Posted on 09/24/2009 9:20:01 PM PDT by Schnucki
Countries like Poland and the Czech Republic are disappointed at what it means to be part of Nato. This feeling has become even stronger now the promised missile shield will not be built. By Stéphane Alonso and Petra de Koning
No one in the West is talking about it, but in the heart of Europe the 15,000 Russian and Byelorussian troops at the border with Lithuania and Poland are big news. They are holding an exercise this month, specially dubbed zapad, the West. For the countries of Eastern Europe, traumatised by a war and occupation, 'zapad' is much more than an exercise, it is intimidation, they say. And where is Nato in their part of Europe? Nato sees Eastern Europe as “a desert”, a high-ranking Polish official said last week.
On paper there is solidarity: an attack on one country is an attack on all. But Nato's important infrastructure is in the West, as there is hardly anything worth defending in the East. Countries like Poland have long been unhappy about this. And now plans have been scrapped for the ‘missile shield,’ which the US says was aimed at Iran and parts of which would have been established in Poland and the Czech Republic. Washington decided last week that the shield is not necessary. The desert will remain a desert.
The missile shield would have cost a fortune and there was no guarantee it would have worked, but it would have been an important symbol nonetheless: it was a visible counterweight against Russia’s geopolitical ambitions in the former East Bloc. The US’s decision was applauded in Moscow, but there was also predominantly relief in Germany and France: although these countries supported the project, they were not happy about its effect on relations with Russia.
Normalise relations
In the Central and Eastern European countries the decision reinforced disappointment in Nato: twenty years after the fall of communism, which is being celebrated extensively this year, they feel abandoned by the most powerful country in the military alliance because Obama wants his country to have a good relationship with Russia as well.
Diplomats from other Nato countries at the headquarters in Brussels understand this response. Countries like Poland and the Czech Republic are disappointed at what it means to belong to Nato, they say. After they joined the alliance, no scenarios were prepared in the event they were attacked, which had been done for the other member states, because it was feared this could give Russia the wrong impression. And it was, one diplomat says, much more a “talking club” than expected, No Action, Talk Only.
It is too bad for the Poles and Czechs, diplomats in Brussels agree, but it is also a good time to normalise relations: they are just going to have to rely on Nato rather than the US. They are coming to realise that, it seems. Polish minister of foreign affairs Radek Sikorski said earlier this week that his country would do its best for a more robust European security policy. "We are a European country," Sikorski said, "and we must mainly seek security guarantees here."
Twenty years behind
British political analyst Nick Witney of the think-tank the European Council on Foreign Relations says Poland and the Czech Republic “are acting like disciples of the US who have fallen out of favour.” They have been dealt a harsh slap on the wrist now the shield has been scrapped, says Witney. “You have to see the threat of Russia in proportion: the Europeans together spend twice as much on defence as the Russians. These countries have to let go of the idea that they are threatened, they are twenty years behind.”
But his Lithuanian colleague Arunas Molis says the West takes Russia much too lightly. “We do not feel ourselves under direct military threat here," says Molis, analyst for the Centre for Eastern Geopolitics in Vilnius. “But this does not mean Russia does not pose a threat.” Take for example the major exercise ‘zapad,’ the Russian attack on Estonian computer systems in 2007, or the energy crisis at the beginning of this year when Russia shut off the gas supply to the EU after a row with Ukraine over gas transport.
And the most important evidence: the conflict between Georgian and Russian troops during the summer last year. "Apart from the question of who started it," says Molis, "that conflict should have made Nato and the European Union think seriously about the situation. It shows that Russia still regards the use of brute force as a part of its foreign policy.”
Strengthen ties openly
It did make Nato and the EU think, but not for as long as Poland, the Czech Republic and the Baltic states would have liked. In Brussels the diplomatic consultation between Nato and Russia has already been underway again for six months. New Nato secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen also wants normal relations. A day after the US announced the decision on the missile shield, Rasmussen gave a talk – which had been planned for some time – on the relationship with Russia titled ‘A New Beginning’.
This prompted long meetings at the headquarters in Brussels. Countries like Poland, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states and Great Britain did not feel it was necessary for Rasmussen to strengthen the ties with Russia so openly. There was opposition to the fact that he reportedly wanted to propose that Nato sit down with Russia to chart international threats - which Rasmussen nonetheless did. "It is a dividing line that runs through everything at Nato," says one diplomat. "You have a mistrust of the Russians versus a pragmatic attitude towards a large country that simply has to be dealt with."
Obama to allies: "We gut your back."
That’s funny. I remember the media reporting that the missile shield was very unpopular in both countries.
It would probably be better if both countries decided the Swiss model was better for their long term security.
If we will not place the missile shield there we can at least send surplus M14’s so marksmanship can become a national passion in both countries.
And it was. It's just that they're now getting the feeling that Ogabe's not going to protect them, so they want the security blanket of the missile shield. They never doubted that Bush would shy away from confrontation with the Russians, so they dragged their heels over the missile deployment to get billions in additional freebies. You know the old saying - beware of what you wish for; you might get it.
They learned that rifles and horses were not a very effective defense the last time an invading force rolled into the country. Sending surplus M14's would be the same as saying that they are screwed.
Who saved Europe from Islam in 1683 AD at the Gates of Vienna? Poland. Austria and Germany were defending but it was the Poles who saved the day,.
This was payback from Hussein. Just remember that the Muslims remember when they were kicked out of Spain in 1492 AD like it was yesterday.
Iran would be toasted if they ever launched a missile at Europe or Israel. Not that their leadership isn’t crazy either way. I always thought ABM systems sounded good, but the cost v. probability of a launch makes me wonder if we couldn’t spend our money more wisely.
Of course I am a 48 years old “MAD” warrior.
There, fixed it.
Bolt action rifles and poorly trained citizen home guards is not the same thing as highly trained marksmen who have two years of mandatory training ala Switzerland.
Of course the Swiss also allow heavy weapons such as mortars and anti tank missiles to be stored in homes as well.
Keep in mind the Chechens mauled the Russian Army twice in Grozny, the first armoured move into that capital led to a column of burning tanks.
And there was only one documented case of the Poles using horses against tanks when a German armoured division dismounted and went through woodlands to be met by Polish cavalry and routed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.