More U.S. "snub" to the Poles

Unlike NRC-Handelsblad commentator Juurd Eijsvoogel the other day, the Economist does not believe Washington acted deliberately when it sent a low-level delegation to the World War II commemorations two weeks ago. In its current issue it says the U.S. "botched" this thing. The magazine does believe U.S. - (East)European ties are less close, but there's no talk of an American plan to "encourage" countries such as Poland to develop a more stable relationship with Russia (other than the administration's desire for a "reset" in its own ties with Moscow). Most of this is about Russia: the U.S. (and many other NATO countries) would like to have a more businesslike relationship with Don Putin, one in which Moscow may be willing at times to help advance Western interests in places such as the Persian Gulf or the Korean peninsula. Poland (and also the Baltic states, for instance) want NATO to prepare itself to resist--militarily, if necessary--Russian efforts to regain a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. You most certainly won't get the former if you do a lot of the latter, but when you're NATO you're also supposed to be an alliance that works for all of its members. Those members, in turn, should of course try to keep a cool head, even when they're next door to a place like Putin's Russia. So what else is new? Discussion, divisions even, in the NATO alliance? These always get worked out one way or another, don't they?