Sir, I was disappointed by Anatole Kaletsky’s advice to Western nations on how to treat my country, Georgia (comment, April 3).

Surely a more lasting solution would be achieved if the overly apprehensive decision-makers in Russia were delivered from unfounded fears of encirclement, through persuasion. And is Kaletsky serious when he draws parallels between the intentions of Napoleon, Hitler and those of Nato, or between Georgia and Taiwan for that matter? Should a “genuine spirit of peaceful cooperation . . . with Europe’s most populous country”, as he puts it, be created at the expense of depriving a by far less populous nascent democracy of its choice of allies, thus perpetuating its insecurity? What is his justification for asserting that Georgia’s motives for Nato membership are related solely to the unsettled conflicts? And finally, where are the large numbers of “ethnically Russian Georgians” that he refers to?

Inaccurate data, flawed parallels, regional stereotyping and shallow analyses are so common as to no longer be surprising. However, the insertion of moralistic pronouncements such as maintaining that “the rights of former Soviet states must be defended at all costs” in an article whose overall contents lead to diametrically opposite conclusions is irritating.

Those commentators who regard countries like Georgia as pawns, inhabiting someone else’s spheres of influence, and, therefore, destined to be eternal satellites without the right to choose their own futures, ought to think twice before making such statements. They should realise that by so doing they hurl a vicious insult at the pride of these peoples.

I have enjoyed Mr Kaletsky’s articles since I was posted to London and will continue to do so despite this regrettable episode of disenchantment. I remain of good cheer. After all, in the course of my long life I have seen even greater myths shatter.

Gela Charkviani
Georgian Ambassador to the UK and Ireland

Explore Letters

• Feedback