British reservations about NATO expansion?

The Guardian tends to be a bit skeptical of entangling treaties, but the attitude in this commentary toward NATO expansion seems to be gaining some traction:

I don't know when the British cabinet last discussed the role of Nato. I suspect things may not be much different to the time I was in cabinet in the 1970s, when there would be a brief report from the foreign secretary on recent foreign developments and only rarely a discussion in depth.
I am fairly sure that the last-minute decision of David Miliband to go to Kiev at the end of August was not discussed by the cabinet beforehand. I have already publicly questioned whether it was wise, despite best intentions.
As we approach the December meeting of Nato foreign ministers we should carefully consider whether, in promising to support membership of Nato to Georgia and the Ukraine, we really want to bind ourselves to article five of Nato's charter which commits members to come to those countries' defence. Nato's charter essentially bound the US and Canada to western Europe – "one for all and all for one". It was and remains a defensive shield, binding all of us together.
I can understand why Russians are concerned about the relentless eastward expansion of Nato. How could this growth continue without provoking Russia? It feels betrayed by the west over its abandonment of assurances given in the early 1990s that the alliance would not be enlarged. Agreement in principle to site bases in the Czech Republic and Poland has been the last straw. What is surprising is that retaliation has taken so long.
No sensible person would want to return to the cold war, and President Dmitry Mevedev's recent comments are not only most unhelpful but mean that there will be a counter-move from Russia.
Miliband is reported as having said on his Kiev visit, "It is clear to me, standing here today, that this is a European country," adding that "once it fulfils the criteria, it should be accepted as a full member, and we should help you get there".
Really. Justifying membership from an applicant country's viewpoint is one thing. But embracing new members requires careful consideration of whether it is in the interests of existing members to accept them. It is the British interest, and the interests of other existing members, that should be at the forefront of such considerations.

By: Brant