The assessment mission of NATO has recently arrived in Tbilisi. This time the purpose of the visit is not to monitor the fulfillment of another "one-year program", developed by Brussels and Tbilisi instead of the Membership Action Plan (MAP), but to search for a site for a 'joint training center', the opening of which is planned within the framework of "substantial package for enhanced cooperation."
"The Package" was granted to Georgia at the NATO summit in Wales after new NATO members were not able to persuade Germany, France, the United States and other "old-timers", to give a MAP to Georgia. After long discussions, the sides agreed that a 'road map' would cause discontent in Russia.
"The Package" includes only symbolic steps. In particular, the strengthening of the NATO liaison office in Tbilisi. It involves increasing the number of its staff from four to eight, as well as holding joint exercises, which are already held (at command and staff level) almost every year. The "substantial package" has a clause about a 'Joint Training Center', according to which Georgia plans to prepare "fighters against the regime of Bashar al-Assad."
The decision on the 'joint center' coincided with an initiative of US President Barack Obama on the opening of special training bases for Syrian opposition fighters in a few countries in the Greater Middle East. At the same time, Washington considers Georgia to be part of the Greater Middle East.
The Georgian public did not like the idea of a 'training center' as a base for training to Syrian opposition and Alasania's announcement was denied: For Georgia's political elite it is much more profitable to represent this "Center" as the germ of the future NATO base. But this raises two main questions: how adequately is the perception of the "joint center" as a first step towards building a "NATO base" and how will Moscow react to the appearance of such a facility in Georgia?Regarding the first question: NATO officials each time make it clear that the 'Joint Training Center' is not a military facility and that it is intended only for the "Georgia military to share its experience with all who are in need." For example, NATO Special Representative for the South Caucasus James Appathurai said that there will be several officers from NATO countries in the center, but it is easy to understand that this will not affect the strengthening of the security of Georgia. And the second question remains open.There is another natural question: why does NATO want it? The answer is simple: the previous US administration insisted on a clear record in the resolution of the Bucharest NATO summit: "Georgia and Ukraine will become members of NATO." For Brussels not to take at least symbolic actions in this direction would mean a loss of face and the frustration of other potential allies across Eurasia, while the US and French presidents honestly said that Georgia cannot become a member of the Alliance.All this could cost Georgia dear, which is being forced to write a check, the amount of which will be defined by Russia and NATO, trying to save someone else's face.
The Georgian public did not like the idea of a 'training center' as a base for training to Syrian opposition and Alasania's announcement was denied: For Georgia's political elite it is much more profitable to represent this "Center" as the germ of the future NATO base. But this raises two main questions: how adequately is the perception of the "joint center" as a first step towards building a "NATO base" and how will Moscow react to the appearance of such a facility in Georgia?
Regarding the first question: NATO officials each time make it clear that the 'Joint Training Center' is not a military facility and that it is intended only for the "Georgia military to share its experience with all who are in need." For example, NATO Special Representative for the South Caucasus James Appathurai said that there will be several officers from NATO countries in the center, but it is easy to understand that this will not affect the strengthening of the security of Georgia. And the second question remains open.
There is another natural question: why does NATO want it? The answer is simple: the previous US administration insisted on a clear record in the resolution of the Bucharest NATO summit: "Georgia and Ukraine will become members of NATO." For Brussels not to take at least symbolic actions in this direction would mean a loss of face and the frustration of other potential allies across Eurasia, while the US and French presidents honestly said that Georgia cannot become a member of the Alliance.
All this could cost Georgia dear, which is being forced to write a check, the amount of which will be defined by Russia and NATO, trying to save someone else's face.
