Letters, Dec. 30

Club problems

It is very difficult to understand why the Granite Curling Club (the tenant) thinks it can tell the City of Winnipeg (the landlord) what the city is allowed to do with its property.

If the curling club thinks it can dictate how many parking spots it should have, then I would propose that the city tear up the lease it has with the club and give the club an opportunity to relocate elsewhere in the city. If the club wants to stop the city from enabling the construction of needed housing, then I do not see why the citizens of Winnipeg should be forced to rent anything to the club at all.

In the grand scheme of things, 99 per cent of Winnipegers have no skin in the game about having a curling club on city property.

Irwin Corobow

Winnipeg

Re: More to the Granite story (Think Tank, Dec. 27)

I read More to the Granite story by James Hay with some interest. There is no doubt that the club has a storied past. However, the litany of complaints about the treatment of the club by the City of Winnipeg sounds more like “privileged people whining” than anything else.

Mr. Hay complains that back in the day when back taxes and riverbank stabilization costs were due, the Granite “was left with no other choice than to give the keys to the City of Winnipeg.” Meanwhile, the club has had the use of the facility at nominal cost for the last 50 years! Twenty thousand dollars a year for rental of prime downtown riverfront property sounds like a bargain to me.

Mr. Hay complains that the club has had to spend $1.6 million “of its own money” on maintenance of the building, which translates to $64,000 per year, which is not a lot for an old building. It appears that Mr. Hay begrudges this amount, but there is no mention of who is required to maintain the building pursuant to the club’s sweetheart lease.

What I see upon reading Mr. Hay’s article is a club that has been relying on public largesse for 50 years and now has the gall to say “woe is me” at the expense of affordable housing.

Tom Pearson

Winnipeg

Promises, promises

Re: Security guarantee may be a cheque U.S. can’t cash (Dec. 27)

Like a slowly unfolding car crash on an icy road, we can’t look away from the achingly slow, yet inevitable betrayal of Ukraine by U.S. President Donald Trump. Based on past and present history, to survive, Ukraine must have a realistic guarantee against invasion. For centuries, Russia has been a threat to its neighbours. While Trump undermines Ukraine during his illusion of “peace talks,” Russia has steadfastly increased attacks on Ukraine, unwavering in its aggression and successful strategy of delay.

The article realistically pinpoints practical problems that make such guarantees from the U.S. to be an illusion at best, and a cynical con at worst. The story quotes “Article 5-like guarantees” so “If Russia invades Ukraine, a co-ordinated military response will be launched.”

By whom? Trump has alienated U.S. allies, plus action would need to be approved by the U.S. Senate, an unlikely prospect at best. Stated also is the fact that, “some of the details remain vague.” The devil is often in the details, especially when pronouncements come from the current alleged “leader of the free world.” The guarantee is referred to as a “platinum standard,” a hollow phrase which signifies nothing other than his attraction to shiny metals. Also correctly stated is the fact that U.S. “boots on the ground” would have been there long ago, but three U.S. presidents have not done that. International guarantees are useless without the will to act. Putin knows this.

Trump’s actions have eroded U.S. credibility now and for the foreseeable future long after he has left his stain.

Over 200 years, the traditional U.S. policy to “avoid foreign wars” has evolved, with mixed results, to one where they may “opt in” based on their interests at the time. Locked in U.S. “guarantees,” however, are seen as too restrictive (in both war and trade as we are finding out). Certainly an escalation and possible confrontation of two ego-driven nuclear powers is an awful thought.

Dan Furlan

Winnipeg

Respecting our world

Re: No faith in fossil fuels? Why some religious leaders are speaking out on climate change (Dec. 24)

Kudos to the Free Press for running this excellent article.

It made me realize there’s a new way to celebrate this season of love and faith: Re-dedicate ourselves to protecting the planet. We pay respect to the Creator — whoever we believe that is — by preserving their creation.

And in the current climate crisis that means embracing low-cost sun and wind power, switching to heat pumps and electrifying our cars and buses.

When we do this, we truly embody the holiday spirit.

Gideon Forman

Toronto, Ont.

Ukraine in retrospect

At the start, I would like to commend the Free Press for excellent coverage of the constant turmoil in Ukraine and whatever progress has been made to date.

Before elaborating about Ukraine’s key demands, here is my own observation of what is needed for real peace and security. There should be no concessions in advance. Ukraine must be heard. Sovereignty is a line that cannot be crossed. Any agreement that forces Ukraine to change its constitution, ban alliances, or give up control over its defence, legitimizes aggression and guarantees a continuous war. Ukrainians are fighting not for a president, but for their nation, people, and state’s existence.

What are Russian President Vladimir Putin’s demands? Before I mention a few, Russia wants to negotiate first, then incorporate a ceasefire, shouldn’t that be inverted? One of the major demands from the Kremlin, to recognize Russian control over the occupied Ukrainian regions, including Crimea.

Limit the size and structure of Ukraine’s military and to confirm that Ukraine will remain a non-nuclear country. Putin is placing the pressure on Ukraine , demanding that Ukraine not join NATO or any military alliance. Russia is requesting immediate removal of all sanctions, and no new ones in the future. If this war continues into 2026 and beyond, not foreseeing any agreement, Russian invasion will undermine the world order and potentially trigger new wars.

Ukraine’s key demands are very simple. No recognition of Russian territorial gains since 2014. Ukraine wants strong international security guarantees to prevent future attacks. Return of all deported Ukrainian children. Russia must pay reparations using its frozen assets which are abroad. There are many other demands, too many to mention, the list is long. Ukraine has endured tremendous pain from its aggressor.

Peace for Ukraine is to rebuild its country by restoring cities, the economy, institutions, and communities. If something of importance comes out of the present negotiations, they must be productive, constructive in reaching a settlement. Russia cannot continuously pretend to want peace with Ukraine. The European Union and United States must incorporate long-term support to Ukraine, without this support, peace will collapse and Russia will attack again, probably other sovereign states in proximity of its borders.

Peter John Manastyrsky

Niverville