Russia, Georgia and NATO's Near Miss

Looking back at the conflict between Georgia and Russia last year it seemed at times like a bad low budget movie. The dreadful acting, contrived screenshots and confusing story lines meshed well with the shaky camera footage last seen in the Blair Witch Project.
 
Unfortunately, the short conflict was very real and left hundreds dead and thousands homeless. That being said, it made for excellent fodder for the media and even, in the most bizarre fashion, had a cameo in the 2008 U.S. presidential election.
 
We were told that without provocation the big Russian bear invaded the disputed territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, battering the Georgian army into submission. We would see news footage of Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili regularly addressing crowds and news conferences--suspiciously in English--to tell all about the atrocities being committed by the invading army. Various politicians lapped up President Saakashvili's every word. U.S. Senator John McCain even pledged that Georgia would be allowed to join NATO if he became president.
 
What a difference a year makes.
 
The inquiry sponsored by the European Union (PDF) has now officially concluded that the war was illegally initiated by Georgia. We should be thankful that other NATO members had refused to expand the organization to the South Caucasus.
 
Of course, we will hear from neoconservatives and liberal hawks--the same ones who helped to promulgate the lies I have mentioned--that the EU is merely "appeasing" the Russians. And while I'm hardly one to endorse anything to do with the EU, last year I felt confident enough to take every word uttered by President Saakashvili with a fistful of salt. Others have justified Georgia's role by saying the conflict would have been prevented all together if the nation had been allowed to join NATO in the first place. Regardless, the Georgian reaction to the EU report makes this position a little hard to swallow.
 
The Georgians stated that "the investigation proved that Russia had been preparing for war all along." But, of course, they failed to mention that the EU also cited Georgia's alarming military build up. Now this is crucial. It's a sudden shift from the Georgian's original claim that it was the Russians who initiated the conflict. So, given that we have now established that Georgia was the aggressor, how would NATO membership have prevented the outbreak of war? Surely the theory was based on the belief that the Russians fired the first shot?
 
This is what I'm concerned about. Back in the late 90s, Henry Kissinger stated that he opposed NATO membership for Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary on the basis that expanding the alliance would "chip away" at the commitment to the sacrosanct Article V. Are we confident that once a country has become a member of the alliance, they will cease all provocative actions against historial foes? Do we really believe that every member of NATO would be willing to defend Georgia against a Russian attack? For even if a member provokes an attack and the rest of the alliance chooses not to respond, NATO will be devoid of all credibility. NATO will be destroyed from within.
 
Every individual that values NATO should seriously consider these questions before we even think about allowing new nations to join. NATO has worked as an alliance because she doesn't pick fights and there is enough firepower to deter aggression. What the alliance has yet to encounter is a state that seeks membership to settle old scores rather than preserve their own territorial integrity. One must question Georgia's real intentions for joining NATO after they so easily duped the media and scores of our populace into believing they were the innocent victims in this conflict.
 
All things considered, it was nothing short of a godsend she was never allowed to join.
 
(Peacekeeper barracks in Ossetia image by © Dmitrij Steshin 2008.)
 
Read more stories at YPNation.