Letters: Rishi’s ‘road tour’ is not a good idea

Navy to the fore

Sir: In Eliot Wilson’s stimulating article highlighting the lack of capability within our armed forces (‘Losing battle’, 17 February), he comments on the reduced size of the army and the fact that it would be pressed to contribute a brigade to any conflict in the near future. This reminded me of the strategic debate before the first world war and Professor Julian Corbett’s well-argued view that, as an island nation dependent ultimately on the sea lanes, the British role in a European conflict should be to keep maritime supply lines open for the Allies.

British resources should therefore focus on the navy. The land battle should be left to the armies of our more numerous continental allies. In the modern context this surely makes even more sense with the role of the army to be concentrated on an ability to operate flexibly on the fringes of any conflict. Now, as well as sea lanes, we must prioritise defence of the vital undersea communication and pipeline network which will be vital for survival – regardless of what is achieved by tanks, artillery and infantry in trenches.

Tom Fremantle

East Markham, Newark

Putin’s plan

Sir: It is not only the British Army that is unfit for serious combat (17 February): neither are the RAF and the Royal Navy; nor are the Germans and French in any state to engage in real war. However, Vladimir Putin is not going to attack the Baltic states and risk a catastrophic war with Finland and Poland – who would fight – even if Donald Trump were in the White House. What he is more likely to do is win in Ukraine and then go after Moldova and Georgia. I would be fascinated to know whether the western powers have an agreed plan in the event of that scenario.

Terry Smith

Rishing around

Sir: James Heale (Politics, 17 February) tells us that the Prime Minister plans to spend the next several months on the road three days a week, campaigning.