If you're going to use the 40's as an example of how Poland cannot/won't be defended or supported by it's allies today (because of course the geopolitical scene is unchanged in 70 years..) then I think i'm done here.
Those who ignore the lessons of history, Mr Toad, are doomed to repeat them.
All I was saying was that American hegemony on the world scene combined with Polish membership of NATO was an important source of security for Poland and that Poles like Barton shouldn't want that position compromised.
But...but... you do realize that many take the opposite PoV? If you go around poking a stick in a bush where a tiger may be lurking, it might come out and maul you...It's not OK for the USSR to stick missiles in Cuba, but it is OK for the USA to stick missiles in Poland? You're having a laugh, aincha?
Your source also doesn't support this notion of an American 'withdrawal' from Poland, just inconsistency in the shaping of these Missile plans, so that's a bit of fail there on your part.
Read my lips: keep your missiles in the USA and play with them, polish them, repaint them or do whatever you like with them within your own territory, but kindly do not place them in other countries which then makes those countries targets for attack.
Lastly, missile systems and their counter measures operate over huge distances, so if you didn't see the utility of having bases in Poland to defend from threats to Europe and America that originate in Asia (i.e, Russia/Iran) then you're in no position to criticise others Geography skills MVGame
They were not placed there to defend Yurp: they were placed there to deflect attacks onto Yurp, in place of the good' ole boys. Or are you in denial MVGame?