Something of a war hysteria is being stoked up by some sections of the media, former military top brass and leading Tories, with respect to Russia and the events in eastern Ukraine.

“Britain at the mercy of Putin’s planes,” screamed yesterday’s Daily Mail, going over the top in misquoting former head of the RAF Sir Michael Graydon.

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon accused the Russian president of targeting Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania for destabilisation, claiming that Vladimir Putin “is as great a threat to Europe as Islamic State.”

Former first sea lord and Nato commander Admiral Lord West said it was important that Nato “stands united at this dangerous and difficult moment.”

Even the Independent headlined: “Moscow and Nato on collision course.”

If it were not for the Ukraine crisis, the story of a couple of Russian bombers flying near, but outside, British airspace would have been a non-issue.

Russia and Britain are not allies, and such flights have been going on by both sides for years. One cannot expect Russia to abandon such activities unilaterally.

But that, coupled with the Ukraine crisis — including the prominence given to US and Ukrainian government dodgy claims of Russian military involvement — is intended to provide the basis for a more aggressive stance on behalf of Britain and Nato.

It is an extremely dangerous road to go down, and one which could have untold negative consequences.

It is cynical for British politicians to accuse Russia of destabilising Ukraine, when that is precisely what Nato and the EU have been doing, including giving undercover support to neofascist elements in the country, enabling them to carry out the putsch against then president Victor Yanukovych this time last year.

And claims about threats to the Baltic countries are no more than self-serving claptrap.

Yesterday, the House of Lords committee on the EU criticised the British government for a “catastrophic misreading” of the mood in the Kremlin in the run-up to the crisis.

It claimed that the EU “sleepwalked” into the situation, that it did not realise the depth of Russian hostility to the plans for “closer relations” with Ukraine.

In fact the EU and Nato countries blundered into the crisis for their own economic and strategic interests.

The removal of Yanukovych was an essential part of a strategy for dragging Ukraine into the West and thereby encircling Russia economically and militarily.

But the strategy bore no relation to economic reality. Through cheap gas and lenient repayment terms, Russia has been subsidising Ukraine’s economy to the tune of several billion dollars each year.

It is Ukraine’s largest trading partner by far — and Ukrainians are free to go and work in Russia, where there are now three million of them, sending money to their families at home.

It was predictable that the strategy would also unravel politically. Particularly in Ukraine’s east, where the Russian language predominates, resistance to the neofascist attacks on national rights was inevitable.

Furthermore, it was to be expected that Russia would seek to protect its own strategic position.

The hysteria is being promoted now because the EU/Nato strategy is unravelling militarily as well.

The Ukrainian army has been defeated by people fighting for their own land and, as the Independent admitted yesterday, there is a mood of anger and mutiny among the retreating troops.

The war in Ukraine has caused terrible loss of life. The EU and Nato are ultimately responsible for that.

Instead of stoking up tension, there should now be a sober reassessment of the situation, and a resolution of the crisis on the basis of the Minsk agreement.

And, in the interests of world peace, there must be a guarantee that the neutrality of Ukraine will be maintained. Aggressive expansion by Nato and the EU must be halted.