So the US announces the end of its European Missile Defence Shield.
It raises the question, 20 years after the fact if you ask me, as to why the US would be defending a different continent . Europe has an advanced economy of its own. And I don't recall the Europeans building a North American Missile Defence Shield for example.US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel has scrapped the final phase of its European missile defence shield, citing development problems and funding cuts.
Upgraded interceptors were to have been deployed in Poland to counter medium- and intermediate-range missiles, and potential threats from the Middle East.
Mr Hagel said the threat had "matured" and that the US commitment to Nato missile defence remained "ironclad".
This arrangement made sense to me after the Second World War: in the earliest days, Europe was rebuilding its economy, suppressing the dregs of facism in a process that took decades, and settling its own future as a continent of democratic values and human rights.
Even more, the allies had to stick together for mutual security in the face of the Soviets. But to have Europe do the bulk of the militarisation would have undermined security by provoking the Soviets.
It might have been smart international politics since the second world war, but since the definitive end of the cold war it seems quite unreasonable.
The US should be criticised for spending an amount on its military that can only be justified by paranoid delusion and ego. But so too should situations like this where the US has been left holding the bag by its allies for something they can do themselves.
With crazy Russians right next to Europe complaining that a missile defence would undermine its ability to be provocative, isn't it time Europeans did something for their own defence?The interceptors had been strongly opposed by the Russian government.
It complained that they would be able to stop Russia's intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and undermine its nuclear deterrent.