I read the outcome of the NATO Council rather differently Daniel. I think it produced minimalist conclusions - in large measure because very many members are doubtful about extending membership to Georgia, Ukraine and others. Indeed given the US/UK military resource crisis (thanks to the ill considered ventures in Iran and Afghanistan) it is not clear that extending such “membership” would be militarily meaningful. That said I accept the Georgia crisis (the product of a Saakashvilli’s adventurism and Russian arrogance) requires a response. It is more than hightime for the EU to agree on just what eventual relationship it is aiming at with Ukraine, Georgia and indeed (hopefully) a future democratic Russia if - as I believe - classical enlargement will reach its limit with the western Balkana. I have written a paper on this for Sussex University European Institute which may be of interest in this context.

This is a slightly amended version of something I posted elsewhere.

NATO needs to reconsider our relationship with the Ukraine.  Some sort of external association with NATO, short of full membership but with guarantees for the country?s security if attacked would seem to be the best immediate option.

The troops that Russia used to carry out the invasion of Georgia were moved to the adjoining areas of Russia for ?military exercises? in July 2008, that is several weeks before the alleged ?provocation? by Georgia.

The invasion was clearly Putin?s desired outcome. The use of a Georgian attack as a reason is just an excuse. South Ossetia was previously a patchwork quilt of government and separatist held areas. There was often fighting between the two sides. Once the Russian army was in place all they had to do was wait and eventually there would be something to excuse the invasion

Russia is playing a long term game. Its primary objective is to turn Europe into a Russian sphere of influence. It is achieving this goal spectacularly well, largely because so much of the strategy is going undetected.

This is not something which can be achieved militarily. Russia has a much smaller economy and population than western Europe, albeit his military is bigger and has a vastly greater nuclear potential.  The basic method Putin is using is divide and conquer. Most western European countries are much stronger than Russia economically, but all are relatively weak militarily. Putin?s strategy is to divide Western Europe from Eastern Europe, to allow him to absorb Eastern Europe.

Russian increase in its sphere of influence is something which can be achieved by a combination of measures. Russia is in the process of developing an economic stranglehold over European energy supplies, this will be used to bully the western European powers. Eastern European countries in general have virtually no military capacity, so despite their loathing of Russia they would be easy prey to an actual invasion. Once the west of Europe is weakened, it won?t lift a finger to save the East; naively they will sacrifice others believeing that this will save themselves.

There seem to be 2 things that need to be done to prevent Russian expansionism. Challenge the economic aspects and challenge the military aspects. Challenging the economic aspects means developing alternative energy sources. Unfortunately the main viable alternative gas sources come through Georgia at the moment.  This means pressurising Russia over Georgia, and trying to make peace between Armenia and Azerbijan, thus opening up the only other alternative route.

Challenging the military aspects means preventing future Russian military adventurism, like that witnessed in Georgia. Unfortunately it is now too late to prevent a Russian invasion of Georgia, it has already happened.  Russia has used the invasion to completely destroy the much smaller Georgian military.  Small countries need to ally themselves to bigger ones to assist in their defence. The chances of increasing western influence in any part of the world will be very small if small countries believe that it will open them up to attack from Russia.

In Europe the most likely next areas of Russian military adventurism are Moldova and Ukraine. Both are poor countries and both have territorial disputes either with Russia (Crimea, especially Sevastapol and Crimean lighthouses in the Ukraine) or Russian backed separatists (Transdnister in Moldova).

I am unsure what could be done to boost Moldova.  It is desperately poor with no military.  Transdneister is not recognised and survives on organized crime and Russian subsidies, so it is not susceptible to economic presures.

Ukrine is a different matter.  It could be brought more into the NATO sphere of influence.  The purpose of allowing Ukraine under a NATO umbrella (perhaps not by full NATO membership - maybe some temporary guarantee together with stationing NATO troops/air power there) would be to deter a Russian attack there. Ukraine has a large population and unlike eastern Europe generally, it seems to have large, though poorly equipped army. It is a sitting duck in a war with Russia due to its poor air forces. Increase these and perhaps it will stand a fighting chance.

The idea that this would antagonise Russia is a valid concern, however the fact that refusing NATO membership did not pacify Russia, but left it with impunity to attack, shows that this might work. After all the Russians eventually backed down on Estonia last year.

A temporary pact is preferable to full NATO membership at the moment, as many Ukrainians oppose NATO membership and the country itself is often divided between pro and anti Russian forces.  If the pro-Russians won the next election we would not want to be committed to their defence.

Doubtless, that the current scenario of standing up unified against Russia was something expected. However, this emergency meeting dealt with this hot topic rather warm headedly. No question, this quick response is well applaud in Washington, but I’m raising my eyebrows on Mr Korski’s notion of its’ benefits for Europe.
This council often raises the thought of European unified foreign and military policy. A strong NATO will just hold back ambitions of developing EU military. And hence European independence. What do I mean, by that?
If the EU wants to take advantage of this conflict, it does stand on new grounds with Russia. But rather steps closer than further. How does this community imagines its future when acts like the puppet of the US but gets its everyday supply from Russia?
Finding the right balance could make the EU a global player, but we have to understand that the big bear wants more from that cake, too.
What is better for us? A world order of the US or, strengthening Russia for competing? Monopoly or duopoly? Obviously, in long-term, if the EU wants to be anything it wont grow under one power.

Dear Peter,

I don?t think that the EU is a puppet of the U.S (is there a more over-used metaphor out there?) or that NATO?s development is necessarily contrary to the growth of a robust ESDP. That kind of inimical, either-or policy belongs to a different era and is not relevant today. Ask Angela Merkel or Nicolas Sarkoy, neither of whom see ESDP and NATO as inimical.
You say the choice is between a power monopoly or duopoly. I?m afraid it is not that simple anymore. Russia is in no position, politically, militarily or even culturally to challenge the U.S. For a great description of Russian problems see Ivan Krastev?s informative piece. But the US (and the West more generally) will decline in the coming years as China and the BRICS grow more powerful.
The key is to try to find common solutions to world problems and develop the ability for the EU to act independently when required. But the EU must be more than a petulant child, struggling to break free from a parental embrace for no other reason than to break free. We have to take responsibility for dealing with global issues, which more often that not, will require cooperation with the U.S.
Finally on gas. Yes many EU countries rely on Russia ? but that also means that Moscow relies on the EU market. To improve the EU?s position, Pierre Noel says ?a European integrated and flexible gas market would make eastern Europe more secure, just as it would make the relationship between Gazprom and large utility importers in Germany, Italy or France less cosy.? As he goes on to say: ?This is a better position from which to speak with one voice to Moscow.?

Dear Val,

I hope the EU leaders will follow up the six-point peace agreement with a comprehensive regional strategy for Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus. It should also push for an international peacekeeping mandate in Georgia?s secessionist regions, and take the lead in the post-conflict reconstruction effort. Then the EU should strengthen its membership pledge toward Ukraine and Moldova, speed up negotiations with Georgia on a free trade agreement, agree on a visa facilitation deal, and offer Neighbourhood Policy benefits (funding, trade and infrastructure projects) to the secessionist regions, too.

No doubt some EU leaders will want to add punitive measures against Russia. But while Moscow is not immune to international pressure, there is probably little the EU can do in the short-term. Better, therefore, to pay particular attention to developments in Ukraine ? so to avoid a new-style ?domino effect? ? and begin the long-term embrace of Georgia. That does not mean giving Georgia NATO membership, just as Turkey?s negotiations with the EU do not amount to automatic membership. But it means putting the country back on the road.

Nonono,

we are not giving Estonia nor anything from Eastern Europe. We are all aware of Russia’s incapability compared to the US. There’s no question in this regard. The only doubt I’m raising when I see American news deliberately manipulating the population, I see the FT.com emphasising the sanctions, and not the reasons. No one in Europe even questioned the authenticity of what we hear about the conflict. There are witnesses stating that among Georgian soldiers there were some with US badges, there are reports on the brutality of the Saakashvili regime, but not in our mass media. No European news channel even mention the case of Kosovo when talking about South Ossetia.
I’m just emphasising that we do not have a clear picture, but already punishing someone.
The only thing, we supposed to give to Russia, is our understanding, and simply listen to them.
By the way, does any of you read any other material than western?

Regarding, alternative energy. Utterly agree. But no gaspipes, no Azerbaijan. Real Alternatives. There are some projects like hydrosol from the EU commission, but I cannot see the mass distribution of it. Japan already running some of his cars on water, but we still using our barbaric energy of burning fossil fuels. And just to mention Nicola Tesla…

Dear David… Are you out of your mind? Russia cannot challenge US culturally?? USA has NO culture whatsoever!! If I remember history correctly - EVERYTHING has been brought from different countries to the USA of today… On the other side Moscow has been built long before America (so-called) was even discovered, so please, stop being one-side-pro-American person and start learning some other language (Russian included) to see the real world and learn some real Culture.