"THERE IS NERVOUSNESS IN OUR CAPITALS,"

On 15 July, the Polish newspaper Wyborcza published "An open letter to the Obama administration from Central and Eastern Europe" - a collective letter from political leaders of Central and Eastern Europe to the President of the United States. The 22 politicians, including seven former presidents - from Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Romania and Poland (2) - criticized the US president, saying that his administration has relaxed its attention to Central and Eastern Europe.

The letter from the former presidents was a natural reaction by Eastern European politicians and intellectuals to the new geopolitical realities of the modern world, the most important of which are the weakening of the global role of the United States, the strengthening of Russia and, as a consequence, the "resetting" of traditional relations within the triangles "United States - Europe - Russia" and "United States - Eastern Europe - Western Europe", which actually began before the "resetting" of US-Russian relations. "Twenty years after the end of the Cold War, we see that the countries of Central and Eastern Europe no longer lie at the heart of American foreign policy," said the signatories to the letter. "While the new Obama administration sets foreign policy priorities, our region is becoming a part of the world about which the Americans are not concerned. In fact, sometimes we have the impression that many US officials have concluded that the problems of our region have been resolved once and for all, and that now you can put a 'tick' against it and move on to address other, more pressing, strategic issues." 

Indeed, with the arrival of the Barack Obama administration and the onset of the world economic crisis, which hit the United States severely, Washington began to assess its capacity for global dominance more soberly and, consequently, took a more pragmatic approach to relations with the countries of Eastern Europe, whose role in the structure of its foreign policy priorities has been reduced.

Under George Bush, Eastern Europe occupied an important position in Washington's list of geopolitical priorities. First, it contained the ambitions of the European grandees (France, Germany) which, in recent years, have conducted a more independent policy in the world at large. Secondly, it guaranteed that the development of EU foreign policy would go in the direction required by Washington. It is known that the leaders of Eastern European countries fully supported the European and global initiatives of the United States, including the invasion of Iraq, they were the main advocates of NATO and EU enlargement to the east, backed Turkey's accession to the EU and still urge Brussels to admit Georgia and Ukraine to these institutions.

And, finally, located between Western Europe and Russia, Eastern Europe has served as a strategic barrier, designed to contain excessive rapprochement between the two parts of the continent, which Washington regards as a threat to its geopolitical interests. To some extent, Washington has even supported the strict policies of the leaders of New Europe (Poland and the Baltic countries) in relation to Russia, seeing them as a factor destabilizing relations between Old Europe and Russia, not allowing them to form a common position in relation to the United States on any particular issue.

 The position of the Eastern European countries allowed them to derive maximum benefit for themselves in terms of political support, investment and security guarantees from the United States.

However, the global financial crisis and the ensuing "resetting" between the USA and Russia have made their own adjustments to the distribution of forces in the global and European arenas, diminishing the strategic importance of Eastern European countries to Washington. Washington now needs Moscow's assistance in addressing the issue of Iran's nuclear programme and the nuclear problems of the Korean peninsula, as well as support in Afghanistan, the Middle East and the South Caucasus and in dealing with many other global (e.g. the containment of China) and regional issues, both political and economic.

 Regarding Russia, it has not slackened the pace of its foreign policy offensive, claiming to take a more meaningful role in solving global, European and regional issues. Its strong economic potential and readiness to defend its interests to the end, has aroused serious concern among the writers of the letter and the political elites behind them. It is no accident that the topic of Russia is its central focus. 

According to the letter, "Russia is returning to the role of a state seeking to change the status quo and is trying to pursue a 19th century agenda with 21st century tactics and methods. On a global level, and on most issues, Russia acts as a power which supports the status quo. But at a regional level, and in relation to our nations, it is increasingly seeking to change the status quo." The authors of the letter state that they welcome the "resetting" of US-Russian relations, but warned the USA that "creeping intimidation and lobbying on the part of Russia would lead, over the course of time, to the actual neutralization of the region". Russia is mentioned in this open letter four more times - every time in connection with fundamental concerns in Eastern Europe.

 First, they express their dismay at the fact that NATO remains on the sidelines while "Russia has violated the fundamental principles of the Helsinki agreements, the Charter of Paris and the territorial integrity of a member country of NATO's Partnership for Peace and Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council - all in the name of protecting its sphere of influence on its borders".

Second, they call on NATO to reassure all of its members by supporting the proposal for diverse planning and pre-positioning of troops, weapons and ammunition as reinforcements in Central and Eastern Europe in the event of a crisis between NATO and Russia.

 In doing so, they also offer to review the work of the NATO - Russia Council and return to the practice by which NATO member countries are engaged in dialogue with Moscow from an agreed position. "When it comes to Russia, our experience suggests that a strong and principled policy towards Moscow will not only enhance the security of the West but will, in the end, cause Moscow to take a more accommodating position," note the authors of the letter.

And third, in the opinion of the former Eastern European leaders, the Alliance should not allow Russia's groundless opposition to be a factor in deciding the fate of the anti-missile shield. "Complete abandonment of the programme or the inclusion of Russia in this process, without prior consultation with Poland or the Czech Republic, could weaken confidence in the United States throughout the region", they warn. 

And finally, stressing that "European dependence on Russian energy supplies is also a cause for concern regarding the cohesion of the alliance" and that "a threat to energy supplies could have an immediate impact on the political sovereignty of our nations", the writers suggest making the issue a "trans-Atlantic priority". In their view, energy security must become an integral part of US-European strategic cooperation. Notably, the former leaders of the of Central and Eastern European countries call not only for stronger and more coordinated lobbying within Europe for the diversification of energy sources, suppliers and transit routes. They also note the need "to lobby in favour of rigid legal verification of Russia's abuse of its dominant position and cartel power on the European market" and, at the same time, they stress that American political support for these processes must play a key role.

Forecasting the prospects for the development of relations between the United States and Eastern Europe in the context of the issues raised in this letter, we would note the following. In general, the USA today is more than ever interested in good, effective relations with Russia. However, we believe that this process will not be at the expense of fundamental issues on the US-Eastern Europe agenda. Analysis of the results of the visits of several Baltic leaders to the United States, as well as the recent official visit by US Vice-President Joe Biden to Kiev, shows that the Eastern European countries have no serious cause for concern. Regardless of how dynamically US-Russian cooperation develops, the geopolitical functions of Eastern European countries in the USA's Eurasian strategy cannot change overnight. In any case, the role of these countries in containing the global and European ambitions of Paris and Berlin, as well as their position as a barrier between Western Europe and Russia, will continue to be, we believe, relevant to those who make decisions in Washington.

Washington, of course, will continue "resetting" its relations with Moscow and seeking a mutually beneficial compromise with Russia in addressing its priority tasks. But, as Joe Biden said in Kiev, the process will not come about at the expense of ties with other countries. This statement should be seen as a signal, not only to Ukraine, but to the whole of Eastern Europe.

Moreover, the Eastern European countries themselves can benefit from rapprochement between the United States and Russia. For example, a successful solution to the problem of NATO transit to Afghanistan, through Russia, has been a very profitable project for some of the Baltic countries, especially Latvia. Its ports and railways are now handling NATO cargo and making a profit from its transit. In other words, the "resetting" may cause nervousness, but hardly serious concern, for the future of trans-Atlantic relations.