The April article "NATO meeting sends dangerous signals" states "The crux of the matter is Europe's lack of political will to forge a unified stand toward Russia." I beg to differ. Rather, Europeans have to be worried about Europe's lack of political will toward the Bush government. The latter struck a deal with two European states (Poland and the Czeck Republic) to install missiles on their soil. NATO gave its formal approval. However, for European citizens the specific consequences in respect of international law are far from being clear. NATO approval does not mean NATO will be in command of the American facilities. Hence, who will be calling the shots in the event of a serious conflict with Russia or Iran? A safe bet is Washington, of course!
Consequently, Europeans are facing an oddity: Americans will be entitled to conduct militarily actions in Europe -- without acting under the umbrella of NATO -- but the repercussions will be felt by Europeans. Does the writer really think the target of a "unified stand" should be Russia?
With your current subscription plan you can comment on stories. However, before writing your first comment, please create a display name in the Profile section of your subscriber account page.