NATO vs EU Expansion

There was a leading article by a Martin Iven's in today's 'Sunday Times' arguing that "Russia needs to be given clear red lines."1 The article is well balanced and, despite the immediate impression that it might make, it is well thought out. He contends that the Russians have won in Georgia and it is now the European Union rather than NATO that Tblissi should turn to while contending that this should also hold true for the Ukraine and goes on to say that the Baltic States are a member of both NATO and the EU and as such are entitled to our security guarantees.2 There is a lot of "Realpolitik" behind a strategy like this and although the EU is not a defence organisation it is sensible to assume that Russia would think at least twice before attacking any EU country. Indeed, there would be obvious benefits for Russia in cooperating with that EU. Of course, it already, goes without saying that any aggression by Russia towards the Baltic States, which are members of both NATO and the EU would be "va banque" in the extreme. Russia has in a sense been given a clear red lines and those lines didn't extend to a Georgia that is neither an EU nor an NATO member. The EU by opening its arms to both Georgia and the Ukraine could could shape Russia's attitude and , perhaps, ultimately draw Russia into a fair and equal strategic partnership. Howeve, it doesn't look as if that is something that the United States actually wants. The interests of the European Union and the United States are not always the same and the evidence would seem to suggest that they might become even more estranged in the not too distant future.
1 'The Sunday Times', August 31, 2008 p17
2 Ibid