SHADOW defence secretary Nia Griffith is said to be “absolutely furious” because Jeremy Corbyn’s spokesman quoted the Labour leader as wanting to wind down military tensions with Russia.

Given that Corbyn has a record of opposing war as a means of settling international disagreements, why should that stance be surprising?

While the Morning Star is clear that Nato is a remnant from the cold war and is used to project imperialist power far beyond its supposed north Atlantic borders, there is little current support within the Labour Party for Britain’s withdrawal from the military bloc.

But that does not mean that Labour should emulate or seek to outdo the Tories in backing provocative acts by Nato.

The government’s decision to send 800 troops to join a Nato taskforce headed by 3,000 US armed forces is said to constitute a warning to Russia.

As Griffith herself put it: “I think it’s very important for Nato to be absolutely clear, following what has happened in Ukraine, that we are standing together as Nato nations and there is no way that we would tolerate any attack on any one of our member states.”

Perhaps the Labour defence spokeswoman ought to examine recent Russia-Nato history more closely.

Nato and the US promised former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachov in 1990 that, as Moscow’s erstwhile allies in eastern Europe asserted their political independence, there would be no “expansion of Nato territory to the east.”

In reality, all the countries once linked to Moscow through the Warsaw Pact have been welcomed into Nato. The same applies to the three Baltic republics that formed part of the Soviet Union.

Griffith’s reference to Ukraine is plainly intended to evoke the ongoing resistance to Kiev led by anti-fascist forces in the Donbass region, which Nato calls Moscowdirected, and the return of Crimea to Russia sovereignty.

She, like most Western leaders, passes off the February 2014 coup d’etat in Kiev that overthrew Viktor Yanukovych’s government.

His removal, spearheaded by violence orchestrated by far-right groups, was effected because the elected president had the temerity to suspend the signing of the Ukraine-European Union Association Agreement.

This treaty would have tipped Ukraine decisively into the EU/Nato orbit and away from Russia.

Yanukovych cast around vainly for a compromise solution to satisfy Ukrainians who were divided in their preferences between the two trajectories.

Recent outrage in the US about supposed Russian interference in its politics sits uneasily beside the reality that Senator John McCain and EU international affairs head Catherine Ashton involved themselves in the Kiev uprising, assuring participants of US/EU support.

The EU rejected any compromise arrangement for Ukraine, insisting on an all-or-nothing choice that would enforce a hard border with Russia, cutting off many Ukrainians from family, cultural and trading links to the east.

Moscow understood that the Ukraine-European Union Association Agreement was simply the first stepping stone to Kiev joining the EU and Nato and rendering Russia’s Black Sea fleet based at Sevastopol in Crimea homeless.

It’s scarcely surprising that, in these circumstances, the overwhelmingly Russian population of Crimea cooperated with Moscow’s desire to reintegrate the territory transferred between Soviet republics by Nikita Khruschov in 1954.

Corbyn has expressed himself clearly on this issue, declaring that there is blame on both sides for worsening relations between Russia and Nato.

Instead of attempting to rival inveterate cold warriors in their sabre-rattling excesses, Griffith ought to support her leader’s viewpoint and urge a de-escalation of tension.

We need your support to keep running. If you like what you read please donate by clicking here