It is hard to understand President Bush’s eagerness to have the Ukraine and Georgia become full members of NATO. Militarily both countries have little to offer the alliance while politically each brings major burdens that threaten relations with a resurgent Russia. Indeed the accession of Georgia could bring NATO into direct conflict with the Kremlin because there is a disputed border between the two countries.
Why therefore should Bush be tweaking the nose of the Russian bear by bringing what the Russians perceive as a threatening military alliance right up to their borders? We already have the precipitate American move to site a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. Moscow very reasonably assumes that this $53 billion project, officially called the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD), will be deployed against its own missiles rather than those which Washington claims the Iranians may have in due time. Any Kremlin defense strategists with half a brain is going to appreciate that bringing NATO right to Russia’s eastern and southern frontiers constitutes a further threat.
The Georgians, whose army is being trained and equipped by America may welcome NATO membership as a further guarantee of their independence from Russian influence. However, many Ukrainians who are not of Russian origin are actually deeply concerned at the loss of their nonaligned status.
Nor are NATO members such as Germany and France at all enthusiastic about extending membership to these two new countries. Bush’s proposals may be rejected if they do not disappear with the end of his presidency. Indeed it must be wondered why the president has chosen to use his last NATO summit to raise such a divisive issue. All three would-be presidents, John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have indicated that on foreign affairs, they will restart the listening that the Bush administration has signally abandoned with such disastrous consequences.
The next US president already has an ugly legacy to unpick and Bush’s proposal this week at the NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania is surely only going to add to the work. It was already expected that in his last appearance as a summit guest, Russia’s outgoing President Vladimir Putin would have more bitter things to say about the alliance. Bush’s plan will boost his anger. It is also likely to inform the diplomatic stance of Putin’s chosen successor, Alexander Medvedev, elected with over 70 percent of the popular vote last month. The new man may very well follow in the steps of his former master who is expected to become instead his premier. But new administrations always start with something of a clean sheet and now was the time to appease rather than provoke the incoming president.
Yet Bush has thrown away the opportunity. He has also very probably set many European NATO members on a collision course with him. Europe has issues enough with Russia without a new political row and potential military tension. Worse, if NATO is weakened by dispute, an early result could be a further degradation in its Afghanistan performance at a pivotal military moment.
