The EU was founded to bring peace and prosperity to the peoples of western Europe after a century of catastrophic wars, by co-operation, pooling of sovereignty and free trade. Its first objective, as stated in the Lisbon treaty, is “to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples”. On the global stage its role should be to promote those same principles, not revert to militaristic tub-thumping. Jean-Claude Juncker’s demand for a European army flies in the face of those principles (Report, 9 March). Tories, Labour, Lib Dems and Ukip are united in opposing this proposal, and I agree with them, though not for the same reasons. It really is time that the human race learned to settle its differences without periodically slaughtering one another and without wasting precious resources on the means to do so. Of course, that applies to Russia as well, but starting a new cold war is not likely to influence Putin in that direction.
Frank Jackson
Former co-chair, World Disarmament Campaign
• The EU’s GDP is greater than that of the US or Russia, so a common military and foreign policy is obvious to free-thinking citizens. Defence spending would probably be much reduced for each country, since there could be one procurement programme, with the same ships, planes, tanks, guns and ammunition. All made within the EU. Jobs would be created to benefit all. But how do we persuade our political leaders to begin the process?
Anthony Baker
Folkestone, Kent
• The story was that Nato was a purely defensive alliance, so when the Soviet Union collapsed and the Warsaw pact was dissolved and there was no longer anyone to defend against, Nato should have been dissolved also (The vilification of Russia risks paving the way for war, 5 March). That did not happen and it is not surprising that several countries in eastern Europe applied to join the alliance, as a precaution against any revival of Russian power. It is not surprising either that when Russia found that countries a few hundred kilometres from St Petersburg were members of an alliance whose sole purpose was to oppose Russia that it too needed to take precautions by expanding its military expenditure and exerting pressure on its neighbours. Nato may declare that its intentions are entirely peaceful and its actions only defensive, but Russia plainly cannot afford to take the risk of believing these words, which have not been borne out by recent history. (When did Serbia or Libya attack a Nato member?) Imagine US reactions if Canada and Mexico were to join an alliance with Russia.
Anthony Matthew
Leicester
• Oana Lungescu, Nato’s “public diplomat”, (Letters, 6 March) denies that Nato has expanded relentlessly. The North Atlantic treaty stated Nato’s aim was the promotion of stability and wellbeing “in the North Atlantic area”. I can’t seem to find the Atlantic coast of Ukraine (or Albania, Croatia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Greece and Turkey). I wonder how far relentless expansion would reach?
Colin Baker
Hermanus, South Africa
• The final 2+4 agreement on German unification made it clear that Nato’s area of operations would change, otherwise some of the Federal Republic would have remained outside the article V guarantee. The UK was insistent on this. I remember being questioned about the “British bombshell” at the final round of talks in Moscow.
Andrew Tucker
Press attache, British Embassy, Moscow, 1987-90
• Please stop using “security umbrella” for Nato. “Umbrella” conveys the idea of protection. Nato is not protective; it is provocative. It has spread its military power across the world with bilateral agreements with states around the Pacific and the Indian Oceans. It retains its nuclear armed policies, including the right to use nuclear weapons first. Because of “obligations to Nato”, the UK also keeps a policy of using nuclear weapons first. If Nato were less involved in Europe, maybe European nation states could develop alternative defence strategies and move away from militarism.
Rae Street
Littleborough, Lancashire
• What anyone said or did not say to Gorbachev about Nato’s eastward expansion is irrelevant. The countries of the former “Soviet bloc” chose to join western defence structures. They were not “invited” to do so. They had to work very hard to qualify to become members; eg the Baltic states did not join till 2004, well over a decade after escaping from the Soviet Union. The wisdom of their choice is now obvious. They knew from half a century of bitter experience that the Russian bear is not to be trusted.
Aleksas Vilcinskas
London
• The quote that Angus Roxburgh calls a “shameless misquote” (Letters, 8 March) is entirely correct, as anybody can check at Russia Beyond the Headlines (rbth.co.uk). Mikhail Gorbachev’s criticism in 1993 of Nato’s plans to welcome new members in no way contradicts his own statement that Nato made no promise in 1989-91 not to expand. The fact is that Nato made no such promise.
I respect Mr Gorbachev for the role he played in the downfall of Communism, a system that brutally repressed tens of millions of people. But Russia has no right to continue dictating to the countries of the former Communist bloc. At the end of the cold war, the people of those countries freely chose a future that included integration in Nato and the EU. Their sovereign choice should be respected.
Let’s be clear: the crisis in Ukraine is not about Nato. It is about Russia blatantly breaking international rules.
Oana Lungescu
Spokesperson, Nato
