Can nobody push Liz Truss back into her cage? In her “British war aims” speech at Mansion House, proposing to drive Russia back to its pre-2014 borders, she simply echoed Vladimir Putin’s sick dream of recreating a mythic imperial past (Putin threatens Ukraine allies as Truss urges ‘doubling down’ on support for Kyiv, 27 April). But this is not 1945. The Ukraine war is not going to end with Russia’s unconditional surrender – the only terms on which Russia would leave Crimea. It will probably end in messy stalemate, followed by murky diplomacy. Crimea, casually transferred from Russia to Ukraine on a dictator’s whim in 1954, remained overwhelmingly Russian in sentiment even before the rigged referendum of 2014. The Donbas may have to be partitioned under UN auspices (to the inevitable fury of both communities), as Upper Silesia was partitioned by the League of Nations in 1921. Truss’s insistence on restoring previous “territorial integrity” boundaries to states that the UK supports – Georgia or Ukraine – is to license a bloodbath if Georgia invaded “lost” Abkhazia, or mass resistance if Ukraine tried to suppress Russian identities in Crimea. Neal Ascherson London • Dan Sabbagh’s nuanced and sober analysis of the Ukraine conflict (27 April) focuses on the expansive nature of the rhetoric used by both parties. The absurd Russian claims of “denazifying” Ukraine have been rightly ridiculed, but grandiose statements by western leaders, indicating that we now seek a strategic defeat of Russia, only help the Russian narrative that this is an existential war of national survival for them. Instead, our leaders might do better to adopt the “talk softly and carry a big stick” approach; after all, brave words will not stop a single Russian tank, but a timely and sotto voce delivery of anti-tank weapons might. That will require a degree of message discipline not seen so far: Liz Truss speculating about a decade of war and James Heappey musing on Ukrainian targeting inside Russia do not help to control the narrative. Putin will get the message that aggression won’t work, but declaring that we intend to rub his face in it, especially as the war is still very active and he is not yet defeated, is naive and dangerous; he needs a ladder to climb down. Better to stick rigorously to the line that we are supporting Ukraine to defend itself. Simon Diggins (Retired colonel) Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire • Liz Truss ignored the peace role of the UN and the current efforts of its secretary-general in her Mansion House speech. She offers instead the prospect of more war and dangerous escalation. Britain, as a security council member, shares the “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security” (article 24 of the UN charter). The huge majority of UN members who condemned Russian aggression in the general assembly on 2 March want the war to stop, not to continue, and that should be the focus of British diplomacy. John Gittings Author, The Glorious Art of Peace • It seems that Liz Truss is pushing her leadership bid without a care for what the consequences might be for the country she seeks to lead. The provision of weapons is the right thing to do, but there is a special kind of foolishness in saying exactly what is being provided. Silence from Ms Truss would be welcome, and perhaps show that she is worthy of the office to which she aspires. Dr Roger Slack Wistaston, Cheshire • Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.