The Nato summit commenced replete with handshakes and cordial dinners, with no display of outspoken wrangling. However, the upbeat mood never translated into a plethora of decisions being made.

A number of issues supposed to be decided at the meeting were postponed until December, when foreign ministers of Nato’s 26 member states are to meet again. Others, though, were still taken to dub the Bucharest meeting as the US time of mixed fortunes and Russia’s attempt to press its security policy case.

Nato beckoned a welcome to Croatia and Albania, but failed to do so with Macedonia, the country embroiled in a name dispute with its neighbour Greece and earning, as a result, a Hellenic veto to its invitation. Neither did it give out membership action plans – preliminary invitation for accession talks – to Ukraine and Georgia.

The former Soviet republics were pronounced as eligible states for Nato membership but were still seen as not yet fully prepared, Nato leaders argued. Analysts, meanwhile, saw in the deferral an attempt to appease an increasingly strong Russia, which sees the alliance’s expansion to its immediate borders a threat to international security.

Nato leaders, however, were not as pro-Russian on what the Kremlin perceives as an even bigger threat to Russia’s international security. The alliance gave the go-ahead to US plans to deploy 10 interceptors in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic, as part of its missile shield in Europe.

In another postponement, France deferred its return to Nato’s military fold for 2009. Nonetheless, the country – in what analysts say is a typical US rapprochement manoeuvre for a French president early into his term – did promise to send a battalion to Afghanistan.

Nato countries, though, struck a secret agreement on the graduated withdrawal from Afghanistan, according to German media.

The rigid position of Germany exemplified the reasons for the postponements. Germany, the backbone of “old” Europe, resisted the broad eastward expansion to Ukraine and Georgia because it was in a wait-and-see mood. Disillusioned over the Bush administration, German think-tanks maintain the country preferred to see who the next US president would be before deciding whether to side with the US on defence and security issues, this would, at the same time, keep amity with Russia which it relies heavily on for energy resources, as does all of Europe.

Russia, for its part, was a keyline at the summit, with Vladimir Putin making his last visit at the summit as president and his first to a Nato annual meeting in six years. Contrary to expectations, Putin exercised restraint at the Nato-Russia Council on April 5 and at his briefing with journalists.

Despite the ire over the US missile shield stationing in Europe, Russia did agree to allow Nato aircraft transit “non-military freight” through its territory to Afghanistan.

Putin also refrained from making statements on Nato expansion, Kosovo or Iran.

A splash of explicit emotions at the summit, however, determined Nato’s no-go card for Macedonia. The official delegation of the former Yugoslav state made a demonstrative early withdrawal from the summit. Macedonia’s official position was that Nato made the wrong weigh-in of factors when deciding on the country’s membership. The country made substantial headway in military reforms, a fact that Macedonia regards as much more important for Nato causes than its name row with Greece.

The feelings of Croatia and Albania were to the other extreme, with lavish celebrations spilling onto the streets of Zagreb and Pristina.

Despite being tough on Macedonia, Nato leaders reiterated Macedonia had its due place in the alliance and despite the invitation delay, it could well catch up with Croatia and Albania and at the same time as these two countries.

The Nato summit did serve as a catalyst for the resolution of this conflict. The Greek government announced this week it was drawing up a new name dispute strategy. The strategy foresaw more intensive bilateral contacts with Macedonia at all levels, alongside with a new name proposal – Republic New Macedonia – it hopes would be consensual for both parties.

Russia and the US, on the other hand, ran the farewell streak, and it ran past the Nato summit. The outgoing presidents of the US and Russia met in Bucharest and then in the Black Sea residence in Sochi to discuss and sign the so-called strategic framework on bilateral relations. The encompassing document spanning defence, counter-terrorism, energy, trade and membership of the World Trade Organisation was intended to map out the policy guidelines for their successors.

The two presidents also committed to keep strategic weapons to a minimum.

Currently, the US and Russia are parties to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START-1), which expires on December 5 2009. The two presidents pledged to work on an agreement to substitute START once it expires.

Although the two presidents failed to reach an agreement on the missile shield, they pledged to do so in the near future. In June last year, Putin had offered the US to use the Gabala radar station that Russia leases from Azerbaijan as an alternative to European missile shield deployment.

Meanwhile, Nato’s hail for the US missile shield produced a reciprocal reaction from Iran, whose uranium enrichment activities and alleged nuclear weapons building plans prompted the US to step up defensive capabilities worldwide. On April 7, Iran’s defence minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said his country should build a missile shield against Israel and the US.

The implications from the decisions taken at the Nato summit in Bucharest, Romania are yet to be felt. They will be even more pronounced once the December 2008 North Atlantic Council at the level of foreign ministers takes place.