Former members of the George W. Bush administration and critics of President Barack Obama have endorsed this narrative. It also contends that Obama’s foreign policy advisers are amateurs and beyond their depth. Among other things, they moved too quickly in withdrawing support for expanding NATO to Georgia and Ukraine, and in addition to their scrapping Bush’s anti-missile defense system in Europe, they have engaged in risky arms control agreements with Russia. And there is more: Obama has not staunchly resisted Kremlin claims that Russia enjoys a “special sphere of influence” throughout the former Soviet space. After the 2008 Georgian-Russian War, all of these accusations caused alarm in Central and Eastern Europe.

Lucas, the author of a book that pillories the Kremlin leadership—The New Cold War—has been a resolute supporter of the Baltic countries in their confrontations with Kremlin hard-liners. This year for his commitment to Lithuania’s security he was awarded the “National Defense System Medal.” His commentary on the charges leveled at Obama then are of special interest to anyone living in the East Baltic Sea region.

In commenting upon the claim that Obama has betrayed the Baltics, Lucas has observed. This “is a potent and poignant narrative. It is popular among Republican critics of the administration. If it were true, it would be a scandalous story. But in reality, (in) almost every element (it) is untrue.”

To provide perspective, one must acknowledge that Obama inherited a poisoned legacy from Bush including two wars and the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. It is especially noteworthy that the invasion of Iraq, and subsequent abuses associated with it, represented a monumental savaging of the very Western values that Bush and his associates had celebrated. “It was not just that western values and credibility were shredded, first by the contempt for international law, second by the failure to find the weapons of mass destruction, thirdly by the incredible incompetence of the American occupying forces, and finally by the scandalous abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.” Worse yet, all of these things were done “under the guise of a common cause: freedom.” Consequently, when members of the Bush administration correctly cited human rights violations in Chechnya, the Kremlin leaders responded that the Americans were engaging in double standards. “The final ignominy came during the Georgia war, when America’s impotence was starkly exposed. It was neither able to restrain Mr. Saakashvili, nor to deter Russia.” Lucas might have added: Had there been no Iraq War, Russia probably would not have risked one with Georgia.

Lucas concludes, when one considers the legacy that it inherited from Bush: “…it is actually rather surprising how much the Obama administration has achieved. The single most important decision has been the president’s personal decision to push through full NATO contingency planning for the Baltic states.” Furthermore, Obama has pledged to employ U.S. power to protect all three of them. “This year sees no fewer than four American military exercises in the Baltic states, involving thousands of troops, dozens of aircraft and ships, and intense involvement of everything from electronic intelligence to special forces.” Consequently, “Russian military planners are in no doubt now that America has serious plans and capabilities to defend its weakest allies.”

Lucas finds the Obama administration guilty of some mistakes in the former communist space in Europe, including: its failure to forewarn the Poles and Czechs that he was scrapping Bush’s anti-missile system; personnel limitations among U.S. diplomats in the area; and not inviting Azerbaijan’s leader to the recent Nuclear Security Summit, but when considering the charges against Obama—well, he finds them bogus.

In this connection, a few words should be said about Georgia since its summer war with Russia is responsible for fears about Russian aggression throughout much of the former Soviet space. It is significant that many Georgians take issue with the anti-Obama-pro-Bush narrative. According to Giga Zedania at IliaUniversity in Tbilisi, “One of the problems of the Bush administration was that it had no leverage over Russia, because there was no cooperation” between Washington and Moscow. “When these links are established that mutually benefit Russia and the United States, Russia will have more incentive to think twice before it does something like it did in 2008.” Or listen to Irakli Alasania, Georgia’s former Ambassador to the UN. “I strongly believe that if the U.S.-Russian relationship expands and grows closer, it will only benefit Georgia.”

Furthermore, recent trips to Georgia by Vice-President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been applauded by the Georgia government; in particular, their pledge to protect the country against foreign aggression. In her visit to Georgia, Clinton demanded Moscow end its occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Because both President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin have clearly stated that they welcome close relations with Obama, such pledges take on more meaning than similar ones that were made by the Bush administration but never acted upon. Indeed, many Georgians recall that under the Bush administration there was lots of tough talk when it came to Washington’s protecting Georgia but no concrete actions when it clashed with Russia in the summer of 2008.

Finally, Obama’s critics chastise him for caving into Russian pressure when he scrapped Bush’s plans for an anti-missile system in the Czech Republic and Poland. Last year, this development prompted prominent statesmen from the region to express their fears that their countries would be harmed by Washington’s re-setting relations with Moscow. But these noble dignitaries, all of whom played a vital role in bringing their countries into the democratic camp, ignored some important facts:

As Bush indicated, his anti-missile program had nothing to do with Russia’s awesome nuclear-missile strike capability. Conversely, the same holds true for not deploying it.

During his race for the White House, Obama indicated that he saw no reason to deploy a missile defense system in Europe that did not work to address a threat that had not yet materialized—namely, an Iran nuclear arsenal.

As U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has indicated the new system championed by Obama is far more sophisticated than that which the Bush administration favored.

Consequently, Radek Sikorski, Poland’s Foreign Minister has indicated, he is quite happy with the Patriot anti-missile system that the Americans have begun to deploy in his country. Indeed, he has invited Russian observers to visit the project when it is completed. Such transparency is consistent with a re-set in relations between Russia and all members of the Western alliance.

Consequently, Lithuanians should welcome the Americans and Russians finding ways to address common security problems—assuming the Obama administration does not remain silent in face of actions from those hapless hard-liners in Moscow who remain mired in the cold war.

And one more thing: listen to Lucas’s message to all EU citizens. “So the grand narrative of betrayal by a cynical, weak and distracted superpower is phony. The real betrayal is different one: it is the betrayal of national and European interests by the politicians charged with promoting them. If Ukraine’s security is in trouble, it is not America’s fault, but Ukraine’s politicians. If Europe fails to gain American respect and attention, then it is because Europe’s leaders are weak, distracted and cynical.”

Perhaps Lucas is being too harsh here but no one can argue with the observation that as Washington’s influence in world affairs diminishes, Europe must help fill those spaces of instability left vacant by the Americans. But is Europe ready to re-set relations with a world in turmoil or will it choose to be a mere bystander?

Dick Krickus is professor emeritus at the University of Mary Washington and has held the H. L. Oppenheimer Chair for Warfighting Strategy at the U.S. Marine Corps University.

***In the fall, Dick Krickus will be serving as visiting professor of international affairs at Vytautas Magnus University.

The U.S. Department of Defence did not identify the detainees under the arrangements made with the Latvian government.

State Secretary of the Interior Ministry Ilze Pētersone said: “The former Guantanamo inmate had already arrived in Latvia. Latvian authorities will do everything in their power to integrate this person in society and make sure he does not pose a threat.”

The number of prisoners remaining at Guantanamo is 176. Two others were transferred last week to Algeria and Cape Verde

“The United States is grateful to the government of Latvia for its willingness to support U.S. efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility,” the Pentagon said.

After U.S. President Barack Obama decided to shut down the Guantanamo prison, other EU countries, including Germany, Spain, France, Ireland, Portugal and Hungary, have already admitted former prisoners of this military facility.

The Public Television informed that the President Grybauskaite has already decided not to host the detainees already back in October of 2009.  This decision was based on the grounds of alleged CIA secret prison in Lithuania.  She stated in a public statement that, ‘until the allegations of possible CIA prisons are suspended I will definitely not agree to hosting a prisoner’.  The USA had asked Lithuania to host two Guantanamo inmates.