Skip to main content
/europe

Bush, Putin share spoils at 'crisis summit'

  • Story Highlights
  • Russian President Vladimir Putin meets NATO leaders at Bucharest summit
  • Russia opposes plans for Ukraine, Georgia to join military alliance
  • U.S. secures NATO backing to locate missile defense system in Czech Republic
  • Next Article in World »
By Robin Oakley
CNN European Political Editor
Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font

BUCHAREST, Romania (CNN) -- A "crisis summit" for NATO, many called it before the leaders met in Bucharest. So how was it on the night? Who were the winners and losers? The key figures were two last year presidents who won't be at the next meeting, Russia's Vladimir Putin and U.S. President George W. Bush.

art.bush.afp.gi.jpg

NATO leaders backed U.S. President George W. Bush over U.S. plans for a missile shield in eastern Europe.

Putin, who has been spitting fury both over NATO's acquiescence in the U.S. Missile Defense plan and in its encouragement of membership applications from the former Soviet states of Ukraine and Georgia, scored the first success even before he got to Bucharest.

Bush stopped off in the Ukrainian capital, Kiev, to lend his weight noisily to the bids by Ukraine and Georgia for Membership Action Plans.

But European NATO members, led by Germany and France, refused to let him have his way, arguing that it would unnecessarily upset the balance of power in Europe and that the countries were not yet ready.

Less publicly, they argued that it was not worth irritating Russia further when Putin had already suspended agreement on the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, warned of a new arms race and threatened to target missiles on countries which participated in the U.S. Missile shield.

1-0 to Putin. But it was a qualified success. NATO members did agree that Georgia and Ukraine should become members eventually and, as a face-saver to Bush, foreign ministers will review the situation in December -- before he quits office next January.

Before Bucharest some NATO allies had grumbled that they didn't share Bush's degree of alarm over Iran and that the missile defense plan, with planned installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, was another unnecessary provocation of Russia.

At the summit however the 26 NATO countries endorsed the U.S. missile shield as a "substantial contribution" to the protection of the allies.

It had probably helped that the U.S. had announced the defense sites wouldn't be activated until Iran proved in tests it had the capacity to land missiles on Europe and that it would invite Russian inspection of the installations (something yet to be agreed by the Czech Republic).

Actually the planned U.S. shield doesn't cover at least four of the allies: the summit's host Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey. So now NATO officials have been charged with drawing up a wider plan integrating the U.S. shield and individual countries' short-range missile protections into a NATO-wide system.

And they are appealing to Moscow, more in hope than expectation, to link Russian systems with theirs.

1-1 for Bush.

The U.S. president had also led the chorus, along with NATO officials and commanders, for the assembled nations to stump up more troops for the NATO efforts in Afghanistan. He did seem to get some purchase with his argument that if NATO didn't win in Afghanistan the terrorists would be following NATO forces back onto their own soil.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy offered a battalion and a few hundred more were promised by Romania and the semi-snubbed Georgia. 2-1 to Bush, just about, though it was more a matter of NATO meeting the politically respectable minimum than the real injection of resources commanders had sought.

Then back came the Russians, before Putin spoke at what seems to have been a contentious but not rancorous meeting, with an offer to allow road transit across their territory of non-lethal supplies for the NATO forces in Afghanistan, making it a 2-2 draw.

Other scorers at the summit included Sarkozy, who had teed-up expectations of his troops announcement on his visit to London the week before. There he praised Britain's history and war effort, as he had previously done when winning an ovation from the U.S. Congress. Here is a President who likes to make friends, and to be the center of attention.

He should manage that at the next NATO summit, the 60th birthday celebration, to be jointly hosted in Strasbourg and Kiel next year by France and Germany.

By then, he has suggested, France will have decided how to rejoin the full military structure of NATO. (It has been a semi-detached member for 40 years since then-president General Charles de Gaulle walked out in protest at U.S. dominance of the alliance).

The price he is demanding is a fuller development of a complementary defense role for the European Union. And who will hold the EU presidency for the six months from July, with the opportunity to develop such a role? Step forward Monsieur Sarkozy.

The U.S., which previously used to denounce EU defense development as a dangerous concept which could undermine NATO, has begun to praise the idea instead, clearly reckoning that anything which encourages the laggard European nations to boost their defense spending is to be welcomed.

That leaves another potential loser. The UK has been Washington's European cheerleader up until now in forcefully resisting a "European defense dimension." British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will have to display some nifty footwork to avoid ending up in isolation.

The other winners and losers in Bucharest? Ukraine and Georgia are losers, having been refused early access to Membership Action Programs. But they have the consolation prize that NATO has promised, in print, that they will be members one day.

Croatia and Albania are winners, having been invited to open formal membership negotiations.

advertisement

Macedonia had a bad summit. Greece blackballed its proposed NATO membership on the grounds that it has a northern province of the same name and that if Macedonia doesn't change its name that implies a territorial ambition. But if that makes losers of the Macedonians, who left the summit in a huff, then Greece is a loser too.

NATO operates on unanimity The other NATO nations had no option but to exclude Macedonia from membership. But they are pretty cross with both nations for not having sorted out their dispute and so spoiling the party. The two have been told to go away and sort it out among themselves. E-mail to a friend E-mail to a friend

Copyright 2008 CNN. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Associated Press contributed to this report.

All About Vladimir PutinNATOGeorge W. Bush

  • E-mail
  • Save
  • Print
Quick Job Search
keyword(s):
enter city:
Home  |  World  |  U.S.  |  Politics  |  Crime  |  Entertainment  |  Health  |  Tech  |  Travel  |  Living  |  Business  |  Sports  |  Time.com
© 2008 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.