Do you think the US or France or Britain bear the responsibility for making sure Poland's internal political struggle doesn't get out of hand, that domestic stability is guaranteed?   Why is America responsible for making sure Poland doesn't end up being run by even nuttier nut jobs?  

Isn't the existence of the EU duplicating NATO's European responsibilities?  Why is America responsible for making sure Poland can sleep at night without fear of some perceived Russian threat?  And if you believe we are, why Poland?  Just Poland?  Where do our responsibilities end?  What determines who deserves our military help?  

To be clear, I think we all probably have some responsibility to come to the aid of countries being invaded AND who explicitly ask for our help.  But I don't see why we draw a line in the sand at the border of Russia.  Because Russia has a history of invading Poland?  Perhaps Poland will also need a missile defence system to protect them from Germany?  

Leaving Ukraine aside (it seems clear there is not popular support for admission to NATO there) why don't Poland's concerns and grievances apply equally to, say, Georgia?  Because Georgia has too many problems?  Maybe that's just because they don't have the reassurance against their former imperial masters thus helping to stabilize them politically, reassurance that NATO has provided for other "ex-colonies" of Russia.  No?

I agree that Russia's opposition to the enlargement of NATO is not reason in itself for us to oppose it.  But Russia's reasons for opposing it are valid.  They are no longer a threat to us in the way they were during the Cold War.  With the change in political climate and perceived threats, NATO can either dissolve or evolve in a way that responds to reality.  Which means acknowledging Russia's no longer the enemy and not behaving in a way that suggests otherwise.  Even the most pro-NATO person on earth has to admit that NATO's purpose is to respond to and prevent threats against its members, not go out of its way to create threats where there are none.  Which is what is going to happen.  We're going to poke (missile shields) and poke (enlargement) and poke Russia and then if Russia turns around and bites us, we'll respond, "See?  We told you they were still a threat."  Fortunately, the people running that country seem to be more reality-based than those running America or Poland, so at most we will get a little nip and not any bloodletting.  But we'll still spin it as "Rabid Russia attacks innocent X."

Chavez is rightwing?  

Am I the only person of the cold-hearted opinion that some of the "ex-colonies" of Russia seem to want it both ways: to demand their (completely deserved, I think) complete autonomy and independence, and to demand they need one nutcase to save them or they'll just perish either from another nutcase( possible Russian threat or their own internal turmoil)?  Of course, every sovereign nation relies on others for any number of things.  But countries just freed from servitude to one insane, scary empire pleading for aid (which doesn't come for free) from another insane, scary empire seems a little schizophrenic to me.  Out of one frying pan and into another...  

"This is nothing compared to how Putin rigged Eurovision."

Yep, no need to explain to me. (This parallels my point to EUropeans in France and further West about neoliberals not being Eurosceptic.)

think a sort of Polish Chavez or a bit worse, with the same attitude towards the EU, and in particular Germany, that Venezuela or Iran have towards the US, only a lot closer.

If I try to think of that, I see a posturing President that lobbies neighbours it can -- them being the Baltics and maybe Ukraine. However, on one hand, such a Poland would not have an oil wealth to dish out (nor military strength, which would be more to the point in the given context), limiting its influence on other countries. On the other hand, neither Iran nor Venezuela are connected in a strong political institution with the USA, so they are little help for me to imagine how such a Poland would act.

Here are my initial thoughts.

First of all, would NATO fall apart, I think the Polish elite (and population) would splinter into three camps:

1. exclusively Europhile, be it for idealist and pragmatic reasons (a minority, but would that not include even some CAP-receiving peasants?),
   
2. Europhiles who'd make Poland a staunch anti-defense-integration pole in the EU and who'd continue Atlanticism in bilateral form (this is what Polish elites already did on Iraq and missile defense), methinks likely the majority,
   
3. Atlanticist Eurosceptics.

But if the worst-case scenario of an autocratic and hostile right-wing Poland emerges,

• that will be first of all really bad for Poland (not to mention the Russian minorityx in the Baltics, AND the Baltic states if Russia feels freeer to respond, unless the US builds bases there too),
  
• the direct economic consequences would again be more serious for Poland (loss of subsidies as well as trade),
  
• Poland could well be dumped from the EU (or its government choose itself) for some gross violations of the acquis, say the re-introduction of the dealth penalty.