Whenever British politicians start giving out about a country posing a threat to international stability, you can be sure there is an underlying reason.

Either they are softening up the public for another US military intervention or their arms industry friends want another shot of public finance.

Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond’s assertion that Russia has turned its back on a “rules-based international order” by undermining sovereign states in eastern Europe is breathtaking in its hypocrisy.

It is on a par with Barack Obama’s deckaration that countries’ “borders cannot be redrawn at the barrel of a gun,” which must have been news to the citizens of Yugoslavia who saw their country split asunder at the instance of the European Union and Nato.

While British politicians and the capitalist media congratulate themselves on their commitment to a “rules-based international order,” many people across the globe are less convinced.

Most non-Nato and non-EU states subscribe to the “rules-based international order” contained within the United Nations charter.

They are less enamoured of the “new international order” announced by US president George Bush a quarter-century ago where its rules are drawn up by Washington and its loyal allies, especially Britain.

In their Lewis Carroll world, the words deployed to enunciate international law mean simply what they wish them to mean.

For the Western imperialist powers, the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya were legal, whatever the UN may say, while the overthrow of Ukraine’s lawful government by insurgents spearheaded by neonazi militias was an expression of democracy because it dovetailed with EU-Nato wishes.

Only after the fascist-led seizure of power in Kiev did Moscow agree to reincorporate Crimea, including Sevastopol, the home of its Black Sea fleet, into Russia.

Yet even after that, President Vladimir Putin has stressed Moscow’s support for Ukrainian integrity, with safeguards and autonomy for the Russian-speaking Donbass area.

Despite wild accusations from Kiev and its Nato allies about tens of thousands of Russian regular army soldiers, tanks and artillery pieces being directed into Ukraine, the cold warriors have been unable to provide concrete evidence.

At the same time, despite promises given to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachov that Nato would not extend itself to Russia’s borders, this is precisely what has happened.

Former Soviet states, each with appreciable Russian-speaking populations, have been incorporated into Nato, some intensifying discrimination against these national minorities.

Most Russian political forces — not simply Putin — regard Nato and the EU as having taken Gorbachov for a ride before treating drunken imbecile Boris Yeltsin just as contemptuously.

Putin, who is certainly no leftwinger but sees himself as a patriot, is averse to being walked over by the West but is open to co-operation.

Western fairy tales of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, a Russian nuclear submarine in Swedish waters or Russian warplanes in Britain’s air space can only crank up tension with Moscow.

Russia has enough internal problems of its own without seeking to present a military threat to Britain, as Hammond pretends.

Our government, in contrast to France and Germany, is already undermining the fragile Minsk peace accords by sending “non-lethal” military equipment and advisers to Kiev in breach of the agreement’s conditions.

The Cameron government should be told that its militaristic brinkmanship is not broadly supported and that talks with Moscow must be the way forward, not a conflict in which there will be no winners.