The playground bully, Russian President Vladimir Putin, "has said he finds [it] intolerable" that the U.S. and other NATO countries are increasing troop levels in Eastern Europe in response to Russia's massing troops on the Ukraine border ("Biden orders 2,000 U.S. troops to Europe in message to Putin," Feb. 3). This is only a problem to Russia if it invades Ukraine or other Eastern European countries.

Putin also considers the missile defense system in Romania to be a "threat." This is a defensive weapon to be used against an offensive attack from Russia. It is a threat, then, only if Russia decides to launch such an offensive attack.

That Putin, the bully, objects to having others stand in support to his intended victim(s), Ukraine and potentially other Eastern countries, is no surprise; that's how bullies work.

Kudos to a united stand against such aggressors. May we not repeat Neville Chamberlain's attempt at appeasing Adolf Hitler which, of course, promptly degraded into Germany invading Poland and then World War II.

Mr. Putin, you can promptly resolve your phony perceived threats. Just have your troops stand down and leave their border staging areas. A united world is watching; you will not be able to sneak in a contrived attack with phony pretenses. The world is watching you.

James Bukstein, Minneapolis

•••

Presently, Tucker Carlson (yes, he's a "leader," just as Sean Hannity is another) is trying to shame us for standing up for Ukraine: "Why is it disloyal to side with Russia but loyal to side with Ukraine?" queried Tucker. And: "We would be impoverished immediately overnight!" if Biden instituted sanctions on Russia for aggressive behavior against the sovereign nation of Ukraine. Earlier behavior by such Republican figures as Rudy Giuliani have included hobnobbing with ignoble Russian people known for peddling Russian conspiracy theories, including supposed plots accusing Ukraine of intervention in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

With all these fingers in the wind, all these politicians so fearful of offending Trump that they engage openly in embarrassingly deceitful behavior, our country is in serious danger of one or several of them achieving enough power to eventually invite Russia into our country. After all, according to Trump in 2018, "I don't see any reason why it would be [Putin interfering in our elections]." Following up logically, we shouldn't fear Russia regarding anything else. After all, getting along with Russia is "not terrible. It's good," further advised this former president, who is grooming himself for another run at the presidency in 2024.

Shawn O'Rourke Gilbert, Edina

Really? We have to start reading and listening to the rants of the former president again? ("Trump's power grab now in fuller view," editorial, Feb. 2.) Just because he held the highest office for four years doesn't change the fact that he is delusional. Unable to admit defeat (or mistakes, or errors, or limitations — feel free to add to the list), he constructs a reality where winning and perfection are the only possibilities. This is not simply lying or even simple BS, it is flat-out crazy.

His genius, if you can call it that, is saying outrageous stuff that pushes buttons, that print and broadcast media can't ignore, that citizens gawk at like a roadside accident. He succeeds at getting our attention and our clicks. No other delusional person gets so much column space and broadcast minutes. Yes, we absolutely protect free speech, so there's no stopping his torrent of malarkey. Let's pay close attention to his actions, but not so much to his words.

•••

If ever there seemed to be enough evidence to indict ex-president Donald Trump on sedition charges, it is now ("Trump push to seize voting machines scrutinized," Feb. 2.) There is no question that this deluded man provoked the Jan. 6 insurrection, as evidenced by the insurrectionists themselves in their court pleadings. And now he has publicly admitted that his objective was to overturn the results of the election.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland: Are you listening?

Lucyan Mech, Lauderdale

On Jan. 16, the Star Tribune ran an article titled "Nonprofits being squeezed by shortage of volunteers."

They tell us that the volunteers who have always been dependable are not showing up anymore. And it's getting harder to serve communities. Some volunteer coordinators have said, "People don't seem to care about their communities anymore."

We know that's not true. In 2021 MAVA published a report that showed that, of all the people who give their time in service to others, only 30% of them do so through organizations. The other 70% are "informal volunteers," which looks like neighbors buying groceries for their elderly neighbors or people in faith communities caring for each other's children.

The pandemic has put a lot of extra pressure on people, but in many ways the pandemic has accelerated informal volunteerism. So the question becomes: Why aren't those folks, who care deeply about meeting community needs, not volunteering at organizations?

This is an incredible opportunity for organizations to innovate. It starts with asking questions. Are the volunteer opportunities broadly inviting, or are they only during office hours? Are organizations welcoming to everyone in our community or only able-bodied volunteers who speak English? Are organizations hiring only white people but asking people of color to do unpaid volunteer work?

Organizations need to take a critical look at what they've built. And if it is not working any more, it's time to imagine something new.

Holly Daniels, St. Paul

The writer is program manager at MAVA.

I am aware of reports that Judge Wilhelmina Wright, a federal district court judge for the district of Minnesota, is on a shortlist for nomination by the president to the U.S. Supreme Court ("Wright's name is floated for court," Jan. 29). I served with Judge Wright for many years on the Minnesota Court of Appeals. She is an alumna of Yale and of Harvard Law School and is an extraordinarily bright, fair and able jurist, who is at her best with difficult cases. In addition to providing the racial and gender diversity that the president seeks, she would provide real intellectual strength to the court.

Americans would be fortunate indeed to have Judge Wright serving on the Supreme Court.

Bruce D. Willis, Wayzata

•••

Perhaps it would be useful for Jay Ambrose and others lamenting "diversity" hires ("Court's too important for diversity hires," Opinion Exchange, Jan. 31) if the rest of us, having surveyed the current demographics of the United States citizenry, were to refer to them as "reality" hires.

Theresa J. Lippert, St. Paul