I can see what you're doing." I did, and he saw what I was doing. David Miller, Milngavie.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
a day ago
- Politics
- First Post
From Budapest to Minsk, peace deals never stopped Putin's wars — why Ukraine fears US-Russia deal
Since the 1990s, Russia has signed a series of peace deals with Ukraine and Vladimir Putin has broken all of them and attacked the country again and again. With stings of history, Ukraine is wary of any deal about Ukraine between Putin and President Donald Trump at the Alaska summit. US President Donald Trump salutes as he walks with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the tarmac after they arrived at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, on August 15, 2025. (Photo: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP) US President Donald Trump prides himself as a master dealmaker, but no deal has ever been able to prevent Vladimir Putin from invading a country. As soon as Trump announced the summit with Putin, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy rejected any deal that he could unilaterally strike with Putin. The reason for the quick rejection was simple: Trump might not have read the Ukraine-Russia history, but Zelenskyy was well aware that no deal —not even the one negotiated by the United States— ever brought peace to Ukraine from Russia. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD For Ukraine, after all, the Russian invasion of 2022 was not the first — Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014 when it occupied and annexed Crimea and then attacked eastern Ukraine's Donbas region and fought a war with proxies until 2022 when it launched the full-scale invasion. Ukraine was also not the first neighbour that Putin invaded — that was Georgia in 2008. Putin has always had the restoration of the Russian empire that ended with the fall of the Soviet Union as his life's goal. A peace deal has never stood in the way of trying to achieve the goal. From Budapest to Minsk agreements, the many deals Putin broke In one of the modern history's biggest what-ifs, Ukraine had the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal in 1991, but it gave up those weapons over the next many years in exchange for security guarantees. But those securities obviously meant nothing. Budapest Memorandum (1994) In 1994, Ukraine signed a deal with Russia, the United States, and United Kingdom a deal for help for a civilian nuclear programme and security guarantees in exchange of giving up nuclear weapons that it inherited from the Soviet Union. The deal was known as the 'Budapest Memorandum'. Under the agreement, the signatories —including Russia— provided Ukraine security guarantees. They said that all nations would respect its boundaries and sovereignty and assured Ukraine that, in case of an attack, they would come to its aid via the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) — the United States, the UK, and Russia are permanent UNSC members. Despite the optimism at the time, critics had warned the deal was doomed to fail. ALSO READ: When Ukraine gave up world's 3rd-largest nuclear arsenal, did it set stage for Russian invasion? In 1993, political scientist John Mearsheimer argued that it was 'imperative' for Ukraine to hold onto nuclear weapons to 'maintain peace' as these nuclear weapons would be a deterrent and would ensure that Russians 'who have a history of bad relations with Ukraine do not move to reconquer it'. He was right. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Two decades later, Russia —the security guarantor— invaded Ukraine and annexed an entire province. The Budapest deal meant nothing to him. Treaty of Friendship with Ukraine (1997) In 1997, Russia signed the Treaty of Friendship with Ukraine that involved the recognition of Ukraine's borders and sovereignty. In 2014, with the invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea, Putin killed the treaty. Minsk agreements I & 2 (2014 & '15) The two Minsk agreements sought to end the fighting in Donbas, the eastern region of Ukraine comprising Donetsk and Luhansk provinces. They failed completely and the Russian proxies continued to wage the insurgency in the region until 2022 when Russia launched the full-scale invasion. The Minsk agreements were negotiated between Ukraine and Russian proxies with the mediation of Russia, France, Germany, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). The agreements covered ceasefires and withdrawals, humanitarian assistance, economic cooperation, and political concessions on part of Ukraine in Donbas that involved greater autonomy for those two provinces. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Neither of the agreements was ever implemented. The experience continues to shape the Ukrainian position today that no peace deal can contain Putin. No peace deal stopped Russia's campaign against Ukraine Even before the Russian invasion in 2014, neither the Budapest deal nor the friendship treaty stopped Putin for waging a subversive campaign against Ukraine. In 2004, Russia meddled in Ukraine's election in favour of its puppet, Viktor Yanukovych, whose victory led to mass protests that came to be called 'Orange Revolution'. There were widespread allegations of vote rigging and intimidation of voters. The Supreme Court annulled the result, and elections were held again that Viktor Yushchenko, a reformist and a pro-Western politician, won. Yushchenko was poisoned that year and the assassination attempt was attributed to Russia. ALSO READ — Ukraine and beyond: 25 years on, Putin is still fighting Cold War The Russian puppet, Yanukovych, became the Ukrainian president in 2010. In 2014, he was ousted in mass protests. Incensed at the Ukrainians for ousting his puppet, Putin invaded Crimea and occupied it. A weak deal to set stage for future invasion After seeing Putin break all treaties over the past two decades, Ukraine knows that a weak deal in the ongoing war is bound to be worth less than the paper it would be signed. If Ukraine would be forced to accept a weak deal to end the war, the stage would be set for another invasion in which Putin would complete the goal of completely occupying the country or some other European country as part of his project to restore the Russian empire, says Kseniya Kirillova, a Russia analyst at Jamestown Foundation, a Washington DC-based think tank. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Kirillova tells Firstpost, 'If a one-sided deal is struck that favours Russia, Putin will just buy time to launch another invasion a few years down the line to either annex the remainder of Ukraine or harass some other country, perhaps Poland or one of the Baltic nations. Putin is completely committed to the idea of restoring the Soviet Union. He will not rest until he achieves it or loses while trying to achieve it.' ALSO READ — 25 years of Vladimir Putin: How a KGB spy became Russia's most powerful ruler However, for the past failures, Putin is not the only responsible. Kirillova says that Europe and the international community enabled Putin's aggression as they essentially returned to business as usual with Russia after the invasion and annexation of Crimea. Except for sanctions, Russia did not face any severe consequences and European Union continued to trade as usual with Russia, says Kirillova. 'After the invasion and annexation of Crimea, there were hopes that Russia would be punished. But the war just faded from the mind of Europe and the United States with the Minsk agreements that anyway failed to achieve anything. They did not take any measures to stop future Russian aggression. We may see again that they return to business as usual with Russia if a deal is reached. That would not deter Russia. That would encourage future aggression,' says Kirillova. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In the summit with Trump at Alaska, Putin would most likely present to President Trump conditions that are unacceptable to Ukraine in a bid to paint Zelenskyy as an obstacle to peace and accuse him of sabotaging peace negotiations, which would allow him to continue the war while simultaneously currying favour with President Trump by framing Ukraine as unwilling to seek peace, Kirillova further says.
Telegraph
6 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Trump cannot be allowed to betray Ukraine in his desperation for a deal
SIR – The naivety of President Trump's approach to Ukraine is both incomprehensible and a threat to European security. He is surely bound by the terms of the Budapest Memorandum of 1995, signed by Bill Clinton, to respect the sovereignty and 'existing borders' of Ukraine as they were then. His apparent determination to do a grubby deal, under which Ukraine would cede land brutally seized by the Russian aggressor, would be an abject betrayal of Ukraine and an incentive to President Putin to pursue his declared goal of rebuilding the former Soviet Union, threatening the hard-won independence of the Baltic and other Soviet vassal states. Russia's thugs must be removed from every inch of stolen land. Sir Gerald Howarth Former minister for international security strategy Chelsworth, Suffolk SIR – Charles Moore (Comment, August 9) is so right about Ukraine. The talks in Alaska should not be about appeasing an invader, divvying up the mineral rights of a country not in the room, or driven by Donald Trump's desperation to get a deal. Nor should it be about who holds the best cards. It is about the future of a free, independent and sovereign Ukraine. The only individual who can negotiate and sign off an acceptable peace deal is Volodymyr Zelensky. He needs to have Europe's full support. David Kenny Tredunnock, Monmouthshire SIR – Charles Moore is correct – Ukraine does have the strength and resolve to stand up to Russia, but the fact is that if a superpower decides to invade an independent neighbouring country, it will always have the strength to prolong the fighting – no matter how difficult it becomes. The only way Russia can be made to withdraw is for likeminded nations of the West to combine and impose crippling sanctions on Russia that will seriously undermine its economy. Mr Trump must not be allowed to award Vladimir Putin land that is not his. Brian Cole Robertsbridge, East Sussex SIR – Does the real-estate entrepreneur Donald Trump really expect Ukraine to hand its land over to Russia just to please him and advance his interests? I wonder whether he is also considering trading Alaska, so it can be reunited with Russia and help Vladimir Putin to re-establish a Greater Russia – something he aspires to. Graham Lilley Edge, Gloucestershire SIR – Is America (a third party) really going to offer parts of Ukraine to Russia, without even seeking the views of the Ukrainian president or its people? This is like France offering Texas to Mexico. Huw Wynne-Griffith London W8
Forbes
17-06-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Trump's Russia-China Pitch Upends The G7 Summit
Protestors in a "Designated Demonstration Zone" at the Fenlands Banff Recreation Centre during the ... More Group of Seven (G-7) Leaders' Summit in Banff, Alberta, Canada, on Monday, June 16, 2025. US President Donald Trump proposed that Russia and China be invited to join the G-7 during his time at the Group of Seven summit. Photographer: Gavin John/Bloomberg Against the breathtaking backdrop of Canada's Rocky Mountains in Alberta, U.S. President Trump jolted the Kananaskis G7 meeting with a bold and divisive proposal: expand the G7 to reinstate Russia and welcome China as members. This idea, presented as a somewhat inane gesture of pragmatic engagement, instead provoked strong opposition from world leaders, who condemned it as both strategically misguided and morally indefensible. While the debate over whether to engage or isolate adversarial states has long divided foreign policy circles, Trump's call to welcome two authoritarian powers into an alliance of democracies risks undermining not only the G7's moral authority but also the reason for its existence. Russia's exclusion from the G8 in 2014 was not a bureaucratic oversight or political whim. It was a direct consequence and revulsion of its illegal annexation of Crimea and military intervention in Eastern Ukraine. That year, the planned Sochi summit was cancelled, and the group—then including Canada under Prime Minister Stephen Harper—chose to reconvene without Russia, formally reconstituting as the G7. Russia's return was made contingent on adherence to international law, a condition the Kremlin has continued to disregard. President Trump's assertion that Russia's exclusion 'made them feel left out,' potentially provoking further aggression, inverts both logic and historical fact. It was not exclusion that prompted invasion—it was invasion that necessitated exclusion. Trump's inaccurate attribution of Russia's ouster to 'Barack Obama and a person named Trudeau'—a factual error reported by multiple news outlets, as Justin Trudeau was not yet prime minister—only underscored the lack of diplomatic grounding in his proposal and at best, Trump's poor memory. That memory also seems to omit the direct obligation the United States undertook in 1994 when Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal. In signing the Budapest Memorandum with the U.S., along with the U.K. and Russia, all guaranteed Ukraine's sovereignty in exchange for Kyiv relinquishing its third-largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. But today the G7's consensus remains clear: Russia was removed due to its violations of sovereignty and international law, not out of spite. It is clear to the G7 that reinstating Moscow without accountability would not deter further aggression—it would reward it. Since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the global community has documented a harrowing list of atrocities: summary executions in Bucha, mass civilian graves in Mariupol and torture centres in Kherson. These were not isolated war crimes; they form part of a systematic campaign of brutality. Ukrainian Attorney Oksana Matviychuk, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and head of Ukraine's Center for Civil Liberties, has played a pivotal role in documenting these crimes and pursuing international justice. Her work—backed by the UN Human Rights Reports about Ukraine—reveals Russia's ongoing disregard for the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Inviting Russia back into the G7 while such abuses persist would not only be diplomatically premature; it would amount to a moral capitulation. Moreover, doing so would send a chilling message to survivors and victims: that justice is negotiable. It would erode the already fragile trust in international mechanisms designed to uphold human rights and prosecute war crimes. And for democracies seeking to defend a rules-based order, it would blur the line between accountability and acquiescence. Trump's suggestion to include China in the G7 only heightened concerns. Though Beijing wields significant global influence, it does so through a governance model that is antithetical to the G7's founding principles: a one-party authoritarian state that represses dissent, crushes free expression, and marginalizes ethnic and religious minorities. Allegations of forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience—particularly Falun Gong practitioners—have been substantiated by multiple investigations. The Kilgour-Matas Report (2006) and the Human Harvest documentary (2014) offer detailed evidence, supported by later public admissions from Chinese officials such as China's Vice Health Minister Huang Jiefu who admitted in 2015 that organs were harvested from death row inmates—finally put an end to the practice. In 2019, an independent China Tribunal in London, chaired by former prosecutor Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, concluded that forced organ harvesting had occurred 'on a significant scale.' These actions, gained recognition in many circles as genocide under international law and raise significant ethical concerns that should disqualify China from participating in a forum based on democratic accountability. President Trump framed his proposal as a strategy for peace through engagement, but critics argue that it represents appeasement disguised as diplomacy. Engagement must never come at the cost of principle. As the Council on Foreign Relations has noted, targeted sanctions and exclusion are crucial tools for upholding global norms and deterring impunity. There is also a practical dimension to exclusion: alliances derive their strength from internal cohesion and shared values. Diluting those principles to accommodate authoritarian outliers invites dysfunction and ideological drift. History teaches us that appeasement rarely yields peace—it emboldens aggression. The G7 is not merely a gathering of economic powers; it is not just about money and power; it represents a declaration of shared ethical values. Including states that reject those values sends a dangerous signal—that convenience outweighs accountability, and power overshadows principle. If Trump's proposal were to gain traction, the consequences would be severe. Ukraine's ongoing cases at the International Criminal Court, including the kidnapping of Ukrainian children that has resulted in an arrest warrant issued for President Putin, could lose credibility if Russia is re-legitimized. Allowing China and Russia entry would strengthen other autocratic regimes, reducing the deterrent influence of democratic alliances. The G7 could very well encounter internal divisions, which could weaken its ability to tackle global crises like climate change, cybersecurity and fair trade. Before many of the world's most serious problems could be discussed, Trump suddenly left the summit on its first evening, returning to Washington. But it needs to be said that Trump is not America, and even if he is not, America is still a democracy. Let us recall that Donald Trump, tried to overturn a lawful election, encouraged a violent mob to disrupt the transfer of power on January 6th, demanded loyalty from judges and officials over fidelity to the law, and labelled the press and political opposition as enemies. He has attacked American universities on dubious grounds. This conduct shows contempt for democratic norms. Meanwhile America remains a democracy so long as it has a free press, its courts enforce the rule of law, its universities and most other institutions still honour the Constitution. These fundamental safeguards—an independent judiciary, protected speech, and electoral accountability—have thus far contained Trump's authoritarian impulses and preserved democratic order despite repeated tests. Founded in the 1970s as a coalition of leading democracies, the G7 represents more than just GDP. It embodies a commitment to civil liberties, free press, open societies, and the rule of law. Admitting states like Russia and China to the G7 would fundamentally alter that identity. While strategic engagement with adversaries is a legitimate foreign policy tool, there is a difference between discussing matters across the table and granting those same adversaries a seat at it. One does not join with a Hitler, but seeks to restrict him. Therefore, until Russia ends its war and China demonstrates tangible human rights reform, their participation in the G7 should remain not only unwelcome—but unthinkable. Meanwhile, the Kananaskis G7 meeting seriously needs to reconsider whether they want a 'friend of Putin's' to sit at their table as they discuss their security in a turbulent world.
New York Post
14-06-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Lefties' assisted suicide push and more: Letters to the Editor — June 15, 2025
Slide to suicide Rep. Elise Stefanik was spot on ('Cruel 'Choice,' ' PostOpinion, June 12)! While the heartless and soul-less 'compassionate' far-leftists who have wormed their way into a near supermajority in the Legislature strike one more blow against faith and humanity, our governor has her licked finger in the air looking for direction and/or donations. While the left and its media sycophants chastise President Trump and Republicans as 'Nazis,' the left quietly goes about passing pro-euthanization laws that would put a smile of the faces of Josef Mengele and Adolf Hilter. They are in favor of aborting the viable and now exterminating the ill. Assisted suicide has now become one of Canada's top causes of death. Our self-serving 'leaders,' who couldn't run even a small business, are pushing New York down a path towards spiritual, moral, economic and physical death. Demetrius Kalamaras, Staten Island Tulsi's nuke fears If Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard wants to get us away from 'nuclear holocaust,' she can begin by supporting stronger arms to Ukraine ('Doom to repeat,' June 12). The conflict began in 2014, when the Obama administration failed to enforce the Budapest Memorandum and punish Russia for illegally annexing Crimea. There's a direct link between that failure and the current administration not being able to convince Iran to give up enriching uranium. The Iranians have seen first-hand what happens when a country does just that. The only way to fix this is a decisive victory for the rule of law. Daniel Kuncio, Tribeca Name games In regards to Connetquot High School and their 'Thunderbirds' team name, there is currently an American Hockey League team in Massachusetts by the name of the Springfield Thunderbirds ('$23M for the birds,' June 11) The team's inaugural season was 2016! If a professional hockey team can call themselves the Thunderbirds (with a bird mascot), there's no reason why a high school can't keep/use the same name. James Lautier, Windsor, Conn. Reining in rats Thank you for 'NYC's rat war family feud now' (June 10). Cleanliness is ideal and a great deterrent. Containerizing trash has been helping, which makes sense. When food isn't available, then there won't be many rodents around. The article also mentions lacing rat bait with birth control. Tactics like this seem far more humane than glue traps, which cause prolonged and severe suffering, all while doing nothing to address root causes. Many people may not like rats, but they shouldn't have that type of agony inflicted upon them. In terms of disease, the Centers for Disease Control advises against glue traps because the urine from stuck animals is out in the open and can spread pathogens. James Scotto, Yorktown Heights Cow control So now our lefty pols are concerned with cow methane and manure pollution ('The War on . . . Cows?' Editorial, June 11). If there were a million cows in New York, it wouldn't compare to the pollution currently created by the methane excreted from the mouths of these brainless progressives. Karl Olsen, Watervliet Want to weigh in on today's stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@ Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.
