A bit of history in relation to the proposed anti-ballistic defense system in Europe.
In 2002, the US unilaterally withdrew from the ABM treaty with Russia. The treaty had been active since the 70s and sought to decrease the amount of those very systems installed. In the same year, no longer bound by the treaty, the US started to look into expansion of its defense arsenal in Europe, which eventually led them to Poland.
It is no surprise then that Russia saw it as an unfriendly gesture at best. Any independent country would, when all of a sudden someone dumps the anti-ballistic treaty and then decides to build a defensive shield along your borders.
The EU has traditionally been used as a playground to advance the US agenda. The proposed defense system is no exception. Gladly, it did not come to fruition. Otherwise, we'd seen a very different Europe now.
Given our attachment to history, Russia is still often seen as this "cold war" aggressor out to get you. But if the past decade is of any lesson, I think we have a new candidate on this role.
US decided to be sneaky and said it was to protect against nuclear missiles from Iran and North Korea and other rogue terrorist states. That was to reply to Russia' public objections and accusation of restarting the nuclear arms race.
That was a PR stunt most of all, so Russia replied in like, they offered a an already existing Russian base to be upgraded and used jointly. It would have been even closer to Iran and North Korea. It would have protected Russia and Western Europe from "terrorist rogue states".
US kind of got caught with its pants down ... "oh oh, we can't and ... stuff".
Russia then said ok, put missiles in Poland we'll just put our theater tactical nuclear missiles (Iskander) in Kaliningrad and at first whiff of danger destroy all of Poland.
US backed down and now I think they are courting Romania or the Czech Republic to install systems there. (Presumably out of range of Iskander missiles)
>Any independent country would, when all of a sudden someone dumps the anti-ballistic treaty and then decides to build a defensive shield along your borders.
Look at this from Poland's side. Not building the defensive shield means that Russia has still the right to pressure the country with missiles. Russia wouldn't need to object the defense shield if they didn't want that. Pressuring your neighbors with weapons is still cold war tactics. In this case Russia was clearly the bad guy. Russia is also the bad guy when it manipulates the energy prices for Europe, but it seems that wasn't enough for them.
> Look at this from Poland's side. Not building the defensive shield means that Russia has still the right to pressure the country with missiles. Russia wouldn't need to object the defense shield if they didn't want that. Pressuring your neighbors with weapons is still cold war tactics. In this case Russia was clearly the bad guy. Russia is also the bad guy when it manipulates the energy prices for Europe, but it seems that wasn't enough for them.
Look at this from Cuba's side. Not deploying the missiles means that the US has still the right to pressure the country with its military might. The US wouldn't need to object the defense shield if they didn't want that. Pressuring your neighbors with weapons is still cold war tactics. In this case US was clearly the bad guy. US is also the bad guy when it manipulates the energy prices for the world, but it seems that wasn't enough for them.
Would the missile defence system that was planned for Poland really have protected Poland from attack from Russia? They are pretty close so cruise missiles and/or aircraft would presumably be preferable to use rather than ballistic missiles.
The opposite is true. Poland would have been wiped out as the first order of business if anything was about to start. I suspect them being a prime target might have given them some thought.
The Russians apparently announced they would have deployed Iskander theatre missiles in the Kaliningrad Oblast to target any US missile defence base in Poland:
Poland's side is not so important here. Nobody's blaming Poland for taking US missiles, they're blaming the US for putting them there. It's as if Russia decided they wanted to put missiles in Cuba.
Its not about blame. Its about the diplomatic message of the whole story. And the diplomatic message is that Russia can still pressure Poland, with weapons, if it deems necessary. So Poland better behaves accordingly. This show of power and bullying was typical for the cold war, and this story went down in that same manner. Nobody would fire missiles today there, but the possibility/capability is what matters, not the will. If you look at it his way, then the US's role in this is the least important.
If you look at it from Poland's point of view, of course that's true. What I'm saying is that they were US missiles targeting Russian ones, which was a re-escalation of the arms race that has the potential to kill us all, including the Polish. Poland's local concerns are valid based on the history between Poland and Russia, but small in the grand scheme of things.
Totally agree. We have (essentially) all of the military might, start putting up defense shield, then invade the wrong country, against the better intelligence of the Russians and some Europeans. I also sympathize a bit with the Russians for wanting their own checks and balances against the US, as our attitude was clearly "we're going to do whatever we want and don't really care what you think."
Perhaps surprisingly, but I also agree with the situation from Russia's perspective.
There's an argument to be made about ABM against small-state actors like Iran and NK, but any system that becomes a serious deterrent to ballistic missiles puts an incredible upheaval in our "balance of power" and potentially leads to an arms race, increase in conflict, proxy wars, etc. Not good news.
I don't agree that Russia should have a say in when NATO would be able to operate such a system, but a notification requirement would be fine, if not actually allowing a Russian liaison to be stationed with the operations center controlling such a system.
To be fair, most of Eastern Europe was under the Soviet boot in my lifetime, and I'm only 30. I'm sure Eastern European residents are happy that their American allies are not letting their guard down re:Russia.
Just because one side of a conflict starts to do something bad does not make the other side the good guys!
In 2002, the US unilaterally withdrew from the ABM treaty with Russia. The treaty had been active since the 70s and sought to decrease the amount of those very systems installed. In the same year, no longer bound by the treaty, the US started to look into expansion of its defense arsenal in Europe, which eventually led them to Poland.
It is no surprise then that Russia saw it as an unfriendly gesture at best. Any independent country would, when all of a sudden someone dumps the anti-ballistic treaty and then decides to build a defensive shield along your borders.
The EU has traditionally been used as a playground to advance the US agenda. The proposed defense system is no exception. Gladly, it did not come to fruition. Otherwise, we'd seen a very different Europe now.
Given our attachment to history, Russia is still often seen as this "cold war" aggressor out to get you. But if the past decade is of any lesson, I think we have a new candidate on this role.