As the situation in Georgia unfolds, it is being seen in many quarters as a warning shot being fired by Russia across the bows of NATO and the west. If it is, then perhaps it is a timely one that we should think carefully how to respond to.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war, the West fell into a period of complacency. It was assumed that Russia had been subdued, and that the rise of a free market, of sorts, would inevitably lead to a greater degree of alignment in the interests of both Russia and West.

Unfortunately this led some to feel that the mission of NATO has having been accomplished, who then saw it as redundant, and then searched to find it a new mission.

Today, NATO membership seems to be being used almost as a 'badge of approval', which is offered as a carrot to former soviet states, as an incentive to become established democracies and to establish stronger trading relationships with the West.

It seems to me that this approach is both naive and dangerous, and fails to take into account the real risks and uncertainties that we face, both with respect to Russia and the historically turbulent regions that surround it.

It is, of course, in no one's interest that there should be a conflict of any sort between the West and Russia, but this does not mean that it won't happen.

There are a number of salient factors which need to be taken into account in our considerations:

• Firstly - is the psychology of the Russian government. It is their natural inclination to take a strong stance, which can sometimes be seen as confrontational. Acting in a way which they might perceive to be making them appear weak is likely to provoke an unwelcome response.

• Secondly - Russia maintains the capacity to totally devastate the West. Regardless of how out-of-date some of their military equipment might be. For example, little more than a handful of H-Bombs would be sufficient, for all practical purposes, to destroy the whole of the United Kingdom, and all of the people in it.

• Thirdly - while no one would deliberately precipitate such a conflict, it is worth remembering that the last occasion that we know about on which we came close to a nuclear war, in the 1980s, was due to a misunderstanding during NATO exercises. Russia mistakenly believed that NATO was about to attack it, and without the West even realising, the situation escalated to the point that the silo lids of the Warsaw pact's intercontinental nuclear missiles had been rolled back in preparation for firing.

In the light of these points, we should ask whether it is really sensible to extend NATO, at this point in time, into what is, whether we like it or not, Russia's sphere of influence; and territory which they regard as strategically important.

We should perhaps bear in mind, that when roles were reversed, during the Cuban missile crisis, the USA acted aggressively to prevent what they saw as unacceptable activities on their doorstep, and hostilities were only averted by a whisker. While much has changed in the intervening years, human nature has not.

It is also worth remembering that there has been a distinct coolness in some military quarters to some aspects of current events. For example, some of General Mike Jackson's remarks might well be taken to indicate that he has distinct reservations about the possible course of future events.

Since he is one of the few people that has found himself commanding western forces that have found themselves metaphorically 'eyeball to eyeball' with Russian forces in a potential combat zone, and avoided precipitating a war, we might have some faith in his judgement, and perhaps ask the politicians what it is that they know which he doesn't.