Comment l’Europe de l’Est, essentiellement la Pologne et la Tchéquie certes, ressent-elle la décision US d’abandonner le système anti-missiles BMDE? L’appréciation classique est qu’il s’agit d’une trahison, d’une rupture de l’“accord stratégique” établi entre les USA et les deux pays est-européens.

• Le Washington Times ne nous laisse aucun doute là-dessus. (Le 19 septembre 2009.)

«“Betrayal! The U.S. sold us to Russia and stabbed us in the back,” the Polish tabloid Fakt declared on its front page. Polish President Lech Kaczynski said he was concerned that Mr. Obama's new strategy leaves Poland in a dangerous “gray zone” between Western Europe and the old Soviet sphere.

»“No Radar. Russia won,” the largest Czech daily, Mlada Fronta Dnes, declared in a front-page headline.»

• Le Financial Times nous présente la chose d’une façon beaucoup plus sérieuse, mesurée, mais tout aussi dramatique. Bien que cela date du 18 septembre 2009, comme toujours avec le FT, les remarques conservent toute leur sagesse.

«The risk for the US, however, is the impact that the move will have on Poland and the Czech Republic. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s these countries have prized their relationship with the US and their membership of Nato, but they are beginning to question whether Washington will stand up for them against resurgent Russia.

»Poland and the Czech Republic wanted the missile defence system on their territory because it acted as a security guarantee against potential Russian aggression. The presence of US forces operating the system on their soil acted as a physical underpinning of Nato’s article 5 commitment to mutual defence.

»The decision to scrap the system was therefore severely criticised by some prominent figures. Mirek Topolanek, a former Czech prime minister, whose government signed the missile defence deal, said: “This is bad news... after 20 years of our path into Euro-Atlantic structures and our very active involvement there, the process is being halted.” Aleksander Szczyglo, a former Polish defence minister, said: “This is a very bad signal for Poland. The Russians will have a voice in the affairs of this part of Europe.” He called the US action a “historic error”.»

• ...Et puis, non, pas du tout, patatras. Tomas Valasek, ancien fonctionnaire du ministère slovaque de la défense et actuel expert des questions de défense et de sécurité au Centre for European Reform, a une toute autre vision. On trouve son analyse dans le Guardian, le 18 septembre 2009. Tomasek traite avec un grand mépris les titres que le Washington Times cite avec effroi.

«Tabloids make a poor guide to understanding a country's policy. While the newspaper headlines in Poland and the Czech Republic scream of the US “betraying” eastern Europe by cancelling missile defence bases there, the official reaction in Warsaw and Prague has been muted. The reason is simple: the Poles and other east Europeans have themselves been busy “resetting” relations with Russia in recent months. The Poles, in particular, will view the cancellation of missile defence bases in Poland as an affirmation of their recent policy of rebalancing alliances in favour of closer links with the EU.»

Tomasek expose, d’une façon convaincante, combien la réalité est différente de ces analyses convenues, particulièrement pour la Pologne, depuis l’arrivée du nouveau gouvernement. (Dans ce cas, la Pologne joue un rôle essentiel d'influence sur le reste de l'Europe de l'Est, alors que le soutien et l'influence US par le biais du BMDE disparaissent.) Tomasek termine son article en citant Adam Jasser, expert du think tank DemosEuropa, de Varsovie: «The end result will be that the Poles and other central Europeans will be incentivised to see the European Union rather than the United States as the main vehicle for dealing with Russia… [the cancellation of missile defences] sends to a well-deserved resting place Donald Rumsfeld's concept of the ‘old’ and ‘new’ Europe... [This] may be a win-win for Europe and the United States, which sometimes appeared torn between a desire to see a strong united Europe and a temptation to divide the Europeans and play them against each other. It is clear that the former was and will be the better option for the west.»

Dedefensa.org