Regarding Simon Jenkins’ article (Farage’s Ukraine comments were hardly offensive – other party leaders could use a history lesson, 24 June), I agree that Nato should have stuck to its original boundaries, but this does not make Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Crimea or the rest of Ukraine acceptable. The manner in which Nigel Farage presented his argument, rather than the content, gave the impression that Putin was right to invade when he could have made more effort to negotiate.
Mr Farage and his fellow Reform candidates have been shown to represent views that most decent people do not wish to be associated with, I hope. We see far too much of him now – I dread the prospect of him being elected. I am sure he will be seen far more on our TV screens than he will in Clacton.
Janet Bayford
Little Hulton, Greater Manchester
It would be conducive to clear analysis if commentators such as Simon Jenkins could stop assigning “a plan” to Nato. It has expanded not because of some malign internal purpose, but because threatened states have asked to join. Anyone doubting they had good reason to apply should revisit Putin’s published apologia for the attack on Ukraine, where he plainly asserts that anywhere once occupied by the Russian empire must remain under Russian hegemony. He plainly menaces the Baltic states, with their large Russian diaspora, as well as Ukraine, Transnistria and other peripheral territory.
Douglas Martin
Buxton, Derbyshire
Are we focusing on the wrong issue with Nigel Farage and his views on Russia? Many other commentators in the west, across the political spectrum, have for years expressed concern about the geopolitical consequences of the west extending influence eastward. However, Farage showed his true colours when he said of Putin: “I said I disliked him as a person, but I admired him as a political operator because he’s managed to take control of running Russia.”
Putin has not accrued power through the political process, but through autocratic means such as the violent suppression of the opposition, control of the media, acquisition of extreme wealth and creating an atmosphere of fear through the Russian security service. If that is what Farage admires, it is why he should be criticised – and feared.
Bruce White
Cambridge
I can hardly believe Simon Jenkins’ ludicrously generous conclusion that Nigel Farage has made a good point, bafflingly extrapolated from Farage’s “they’ll love me for this” insincere desire for peace between Russia and Ukraine.
Farage is a cynical manipulator of credulous people. Putin is a dangerous operator, a bully and a liar, a supreme manipulator of ill-informed people – he makes sure of that through fear, torture, restriction of outside news and murder.
Why on earth does Jenkins give either of these disruptive, sociopathic people credit for anything? They’re both equally a threat to peace.
Mat Watkinson
Scarborough, North Yorkshire