Incorporating unstable states into the alliance puts us at the mercy of demagogues like President Mikhail Saakashvili. Nato membership involves mutual defence, so if Georgia had already been a member, we could have been embroiled in a conflict with Russia.

America had already raised the temperature by sending advisers to train the Georgian army and dressing its troops in Nato fatigues. Saakashvili was so fêted and flattered in America that he imagined that he had a licence to do anything. The sinister hand of the US Vice-President, Dick Cheney, could clearly be seen.

Ignoring American advice and Russian warnings, Saakashvili sent troops into the Russian-speaking enclave of South Ossetia in a brutal assault, despite a pledge that he would not do so. He played straight into Russia's hands.

Vladimir Putin is an ex-KGB hardliner who mourns the collapse of the Soviet Union, but he is also a realist and he has over the years made no attempt to occupy Georgia, even though it was completely within
his power.

Saakashvili's recklessness is limitless. He now rebukes the US for failing to come to his aid. He announced that Georgia's ports and airports would be put under American military control, forcing the Pentagon to issue a denial. He has misrepresented US aid as military support – though the Americans should explain why it is necessary to wear combat helmets when delivering humanitarian aid.

The former Soviet republics are entitled to their independence but they must understand that the region remains a Russian sphere of influence, just as America would not tolerate hostile threats anywhere in the Americas.

David Cameron was misguided last week with his blustering drivel about "standing up to Russia" and "getting tough with bullies". He should, instead, have emphasised the need to get tough with Saakashvili before the hot-headed fool drags us all into a third world war.



UNIVERSITIES have long been complaining that there were so many sixth-formers gaining A grades in the "unfailable" A-level that they found it hard to identify the high-fliers.

So it made sense to introduce a new A* grade to identify them. Universities would have guidance about who would best be suited to courses.

But universities are not trusted by Labour to make such decisions. Political correctness and social engineering enter the picture. The Government realised, to its dismay, that using the A* grade would expose its failure to educate youngsters properly at state schools and would show independent schools to
be dominant.

The percentage of comprehensive pupils gaining an A* in geography would be 1.7, compared with 5.6 for the independents. In physics, the proportion would be 1.6 compared with 8.7. In German, it would be 3.0 compared with 13.2.

Universities were, therefore, bullied into ignoring the results. The Higher Education Funding Council, which holds the purse strings, set quotas for the number of places to be given to state school pupils. Academic standards went out of the window.

So, universities had no choice and were forced to ignore the A* grade. Exeter and Bath universities said that the A* would "disadvantage state schools". Even Oxford said that it was "highly unlikely" that it would use the A* grade in offers until "there is a sense of the probable grade distribution".

What a way to run higher education. But why be surprised that Labour will resort to any trick to hide its failure to educate the nation's schoolchildren?



THE row over GM foods has been ignited again by an outburst from Prince Charles. He doubtless means well, but the scare campaign launched by propagandists is a downright scandal.

If there are fears about GM foods, the answer is simple. Properly organised tests should be carried out to find the truth. But that is the last thing the anti-GM fanatics want. They disrupt every attempt to set up tests.

Farmers taking part in the tests have been threatened, with their families living in fear. Instead of being praised for their co-operation with the tests, they are subjected to every kind of smear in their local communities.

One North Yorkshire farmer is adamant that GM crops could dramatically cut the level of chemicals sprayed on the land. He estimated that the GM crop would need only one spray of herbicide, as opposed to four or five for conventional crops.

Whether this is true is obviously a matter of public interest that
deserves investigation. The obvious conclusion is that the anti-GM fanatics are scared that testing would show their propaganda is a lie from start to finish.