Anatol Lieven’s article on European rearmament contains much to agree with (The war in Ukraine holds two lessons: Russia isn’t an imminent threat, and Europe must rearm regardless, 23 February). However, his explanations of the tensions with Russia seem flawed in several respects. First, Nato expanded not because the US imposed it, but because the countries of eastern Europe demanded it. Too often the countries of eastern Europe, including Ukraine, are treated as if they are pawns in either the US’s or Russia’s game rather than sovereign states in their own right.
Second, the “establishment” figures who have assured us over the years that there is no intention of deliberately provoking a conflict with Nato are the same ones who were assuring us that there was no possibility of a full-scale invasion of Ukraine until the morning of 24 February. Unfortunately, these are not the people making Russian foreign policy. That is the prerogative of Putin and his inner sanctum, whose vision is steeped in Russian imperial history.
Finally, and most importantly, we need to recognise that this war is not ultimately about Nato expansion, nor about Donbas or Crimea. This is a war rooted in an imperial and colonial perception of the world that belongs in the 19th century. Putin’s utterances on Ukraine, the vile content of Russian talkshows on the war and behaviour of Russians in the occupied territories make this abundantly clear. We need to be under no illusions about Putin’s regime before we sit down to talk and make decisions on which the security of Europe depends.
Dr Shane O’Rourke
Department of History, University of York
• As someone living in the Czech Republic, I am disturbed by Anatol Lieven’s suggestion that European countries “could have … made a real effort to reach compromise with Russia over Ukraine”. We remember how in 1938 Neville Chamberlain “reached a compromise with Hitler over Czechoslovakia” and, to put it mildly, don’t consider it Britain’s finest hour.
This is exactly what Russia’s idea of international relations looks like and what the war in Ukraine is fought against: that big and powerful countries can decide the fate of small and weak ones without respecting their stance. Ukraine is an independent country and it chose its path towards western Europe, not towards Russia. Had the west reached compromise with Russia over Ukraine, it would have meant that the fate of Ukraine can be decided by the west and Russia, not by Ukrainians. What kind of international order does such an idea bring to us? Why does Ukraine have a lesser right to self-determination than the Baltic states – because Russia said it doesn’t care about them, but cares about Ukraine? Why should Russia have the right to decide which countries can be truly independent and which depend on compromises reached by other powers?
The UK has fought for the right and just course several times in modern history, and now it is doing it again. “Reaching a compromise” with Russia over anybody would be neither right nor just, just as it was not right nor just to reach a compromise with Hitler in 1938.
Radim Kapavík
Vojkovice, Czech Republic
• It is rare that I so strongly agree with a writer on certain issues and disagree on others. I like nothing more than the talk of the need to strengthen and integrate military forces of the EU member states; it is a vital course of action to gain a strategic independence from the US. However, what struck me about Anatol Lieven’s article is a contemptuous disregard for the right of independent nations, such as Ukraine and mine (I am Polish) to determine our own destinies. The notion of global politics that underlies the author’s remarks about what should have been done with respect to Nato enlargement in the 1990s replicates a vision that perceives us as merely pawns on a global chessboard, moved by various powers and belonging to one or other sphere of interest.
Przemysław Orłowski
Warsaw, Poland
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
