BERLIN: As a signal to Russia that NATO will not be intimidated, its ambassadors will travel to Georgia this month. They want to see the aftermath of a war in which Russian troops last month occupied parts of Georgia, gained control of the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and then recognized them as independent states. The envoys also want to assess whether Georgia is ready to be offered, in December, a road map to join the alliance. Russia is furious with NATO's refusal to back down from its commitment to admit - one day - Georgia and Ukraine into the U.S.-led military alliance, a pledge made during its summit meeting last April in Bucharest and repeated since Russia rolled into Georgia after the Georgians attacked South Ossetia. Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, told students of Moscow's diplomatic academy Monday that "there is a feeling that NATO again needs front-line states to justify its existence." NATO diplomats dismiss such charges. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO's secretary general, has repeatedly said that democratic countries flanking Russia should be an asset, not a threat, to the Kremlin. But Russia does not trust NATO. In Moscow's view, NATO, and the EU, have become more anti-Russian since the former Communist countries of Eastern Europe and the Baltic states joined both organizations. It also sees the alliance as encroaching on regions Russia considers within its sphere of influence. But inside NATO, despite the show of unity over the Russia-Georgia crisis, there is no consensus as to whether the alliance should expand deep into the Caucasus, or admit Ukraine, birthplace of Russian Orthodoxy. Indeed, Georgia is just the latest challenge to the alliance's identity: since the end of the Cold War, NATO has been trying to reinvent itself.
BERLIN: As a signal to Russia that NATO will not be intimidated, its ambassadors will travel to Georgia this month. They want to see the aftermath of a war in which Russian troops last month occupied parts of Georgia, gained control of the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and then recognized them as independent states. The envoys also want to assess whether Georgia is ready to be offered, in December, a road map to join the alliance.
Russia is furious with NATO's refusal to back down from its commitment to admit - one day - Georgia and Ukraine into the U.S.-led military alliance, a pledge made during its summit meeting last April in Bucharest and repeated since Russia rolled into Georgia after the Georgians attacked South Ossetia. Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, told students of Moscow's diplomatic academy Monday that "there is a feeling that NATO again needs front-line states to justify its existence."
NATO diplomats dismiss such charges. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO's secretary general, has repeatedly said that democratic countries flanking Russia should be an asset, not a threat, to the Kremlin. But Russia does not trust NATO. In Moscow's view, NATO, and the EU, have become more anti-Russian since the former Communist countries of Eastern Europe and the Baltic states joined both organizations. It also sees the alliance as encroaching on regions Russia considers within its sphere of influence.
But inside NATO, despite the show of unity over the Russia-Georgia crisis, there is no consensus as to whether the alliance should expand deep into the Caucasus, or admit Ukraine, birthplace of Russian Orthodoxy. Indeed, Georgia is just the latest challenge to the alliance's identity: since the end of the Cold War, NATO has been trying to reinvent itself.
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO's secretary general, has repeatedly said that democratic countries flanking Russia should be an asset, not a threat, to the Kremlin
Democratic countries are nice things. But just having a vote every now and again doesn't make you democratic. Suppressing opposition doesn't make you democratic. Jeez, bulgaria is in NATO as well as the EU and you should ask its people what they think of their democracy.
And what has that got to do with NATO anyway ? Should all democratic countries be in NATO ? New zealand perhaps ? Venezuala ? If the USA has a "back-yard" where it insists on retaining a controlling military interest, why is Russia not allowed the same ?
At least if NATO is to make any sense, all countries should have useful supply lines that make its borders sensibly defensible. Ukraine and Georgia don't. I'm not really sure the Baltic states do either, but what's done is done regarding them.
Right now we have an alliance that makes no strategic sense and seems to be evolving into some sort of American Foreign Legion. It then justifies its existence by starting fires all over the place in order to be able to go out and fight them (if not necessarily put them out). Which allows it to expand endlessly into areas where it has no possible legitimate interest except that of furthering American hegemonic control.
Europe is sleepwalking into bankrolling American militarism, allowing our political institutions to be sequestered in the name of defending another coutry's interests. Interests that are increasingly contrary to our own. keep to the Fen Causeway
