December 10, 2007 (the date of publication in Russian)
Grigory Tinsky
ROUGH STUFF
Washington's warnings of a "new 1939" sound ambiguous
THE FIRST STEPS TO UNDERSTANDING
The first cautious attempt to normalize the political relations between Russian and Poland was a success. This was revealed on December 7, when Radoslaw Sikorski, Poland's Minister of Foreign Affairs, claimed at his press conference in Warsaw, immediately following the Brussels talks with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov, that "a new chapter in Polish-Russian relations is opened".
"I was told by Minister Lavrov that Russia recognizes Poland as a significant nation of the EU. For this very reason, we have grounds to expect suspension of the Russian embargo on Polish goods, including meat products, imposed in 2005. I've got an impression that our political approach is correct. In our negotiations with Minister Lavrov, we focused on resolution of contradictions between Russia and the EU", Sikorski said. "Regarding the intense schedule of new talks, including the planned visits of our Ministers of Economy and Agriculture to Russia, I believe we've got real opportunities for a positive result".
Sikorski also acknowledged that Prime Minister Donald Tusk has accepted the invitation of Vladimir Putin to visit Russia next February. Poland's Foreign Minister is going to arrive in Moscow earlier to prepare the top-level talks, along with Vice Prime Minister Waldemar Pawlak. Besides, the two nations are going to resume the work of the bilateral Commission for Complicated Issues, which is going to be joined by such renowned experts as Adam Rotfeld, ex-Foreign Minister of Poland, and Anatoly Torkunov, Director of the Moscow Institute of Foreign Relations.
The bilateral negotiations in Brussels involved the most sensitive issue of expected deployment of elements of US ABM system on the territory of Poland. Donald Tusk had announced his plans of reviewing the earlier diplomacy on the issue, and discussing the ambiguous subject with NATO leadership and "some of Poland's neighbors". Anticipating this diplomacy, Sikorsky raised the ABM issue in his dialogues with NATO's General Secretary Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Germany's Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and top Czech negotiators.
"We will also consult with the Russian Federation", he announced. "That does not mean that our decision is going to be made in concert with or under pressure from anyone. We are committed for a sovereign Polish decision, but in the spirit of a dialogue", Sikorski said. In this way, he reaffirmed his earlier expressed commitment to pursue a fourfold goal of Polish diplomacy, one of its elements addressed to Russia.
A SIDESTEP IS REGARDED AS A BREAK-OUT
Although the first signs of a new understanding between Warsaw and Moscow did not reveal a U-turn of Polish foreign policy, especially in the issue of ABM systems where no definite judgment was expressed, the very fact of the dialogue of two neighboring Slavonic nations immediately aroused jealousy on the other side of the Atlantic.
Already on December 7, The Financial Times published an article of military expert Max Boot, entitled "It is in the Interests of Poland to Be an Ally of the United States". Mr. Boot, a consultant of the Council on Foreign Relations, does not restrict himself with subtleties like political correctness while bluntly accusing Poland of shortsighted betrayal of an ally's duty.
"Poland has been one of the US's most reliable allies in recent years, sending troops to both Afghanistan and Iraq, but Polish attitudes… are changing for the worse. The new prime minister, Donald Tusk, has promised to pull Poland's 900 soldiers out of Iraq by the end of next year". Besides, the disobedient Poles are seeking to get something in return for agreeing to have ABM systems deployed on its territory – "though its interceptors will provide more direct defense to Poland and its neighbors than to the US".
“The Polish attitude is deplorable, even perverse. Cannot the Poles see that by helping the US-led coalition in Iraq and Afghanistan they help to stabilize a vital region that is closer to Europe than to the US? If either country were to become a breeding ground for international terrorism the fallout would land in Europe first".
Mr. Boot's dissatisfaction with the injudicious Poles reaches its peak in the end of the article – to an extent generating a Freudian slip of the tongue:
"Poland faces some security threats that its neighbors do not. It is on the border of one nascent democracy, Ukraine, and two dictatorships, Belarus and Russia, the latter of which seems increasingly threatening. The US, Canada and various European nations are pledged to help defend Poland from any threats, even if they do not impinge directly on other NATO member states. That is how collective defense works: one for all, all for one. Poland knows well what happens if collective defense fails, having been left to the wolves in 1939 and 1945. Therefore it makes sense for a newly liberated Poland to be a leading practitioner of collective self-defense on the new frontlines of freedom, which are in the Middle East. Polish governments until now have understood the logic of that position. It is dismaying that so many ordinary Poles do not get it".
The fact that 60% of the Poles are not enthusiastic about deployment of US missiles on their land is true. Other points made by Mr. Boot are more distant from truth. Leaving aside the musketeer definition of collective defense and the doubtful assessment of the US role in Iraq and Afghanistan as "stabilizing", let us address the statements which directly concern Russia:
1. Poland should appreciate the support from allies from the sad experience of 1939 and 1945;
2. Poland neighbors with a menacing Russian dictatorship and therefore needs ABM.
SCRABBLING IN WAR WOUNDS
The way Mr. Boot treats the Polish people is called "rough stuff" in sports. A renowned Mike Tyson was disqualified for this practice, but CFR's jury is more liberal – though history is actually a far rougher substance than boxing.
Digging in the history with untidy hands, one affects millions of wounds by one careless phrase. Is it pleasant for Russia to recall the Molotov-Ribbentropp deal when speaking to a Polish veteran? Rather not. However, if we continue digging in history, we'll have to ask why the powerful nations of Western Europe and America didn't move a finger to help the Poles at the time when they found themselves alone with the military machine of the Nazi.
Mutual grudges of Russians and Poles go far beyond the XX century. Still, the parallel of 1939 and 1945 sounds wild even for a most believing anti-Communist Pole. Not only because the Nazi massacres were more brutal than any sort of Soviet ideological pressure; not only because the Nazi ruined Warsaw, and the Soviets invested in its reconstruction, but also due to the solid truth of the fact that the post-war division of Europe was decided jointly by the coalition of anti-Nazi allies.
If experts are so eager to compare historical tragedies, why not compare the death toll of Pearl Harbor with Hiroshima? Rough stuff, you would say? But human bodies are something more precious then a soccer ball. At least, a common Pole has enough family memories to realize the difference, and the reluctance to use their territory for one more bloody game originates rather from the experience of the former game than from today’s temptation by Moscow.
TWO OPINIONS OF ONE GOOD COMPANY
Quite recently, a smiling State Secretary of the United States assured the Russian and European audience that Poland- and Czechia-deployed ABM systems are not directed against Russia. From Mr. Boot's article, a Russian and European reader is likely to conclude that those smiles were a lie.
Candidly, this author's fantasy was not rich enough to take for granted yet before Mr. Boot's revelations that the missile systems, placed near the borders of Russia, were supposed to protect the US interests from the menace emerging from Iran, or funnier – from North Korea.
To believe that this article reflects nothing more but a personal view of a particular expert is even more fantastic. The Financial Times is not The Sun to publish sundry gossips. Mr. Boot is a person enough renowned to serve in an elite club like the Council on Foreign Relations. Not only there: the expert is also a member of the consulting board of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Who of the top CFR members is going to sue another for slander: State Secretary Rice or columnist Boot? We are curious to know the view on the same subject from other top figures of the club, like ex-State Secretary Henry Kissinger, ex-FRS Chair Alan Greenspan, Reuters' President Neill Fitzgerald, current IRI President Lorne Craner, and former Swedish Premier Carl Bildt. I believe these persons have a right of expression as well.
The highly esteemed politicians with backgrounds of decades of state service could clarify officially, to whom of their fellow members the Russians (also military) audience is supposed to believe. If one of those two judgments is not true, the club could apologize for a mistake. After all, not all of the club members are top professionals in politics; for instance, Angelina Jolly seems to represent a different domain of professionalism. Could she have jazzed up Mr. Boot to this extent of verbal debauchery?
"COMBATTING RUSSIAN THREAT" FOR RUSSIA'S EXPENSE
Who would help the renowned politicians to express their collective view on the problem of Eastern Europe-deployed ABMs? The most logical option is to ask Mikhail M. Friedman, President of Alpha Bank, who was accepted to CFR's board for his meritorious financial assistance to poorer Americans.
We could have urged Mr. Friedman for a similar service yet before: for instance, when the same expert Michael Boot compared the President of Russia to an insect harboring in dirty linen. In case Mr. Friedman buttons up his mouth again, we'll have to admit that the recent joke of popular Russian comic Mikhail Zadornov: "We are not yet wealthy enough to pay to our workers, but already wealthy enough to help foes to attack us" is not a joke at all.
Number of shows: 1148
ENG 
