The popular myth of the Russian threat remains, writes Steve Edwards. Photograph: Mikhail Svetlov/Getty

Nato is the foundation of our security, is the current political cliche. The Guardian warmly agrees (Editorial, 16February), and joins in the demonisation of Russia to a degree which should gratify the most ardent hawk. The other side of the matter should be stated. It is not in doubt that the long-term cause of Russian misbehaviour is Nato expansion in the late 1990s, taking in the countries bordering Russia but excluding Russia itself. No serious reason was ever given for this action, and it was in the face of many expressed doubts and warnings by military and political figures at the time. It was followed by the surrounding of Russia with missile defence bases, initiated by the US but taken over by Nato. The effect on Russia was perfectly well understood, and cannot possibly have been unintentional.

Nato is like something from an international conspiracy thriller except that it is startlingly open about its objectives. It continually searches the world, literally looking for trouble everywhere, and presses at every opportunity to give Nato a role. It has succeeded in doing this in, among other places, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

It might be argued that however the problem was caused, and indeed despite aspects of their own behaviour, certain countries in eastern Europe and the Caucasus now have a genuine security concern which should be addressed. But is it a good idea to give the job to the organisation that deliberately started it in the first place, and has an open interest in encouraging conflict wherever it finds it? Roger Schafir London

Martin Kettle (Why Brexit Britains defence strategy is way off course, 17 February) is right to point out the hypocrisy of Theresa Mays contrasting stances on Brexit and Nato. However, from the Russian side, its assertiveness is a not unreasonable response to Nato almost immediately crowding its western borders after the collapse of the Soviet Union. History is of prime importance here. Russia has endured major invasions from western powers for centuries; in particular, Sweden, France and Germany as well as Britain (again with France) in the Crimea and of course Britain, America, France and others invading northern Russia via Murmansk and Archangel at the end of the first world war.

In contrast, Russia has never attempted to invade western Europe or come anywhere near attacking this country. However, the popular myth of the Russian threat remains. For in practice, whatever our rulers might say about the duty of government to protect the people, the truth in probably every civilised country which ever existed is that the prime function of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the governed. And as George Orwell so masterly described in Nineteen Eighty-Four, constantly stoking fear and enmity against an outside threat is a very effective way of achieving this end. Steve Edwards Haywards Heath, West Sussex

Join the debate email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

Read more Guardian letters click here to visit gu.com/letters

See the rest here:

Nato and Russia: a real international conspiracy thriller - The Guardian