Readers respond to the Reform UK leader’s views on the Russian president, Nato’s actions and the Ukraine war

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