The U.S. Resets Its Bases

Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Europe is over. He traveled to three countries that are Washington’s NATO allies. For each country’s leaders, as well as selected members of the elite, he found kind words for their aspirations and hopes. First, he promised Warsaw that instead of making Poland a third strategic missile defense site, it will receive a couple of American Patriot PAC-3 anti-missile systems and potentially SAM Standard Missile (SM-3). Biden also held talks in Bucharest. In Romania, the construction of a U.S. military base should be completed by the end of the year. The base will have about 1,600 GIs. He had to make sure that nothing will interfere with these plans.

By 2011-2012, the Pentagon will have something similar in Bulgaria. However, the White House emissary did not fly to Sofia, because he has no doubt that this plan will be implemented. And then Biden reassured Prague politicians, who were concerned with the Obama administration’s refusal to redeploy X-band radar from California to the Czech Republic. Biden assured them that the U.S. missile defense system will protect their country.

“Patriots” Instead of Castor Oil

Joe Biden was especially well received in Warsaw. He held successful talks with Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and President Lech Kaczynski. Both of them lobbied hard to convince the overseas visitor that Poland will gladly welcome new U.S. missile defense systems. In turn, the second man in the U.S. administration reassured them that Washington is not going to “reset” relations with Russia at the expense of America’s Eastern friends. Biden said that the new missile defense system will more effectively protect Europe from possible medium- and short-range missile launches from Iran. At a later press conference, Donald Tusk said, “Poland finds the new anti-missile project very interesting and important and, in the appropriate scale, we are ready to participate.”

Many observers have noticed that the Polish elite instantly forgot its resentment towards Washington where, as if on purpose, on September 17th (the 70th anniversary of the date when Soviet troops entered Western Belarus and Western Ukraine, and were thwarted from Poland by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) the decision was made not to make Poland the third missile defense site (despite Warsaw actively counting on it). You bet Moscow objected to this! In Moscow, American strategic missile defense in Eastern Europe was considered a threat to Russia’s strategic deterrent. Some Polish politicians really wanted to show those “damned Russians” Poland’s geopolitical significance (even if not on their own, but rather with foreign – American – help), but it turned into a fiasco.

Barack Obama called and warned Warsaw about his decision on September 16th. However, he told Moscow a week in advance. By doing so, it’s as though he publicly announced to the Polish president and prime minister his complete disregard for Polish interests. In other words, he humiliated the country. Although Obama’s colleagues in Warsaw tried to change the situation, saying that Obama “did not get through” when he called earlier. But something like that is impossible in the twenty-first century. Local newspapers even characterized Obama’s actions as a “betrayal.”

Now the memory of September’s humiliation has faded. It turned out that the U.S. still will not leave Poland without securing its protection. The U.S. will place on Polish territory the long-awaited anti-aircraft missiles. However, rather than strategic missiles, the system will only defend against ballistic missiles of medium- and short-range. Russia doesn’t have those types of missiles, but Iran does. But few people understand anything about the type of missiles and protection. What’s important is that there’s a reason to rejoice: new “big brother” has spread his hand over polonium, and this means a lot to people burdened by historical insecurities. It’s like a remedy for stomach trouble. Something like castor oil. So some of the Polish politicians are grateful to the transatlantic patron.

No Answer…

But no one raised this question: Why does Poland need the anti-missile systems Patriot and Standard? From whom are they defending Poland? Is someone threatening the country that’s a member of NATO, which operates under the general rule of “all for one, and one for all”? Former U.S. Ambassador to Poland Victor Ashe explained that for this country, the type of missile defense system deployed is not as important as having U.S. military on Polish soil. The New York Times reported that according to Ashe, Poland believes that if there’s an attack, “the United States would be more likely to respond if they had Americans on the ground.” Although he doesn’t say who would attack Poland.

None of Poland’s neighboring countries have territorial claims against it, including Germany, which lost a part of its land to Poland due to the decision made at the Yalta conference in 1945. Nor the Czech Republic, which regained the territory captured by Poland after the Munich agreement of 1938. Poland can’t be entitled to the Vilnius region, which became a part of Lithuania in 1939. By definition, NATO countries cannot have territorial claims against each other, otherwise they would not be members of the military-political alliance. For Russia, the Polish land does not represent any special interest, other than a transit route for pumping Russian hydrocarbons in Western Europe. But European countries themselves are interested in getting oil and gas, and there is no need for Moscow to pressure Warsaw to make it faithfully fulfill its transit obligations. Berlin and Brussels can take care of that.

As for historical insecurities of the Polish elite, Moscow looks at them quite calmly. It regards them with sympathy and disbelief, rather than outrage. The Kremlin believes that history should be left to the historians and not mixed into every political step, like a fly in the ointment. It won’t make things better, but will spoil the outcome (for a very long time). This is hardly in Poland’s true interests. At one time, it wanted to become a bridge between the East and West, and now it’s increasingly trying to turn into a barricade of claims and grievances.

The same goes for anti-aircraft missile complex deployment plans. It was like that with Patriot, and now Standard, which the Americans want to deploy in the same place – the town Redzikowo Slutsky in northern Poland. They won’t protect against Russian strategic missiles, Iskander, or other weapons used by Russian troops. And after the U.S. refused to put its third strategic missile defense system in Poland, no one is planning to put Iskander on Poland’s border in the Kaliningrad region. This was plainly stated by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Moscow has no desire or hidden aspirations to somehow threaten Poland or spread its “sphere of influence” over it. Russian military doctrine clearly states that the main purpose of Russia is to protect both its own independence and sovereignty, and the independence and sovereignty of its allies. Warsaw doesn’t figure into this.

Patriot and Standard are also unnecessary for Iranian missiles. There’s no reason for Iran to fire its missiles towards Europe, which buys its oil and brings considerable revenue to the treasury of the country. Why would Iran point its Shahab at Warsaw? It’s incomprehensible. It is devoid of any kind of common sense. However, it makes sense for Poland to pay American companies, such as Raytheon (which manufactures the notorious Patriot PAC-3) and other overseas conglomerates involved in the maintenance of the Pentagon’s bases.

If Poland wants to be America’s military base, let it. It is unlikely that the patriots will cure certain Polish politicians from their historical and psychological insecurities, which are more like painful phobias. Russia is no longer concerned with these missiles. As Nezavisimoe Voennoe Obozrenie (NVO, a section of Nezavisimaya Gazeta) often argues, they are no match for the Russian Topol-M, Voievod, RS-24 and other strategic missiles (or against the strategic bombers Tu-160 and Tu-95MS, and their cruise missiles X-55).

Promises Can Be Broken

Meanwhile, it’s apparent that Americans have successfully fixed their position on south and southeastern Europe. According to the Pentagon’s newspaper Stars and Stripes, the U.S. Department of Defense spent over $100 million to build new military bases in Bulgaria and Romania. Joe Biden’s trip has once again confirmed it. The base in Romania, which will be able to house 1,600 American troops, should be completed within the next two months and will cost the Pentagon $50 million. In 2011-2012, another base for 2,500 troops will be constructed in Bulgaria.

As quoted by the Pentagon’s publication, James Robbins (a senior fellow in National Security Affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council) said that the emergence of bases in Romania and Bulgaria fits into the U.S. global strategy for the redeployment of U.S. forces, and their transfer from Germany to the east. Robbins stated that maintaining American military bases in Romania and Bulgaria will be cheaper, and they will be closer to the volatile Middle East. But Moscow has a different notion of what’s going on. It points out that when the Americans started talking about setting up their bases in the Black Sea, they claimed that they would not have any significant contingent of troops or large quantities of military equipment. The U.S. claimed that the bases were intended only for the rotation of personnel, which was switching with military posts on the Middle East. But, in reality, everything was completely different.

The bases’ “reset” raises a loaded question before Russia’s military. Colonel-General Viktor Esin (former chief of staff of the Russian Federation Strategic Missile Force) said in an NVO interview, “The deployment of U.S. missile defense elements in Eastern Europe, and the construction of U.S. bases in Romania and Bulgaria, are links in a chain, which is the process of nearing NATO’s military infrastructure to Russia’s borders.” In March of this year, our newspaper had already reported about a project originating in the U.S. Air Force headquarters, which involved transferring military F-16 aircraft based in Italy to Poland. Stars and Stripes argued that Poland has better opportunities for training flight crews and that it’s “also closer to former Soviet Republics, such as Ukraine and Georgia, that have undergone turmoil in recent years.”

According to Esin, it is possible that the Americans took a break, in order to use Russia to solve their own problems. First of all, in Afghanistan. After receiving permission from Moscow for the transit of its military cargo, the Obama administration began to conduct the same policy as the Bush team on the European continent. At the same time, it used the old “good cop, bad cop” strategy. Here, Obama is “good” and Biden is “bad.”

The Colonel-General believes that Russia should react calmly. Standard complexes, which Poland agreed to place on its territory, are significantly inferior in their capabilities compared to GBI silo-based missiles. The third U.S. missile defense site proposed by Bush threatened Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles. Esin stated, “If we do not participate in the construction of the Euro-missile defense, the Americans will build it as they please. We need to cooperate with the United States, because then our interests may be taken into account.” Although, it’s not certain that we will be invited to participate in this program. However, the recent statement by U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates that the Pentagon is considering Russia’s new missile attack warning radar in Armavir as part of the overall TMD system should inspire optimism. But whether these promises are firm is another question.

As for the U.S. bases in Romania and Bulgaria, the decision to construction them was made by NATO a few years ago. Viktor Esin noted that Russia should cooperate with the United States and NATO, as well as Romania and Bulgaria, in order to be aware of what’s deployed on those bases, and also to have a chance to influence those decisions. In Moscow, it seems, there is only one way to try to limit the ability of these bases – become a member of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE). This agreement regulates the quota on the number of heavy weaponry that the parties to the treaty are allowed to have. But most importantly, it governs the confidence-building measures between NATO and the European countries that do not belong to NATO, including Russia.

Moscow suspended its participation in the agreement about two years ago, until NATO members ratify a change that takes into account the new realities on the European continent after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. However, the Americans had their own condition: Russia must first withdraw its troops from Georgia (which it did) and from Moldova. According to military experts, more work is needed to break the deadlock with the adapted CFE Treaty. Perhaps Moscow should consider the possibility of changing the status of Russian peacekeepers in Moldova and consider Chisinau’s initiative to deploy international observers in the region. This could pave the way for ratification of the CFE Treaty.

However, it is difficult to imagine how in the present circumstances – when in place of one of Georgia there are three independent countries (including Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which are not recognized by NATO), and in place of Yugoslavia, there is a collection of independent (and also not recognized by everyone) countries – one can speak about adapting the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. It seems that, instead, a new military security agreement should be prepared on the old continent, taking into account the new geopolitical realities.