No NATO boots in Ukraine

To the Editor of The Guardian,
Dear Sir,

No NATO boots in Ukraine

     It seems clear that Russia regards the presence of NATO (or European Union) troops in Ukraine as unacceptable conditions for long term peace, whereas we (in the West) think it perfectly reasonable, and Ukraine thinks it is essential. All that is understandable. Rôles reversed, we would think the same. Indeed we DID think the same, when the Russians placed missiles on Cuba. We were very lucky to have had some adequately flexible diplomats around at that time. 

    So I believe that this point should be conceded. It would have to work both ways, of course. NO NATO TROOPS IN UKRAINE AND NO RUSSIAN TROOPS IN UKRAINE. That is the only way to understand a neutral buffer zone. 

    (The "Cuban Missile Crisis" of 16-28 October 1962, was resolved on 28th October, by the Soviets dismantling their offensive weapons in Cuba, subject to United Nations verification, in exchange for a public declaration by the US agreeing not to invade Cuba again. The US also dismantled their missiles in Turkey. That crisis showed, de facto, that hostile missiles in Cuba were as unacceptable to the US as missiles in Turkey were to the USSR.  It similarly demonstrated that the US did not have the liberty to invade Cuba if the USSR did not have the liberty to protect Cuba. )

    It is axiomatic that our allies  are reasonable and can be trusted, while 'the enemy' is un-reasonable and un-trustworthy; such is the "the distorting lens of inevitable prejudice". 

    A logician can easily see what a politician and a citizen cannot: that our enemy will be liable to the same distortion and see the same asymmetry.

   (Ranyard West, in his last book ("International Law and Psychology", 1974) described a technique, which he called "inversion-substitution". He evolved it as a way of exposing the prejudices that inevitably cloud our judgements. He would take a piece of journalism that defended our actions abroad and attacked our enemy's, but would swap the names and the epithets of the adversaries, so that the value judgements were inverted. For example: "The {Russians} made a {generous} offer which the {cowardly} {Americans} spurned. ....."  The result is startling!  But salutary.)

Ian West,
BANBURY,