The Soviet soldier waving a red flag on the roof of the Reichstag probably didn't realise that he was waking the world up from a deep, horrific nightmare. How could he have known that a vigilant system, which would last longer than the war he fought in, was already initiated?
Although the wheels of history continuously turn forwards, many think that it still passes through the same old places and after the NATO Summit the number of people that voice this opinion will increase. The NATO Summit, which was held at the glorious building of a once mighty Communist leader of the past, Nikolai Ceausescu, produced results that have proven to be more than a recollection of the nostalgic past. NATO's enlargement now consists of deeper rivalry than just the arm-wrestling that takes place between the United States and the Russian Federation.
The process of NATO enlargement continues to develop with the momentum of the United States. The North Atlantic Organization is on the way to becoming an alternative to the United Nations through the partnerships and dialogues it has fostered. Beyond the Balkans and Caucasus; South Korea, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, Israel and Egypt are sowing the seeds of a new UN model. The first signs of whether or not a terror and security discourse driven intervention would be accepted was given in Bucharest.
Ukraine's membership to NATO, without doubt, is critical for the United States. However, this membership would not be as smooth as Lithuania's or Bulgaria's. Political crises in the last five years have brought the Ukraine to the brink of partition. Under these circumstances, Russia's response to Ukraine's membership of NATO would be twofold:
1. Creating a buffer zone by separating the East of Trans-Dniester.
2. Annexing Crimea
The European allies, while closing the doors to Georgia because of its problems of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, would not take the risk of the above events taking place at their doorstep. Moreover, support of the EU countries, whilst being dependent on Russia for their energy needs, to the South and North Stream, which eliminates the Ukraine, is telling.
As for the membership of Georgia to the Atlantic alliance, it is surrounded by closer and more apparent problems. It is obvious that the Saakashvili administration will try to prove themselves following the two shaky elections that have taken place. South Ossetia will be the first target. The continuous supporter of the United States in Tbilisi is known to have asked "would you support me in this kind of operation" at a meeting in Washington DC. Preparations for intervention are at full speed. It is obvious that the European allies find Georgia, unlike the Ukraine, "absorbable" for EU membership for it is a small, nice and "malleable" state made up of a population of 3 million Christians after all. The question of "What difference would it make if all Georgians immigrated to London, Berlin or Paris?" does not bother Europeans as much as the membership of Turkey with a population of 70 million Muslims.
So, is Russia ready to sacrifice the Ukraine, along with South Ossetia and Abkhazia? This is a very distant possibility that even the European allies know well. It would not be right to evaluate the withdrawal of Russia from the former Soviet Union's geography as a leucotomy. In the coming period, Russian irredentism will cause a lot more serious regional conflicts than NATO has encountered in the last 17 years.
The differentiating factor of the Bucharest Summit from the main frame of Vilnius, Istanbul and Brussels, inevitably, is the enlargement process that took place. Germany, which continuously expands its influence over the Balkans; France, which is planning to return to the military wing of NATO and Holland, loyal ally to the United States, have pushed for breaks in the enlargement process even for the sake of appearing to be on the same side as Russia.
The roadmap for NATO membership of the Ukraine and Georgia could have been the great leap forward for the United States' Greater Middle East or Broader Black Sea strategy; yet this move has been buried into endless darkness just like the black shadow of Count Dracula's cloak.
Today, the concept of out-of-area operations, which NATO put into force in unity in the post-Cold War period, has been put into question by nearly all its allies except for the United States. The negative response to requests for reinforcements of fighting forces in Afghanistan is the best example of this. Furthermore, the lack of confidence that has been created by the European Union's European Military project is poisoning transatlantic relations. Washington has not given up the idea that the European Military project would lead to the end of NATO's existence. The Bush administration has repeatedly denoted that a double-headed defence strategy would not work.
Military transformation, just as much as political transformation is challenging the alliance. The United States insists on greater investment in defence from European allies in order to share NATO's burden. NATO Secretary General, Gijsbert (Jaap) De Hoop Scheffer, on the subject of burden sharing, states that the European allies will never be able to catch up with the United States' defence spending. In addition, he warns that "the European Defence Agency should not develop into something that is anti-American"* . These statements are solid examples of dissonance within NATO.
In the near future, Russia will not be the only country that this spiral will help in its development. Turkey, NATO's sole Muslim state, finds the conflict prone relationship between the East and West unnecessary and ill-timed. Ankara, just like the other strong European allies, complains about the inability of NATO to construct a solid mission statement following the Cold War. Furthermore, the numbers of Turkish generals who think that attempts are being made to push Turkey out of NATO are too considerable to be ignored. The crisis between Turkey and the EU on the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) is a reflection of this. While NATO's new strategy is driven by the fight against terrorism, the acceptance of the case of the separatist terrorist organization in Turkey by the Court of Justice of the European communities deepens Ankara's mistrust of the West. Thus, the crisis of trust between Turkey and the European allies is solidifying. One should not forget that this crisis will lead to Turkey searching for new alliances.
The world has learned from recent conflicts that once you try to solve problems through intervention, the impact and outcome of it is unforeseeable. Yesterday Yugoslavia, today Afghanistan; tomorrow Palestine and Iraq, if this pattern continues for NATO, the inclusion of Pakistan and Taiwan into this strategy will be inevitable. In this case, either NATO will dissolve in the Pacific or the continuation of the alliance will be dependent on a third World War.

**Baughman, Adrienne "Interview" Jane's Defence Weekly, Vol.42 No.13 (30 March 2005)