Does the admission of Georgia into NATO mean war with Russia ?

Question

TBILISI, Georgia — President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia said Sunday that he planned to rebuild his country’s shattered army, and that even after its decisive defeat in the war for control of one of Georgia’s two separatist enclaves he would continue to pursue a policy of uniting both under the Georgian flag.

“It will stay the same,” he said of his ambition to bring the enclaves, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, under Georgian control. “Now as ever.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/25/world/europe/25georgia.html?em

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia has hastened Georgia's march toward membership in NATO by going to war with it over its breakaway province of South Ossetia, a senior U.S. diplomat said on Saturday.

"I think what Russia has done now is the strongest catalyst it could have created to get Georgia in NATO," U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Bryza, American envoy to the Caucasus, told Russia's Ekho Moskvy radio.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSLN27599620080823

MOSCOW - Russia will increase its peacekeeping troops in Georgia's breakaway region of South Ossetia, a senior officer said on Saturday

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2008-08/24/content_6965070.htm

Answer 1

The Euros have turned down Georgia once for NATO.  If they were ever to let them in, it wouldn't matter anyway.  NATO is as useless as the UN.  NATO is not going to make the Europeans or the Commonwealths lift a finger to help any other country.

Answer 2

I can't answer your question since Georgia would never seriously considered for membership in NATO.  The treaty states that if a nation belonging to NATO is attacked then the other nations in that treaty are obligated to defend that nation with military force.... Given that Russia has always had tensions with Georgia and that they share a border then offering a nation as small as Georgia and a difficult nation to defend... the strategic incentives are not worth the headache like the one we currently have.

Answer 3

I'm afraid so. Hopefully France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany will continue to prevent that disastrous course. Saakashvili, the vain and reactionary American puppet will be forced to step down soon hopefully. A new leader in Georgia might be the best way to defuse this mess though the current US administration actually seems to be planning for "winning" a Nuclear war.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, Washington has followed a policy of systematically encroaching on former Soviet territory to establish a string of military bases and governments friendly to the US. The purpose of this policy was to undermine the influence of Russia in the energy-rich regions of central Asia, while seeking to divide and weaken Europe.

The consequences of Washington’s intervention in the former Soviet bloc have included the installation of a number of authoritarian regimes which lack any genuine broad popular base such as those of Mikheil Saakashvili in Georgia and Viktor Yushchenko in the Ukraine, as well as the regime in Poland. The most common characteristics of these administrations are rabid anti-communism, national chauvinism, contempt for genuine democratic processes and an unwavering adherence to the precepts of the free market.

Such regimes are inherently unstable, both internally and in relation to their neighbours. Now, the US administration has agreed to install a new weapons system in Poland directed against its biggest neighbour, while at the same time guaranteeing to come to the military assistance of the Polish government when necessary. This is a recipe for new conflict and war. Nothing could more clearly express the utter recklessness of US foreign policy.

Russia’s intervention over the past two decades in the states of the former Soviet Union - as in its brutal war in Chechnya — have been of a reactionary character and should be condemned, but there cannot be the least doubt that the main power intent on establishing new power blocs and spheres of influence in the region is the US

Answer 4

Not necessarily, of course. But I'm sure it'll p**s Russia off even more than it already is, which is probably the U.S.'s dumb and immature intent.

__________

And I think "older" is right. We never had full NATO backing for Iraq. If we had to help protect everybody who decided to attack other countries randomly, that'd be a big mess.

Answer 5

i sort of dis-agree with wht you say---i believe a member has to be attacked first for all of nato to defend them....a member cant attack someone else and expect help...we attacked iraq and all the nato forces didnt jump in with full force to help us--hope it never happens but think it eventually will--just a matter of  when

Answer 6

I agree with vroot. NATO is useless on these days. NATO was making sense when there was Soviet Union (a communist empire). To day Soviet Union doesn’t exist and Russia is not a communist state and moreover they don’t want any major confrontation with the west since they sale energy to Europe. And Europe countries who buy energy from Russia do not want any conflict with Russia. I think the day is pretty close for the NATO to be dissolve.

Answer 7

Russia hes rolled over georgia but Georgia  as a new member of the cool blue caps I like see them rusky,s  try to move some top line gas turbine Abrams mk5 tanks out of the way ya lets see Russia then