Michael Cecire continues the discussion about Georgia and NATO:
Georgia has too many fans and not enough friends. Those who advocate for Tbilisi’s Euro-Atlantic ambitions, as I have done in the past, need to be at least equally and probably more insistent about Georgia’s undeniably concerning record. Will the prospect of NATO membership help incentivize democracy-building in Georgia? I think it would, but cheering on Tbilisi for a record that doesn’t exist is disingenuous and ultimately unhelpful. Worse, it falsely lumps support for Georgia as being an occupation limited to a certain ideological persuasion, which is the last thing the country needs [bold mine-DL].
I think there are some great arguments to be made in favor of Georgian NATO membership, but those need to be preceded by a clear recognition that Georgia has some very extensive and very serious work that it needs to do. Until that happens, cheering on Georgian membership in NATO is not only unhelpful for the Atlantic alliance, but particularly Georgia’s embattled opposition.
Obviously, I take a different view of NATO expansion and Georgian membership than Cecire, but this is a much more effective argument on behalf of Georgian aspirations than any other I have seen made in the last eight years. I recommend reading the complete post.
tbraton 
One of the over-riding impressions you get in Georgia is just how very, very remote it is from just about everywhere. I am convinced that those who promote NATO membership here have never really taken a good look at the map. For most of its long history, Georgia’s survival has depended on their accomodation at different times with each of their 3 power neighbors. As sympathetic as I am to their plight (and their positions regarding South Ossetia and Abkhazia,) I see no other way forward for them. The chimera of NATO membership is a dangerous distraction.