I hold no brief for Vladimir Putin, and I am not a member of the Stop the War coalition, but Keir Starmer’s attack on it and his eulogy for Nato is a travesty of history (Under my leadership, Labour’s commitment to Nato is unshakable, 10 February). When the UN was founded in 1945, the imperialist concept of spheres of influence should have become obsolete. But instead of developing common security policies, Nato was established – allegedly – as a defence against a threat from the Soviet Union to attack western Europe. In fact there was, and is, no evidence that there was a plan to overrun the west. When the Soviet Union collapsed and the Warsaw Pact was disbanded, Nato’s alleged raison d’etre disappeared and it too should have been closed down. The standoff with Ukraine must not lead to war. But an arms buildup on both sides makes war more likely. Only discussion and diplomacy can avoid this catastrophe. Constructive dialogue should be brokered by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which operates with a fraction of the budget of Nato, yet gets no publicity for its successes. Increased support for the OSCE would make a much greater contribution to peace in Ukraine and the rest of Europe than flooding the region with more arms. Frank Jackson Former co-chair, World Disarmament Campaign • As a member of the Labour party and a supporter of Stop the War, I am appalled that Keir Starmer falls back on the old trope about those who oppose war giving succour to our enemies. Does he understand what being opposed to war means? Expressing his faith in the anachronistic Nato militates against the kind of internationalism that is central to the Labour party and socialist philosophy. Starmer is the one giving succour to aggressive militarism. Of course, I am opposed to the kleptocratic regime in Russia and its militarism, but I do not think we should oppose this with a show of military strength from the west. Richard Ashwell Wolverhampton • Lindsey German’s timely piece encapsulates Keir Starmer’s changed position on Nato (Keir Starmer’s cynical embrace of Nato is a sad sight indeed, 11 February). With the Falklands war, Margaret Thatcher rescued her dire economic policies from likely electoral defeat. Tony Blair survived the calamitous and ongoing war on “weapons of mass destruction” to win another general election. However, David Cameron’s urge to take us back to war in Syria misfired, despite his parliamentary majority. It may be that 12 years of cuts to essential services and the weariness of an ongoing pandemic will not make war an inevitable vote winner. Dr Alan Lafferty London • Lindsey German emphasises Nato’s real recent misdeeds, but doesn’t consider the present context and situation. There is no mention of Russia’s seizures of Georgian and Ukrainian territories, nor its support for the armed conflict in the Donbas region and the shooting down of a civil airliner. If there is a “march towards war over Ukraine”, it’s been provoked by the massing of Russian forces on Ukraine’s borders, a real encircling of a sovereign nation, not the encircling of Russia claimed by geographically challenged opponents of Nato. German’s reference to Nato as “expansionist” is similarly partial. The nations that joined Nato in the past 20 years had direct experience of Russian rule and subjugation, which they do not want to see repeated. Ignoring this is the real insult. Blaine Stothard London • Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.