Opinion | War Crimes Charges Against Putin

More from our inbox:

To the Editor:

Re “A World Court Accuses Putin of War Crimes” (front page, March 18):

The International Criminal Court’s decision to issue an arrest warrant against President Vladimir Putin of Russia on charges of war crimes — citing his responsibility for the abduction and deportation of Ukrainian children — is a much-needed stand against this heartless, brutal tyrant.

Mr. Putin seems to place little to no value on the lives of 43 million Ukrainians as well as the lives of the hundreds of thousands of ill-trained Russians whom he relentlessly feeds into the deadly maw of his illegal, unnecessary war.

Though his imminent arrest is unlikely, one can dream.

Perhaps, in the future, he may need to quietly seek treatment for an ailment outside his home country, which he has personally plundered for decades — and then he can be detained, receive superb medical care behind bars and ponder his deeds as he awaits trial.

Mark Keller
Portland, Ore.

To the Editor:

Few people initially thought that Slobodan Milosevic, the Serbian leader who went on trial for war crimes in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s, would end up in front of an international tribunal in The Hague to face justice.

If things turn sour for Vladimir Putin in Russia, he may be turned over by a new government — all anyone would have to do is put him on a plane to The Hague — or he may decide on his own to leave for the relative safety of an International Criminal Court trial.

Mike Priaro
Calgary, Alberta

To the Editor:

Even if he evades justice, as many believe likely, Vladimir Putin’s obituary across the world will read “wanted war criminal,” rather than his fantasized “modern-day Peter the Great.” That may be as good as it gets.

Theodore Tsomides
Raleigh, N.C.

To the Editor:

If there is still reason to believe that actions have consequences, as most of us were taught as children, the International Criminal Court’s action validates that belief.

Barbara J. Kelly
Broomfield, Colo.

To the Editor:

Re “Xi Brokering Ukraine Peace? West Is Skeptical” (news analysis, front page, March 20):

If the visit of Xi Jinping, China’s leader, to Moscow this week is in fact a mission of peace, why not drop by Kyiv to see President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine as long as he’s in the neighborhood?

Oh, that’s right, maybe it would be too dangerous while Mr. Xi’s “no limits” partner, President Vladimir Putin of Russia, is laying waste to the country.

Michael Silk
Laguna Woods, Calif.

Labor in Qatar: The Government’s View

To the Editor:

Re “Qatar Invested Millions in Courting U.N. Agency” (front page, March 12):

We believe that the article presents a flawed view of Qatar’s labor reforms and collaboration with the International Labor Organization. The reason Qatar has established a productive and lasting partnership with the I.L.O. is our genuine commitment to implementing comprehensive labor reforms.

Qatar is transparent in all its collaborations with the I.L.O., consistently striving to improve worker conditions by reforming laws and strengthening enforcement. Funding details of our program with the I.L.O. and the establishment of its office in Doha are publicly available online.

This arrangement has facilitated regular on-the-ground technical consultations and constructive dialogue to hasten the pace of labor reforms and identify areas for further improvements.

Allegations that Qatar has attempted to influence the I.L.O.’s independent reporting or public statements are unfounded. Such statements could hinder the I.L.O.’s efforts to improve workers’ rights globally and dissuade other governments from seeking support from the I.L.O. and other multilateral institutions.

Ali Al-Ansari
The writer is the media attaché to the U.S. for the State of Qatar.

Working in the Office

To the Editor:

Re “Working Remotely Is Less Healthy Than You Think,” by Jordan Metzl (Opinion guest essay, March 17):

As Dr. Metzl says, humans are social creatures. As much as we’ve become connected through the internet, nothing will ever replace grabbing lunch with co-workers, dropping by someone’s office to ask a quick question and problem-solving an issue on the whiteboard. These small interactions will improve interconnectedness within teams and lead to happier employees.

Last summer, I interned at a company where my entire team was remote. Yet I went into the office every day because I didn’t want to lose the opportunity to use the physical space as much as possible. Most full-time employees didn’t go in person, but I spent my time in the office with many other interns.

I wonder if this is something that we should consider: how older generations tend to be the ones embracing remote work, while the younger generation seems to crave those in-person interactions with each other.

Sharon Zou
The writer is a junior at Boston University.

American Families ‘Want Policy Results That Last’

To the Editor:

Re “And Child Care for All,” by Binyamin Appelbaum (Opinion, March 2):

The first two years of the Biden administration exposed deep challenges for outside advocacy groups that work with Congress, and we can’t avoid those challenges anymore.

This essay was a good starting point in providing a post-mortem of recent failures, but advocates must also address two additional truisms in the federal policymaking ecosystem that were exposed over the same period.

First, American families and communities simply don’t care about how bills are passed: They care about certainty, and they want policy results that last.

Second, the majority of advocates refuse to acknowledge the political constraints they face in achieving policy change on behalf of the American people.

If advocates are to work with a divided government and increasingly polarized parties, we must face reality and try to operate within this environment, not outside of it — especially if we’re working toward lasting, bipartisan success on many of the domestic policies that this article highlights.

Paolo Mastrangelo
The writer is the head of policy and government affairs at Humanity Forward.

New York’s Public Housing

To the Editor:

Re “City Eyes Public Housing Open Spaces for New Buildings” (news article, March 9):

I read with horror the proposal by Adrienne Adams, the speaker of the City Council, to build affordable housing in the empty spaces (e.g., playgrounds and gardens) of New York City’s public housing developments, which were built decades ago with actual quality of life in mind.

To plop new construction in the midst of current tenants’ homes, blocking their windows and taking away their limited open space, is one of the worst options I can imagine. I would hardly call it “an innovative way of thinking,” as Ms. Adams did.

These buildings were built as an answer to the tenements of the past, and now, Ms. Adams proposes building homes crammed on top of each other, reminiscent of those same tenements.

Jo Ann Wanamaker
New York

Source: Read Full Article