Polish ambassador Marek Calka and Russian ambassador Gleb A. Ivashentsov trade barbs in the Korea Times. The thing is, it doesn’t actually appear that Calka said U.S. MD facilities in Poland would be aimed at Russia. Rather, it seems he’s saying Poland would like to enjoy the same U.S. nuclear umbrella enjoyed by Korea.
-
English Books on Korea... and More!
-
Visit My Brother's Film Review Site
3 Comments
Pretty interesting. I sonder if I could find an English language blog written by a US expat resident in Poland, and if so whether I could read there dialog similar to the Korean-Japanese historical exchanges that take place here. Seems pretty likely, in this brave new internet world.
This Polish ambassador to Seoul sure seems to be presuming a lot (assuming accurate reporting by KT of what he said, not a given I suppose). I wonder in what language the interview took place…
And I wonder what’s actually happening in US-Poland defense/security discussions? I suspect this Polish ambassador of exaggerating their scope considerably.
As far as this American is concerned, the proposed extension of a necessarily limited US missile defense shield over E Europe is a “non-nuclear” proposition, since (unlike the previous late-1960’s-era US ABM system) missile defense no longer implies “using a nuke to shoot down a nuke”.
Does the current Polish administration really think that the US will readily commit to waging a nuclear war with Russia on their behalf, in exchange for the mere building of a missile defense installation?
The possible use of US missile defense in E Europe to shoot down an incoming nuclear-tipped ballistic missile (or missiles) sure doesn’t imply (to this child) an automatic follow-on US nuclear retaliationk against Russia — or anyone else.
That’s the whole point of missile defense — to put an end to “MAD”.
What’s that you say, O non-US citizen of “the West?” You don’t like the idea of not having that much-maligned (but o-so-secretly-cozy-and-comfy) US nuke umbrella, guaranteed to be there when and if you decide it’s needed?
Well, there’s a “simple” (though not necessarily “easy”) solution: emulate the NorK’s and the Iranians, get your own nukes.
Listen to the advice of the Marmot! That way, there will be no need for dependence on the insane American cowboys.
Well, I believe they’re already secured that commitment by being party to NATO—MD facilities or no MD facilities.
The famous Article 5 requires the members of NATO to “take such action as [each member] deems necessary”. As I read it, this doesn’t necessarily mean the immediate and unconditional firing of warshots in support of an attacked NATO ally:
http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm
“Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
As the Russian ambassador correctly points out in his letter to KT, the limited E. European MD system as proposed by the US and EU is clearly intended for defense against a future limited Iranian ballistic missile capability (he mentioned a possible NorK missile “threat” to Europe as well, but somehow I just don’t see NorK seriously entertaining the idea of launching ballistic missiles across the entire length of Russia to reach some hypothetical target in Europe).
I gather the Iranians are steadily improving their ballistic missile capabilities with the help of the NorKs, concurrently with their own nuclear weapons development.
In any event, I reckon the Poles will be safe from the Russians for the foreseeable future, as long as the Poles refrain from developing their own nukes (in spite of my “general” advice given above).
Regardless of what might be said privately between statesmen or diplomats, I just can’t foresee US troops, aircraft, and/or missiles ever firing on Russian forces moving to attack Poland (the Russians would have to go through Belarus now I suppose to get to the Polish border).
Even given a hypothetical US administration determined to fight to defend Poland, the Germans would be terrified and I anticipate them refusing the US permission to use US bases in Germany to defend Poland, as well as to transit German airspace enroute to Poland.
Just as I anticipate that a terrified ROK would refuse permission for the US to use ROK-based US forces for any retaliation against the North, in response to a DPRK attack against Japan (ie, such as a William Perry-type proposed miiltary response (or pre-emption) to/against another 4th of July-type DPRK missile “test” — one that chanced to go awry, and hit a Japanese (or US) ship, or Japanese soil, or US forces on Japanese soil).