We desperately need a higher level of debate on Russian imperialism than that provided by George Monbiot (I never thought I’d argue for rearmament. But a looming Trump presidency changes everything, 4 July). I accept that there are reasoned arguments for supporting Ukraine’s anti-colonial resistance. But increasing Britain’s conventional arms in order to “support other European nations” and “perhaps to defend ourselves”? The evidence that Russia might attack or invade European countries is feeble.
Russia is in no position to take on Nato. According to the Royal United Services Institute, Russia faces “increasing material challenges” with maintaining its defence industry and military operations just in Ukraine, and is only doing so right now by avoiding large-scale troop offensives and by taking inferior tanks and degraded ammunition out of storage.
Not every discussion about Russia’s war in Ukraine needs to be restricted to the rehashed ideas of Vladimir Putin apologists and blustering neocons. Countering imperialism in eastern Europe doesn’t require us to lose our heads when analysing Britain’s warfare state and the pathetic arguments in its favour.
Oliver Kearns
Lecturer in intelligence and security studies, University of Leicester
“After the astonishing, heroic intervention of the US in the second world war preserved us from invasion and fascism, we built a romantic fairytale of enduring love,” George Monbiot writes. In what sense was American intervention in that war heroic or astonishing? The US remained conspicuously, and very lucratively, neutral for more than two years while Hitler conquered most of Europe and the British fought on and resisted invasion.
Like most Americans, President Roosevelt did not want the British to be defeated but, like them, he did not want to go to war if it could be avoided. The decision was taken out of his hands and he “intervened” involuntarily in December 1941, when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and Hitler declared war on the US (and not the other way round).
Geoffrey Wheatcroft
Combe Down, Somerset
George Monbiot proposes that a Donald Trump presidency is a threat to Nato. Trump is a saviour of Nato. How can there be a partnership when the parties are not equally committed? In 2014, Obama had to insist Nato members commit to 2% spending on military as a floor. Ten years later, several countries are still not there. Over the 10 years, this amounts to billions not invested.
As an American, I wonder why we have 100,000 troops in Europe. Europeans should be positioned to defend themselves and we/they should be ready to come to each other’s aide if necessary.
Jeff Hillary
Goodyear, Arizona, US
US disgust with European Nato members’ free-riding on our taxpayers has become a topic for all of us, not just Maga. Trump, in perhaps his only known moment of good sense, merely pointed out what we Americans should have noticed 15 years ago. If George Monbiot, or any other UK thinker, wants to pretend that a Democratic victory in November will allow for more military back-burnering by the UK and EU, they’re dead wrong.
We’d like universal healthcare, lower-cost education and fast trains too. And if cutting Nato funding is one way to get there, you’ll find we Democrats are ready to abandon an ever more racist Europe.
Tom Sjoberg
Phoenix, Arizona, US
George Monbiot need not have misgivings about championing urgent European rearmament. He is correct that with a likely Donald Trump presidency if Joe Biden does not step aside, Europe will face a challenge in the immediate short term that derails and dwarfs our climate change ambitions.
Our longstanding exchange of intelligence with Washington will be open to being compromised by a careless impostor keen to be friends with other autocrats. This may mean that certain strategic industries such as steel-making and communications will require re-nationalising. We will need to take serious and speedy action to play our part in preserving European security and a democratic future.
Felicity McGowan
Cardigan, Ceredigion