On Oct. 2, the ambassador proved it again. According to her statement, Washington is ready to use force against Russia. Actually, she presented an ultimatum — Moscow must stop the development of a missile that the US believes to be in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty). If not, the American military will destroy it before the weapon becomes operational. “At that point, we would be looking at the capability to take out a (Russian) missile that could hit any of our countries,” Hutchison stated at a news conference. "Counter measures (by the United States) would be to take out the missiles that are in development by Russia in violation of the treaty," she added. "They are on notice." This is nothing other than a direct warning of a preemptive strike.

It is true that compliance with the INF Treaty is a controversial issue. Moscow has many times claimed that Washington was in violation, and that position has been substantiated. For instance, the Aegis Ashore system, which has been installed in Romania and is to be deployed in Poland, uses the Mk-41 launcher that is capable of firing intermediate-range Tomahawk missiles. This is a flagrant breach of the INF Treaty. The fact is undeniable. The US accuses Moscow of possessing and testing a ground-launched cruise missile with a range capability of 500 km to 5,500 km (310-3,417 miles), but there has never been any proof to support this claim. Russia has consistently denied the charges. It says the missile in question — the 9M729 — is in compliance with the provisions of the treaty and has never been upgraded or tested for the prohibited range.

This is a reasonable assertion. After all, there is no way to prevent such tests from being detected and monitored by satellites. The US could raise the issue with the Special Verification Commission (SVC). Instead it threatens to start a war.

This is momentous, because the ambassador’s words were not a botched statement or an offhand comment, but in fact followed another “warning” made by a US official recently.

Speaking on Sept. 28 at an industry event in Pennsylvania hosted by the Consumer Energy Alliance, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke suggested that the US Navy could be used to impose a blockade to restrict Russia’s energy trade. "The United States has that ability, with our Navy, to make sure the sea lanes are open, and, if necessary, to blockade… to make sure that their energy does not go to market," he said, revealing that this was an option. The Interior Department has nothing to do with foreign policy, but Mr. Zinke is a high-ranking member of the administration.

Two bellicose statements made one after another and both are just short of a declaration of war! A blockade is a hostile act that would be countered with force, and the US is well aware of this. It is also well aware that Russia will defend itself. It’s important to note that no comments or explanations have come from the White House. This confirms the fact that what the officials have said reflects the administration’s position.

This brings to mind the fact that the Interdiction and Modernization of Sanctions Act has passed the House of Representatives. The legislation includes the authority to inspect Chinese, Iranian, Syrian, and Russian ports. Among the latter are the ports of Nakhodka, Vanino, and Vladivostok. This is an openly hostile act and a blatant violation of international law. If the bill becomes law, it will likely  start a war with the US acting as the aggressor.

Trident Juncture, the largest training event held by NATO since 2002, kicks off on October 25 and will last until November 7, 2018. It will take place in close proximity to Russia’s borders. Russia’s Vostok-2018 exercise in September was the biggest seen there since the Cold War, but it was held in the Far East, far from NATO’s area of responsibility. It’s NATO, not Russia, who is escalating the already tense situation in Europe by holding such a large-scale exercise adjacent to Russia’s borders.

Russia is not the only country to be threatened with war. Attempts are being made to intimidate China as well. Tensions are running high in the South China Sea, where US and Chinese ships had an "unsafe" interaction with each other on Sept. 30. A collision was barely avoided. As a result, US Defense Secretary James Mattis had to suspend his visit to China when it was called off by Beijing. The security dialog between the two nations has stalled.

Perhaps the only thing left to do is to give up on having a normal relationship with the United States. Ambassador Hutchison’s statement is sending a clear message of: “forget about diplomacy, we’re back to the Stone Age,” with Washington leading the way. This is the new reality, so get used to it. Just shrug it off and try to live without the US, but be vigilant and ready to repel an attack that is very likely on the way.

It should be noted that Moscow has never threatened the US with military action. It has never deployed military forces in proximity to America’s shores. It did not start all those unending sanctions and trade wars. When exposing the US violations of international agreements, it has never claimed that the use of force was an option. It has tried hard to revive the dialog on arms control and to coordinate operations in Syria. But it has also had to issue warnings about consequences, in case it were provoked to respond to a hostile act. If the worst happens, we’ll all know who is to blame. Washington bears the responsibility for pushing the world to the brink of war.

On Aug. 6, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev warned that Georgia’s NATO membership could trigger a “horrible conflict.” That statement was made in an interview with the Russian daily Kommersant on the eve of the 10-year anniversary of the Russian-Georgian war. Russian President Vladimir Putin had previously warned the alliance about the move, emphasizing that it would lead to unspecified consequences. This brings to mind the events that took place exactly ten years ago.

In the early morning hours of Aug. 8, 2008, heavy fighting erupted in and around Tskhinvali, the capital, which spread to other parts of South Ossetia. Georgia violated a 1992 peace agreement and opened fire on Russian peacekeepers. The attack caused significant destruction and civilian casualties. In response to Georgia’s aggression, Russian forces crossed the border on Aug. 8 to free South Ossetia from the invading force and to rescue its own soldiers.

The ensuing EU investigation confirmed that it was Georgia that started the war. The fact-finding mission led by the Swiss diplomat, Heidi Tagliavini, included more than 20 political, military, human-rights, and international-law experts, who produced over 1,000 pages of analysis, documentation, and witness statements indicating that the war was sparked as a result of Georgian troops attacking South Ossetia and Russian peacekeepers at the orders of Georgia’s then president, Mikheil Saakashvili.

The report claims that the war started "with a massive Georgian artillery attack." The document states plainly that "there was no ongoing armed attack by Russia before the start of the Georgian operation … Georgian claims of a large-scale presence of Russian armed forces in South Ossetia prior to the Georgian offensive could not be substantiated … It could also not be verified that Russia was on the verge of such a major attack."

The Russian troops did not advance into Tbilisi, although they could have done so easily, as the Georgian army was on the run. The Russian response was proportionally appropriate for Moscow’s goal of preventing a larger war and putting an end to the bloodshed and human suffering. A peacekeeping mission was the only way to do it. The conflict was mediated by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and a ceasefire agreement was reached on Aug. 12. Russia recognized Abkhazia’s and South Ossetia’s independence from Georgia on Aug. 26.

Nine months of hard work led the EU mission to the conclusion that it was Georgia that started the war. But an information war has been waged since then with the intention of painting Russia as the aggressor or the nation that “provoked the events.”

Shortly after the “brief war,” NATO agreed to the admission of Georgia, which shares a border with Russia. If Georgia joins the alliance, NATO will be involved in the territorial dispute involving the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. According to NATO’s principles of enlargement, a country with unsettled territorial conflicts cannot join the alliance. The recent summit of the bloc demonstrated its readiness to turn a blind eye to this violation of its own rules. During the July 11-12 summit, NATO reaffirmed its commitment to eventually admitting Georgia. The US strongly supports its bid. Just six days before the event, United States Permanent Representative to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchison made a special statement emphasizing the US support for Georgia’s aspirations to join the bloc.

It is generally accepted within NATO that because Georgia holds the status of a privileged partner, it does not even need a membership action plan (MAP) like other aspirants. The proponents of Georgia’s “fast track” accession say the country’s participation in the Annual National Plan and the Substantial NATO-Georgia Package (SNGP) is enough to grant membership. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg believes that, "Georgia has all the practical tools to become a member." The NATO Parliamentary Assembly (PA) has reaffirmed its unwavering support for Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic integration. After all, the Georgian forces in Iraq and Afghanistan were the largest non-NATO contingents, dwarfing those of most NATO members.

The United States sees this nation as a useful ally located in a strategically important region. The US and NATO plan to increase their military presence in Afghanistan. Georgia could play a crucial role in supplying their forces, if shipments were transported by land from the Georgian port of Poti on the Black Sea to Baku, then crossing the Caspian Sea to Aktau, Kazakhstan, before being moved by land again across Uzbekistan into Afghanistan. Georgia is the link between energy fields in the Caspian Sea and markets in Turkey and Europe, thus bypassing Russia. It also provides the shortest transport route between Europe and Asia for exporting gas and oil. A US armed conflict with Iran is a possibility. It takes only few hours to fly to any destination in the Middle East from Georgia.

Tbilisi is mulling over an expedited NATO membership strategy. A fast-track approach has been recently proposed by the Washington-based Heritage Foundation think tank. Its proposal states that Georgia could be granted membership by temporarily excluding the breakaway territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from NATO's Article 5 security guarantee. Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which defines specific territories within a given nation, could be amended to include South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Officially, the membership will be presented as a temporary measure that will last until the “internationally recognized territory is re-established by peaceful and diplomatic means.”

From Moscow’s point of view, the breakaway republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are allied independent states with a Russian military presence on their soil. Russia is committed to their defense in the event of an attack. If a full-fledged member of NATO believes those republics are actually part of its own national territory, a conflict is likely. Holding exercises, building military infrastructure, providing arms, and advocating for Georgia’s NATO membership are all provocative steps that can easily spark such a clash. The Russian government has warned about the consequences. PM Dmitry Medvedev has defined the red line that must not be crossed. He has also declared that Russia is ready to normalize the relationship and revive economic ties. Tbilisi must make its choice.

possible results of the abovementioned event for Tbilisi have been intensifying. Addressing the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in May, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Georgia had all the tools to become a NATO member. The country already enjoys a privileged status being part of the NATO Enhanced Opportunities Program it joined in 2014.

Georgia appears to enjoy strong US backing of its NATO bid. On July 5, just 6 days before the event, United States Permanent Representative to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchison made a statement to emphasize the US support for the open door policy and Georgia’s aspiration to join.

The Washington-based Heritage Foundation think tank has recently put forward a fast-track proposal to grant Georgia membership by temporarily excluding the breakaway territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from NATO's Article 5 security guarantee. Luke Coffey, Director of the Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation and the author of the report, believes that Georgia can be invited to join NATO by amending Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which defines specific territories within a given nation that would be subject to NATO's security guarantee. He points out that the same procedure was used in 1951 when Turkey and Greece joined the alliance. Formally, Georgia’s accession will be presented as a temporary measure that would last until the “internationally recognized territory is re-established by peaceful and diplomatic means.”

At the 2008 Bucharest summit, NATO agreed that Georgia will join the alliance but no date was set. The possibility of skipping the membership action plan (MAP) process appears to be quite acceptable. The “more NATO in Georgia and more Georgia in NATO” concept serves as an alternative to a MAP, providing all of the necessary instruments to achieve the goal. The country is a party to the Annual National Plan and the Substantial NATO-Georgia Package (SNGP), which includes support of 13 different areas of defense and security related areas. These programs make a MAP redundant. Tbilisi is ready to contribute into the NATO deployment in Poland and the activities in the Black Sea region.

Does NATO really need it as a full-fledged member? The country provides the shortest route to export oil and gas from Asia to Europe. It has contributed to NATO military operations in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. The Georgian forces in Iraq and Afghanistan were the largest non-NATO contingents to dwarf those of most NATO members. The alliance believes it needs to expand. But NATO needs the ability to fulfill the obligations to defend Georgia if attacked according to the Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. It presupposes an enormous effort, expenditure and confrontation with Russia. This is the case when geography is not on the alliance’s side. Besides, deploying “substantial forces” near Russia’s borders is what NATO pledged not to do signing the NATO-Russia Founding Act. A massive presence of NATO forces in Georgia will turn the country into a hotbed. The alliance is not in the position to do it as it is teetering on the verge of a break-up.

There are reasons for NATO to think twice before giving Georgia a membership but the United States sees this nation as a useful ally located in the strategically important region. It is a valuable stopover for transporting forces to the Middle East. This is the time the US is balancing on the brink of armed conflict with Iran. American aircraft could reach the Middle East in a few hours if they take off in Georgia, which has upgraded its key airports and port facilities. America will need it badly as an allied nation to support military activities in the Middle East.

There is a serious rift dividing the US and other members of NATO. The alliance’s future is vague. It has never happened before but the differences over defense spending and “free riding” appear to be insurmountable at present. The things could be temporarily smoothed over but the problem will remain.

NATO may lose relevance. New alliances may emerge, such as a group of European states led by Germany, the US alliance with pro-American European nations such as Poland and the Baltic States, or the recently emerged “mini-NATO” including Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova.

The latter one can be enlarged.

Georgia may find the US major non-NATO ally (MNNA) status even more important than North Atlantic membership. A lot depends on the results of the July11-12 NATO summit and its fallout. The Trump-Putin summit can also change a lot of things to make Georgia reconsider foreign policy priorities.

NATO membership may look to be very close and never become real with obligations to shoulder and no commitments on the part of the alliance in return. This situation has been lasting for a long time with solemn promises to give and new “programs” offered instead of real membership. The MNNA status may be a coveted goal too but what does it change? The country will be told what to do and how much to spend on defense not to be called a free-rider. The US will have a springboard in the volatile region but Georgia’s security would be reduced as it would become a target for Russian military, be it a NATO member or a privileged US ally.

If the July 16 Trump-Putin summit ends as expected to launch the process of gradual normalization of the relations, then Georgia will have a slim chance of formally becoming a member of NATO or a US-led anti-Russian alliance. It’ll have to face a new reality as new European security architecture will be emerging. Geographic, economic and political factors dictate the need for launching a dialogue with Russia on new security arrangements, taking into consideration the ongoing changes and emerging trends. This policy will enhance Georgia’s security in a much more efficient way than losing sovereignty to become a pawn in the games plays by NATO or the United States.

Last year, US President Trump brought the issue of burden-sharing into the open, by berating his European allies for failing to spend enough on defense. The rift was apparent. This time, this controversial issue is expected to dominate the agenda. Some of the more contentious topics (the elephants in the room) are being kept off the program but they will certainly cloud the atmosphere of the meeting. The US ambassador to NATO, Kay Bailey Hutchison, has warned that the spending issue will remain a sore point for President Trump. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has already said her country will miss the target deadline, thus making the possibility of an open US-German clash at the summit very real.

If the planned Trump-Putin summit takes place prior to or immediately after the NATO meeting, it will be another blow to the West’s unity after the scandalous G7 event. National security adviser John Bolton will travel to Moscow next week, after stops in London and Rome, to prepare for the much-anticipated event. Just imagine the setback this will be to British PM Theresa May’s efforts to isolate Russia internationally over the Salisbury nerve-agent attack! Actually, the very announcement on June 21 of Mr. Bolton’s visit to Moscow has been a serious blow to the UK government, as it was delivered right before Mr. Trump’s working visit to that country on July 13. And there’s more. President Trump publicly taunted German Chancellor Angela Merkel on June 19 over migration, a vital security problem for Europe, but which has no direct impact on the United States. Today the West’s unity looks more like a thing of the past. Not since the 1956 Suez Crisis have divisions within the North Atlantic Alliance been so deep.

The idea is to set these differences aside at the summit and to show unity by approving the main proposals on the agenda, such as a new plan to improve rapid-response capability by deploying 30 troop battalions, 30 squadrons of aircraft, and 30 warships within 30 days. The naval presence in the Mediterranean Sea and the joint training in Iraq are also issues that will be subject to discussion. All these steps are to be taken while decision-making is being streamlined, deployment flexibility is being enhanced, and the rules of engagement are being made more robust.

But whatever is decided and signed will not eliminate the root of the problem. Looking at the world while wearing his “America First” glasses, Donald Trump sees Europe as a competitor that needs to be weakened in order to make the US stronger. And exacerbating differences and divisions inside the blocs, be they the EU or NATO, is the way to do it.

With Brussels in revolt against Washington, Poland and the Baltic States may become the core of another 100% pro-American alliance to protect US interests in Europe. The EU-Poland rift is growing, which increases the possibility of a Polexit while the majority of European states are trying to fend off US domination. The UK finds itself increasingly neglected in Europe and more deeply interested in closer interaction with the US. Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova appear to be fascinated by anything the US does and are ready to do whatever it says. A special relationship between the US, Sweden, and Finland is obviously being shaped. France has become an American ally, joining Washington in the conflicts in the Middle East while vigorously opposing the US policy of trade wars.

The European political landscape is shifting. America is not the only problem Brussels faces. The EU rift over migration has exacerbated to the point that an emergency summit is being planned for June 24, just five days before the “big” summit on June 28-29, which will also include a discussion of that problem. The German coalition government has barely survived the crisis over migrants and appears to be on its last legs. Building refugee camps in North Africa and strengthening the Frontex border agency is a matter of survival for Europe and a problem the US does not care about. The West is deeply divided. Everyone is operating with their own agenda.

The only way to preserve at least the pretense of unity is to find a common enemy, a peril that is jeopardizing the security of all. Those who are striving to save NATO and the EU from collapse are clutching at that straw, which is Russia, an imaginary bogeyman that poses a nonexistent threat. Indeed, escalation is the best way to preserve this eroded unity. But Moscow is an important player that others can to turn to and side with on the world chessboard. For instance, there is a wide disparity between the attitude toward Russia held in the UK vs. in Italy. Turkey is a good example of a NATO member that is able to protect its national interests thanks to Russia’s support.

This isn’t just about Donald Trump and his political views. The essence of the problem is the emergence of the fault lines that run too deep to make the idea of a united West anything but a pipe dream. NATO and the EU have forgotten about their standards. They have been expanding too fast, trying to bring together nations at different levels of development and, correspondingly, with different interests to pursue. Those organizations have grown too large to be able to boast of their unity on all major issues. Having achieved a certain level of expansion, they have begun a transformation into amalgams of groups united by regional or other interests that are challenging the central leaderships.

Growing too fast and too large is not always a good thing. Expansion does not always make alliances stronger. The empire of Alexander the Great did not last long after his death. The last thing the West needs under the current circumstances is a confrontation with Russia. It has enough grievances to grapple with.