Decoy or Placeholder?

George W. Bush, with help from others no doubt, has secured NATO agreement to build a ballistic missile shield in Europe. But those same NATO allies have refused to admit Ukraine and Georgia to the alliance (see NYT piece).

Russia objects to both the shield and the admission of the two former Soviet, er, Republics. France and Germany object to the admission of the two former Soviet states on the grounds that it would stir Russia's ire. As if the missile shield will not.

One In From The Cold characterizes this outcome more or less as a "damned if we do, damned if we don't" outcome. He says, more or less, that clearing a path for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO would have angered Putin and Russia but that having backed down:

"is likely to embolden Russia, which will continue its campaign of threats and economic sanctions against both countries."

That's not exactly ideal. But I wonder, was the Ukraine/Georgia issue a real issue at all? Was it a mere placeholder for future expansion? Or, was it a decoy to help EU NATO members feel as if they had reach compromise with Bush by avoiding undue NATO expansion but agreeing to the missile sheild?

Only time will tell.

EDIT (7:49PM EST) The Belmont Club seems to hold the view that Bush has set down a placeholder with regard to Ukraine and Georgia. I tend to agree. I try not to be overly cynical about these things.