Is NATO Breaking down The wisest statesmen are those who mask their setback and embrace decisions that go against them. In the recent NATO summit. the President of Georgia and Ukraine have clearly understood how to navigate the shoals of multilateral diplomacy as Nato’s promise for eventual membership at some unspecified date rather than immediate offer. Some European members including France and Germany exercised their influence to confront the US proposal. It is murky side of Nato’s internal conflict. It also reveals deep split with in the 26 member organisation on what Nato stand for and what it’s relations should be with Russia, the giant eastern neighbour whose bellicose policies gave birth to alliance 59 years ago. Since the fall of the Berlin wall, Nato has been searching for a new purpose and relevance. The original members recognise that a mutual defence pact to protect themselves from Soviet expansion was no longer needed. But, in decades of working together, they found that the pooling of defence policies had also brought tangible benefits like shared procurement policies, strategic thinking and democratic values. To continue these gains, Nato therefore transformed itself into a regional security guarantor and an institution yardstick by which freedom might be measured and enhanced. The logic, therefore, was to open Nato to all those newly soverign former communist countries, to enable their democracy, underpin their independence and enforce region stability. Sadly, the alliance has made a poor job of explaining the transformation to it’s own members or to it’s former adversary. It’s leader insist that Nato is not an anti- Russian league to push western democracy further east and encroach on Russian interest. Its newest members, however, see the main purpose of joining still as a defence against the former oppressor, a guarantee that Russia can no longer encroach on their interest. The integration of these states into Nato is not only about...