LETTERS Bear-baiting
Sir: It now seems fashionable to knock the enlargement of Nato (`The Bear at bay', 12 July). Susan Eisenhower reacts as if the West never lifted a fmger to help Russia. What about all the money the West has sunk into the country so far, to see it all reinvested in Switzerland, Luxembourg and off-shore havens? The fact is, we, the so- called winners of the Cold War, did all we could to integrate Russia into the West, and Russia, being as ornery as ever, did all it could to disrupt and sink our plans.
The difference between the Marshall Plan and our recent efforts with Russia is that Europe was devastated after the war and had no hope of regaining an economy for decades without our help; Russia, on the other hand, was not flattened by war (even though Russians chose to flatten Chechnya, using the money we were offer- ing them at the time) and through sheer stubbornness, arrogance — call it what you want — they flouted our help and eventual- ly turned against us, saying we were just out to destroy them.
As for upsetting the Russians by expand- ing Nato, that is just recycled eyewash. Many polls have been taken in Russia late- ly, and they all showed that the average vodka consumer couldn't give a kopeck about the enlargement. It is the politicians who use the issue to make political profit out of it — their political football to kick about the halls of the Kremlin and the Duma. Odd that Miss Eisenhower didn't mention Nato's Russian Joint Consultative Council, or the fact that over several years every overture was made to Moscow to join Nato, and that for ages the Kremlin went through a diplomatic two-step — one week, `yes, we will' and the next week, 'no, we won't'. But then again, that wouldn't have suited her fashionable argument.
Peter Martin
Valprionde, 46800 Montcuq, France
Previous page
