Publicat de: octavianmanea | 05/11/2009

An inconvenient truth about…missile defense

Ron AsmusRONALD ASMUS, Washington Post, “Shattered Confidence in Europe”, 19 Septembrie , 2009

 “The Poles and Czechs bought into the Bush administration’s plans for missile defense not because of Iranian missiles but because they were losing confidence in NATO.  Atlanticist leaders were seeking additional security through an American military presence on their soil. That is why missile defense assumed a political significance in the region that transcended the merits of the actual program. And that is why abandoning the program has created a crisis of confidence”.

 

AnneApplebaumGrinningANNE APPLEBAUM, Washington Post, “Letting Europe Drift”, 22 Septembrie , 2009

“In fact, missile defense was unpopular then and is unpopular now, all across Europe. Poles and Czechs favored the American bases only because they would bring American troops to their territory. But they favor American troops on their territory only because two successive American presidents have refused to invest in NATO’s presence in Central Europe and haven’t seemed much interested in doing anything else in Europe”.

 

richard-lugarRICHARD LUGAR, Atlantic Council, 28 Septembrie, 2009

 “Recent  developments have eroded some of NATO’s deterrence value, both in the eyes of those who are supposed to be deterred by it and those who are supposed to benefit from such a deterrent. 

Following Russia’s escalation in Georgia, the Poles expedited agreement on the terms of deployment for reasons having little to do with Iran or missile hardware.

For the Poles, the presence of American soldiers and trainers on Polish soil, who were ostensibly charged with maintenance and control of those systems, was a way to reaffirm the U.S. commitment to Polish security.

Iranian missiles never constituted the primary rationale for Polish and Czech decisions to buy into the Bush administration’s plan.  Rather, it was the waning confidence in NATO, and Article V in particular, that lent missile defense a political credibility that exceeded the military merits of the plan”.

PS: Analize suplimentare care integreaza punctele de vedere de mai sus: http://www.revista22.ro/biden-reasigur259-flancul-estic-6863.html si  http://www.revista22.ro/articol-6377.html

Anunțuri

Lasă un răspuns

Completează mai jos detaliile tale sau dă clic pe un icon pentru a te autentifica:

Logo WordPress.com

Comentezi folosind contul tău WordPress.com. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Poză Twitter

Comentezi folosind contul tău Twitter. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Fotografie Facebook

Comentezi folosind contul tău Facebook. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Fotografie Google+

Comentezi folosind contul tău Google+. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Conectare la %s

Categorii

%d blogeri au apreciat asta: