Crisis in Caucasus Exposes Confusion Within NATO
August 23, 2008
As Russian tanks rumbled imperiously across Georgia and French troops were slaughtered in a 10-hour firefight near Kabul, western security policy appeared to be in disarray, challenged on several fronts and struggling to cope.
The embodiment of that policy for two generations, the Nato military alliance looked over-stretched, under-resourced, and hobbled by bureaucratic infighting among its 26 member states.
When their foreign ministers met in Brussels to deliver a response to Russia’s invasion of Georgia, the crisis was promptly compounded by the news of the worst French losses in 25 years at the hands of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Nato’s secretary general, found himself having to explain the alliance’s value. “It is worth what it has been worth since 1949. That’s my short answer,” he said.
But there are plenty of policy makers in Brussels, from Nato and the EU, who increasingly wonder whether that statement of purpose is warranted.
“Terrorism, radicalisation, climate change, energy - these are the biggest security threats nowadays and they are not something Nato can do much about. It doesn’t have an answer,” said an EU official, who wished not to be named.
Born in 1949, Nato’s original function and purpose was to keep the Soviet Union at bay and keep the Americans in Europe. But in recent years the alliance has suffered from strategic confusion while morphing into a very different organisation. Nato has become a global gendarme, fighting wars far away from its “North Atlantic” core, peacekeeping, and expanding civilian control of the military in new democracies through its policy of admitting countries from the Balkans and the former eastern bloc.
This week’s events in Georgia and Afghanistan throw Nato’s very different dilemmas and missions into sharp focus.
“For the last five years we have been increasingly focused on being an expeditionary force [in Afghanistan],” said an unnamed Nato diplomat. “Now we have to struggle with the return of the classical Nato challenge [in Georgia] and we’re going to have to manage to do both.”
Vladimir Putin’s throttling of Georgia, say analysts and diplomats, presents big risks and big opportunities. “The era of Russian weakness is over. We’re now in a much more competitive relationship with Russia and Georgia has put European security back on the geopolitical map, also for the US. All that could mean a rejuvenation of Nato,” said Tomas Valasek at the Centre for European Reform.
The new Nato states in the Baltics and central Europe are not, unlike the US or Britain, preoccupied with terrorism, Afghanistan, or Iran’s nuclear potential. Their bugbear is the Kremlin. The Czechs and the Poles have agreed to host the Pentagon’s missile defence system not because they worry about Iranian missiles, but because they feel more secure by having US troops permanently on their soil for the first time.
“If we said no to the Americans, there’s a danger the transatlantic alliance could unravel and the Americans could leave Europe. We think that would be a disaster,” said a Czech official.
For small west European countries, too, Nato’s value includes keeping the US committed to Europe’s defence and engaged in its politics.
“For the Czechs, Nato is existential,” said a Dutch EU official. “But for the Dutch or the Portuguese Nato is also about looking to the Americans to keep the big European powers in check.”
In Afghanistan, Nato critics and loyalists agree, the alliance’s first ground war is deciding its future. With the Taliban resurgent and western casualties at their highest since the Taliban were overthrown in 2001, the Senlis Council thinktank declared this week that Nato was failing in Afghanistan. The Nato diplomat said the Taliban were “having some short-term tactical successes”.
The Nato-led coalition’s lack of success in Afghanistan has exposed divisions caused recriminations, with Germany bearing the brunt of the criticism for its reluctance to put its forces on the frontlines.
Germany has also been central to the Georgia crisis, highlighting the limits of Nato’s policies towards Russia and its post-cold war policy of expanding into the countries around Russia’s rim.
At a Nato summit in April, while agreeing that Georgia would eventually join the alliance, Germany undid that promise by blocking US pressure to open negotiations to bring Georgia in. The German veto, admits an unnamed senior US official, emboldened the Kremlin in its invasion preparations. “Russia misread that decision and saw it as a lack of resolve on Nato’s part.”
In a report on the Georgia crisis to be released on Monday, the European Council on Foreign Relations says: “Moscow is well aware that few Nato members want to extend a mutual security guarantee to a country at war with Europe’s biggest neighbour.”
This cuts to Nato’s policy flaw. “The main question is, are you willing to go to war for Tbilisi? I think the answer is no,” said the EU official.
Source: The Guardian, August 2008
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/23/nato.georgia
Defying the Whole World
August 22, 2008
Yesterday Russia demonstrated that it is not going to compromise in its current confrontation with the West. NATO got a notification from the Russian Defense Ministry about complete termination of military cooperation with the alliance, and Russian military detained France’s Ambassador to Georgia at the entrance to Gori. Finally, the congresses of the Abkhaz and Ossetian people called on Russia to recognize the breakaway republics’ independence, and Russian Foreign Minister hinted that this appeal has been taken into account in Moscow. On Monday both chambers of the Russian parliament may take corresponding decisions.
All day long the Russian authorities demonstrated that they are not going to defuse the tensions in the confrontation with the USA and the West in general, and that Moscow is not afraid of whatever sanctions. On the contrary, Russia responded to all the threats by following its line of escalating the conflict, that is reacting to the criticism related to the situation in Georgia as well as the USA and Poland’s signing the agreement for interceptors deployment.
Yesterday Russian Foreign Office Chief Sergey Lavrov censured NATO in connection with the latest meeting of the alliance’s Foreign Ministers, whose final statement reads, “We have determined that we cannot continue with business as usual.” “Russia’s help is critical to the alliance,” the Minister stated. “After the NATO meeting, where a document regarding the relations with Russia was adopted, the alliance’s representatives contacted the Russian party persuading us not to terminate the cooperation in Afghanistan.” Basing on this position, Sergey Lavrov issued an ultimatum to the North-Atlantic alliance suggesting that it should make a choice between Georgia and Russia, “If these priorities lead to complete support of Saakashvili’s bankrupt regime, and if breaking the relations with Russia is the price they are ready to pay – let it be.” Yesterday the Foreign Offices of Norway, Estonia and Latvia reported receiving the notifications from the Russian Defense Ministry saying that Moscow terminates military cooperation with NATO. Later NATO spokesperson Carmen Romero confirmed this information.
Sergey Lavrov reiterated that it is Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili who delivered a blow to his country’s territorial integrity. “We are not trying to stage it (the recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia by other states – Kommersant),” Sergey Lavrov argued. “We show respect for the members of the world community, and it’s not inherent in our political culture to organize staged demarches.” In fact it means that Russia is ready to recognize the breakaway republics alone. It appears even more probable taking account of the fact that the parliaments of both South Ossetia and Abkhazia adopted appeals to the Russian President about recognizing their independence on Wednesday. Yesterday the resolutions were sanctioned by the congresses of the Ossetian and Abkhaz peoples. Given that President Medvedev has stated on several occasions that Moscow will support whatever decisions of Sukhumi and Tskhinvali, it can mean that Russia is ready to recognize both republics. The State Duma and the Federation Council have scheduled emergency meetings for Monday, where they’ll consider the recognition. Sources with the Union of Russia and Belarus Office informed Kommersant that now different scenarios of Russia’s patronage of the two republics are studied. One of them envisages including Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the Union of Russia and Belarus. But to do it, it’s necessary that Minsk should recognize Sukhumi and Tskhinvali.
Sergey Lavrov also stated that Russia complies with the peace plan worked out by France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy. It need be reminded that, according to the document, Russia is to pull out its troops to South Ossetia being able to patrol temporarily in a strip of up to 6.2 miles, or 10 kilometers, outside. French and German diplomats, who’re trying to advocate Russia in the West, reported yesterday that Moscow promised to accomplish the withdrawal of its troops by Friday midnight.
Yesterday the Russian party demonstrated that it doesn’t appreciate France and Germany’s intercession that much. French Ambassador to Georgia Eric Fournier was detained by Russian peace-keepers at the entrance to Gori. AFP reports that they prevented the diplomat from entering Gori during three hours. Giving his commentary regarding the matter, Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Colonel General Anatoly Nogovitsyn said that it was the Ambassador’s fault because he should have informed the Russian military about his visit in advance. Mr Nogovitsyn added that OSCE Chairman and Finnish Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Stubb avoided such an incident yesterday because he had notified the Russian military of his visit to Gori in advance.
For all that, Russia has certain claims to the OSCE as well. Mr Nogovitsyn stated yesterday that the staff of the OSCE field mission had been warned of Georgia’s plans to invade Tskhinvali, but hadn’t told Russia’s peacekeepers about it. The accusation was denied by the organization’s spokesperson Mikhail Yevstafyev, “Neither the OSCE headquarters nor the OSCE mission Georgia had any information about the parties’ determination to use force. The OSCE mission in Tskhinvali functioned till we had to evacuate the staff, which was on August 8.”
With its new demarche, Russia shows that it is not going to win over the governments and organizations which haven’t criticised it yet. Apparently, the USA has to respond with something. It has three days to do it – on Monday The State Duma and the Federation Council convene their sessions.
Source: Kommersant, August 2008
www.kommersant.com/p1014291/r_538/Russia_responds_to_the_West/
NATO Meows
August 22, 2008
Read the first five paragraphs of the NATO statement on the Russian invasion of Georgia and you will find not a hint of who invaded whom. The statement is almost comically evenhanded. “We deplore all loss of life,” it declared, as if deploring a bus accident. And, it “expressed its grave concern over the situation in Georgia.” Situation, mind you.
It’s not until paragraph six that NATO, a 26-nation alliance with 900 million people and nearly half of world GDP, unsheathes its mighty sword, boldly declaring “Russian military action” — not aggression, not invasion, not even incursion, but “action” — to be “inconsistent with its peacekeeping role.”
U.S. Will Rebuild Georgian Army
August 22, 2008
Russia plans to finish equipping eight peacekeepers’ checkpoints in the security zone on the border of Georgia and South Ossetia today. Moscow has given assurances that no more than 500 soldiers will serve as peacekeepers. “Our peacekeepers’ plan is to equip about eight posts on the inner border of the security zone on Friday,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated. “A contingent will be posted at each of them… The remaining units that were sent to the region to reinforce the peacekeepers will be withdrawn into South Ossetia.”
Tbilisi reacted skeptically to that announcement. Georgia claims that, contrary to the settlement plan, Russian forces are not leaving Georgia. Eyewitnesses say that Russian soldiers are building an armored vehicles park, which implies a long-term presence. Secretary of the Georgian National Security Council Alexander Lomaya said that the Russian forces are only putting on the appearance of leaving Gori. He said they did the same thing at the port of Poti, where they returned after Georgian coast guards had moved into the city and arrested them. According to Lomaya, the Georgian coast guards are still being held.
Romanian President Trajan Basescu arrived in Tbilisi yesterday to express his support for Georgia. He repeated the claim that Georgia needed rapid accession to NATO membership. Georgian government sources said that Basescu showed lively interest in the details of the South Ossetian conflict when he spoke with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. NATO special representative in the South Caucasus Robert Simmons was also in Tbilisi yesterday. He said that NATO supports Georgia’s bid for membership. Simmons was accompanied by U.S. Gen. John Craddock, who called Georgia a partner in the fight against terrorism and promised U.S. aid to restore its military.
Source: Kommersant, August 2008
www.kommersant.com/p1014239/Russia_Georgia_South_Ossetia_conflict/
Ukraine Calls for NATO Control of Georgian Waters
August 21, 2008
‘NATO warships are authorized to enter the Black Sea and control Georgia’s territorial waters,” Commander of Ukraine’s Navy Boris Kozhin has announced. According to the commander, if Georgia officially applies to the NATO for help, the NATO member states will be authorized and even obliged to protect Georgians from the Russian aggression.
Mr. Kozhin condemned Russians’ behaviour in Poti port and said they were ”pirates”.
”NATO boats should resume operating in accordance with international marine law and the culprit must be brought to justice before the Hague Tribunal for intrusion into Georgian territorial waters,” Mr. Kozhin said.
Link to Story:
rustavi2.com/news/news_text.php?id_news=27539&pg=1&im=main&ct=0&wth=
Link to Video:
rustavi2.com/news/video.php?fr=video&id_news=27539&lang=eng&ftp1=1&ftp2=0&ftp3=0
Source: Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Co., August 2008
Russia Pledges to Keep Door Open to Contacts with NATO
August 21, 2008
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Thursday that the country’s future ties with NATO depend on how the Western military alliance chooses to act.
NATO foreign ministers said after talks on Tuesday that the alliance was freezing contacts with Russia until it pulls its troops out of Georgia, but stopped short of stronger measures.
“We are not planning to slam the door, and they are also keeping the door open. Everything depends on the priorities that NATO chooses, not on us,” Lavrov said.
“If these priorities move toward reckless support for Saakashvili’s bankrupt regime, and if the price they are ready to pay is to sever relations with Russia, this is not our choice,” he added.
The Russian top diplomat described as critical Russia’s partnership support for NATO, referring to the international operation in Afghanistan, where he said “the alliance’s fate is being decided.”
Russia’s envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin will return to Moscow later this week for consultations with the country’s leadership on cooperation with the military alliance.
Russia has been pulling back its troops from the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict zone since Monday.
Source: RIA Novosti, August 2008
en.rian.ru/russia/20080821/116195203.html
Rebels Push to Sever Georgia ties
August 21, 2008
The separatist leaders of Georgia’s breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia have urged Russia to recognise their independence, at mass rallies.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow’s response to their pleas would depend on the conduct of Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili.
Russia says it will keep troops in a security zone around South Ossetia.
It will extend several kilometres into Georgia proper. Russia also plans to strengthen its South Ossetia force.
“Tomorrow, eight checkpoints will be established in the security zone in which 500 peacekeepers will be deployed, no more than that,” said Mr Lavrov, quoted by Reuters news agency.
It is still not clear to what extent Russian military forces have withdrawn from Georgia, despite Moscow’s promise to pull out most of its troops by the end of Friday.
Russian news agencies say an armoured column, consisting of more than 40 vehicles, has passed through South Ossetia, on its way to the Russian border.
A BBC correspondent in the Georgian village of Igoeti, just 35km (21 miles) from the capital Tbilisi, said he saw the Russian military pulling back towards South Ossetia early on Thursday afternoon. Russian forces were also reported to be still dug in around Georgia’s main Black Sea port of Poti.
Russia poured troops into Georgia after Georgian forces tried to retake South Ossetia on 7 August. Russian-led peacekeeping troops had been deployed there since a war in the early 1990s.
Thousands of people attended pro-independence rallies in the Abkhaz capital Sukhumi and war-ravaged South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali on Thursday.
The world-renowned conductor Valery Gergiyev - himself an Ossetian - plans to give a concert in South Ossetia with his St Petersburg orchestra on Thursday.
Chill in Nato-Russia ties
Meanwhile, Russia says it is reviewing its co-operation with Nato, which has insisted that Moscow pull its troops out of Georgia, in line with a French-brokered ceasefire agreement.
Nato said on Tuesday there could be no “business as usual” with Moscow.
At an emergency meeting, Nato suspended formal contacts with Russia because of the Russian military presence in Georgia.
“Relations with Nato will be reviewed,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko was quoted as saying by Interfax news agency on Thursday.
“This will apply to the military co-operation programme,” he said.
Nato has accused Russia of failing to respect the truce, which requires both Russian and Georgian forces to pull back to the positions they held before heavy fighting erupted in South Ossetia.
On Wednesday, Norway’s defence ministry said Russia had informed Norwegian diplomats that it was planning to freeze co-operation with Nato.
Norway’s Aftenposten newspaper said Oslo was trying to establish exactly what impact the Russian decision would have on existing co-operation, such as joint rescue operations and border controls. Norway shares a border with Russia in the Arctic.
A statement from the Norwegian defence ministry said: “Norway notes that Russia has decided that for now it is ‘freezing’ all military co-operation with Nato and allied countries.
“We expect that this will not affect planned activities in the areas of coastguard operations, search and rescue and resource management, because on the Russian side these are handled by civilian authorities.”
Russia has not yet given Norway formal written notification about its suspension of co-operation, a ministry spokesperson said.
Russia’s permanent envoy at Nato headquarters in Brussels, Dmitry Rogozin, has been recalled to Moscow for consultations, Russia’s Itar-Tass news agency reports.
He said that in light of Nato’s position on the Georgia conflict, relations with Nato “really cannot remain as before”, but he added that “there will not be a cold war”.
A state secretary in Norway’s defence ministry, Espen Barth Eide, said “there’s no doubt that our relationship to Russia has now chilled”.
Source: The BBC, August 2008
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7574142.stm
U.S. Official Says No ‘Carte Blanche’ For Russian Peacekeepers
August 20, 2008
The terms of the cease-fire between Russia and Georgia do not give Moscow a free hand to maintain an indefinite military presence on Georgian territory outside South Ossetia and Abkhazia, a senior U.S. diplomat has told RFE/RL.
The U.S. ambassador to NATO, Kurt Volker, said that the cease-fire does not give Russia a “carte blanche.” He said Russia must withdraw from Georgian territory outside South Ossetia and Abkhazia once a monitoring mission from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is in place.
“There is, in the short term, a recognition that there should be an area where Russia can conduct some additional military activities. but that is a temporary measure until the OSCE monitors are in place and can do the job that [Russian forces] would otherwise have to do,” Volker said.
“And then that is to be followed, in turn, in principle by a peacekeeping force. So this is not a carte blanche.”
The OSCE currently has 29 monitors in Georgia. It eventually expects to field a total of 100.
Volker also said the United States will “absolutely” go on training and reequipping the Georgian Army. He said as a democratic and sovereign country Georgia has “a right to have a military — and we should all be working on how we can help them rebuild after the damage that has been inflicted.”
The U.S. ambassador said the alliance’s plans to one day take in Georgia and Ukraine remain on course, and that both countries should get NATO Membership Action Plans. NATO foreign ministers are tasked to return to the issue in December.
Volker said NATO’s decision in December would be affected by developments in the interim. “What happens between now and then, including Russia’s actions, will make a difference,” he said.
He also said NATO expansion is not attack on Russia, but about “reinforcing productive human development in Europe.” As such, it is “not about Russia,” Volker said. He said NATO is not looking for conflict and sees “a lot of common interests with Russia.”
But, Volker said, Russia must also “play by the rules of the 21st century” and respect the territorial integrity of its neighbors.
Volker said NATO’s commitment to defend its members is a “solemn” undertaking no one should misunderstand. “We mean it.”
Source: RFE/RL, August 2008
www.rferl.org/content/US_Official_Says_No_Carte_Blanche_For_Russian_Peacekeepers/1192639.html
NATO Ministerial Meeting Deals Gingerly with Russia’s War on Georgia
August 20, 2008
For an organization that has come to rely heavily on words and symbolism, NATO issued a disconcertingly evasive communiqué at its emergency meeting on Georgia (NAC Statement, August 19). The North Atlantic Council held a “special session” at the level of Foreign Ministers in Brussels on August 19, eleven days into Russia’s military invasion of Georgia.
One attending official seriously remarked that collecting 26 ministers in August took time and could be seen as a success in itself. But it seems just as likely that the Alliance delayed the meeting in hopes that Russian troops would have begun withdrawing from Georgia by August 19, sparing the Alliance the trouble to deal with that problem. In the event, however, that problem stared NATO’s ministerial session in the face.
Reflecting a lowest common denominator among Allies, the communiqué vaguely echoes the French-brokered armistice plan (see EDM, August 13, 18, 19) in calling for the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia’s interior. The placement of this demand near the end of the communiqué seems to de-emphasize its significance. The first mention of Russia appears only in the second paragraph, and it is a positive mention: NATO “welcomes the [armistice] agreement reached and signed by Georgia and Russia.” No reference to the Russian military duress, under which this flawed armistice was “reached.”
The communiqué urges prompt, good-faith implementation of the armistice, politely ignoring its loopholes. Rising, however, above that document, NATO endorses Georgia’s territorial integrity, which the Franco-Russian text of the armistice cast aside.
The Alliance announces, “We have resolved that we can not continue business as usual [with Russia]. We call on Moscow to demonstrate both in word and in deed its continued commitment to the principles upon which we have agreed to base our relationship.” The document stops short of recalling those principles (this would have delved into the Alliance’s decade-old wishful thinking) and it does not say how it would depart from business as usual with Russia.
According to officials in the run-up to the meeting and on its sidelines, NATO is suspending joint activities with Russia, including military exercises and some political-level meetings, until Russia’s troops withdraw from Georgia, whereupon such joint activities would resume. Those post-2002 joint activities and, now, their suspension belong mostly in the realm of political symbolism. NATO had all along displayed far greater interest than Russia did in joint exercises and political meetings. Their suspension would not affect Russian behavior in the present crisis or in those that seem likely to ensue after this one.
Presumably, the Alliance is pondering how to handle the participation of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet in NATO’s Operation Active Endeavor. NATO had touted Russia’s participation in that annual exercise in the Mediterranean as one of those symbolic successes with Russia. That same Russian Fleet, however, has now blockaded Georgia’s ports and has landed thousands of troops for military action in Abkhazia against Georgia. These actions also violate the neutral status of Ukraine, on whose territory that Russian Fleet is based. NATO might not welcome it back to joint exercises, following that Fleet’s attack on a NATO aspirant country.
The ministerial meeting in Brussels decided to create a permanent NATO-Georgia Commission, for which the North Atlantic Council shall rapidly develop the modalities (NAC Statement, August 19). This Commission would focus on post-conflict reconstruction in Georgia, from damage assessments to restoration of public services and relief to internally displaced Georgians. A first team of civil engineers is already being sent to help plan the rebuilding of schools, hospitals, and airports. But while Georgia is in dire want of such assistance in the aftermath of Russia’s destructive invasion, NATO for its part hardly needs yet another social work undertaking, among the many that dilute the Alliance’s core mission and dissipate its resources. In any case, there is no funding authorization for this Commission’s civil projects as yet.
The NATO-Georgia Commission does not seem likely to follow the model of the NATO-Ukraine Commission, which is designed in part to bring the country closer to the ultimate goal of NATO membership. The NATO-Georgia Commission seems weighted down by a socio-economic agenda. The decision to create this Commission is a product of compromise between supporters and naysayers of Georgia’s application to NATO for a Membership Action Plan (MAP). The August 19 ministerial meeting has merely confirmed earlier decisions to review Georgia’s application at the December 2008 ministerial meeting, in the run-up to the April 2009 NATO summit.
The Allied communiqué does not mention military assistance programs for Georgia. The United States, however, has announced its intention to help Georgia restore its capacity for self-defense, which lies in ruins after the Russian invasion. Russian forces have systematically targeted Georgia’s military infrastructure, particularly the U.S.- and allied-built bases and airfields, and carted away the stockpiles of arms and equipment.
Russia has reacted with scorn, rather than relief, to the Alliance’s weak communiqué: “empty words,” “a mountain gave birth to a mouse” (Interfax, August 19), declared Russia’s envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, whose almost daily insults NATO tolerates in NATO’s own home.
In Moscow, however, Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov called a press conference to denounce U.S. support for “Saakashvili’s criminal regime.” This is now Moscow’s official terminology with regard to Georgia, and Lavrov warned the United States and NATO that they must make a choice between working with Georgia or with Russia (Interfax, August 19). Ahead of the NAC’s September visit to Georgia and the Alliance’s December ministerial meeting, Russia tries to intimidate at least some NATO governments into delaying approval for a Georgian MAP.
Source: Eurasia Daily Monitor, August 2008
www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373325
Once Its Rationale, Collective Defense Poses New Challenges to a Larger NATO
August 20, 2008
NATO foreign ministers strengthened their ties to Georgia on Tuesday and called for Russia to observe a cease-fire and withdraw its troops immediately, vowing that until it does the alliance “won’t continue with business as usual” in its relations with Moscow.
But the NATO ministers, at a rare emergency meeting, failed to agree on any specific punitive measures, despite pressure from the United States that NATO at least threaten Russia with unspecified “consequences,” and pleas from the Czech Republic, Poland and NATO’s Baltic members that it take a tough stand.
Instead, NATO issued a tepid response, promising to establish a NATO-Georgia Council to strengthen ties — a far cry from Georgia’s goal of full NATO membership. And it ignored pleas from nervous Eastern European members for a strong, “don’t even think about it” warning against military intervention there.