the Taliban in Afghanistan. This is in line with new roles adopted by Nato at its 50th anniversary Washington summit in 1999. Known as 'the new strategic concept', Nato would now wander near and far across the world in peace-keeping, stabilisation and reconstruction missions, of which Afghanistan has been the biggest so far.

There the Nato allies cannot often agree on common goals and policies, and fewer than one-third of the member nations' forces are prepared to do any serious fighting at all. Of the forces now fighting, the Dutch are likely to be withdrawn next year, and the Canadians halved.

The crisis in Georgia, and the battle of words over the missile shield, is developing into a dangerous game of chicken between Russia and the Nato countries. Russia is showing that it believes in maintaining its own 'neighbourhood security space'. Its acts and motives are questionable in many respects, but Moscow is surely right to query that the missile shield is only 'to deter rogue states, like Iran'.

Nato has to get real about what it is about, and what it can and cannot do. It should not engage in long-term, long-distance missions such as Afghanistan – and it must understand that Russia is not the old Soviet Union. All alliances have their day, and it is perhaps time that Nato is replaced with something more effective and attuned to the needs of the present day, and not the Cold War.