German and Polish Views of the Partnership for Peace
ResearchPublished 1995
ResearchPublished 1995
The Partnership for Peace (PfP) program can be seen as a lens for examining the larger security policy debates in Poland and Germany. This documented briefing traces the recent evolution of the security debate in each country, and notes how each has adapted PfP to suit its security policy needs. The research reveals that both Poland and Germany view PfP as the first step on a path to NATO membership for at least some of the partner countries, most of all Poland. Germany and Poland are making maximum use of the program to solidify their military cooperation, and both are hopeful that the United States takes a similar view toward PfP implementation. The main difference between the two countries relates to Russia: the Poles fear that Germany may bend its PfP policy of extensive cooperation with Poland to reach agreement on security issues with Russia. The briefing concludes with a discussion of the implications of the Polish and German interpretations of PfP for the United States and for the U.S. Army.
This publication is part of the RAND documented briefing series. Documented briefings are based on research presented to a client, sponsor, or targeted audience in briefing format. Additional information is provided in the documented briefing in the form of the written narration accompanying the briefing charts.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.