Don Nuechterlein's article "Zelenskyy prompted Putin into War" (March 10) left me a bit confused. On the one hand, he says that the Ukrainian president prompted the Russian invasion of his homeland by applying for membership in NATO. On the other hand, Nuechterlein indicates that Putin will keep up pressure on Ukraine even if Zelenskyy withdraws his application to NATO. I am inclined to agree with the latter of these two contradictory statements.
Why did Zelenskyy want to join NATO in the first place? For the same reason Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania did. They did not want to be forced back under Russian control.
The failure lies not in Zelenskyy's application to NATO, but in NATO's hesitation to welcome Ukraine into the alliance. If NATO had acted preemptively, accepted Ukraine, and followed up by placing nuclear missiles in the developing Slavic country, none of this would have happened.
But then, in fairness, the European leaders had to spend four years looking over their shoulders to see if the most powerful member of their alliance was still with them.
Any strong move by NATO against Putin would not have gone over well with the Trump administration.
Modern western leadership lacks the audacity needed to deal with Vladimir Putin. Unfortunately, the residue of the Cold War still guides policy toward Russia, long after it ceased to be the mighty Soviet Union. Yes, Russia has nukes, but so does Pakistan, and that did not stop the west from making military incursions into that country to get bin Laden.
A policy framed around former President Barack Obama's statement — "Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors, not out of strength but out of weakness," — would have gone a long way toward preventing this catastrophe. But, either way, make no mistake: the blame for the death and destruction in Ukraine rests firmly on Vladimir Putin.
Steve Bailey, Richmond