Missile defense has suddenly emerged as a divisive issue in Europe. Rather than enhancing European security, the Bush administration's plan to deploy elements of a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic threatens to increase strains with Russia and deepen divisions with the US' European allies, particularly those in Eastern Europe, where support for US polices has historically been strongest.
The growing opposition to the US missile defense deployment is rooted in the way in which it has managed -- or rather mismanaged -- the presentation of its deployment plans.
First, US officials did not lay the political and psychological groundwork for deployment. They assumed that Czech and Polish leaders -- who were strongly pro-US -- would willingly agree to deployment, and that public opinion in both countries would go along with whatever the governments decided.
But the US failed to develop a coherent public rationale for its planned deployment of a system designed to destroy a missile fired by a rogue regime. As a result, the Czech and Polish governments were unable to answer fundamental questions about the costs and benefits of the deployment for Polish and Czech national security. This allowed skeptics and opponents of missile defense to gain the upper hand in the internal debates in both countries.
Second, US officials initially tended to view missile defense largely as a technological issue divorced from its political context. For most Europeans, however, the military-technical issues are less important than the broader political implications of deployment for European stability and security. The initial US briefings to European allies ignored this fact.
Third, the US underestimated the role of public opinion in Poland and the Czech Republic. US officials assumed that it was sufficient to have the consent of the governments and failed to recognize the degree to which these countries have become increasingly "Europeanized" in the last decade. Membership of the EU has resulted in the proliferation of ties to Europe at many levels, as well as a major influx of EU money. This has had an enormous impact on public attitudes in Eastern Europe.
In Poland, a big gap exists between the government's attitude and that of the population regarding the EU. The Polish government is dominated by Euro-skeptics and has pursued a highly nationalistic policy that has often antagonized EU officials. Ordinary Poles, by contrast, are strongly pro-European. According to recent polls, 80 percent of the population supports Poland's membership of the EU -- the highest in Europe.
Fourth, US officials have tended to assume that the countries of Eastern Europe will remain staunchly pro-American and automatically support US policy. That was true five years ago, but it is much less true today. As Eastern European countries become more closely integrated into the EU, they increasingly have to calculate the impact of their policies on relations with Europe.
At the same time, the war in Iraq and abuses associated with it have tarnished the US' image in Eastern Europe. This is true even in Poland, which is the most pro-American country in the region. The Polish government strongly supported the US in Iraq, sending the third largest contingent of forces, after the US and Great Britain. However, Polish public opinion, like public opinion in Western Europe, was overwhelmingly opposed to the Iraq invasion.
Moreover, many Poles feel they have little to show for the government's support. As former Polish defense minister Radek Sikorski noted recently, there is a sense among many Poles that the US takes Poland for granted. Sikorski's argument shocked many US officials, because he is considered one of the most pro-American politicians in Poland. But it reflects a widespread sentiment among many Poles, including those who are staunch supporters of close ties with the US.
Unlike the Iraq operation, the missile defense deployment will almost certainly require approval by the Polish parliament. This approval cannot be taken for granted. The government will need to explain to a skeptical Polish population and parliament why the deployment is in Poland's national interest -- not just the US' interest -- and how it enhances Polish security. Simply saying, "because the US wants it" will not be enough.
The US can still win the missile debate in Europe, but only if it stops treating missile defense primarily as a technological issue and addresses the broader political concerns that are driving the debate among European publics, including those in Eastern Europe.
F. Stephen Larrabee holds the corporate chair in European security at the RAND Corp. Andrzej Karkoszka was state secretary for defense in Poland from l995 to 1998 and director of the strategic defense review in the Polish Ministry of Defense from 2003 to last year. Copyright: Project Syndicate
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
RSS