"Russia Makes New Threats Over U.S.-Poland Missile Deal" by TOMEK ROLSKI and JONATHAN KARL.

I knew Jon Karl in college, he is a reliable source. Reporting from Moscow, this article contains information I suspected was true, but haven't seen in print before.

"According to the deal, the United States will construct a military base at Redzikowo on the Baltic coast. There, on an area no larger than the size of a football field, will be 10 silos with missiles ready for possible launch by 2012.

"The relatively small missile defense system could be easily overwhelmed by Russia's vast force of long-range missiles, but under the deal the United States also agreed to provide a Patriot missile defense system that could be used to defend Poland against a short-range missile defense threat that could potentially come from Russia."

(italics added by me)

So if this is correct, the US-Poland deal involves at least three components:

1) Theater missile defense. Probably the THAAD system. This had been the main topic of discussion for years.

2) Tactical missile defense: A PAC-3 (Patriot) battery. This system only makes sense to defend against missiles originating near Poland. I had not read this detail anyplace before.

3) Bi-lateral, mutual defense agreement(s). This was reported earlier on Atlantic Review.

Before the Russian attack on Georgia, apparently we were having problems convincing the Poles to limit themselves to component 1). Our position was that 2) and 3) are more provocative to Russia, for obvious reasons. The Polish position appeared to be, in for a penny, in for a pound. Any missile defense system in Poland was going to upset Russia, so might as well get the system needed to defend against Russia.

Also 3) is also somewhat disrespectful to NATO and the ideal of collective security.

Before Georgia, even item 1) was controversial in Poland and in the US. Russia's actions seem to have changed the public mood considerably; before the Russian actions, items 2) and 3) were apparently not very much on the agenda.

"Only weeks ago, the 18 months of Polish-U.S. missile talks appeared on the verge of collapse. The Poles suspended negotiations after the United States refused to meet their demands and public opinion polls found that 70 percent of Poles were against the missile shield on their territory. Poles began protesting the plan.

"All that changed on Aug. 8, when Russian armor rolled into Georgia.

"'When Russia performs military operations that are perceived as aggressive and brutal, even relatively far from our borders, people in Poland fear,' political analyst Grzegorz Kostrzewa-Zorbas told ABC News.

"'The war in Georgia very quickly and suddenly changed the mood of Poles,' Kostrzewa-Zorbas said. 'In a week, a strong majority emerged supporting the American missile shield in Poland.'

"Now, 63 percent support American military presence on Polish soil and feel that the closer ties enhance Poland's security.

"The American side also had a large shift in opinion.

"'The Americans were unwilling to give Poland any anti-missile and air defense system optimized to defend Polish airspace and territory. They did not want to give Poland Patriot missiles,' he said. 'Now it is different.'

Pat,

It would have been better if Rolski and Karl had included more info re their polling methods, but too often that stuff is cut by one of the many editors that alter the article before it is published. I am guessing that is what happened, since writers typically want to see as many of their glorious words in print as possible....

"Polish support for missile defense pact soars" is a report from the Associated Press (staff) of a survey by the Gfk Polonia institute in Warsaw. It cites a 58% approval for the recent US Poland agreement, 500 people surveyed, error +/- 4.5%. That is different from Rolski and Karl's figure of 63% approval, so perhaps they were using a different survey for their article?

Still, the second article supports the first one on the general statement that there was a major change of opinion.

As to the resentment of having US troops on Polish soil: One assumes there will be liaison officers, technicians, etc. as part of the proposed missile base. It would be interesting if we learned that there is a 4th component to the deal, consisting of a significant US troop presence at Redzikowo or elsewhere in Poland, more than what is needed for the missile base. I have not seen anything suggesting that.

Naturally, there will be some resentment of the mere presence of the base. But that is tempered by realism: any country would prefer to be wholly independent and able to defend itself, but until Poland becomes as prosperous as, well, Germany, that is not possible against an opponent like Russia.

Interesting about the trainers in the late 80's -- very interesting. How did we manage that, I wonder??

"limited to that football sized island" huh? The survey is a nationwide opinion survey or are you seeing something I'm not?

Interestingly, there has been a great deal of "translation errors" and general blowing of smoke in this conflict. For example, when we announced humanitarian shipments arriving at Poti, the Georgians promptly announced we would be taking over control of the port.

Wishful thinking on their part, unfortunately. Even if we were willing to put a military presence in the port, I am not sure the Turks would be willing to let our ships into the Black Sea for anything other than humanitarian aid.

As an Iraq war supporter, I have to admit, this is part of the huge price to be paid for the Iraq war. When we did not manage to get Turkey's permission to land the 4th infantry division in Turkey in order to open up a northern front in Iraq, it caused (or revealed) a deterioration in the US-Turkey relationship that still hasn't been mended, and won't be anytime soon. Google "Who lost Turkey?" (but take the first hit, an item on Juan Cole's Informed Comment, with a HUGE grain of salt, Mr. Cole has a very loose relationship with the facts).

"Britain politicians never truely believe in human rights"

Have you ever visited Britain? They practice human rights there every day. If Russia, the Taliban, or the other groups you mention did half as much as the British, they would have much more credibility on this issue.

As to the latest incident of alledged mass civilian casualties in Afghanistan, I raised some questions about a previous incident (the now infamous wedding massacre), and no-one has answered them, they prefer to distort what I said. I also showed how anonymous video provided to the BBC was almost certainly fake. This latest incident fits the same pattern, so far.