RSS

There are many arguments as to why placing a ballistic missile defense (BMD) system in Poland and the Czech Republic are a "bad idea."  Some are legitimate, however, none are compelling enough to justify the recent decision by the Obama Administration to drop the plans laid out by the Bush Administration to proceed with the deployment of a long range ballistic missile defence (BMD) in those two nations.

Naturally, many arms control advocates have long argued that ballistic missile defense is "destabilizing" and runs the risk of inciting arms build ups by nations that will fear missile defense as a subversive method of guaranteeing a first strike capability and thus eliminating mutual deterrence.  This, of course, is particularly acute in the case of Russia which has been the starkest critic of the planned deployment of BMD in Europe since the Bush Administration began discussing it years ago.  There are also arguments of expense and over the systems current technological capacity to be effective.

Unfortunately, the Obama Administration buys into those arguments and will now push for a "regional defense" for Europe against the threats posed by the short and medium range missiles of "rogue states" like Iran, but will drop it's plans to place a long range defense into Poland and the Czech Republic.

I suppose you could say that at least he is not completely abandoning his European allies, however, this maneuver reeks of capitulation.  With President Obama seeking a successor to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) by the end of this year as well as seeking Russian assistance in dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue, this looks like a crude attempt at a quid pro quo.  However, Russia has already stated that is does not see this move as a reason to offer concessions on the START successor nor on the Iranian question.

This, ultimately, raises the question of why President Obama would essentially throw two allies (who used to suffer under Soviet puppet regimes) under the bus.  Those who know history understand that both the Czech Republic and Poland have been cast aside by Great Powers on any number of past occasions as part of the old school (and by no means dead) balance of power thinking. 

In 1939 alone, both nations were overrun by powerful neighbors while the "Great Powers" dithered.  It was after the famous "Munich Agreement" that former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain said "Peace in Our Times" even as he gave Hitler the green light to take back the Sudetenland in then Czechoslovakia.  Of course Hitler did much more than take that region, he took the entire thing after he knew the "Great Powers" would not stop him.  Poland also faced dismemberment at the hands of the Nazis and the Soviets simultaneously after the infamous Molotov-Ribbentop pact of 1939.  We should also not forget the multiple partitions of Poland going back to the 1700s as the Austrians, Prussians, and Russians gobbled up different pieces of the Polish pie while other nations watched.

Obviously, we do not face the likelihood of analogous situations happening in the near term.  Yet, a commitment by the United States to place missile defense on the soil of two such historically abused nations speaks to an effort to insure that those types of aggressions will be made permanently intolerable.  This is especially important as petroleum fueled Russia continues to flex its muscles in its own near abroad and fights to continue controlling European access to energy from Central Asia.

Keeping the missile defense in those two nations speaks volumes about how far the U.S. is willing to allow Russia to go.  All experts, and the Russians themselves, well understand that the system being installed could not be used in an offensive way against the scope of the Russian nuclear arsenal.  Rather, it is intended to confront dangerous new actors on the stage like Iran while offering needed political support to newly emerging economic players in Europe.  Certainly, it will also provide legitimate restraint on any possible future revanchism by Russia, but that is not offensive in any way shape or form.

How long before other partners begin wondering whether the US will stick with our commitments to them? 

Greg Lawson is the Director of Communications for a US based political advocacy organization and is a life long observer of political and foreign affairs.

Related material from the Atlantic Community:

• Expert Survey: A Future With Russia As a Strategic Partner?
• Marek Swierczynski: Poland's Policy Setbacks Should Steer it Back Toward the EU