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

[Neil]

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.

People like you never do.

Have fun getting shot in the back of the neck by your fellow Russians, knowing that neither Europe nor NATO will lift a finger to save you.

[Martinus]

Warsaw Fears Second-Tier Status
By MARCIN SOBCZYK and MARC CHAMPION

Poland's fears that it is becoming a second-class U.S. ally whose interests come after those of Russia were reinforced by Washington's decision to reorient its missile-defense plans away from Central Europe.

While Polish government officials gave a cautious and generally upbeat assessment of the change in U.S. strategy Thursday, many nonetheless were concerned by what the shift said about the changing focus of the Obama administration.

"I don't like this policy. It's not that we need the shield, but it's about the way we're treated here," Lech Walesa, Poland's first post-Communist president, said in televised comments.

Poland, which broke away from the Soviet orbit in 1989 and joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 10 years later, had hoped the deployment of 10 interceptor missiles and the stationing of U.S. soldiers on its territory would improve its security, ensuring that if anyone attacked the U.S. would be compelled to react.

Under Article 5 of the NATO pact, an attack on one member state is treated as an attack on all. Despite that assurance, Polish officials still see the country's NATO status as second-class and seek further security guarantees.

Warsaw has proved a staunch U.S. ally. It sent thousands of troops to fight in Iraq, siding with the U.S. and Britain when Europe divided over the invasion. Poland also keenly supported Westward-leaning governments and democratic elections in the ex-Soviet states, particularly in neighboring Ukraine. These policies antagonized Moscow, however, and the Obama administration is now trying to "reset" the damaged U.S.-Russia relationship.

"The American decision [to shelve the missile program] was made in the well-understood American interest that now means good relations with Russia, for which President Obama is ready to sacrifice the interests of Central European countries," said Zbigniew Lewicki, professor of American studies at the Warsaw University.

The conservative government and president that came to power in Warsaw in 2005 embraced the Bush administration's missile project. They also had a fraught relationship with Poland's two historic foes, Russia and Germany. Thursday, by coincidence, was the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939, launched just weeks after Nazi Germany began its assault. The two powers divided their neighbor between them.

But a center-right government that took power in Poland in 2007 proved more skeptical of the U.S. project. It tried to improve relations with Moscow and Berlin and worried that while Iran -- the ostensible aggressor that the defense shield was meant to contain -- was unlikely to target Poland, hosting the installations could trigger a response from Russia. The new government bargained to get U.S. Patriot-missile batteries and a bigger U.S. troop contingent as part of the deal, delaying signature of the agreement until August 2008.

Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said he had received assurances from Washington that Poland would still get the Patriot missiles, a legal requirement under the 2008 deal, and that it would play a role in the revised missile-defense system.

U.S. and Polish officials had hoped to begin rotating American Patriot batteries based in Europe into Poland for month-long tours by the end of this year, but the slow pace of negotiations is likely to put off the first deployment until next year.

The U.S. missile shield has become a contentious issue in domestic Polish politics. The ousted conservatives accuse the current government of contributing to Washington's U-turn by delaying the signature and then ratification of the deal. The left-wing Democratic Left Alliance, or SLD, welcomed the shift.

"We know very well that if the project was executed, Poland would become a target for all the countries that would like to attack the U.S.," said SLD leader Grzegorz Napieralski. "This is a great failure of the entire right-wing camp."

The SLD, however, has been sidelined in Polish politics. A majority of Poles supported the U.S. missile-defense shield, according to the most recent opinion poll, published last month.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125321522477320479.html?mod=sphere_ts&mod=sphere_wd

[Caliga]

"becoming" a second-class ally?  No offense but when was Poland ever a "first-class" ally?

[Tonitrus]

We're forgetting Poland. 

[Martinus]

"becoming" a second-class ally?  No offense but when was Poland ever a "first-class" ally?

I didn't say that - it's WSJ.

[Caliga]

I know, but I put the "no offense" thing in there because you're touchy and I don't want to hurt your feelings. 

[The Minsky Moment]

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

Please.

The plain fact is that after years of discussing this, Poland had still not ratified the agreement and the present government showed little interest in getting it done.  The same was true with the Czechs.  If this were so important, that would have been taken care of long ago.  In fact, Tusk is probably relieved this problem has conviently gone away.

This was always a pure show project -- it was the Bush administration's way of thumbing their nose at "old Europe" and showing that the US could go over the EU's head and coordindate defense policy with "new Europe."  the problem was that the Poles had no real interest in having 10 ineffective missiles sitting on their territory - what they really wanted were more concrete US security gurantees and practical defense cooperation.  If the US were serious about backing up EE that is what we would have done in the first place, not focus on building the equivalent of a $5 billion high school science project.

The question the new administration had to face is whether this boondoggle should be continued indefinitely simply because of how cancelling it might "look" to the Russians. It should be a very easy question to answer.  It is ludicrous to suggest that US strategy and defense policy should be held hostage to concerns about what the Russians might think like some adolescent girl worrying about what the skanky girl may be saying behind her back.  The Russians are a third rate power.  If they misinterpret this and get delusions that they are now a second rate power, it is not a major concern.  But more likely even the Russians aren't as stupid as that - they will understand that as a practical matter, this does not make them any stronger; they will boast about it internally and claim political credit and that will be the end of it.

[Agelastus]

"becoming" a second-class ally?  No offense but when was Poland ever a "first-class" ally?

Presumably in their eyes when they committed "thousands of troops" to support the USA when the USA's former "first class" allies, except Britain, refused.

It does sound a bit ridiculous, I agree...but then the fact that they can consider themselves "second class" allies given their membership of Nato is perhaps more worrying still.

[MadImmortalMan]

Our first-class ally is supposed to be France. You know, Lafayette and all that.

[Ed Anger]

America should treat all its allies with contempt and scorn. Like Sparta did during the Hegemony.

[Valmy]

I do have to say I never thought the diplomatic offensive to split Eastern Europe from Western Europe was going to have much staying power.  They are all Euros and will probably agree on most things eventually.

[Admiral Yi]

I do have to say I never thought the diplomatic offensive to split Eastern Europe from Western Europe was going to have much staying power.

That's a nice piece of historical revisionism.

[Valmy]

That's a nice piece of historical revisionism.

Are you going to tell me your opinion or just insult mine?

[Admiral Yi]

Are you going to tell me your opinion or just insult mine?

Rumsfeld's comment about new and old Europe was in response to a comment either by Chirac or that ding dong in the UNSC that "Europe is opposed to an invasion of Iraq."  Rumsfeld was pointing out that "Europe" was already split on the issue.  He wasn't trying to *create* a split, he was pointing out one that already existed when France tried to pretend that wasn't the case.

[The Minsky Moment]

Rumsfeld's comment about new and old Europe was in response to a comment either by Chirac or that ding dong in the UNSC that "Europe is opposed to an invasion of Iraq."  Rumsfeld was pointing out that "Europe" was already split on the issue.  He wasn't trying to *create* a split, he was pointing out one that already existed when France tried to pretend that wasn't the case.

And "old" and "new" just happened to be the entirely value-neutral terms that he employed to make this abstract point.