History can be frightening: NATO, Georgia and Ukraine

In this blog, we aspire to bring perspective to today's events. The lack of progress by Ukraine and Georgia in joining NATO since 2008 is a case in point.

George W. Bush in 2008. (photo: The Guardian)

Michael Andersen writes:

In the spring of 2008, I was a (relatively) young radio journalist running around the Caucasus, covering the exciting democratic experiment in Georgia led by the young firebrand lawyer Mikheil “Misha” Saakashvili. He and his band of reformers—many Western-trained and English-speaking—had taken power in Georgia in 2003 with the Rose Revolution, possibly the most genuinely positive event in the region since the fall of the Soviet Union, at least until the EuroMaidan Revolution. or Revolution of Dignity as it is also known, erupted in Ukraine in 2013-2014.

The Georgians wanted democracy and an end to post-Soviet corruption so much that 97% of them voted for Misha as president in early 2004, despite the fact that he told them that he intended to pursue not just democracy and an end to corruption but also painful economic reforms, in order to modernize the country and bring it into the West.

That spring 16 years ago, some Western leaders—led by none other than the inimitable George W. Bush—were busy making promises to Georgia and the charming Misha about NATO membership—or at least a clear and direct path to membership, the so-called Membership Action Plan (MAP).

Western politicians often cited two sentences: “Georgia will become a member of NATO” and “it is not a question of if, but when.” Does this sound familiar?

I spent much time around the Georgian leaders that spring in Tbilisi, and after their intensive interactions with their Western counterparts, they were deeply convinced that they would be granted a clear and direct path to membership in the alliance.

Exactly how close individual NATO leaders came to actually promising Saakashvili that Georgia would become a member of NATO is still unclear. One of the strongest proponents (and later NATO General Secretary) was Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen who recently admitted that Ukraine and Georgia were indeed promised membership. “It was a mistake back in 2008 to promise membership and then do nothing to follow it up. And we should not repeat that mistake.”

George W. made no bones about the fact that he admired what Saakashvili and the Georgians were doing and that he wanted to see Georgia in NATO: “Georgia is a beacon of liberty for this region and the world,” Mr. Bush said. “The path of freedom you have chosen is not easy, but you will not travel it alone ... the American people will stand with you.” Sounds familiar?

When W. came to Tbilisi in 2005, the visit was greeted more as a rock star than a president. The leader of the free world was celebrated by a crowd of hundreds of thousands of happy Georgians. He even tried his hand at Georgian folk dancing (no comment). In gratitude, a few months later, the Georgians even named one of the city’s main streets after him: George W. Bush Avenue leads right from the airport to the city centre. You cannot avoid it. Misha was the darling of the West.

U.S. President George W. Bush and Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili in 2005.

In April 2008, on his way to the NATO summit in Bucharest, Bush stopped over in Kyiv, where he once again insisted that Georgia and Ukraine should be granted a so-called NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) and a direct path to membership: “It is in the interest of every member in the alliance and will help advance security and freedom in this region and around the world. It would send a signal to the citizens [of Georgia and Ukraine] that if they continue on the path to democracy and reform they will be welcomed into the institutions of Europe.” In a comment aimed at Russia, Bush stated: “It would send a signal throughout the region, that these two nations are, and will remain, sovereign and independent states.” Sounds familiar?

But both Germany and France warned that a membership action plan and, thus, a membership promise to Georgia and Ukraine would provoke Russia and that neither of the two countries was politically stable. Sounds familiar?

A couple of months earlier, in February 2008, Russian President Vladimir Putin had issued a warning in no uncertain terms: “Russia could aim nuclear missiles at Ukraine if its neighbour and a former fraternal republic in the Soviet Union join NATO.” Sounds familiar? That week in Moscow, in early spring 2008, I talked to several of Putin’s advisers. “That you guys [the West] promise Georgia and Ukraine NATO membership is out of the question; don’t go there.” Russian academics and pundits still loved the term “Russia’s backyard.” On the contrary, some Western historians and several of Bush’s advisers warned that a “no” to Georgia and Ukraine would once again pull them into Russia’s sphere of influence.

"Russia will not have a veto over what happens next in Bucharest (at the NATO summit)”, assured Bush as he bordered the plane in Kyiv to go to Bucharest. In January 2008, a referendum showed that 77% of Georgians were in favour of NATO membership. Ukraine’s case was more unclear, to say the least. Several polls conducted in the spring of 2008 showed that only 22-30% of Ukrainians were in favour of NATO membership and 50-60% opposed. The whole project derailed after President Victor Yushchenko appointed Victor Yanukovych as prime minister, and he went to Brussels and stated that no thank you, he did not want any membership path to NATO! As a result, from then on, many in NATO did not really seriously consider Ukrainian membership or giving a Membership Action Plan (MAP) to the nation. Sounds familiar? In 2013, Yanukovych, now Ukrainian president, would perform the same trick at the Vilnius summit, saying no to a very favourable European Union Association Agreement, again on the order of Moscow. That same night, the first few hundred people met on the Maidan in Kyiv, starting what eventually would become the Revolution of Dignity or the EuroMaidan Revolution. In January 2008, Yushchenko tried to ask once again for a MAP, this time supported by Prime Minster Yuliya Tymoshenko and Verkhovna Rada Speaker Arseniy Yatseniuk. Moscow reiterated that this was a no-go, and many Western politicians and experts concluded that Ukraine was a step too far and too unstable.

Then two things happened—and historians are still debating how closely related they are to each other: In April 2008, NATO refused to give Ukraine and Georgia any MAP to membership. It was an obvious fob off to Tbilisi. Four months later, in August 2008, Russia invaded Georgia.

In April, at the NATO Summit in Bucharest, Germany, led by Chancellor Angela Merkel, and France led by President Nicolas Sarkozy, shot down the idea of a MAP. NATO’s declaration from the summit reiterates its commitment to enhancing cooperation with Georgia and Ukraine and even includes a pledge that “Georgia and Ukraine will become members of NATO,” but without specifying a time framework or a road ahead. Sounds familiar? Of course, it does – it is the same exact wording the alliance has repeated ever since, once or twice a year, for the last 16 years. Just with the twist that in the last few years, the alliance has substituted “Georgia and Ukraine” with only “Ukraine,” as the Caucasus nation’s hopes of real democracy and membership of NATO and EU have been derailed by internal strife, and Ukraine has been put on the agenda by Putin’s invasion. (Note, though, that Ukrainian membership was not much on the NATO agenda before 2022 — the alliance contemplated only closer relations, not membership in the next decade.)

“Ukraine is now closer to NATO than ever before. Allies reaffirmed that Ukraine will become a member of the alliance,” Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in 2023. And then, in a direct throwback to 2008, there it was: “Ukraine will join NATO. It is not a question of if, but of when.” Stoltenberg insisted, “It is inevitable.”

The second thing that happened back in 2008 was that four months after NATO had kept Misha and the Georgians at arms’ length, Putin’s tanks rolled into Georgia. NATO reacted primarily with rhetoric, condemning Russia’s “disproportionate military action in Georgia.” The “disproportionate” refers to the fact that many in the West thought that young Misha, in fact, had gotten ahead of himself and provoked the Kremlin once too many times. NATO’s response was decidedly tepid and consisted mainly of postponing meetings with Russian officials. Four months after the Russian invasion, in December 2008, yet another NATO summit reiterated that “both Ukraine and Georgia have made progress, yet both have significant work left to do.” Sounds familiar?

Today, 16 years later, democracy in Georgia is on the ropes. A recent analysis by the Council of Foreign Relations has a chilling conclusion: “Georgia was once a beacon of democracy in the South Caucasus, but today it is backsliding toward authoritarianism and headed back into Russia's sphere of influence.” 

Today, Georgia is nowhere closer to NATO, Saakashvili is in prison under such harsh conditions that his team several times have declared that he is at death’s door, I myself have lost a good portion of my hair, and the Western leaders who promised the Georgians so much, are, of course, long gone.

One guy, though, is still here. Vladimir Putin.

(Michael Andersen)