AS a resident of Murmansk in north-west Russia for the past 15 months, I read with interest Ian Bruce's commendable article on the implications of Nato expansion (May 7).

It might, as Bruce says, have seemed a good idea at the time. On the other hand, I have always felt that Nato expansion is, to say the least, ill-advised. There are two reasons for this.

First, Nato is dominated by the interests of the senior partner, the USA. Secondly, the Russians have a pathological fear of invasion. This is not just a Soviet thing, it goes back to Peter the Great. In the post cold war era, Nato, by its planned expansion, could not have done more to offend Russia had it tried.

We have short memories. Nato, as I understand it, was established to resist Soviet expansion to the west. Nato is now itself expanding east.

The result, as Ian Bruce points out, is that Russia is still maintaining significant nuclear clout, clout she can ill afford given the ''motherland's'' cash-strapped situation.

The other point Bruce rightly makes is that the larger the organisation the harder it is to obtain agreement, agreement that might be needed very quickly.

Furthermore, there is the European dimension. Nato seems set to be the pan-European defence force. Given the influence of the USA, is this the right way forward?

Is there a solution? The portents are not good, but on the other hand almost anything is possible. In my view, Nato should contract, not expand. If you haven't got an Atlantic coastline, you're out. Invite Russia to join. Better, as one American general famously said, to have them inside the tent, etc, etc.

The EU, if it is to mean anything, has to sooner or later embrace defence. This will be very, very difficult, if not impossible. We all should remember that the whole Yugoslavian tragedy started because Germany stepped out of European line and recognised an independent Croatia. The rest, as they say, is history.

Alastair Reid,

10 Bank Street, Wigtown.

May 7.