To understand the difference between the Old Europe and the New Europe, feature the reactions to the war between Russia and Georgia. The shooting came to an abrupt halt yesterday as President Medvedev declared the fighting over and Russian objectives achieved. Tbilisi’s soldiers have been pushed out of the two autonomous regions within Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, both of which yearn for an end to Georgian domination and closer ties with Russia.

Under pressure from the European Union and the Bush administration, Moscow stopped short of fully reoccupying Georgia, conquering its capital, and overthrowing its elected president. Since the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the bloc of Russia and the former republics have been dubbed the Former Soviet Union. This week’s fighting tells us that a more apt description would be Future Soviet Union.

Following Mr. Medvedev’s announcement, President Sarkozy, who had flown to Moscow to persuade the Russians to stop their attack, described the situation in a way that flattered both sides’ narratives. Speaking for the European Union, the French president said: “It’s perfectly normal that Russia would want to defend the interests both of Russians in Russia and Russophones outside Russia. It is also normal for the international community to want to guarantee the integrity, sovereignty and independence of Georgia.”

Contrast that with the statement by the Lithuanian leader, President Adamkus, who saw not a triumph of Western diplomacy but a capitulation to Russian imperialism. “We cannot allow a second Munich,” he said on radio from Vilna. “Then, countries appeased Hitler, and it led to World War II, to a colossal tragedy and millions of lost human lives.” It seems the question of Russia’s territorial ambitions cuts close to the bone in the former Baltic republics.

It is the main reason why they and other countries formerly under the Soviet Union’s Russian boot have joined — or asked to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The flares from the Battle of Georgia lit up the skies over Kiev and Tallinn, for Ukraine and Estonia know that the Russian pretext that it rushed to defend Russian citizens and supporters could all too easily be adapted for many of the former republics.

The crisis in the Caucasus highlights both the fragility of the North Atlantic Alliance and the need for NATO expansion. It will have to decide whether to speed up, or sidetrack, applications from Georgia and Ukraine for membership — all in the face of the Kremlin’s having declared what amounts to its own Monroe Doctrine. Would Moscow tolerate being surrounded by NATO member states? The Kremlin has already threatened Ukraine not to sign the North Atlantic Treaty; will Kiev now lose its nerve?

Will the North Atlantic powers? On the one hand, were Georgia already a signatory, Article 5 of the Treaty would have required NATO to fight the Russians. On the other hand, Georgian membership might have restrained the Russians from attacking. It is a problem for not only the Caucasus. The president of South Ossetia and the Russian envoy there both say Ukrainians and people from the Baltics were fighting on the Georgian side.

The Russian official, according to Russia Today, claimed that advancing Georgian “tanks were supposedly crewed by Ukrainians” and that “two unidentified bodies found today are said to have black skin. Possibly they are Americans but we can’t say for sure yet.” The Russians are signaling that they will have accounts to settle. Mr. Putin has already protested American help in the form of the airlifting back home of 2,000 Georgian soldiers from Iraq.

It seems, meanwhile, that Israel was selling weapons to and providing training for the Georgians. According to the Israeli press, the defense ministry reached an assessment last year that the likelihood of Russian-Georgian hostilities was high and decided to limit military exports to defensive equipment and training. A Georgian request for 200 advanced tanks was denied. The Russians had already protested the 2007 sale from Israel to Georgia of unmanned aerial vehicles.

Israel will be thinking about the need to get Russia to pressure Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program. Jerusalem does not want Moscow to go through with the sale to the mullahs of the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system, which would raise the cost to Israel of an air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. The danger is that Georgia’s independence will have been sacrificed without changing Russian behavior with respect to Iran. All the more reason for Washington and Jerusalem to take a hard line on the principles.