There is some merit in thinking of a long-term ceasefire to end the war in Ukraine, as Gideon Rachman does in “Ukraine and the shadow of Korea” (Opinion, December 13). However, I think Kashmir is a better model.

Indian and Pakistani maps still show all of Kashmir in each respective country, giving the politicians a figleaf cover, yet the territory is divided along a permanent ceasefire. It was agreed the ceasefire would stand until a “final settlement”, which, of course, hasn’t happened since 1949.

So, Russia and Ukraine could agree to the same ceasefire terms as Kashmir. This might be politically more acceptable than the Korean situation, which after all was achieved because the Americans, not the South Koreans, were in charge of the war.

Korea therefore is not analogous since a third party fighting a war has a different interest in bringing about a cessation than two parties to a conflict. Kashmir is therefore a better example, in my opinion.

Firdaus Kharas
Ottawa, ON, Canada