Poland on Board for New US Missile Defense Plans
As predicted by neoconservatives, Poland continues to seethe with resentment at Barack Obama’s betrayal of their country:
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has declared his country ready to take part in a revised US missile defence plan. Mr Tusk told visiting US Vice-President Joe Biden that Poland was “ready to participate”. [...]
After meeting the Polish prime minister Mr Biden said: “We appreciate Poland has stepped up and agreed to host an element of the previous missile defence plan, and we now appreciate that Poland’s government agrees with us that there is now a better way… with new technology and new information, to defend against emerging ballistic missile threats.”
That was sarcasm, of course. Contra neocon bleating on the subject, Poland’s participation in the Bush-era scheme was always unpopular in Poland and the Czech Republic so finding an alternate approach is fine with everyone.
19 Responses to “Poland on Board for New US Missile Defense Plans”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 21st, 2009 at 11:36 am
Everyone knows Tusk is a pro-appeasement collaborationist stooge. The fact that he campaigned and won on a platform of opposition to the Kacynskis’ belligerence and recalcitrance on all matters just shows how far the moral weakness of the Left has lulled the Polish public into a false sense of security. You know what would benefit them? An enormous war! So let’s provoke one–then they’ll come running back.
October 21st, 2009 at 11:41 am
What’s this new and “revised US missile defence plan”, and how much will it cost?
I don’t know why neocons are so angry at Obama. Between Iraq, Afghanistan and the defense budget, he hasn’t done anything yet that wouldn’t have been praised by National Review (and harshly criticized by MoveOn and Democrats) had McCain been elected.
October 21st, 2009 at 11:45 am
2:
I’m pretty sure NR didn’t praise his decision not to order further Raptors.
Because twenty years from now, when China has fighters that match what we have now, we’re going to regret not having more slightly-less-out-of-date-than-China’s fighters.
October 21st, 2009 at 11:46 am
[...] that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing,” warned Edmund Burke. Poland on Board for New US Missile Defense Plans – yglesias.thinkprogress.org 10/21/2009 As predicted by neoconservatives, Poland continues to [...]
October 21st, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Everyone but the neocons, that is. It seems that their sole reason for existing anymore is so that others may enjoy their pain.
October 21st, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Because twenty years from now, when China has fighters that match what we have now, we’re going to regret not having more slightly-less-out-of-date-than-China’s fighters.
Oooh, a massive air war with China! The mere thought of it makes me wet my pants! Or at least it would, if the chance of it happening were higher than one in seven billion!
October 21st, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Matt-
I don’t think you’ve fully captured Polish sentiment here. As you mention, the shield and radar system was unpopular–accordingly, Polish leaders had to expend a lot of political capital when they committed to helping the Bush plan. Now that they have expended all that political capital for nothing, of course they are not pleased.
Another note–many Poles, even the ones who were against the missile shield, were angry that Obama made the announcement on September 17, the anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland in 1939.
October 21st, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Yeah, but making the concession to Russia got them on board for tougher sanctions against Iran if we need them!!
Uh, wait….
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amb-marc-ginsberg/russia-china-nyet—bu-sh_b_324105.html
In one bad week for us good guys, both Russia and China brushed aside diplomatic entreaties from the Obama administration and in a one-two punch rejected calls for tougher economic sanctions to thwart Iran’s nuclear weapons development program.
October 21st, 2009 at 7:54 pm
What concession to Russia?
Some people would jump off a bridge just to piss off people who tell them to stay put.
October 21st, 2009 at 8:40 pm
This just isn’t factual. Having spent 2 of the last 6 months in Poland, I’d say that the Bush-era scheme was very popular – not because folks thought it would be effective. But rather, because it made tangible a distrust of Russia.
Obama stepping back from that demonstrated mistrust was very very unpopular.
Again – I feel it’s the right move. I’m just relaying that Bush’s idiotic missile scheme was actually quite popular.
October 21st, 2009 at 9:02 pm
My “so finding an alternate approach is fine with everyone.”
Too funny.
October 21st, 2009 at 9:15 pm
joe from Lowell Says:
October 21st, 2009 at 7:54 pm
What concession to Russia?
=====================================================
If you don’t know the answer to that question you’re in way over your head on this thread
October 21st, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Nope, I don’t know the answer to that.
I know that the more thuggish tenth of our policy likes to apply terms like “concession” and “appeasement” inappropriately, and that you’ve done it recently regarding the decision not to pour national defense dollars into a missile defense boondoggle, but I’ve yet to see any of you provide any explanation for why doing so represents even a gross loss to our power and prestige, nevermind a net loss.
October 21st, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Er, polity, that is.
October 21st, 2009 at 10:10 pm
MY 9/18 “The right wants us to at great expensive build a missile shield that doesn’t work, in places it’s not wanted, to protect Western Europe from Iranian missiles that don’t exist, in order to antagonize the Russians.”
Is this what the right wants Matt? And who is this right? Does the right not extend into the highest reaches of the military hierarchy?
We know EXACTLY what the Pentagon’s primary plan is. The primary plan is not to protect Europe from loose missiles, but to knock out the entire Russian ICBM force BEFORE it can reach subspace. If we can, also, easily pick off Iranian missiles seconds after they leave their launch sites -this is an added bonus. But make no mistake, Russia is the target.
The two big questions are: Why has the Obama administration made a calculated decision to squeeze the Russian’s nuts to powder? How will the Russians react to having their nuts squeezed to powder?
Don’t forget China! wink wink
October 21st, 2009 at 10:58 pm
joe from Lowell Says:
October 21st, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Nope, I don’t know the answer to that.
I know that the more thuggish tenth of our policy likes to apply terms like “concession” and “appeasement” inappropriately, and that you’ve done it recently regarding the decision not to pour national defense dollars into a missile defense boondoggle, but I’ve yet to see any of you provide any explanation for why doing so represents even a gross loss to our power and prestige, nevermind a net loss.
============================================================
For the time being I’ll leave aside the discussion of whether or not the system was a “boondoggle” as you assert. The point is even if it was a boondoggle the Russians didn’t seem to think so as they have been complaining about it bitterly for years. They seem to have more faith in our technology than you do.
But even if Obama thought it was unworkable, I would have thought that an astute statesman would have traded the system away for something from the Russians – even if this was something secret and behind the scenes so they could save face. When the Russians made oblidging noises about Iran sanctions a couple weeks after the system cancellation, Yglesias was crowing that Obama’s diplomacy had shown results. When actual talks started with Iran, we saw that evaporate.
It’s absolutely correct that deployment of the system wasn’t popular with the Polish and Czech public, which makes it a double insult to their governments that bucked public opinion to back it. They went out on a limb for us and Obama sawed it off.
Also I would have thought that a government conducting a professional foreign policy would have consulted with the Polish and Czech governments about this prior to the decision. The news accounts all state that Obama tried to call the two prime ministers in the middle of the night (the Pole refused to take his call) to tell them about it just before the announcement. Tacky. These are NATO allies. The politic thing to do would have been to bring them in ahead of time and announce it as a joint US-Czech-Polish decision so they could save face.
Also I would have thought professionals wouldn’t have made the cancellation announcement on the 70th anniversary of the Nazi invasion of Poland. Here’s an action bound up in the history of Russian – Polish relations dumped in the middle of the rememberance of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the Soviet invasion of Poland shortly after. Either a total rookie move or a deliberate insult to the Poles. What do you think?
So we had a valuable bargaining chip with the Russians and apparently gave it to them and got nothing in return but “good will”. And no help when we need their help. Please, I’m not a “return to the Cold War” guy and I know Russia is weak (in demographic collapse!) and no essential threat to us. But Russia is a (multi-)regional power and we have to deal with her on issues in Eastern Europe and Southwest Asia (where they border Iran) and we need to be smart and tough about that.
In doing all this we also pissed off the governments of two close allies for no good reason. They would probably been relieved if we could have announced it as a joint strategic decision – now they just look like chumps. Why do we give our friends the back of our hands?
Looking at this from the outside it appears Obama cancelled the system so the Russians would think he’s a nice guy. But in Slavic cultures, nice guys definitely finish last.
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:36 am
Poland and the Czech Republic mean nothing. It would be logical to locate our ICBM/MIRV interceptors in territories in close proximity to Russia, but it is not necessary.
If the United States insists on deploying SM-3 hunter/killer missiles in those two countries it will only be out a desire to publicly humiliate the Russians -to slap them around in public while we continue, privately, to squeeze their nuts to powder.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Campesino,
I agree with you that the handling of the announcement – the date, the lack of prior briefing – had a certain Clown Car quality to it. Most unusual for this administration.
As far as the dealmaking behind this, I don’t think we’re in a position to draw a conclusion about that at this date. As you say, most diplomacy is done behind closed doors, and I’ve seen far too many premature obituaries written for Barack Obama and his political initiatives – obituaries based on the assumption that if Obama’s progress isn’t highly visible, it doesn’t exist – to believe this one, either.
October 24th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Интересные мысли, но в них отсутствует логика(