Bad Timing:
I'll leave the question of whether President Obama's decision to abandon a planned missile defense of Poland and the Czech Republic is good or bad policy. As a matter of timing, however, it's surely bad politics. There's surely a better day to make such an announcement than the 70th anniversary of Stalin's invasion of Poland.
UPDATE: The NYT reports on the unfortunate timing as well.
SECOND UPDATE: The NYT story linked above no longer makes reference to the timing, but this other NYT story does.
Common characteristics of those with psychopathy are:
* Grandiose sense of self-worth --CHECK
* Superficial charm --CHECK
* Criminal versatility
* Reckless disregard for the safety of self or others
* Impulse control problems
* Irresponsibility--CHECK
* Inability to tolerate boredom
* Pathological narcissism --CHECK
* Pathological lying --CHECK
* Shallow affect --CHECK
* Deceitfulness/manipulativeness --CHECK
* Aggressive or violent tendencies, repeated physical fights or assaults on others
* Lack of empathy
* Lack of remorse, indifferent to or rationalizes having hurt or mistreated others--CHECK
* A sense of extreme entitlement --CHECK
* Lack of or diminished levels of anxiety/nervousness and other emotions--CHECK
* Promiscuous sexual behavior, sexually deviant lifestyle
* Lack of personal insight--CHECK
* Failure to follow any life plan
* Abuse of drugs including alcohol
* Disregard for conventional moral right and wrong --CHECK
So, if Congress as passed a budget bill funding this, how can Obama legally decide not to spend the money?
Who the heck are you talking about? And what does it have to do with Adler's post?
... I favor scrapping the system if Russia will now play along re: containing Iran, but that doesn't make the Bush administration wrong to've started the project. It's perfectly legit to create a bargaining chip in this manner.
... Ruuffles, it matters b/c the Poles are ABSOLUTELY PISSED at us for scrapping the system. Some very unhappy Poles were on NPR this morning.
http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=4253068&c=AIR&s=TOP
So, it's no surprise to anyone involved. If anyone acts like it was, they are being dishonest. This is the "official" announcement, but the decision was made a while ago and everyone involved knew it.
The Bush administration tried so very hard to make it about Iran, and not Poland.
Why the repeated mention of Poland and CR? Bush tried sooooo hard to make it about Iran!
Let me guess, you just want him to bomb bomb bomb Iran? Amirite?
To give Eastern Europe missile defense.
Barack Obama says au contraire,
With Eastern Europe he will not share.
We used to fear proliferation,
Because it could lead to conflagration.
We said that our defense we’d share,
If from the bomb you would forbear.
The message now is loud and clear:
If you’re a target and danger is near,
America won’t protect you pukes.
You better go get your own damn nukes.
It doesn't have anything to do with Bush either, since he made it all about Iran.
Poland is one of our staunchest allies. Of course, Obama is not interested currying favor with our actual allies. I would say that this was a deliberate action, like the treatment of the Brits.
But but Bush tried so hard to make it about Iran and not Poland. Why do you keep disappointing him?
That defensive shield in Poland against Iranian's supposedly available in a few years nukes supposedly with the aim at Europe(why would Iran want this? Know geography?) was a neocon lie right from the beginning.
I also heard a Polish official interviewed who said that they really didn’t care about the missile defense part, they just wanted a military base with a sizable number of American troops.
Of course the missile defense was only partly about Iran. Are you folks seriously claiming that President Bush should have publicly picked a fight with Russia and said: "yes, we don't trust you, Russia, and we want to put a missile defense in your backyard?" Not very good diplomatic strategy, you fans of nuance, you.
Cornellian... the missile defense in Poland would largely be helping protect OUR interests. We learned, at our great expense, in WWII, that our fate is intertwined with Europe's. If totalitarianism overtakes half of that continent again, we will be the poorer for it.
Richard Riley... it's not a matter of whether Sept. 17 is recognized internationally. It's a matter of whether it is recognized widely within Poland and within Russia. I can't think of a clearer way to say FUCK YOU, POLAND, then to announce this on the anniversary of Stalin's invasion. Having been to Poland, I know that they pay attention to history and important dates.
I wonder if ruufles could be a conservative moby, trying to discredit the left by pretending to be a lefty and saying the stupidest, most irrelevant things possible?
Because it's in poor taste to expose Poland to foreign aggression on the anniversary of foreign aggression against Poland.
But it IS a story that does contain concepts like "missiles" "less missiles" &"Obama"... so it MUST, without any further analysis or knowledge necessary, prove that Obama is a feckless, evil leader who hates missiles and loves Russia.
Welcome to American political discourse, circa 2009.
what aggression Poland is exposed to now without the shield?
isWAS one of our staunchest allies.Fixed.
Sure it is, but he was elected President of the United States. Elections have consequences and all that.
Thanks for the tibdit, PatHMV. How're the MENSA meetings going? You're credibility on this issue is obviously beyond reproach. I've been to Poland too, but just can't recall whether or not they actually pay attention to history and important dates.
As Chamberlain and Daladier betrayed the Czechs and Poles to the Germans in 1938, Obama betrays the Czechs and Poles to the Russians in 2009.
you RW raped in the brain by FOX lying propaganda douche bags are so confusing...
Thanks for the facile historical analogies. Obama derangement syndrome anyone?
As C. and D. betrayed the Poles to the Germans in 1938
Obama betrayed the Poles to the Russians.
See the structure there? Obama replaces Chamberlain and Daladier. Russians replace Germans.
Sheesh. I thought you liberals liked to claim you were the more educated bunch. Did you get 400 on your SAT?
No, no, they're betraying the Czechs and Poles to the *Iranians*. Didn't you read the Bush Administration talking points? Those missiles had nothing to do with Russia.
Is Poland an ally we should insult? Is Russia so strong that we should do what they want? Has the President cut a deal with Russia behind the scenes so that we drop missile defense but place a large U.S. Army base just outside of Warsaw?
Russia made it about Russia by complaining loudly. In fact, I'll concede that the Poles themselves were split on the idea when Bush was talking about Iran and saying that it had nothing to do with Russia, but once Russia started complaining so loudly about it, Polish public opinion turned in favor.
And regardless of whether it's aimed at Iran or Russia, everyone concedes that it's being abandoned because of Russian objections. Poland is naturally going to be annoyed at that.
An analogy, for ruuffles and others: Sarah Palin complained about "death panels" based on a provision in the law about counseling. In response to the furor, Obama and the Congressional Democrats dropped the provision. Does dropping the provision prove her right, that the provision [i]was[/i] about death panels? No more so than dropping the missile shield due to Russian objections proves that the Russian objections were right, and the missiles were aimed at Russia.
They're dropping the missile shield due to Russian objections. That doesn't mean that the missiles were aimed at Russia, but it does mean that the Obama Administration is heeding Russian interests over Polish ones.
In response to Joe Wilson's outburst, the health care bills have been modified. Does that mean that he was right, and Obama [i]was[/i] lying until the bills were amended?
The... what, again? I'm sorry, but could you point me to some?
"Is Poland an ally we should insult? Is Russia so strong that we should do what they want? Has the President cut a deal with Russia behind the scenes so that we drop missile defense but place a large U.S. Army base just outside of Warsaw?"
I actually don't know the answers to any of these questions. But I'm likewise convinced that no one here does, or even has the information necessary to give informed answers at this point. I look forward to seeing this debated in Foreign Policy.
But I am relieved to know that, regardless of the long term strategic pros and cons of this decision, we're all decided from the outset that Obama is a hapless jerk who is scared of Russia, that the chattering natives of Poland take great offense to numerical superstitions, and that the question of dates that some random person decided to seize upon because they were too busy to come up with a longer entry in the routine ribbing of a political enemy is an issue of great import and relevance to the wisdom of various foreign policy decisions.
The missiles were part of an ABM system, so they would have been aimed at incoming missiles, whether they came from Iran or Russia. Russia complained more loudly than Iran, so apparently Russia was bothered more by the prospect of interference with nuclear extortion.
But since Bush talked about Iran, we need not worry about this, right? Russian nuclear extortion would be a problem only if Bush had mentioned it, right? As it is, we can feel comfortable with Russian nuclear extortion, right?
how will we defend Europe from all those Iranian nukes that will be used to destroy Israel??? Oh wait…
No matter how strong America is, bottom line you still have to make friends and influence enemies in this world just like you do in your life.
Obama has managed to piss off all of our friends and make them doubt our friendship. Meanwhile he caters to and actively assists the world's tyrants and dictators.
I for one don't think this a good deal for America or the world and this latest renege of an American President's promise is not a good thing at all.
Papa Ray
West Texas
Let's think about the utility of the issue. There is no physical reason Poland of Czech is a better launch pad for missile defense than Germany or Denmark. Politically, we feel the Eastern nations are probably more pliable (for the moment), so there is some sense in that. But those locations _were_ chosen to plant our Western flag in the Eastern block. It was a thumb in the eye of Russia (or a warning shot to Putin depending on your point of view).
Changing course obviously does present some ramifications quite aside from the physical. Our relations with Poland and Czech will suffer to some degree (hardly major, or what kind of relationship is it in the first place?). Russia will doubtless take it as a sign of Obama/American weakness, and we can expect to be pressed on other issues.
On the other hand Russia loses this issue as a bargaining chip on every other negotiation, such as Iran. This was always a convenient monkey wrench Russia would throw in the works when they wanted to up the ante on other subjects, now they lose that bit of leverage. And that IS important, not so much in dealing with Russia, but in keeping our NATO and other allies on board with our agenda.
So in the end we lose very little except face. How important you think reputation is likely how big of a disaster you think this move has been.
I am not surprised that the date registers a bit more strongly with the Poles than with us, since Poland was the nation being devoured.
... The whining about "our friends, the Poles!" is childish. Look at a map, people. A dubious "missile shield" and Polish goodwill are not worth pissing off Russia, particularly given the history b/t Poland and Russia.
Poland was *such* a good friend, they let us torture people on their territory. Hate it for 'em.
(... n.b. bonus quote @ the link from not-yet-notorious-then Marc Garlasco, whose interest in every square inch of Polish territory is doubtless purely academic.)
To sum up:
1) The missile system was expensive and had dubious test performances
2) The system would have been on Russia's doorstep, but unable to block any Russian missiles
3) The radar system was extraordinarily provocative against a nuclear power, and Russia was preparing to move short range missiles in place to target the complex
4) There was no real reason given for building it in the first place given that Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons and has no delivery systems that can reach outside the middle east
Expensive, ineffective, provocative...sounds like a proposal conservatives should love.
Ok, but realize that the Administration is not
scrapping missile defense. It's proposing an alternative system.
An alternative system that the CBO found was more expensive, would take longer to build, and be less effective at protecting the continental United States.
The system being built would be useless against Russia, but it would still piss them off apparently. That is an argument against it, but please don't assume that we're not going to spending as much money on a different, more delayed missile system.
The majority of Czechs did not want a US missile defense system in their country.
This is hardly analogous to WWII.
This is not "abandoning" those countries to Russian or Nazi aggression.
The missile defense system was not intended to protect Poland, the Polish people, the Czech Republic, or the Czech people.
It's also possible that installing such systems there would make those places targets of aggression.
Thanks for providing some coherent discussion of the issues.
The flip side of your penultimate paragraph is that we, also, have given up a bargaining chip on every other negotiation, without, apparently, getting anything in return.
"Old Europe" does not care much for missile defense generally, it's true, and so we do probably improve our relations with France and Germany this way. On the other hand, "Old Europe" also does not care a whole lot for "New Europe," and have been fairly resistant to embracing Poland, the Czech Republic, and other former Soviet satellites. My own impression is that Old Europe figures they did perfectly well when the Soviets controlled Eastern Europe, so they don't care that much to prevent it from happening again, particularly in the milder form such domination and control is likely to happen today.
Certainly we can afford to insult Poland and the other countries some, if we must. It's distasteful and unworthy of us to do so, in my opinion, but as you say they will remain fairly reliable allies, if only because they have no other place to turn to for security.
I would feel more comfortable about the deal if I knew we were actually getting something in return. Too often in the past, the U.S. has made concrete concessions in return for a pocketful of mumbles, such are promises... all lies and jests, as Paul Simon might say. Did France and Germany make a concrete promise to take specific steps against Iran? Did Russia agree to not oppose stationing U.S. troops in Poland? Did Russia agree to support specific sanctions against Iran? Perhaps. I don't demand that any President conduct all foreign diplomacy in public. But I've seen little, so far, that the U.S. has received in return for a number of apparently unilateral concessions made by the President. I hope that he has a long-term plan he's pursuing.
Damn right! Isolationism and weak defense worked so well for the US in the 1930s that we barely had to spend anything on defense or foreign affairs in the 1940s, which led to peace, prosperity and liberal political and individual freedoms and democracy the world over.
If Russia continues to thumb its nose at us re: Iran, we can always decide that maybe the missile shield is a good idea after all ... so long as Poland's not going anywhere.
I daresay that if Russia were building a "missile shield" in Cuba or Nicaragua, we would take it poorly.
I didn't realize you moonlighted as a pollster in Poland and Czech Republic. Who knew?
Or are you just talking out of your hat because you have your Kos talking points and are mindlessly repeating them?
I would note that one of the criticisms of the Bush Administration was that we were disdainful of our allies and went out of our way to piss them off.
So, the Obama Administration went out of its way to be disdainful of two allies (and fellow members of NATO) and pissed them off.
Hope and Change we can believe in.
If we were truly interested in protecting Poland, putting a missile defense system that wouldn't protect Poland from anything, including nuclear attack wouldn't be the way we would do it. If we were interested in just using Poland, we'd do that, though.
If we were really interested in protecting Poland, we'd allow them to be a member of NATO, so that any attack on Poland would require an American military response. What's that? Poland joined NATO in 1997, you say? Oh, so all this talk of missile defense is just silly posturing? Figures.
Czechs
70% of Czechs polled opposed the system; 25% favored it.
Poles
63% of Poles polled opposed the system; 23% favored it.
This isn't propaganda. This is common knowledge.
Most Czechs and Poles and not pissed off. Most Czechs and Poles are cheering and chanting "Obama! Obama!"
Have you ever been to the Czech Republic or Poland? Have you ever spoken with people there? I have.
Can YOU explain their overall feelings on pottery-making?
Or are you just talking out of your hat because you have your Kos talking points and are mindlessly repeating them?
Strict: [cites polls].
Ouch.
I think you meant to say missile defense IN poland and Czech Republic. Then you will realize that there is no better way to honor that anniversary than having a foreign country decide not to increase the number of arms in your land.
ZING!
But but but, that would require an arbitrary superstitious interpretation of historical symbolism that DOESN'T support our political prejudices of the moment!
That's a very good point. From a realpolitik point of view, its a rather pointless move. On the other hand if we DID tie this in directly with a move on Iran, etc, that would certainly intensify the feeling that we were selling out Eastern Europe (I think this is overblown, however), and it creates the problem that if Russia reneges on the deal we'd almost have to shift our policy again to follow suit.
Common knowledge, the most accurate source of data there is. If it's so common, how about a, um, source?
Isn't this embarassing?
Russia is helping Iran develop its nuclear program and its missile programs. Iran will eventually be in a position to threaten Europe with nuclear attack; the only defense would be the likely nuclear retaliation. But one must wonder how effective the threat of retaliation will be when you have a former Iranian president boasting that the country was willing to suffer millions of deaths if it could wipe out "the zionist entity."
Yes, it's common knowledge that Czechs and Poles don't want foreign military presences in their territories. Why is that counterintuitive or why should we assume otherwise?
What some Czechs and Poles object to is the idea that the US decision to abandon the project is a result of pressure from Russia and not a result of consulting with the Czechs and Poles on the issue.
In other words, I'm sure most Czechs and Poles agree with the result, but among those are some who disagree with the means of arriving at this result or the motives for arriving at this result.
He'd provide it, but that would require you to know how to read.
So is Israel part of Europe here? Will the proposed ten missiles in the Czech Republic be able to stop an Iranian missile into Israel?
I don't fear aggression by Iran (I think their saber rattling is defensive), but if a war with Iran did start (regardless of who is involved or who started it), I do believe they would be able to summon vast human resources and to endure extreme casualties. Khomeini once threatened to raise an army of 20 million.
First link: "August 11, 2006"
In case you forgot, some time thereafter this happened.
More recently this poll of Poles was taken.
58% of Poles polled favored the system.
Although if you have more recent statistics, I would be happy to see them.
Would anybody like to cogently disagree with me?
Well, there's assumption that the system is cost-effective or proven, which seems pretty contentious. Then there's the problem that the planned installations don't really seem to address ANY of the purposes they supposedly serve in the first place.
Here's a sampling of folks who support the move, and who also have some professional credibility on the issue of defense and diplomacy:
Tom Nichols
Robert Farley
From the latter: "Let's be clear; this is a huge victory for common sense over fantasy, and for responsible defense budgeting. This project had no function other than to serve the pecuniary interest of the missile defense industry, and to sate the ideological lust of conservatives infatuated with St. Reagan. No convincing strategic logic could ever be provided for the program; advocates careened wildly between arguments, desperately trying to see if they could make anything stick. Protecting Europe from Iranian missiles? Nobody in Europe was particularly concerned, or, outside of Poland and the Czech Republic, really wanted the defense. Protecting from the Russians? By the admission of advocates, the shield could not have served as a deterrent to Russian attacks. Necessary to demonstrate our commitment to the Poles? Meh; I'd rather get them something they could actually use."
Thanks egd.
Well, there's this poll from March 2009.
53% opposed the missile shield; 22% supported the missile shield.
Polls are bad or Poles are fickle, I'm not sure.
But 22% support is the most recent number, and that's pretty bad, right?
If President Obama ignored a reportedly unanimous recommendation by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Bush-appointed Secretary of Defense Gates to abandon the project, and instead proceeded with the project, what would the right wing think? That Obama has no respect for the concerns and opinions of our military leadership? That Obama is pulling a Hitler by ignoring all the well-reasoned advice of his generals? .
Well first of all, what is this "cost-effective and proven" anti-missile system that you speak of? Missile defense (even against tactical missiles--look at the record of the PAC-2 in the second Gulf War, the only thing it succeeded in shooting down was allied aircraft) is far from cost-effective or proven.
Secondly, look at the freaking map and the membership list of NATO. Other than England (and Canada) what is the one of the last countries it would make sense to base missiles in to intercept missiles coming from Iran? It sure isn't Greece, Turkey or Italy.
1. Not involved in projection of military power outside of it's (close) borders
-or-
2. Involved in international tug o' war over strategic interests, largely colored by school yard 'Who's the biggest, baddest?' antics.
It's one or two, there's no mythical Goldilocks 'Just Right' option where we're perusing objectively proven, crystal clear goals that delicately balance just the right amount of saintly world policeman with a dash of strategic self-interest. That model is the fantasy of career diplomats and the NYT editorial page. In the real world. for every country, for all of recorded history, it's option 1. or option 2.
And since we obviously aren't pursuing option 1. as national policy, and (most) commentators don't seem to be defending this as a step towards option 1., we must view this through the prism of option 2. And where exactly do we come off looking like the strong horse here? Russia, a country that's routinely brutally militarily subjected it's neighbors on and off for hundreds of years, recently attacked Georgia, is propping up Iran (the country the whole 'dispute' is nominally about) and Venezuela, is spinning this as a huge domestic 'Bigger than you' win' and we're getting what? No concessions, and in fact Russia is even trumpeting the fact that there's no concessions.
I'm not playing warhawk here, I'd probably prefer option 1., and I certainly don't have all the international answers. But I do see plainly, if we're playing at option 2., we get taken to the wood-shed here for seemingly nothing in return.
PS- And I hope nobody is taking seriously the Gates/Administration line of 'we just found out that a *different* missile shield works better in a *different* place. Yeah, that's the ticket.' Missile shield tech hasn't miraculously evolved in the past 3 years, and I don't believe that geography has magically warped around the globe either. But yes, suddenly Gates decides current short-range missile technology in traditional PC-safe sites like Germany like totally protect our interests better. I guess he just had a brain-freeze when he recommended the complete opposite a few years back. Totally not transparent 'Trying to sound tough CYA'. No sir.
October 25th is the date of the start of the October Revolution. The Stock Market Crash of 1929, to which you refer, could best be dated to either October 28th, or October 24th.
But, please, do continue telling us how it's totally crazy to ever change your military strategy in response to new information and situations, thus making Gates a flip-flopper. How WILL you protect us all from the threat of Genghis Khan's cavalry again?
Or perhaps you could explain how installations that even SUPPORTERS of the plan acknowledge would not deter Russia in the event of attacks... would help deter Russia. Should we continue to do something we don't think is a good idea in the first place JUST because someone we don't like might like it?
Seamus, I addressed that already. Are you saying that you wanted President Bush to diplomatically confront the Russians, calling them bellicose to their face, thus escalating tensions with them? Do you not understand ANYTHING about basic diplomacy?"
Wasn't that the John Bolton approach that worked so well?
Good job finding that, I wasn't able to find any Pole polls from 2009 on the topic (Google news). That doesn't change the fact that polls are a poor basis for decision making. If they were President Obama's stock-in-trade, he would have dumped health care/insurance reform long ago.
While I generally think removing the shield would have been a good move, two things bother me about it:
1) announcing the decision on the anniversary of Russia's invasion.
2) not getting anything in return from Russia.
While the first is merely a lack of knowledge of foreign history, the second shows a lack of knowledge of foreign policy and good judgment. The latter was supposed to be Obama's selling point, the former Biden's.
Or perhaps you could explain how installations that even SUPPORTERS of the plan acknowledge would not deter Russia in the event of attacks... would help deter Russia. Should we continue to do something we don't think is a good idea in the first place JUST because someone we don't like might like it?
We're at war with Russia/Iran? We have a 'military strategy'?
The whole point of my post is we've got the option to completely disentangle ourselves from international politics, or we play the ugly game of 'Baddest Dude on the Block'. The majority of this thread is gumming up with apparent bona-fide experts in missile defense arguing about where/when/how etc. This is always a handy tactic to obscure a conversation about end-goals. Let's assume that the missile-shield is 25% functional and 75% 'Know your place Russia'. Guess what, that's the type of game *everybody* play's on the world stage. It's the game Russia is playing. So the simple question: What does this move buy us? We certainly take a hit on the international stage, and Russia doesn't appear to be moving an inch in it's support of Iran (or it's ramping up relations with Venezuela). Maybe the Russians climb down in the neat future, and the move looks good. But for now it looks like the worst of worlds within option 2. - the US takes a weaker position while still remaining heavily fiscally/militarily obligated to countries under potential threat by Russia/Iran/etc.
I guess in the same way that Reagan was Gorbachev's.
Here's a BBC story from 2007.
Blah blah blah...
2) not getting anything in return from Russia."
And I think both of these complaints are absurd. The first is not only symbolic instead of substantive, but whether the symbolism is good or bad depends entirely on how you frame it, making it an utterly arbitrary "offense." I also don't really support the idea of people who know a concern is utterly irrational playing it up with the excuse that OTHER people might irrationally care about it. The reality is that political enemies of Obama will find some angle, date association, symbolic or otherwise, to characterize the decision in their preferred light: as appeasement. That tells us everything about how they frame the issue right from the start, but nothing about the worth of the move.
The second issue is only relevant if you really think that this is a bad move strategically in the first place. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but the idea that we should keep doing something just because Russia doesn't like it is, well, just really goofy.
Talkosaurus: "Guess what, that's the type of game *everybody* play's on the world stage."
Not everyone sees the game in the same way: you seem locked into a very particular set of concerns and way of seeing Russia (not to mention just the seemingly obsessive focus on Russia as if it were still the major opposing player), wherein all that matters is who's poking who harder in the eye. But as far as I can tell, the situation is much more complicated.
I don't see any evidence that we've taken "weaker" position here at all. How are we any weaker for deciding not to deploy something which was probably ill-conceived in the first place? We stopped doing something that was basically a symbolic, but not particularly meaningful, irritation to Russia because we want to start doing something more important and relevant other than relive the glory days of Cold War exceptionalism.
But maybe we should build a really really huge tank. So big that it can barely move. And then Obama can cancel it, and you can call him weak for doing so, because giant tanks are super bada$$.
Maybe Obama looked into his eyes?
I've also just learned that, in an act of stunning insensitivity, the Framers signed the Constitution on the anniversary of Stalin's invasion of Poland! Obviously, they cared nothing for their future relations with the Poles.
Nice try though!
Whether validly or not, Russia took this as an affront by the United States against Russia. Obviously the Poles thought so as well, national support for the system increased after Russia invaded Georgia.
This system was a bargaining chip with Russia, we wanted it, they didn't. We also had other interests that we wanted from Russia: help in Iran, supporting Chavez, help in Afghanistan, nuclear disarmament, and a host of other things. This could have been used as a lever to get Russia to the table, or to get some concessions from them.
As for the timing of the announcement, from the NYT article linked, it looks like this wasn't intentional. The story started to leak on the final decision, and a late-night call was made to the Czech &Polish presidents to preempt the story. Furthermore, arguing that September 17 is not an important date for Poland is just silly.
The IAEA believes that Iran is on the verge of having nukes...and they are working hard to perfect their delivery systems.
Let the fun begin.
Unnecessarily pissing off a strong foreign power in order to get concessions from them isn't diplomacy, it's amateurish. If Russia announced today that they were building a missile complex in Cuba, would that mean the United States owed them concessions to get them to cancel it?
I don't see any evidence that we've taken "weaker" position here at all. How are we any weaker for deciding not to deploy something which was probably ill-conceived in the first place? We stopped doing something that was basically a symbolic, but not particularly meaningful, irritation to Russia because we want to start doing something more important and relevant other than relive the glory days of Cold War exceptionalism.
But maybe we should build a really really huge tank. So big that it can barely move. And then Obama can cancel it, and you can call him weak for doing so, because giant tanks are super bada$$.
You, and to be fair a lot of other commentators, are making it seem as if the Obama administration made the missile defense decision in some sort of complete vacuum. As if Obama just wandered out of the Oval Office one night with some stat sheets in his hand and said 'Gosh, the numbers say we're better in Turkey!'. This decision clearly comes after much posturing and ramp up by Russia, and coincidentally right before a big Russia-US summit. Whatever yours, mine, or whoevers take, it's markedly disingenuous to down-play that fact.
I'm also curious, as if it's a pre-stamped one-size fit's all answer, where all this 'You're just stuck in the Cold War' talk is coming from. I wonder if that's the preferred line out of JournoList, or whatever center-left meme factory is in business these days. The point remains the same, international power projection is a messy, school-yard game. I'd prefer it if the US was out of everywhere, and we just let the world handle it's own problems while we worked on our own. But that's the not the world we have. In this case, the US *clearly* plays the weaker hand to Russia, what do we get? If Russia climbs down on Iranian sanctions and arms build-up for Venezuela in the near-future, Okey-dokey, I get the move. If not, this is a pointless gesture.
To say that the Obama administration was scrapping missile defense, Mr. Gates said, is “misrepresenting the reality of what we are doing.” He added that the new configuration “provides a better missile defense capability” than the one he had recommended to Mr. Bush.
Administration officials said the Bush missile defense architecture was better designed to counter potential long-range missiles by Iran, but recent tests and intelligence have indicated that Tehran is moving more rapidly toward developing short- and medium-range missiles. Mr. Obama’s advisers said their reconfigured system would be more aimed at that threat by stationing interceptor missiles closer to Iran.
So USA is actually increasing the missile defense of Israel from Iran.
Which makes seizing on it as negative symbolism even more absurdly opportunistic.
"Furthermore, arguing that September 17 is not an important date for Poland is just silly."
But no one argued that. It just doesn't mean that anything that happens on that date magically must be interpreted only through the lens that critics of the decision would see. People choose to do that, or not, and worse: other people snidely encourage it even if they agree its irrational and irrelevant. And that's what's silly. Especially since they'd simply come up with some other connection/reference no matter what.
Ten out of ten Americans would oppose an American-based missile system that Americans had no jurisdiction over; it is surprising any Poles supported the system with those conditions. So Strict and PotMeetKettle’s claim that it is "common knowledge" is just another common deception.
A different survey, by different advocates, shows [drumroll] the exact opposite result;
(MDAA) “ Fifty-eight percent (58%) of adults in Poland support the deployment of a missile defense system in their country. Two in three adults (67%) believe that a missile defense site in Poland would be a contribution to strengthening NATO and 70% think their country should continue negotiations with the United States to establish a site. The vast majority of people in Poland, eighty-nine percent (89%), are aware of Russian President Putin's opposition to a missile defense system in Poland. Providing security for Poland is the top reason missile defense supporters in Poland support it, with only half as many citizens saying European security is their most important consideration.”
To MDAA’s credit, the survey’s cross tabs are freely available ; and the organization reports that the Czechs are split on the issue of a missile radar based on their soil.
On a general note, without access to the actual questions —the case with everything ‘Strict’ has posted— the results are meaningless; like his Chinese article about a Polish report of an American acronym’s survey. There might be fire somewhere, but there’s an awful lot of smoke.
This is NOT the same as Chamberlain’s acts. But for a President who made a point of emphasizing diplomacy and alliances, Obama has careened from botch to boner. President Obama makes Bush seem positively European [shudder] while his ‘progressive’ administration happily acts the part of the bungling ugly American.
The bottom line is America’s interests, and certainly the timing —official or not— somewhat hurts America’s position among the Polish people. Perhaps progressives like Anderson don’t give a rat’s patootie about it, proving their hypocrisy for recently emphasizing the nuance needed with our allies. Those technical snarks won’t help Poles care for —or cooperate with— America.
The poll I linked> was a 2009 Pole poll.
22% support among Poles.
The 2009 Czech poll provides a 29% support among Czechs.
So both 2009 polls show very weak support in both Poland and the Czech Republic.
I agree that polls are a poor basis for decision making. I never suggested that Obama did, or should, make such decision son the basis of these polls.
But they do rebut the argument that "The Poles and Czechs are now really pissed off and now they hate America and Obama and they feel like they've been thrown under the bus." Nope. Obama did what the strong majority of Poles and Czechs wanted to be done.
Further, I've seen no evidence that Iran poses a threat to either Poland or the Czech Republic. If, and that's a big if, Iran decide to take direct aggressive action against a nation state (instead of covertly funding and training and arming rebel groups within other nation's territories), what are it's likely targets?
1. Iraq
2. Israel
3. Saudi Arabia.
4. Turkey
5. United States
6. Kuwait
7. Bahrain
8. United Kingdom (Khamenei recently declared England the most evil nation in Europe).
I chose this order randomly, but now that I look at it, the order probably has some significance.
The suggestion that Iran wants to drop a nuclear bomb on Brno is insane and paranoid.
---------
As far as the timing, there are many dark days in Polish history. Which day could Obama make an announcement that wouldn't coincidentally fall on some date of historical importance?
Actually, it came out of fairly involved military review of everything we were doing, which had been going on for some time. I'm sure the impact on Russia was taken into account, but the only thing disingenuous here is pretending that what Russia does or wants is the only relevant thing on the table.
"The point remains the same, international power projection is a messy, school-yard game."
I'm not sure how this somehow means that we can never reappraise our strategies. You're wedged into a false dilemna where canceling any deployment, even if it also means increasing deployments elsewhere, is somehow reducing our engagement or weakening our stance. And for some reason that just because Russia doesn't like a particular move that this is de facto a good move for us. It was a both a poke in the eye for them AND yet also not particularly effective as deterrence: the worst of both worlds.
It's hardly a pointless gesture to abandon an expensive Cold War-holdover boondoggle and refocus efforts that a heck of a lot of defense and diplomatic folks think is likely to be more effective.
What? What does this even mean? An American acronym's survey? Are you referring to the Polish polling institute's poll results that I posted?
"American acronym's survey"?
First, your "Missile Defense Advocacy" link you posted is from 2007. Second, the first line of the report reads: "A survey of public opinion in the Czech Republic conducted by Opinion Research Corporation indicates that 51% of the population of the Czech Republic do not support a proposed radar that would be linked to a broadly-based system anchored by the US missile defense system."
Even your own link shows that a majority of Czechs did not (in 2007) support the missile system. By 2009, the level of support dropped even further.
Unfortunately, the CBOS report on the missile shield from March 2009 is only available in Polish, not English.
Here's the CBOS report from March 2009.
At the bottom is the contact information. If a Slavic-speaker here wants to contact CBOS and get the March 2009 poll report on the missile sheild, that would be awesome.
The fact that the President once said something closer to your position than mine isn't particularly relevant to my argument: I've been defending the decision, not Obama's rhetoric or its consistency in the past.
I rather think that _Drew_ didn't notice that the unattributed text and the text attributed to Obama were the same. At least, not until just now.
Obama did give some reasons for the decision. I think he said a different plan would be cheaper and more efficient.
But anyway, there are diplomatic and strategic reasons for not explaining everything publicly. For example, there are strategic reasons for the US, as a matter of policy, to never (or almost never) confirm or deny that a particular alleged spy is actually a spy.
Also, there could be negotiations and back door channels that we don't even know about.
Of course that was before today. I understand that Obama is scheduling Summit between the US and Japan next August 6th. When questioned about the purpose of the summit, Obama announced "[d]on't worry, it will be the bomb." He then announced that, due to the gift-giving embarrassment earlier this year, he's having all of the Japanese attendants custom fitted for radiation suits in American flag colors.
There's an attorney I work with who insists that Obama is really just a Yale plot to embarrass HLS. I'm beginning to think he's not kidding.
My position isn't that the Obama administration is malicious, merely that they are incompetent. Pointing out the stupid acts of a President is still valid, right?
I don't think that is too fine a distinction to make.
Strict:
Yes. Good job. I wasn't able to find it despite my frantic five minutes of searching. You were able to find it. Hence the phrase, "Good job finding that."
Oh. My bad.
Just wondering.
Self-evidently, Obama wanted no prior hint to dilute the governments' unalloyed joy at having been relieved of the deeply unpopular burden of American military presence that Bush (and even Obama himself, in an uncharacteristic moment of weakness) had led them to believe would be theirs. Can't you understand the urge to spring such fantastic good news as a surprise?
Ballistic missile defense (BMD) as a military system had no significance for either Poland or the Czech Republic. It was not designed to defend them. Rather, its presence was a symbol to both countries that the United States was prepared to defend them, because it has a vital strategic asset in their countries. The shock in Poland and Czech Republic is about a symbolic shift from their point of view.
What we need to analyze is whether this has any substantial meaning. The question at hand is the state of U.S.-Polish/Czech military cooperation in other areas. Beneath this is the commitment of the United States — outside the context of NATO — for a bilateral relationship, particularly with Poland. Will the United States substitute increased military cooperation for the loss of BMD?
As the news spins that the United States has decided to shelve its plans for a BMD system in Poland and the Czech Republic, it seems as if the Americans have given a major concession to the Russians, who have been staunchly opposed to the system.
The timing of the decision is clearly intended to induce Russian cooperation with the United States over Iran. The question is whether there was any prior understanding with Russia regarding this matter. Does the United States have some understanding of a quid pro quo with Russia? The Russian-U.S. tussle over the issue of BMD in Central Europe was never really about BMD. The system never gave Poland anything. It was about the future of U.S.-Polish military cooperation. This is what defines Russia’s view of its relationship with the United States.
It is expected that a lot of noise will come out of Poland on the BMD issue, but this by itself has no influence on that unless it is a general redefinition of the U.S. relationship with Poland.
The key here is to focus on U.S.-Russian relations in the aftermath of this deal and focus on it in terms of, first, Russia’s next actions on Iran and, second, whether the United States is making substantial shifts on Poland.
Russia’s initial response to the United States’ scrapping its plan for ballistic missile defense (BMD) in Poland and the Czech Republic indicates that Russia is not convinced that the change in plans is any sort of concession. The BMD issue was symbolic of a greater U.S. plan to build up Poland’s national security with a U.S. presence — but more importantly, to forge a series of military agreements that would build up Poland’s own defenses. Although the United States theoretically has given in on its former plans for BMD (though other plans could be in the works), there are no signs that Washington will give up its other projects in Poland.
The rest of the world might view the change in BMD plans as a major concession from the United States to Russia, but the Russians obviously do not. Russia’s envoy to NATO, Dmitri Rogozin, called the shift “a mistake that is now being corrected,” but quickly added that it was in response to a Russian agreement to allow the United States to transit military supplies through Russia and Central Asia to its troops in Afghanistan. Rogozin also warned against U.S. plans (still being discussed) to deploy Patriot air defense batteries in Poland.
The Russians are letting the United States know they do not see the scrapping of the planned BMD system as a concession — and certainly not something that would spark a concession from Russia, such as Moscow ceasing its support for Tehran. Instead, Russia is linking the BMD move to the deal on Afghanistan. As far as the Russians are concerned, they owe the United States nothing until real concessions are made.
Though the United States and Russia look to be in the same dangerous holding pattern they were in before the BMD announcement, the United States’ move does open the door for further negotiations with Russia. Before entering into such talks, Moscow is letting Washington know that it is not falling for all the rhetoric surrounding the BMD plan change.
This response from Russia is only its initial response. The next thing to watch is the Sept. 23 meeting between Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and U.S. President Barack Obama on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Both sides’ positions on everything from Polish security deals to Iranian sanctions and NATO expansion should be closely watched between now and the date of that meeting.
and PatHMV
really appreciate your well reasoned comments
just dont get too frustrated with responding to some of the "tards" you have been doing battle with. for whatever it is worth sometimes it is better to let the loons rant
See, this is what I don't quite understand. What has Russia to fear from Poland? I loved Anderson's coy reference upthread to "the history between Poland and Russia":
... The whining about "our friends, the Poles!" is childish. Look at a map, people. A dubious "missile shield" and Polish goodwill are not worth pissing off Russia, particularly given the history b/t Poland and Russia.
Yeah, like all those times that Poland invaded Russia, conspired to divvy it up into chunks with other nations, &c. It's like talking about the "history" between Germany and Belgium. With a soupçon of "Why die for Danzig?" added.
If the importance of this change so far as the Russians were concerned was symbolic, isn't it a symbolic defeat for us? If the new plan is clearly superior to the old one, there would be no reason for not announcing it in broad daylight and with open deliberation beforehand. Instead, it appears to have been, well, sprung on our allies in the literal dead of night, which seems a little ungenerous.
Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer confirmed Sept. 17 that the United States no longer plans to install ballistic missile defense (BMD) sites in Poland. BMD in Central Europe has been a sticky issue between the United States and Russia. But an even trade — U.S. BMD plans for Russian support on Iran — is not so clear.
Analysis
Related Special Topic Page
A Shift in Ballistic Missile Defense Strategy
Related Links
U.S., Russia, Iran: A Possible Deal on Missile Defense
U.S.: Backing Down on BMD
There has been confirmation that the United States has scrapped its plans for ballistic missile defense (BMD) in Poland and Czech Republic, according to an announcement from Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer Sept 17. There was a flurry of meetings with a U.S. delegation — including Under Secretary of State for Arms Control Ellen Tauscher and Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Alexander Vershbow — in Poland and Czech Republic. U.S. President Barack Obama held a phone call with Fischer. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen is preparing to have a meeting with Russia’s NATO envoy, Dmitri Rogozin. And Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov — who is one of the country’s specialists on the issue of BMD — is in Poland.
The issue of BMD has long been one of the larger points of contention between the United States and Russia. Russia viewed the U.S. intentions to set up missiles on its former Soviet border as a serious encroachment in Moscow’s sphere of influence. Washington constantly reassured Moscow that the missile system was not targeting Russia, but was to guard against Iran’s growing military capabilities. But for Moscow, it was not as much about the BMD system as it was having U.S. military presence in Central Europe. Russia saw this as the United States moving their presence east from Germany into former Warsaw pact territory — Poland and Czech Republic — not to mention U.S. lily-pad bases popping up in Romania.
The U.S. military moves in Central Europe were part of the overall encroachment viewed by Russia in which NATO had expanded to the Baltics, and then the former Soviet states of Ukraine and Georgia came under NATO membership consideration. Russia also had just watched a wave of pro-Western (and Western-backed) color revolutions sweep across its former territory in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan.
But Russia has been pushing back on the West’s influence, turning the political tide in Ukraine, with its August 2008 war with Georgia, solidifying its influence in Central Asia and the rest of the Caucasus and also in warming relations with Germany, and to a lesser extent, Poland.
As part of its push back on the United States, Russia increased its support for countries like Iran — one of the largest thorns in Washington’s side. Russia has been helping build Iran’s nuclear power plant, Bushehr, even though Moscow has not completed its contract on the plant to keep the issue alive as part of their arsenal of threats against the United States. The same goes for Russia’s military contracts with Iran for advanced military technology like variants of the S-300 air defense system. Russia has also routinely blocked hard-hitting sanctions on Iran in the U.N. Security Council.
But the situation with Iran has been heating up in the past few months and the United States has been considering everything from crippling sanctions on Iranian gasoline to a military strike. The problem has been that Russia could complicate either move by either skirting the sanctions and providing their own gasoline to Iran or providing military equipment to Iran, which would complicate a potential U.S. or Israeli military strike against Iran.
The Russian demands for not complicating the Iranian dilemma have been simple: concessions from the United States on respecting Russia’s sphere of influence — which includes backing down on NATO expansion, its relationship with Kiev and Tbilisi, and military expansion in Poland and the Czech Republic.
According to statements from the Czechs and other political moves, the United States appears to have folded on the BMD issue.
But an even trade — U.S. BMD plans for Russian support on Iran — is not so clear. There are many issues that STRATFOR is now watching:
First, the most important question is if this is enough of a concession for Russia. Russia is very concerned with U.S. support of NATO expansion as well as its support of the governments in Kiev and Tbilisi. Also, the United States appears to be backing off BMD, but does this include their other military plans in Central Europe, like helping build up Poland’s military? The BMD deal in Poland was not just about missile defense. It was also an overall plan for U.S. military inside the country, including ramping up Poland’s defensive military capabilities. Russia sees all of these issues interlinked and will not be satisfied with just a concession on the BMD issue.
With a concession on BMD and pending any confirmation on further U.S. concessions with Poland, Ukraine and Georgia, Russia is expected to drop its support of Iran. But Russia will act cautiously in relinquishing its valuable Iran card completely, so how will Russia show its side of the concessions to the United States? Will Russia also now become involved in the U.S.’s plans for sanctions against Iran or simply cease fulfilling its contracts on Iran’s nuclear program and military?
How does Iran react to a possible U.S.-Russia entente? Tehran has never believed that Moscow would not sell it out should the United States offer the right price. Iran and Russia have held a tense alliance in recent years. But with U.S. pressure bearing down even further on Iran, how does Iran react to losing one of its biggest supporters? What are the alternatives for Iran without Russian backing?
How does the rest of the Eurasia region see the U.S. fold on support for Poland and the Czech Republic? Much of Europe — especially the Central and Eastern regions — will now view the United States as unable to fulfill its promises to its allies in the face of a strengthening Russia. The ripples across Eurasia will be deeply felt in the domestic politics of these countries — in their relations with one another and with outside powers — and with Russia also gaining the momentum from the U.S. concession to push further within and beyond its sphere of influence.
Human nature was formed in the crucible of an evolutionary process that was "sharp of tooth and claw". Ther game of life was untill recently a zero sum game. Just because in the west/ first world there si today an abundance of basic resources ( not true yet in most other parts of the world) doesnt mean that suddenly our evolutionary psychology has changed.
Russsia is in the throes of yet another reorientaion, a last hurrah if you will, in the middle of a inexorable demographic dead end. It is led by a ex KGB cold warrior, well schooled in the dynamics of power and power projection. Russia, without a ring of vassal states ( the FSU) is vulnerable and unprotected.
What it is effectively demonstrating to the states of the FSU is that they better be scared of russian resolve and that america is a paper tiger that will abandon them at the first sign of opposition. Unfortunately it appears that our body politic is controlled by clueless ones who seem bent on espousing 60's peace and love mantras.
The path to hell is paved with good intentions they say. Constant posturing and snarling by combatants arouses a healthy fear of the other and actually keeps actual violence levels down. it is in situations when one of the adversaries starts turning the other cheek/ unilatrally disarming that sometimes initiates violent confrontaion as unnecesaary meekness on one side provokes the antagonist into opportunistic aggression.
In the absense of a behind the scences deal, Obamas naivette and incompetence may create unforseen trouble.
did you miss what i said
the game is best played as a game of posturing and bluff and keeping the other side guessing about your capabilities and intentions
unilateral disarmament is a game played by fools
and the one's inepttitude is showing up more and more with every passing day
the emperor has no clothes
Well the names have all changed since you hung around,
But those dreams have remained and they're turned around.
Who'd have thought they'd lead ya (Who'd have thought they'd lead ya)
Here where we need ya (Here where we need ya)
Yeah we tease him a lot cause we've hot him on the spot, welcome back,
Welcome back, welcome back, welcome back.
So you think Putin is clever enough to have outwited us, yet not smart enough to know Russia has as much to fear from Iranian nukes as we do?
............
"egd: "As for the timing of the announcement, from the NYT article linked, it looks like this wasn't intentional. The story started to leak on the final decision, and a late-night call was made to the Czech &Polish presidents to preempt the story."
Which makes seizing on it as negative symbolism even more absurdly opportunistic."
..............
So you're arguing that the Obama administration is simply incompetent, not historically tone deaf or plain dumb. In fact, so incompetent, that they'd let a story spill out on the one day out of 365 that would cause the most damage with one of US's most staunchest allies in recent years.
__drew__ further wrote:
...............
"Furthermore, arguing that September 17 is not an important date for Poland is just silly."
But no one argued that. It just doesn't mean that anything that happens on that date magically must be interpreted only through the lens that critics of the decision would see. People choose to do that, or not, and worse: other people snidely encourage it even if they agree its irrational and irrelevant. And that's what's silly. Especially since they'd simply come up with some other connection/reference no matter what.
.............
You serious, Drew? You don't understand human nature, etiquette, diplomacy, historical symbolism. So if the US was attacked on July 4th, it would just an arbitrary day or that Americans should not judge the attack through the prism of the date? Or how about Obama apologizing to the Japanese for WW2 on Dec 7th? You're really saying that? Wow.
When the EU starts to make noises, watch Putin start a well publicized round of theater missile tests.
Obama... not content to destroy the fabric of the Republic, he's making sure that not only are we no longer the economic pivot of the planet, he's making sure to dismantle our strategic superiority in CCC and force projection.
Any fool between Brussels and Beijing already knows that the cop is off the beat.
"
Prof. Adler is reaching pretty far to find a way to bash the Obama administration here. The Nazi invasion of Poland on September 1 is an anniversary acknowledged worldwide. September 17, not so much. I don't doubt it's an important day of remembrance for some people, but it's silly to pretend this is a widely acknowledged anniversary.
"
... except in Poland. Which is the country that counts and got hammered by Russia on Sept 17th.
But you're right, in India, South East Asia, and most of Latin America, its not widely acknowledged.
I know Democrats never consider them to be full US citizens or the ground of embassies or naval ships to be US dominion....especially when attacked-but what the hell-just thought I'd toss that out there.
While I'm at it-good luck getting co-operation in the future- our allies now know not to stick their necks out there-because the political winds here can change by the next election cycle, and better yet our enemies got the exact same message.....
"A second phase in about 2015 will field an upgraded, land-based SM-3 in allied countries, and discussions are underway with Poland and the Czech Republic on basing the missiles in their territory, Gates said."
If his administration is to be believed, he has simply kicked the can down the road...again.
But to the point of Adler's post, yes the timing of the announcement was grossly incompetent and indefensible.
Unless both Jonathon Adler and Tom Maguire were both having the same senior moment simultaneously, the NYTimes has apparently scrubbed the reference to timing. Maguire excerpts an entire paragraph which no longer appears in the story -- unless I'm the one who needs stronger reading glasses.
from stratfor again:
THE UNITED STATES on Thursday announced plans to redefine its missile defense system, away from one that would be based in Poland and the Czech Republic -- and which was intended as a global system -- to a phased system, ultimately built around U.S. destroyers based in the Mediterranean and the North Sea and intended primarily to defend Europe. The principle of missile defense remains intact -- the first phases are to be deployed more quickly than in the earlier plan -- but the basing in Central Europe is gone.
This has generated a crisis of confidence in Central Europe -- particularly in the Czech Republic and Poland, which see the decision as an abandonment of the U.S. commitment to the region. The Poles and others are obviously aware that the presence of missiles and radar on their soil does nothing to increase their national security, but they saw the weapons as a practical commitment to their defense. With the missile systems located there, the thinking went, the United States would regard Poland and the Czech Republic as critical to American national security, and that it therefore would defend them against an increasingly assertive Russia. With the defense system redeployed offshore, the American commitment to missile defense is no longer linked to Polish or Czech national defense; hence the feeling of abandonment.
This is particularly the case in the current strategic environment. Talks with Iran -- against which the missile defense system was intended -- begin on Oct. 1. The American plan was to impose “crippling” sanctions against Iran if it persists with its nuclear program. The Russians made clear that they would oppose any sanctions, thus rendering them ineffectual if implemented. With the Israelis threatening unilateral action if sanctions were not imposed, the United States needed Russian support. Russia saw the missile shield, in Poland particularly, the same way the Poles did -- as a bilateral U.S. commitment to Polish defense -- and the Russians wanted the missiles out. Therefore the Poles saw the American decision as a capitulation to the Russians in hopes that it would cause the Russians to reciprocate on Iran.
"In other words, the Russians have already paid for the missile shield, and the price for collaboration on Iran would be much higher."
For their part, the Russians quickly announced that while they saw Washington’s decision as a positive step, they had already made concessions to the United States by opening a supply route through Russia and the former Soviet Union to Afghanistan. In other words, the Russians have already paid for the missile shield, and the price for collaboration on Iran would be much higher. This has been the consistent Russian position and is no surprise. Still, we assume -- based on Russian President Dmitri Medvedev’s statements -- that this move opens the door for bargaining with the Russians over Iran sanctions. That by itself would place pressure on Iran.
The Czechs and Poles clearly knew that this decision was coming, but the timing surprised them. Indeed, the timing seems to have surprised the Obama administration, which spent the early morning hours in Washington scrambling to notify Prague and Warsaw of the decision. There were reports in Washington that though the decision had been made, the rushed notification was triggered by a news leak before the diplomatic proprieties had been completed. There was a lot of scrambling, and the timing made it appear to the Central Europeans that the Americans were bargaining away their interests in the hopes of enticing the Russians over Iran -- making their reaction even worse, without coming near to enticing the Russians.
In the end, BMD is a symbolic rather than meaningful issue to the defense of Central Europe. The delivery of 48 F-16s with advanced systems to Poland is enormously more important to Polish defense than the BMD was. The defense of Poland is a matter of conventional forces under any circumstances. The Russians are demanding recognition of their sphere of influence in the former Soviet region, but this is something the United States continues to reject. Therefore, the Russian dream of a neutral Poland is a fantasy. In some ways, the withdrawal of the BMD plan gives Poland and other countries in the region far more leverage with Washington for the transfer of weapons and training. The clumsy manner in which the announcement was made opens Washington up to demands from the region for other, more real and less symbolic, offers.
If the BMD announcement is a peace offering to the Russians, it is insufficient in itself to entice them. Iran as a thorn in the American side is worth far more to the Russians than what the United States has given them so far. As a practical matter, the decision has no effect on Polish or Czech security, but actually gives these states greater leverage with Washington. Therefore, as a strategic move, the decision has limited significance. It may well be a rational move from a technological standpoint, if the new system is indeed as effective as it is claimed. But the sheer confusion on Thursday morning raised serious questions about the bureaucratic processes in Washington. It also created more problems than were necessary -- and the decision certainly did not move the Russians, if that was the purpose
" all the news that fit to read - for the rubes"
or should we say Pravda lives
There was nothing special about Stalin's policy regarding Poland.
I wrote this article in commemoration (check out my link in my url above)
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.