Vladimir Putin's insistence that Russia has the right to veto military action in Syria amounts, according to the Guardian, to "the absurd position that … international law is, in effect, what Russia decides it is" (Editorial, 5 September). On the contrary, international law is what the UN Charter says it is. Under the charter, threats to peace are to be addressed by the security council. As a member of the permanent five, Russia has the right to veto intervention, whether the Guardian likes it or not.

This is not a constraint to be dispensed with lightly. "The philosophy of the veto," Inis Claude wrote 50 years ago, "is that it is better to have the security council stalemated than to have that body used by a majority to take action so strongly opposed by a dissident great power that a world war is likely to ensue." The third world war, to be sure, is unlikely to ensue over Syria. But before brushing off such concerns as pettifogging legalism, advocates of intervention should ask themselves if they would be prepared to accept Russian or Chinese intervention over an American, British or French veto, wherever and whenever Moscow or Beijing saw fit.

Dr Matthew Rendall

Lecturer, politics and international relations, University of Nottingham

• The most remarkable thing about Jonathan Freedland's article on Syria (Comment, 4 September) is that he fails to mention the UN once. Whatever flaws it may have, it was set up to make it more difficult for world conflicts to be resolved on the whim of the superpowers. It is disturbing that so much of the debate about the Syrian civil war and the use of chemical weapons has ignored the multilateral approach taken by the UN's envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, and concentrated on the psychodrama of a superstar president.

Bob Cant

Brighton, East Sussex

• Since the demise of the USSR in 1991, Russia has used the veto only twice. A quick search of Google reveals that the United States has used its veto powers 55 times during the same period.

Nick Blackstock

Wilsden, West Yorks

• You report that David Cameron told the Commons that President Assad "had to be persuaded to the negotiating table by his military capacity being degraded" (Report, 5 September). But the Syrian leader has made clear all along his willingness to participate in peace talks. It is Syria's armed "opposition" and its western backers who have sabotaged proposals to negotiate a settlement.



Peter Godfrey

Isle of Harris, Outer Hebrides

• On Wednesday, Der Speigel reported a "secret briefing to select lawmakers" by Gerhard Schindler, head of BND, Germany's intelligence agency. It included reference to an intercepted phone call between a high-ranking member of Hezbollah and the Iranian embassy during which Schindler says that the Hezbollah functionary "seems to have admitted that poison gas was used".

Despite the fact that Schindler used the word "seems", this report has been widely treated by the British and international media as demonstrating the Assad regime's responsibility for and knowledge of the horrific chemical weapons attack on Ghouta.

Following Iraq, our media has more responsibility than ever to ensure that stories about Syria are reported accurately and not used to bump a reluctant public towards war.

Stefan Simanowitz

London

• The big difference between Syria and Iraq is the international community's response: donor countries provided just $80m to help Iraqi refugees, "a drop in the ocean" according to the UN. By contrast, the UK has provided £348m for Syria, with billions more donated by countries such as Turkey and the US.

Russell Inglis

London

• If President Obama gets the backing of the US Senate, he will, within 48 hours, be synchronising his actions with other historical precedents: the 9/11 attacks in 2001 and General Pinochet's, CIA- backed, military coup of 1973. What is it about September 11?

Martin Smith

Bristol