As Europe's Finance Ministers worked around the clock to finalize a bailout package for Greece, their goal was not only to avoid Greek insolvency, but also to prevent further fractures within the eurozone and even the European Union.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, European Parliamentary President Jerzy Buzek was on a six-day public outreach tour in Washington DC to build stronger relations and legislative partnerships between the United States and Europe.

His visit included several top level meetings with US Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi.

It also included remarks before the US Chamber of Commerce as well as the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. The climax of the trip, however, was the opening of the EU Parliament's new liaison office in Washington DC, the first outside of Europe, in the hopes of creating closer cooperation (and understanding) of the EU and its institutions between US members of Congress and their staff.

But when it comes to invigorating US-EU relations is Brussels trapped down a one way street? When President Obama came into office he quickly sought to mend fences with many of Europe's leaders.

Once successful, engagement with Europe had fallen low on his agenda. Case in point, he skipped the 70th anniversary commemoration of World War II in Gdansk and announced he would not attend the EU-US Summit scheduled for May in Madrid.

That said, bringing greater EU visibility to Washington DC is necessary. What will give it greater credibility, however, is actually presenting a more unified European policy platform, whether it be on energy security, Russia policy, financial regulation (ie. US investment banks in Europe) and international security (ie. Afghanistan and Iran) to their counterparts in the US Congress.

Strong EU leadership and partnership will be critical to the Obama administration's success of addressing current global challenges and meeting foreign policy objectives.

For Poles, having EU representatives lobby on behalf of extending visa free travel to the US would also be a welcome sign of EU solidarity. Currently, four other EU members, including Greece, Cyprus, Romania and Bulgaria are also denied this privilege.

With Greece in turmoil, sovereign credit ratings dropping throughout the EU's southern periphery, risk of adverse affects of Europe's contagion on US recovery and a growing backlash against Goldman Sachs in Europe, President Buzek's timely visit, may just have been the boost that EU-US relations needed.

As the Polish nation mourns the tragic death of President Kaczynski, First Lady Kaczynska and 96 other Polish dignitaries, the implications of this traumatic event on Poland’s psyche, political landscape and upcoming elections have already made their way into the public discourse.

As relevant as these questions may be, it is equally important for us Poles to take a step back and truly examine the lives and sacrifices of those who perished in Smolensk, on their way to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Katyń massacre.

In addition to the president, first lady and several high ranking military, political and religious leaders the ill-fated Tupolev carried heroes like Anna Walentynowicz, the spark plug that started the Solidarity movement, Czesław Cywinski, President of the Association of the Former Polish Resistance, and Ryszard Kaczorowski, Poland’s last President in Exile. At 80 and 90 years of age, they not only represented Poland’s moral and historic conscience, but were key members of a “greatest” generation who sadly continue to leave us (along with their memories, eye-witness accounts and reflections).

At a time when historic revisionism has surfaced in Russia, Germany, the United States and even Poland, it is critical that we properly study our nation’s past, preserve it and most importantly educate future generations. Case in point, over the last year, due to sheer ignorance or perhaps outright disdain for Poland, columnists in mainstream media outlets like the UK’s Guardian and the Washington Post keep referring to “Polish concentration camps” (rather than German or Nazi) when writing about the Holocaust.

This is all the more necessary as a new generation of Poles grows up knowing little about WWII and whose only recollection of Communism is via history text books or occasional family anecdotes. For many outside of Poland, Saturday’s crash was the first time they ever even heard of Katyń or the massacres that took place there in 1940. This does not mean we should dwell on the sins of Fascism, Stalinism or communism, but simply to acknowledge their existence, perpetrators and profiteers. How else can we learn and move Poland forward?

One of President Kaczynski’s lasting legacies will be his commitment to preserve the memory of those lost during WWII and honor the victims of Katyń and communist oppression on an international scale. Importantly, it aroused a sense of national consciousness. As Mayor of Warsaw, he was instrumental in establishing the Warsaw Uprising Museum, the Communism Museum and the close to completed Museum of Polish Jewry.

Once our grief has subsided, all Poles, but especially the younger generation need, to step up and take a more active (and leadership) role in Poland’s political life. After all, they will be the stewards of Poland’s future. Being cognizant of Poland’s past not only enables future generations to build trust and forge new partnerships with our neighbors, but also strengthens the commitment to shared values upon which a united Europe was founded. We cannot expect others to respect our history, unless we respect and honor it ourselves. That is the greatest living tribute we can give to honor those that died.

With Hungary's Parliamentary elections just weeks away and Poland's own Presidential race gaining steam what are the key lessons to be drawn from Central Europe's current political climate?

First, local politics truly do matter. Specifically, strong institutions, a well-functioning democracy, accountability and transparency play as integral a part in a country's political development as its economic development. This was lacking among Hungary's officials and within its institutions during the peak of the crisis, which eventually manifested into protests on the streets of Budapest.

High unemployment, government incompetence and a severe economic recession triggered public outrage and increased the popularity of nationalist parties like Jobbik, which garnered 15 percent of the vote, and sent three representatives to the European Parliament in 2009. Some polls predict Jobbik may win up to 20 percent of the votes in the upcoming Parliamentary election, attracting voters from both sides of the political spectrum who continue to be disillusioned with Hungary's political mainstream and sluggish recovery.

Second, the ability to maintain relatively low macroeconomic imbalances enabled Poland to take advantage of preferential lending mechanisms and financial aid, including access to a $20.5 billion IMF flexible credit line (FCL). Not only did this help Poland avoid additional economic shocks and enable greater policy flexibility, but it also empowered the ruling PO party, while marginalizing the fringes. That was not the case in Hungary where years of political infighting and a badly mismanaged economy (on the Socialist MSZP's watch) forced Hungary into international bankruptcy.

While it is possible that Fidesz (National Conservatives) may win a constitutional two-thirds majority, the more important question is whether they will form a coalition or at the very least coalesce with Jobbik. If so, this could pose serious obstacles to an already demoralized EU (think Greece), stall further integration and damage the gains of post-communist transition.

Throughout the past decade, Central Europe's real estate market was one of its fastest growing and most lucrative investment sectors. Investors and speculators across Europe as well as Central European diasporas took part in the buying frenzy.

By early 2009 Central Europe's capitals had some of the most expensive housing prices within the EU. Seven Central European cities ranked in the top 50 most expensive real-estate markets in the world including Bucharest, Kraków, Prague, Riga and Warsaw.

The global financial crisis and subsequent credit crunch burst the region's property bubble. Central Europe's banks tightened lending requirements while buyers were worried that their euro- and Swiss franc-denominated mortgages would raise debt obligations as regional currencies plummeted. This was especially problematic throughout the Baltic capitals and Bulgaria's resurging Black Sea tourist outposts (whose local currencies were all pegged to the euro).

Now that the eurozone is experiencing its own market turbulence, perhaps it's time to reassess Central Europe as a high-risk real-estate investment. Unlike southern tier hot spots Greece and Spain, markets in Poland and the Czech Republic did not experience a total property bust.

In addition to attracting urban buyers (due to growing local middle class ambitions) both countries were able to take advantage of their non-euro status, via independent currency flexibility, and adjust prices.

Moreover, since local economic health drives housing prices, Poland's property market is in a much stronger position than say Bulgaria or Hungary. While all out investment pessimism towards Central Europe's property markets has abated, investors still need to be discerning when buying in the region. Like countries within the eurozone, it is important to distinguish that one size does not fit all.

When the Eastern Partnership (EP) was first unveiled in May 2008, Poland (along with co-partner Sweden) was lauded for taking the lead on enhanced relations with the EU's eastern periphery. Its aim was to improve political, economic and security relations between the six "strategically important" post-Soviet states and the European Union.

Moreover, Poland's successful transition into a stable free market democracy, helped to serve as a model. Less than two years into its inception, has the Eastern Partnership lost its luster? Recent events suggest its future looks increasingly blurry.

Rising tensions between Poland and Belarus, over recent arrests and growing harassment of Belarus's Polish minority, highlight the challenges of engaging with Europe's last remaining dictatorship.

Specifically, it forces Poland to walk a complex political tightrope, on the one hand, standing firm in support of civil, minority and "human" rights, while on the other minimizing the risk that a tougher policy stance will further isolate Belarus or push it towards exclusive Russian influence.

Meanwhile, Ukraine's election of Viktor Yanukovich - the would-be spoiler of 2004's Orange Revolution - suggests that many were not only fed up with the political and economic deficits that have long plagued their country, but were increasingly skeptical of the EU's long-term vision for and commitment to Ukraine's economic development and international security cooperation.

The longevity and legitimacy of the Eastern Partnership, relies on Europe speaking and acting with a unified voice. The lack of a coordinated EU foreign policy towards Georgia and response to the August 2008 war with Russia, is a prime example of potential consequences.

While the EP may have been the brainchild of two mid-size EU powers, it requires the muscle of larger member states like Germany and others to ensure its success. This is critical, especially as individual EU members have increasingly shaped bilateral relations with Russia and other post-Soviet states along individual geopolitical and energy security needs. The EU needs to stop sending mixed messages.

Otherwise competing political and economic fault lines will no doubt rip the Eastern Partnership apart.