NATO isn't gone, but it is stalled in expansion and is shamefully not even prepared to defend our newest additions:
[It] became shockingly clear following the Georgia conflict that there had been no serious NATO contingency planning for the territorial defense of the new, post-Cold War allies. That would seem like the bare minimum due to all members who have pledged in Article V of their treaty to regard an attack on one as an attack on all--the more so given their participation in the Afghanistan mission.
NATO is currently involved in drafting a new "strategic concept" to guide the alliance in the years to come. Nothing wrong with that, but NATO is currently fighting an actual shooting war against a tenacious set of adversaries in Afghanistan and has yet to develop credible plans for defending all its members. Winning the war you are fighting and making sure you can deliver on the alliance's core promise of collective self-defense are not bad strategic concepts. First things first.
We can't let Russian paranoia prevent us from even planning how we'd defend our newest allies.
There must not be two tiers of NATO members--those we'll defend and those we won't.
UPDATE: Notwithstanding our attempt to reset relations, concessions are unlikely to make Russia an ally. They may not be our enemy, but they sure do assume we could be. Our common interests are few and far between, really.
