Is a Georgian entitled to speak about the future of Europe? Perhaps not. However, the United States, whose Marshall Plan—and the political, economic, and military strings attached—very much propelled the project of European integration, has earned that right. And that’s before we mention the traditional role of the U.S. as the global security provider. So we should take note that almost 26 years ago in Berlin, U.S. Secretary of State, James Baker, spoke of “a Europe whole and free.” At the time, that vision included Russia; for some of us, it still does or should do. After all, “Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals” was the vision of De Gaulle.

It is not, however, the vision of Vladimir Putin. Russia is not interested in a community it cannot lead. Since 1989, the post-Soviet space from the Caucasus to Kiev has failed to acquire a solid regional identity: the Organisation of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC), the Organisation for Democracy and Economic Development (GUAM), the Eastern Partnership and the Eurasian Union, to name but a few, are organizations and agreements still competing for the hearts and minds of “the people” in the region. Meanwhile, the launch of the Eurasian Union and the conclusion of Association Agreements with the EU by Georgia and Ukraine have fanned the flame of Russian imperialism, not unexpectedly. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the U.S. National Security Advisor during Jimmy Carter’s presidency, knew that the key to making or breaking Russia’s imperial identity was Ukraine and said so more than twenty years ago.

Yet the “enemy” is not Russia alone. Five years into the global economic crisis, euro-skepticism is emerging as a political force to be reckoned with. Having lost confidence in the inevitability of prosperity after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008, Westerners are now finding that peace and stability should not be taken for granted, either.

The country I know best, Georgia, has experienced anything but “peace and stability” for two generations, which is why it does not take these public goods for granted, and wishes that Europe could, ultimately, integrate Russia into its system.

Georgia values the project of democratization and Europeanization as a process as much as an end in itself. By the time we are ready for EU and NATO membership, we will have been transformed as a political system, a state, and a society. This is not merely a process of supplying “carrots” and applying “sticks.” It is the realization of a sovereign desire for a state with substantive democracy, respected institutions, and rule of law. At the Eastern Partnership Summit in Riga next month, our citizens are expecting visa liberalization agreements to be concluded. More than a mere “carrot,” they are the fulfillment of the dream of living in Europe as Europeans. For us, visa liberalization is not only a matter of “technical assessment” or “political decisions and considerations.” Generations of Georgians have lost their lives for that dream, and territories have been lost because of our commitment to European principles and values.

There is no alternative to joining Europe; there is a “Near Abroad” but no Russian “Neighborhood Policy.” In Georgia, as in Moldova and Ukraine, any deviation from “the Russian norm” triggers economic, energy, trade, and military bullying. Caucasian migrants are hunted in Moscow; energy supply is disrupted; market access is denied. Unlike during the Cold War, today there are no competing worldviews. Europe offers more for more; Russia responds with “more or else.” The 2008 occupation of Georgian territory was a response to our stated ambition to join NATO; the 2014–2015 annexation treaties with Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali regions are a response to Georgia’s Association Agreement with the EU. Russia threatens, without offering options.

The 65-year-old Euro-Atlantic alliance must not take its achievements for granted. Unlike today’s European leadership, pioneers of European integration like Richard Nikolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi and Robert Schuman lived through war, as Georgians have. From the perspective of a European who was never “in Europe”, red lines are not a statement against Russia; they are a statement about who we are as a community. Note my sense of entitlement as a Georgian.