despite the efforts of the US, Canada, and the newest EU members

As of today, efforts to stop Ukraine and Georgia from getting MAPs of how to eventually get into NATO should succeed: thanks to the craven capitulation of the German and French governments to Russia (IIU has already linked a great article by Taras Kuzio running down the list of how similar the situations of Ukraine and Georgia are to those of other nations that joined NATO, even Germany itself: showing clearly that the motivation for refusal is as a sop to Moscow).

In this environment, I'd like to praise Bush for launching the lead balloon IIU just blogged about. He could have downplayed Ukraine and Georgia's requests. He wouldn't even have needed to come out against, merely gone along with the usual practice at NATO meetings of not airing clashing views. In doing so he would have been more friendly with Russia, and thereby also with France: something that could produce real political dividends at a time when Russia has been suggesting it might open nearby bases to, and France may increase its participation in NATO in Afganistan. On the basis of a cost-benefit analysis, Bush could easily have waffled.

Instead he first visited Ukraine to express his support, and then at the summit he went off script to say:

Welcoming [Ukraine and Georgia] into the Membership Action Plan would send a signal to their citizens that if they continue on the path to democracy and reform they will be welcomed into the institutions of Europe.

It would send a signal throughout the region that these two nations are, and will remain, sovereign and independent states.

A lame-duck President doesn't have a lot of political muscle (or as much temptation to make compromises out of political expediency, to be fair). But Bush pushed as hard as he could to support Ukraine and Georgia, because doing so was right. Whatever else he's done, that deserves commendation.

The newest EU members and Canada are also to be praised. I particularly like the quotes by the Estonian and Latvian presidents (in one of the articles linked by IIU) that  the MAP would be of great benefit because "it forces nations to reform even when they don't want to do it," and "no action plan, no action.

Both statements are sadly approriate in Ukraine's currently political climate. Additional external pressure for reform would have been welcome.