The New Year has brought a new round of finger pointing between Russia and Ukraine over who is responsible for the current interruption in gas supplies to the EU. Russia accuses Ukraine of not paying for gas delivered earlier, and more recently for siphoning off gas intended for delivery further west. Ukraine in turn claims that it has paid for all gas as agreed, and more over that the Russian side is in effect using gas as a political weapon.

Caught in the middle is the EU. Poland, at least in the current situation, has been able to avoid shortages of gas by relying on an alternative gas pipeline that runs through Belarus as opposed to Ukraine. Our neighbors to the south are not so fortunate. Member states such as Bulgaria and Romania rely on Russian gas imports through Ukraine for the majority of their heating needs.

The recent interruption in gas supplies hightlights the need for the EU to come up with a comprehensive energy policy, one that to date remains elusive. The Lisbon Treaty envisages the adoption of a common approach to energy development and conservation, as well as energy security, across the EU. But as recent events have illustrated such policy is only in theory. EU member states continue to pursue their own national agendas regarding energy, as evidenced by Germany's agreement with Russia to construct a gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea, which in effect would bypass Poland altogether. France, on the other hand, long ago embraced the use of nuclear energy to produce electricity. To date, France produces 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear power plants, while Poland has so far completely shunned the use of nuclear power.

All of this simply goes to show that contrary to what EU leaders may like to claim, the EU in effect has no comprehensive energy policy, at least not one that is free of outside influence. To a very large extent, EU energy policy is being set by our neigbors to the east. Not in Brussels.

-- Paul B. Fogo

Last week Poland and the United States reached agreement to place 10 interceptor missiles in Poland following nearly two years of negotiations. The timing of the agreement, following fast on the heals of the Russian incursion into Georgia, has many analysts questioning the underlying purpose of the missile shield.

The US administration has always maintained that the interceptors are defensive in nature, intended to block a potential attack from Iran and other “rogue” nations. And until last week so too had the Polish government, but recent pronouncements by President Kaczyński call into question these earlier claims. According to the Polish President, the missile defense treaty strengthens the US obligation to defend Poland in the event of an attack from presumably anywhere, not only based upon NATO membership, but also now in order to defend the missile interceptors themselves. 

The Russians have in turn charged that the missile defense shield is in fact intended to diminish its own nuclear deterrent. And most troubling have threatened to reposition some of their nuclear warheads to target Poland. 

Despite claims to the contrary, it would appear that at least for the Poles the Russian incursion into Georgia provided the missing motivation to conclude the drawn out negotiations with the US administration and sign the missile defense treaty. 

Only time will tell what will be the long term political impact of the missile defense shield on relations between Poland and Russia, not to mention between Russia and the EU as a whole. If the rhetoric on all sides doesn’t begin to tone down, we could very well find ourselves in a new arms race.

-- Paul B. Fogo