Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

In its May 27 editorial "Biden's clarity on Taiwan is risky," the Star Tribune Editorial Board makes a false assumption by arguing that there's a risk that Taipei could misinterpret President Joe Biden's recent statement in Japan about defending Taiwan and "not as aggressively build its defensive capabilities, or that it may choose to roil the fragile status quo."

Over the past five years, Taiwan's defense budget has been expanding, with an average annual growth of 3%, and we have prepared a special budget for urgent defense procurement projects. Taiwan has steadily become the fifth-largest buyer of U.S. arms sales to Asia and the procurement amount has risen to more than $23 billion since 2010. This track record shows that we stand firm and unwavering in our determination to defend ourselves.

As Taiwan continues to exercise self-restraint and urge for dialogue to maintain peace, it is a shockingly unbalanced approach for the editorial not to mention one word of Beijing's increased provocations to stability in the Taiwan Strait and its increasingly predatory moves to unilaterally change the status quo.

The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 is clear about United States policy toward Taiwan security. The law of the land requires U.S.-Taiwan cooperation to provide effective deterrence to prevent Beijing's invasion or nullify China's use of force to resolve differences across the Strait. It is a gross misinterpretation, if ambiguity means appeasement, which can only invite invasion.

Johnson S. Chiang, Chicago

The writer is director general of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Chicago.

In World War II, an evil dictator wanted to change the world order, and it cost the citizens of the U.S. and their allies much money and many lives to defeat him. This was a huge cost paid by the Greatest Generation, as it is called. Now another evil dictator has come forward to challenge our world order and democracy and all we are being asked to do (so far) is to contribute money and arms. I realize this will be difficult for those on the lower end of our economic scale, and I believe our government will step in to help those most affected by this sacrifice. The editorial last week, "Ukraine is worthy of U.S. sacrifice," suggested that support among congressional Republicans seems to be sadly waning, though.

This is our generation's challenge, and I sincerely hope we are up to it.

Bill Cameron, Minneapolis

•••

Minneapolis and Duluth have Russian sister cities — Novosibirsk and Petrozavodsk, respectively. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has urged U.S. cities to break such ties in protest of Russia's invasion and occupation of Ukraine.

The Russian cities may not even tell their citizens that they've been de-friended. But it does seem like the least that Minneapolis and Duluth can do. To the argument that the Russian government's actions shouldn't interfere with the personal relationships between sister city residents, I say that the invasion surely feels like a personal matter to Ukrainians when they are being beaten or raped by Russian soldiers.

Lisa Randall, St. Paul

•••

French President Macron's desire to avoid humiliating Putin ("Macron mediation angers Ukraine," June 5) is astonishing in the face of the relentless destruction that the Russian army is inflicting on Ukraine. What would France be today if the Allies had avoided "humiliating" Hitler? Putin took Crimea with no Western resistance, is trying the same with the rest of Ukraine and could move on to Moldova and Georgia. Putin must be stopped at all costs — and with no restraints on weapons supplied to Ukraine since that country has been left otherwise alone in standing up to the Russian army.

Les Everett, Falcon Heights

Cynthia Allen's opinion piece in Tuesday's Star Tribune ("Uvalde shooting and response? See: masculinity, absence thereof") was a painfully disingenuous and error-filled diatribe, and I'm surprised at the decision to reprint it. She equates masculinity to courage, insulting every brave woman who ever lived. She mocks the notion of toxic masculinity over an event that is a poster child of it. She then proceeds to blame by implication the shooter's father, because his relationship to his son was "strained and distant." I could go on but will spare the reader. This pop-psychology analysis would be given an F in any college-level class and had no place in the pages of your quality newspaper.

Timothy R. Church, St. Paul

•••

I was extremely disappointed in the Star Tribune's choice to give a platform to Allen's column. Allen says that the Uvalde police might have fulfilled their duties if only it hadn't been for decades of "eschewing gender roles." Ah, yes. If only men were still men, they could have done their jobs. I think the problem is men are still being "men" and that's what's leading to mass shooting after mass shooting. This ridiculous old-fashioned idea of what it means to "be a man" (tough, strong, stoic, violent) is what's poisoning our young boys.

And then she pivots to the lack of fathers as the other cause of mass shootings. There is literally no scientific data to back this point up. If only there were some other common link in all these shootings. Something we could actually legislate and ban. Something nearly every other country in the world but us has done. Guess we'll just have to keep thinking ...

Ray Lancon, St. Louis Park

•••

The article published on June 4 ("Angry young males become a constant as shootings mount") made a point that, frankly, we all should have been on top of all along. That is, according to a psychiatrist from Vanderbilt University, the brains of teens and young adults "are not fully developed in terms of regulation." Critically, as the article notes, "the prefrontal cortex, which is critical to understanding the consequences of one's actions and controlling impulses, does not fully develop until about age 25." We knew this! Take almost any instance of vandalism, and chances are that a male between the ages of 13 and 20 caused it. Someone drove onto the golf course and did doughnuts on the greens? Look to males ages 13-20.

Now the pattern has emerged in school shootings, so follow the science. Do not allow people to buy long guns until at least age 21 (preferably 25). Until then, our brains cannot handle the responsibility. It doesn't matter that people younger than 21 can handle certain other responsibilities. They can't handle drinking (as my generation conclusively proved) so the drinking age was raised back up from 18 to 21. And they can't handle powerful, long guns. It's not a matter of rights, it's a matter of biology.

David Rosene, Brooklyn Park

I want to thank the Star Tribune for the Saturday Inspired section. Drowning in our 24/7 news cycle, most of which adheres to the old maxim, "if it bleeds it leads" (and there's all too much blood and tragedy for even them to keep up), Inspired lifts us up and dries us off a bit. This week's stories of Let's Go Fishing, the nonprofit that brings seniors, youth, veterans and hospice patients out on the lake, was lovely, as was the retired advertising executive driving a school bus, and the story on Zimbabwe's female rangers was extremely uplifting and might even give us some ideas on helping to improve our own policing. I always read it last, as that's the taste I want to leave in my mouth and mind as I head off into my weekend.

Luke Soiseth, Lake St. Croix Beach