To the Editor:Re “The Price of Putin’s Belligerence” (editorial, March 12):Your editorial is calm and measured, and offers serious recommendations for effective de-escalation and cessation of hostilities that require rational, reality-based dialogue. The counterpoint I would make is that Vladimir Putin is not a rational actor. His asserted casus belli is ahistoric, not supported by the Ukrainian population and not based in reality.Working many years in the behavioral health field, I often dealt with nonrational patients. None of them controlled a nuclear arsenal or were surrounded by those who shared and supported their irrationality.William A. Ferry
Lafayette, La.To the Editor:It’s a common question that has been asked every time President Vladimir Putin’s expansionist moods appear: Is Mr. Putin a rational actor? The short answer is: yes.Irrationality shouldn’t be conflated with horrific impacts and human suffering. Rational does not mean good or just.Mr. Putin’s goal is not suffering first. War instead is a means to an end — his view of Russia in the 21st century. He sees the human factor as collateral damage, a necessary evil, and as a side effect of his military strategy.The highlight of Western media right now is precisely the human suffering angle, and it revolves around denouncing Russia’s actions, but that doesn’t make Mr. Putin irrational. He is after political goals, and not after suffering as an evil master plan. We all have a stake in Mr. Putin being rational.Iveta Cherneva
Sofia, Bulgaria
The writer is an author and a political commentator who has served with United Nations agencies.To the Editor:Re “This Is Why Putin Can’t Back Down,” by David Brooks (column, March 11):I appreciated Mr. Brooks’s column about Vladimir Putin and the factors in the game of predicting what he will do next.Mr. Brooks’s mention of narcissism opens an avenue toward understanding Mr. Putin. In my estimation, the connections between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump are many, varied and deep. They understand each other precisely because they are both narcissists, and as evidenced by the harms caused by their actions and attitudes, they are malignant narcissists.Each has proved in his own way that anyone who stands in his way is to be disenfranchised, cast out into the wilderness, dehumanized and ultimately erased. Mr. Putin does his work with bombs and missiles, Mr. Trump does his with minions, sycophants, grifters and true believers.It is, paradoxically, a good thing to see the awful results of both men’s relationship to the world around them. Mr. Putin’s agenda could read something like the restoration of the Soviet Union’s former glory, and Mr. Trump’s could be restoration of himself to a position of power and steps to ensure that he remains in power indefinitely.Here’s hoping that Mr. Putin’s and Mr. Trump’s scenarios will not play out as they wish.Fredrick Stephenson
Roseville, Calif.
Chinese Mediation With Russia?
To the Editor:Re “It’s Time to Offer Russia an Offramp. China Can Help With That,” by Wang Huiyao (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, March 13):Dr. Wang’s suggestion that China join in mediation efforts to end Russia’s unprovoked attack on Ukraine is a prescription for inviting the arsonist to help put out the fire he helped ignite.According to reports, China knew of Vladimir Putin’s war plans, and its sole contribution to world peace was to request that the invasion be delayed until after the Winter Olympics it was hosting.As one of Russia’s very few current allies, China does not need Western cover to demand that its “friend” immediately cease fire, withdraw from all occupied Ukrainian territory, including Crimea and the Donbas, and pay reparations. What is proposed here is nothing less than gaslighting.Charles Knapp
Roxbury, Conn.
War Crimes by Russia in Ukraine
To the Editor:Regarding potential war crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine:I think it would be interesting to ask specific Russian officials, if arrested in the future and accused of complicity in war crimes, will they say they had no choice? Will they say that they would have been killed had they disobeyed, and that they were “just following orders”?Get them on the record now, so we can use their words against them later.Edward Kissel
Boca Raton, Fla.
Being a Parent in These Times
To the Editor:Re “There’s More Than One Right Way to Raise Kids,’’ by Jessica Grose (Opinion, March 11):Parenting philosophies offer useful tips and they can make a parent feel less alone, but the truth is that the job of parenting is all but reinvented with every new parent-child combination, even within the same family.Parents do well by their children because their hearts are in the right place and because they know them best. My advice is, if a parenting manual is a help, take advantage, but if it is anything but a comfort, toss it.Today’s generation of parents should feel proud and confident at having cared for their children through two solid years of fear and uncertainty and the far-reaching restrictions and shifting protocols that went with it. There can’t be many challenges to come that will be as tough as the ones they have already faced.My generation had it easy by comparison. Congratulations to them all. They have my utmost admiration.Margaret McGirr
Greenwich, Conn.
A Real Conversation, Not Email. Remember That?
To the Editor:Re “Feel Free to Ignore Some Texts and Emails. We All Understand,” by Erica Dhawan (Opinion guest essay, Feb. 23):When I was working, I would see an email from a co-worker who sat 20 feet away and read it, not forming an answer right away so I could think about it. Invariably, that co-worker would amble over and ask me if I had seen his email, to which I would say, yes I saw it.He would ask if I had read it, and I would say yes. The co-worker, obviously expecting an answer to his email, would look disgustedly at me and I would say nothing. He would ask me what my thought was, and I would say I am thinking about it.I wondered why he just didn’t walk over so we could talk about what was on his mind. But he was a 20-something and I am a boomer. He was more interested in putting his inquiry out there and copied all the bosses so he was assured they knew he was working and I was not reacting as he wanted.That made for some interesting email exchanges. One boss would pile on and advise that the email was quite urgent and demanded an answer from me. Another boss would send an instant message, telling me to answer the email.Ah, the electronic communications age, with all of its stresses and strains. When I started in business, the only way to communicate in an office was to walk over and talk to someone. How quaint that seems today.I am happily retired, and any email I get now will probably be ignored.Ted Fisk
Naperville, Ill.
Don’t Walk and Text
To the Editor:Re “Danger at the Intersection” (letter, March 10):I was hit by a delivery boy on a bicycle while crossing at an intersection. I sustained two fractures of the pelvis and was on crutches for two months. I didn’t need surgery, so I considered myself lucky.At the time of the accident, I was looking down at my iPhone texting. I didn’t even realize I was hit by a bicycle until I was on the ground, looking up.I now never text when walking.Judith Eisenberg Pollak
New York