I understand the distinction well, your point is taken, but frankly Europe, east or west, is still responsible for it’s own defence. When countries like Poland joined the EU, their defense became the province of the EU. If Europe isn’t up to the challenge, it’s Europe’s problem, and if Europe doesn’t see the particular security needs of it’s eastern member states as requiring missle defense, then why the hell should we insist upon it?
hmm, isn’t the mission in Afghanistan a...NATO mission? Is that Europe taking care of itself?
and who pushed for Poland et al to become part of NATO... wasn’t that largely....us?
and who, for commercial and national security reasons probably wanted to protect missile defense shield technology in a proprietary way...would that be...us?
and if europe’s security is breached and europe gets attacked, where does that leave...us? It’s “their” problem?
Bamsters reasoning is nutty. It presumes the missile threat to europe comes from Iran and the russians can and will curb that if we leave europes flank exposed to the russians. What sense does that make? How is this little deal in europe’s interest?
With us reneging on decades of assurances and planning ... who or what curbs the russian missile threat against europe? yes, Putin and his generals might actually pose one.