Zitat:Gates Plan Would Limit GBIs at 26

U.S. Defense Department officials are providing more details to new guidance Secretary Robert Gates has unveiled over the Ground-based Midcourse Defense ballistic interceptor program.

Earlier plans called for 40 three-stage Orbital Boost Vehicle interceptors - also called ground-based interceptors - in Ft. Greely, Alaska, and four at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif.

Now, however, the plan is to cap the interceptors at the 26 already in place at Ft. Greely and keep the four in Vandenberg. It is unclear whether spares will be pursued as replacements if any are launched or otherwise removed.....

Zitat:Gates: Russia wary of growing Iranian threat

Zitat:.........Gates recounted a meeting he had with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin during which the then-president "basically dismissed the idea that the Iranians would have a missile that would have the range to reach much of western Europe and much of Russia before 2020 or so."

"And he showed me a map that his intelligence guys had prepared," Gates told a Senate Appropriations panel. "I told him he needed a new intelligence service."...............

Zitat:Israeli Missile-Defense Trials Cut Off Following Malfunctions
Thursday, July 23, 2009

Testing of an advanced Israeli missile-defense system was terminated this week following a series of technical problems, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, July 16).

Israel and the United States are collaborating on development of an improved version of the Arrow 2 system. Defense officials this week made three attempts to conduct an intercept test of a mock Iranian Shahab missile off the coast of California.
...

Zitat:Debate Persists Over Effectiveness of Ground-Based Missile Defenses
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
...
The system since 1999 has conducted eight successful intercepts in 14 tries, the Daily News reported. The target was destroyed in the most recent test, on Dec. 5; however, its decoys had not deployed, so the event was considered only a partial success.

Another intercept drill is scheduled for September or October, according to Missile Defense Agency spokesman Rick Lehner.

"It's not something you'd want to have to rely on," Coyle said. "These tests are scripted, they're planned so that everything that can be done is done to make sure they're successful. If so far you've only done eight of 14 under fairly idealized conditions, what would it be under the fog of war? Obviously it would be worse."

Zitat:Will Obama surrender to Russia over missile defence?


Reports in the Polish media indicate that the Obama administration is about to abandon its plans for “third site” missile defence installations in Poland and the Czech Republic. If enacted, this would represent a huge turnaround in American strategic thinking on a global missile defence system, and a massive betrayal of two key US allies in eastern and central Europe. Such a move would significantly weaken America’s ability to combat the growing threat posed by Iran’s ballistic missile program, and would hand a major propaganda victory to the Russians.

This shift in US policy is intricately linked to a naïve deal struck between Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in July in Moscow, where the two leaders established a framework to reduce their nukes by a third over the next seven years. The deal, expected to be concluded in December, also significantly cuts both sides’ nuclear delivery systems, such as long range bombers, to create a more level playing field (the US currently has superiority in this area). The whole agreement works to the advantage of the Russians, with their declining strategic conventional weapons capability and aging and deteriorating nuclear weapons stockpile.

Obama has made progress towards a “nuclear free world” a centerpiece of his presidency, and is clearly willing to sacrifice US interests, including its allies in Europe, on the altar of political vanity. Moscow has made it abundantly clear that any steps towards nuclear disarmament have to involve the abandonment of missile defence installations in what Russia considers its own backyard – and that includes former Soviet satellites that are now members of the European Union.

If the Obama administration drops the planned third site installations (due to be deployed by 2013), it would represent an appalling surrender to Russian demands, and the shameful of appeasement of an increasingly aggressive regime that is openly flexing its muscle in an effort to intimidate ex-members of the Warsaw Pact. It would send a clear message to America’s allies in Europe that Moscow’s bullying will be tolerated and even tacitly encouraged. It also sends a dangerous signal that the United States is unlikely to stand up to Russian demands that Georgia and Ukraine be barred from becoming full members of the NATO alliance......

Zitat:EDITORIAL: Obama jilts Poland and the Czech Republic

The United States is poised to dump a critical missile-defense agreement with two of its most dependable NATO allies. The Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza reported yesterday that the Obama administration is going to scrap the "third site" anti-missile system scheduled to be deployed in Poland and the Czech Republic. Missile interceptors in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic were scheduled to be deployed by 2013. Now the plan appears to have been shot down.

This move sends the wrong signal to our allies in Eastern Europe. The former Soviet satellites have been among the strongest proponents of a robust U.S. role in Europe because they believed they could count on the United States to defend their interests against perennially predatory Russia. Both countries showed good faith by sending troops to fight in Iraq as part of the multinational force. The Polish and Czech governments acted courageously when they agreed to host the missile-defense system.

Prague and Warsaw knew Moscow would react negatively, but after years of patient diplomacy, they chose to stand with the United States. Canceling the deployment will betray the trust of our allies in Warsaw and Prague, leave Europe defenseless against Iranian missiles, enhance the Kremlin's stature and diminish U.S. credibility. There is no upside.

The bad news is not confined to Europe. The timing of this decision is strategically maladroit. In July, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said that if Iran developed nuclear weapons, the United States would extend a "security umbrella" for threatened countries in the region. But the system slated to be deployed in Eastern Europe was intended to counter future missile threats from the Middle East, principally from Tehran. Iran's neighbors may well wonder if Washington is serious about defending them from the emerging threat. Mrs. Clinton's promises are less credible if the United States is simultaneously opening and closing the defense umbrella.

While it is readying to abandon America's allies, the Obama administration is vigorously reaching out to Russia. It was reported in March that Washington had offered Moscow a grand bargain to trade the East European anti-missile sites for Russian promises to help discourage Iran's nuclear program. That's a bad deal that is fundamentally unenforceable. In July, at the Moscow Summit, President Obama reportedly reiterated his willingness to trade missile defenses for progress in bilateral arms reductions, which do not address the rising missile threat from countries such as Iran, North Korea and Syria.....



....Canceling the missile-defense deployments to Poland and the Czech Republic would be another step in America's gradual retreat from global strategic leadership. We are afraid to contemplate how long it will be before the Obama administration's national-security blunders have serious and irreversible consequences.....

Zitat:'US may cancel Europe missile shield'

The Obama administration has developed possible alternative plans for a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, the New York Times reported over the weekend.

According to the report, US President Barack Obama may present ideas to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev at a meeting in New York during the annual opening at the General Assembly of the United Nations in September.

US officials reportedly told the newspaper that among the alternatives are dropping either the Polish or Czech site, or both sites, and instead building launching pads or radar installations in Turkey or the Balkans, while developing land-based versions of the Aegis SM-3, a ship-based anti-missile system.

The Jerusalem Post could not independently confirm the report.

The US will not forsake Eastern European security and is committed to protecting its allies from Iran, White House officials stressed.

"We definitely are not abandoning our commitment to defend our European allies from a missile threat from Iran," an official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the review was not complete, was quoted as saying. "We are exploring options that will enhance the defense of our European allies."....



...Russia's ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin told the paper Moscow anticipated news from Mr. Obama in September. "I hope that Medvedev will take some good result from this bilateral discussion in New York, and maybe in October we will live in a new world in Russian-American relations," he reportedly said.......

Zitat:Iran missile said to pose Europe threat in 3-4 years

HUNTSVILLE, Alabama (Reuters) - Iran could have the ability to strike most of Europe with a ballistic missile within three or four years if it made an all-out push, the former head of Israel's missile defense program said on Thursday.

If correct, the timeline cited by Uzi Rubin, a leading authority on Iran's program, puts a fresh note of urgency into a diplomatically thorny debate over building a multibillion-dollar anti-missile shield in Europe.

U.S. officials have cast the timeline further out, leaving longer to sort out defenses.

"If they push it -- put all the budget, put all the engineers -- three or four years" is all it would take to give Iran's existing ballistic missile a range of 3,900 kilometers (2,438 miles), enough to hit London, Rubin told a U.S. Army-sponsored missile-defense conference in Huntsville, Alabama. "Will they do it? I'm not sure."

The U.S. Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center said in a report made public in June that Iran, with support from outside sources, could produce an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of hitting the United States within six years.....

Zitat:UN: Nordkorea wollte Waffen an Iran liefern

Die Vereinigten Arabischen Emirate (VAE) haben nach Angaben aus diplomatischen Kreisen in New York einen Waffenhandel zwischen Nordkorea und dem Iran aufgedeckt. Trotz scharfer UN-Sanktionen sollten die Waffen, darunter Granatwerfer, per Schiff in den Iran gebracht werden, hieß es.....

Zitat: Obama considers turning Israel into Europe's umbrella in the face of Iran

In light of Russian opposition, the Obama administration cancels plans to station ICBM interceptors in the Czech Republic and Poland, as was intended during Bush’s presidency. The alternatives: Israel, Turkey and ship based interceptors. Israel’s gain: A second array of U.S missile interceptors that will bolster Israel’s missile defense in the face of an Iranian attack. Analysts ponder: is the Israeli umbrella option the reason Obama has soften his stance regarding the settlements?


By Ran Dagoni

The U.S is examining using Israel as a base for the missile interceptor array, which will constitute Europe’s defense against Iranian ICBMs.

Israel is an optional alternative to the bases the Bush administration, followed by the Obama administration, had recommended to establish in the Czech Republic and Poland. According to estimates in Washington, the White House has decided to cancel the establishment of missile bases in Eastern Europe due to heavy opposition from Russia.

In addition to Israel, the U.S is examining the option of establishing missile interceptor bases in Turkey, the Balkans and/or using ship based missiles in the Mediterranean Sea.

Analysts in Washington said yesterday (Thursday), that should the Obama administration chose Israel as the site for the missile interceptor umbrella array that should shield Europe, it is clear that this has great added value to Israel: an array of U.S missile interceptors that would back the Arrow missile batteries and U.S interceptors that are already stationed in Israel in case of an Iranian missile attack.

The estimates that Israel may get integrated into the United State’s global missile defense array were formed due to a report by the Polish newspaper, the 'Gazeta Wyborcza' which was featured yesterday.
The report claimed that the U.S Departmen of Defense was asked to examine moving the missile interceptor array from Poland and the Czech Republic to Israel and other countries in the Mediterranean Basin.

“The signals that are sent by the generals in the Pentagon are very clear: when it comes to missile defense, the current administration in the U.S is looking for alternatives to the bases (planned) in Poland and the Czech Republic.”, writes the newspaper. A lobbyist named Ricky Alison is quoted, he is involved in the issue and took part last week in a conference in which senior members of the Department of Defense presented their plans to executives in the military industries of the United States.

“During the conference, the generals didn’t mention even once the original plan (by the Bush administration), that focused on Poland and the Czech Republic”, said Alison. “The new U.S administration pays more attention to Russia’s objection to these bases.

The Obama administration avoids unequivocally denying the report. As an answer to whether the White House will cancel plans to establish bases in the Czech Republic and Poland, the Assistant Secretary of State, Philip “P.J.” Crowley said: “I would define the report as incorrect. Our assessment of the missile defense strategy is ongoing and is yet to be done”.

A spokesman for the Department of Defense said that there has yet to be a final decision on whether to establish the bases in Eastern Europe or somewhere else.

Some analysts pondered whether Israel’s apparent potential as a strategic partner in the missile defense array has driven the Obama administration to soften its stance regarding the settlements issue. A senior U.S official, who spoke to journalists in Washington yesterday, said that there’s the possibility of renewing peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians without a complete freeze of the construction in the West Bank settlements.

The official, who asked that his name not be mentioned, said that it was more important that the extent of construction be accepted by Israel and the Palestinian rather than be accepted by the U.S.


“We don’t wish to argue if, at some point, one of the sides comes and says, ‘we didn’t get all that we wished for, but this is enough’” said the official. “If we acted this way, it would raise an obstacle in the way of the negotiations”.

These words point out a certain moderation in Washington’s stance, that until Israel’s PM Netanyahu’s meeting with the American envoy, George Mitchell on Wednesday, stuck to its demand for a total freeze of construction in the settlements.

Bush’s plan to establish an umbrella of missile interceptors over Europe, in Poland and the Czech Republic, was a source of much disagreement between the U.S and Russia due to Moscow’s sensitivity towards the establishment of Western military assets near its borders, in an area that was under its influence not so many years ago.

The Bush administration would reiterate that the missile interceptors were intended to prevent an Iranian missile attack, however Russia threatened that in case of war it would strike with nuclear warheads cities near which missile interceptors were stationed.

Unlike its predecessor, the Obama administration showed a cold attitude towards the missile umbrella. Officials in the government said that the cost of the project was too high and that its effectiveness is uncertain. Reports were already made that Obama was willing to cancel the plan to use the Czech Republic and Poland as sites for the missile interceptor bases in exchange for Russian support for U.S efforts to raise heavier sanction against Iran.

Poland and the Czech Republic were enraged over the possibility that the Bush administration may abandon the plan to build the missile bases in their territory and with it the flow of investments that was to follow. Conservative groups in Washington are also critical over the White House’s new policy.

“The cancelation of the missile interceptor array in Eastern Europe would be another step in the gradual withdrawal of the Obama administration from a global strategic leadership”, the Washington Times wrote this morning (Friday).

Zitat:Ja mei, das der Sozialarbeiter aus Chicago keine Ahnung von Geopolitik hat war ja kein Geheimnis.

Zitat:Wäre ich Netanjahu würde ich darauf sofort eingehen. Und Obama so dafür bluten lassen das er nicht mehr weiß wo ihm der Kopf steht.
Allerdings sei mal dahingestellt ob das bei den Abfangvekotren überhaupt technisch möglich ist.

Zitat:Bei der Raketenabwehr in Ost Europa ging es längst nicht mehr nur um den Schutz Europas vor einen Iranischen Raketenangriff sondern es wurde von Russen zu einer Frage pervertiert wer in Ost Europa das Sagen hat. Das verstehen die meisten Leute die Russophilen erst recht nicht oder wollen es auch nicht verstehen gerade letzter genannte. Indem Obama das Raketenabwehr in Ost Europa Programm fahlen lässt obgleich es die einzige Machbahre und am wietesten vorangetriebene Möglichkeit ist Ost Europa zu schützen verkauft er Europa an den Russen.

revan schrieb:@Shahab3, ich denke du solltest mal etwas zwischen en Zeilen lesen bzw. kurz überlegen. Auch in der Vergangenheit hat Nord Korea den Iran mit Raketentechnologie beliefern können, so könnte diese Waffenlieferung eher als ein Test zu verstehen sein oder eben nur als ein kleiner Teil, einer größeren Lieferung die durchgekommen ist gesehen werden.

Blaupausen kann man auch leicht in einen Aktenkoffern mitführen und Raketenteile lassen sich normalerwiese auch unter andere Namen tarnen wie z.b als Melkmaschinen usw.

Zitat:Nachdem das Raketenabwehrsystem weder gegen konventionelle Waffen noch gegen das russische Atomwaffenarsenal was gebracht hätte, trägt es nichts zum Schutz der Osteuropäer bei, ausser dass Polen und Tschechien ebenfalls in Genuss einer US-Basis kämen. Ein Schutz gegen konventionelle Angriffe wäre wichtiger, meinetwegen in der Form eines zweiten Eurokorps aber im Osten stationiert. An der Luftraumüberwachung werden mittlerweile auch an westeuropäische Länder (zB Deutschland) beteiligt. DAS ist etwas, was tatsächlich eine Verbesserung des militärischen Schutzes bringt.

Zitat:Eine andere Frage ist jedoch wichtiger für die USA, als die Frage, wer in Osteuropa das Sagen hat, nämlich werden die Russische Föderation und die VR China einen gemeinsam Block bilden. Wenn die beiden ehemaligen Bruderländer wieder einen NATO-ähnliches Bündnis schmieden, dann lösen sich die technischen Probleme der Chinesen in einigen Bereichen (zB Flugzeugtriebwerke) von selbst, ferner verbessert massiv die strategische Ausgangslage Chinas nachdem sie in ganz Asien über Russland agieren können. So viel Schutz könnte die NATO in Georgien oder sonstwo im westlichen Asien gar nicht konzentrieren, um die Sicherheit der westlichen Energieversorgung zu garantieren. Russland wäre vermutlich alle industriellen und wirtschaftlichen Probleme mit chinesischer Hilfe los.

Zitat:Insofern hat Obama -ich vermute dass, der alte Brzezinski darauf gedrängt hat- ein richtiges Thema aufgegriffen. Ob die Verschiebung der Raketenabwehr der richtige Ansatzpunkt ist, sei mal dahin gestellt.
Fakt ist allerdings, dass ein enges russisch-chinesisches Bündnis der Super-GAU für die Postion der USA im Mittleren Osten und bedeutend unangenehmer für die EU wäre, als sich mit einem auf sich gestellten Russland zusammenzuraufen, dessen Einwohnerzahl der von Deutschland plus Frankreich entspricht und dessen BIP dem der Niederlande und Belgiens wertmässig aufwiegt. Die EU ist der Wunschpartner der Russen, die Amerikaner geniessen immer noch Respekt in der Föderation, es wäre besser den mühsamen Weg einer gemeinsamen Verständigung zu gehen, als den Kalten Krieg zu schlechteren Konditionen aufzurollen.

Zitat:Beobachten wir daher lieber die weiteren Entwicklungen anstatt auf die schönen amerikansichen Pässe zu spucken und alles schwarz zu sehen.

Zitat:@revan
Mässige Dich! Ich kann verstehen, dass Du Obama nicht magst, aber ihn hier wiederholt öffentlich zu beschimpfen, und ihm den Tod zu wünschen, das geht zu weit! Gewöhn Dir mal ein bisschen Anstand und Differenz an! Glaub mir: ich hasse GWB mehr als Du Obama, und ich habe GWB hier auch schon häufig kritisiert. Aber ich kann das, im Gegensatz zu Dir, einigermassen anständig und dezidiert tun. Dein wutschäumendes, an sich selbst erstickendes Niveau ist einfach nur unterste Schublade! Ein bisschen Zurückhaltung ist angebracht.

Zitat:
The World According to Russia

Why, years after the cold war, the Kremlin's still obsessed with getting respect.

N 1946 a young U.S. diplomat named John Fischer wrote an earnest little book called Why They Behave Like Russians. Fischer, who'd served with the United Nations in postwar Kiev and Moscow, was attempting to explain to a bewildered U.S. public why their wartime ally Joseph Stalin, recipient of billions of dollars in American Lend-Lease aid, had suddenly turned on Washington, declaring it a deadly enemy, and seemed hellbent on starting a Third World War. The book is still a fascinating read—not least because so many of its conclusions continue to ring true today. Fischer calls Russia's leaders "the scared men in the Kremlin," deeply insecure behind their aggressive bluster and suspicious of any internal political threat to their power. Russia is hostile to the West, he writes, because it is a "wounded giant" traumatized by catastrophic historical upheavals and far weaker than it likes to pretend. The nation, he warns, "may blunder into war as it strives to build up a protective belt of satellite states outside its vulnerable borders." Today, with tensions rising again over two Georgian breakaway regions effectively annexed by Russia last summer, that line rings as true as it did at the dawn of the Cold War.

It's more than a little scary that some 60 years after Fischer published, thinkers in the West are still pondering the same question: why do Russians behave the way they do? Why does President Dmitry Medvedev act like a sober, responsible world leader at a G8 conference, talking about a "new European security architecture," as he did in April, yet at the same time threaten to post missiles on the Polish border in Kaliningrad, as he did in November, which is something not even the Soviets ever dared? And how come Russia has stood alongside the world's democracies by supporting the last two rounds of sanctions against Iran in the U.N. Security Council but also supplies Tehran with billions of dollars' worth of missile-defense systems, a nuclear reactor, and submarines? What is the logic behind what one present-day U.S. diplomat in Moscow not authorized to speak on the record calls "Kremlin bipolar disorder"?

Russia's apparent recalcitrance isn't simply a manifestation of evil or pique; it is a reflection of a particular world view. Talk to Russians today from any walk of life about where they see their country's place in the world and you'll soon hear them use the word "respect." Mention history, and you'll likely hear a lot of blame slung at America for inflicting years of economic hardship and political chaos. No less a figure than the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev complained recently that "the fall of the Soviet Union made America's head spin—it was as though Russia was no longer significant, no longer a partner, and worthless to America. Then, when Russia was on its knees, when our economy collapsed, Americans came here and applauded the great job Yeltsin had done. We understood something important then: it suited the West for Russia to be half dead."

One word you won't hear Gorbachev or his like use is "humiliation," but it lies beneath such statements and is equally important. Russians suffered intense humiliation in the painful years between 1980 and 2000, as their empire was first defeated in Afghanistan, then turned into an economic basket case, and then collapsed. And they haven't forgotten about it. Middle-aged Russians of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's generation—who now make up its ruling elite—grew up being told their country was the greatest in the world. They then spent the best years of their lives watching it implode. And it's not just ex-Soviet hard men like Putin who nurture this sense of grievance; smart young professionals (like Medvedev) share it as well. Small wonder, then, that Russia's quest for respect—for equality or revenge—often seems to stray beyond the rational.

Indeed, modern Russia's quest for respect is so intense that it's ensured that it's warped the world view of citizens and policymakers alike, casting everything in 19th-century terms, with winners and losers and enemies in different uniforms. Whether it's planting a flag on the bottom of the sea to claim the North Pole or squeezing the Americans out of a base in Kyrgyzstan, Moscow still sees diplomacy as a zero-sum game where every international engagement—even supposedly friendly ones like the Eurovision Song Contest—becomes a litmus test for Russian pride and power. This helps explain Russia's friendships with anti-American regimes in Venezuela, Syria, and Iran. Today's Russia is willing to pal up with anyone, it seems, as long as it bolsters Moscow's credentials as a leader of a "multipolar world."

No battleground is more emotionally charged for contemporary Russians than the lands of their lost empire. In April 2005, on the eve of massive celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II, Putin told Parliament that the fall of the Soviet Union was "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century" and "a genuine tragedy for the Russian people." Millions of Russians found themselves citizens of different countries, Putin lamented, and the "disease" of separatism spread to Russia itself as Chechnya made a bid to break away. For Mikhail Margelov, chairman of the committee for foreign affairs in the Federation Council, the loss of the empire was as traumatic as a divorce. "We are still in the process of separating from our former husbands and wives," he says. "The rows Russia is having with its neighbors are like scenes from a divorce—everyone is throwing dishes and breaking furniture." Think about this analogy and it's no surprise that Russians reserve a special resentment for America and Europe, the rich, new sugar daddies for whom their old partners left.

To the Kremlin, many Western policies reek of hypocrisy, and an unwillingness to take Russian views into account. For instance, Russia's decision last year to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states after its war with Georgia—seen by the West as a way to dismember Georgia and punish its pro--Western president Mikheil Saakashvili for his desire to join NATO—was seen by Russians as a humanitarian defense of minorities oppressed by Saakashvili. From that perspective, it was similar to NATO's 1999 intervention in Kosovo to save Albanians oppressed by Serbia—a move bitterly opposed by Russia. "They don't understand why America can get away with invading Afghanistan and Iraq, can get away with declaring Kosovo a new country—but when we try to defend our allies in Abkhazia and Ossetia from Georgian aggression we are called the bad guys," says one former top Kremlin bureaucrat who requested anonymity when discussing old colleagues..................

Zitat:Kissing Off Eastern Europe ...

Missile Defense: The U.S. has abandoned plans to install a missile defense system in Europe, according to a report. If true, this is a major strategic error that will have serious consequences for our allies in Europe and for us.

Quoting a U.S. source, the Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza says the Obama administration has decided against building a missile shield to protect Poland and the Czech Republic. The reason? Russian opposition.

Now, if we want to build a defense system for friends in Europe, we'll have to place it in the Balkans, Israel or somewhere else. That is, if Russia approves.

This is a stark reversal of past policy and reneges on promises made by the current administration. Worse, it shows weakness. We got into a staredown with the Russian bear and we blinked.

President Obama has vowed to support missile defense, provided it was "pragmatic and cost-effective." Well, the Congressional Budget Office rated the system going into Poland and the Czech Republic as the most effective of the alternatives.

As for promises to our allies, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just this month said the U.S. would offer our allies a "defense umbrella" against threats from a possible Iranian nuclear weapon.

Now, all that high-sounding defense rhetoric is out the window.

Coupled with the $1.2 billion slashed from the missile defense budget this year, the administration is making clear it hopes to kill off missile defense — a mistake we may all come to regret.

We've just weakened America's standing in a critical region of the world — Eastern Europe — and let our allies down. We've made them vulnerable, in ways that only we could, to Russia's growing military menace. Polish and Czech friends who had relied on us to stand firm and keep our word no doubt feel betrayed.

This diminishes our global influence. What smallish country will now take our word at face value when we promise to protect them?

The U.S. abandonment of the so-called "third site" development of 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a radar array in the Czech Republic signals our weakness to both Russia and Iran.

Iran, as some have recently estimated, is less than a year away from having a workable nuclear weapon. Germany's intelligence agency, the BND, said in July that Iran will have the means to produce a nuclear weapon within six months. So the threat is growing......

Zitat:
Schwierige Gästeliste

Polen ist enttäuscht, dass Obama nicht an Gedenkfeier zum Ausbruch des Zweiten Weltkriegs teilnimmt / Putin wenig willkommen


Über Angela Merkel spricht niemand. Im Vorfeld der Feierlichkeiten auf der Westerplatte gibt es in Polen allerlei Aufhebens um die Liste der Teilnehmer an der Zeremonie. 20 Regierungschefs werden am 1. September des Ausbruchs des Zweiten Weltkrieges vor 70 Jahren gedenken, doch die deutsche Kanzlerin steht in der hitzigen öffentlichen Diskussion nicht in der Kritik. Dass Merkel an der deutschen Kriegsschuld keinen Zweifel aufkommen lässt, ist für die Polen eine Selbstverständlichkeit. Wie sie jüngst am „Tag der Heimat“ die Vertriebenenverbände an diese Tatsache erinnerte, wird ihr hoch angerechnet. Und dass sie, die als Ostdeutsche das kommunistische Regime am eigenen Leib erdulden musste, die Verdienste Polens im Kampf gegen die Unterdrücker glaubhaft würdigt, bringt ihr die uneingeschränkte Gunst der Nachbarn. Angela Merkels Sympathiewerte sind in Polen überwältigend.

Von Wladimir Putin kann das nicht behauptet werden. Der russische Premier spielt in den Augen der meisten Polen die Hauptrolle des Schurken. Der Kreml müsse endlich eingestehen, dass er Mitschuld am Ausbruch des Zeiten Weltkrieges habe, wird gefordert. Putin begegnet solchen Sätzen kalt lächelnd. Niemand soll den heldenhaften Sieg der Sowjetunion über Hitler-Deutschland schmälern. Vorbei sind die Zeiten der außenpolitischen Glasnost, als der damalige Präsident Michail Gorbatschow etwa erklärte, dass die Sowjetunion die alleinige Schuld trage an dem Massaker von Katyn. Im Frühjahr 1940 erschossen dort russische Soldaten 20 000 polnische Offiziere. Ziel war es, die politische Elite des Staates zu vernichten. Doch Gorbatschow ist längst Geschichte und heute heißt es, dass es in Katyn keinen Massenmord sowjetischer Truppen gegeben habe.

Als Wladimir Putin sein Kommen auf die Westerplatte zusagte, flammte in Polen kurz die Hoffnung auf, dass der starke Mann aus Russland zumindest ein Wort des Bedauerns für die Besetzung der östlichen Gebiete oder die Unterzeichnung des deutsch-russischen „Hitler-Stalin- Paktes“ finden könnte. Dann aber machte die polnische Tageszeitung „Dziennik“ publik, dass pünktlich zum 1. September ein Buch russischer Historiker mit dem Titel „Die Geheimnisse der polnischen Außenpolitik 1935 bis 1945“ erscheinen wird. Darin soll auf der Grundlage bisher geheim gehaltener Dokumente bewiesen werden, dass sich Polen damals mit dem Dritten Reich in einem geheimen Zusatzprotokoll zum deutsch-polnischen Nichtangriffspakt von 1934 zusätzlich auch über die Aufteilung Litauens und der Tschechoslowakei geeinigt habe.

„Lüge, Lüge und nochmals Lüge“, donnerte empört der Kommentator von „Dziennik“ angesichts dieser Aussagen und rückte die Verfasser des Werkes in die Nähe von Hitlers Propagandaminister Joseph Goebbels. Der polnische Premier Donald Tusk drückte sich natürlich diplomatischer aus. Er erklärte, dass es zwischen Polen und Russen Unterschiede bei den „historischen Sensibilitäten“ gebe. Seine Analyse: Russland habe Angst gedemütigt zu werden, weshalb es die Mitverantwortung für den Kriegsausbruch nicht übernehme. Für diesen Satz, mit dem er Hitler und Stalin auf eine Stufe stellt, würde der polnische Premier in Russland allerdings bald für viele Jahre im Gefängnis landen. Auf Initiative des russischen Präsidenten Dmitri Medwedew ist ein Gesetz in Arbeit, mit dem jene bestraft werden sollen, die die sowjetische und russische Geschichte „verfälschen“.

Bleibt am 1. September noch die Hauptrolle des Guten zu besetzen. Die Polen hätten darin gerne den US-Präsidenten Barack Obama gesehen. Der aber hat abgewunken und damit Warschau schwer vor den Kopf gestoßen. Nun wurde bekannt, dass nicht einmal Außenministerin Hillary Clinton den Weg nach Danzig findet. Stattdessen wird der 81-jährige Ex-Verteidigungsminister William Perry die USA vertreten – eine schwere Schmach für Polen, das sich als „erster Verbündeter“ Washingtons in Europa betrachtet. Wie viele polnische Soldaten müssten in Afghanistan und im Irak noch für die amerikanische Sache sterben, bevor wir als Partner anerkannt werden, fragen die Kommentatoren unisono......