Putin has destroyed peaceful relations between Russia and US

In urging the West not to fear Russia’s nuclear sabre-rattling, Henry Ergas (“Giving in to Putin’s blackmail won’t work”, 7/10) fails to draw an important distinction between the presidencies of Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin. Yeltsin and his US counterpart, president Bill Clinton, developed the closest diplomatic ties ever to exist between an American president and a Russian leader. But once Putin became president, he not only reversed Yeltsin’s legacy by resuming Russia’s nuclear targeting of US and European cities, he built the world’s most advanced missile-delivery systems, with the capability to evade missile defences and obliterate the West. So by concluding we must ensure “our fear of war does not prove to be the gravedigger of peace”, I remind Ergas that a nuclear war with Russia will prove to be the gravedigger of humanity.

Vincent Zankin, Rivett, ACT

The year 1994 was the year the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, the US and the UK sat side-by-side at a long table in Hungary to sign what is known as the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. The intent and purpose of the document was clear. Ukraine was to give up the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world. In exchange there would be a pledge from leaders Bill Clinton, Boris Yeltsin and John Major that they would respect the independence, sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine and “refrain from threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”. Adam Creighton (“Never corner an unstable opponent – words to live by”, 6/10) is suggesting the US walk away from its obligations and leave a practically helpless Ukraine to deal with a giant nuclear-backed war machine of Vladimir Putin and inform the world American security promises are worthless. It probably never occurred to reporters in Budapest to ask Clinton what his administration would do if Russia rolled in its tanks as it has done now, but I would like to hear his answer today.

George Jaworsky, Wollert, Vic

Energy realities

After 40 years and great cost, Synroc has not solved the global nuclear waste problem (Letters, 7/10). Anyone who reads the account on the World Nuclear Association’s website may come away feeling queasy about the nuclear waste process and dizzy at the cost. Australia is uniquely placed to avoid the nuclear trap. We have the capacity to generate and export several times the renewable energy that we need if we are smart enough. Previous chief scientist Alan Finkel, when launching the National Hydrogen Strategy, didn’t use the term “shipping sunshine” lightly.

Ray Peck, Hawthorn, Vic

Jason Thomas is spot-on when he says Vladimir Putin has exposed the West’s climate-activist religion as a security weakness (“Despot exploits West’s new religion to hide his frailties”, 7/10). Indeed Peta Credlin’s recent bullseye noted that a power system more focused on reducing emissions rather than making electricity reliable and affordable is akin to “one-sided economic disarmament”. And as Credlin’s former boss, Tony Abbott, has said all along, it’s the climate-change policies that are doing harm. An Operation Sovereign Energy campaign is needed, where exiting the unelected UN’s net-zero program is the No.1 priority. Energy security recovered, the lights stay on, the bills go down and the keys to the Lodge are returned at the next election. What is not to like, Liberal HQ?

Mandy Macmillan, Singleton, NSW

Taxing thought

The dilemma facing the government over the 2024 tax cuts essentially goes to the heart of ethics in politics (“Stage three tax cuts vital to middle-income earners”, 7/10). Budgetary considerations may tempt scrapping or watering down those cuts, particularly for higher-income earners, whereas Labor’s previous support for the cuts makes dropping them politically difficult. Keeping election promises is fundamental to political credibility and that should be sacrosanct, barring unforeseen disasters. The current economic outlook may not be rosy but it is not so desperate that these legislated tax cuts should be dropped. And applying them to all as planned is the fair thing to do.

Michael Schilling, Millswood, SA

Your editorial on stage three of the income tax reform legislation makes an important point: that what are called tax cuts do no more than, from 2024, partially compensate for years of bracket creep. As such they boost both morale and ambition to the benefit of the wider economy.

Yet, just as important, Labor promised repeatedly, in opposition and now in government, to not repeal them. For the government to retreat from that commitment would be a grievous breach of faith, one aggravated by what seems another unlikely-to-be-realised promise that average power bills would fall by $275.

John Kidd, Auchenflower, Qld