EUROPE: "Missile defence: A damp squib; American missile-defence plans falter in eastern Europe," The Economist, 22 November 2008.

Iran's missiles are said to possibly reach southern Italy or Moscow, but neither wants a defense shield. Now we get the Russians promising to place counter missile capacity in Kaliningrad, which naturally, isn't what America was hoping for by promising Poland a puny arsenal of 10 missiles and a radar in the Czech Republic. Naturally, both of those states are under the delusion that such defense assets will mean an unlimited defense guarantee from the U.S. vis-à-vis Moscow--their real fear in this equation. So we have a non-defense (too weak for Russia) triggering a destabilizing counter (Kaliningrad) by Moscow, whereas east European states, who face no logical threat from Iran (why threaten a Europe that already does such business with Iran?), see it as a gateway drug to modernization of their militaries by the Pentagon. Lost in this entire equation is Iran, of course, but no matter. The scheme was never about Iran. It was about justifying further spending on missile defense by making it a cause célèbre. Your tax dollars idiotically at work. Ah, but we're told we can't back down to Moscow and we must give into Warsaw's demands. Certainly makes sense to me to put Warsaw in charge of U.S. global security strategy. Why not let that tail wag this dog?