US: We won't be building the missile shield in Poland

[Kleves]

Kudos to Obama for choosing a perfect date to announce that: 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion against Poland.

Stuff like this makes one long for the diplomatic finesse of the Bush administration.

[Martinus]

It seems to me that the US diplomacy is like antics of a bipolar person.

First you offend half of the world. Then you change your mind and offend the other half in the attempt to make up to the first half.

[CountDeMoney]

The program made little sense technically or strategically; the question always was how long we were going to stick to it simply for the purpose of avoiding handing the Russians an empty PR victory. 

I agree the timing could have better.  Like Day 1 of the Administration.

Ditto.  A GOP feel-good boondoggle that did nothing but piss away money and needlessly alienate people we could already needfully alienate anyway.

[dps]

There's far better things to spend money on- even if the money stays in the military domain there are better options.

Yeah, but unfortunately, I doubt Obama will spend it on new battleships.

Heck, he'll probably give it to GM to give to their executives as bonuses.

[citizen k]

Eastern Europe grumbles about downgrade in US ties
By KAREL JANICEK and WILLIAM J. KOLE, Associated Press


PRAGUE – Scuttling a missile defense shield in the Czech Republic and Poland helps smooth relations between the U.S. and Russia. But at what price?

Some of America's staunchest allies are the East Europeans — and on Thursday, they expressed dismay at what many see as a slight after decades of their support for the U.S.

Among them were some famous names, including Lech Walesa, the former Solidarity leader and Polish ex-president. "I can see what kind of policy the Obama administration is pursuing toward this part of Europe," he said ruefully, adding: "The way we are being approached needs to change."

For most of the past decade, cozy relations with Washington were practically a given across the "new Europe." George W. Bush famously courted the region after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and leaned on it for troops to fight alongside U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Barack Obama took office undecided about Bush's plan to base 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and sophisticated radar in the Czech Republic — a system designed to shoot down long-range missiles that might be fired from Iran or elsewhere in the Middle East. Building had not started in either country.

The Czech installation was planned for the Brdy military installation 55 miles (90 kilometers) southwest of Prague. The Polish site was to be at a former military air base near the town of Redzikowo, about 115 miles from Russia's westernmost edge.

Obama has been reaching out to Russia, which had expressed outrage at the notion of missiles being pointed in its direction from a region that was firmly in the Soviet orbit just 20 years ago.

On Thursday, Obama announced he was shifting the plan from Eastern Europe to other locations. He and other administration officials said they have concluded that Iran's medium- and short-range missiles pose a greater threat and require more flexible technology.

Obama's decision got a positive reception in Russia, hailed by President Dmitry Medvedev as a "responsible move."

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she viewed the shift as "a hopeful signal for overcoming difficulties with Russia when it comes to a uniform strategy to combat the threat of Iran together."

Officially, Czech leaders said they understood the rationale for abandoning the shield, and they expressed confidence that the country would remain secure.

But some expressed dismay at the reversal.

Former Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, whose government signed treaties with the Bush administration to build the radar system — and took a lot of heat from Czechs who feared it would make their country a terrorist target — went on Czech radio to vent his frustrations.

"The Americans are not interested in this territory as they were before," he said. "It's bad news for the Czech Republic."

Obama's decision also drew flak in Washington. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell called it "shortsighted and harmful to our long-term security interests."

"We must not turn our backs on two loyal allies in the war on terror," he said.

Although Obama said the United States will continue to work cooperatively with "our close friends and allies," the future implications of the move appeared mixed.

Poland's prime minister held out hope his country might play a role in the revamped U.S. defense.

"There is a chance for strengthening Europe's security with special attention given to Poland," Donald Tusk told reporters, adding: "I would not describe what is going on today as a defeat for Poland."

But a prominent Czech legislator suggested the rebuff would have consequences should Washington ask for troops — or anything else.

"If the administration approaches us in the future with any request, I would be strongly against it," said Jan Vidim, a lawmaker with the conservative Civic Democratic Party, which had supported the missile defense plan.

Opponents of the shield, such as Jan Tamas — an activist who had organized numerous protests — hailed Obama's decision.

"It is a big victory for the Czech Republic. We are happy that we will be able to continue to live in our beautiful country without the presence of foreign soldiers," he said.

And Mariusz Chmiel, a top official in the northern Poland region where the missiles would have been based, proclaimed himself "the happiest man in Poland" now that the plan has been shelved.

Even so, scrapping missile defense comes as a huge setback to many Polish and Czech leaders, who viewed it as a way to strengthen military ties with the U.S. in a form of defense against a resurgent Russia.

Fears of Moscow run especially deep in Poland, highlighted by a key anniversary Thursday. Exactly 70 years ago — on Sept. 17, 1939 — Poland was invaded by the Soviet Union at the start of World War II.

Aleksander Szczyglo, head of Poland's National Security Office, characterized the change as a "defeat primarily of American long-distance thinking about the situation in this part of Europe."

"It's quite unfair," said Petr Boubin, 36, who owns a cafe in the Czech capital. "I think Obama is making too many concessions to Russia."


Kole reported from Vienna. AP Writers Monika Scislowska and Vanessa Gera in Warsaw and Jim Heintz in Moscow contributed to this story.

[HisMajestyBOB]

It seems to me that the US diplomacy is like antics of a bipolar person.

First you offend half of the world. Then you change your mind and offend the other half in the attempt to make up to the first half.

US foreign policy is much like a drunk, blindfolded blind man, stumbling about in a dark room.

[Sheilbh]

It seems to me that the US diplomacy is like antics of a bipolar person.

First you offend half of the world. Then you change your mind and offend the other half in the attempt to make up to the first half.

I think it's just that Poland's adjusting into the sort of relationship everyone else has with the US.  I think Hoggart's law has some truth is that no matter how much you think your country's relationship with the US matters the US notices you about as much as they do Norway and care about Polish/British/French sensibility about as much as they do Norway's.

[Zoupa]

The Poles should threaten to build their own nuclear deterrent if the missile system is not put in.

The Poles can rely on the French and the British to loyally protect them.

They should build a Maginot missle shield.

Fuck the Poles.

The line just moved east a little. We'll nuke the red tanks on the polish plain instead of the german plain. Big whoop.

[Razgovory]

Kudos to Obama for choosing a perfect date to announce that: 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion against Poland.

Stuff like this makes one long for the diplomatic finesse of the Bush administration.

Are we going to invade them now?

[Agelastus]

It would appear that the reaction of the Czechs and Poles is exactly that which could have been predicted by your average kindergartner. It seems Obama is even more clueless about how to treat allies than his predecessors.

[Alatriste]

It would appear that the reaction of the Czechs and Poles is exactly that which could have been predicted by your average kindergartner. It seems Obama is even more clueless about how to treat allies than his predecessors.

Either that, or both the thing and the date were chosen to please Russia... which is an interesting but worrying possibility.

[CountDeMoney]

For Christ's sake, stop freaking out, Euroweenies.
Here, here's the straight dope.  I don't see anything in there saying ZOMG TEH NIGGER'S TOSSING EASTURN UROPE TO TEH RUSSKIS

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
__________________________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                            September 17, 2009

Fact Sheet on U.S. Missile Defense Policy
A "Phased, Adaptive Approach" for Missile Defense in Europe

President Obama has approved the recommendation of Secretary of Defense Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a phased, adaptive approach for missile defense in Europe.  This approach is based on an assessment of the Iranian missile threat, and a commitment to deploy technology that is proven, cost-effective, and adaptable to an evolving security environment.

Starting around 2011, this missile defense architecture will feature deployments of increasingly-capable sea- and land-based missile interceptors, primarily upgraded versions of the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3), and a range of sensors in Europe to defend against the growing ballistic missile threat from Iran.  This phased approach develops the capability to augment our current protection of the U.S. homeland against long-range ballistic missile threats, and to offer more effective defenses against more near-term ballistic missile threats.  The plan provides for the defense of U.S. deployed forces, their families, and our Allies in Europe sooner and more comprehensively than the previous program, and involves more flexible and survivable systems.

The Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended to the President that he revise the previous Administration's 2007 plan for missile defense in Europe as part of an ongoing comprehensive review of our missile defenses mandated by Congress.  Two major developments led to this unanimous recommended change:

    * New Threat Assessment:  The intelligence community now assesses that the threat from Iran's short- and medium-range ballistic missiles is developing more rapidly than previously projected, while the threat of potential Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capabilities has been slower to develop than previously estimated.  In the near-term, the greatest missile threats from Iran will be to U.S. Allies and partners, as well as to U.S. deployed personnel – military and civilian –and their accompanying families in the Middle East and in Europe.

    * Advances in Capabilities and Technologies:  Over the past several years, U.S. missile defense capabilities and technologies have advanced significantly.  We expect this trend to continue.  Improved interceptor capabilities, such as advanced versions of the SM-3, offer a more flexible, capable, and cost-effective architecture. Improved sensor technologies offer a variety of options to detect and track enemy missiles.

These changes in the threat as well as our capabilities and technologies underscore the need for an adaptable architecture. This architecture is responsive to the current threat, but could also incorporate relevant technologies quickly and cost-effectively to respond to evolving threats.  Accordingly, the Department of Defense has developed a four-phased, adaptive approach for missile defense in Europe.  While further advances of technology or future changes in the threat could modify the details or timing of later phases, current plans call for the following:

    * Phase One (in the 2011 timeframe) – Deploy current and proven missile defense systems available in the next two years, including the sea-based Aegis Weapon System, the SM-3 interceptor (Block IA), and sensors such as the forward-based Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance system (AN/TPY-2), to address regional ballistic missile threats to Europe and our deployed personnel and their families;
    * Phase Two (in the 2015 timeframe) – After appropriate testing, deploy a more capable version of the SM-3 interceptor (Block IB) in both sea- and land-based configurations, and more advanced sensors, to expand the defended area against short- and medium-range missile threats;
    * Phase Three (in the 2018 timeframe) –  After development and testing are complete, deploy the more advanced SM-3 Block IIA variant currently under development, to counter short-, medium-, and intermediate-range missile threats; and
    * Phase Four (in the 2020 timeframe) – After development and testing are complete, deploy the SM-3 Block IIB to help better cope with medium- and intermediate-range missiles and the potential future ICBM threat to the United States.

Throughout all four phases, the United States also will be testing and updating a range of approaches for improving our sensors for missile defense.  The new distributed interceptor and sensor architecture also does not require a single, large, fixed European radar that was to be located in the Czech Republic; this approach also uses different interceptor technology than the previous program, removing the need for a single field of 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland.  Therefore, the Secretary of Defense recommended that the United States no longer plan to move forward with that architecture.

The Czech Republic and Poland, as close, strategic and steadfast Allies of the United States, will be central to our continued consultations with NATO Allies on our defense against the growing ballistic missile threat.

The phased, adaptive approach for missile defense in Europe:

    * Sustains U.S. homeland defense against long-range ballistic missile threats.  The deployment of an advanced version of the SM-3 interceptor in Phase Four of the approach would augment existing ground-based interceptors located in Alaska and California, which provide for the defense of the homeland against a potential ICBM threat.
    * Speeds protection of U.S. deployed forces, civilian personnel, and their accompanying families against the near-term missile threat from Iran.  We would deploy current and proven technology by roughly 2011 – about six or seven years earlier than the previous plan – to help defend the regions in Europe most vulnerable to the Iranian short- and medium-range ballistic missile threat.
    * Ensures and enhances the protection of the territory and populations of all NATO Allies, in concert with their missile defense capabilities, against the current and growing ballistic missile threat.  Starting in 2011, the phased, adaptive approach would systematically increase the defended area as the threat is expected to grow.  In the 2018 timeframe, all of Europe could be protected by our collective missile defense architecture.
    * Deploys proven capabilities and technologies to meet current threats.  SM-3 (Block 1A) interceptors are deployed on Aegis ships today, and more advanced versions are in various stages of development.  Over the past four years, we have conducted a number of tests of the SM-3 IA, and it was the interceptor used in the successful engagement of a decaying satellite in February 2008.  Testing in 2008 showed that sensors we plan to field bring significant capabilities to the architecture, and additional, planned research and development over the next few years offers the potential for more diverse and more capable sensors.
    * Provides flexibility to upgrade and adjust the architecture, and to do so in a cost-effective manner, as the threat evolves.  Because of the lower per-interceptor costs and mobility of key elements of the architecture, we will be better postured to adapt this set of defenses to any changes in threat.

We will work with our Allies to integrate this architecture with NATO members' missile defense capabilities, as well as with the emerging NATO command and control network that is under development.  One benefit of the phased, adaptive approach is that there is a high degree of flexibility – in addition to sea-based assets, there are many potential locations for the architecture's land-based elements, some of which will be re-locatable.  We plan to deploy elements in northern and southern Europe and will be consulting closely at NATO with Allies on the specific deployment options.

We also welcome Russian cooperation to bring its missile defense capabilities into a broader defense of our common strategic interests.  We have repeatedly made clear to Russia that missile defense in Europe poses no threat to its strategic deterrent.  Rather, the purpose is to strengthen defenses against the growing Iranian missile threat.  There is no substitute for Iran complying with its international obligations regarding its nuclear program.  But ballistic missile defenses will address the threat from Iran's ballistic missile programs, and diminish the coercive influence that Iran hopes to gain by continuing to develop these destabilizing capabilities.

Through the ongoing Department of Defense ballistic missile defense review, the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff will continue to provide recommendations to the President that address other aspects of our ballistic missile defense capabilities and posture around the world.

###

[Josquius]

There's far better things to spend money on- even if the money stays in the military domain there are better options.

Yeah, but unfortunately, I doubt Obama will spend it on new battleships.

Heck, he'll probably give it to GM to give to their executives as bonuses.

New battleships would be a waste.

As I said, even if it stays in the military there are better options; being use outside the military there are much much better options.

[Martinus]

Whether the shield was a good or a bad idea notwithstanding, the diplomatic consequences of this move will be profound.

Essentially, the US have first asked Eastern Europe to support them on a controversial scheme that was actively opposed by Russia and viewed with suspicion in Western Europe, and then left them out in the cold.

Eastern Europeans will now think twice before supporingt the US in any unilateral action that could piss off Russia and/or Western Europe.

[Martinus]

It seems to me that the US diplomacy is like antics of a bipolar person.

First you offend half of the world. Then you change your mind and offend the other half in the attempt to make up to the first half.

I think it's just that Poland's adjusting into the sort of relationship everyone else has with the US.  I think Hoggart's law has some truth is that no matter how much you think your country's relationship with the US matters the US notices you about as much as they do Norway and care about Polish/British/French sensibility about as much as they do Norway's.

Indeed.

Frankly, I don't think this decision means a lot for Eastern Europe. Poles and Czechs will feel hurt and abandoned but this does not change the geopolitical situation in the region for the Poles since I don't see Russian tanks rolling into Poland any time soon.

However, this shows a remarkable ability of the US administration to piss off and alienate its allies over and over again. This move is probably worse for the US interests (and the perception of American power) than Polish or Czech ones.