A chara, – The argument that Nato expansion is somewhat to blame for Russia's aggression over the past 15 years (Fintan O'Toole, Opinion & Analysis, February 19th) only works if you presume that otherwise Russia would now be a peaceful actor, respectful of the sovereignty of small states.
There is no evidence to believe that could ever have been the case. Nato expansion did not make Vladimir Putin a tyrant domestically. His violence, mania for expanding his own power, and contempt for the will of others are perfectly clear in that domain. It is foolish to believe that such a person would ever confine their ambitions within their own borders.
Nato expansion has done nothing more than take Estonia, Poland, et al, off the menu, allowing them to become peaceful, prosperous states. Bosnia, on the other hand, is on the brink of civil war, due in large part to Mr Putin’s meddling.
The reality of Nato – tragically – is that declining American interest and decades of military underspending by European states has robbed it of both the will and means to act.
:fill(white):background_color(white)/static.themebuilder.aws.arc.pub/irishtimes/1647534191476.png)
Mr Putin obviously knows this as he has capitalised on it repeatedly. Hence, the idea that Nato poses a threat to Russia is laughable, but it is less funny when you consider what this same weakness means for Bosnia. – Is mise,
Dr MICHAEL KEARY,
King’s College,
London.
Sir, – Having listened to the mealy-mouthed weasel words of the Russian ambassador to Ireland in recent weeks ("Yuri Filatov insisted there was no political, military or economic reason to begin a war", News, February 15th), could you please reinterview him to ask why he speaks with a forked tongue? He has zero credibility and should be sent packing, preferably to Donetsk or Luhansk. – Yours, etc,
PAUL KILDUFF,
Glenageary,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – Michael McDowell's casual urging of tougher sanctions not only overlooks the reality that those who suffer most from them are innocent bystanders that cannot retaliate, it ignores the very real dangers that arise should any such actions threaten to damage a Russian state that most certainly could and with devastating effect ("Ukraine deserves more than feather-duster sanctions", Opinion & Analysis, February 23rd).
Does Mr McDowell, and those who agree with what he advocates, think that Russia, with enough armaments to destroy the world a few times over, would just lie down under the weight of such sanctions and allow the fabric of their country to weaken and slowly expire?
It seems to me that the real danger emanates from those who do not understand that when two sides with such destructive power at their disposal disagree, the only weapon that should be contemplated is diplomacy. – Yours, etc,
JIM O’SULLIVAN,
Rathedmond,
Sligo.