Who pays for Poland's Patriots - that's the question

By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Poland and the United States are at odds over who should pay possibly billions of dollars for Raytheon and Lockheed Martin air defences as part of a missile-shield agreement between the two countries, a prominent U.S. missile-defence advocate said on Friday.

Washington is willing to put Poland at the head of the line for the Patriot air and missile defence system and to provide training worth millions of dollars, but it wants Warsaw to pay for the hardware itself, said Riki Ellison, head of the private Missile defence Advocacy Alliance.

Poland, on the other hand, "wants the U.S. to foot the bill for the entire thing," Ellison said in a telephone interview after Poland spurned the latest U.S. offer.

Ellison, noted for close ties to the Pentagon and to U.S. missile-defence contractors, said his information came from high-level officials on both sides of the negotiations.

Raytheon Co is the prime contractor for the Patriot air and missile defence system, deployed by the United States and nine other countries. Lockheed Martin supplies upgraded Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) missiles.

Poland rejected as insufficient on Friday an unspecified offer to boost its air defences in return for hosting 10 U.S. interceptor missiles to defend against attack by what Washington calls rogue states, particularly Iran.

Russia opposes the plan as a threat to its security and has said it would aim missiles at Poland and the Czech Republic -- communist-era satellite states -- if the U.S. missile defence shield is put in place on their territory.

The Bush administration already has reached an agreement with the Czech Republic to locate a tracking radar there to boost its emerging shield against ballistic missiles that could be tipped with chemical, biological or nuclear warheads.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said his government had not reached "a satisfactory result on the issue of increasing the level of Polish security" but was open to more talks.

In Washington, Sean McCormack, a State Department spokesman, said the United States remained in negotiations and did not plan to comment publicly on details.

Ellison said Washington had been reluctant to pay for hardware sought by Poland to meet what Warsaw sees as the increased threat it would run if it hosted U.S. interceptors.

He expected Tusk to drive a hard bargain to mollify domestic critics.

Washington has said it could ask Lithuania to host missile interceptors if Warsaw holds out too long.

The Patriot is a long-range, high-altitude, all-weather system designed to counter tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and advanced aircraft.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/usTopNews/idUKN0435269420080704?sp=true

Since WWII the United States has spent trillions of dollars to defend Europe. It’s time to have Europe step up to the plate and pay their fair share, which would be a lot more than they had done in the past.

quote:

Washington has said it could ask Lithuania to host missile interceptors if Warsaw holds out too long.

I like that alternative...and as a bonus it would pizz off the Russians even more.

The Poles should refuse the offer because it does antagonize Russia at a time of energy vulnerability in Eastern Europe.

Tusk should remain adamant that the U.S. should bear the total cost. In this manner, Poland will have taken on the risk without expenditure from its limited treasury. And Poland is also seeking a "reward" for supporting the Iraqi campaign with troops and very likely harbored prisoners as part of the infamous rendition campaign by this administration.

If Poland assumes regional risk by accepting part of the missile defense umbrella, then they naturally want the U.S. to assume the material cost. It makes sense from the Polish perspective.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: NOVAMarine,

quote:

Originally posted by NOVAMarine:
The Poles should refuse the offer because it does antagonize Russia at a time of energy vulnerability in Eastern Europe.

Tusk should remain adamant that the U.S. should bear the total cost. In this manner, Poland will have taken on the risk without expenditure from it's limited treasury. And Poland is also seeking a "reward" for supporting the Iraqi campaign with troops and very likely harbored prisoners as part of the infamous rendition campaign by this administration.

If Poland assumes regional risk by accepting part of the missile defense umbrella, then they naturally want the U.S. to assume the material cost. It makes sense from the Polish perspective.

Beat me to it. Good point.