@MarkTime:
While I have no idea what "notification" is, changes in NATO shouldn't surprise anyone. During the cold war, smaller countries couldn't afford to speak their mind, upsetting a careful balance. Now they can, and I think that is a healthy democratic clarifying process. For the US position, it's a loss of taken-for-granted influence, but they'll get over it. For France and Germany, the same waking-up process has happend in the EU.
> do you mean to suggest, avoiding the possibility of an 'impression' being created was a good reason to torpedo the effectiveness of NATO?
NATO has outlived itself if it remains a primarily military alliance, after removal of the confrontational situation of the cold war. To answer your question, both sides have bluffed and overplayed their cards, but it was a minor incident. The incident has highlighted divergence in NATO, it didn't create it.
> all the countries acted without honor to some extent ... the U.S. for not demanding the UN vote and allowing it to be veto'd
That was a sensible end-game decision to avoid total destruction of the UN (as would have happend if going to war after loosing a vote, openly violating the UN charta). The US administration is to blame much earlier, for its overall approach: extremely poor diplomatic skills, arbitrarily shifting focus, shady evidence, and, primarily, dissing the rest of the world by announcing the outcome at the beginning of the process: "if the UN doesn't take up it's responsibilty, we will, with a coalition of the willing".
