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.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article