For all the consternation and moaning in much of the European press regarding the selection of Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy, and British EU Trade Commissioner Catherine Ashton, for respectively as the President of the European Council and High Representative of the Union for Common Foreign and Security policy, you would think the European project is going to fall apart. It baffles me.

I don’t know how any could have thought a high-profile figure like Tony Blair would be a natural fit for the role. Indeed, an already well-known political figure would have overshadowed the office itself, and created too high of expectations vis-a-vis the actual powers of the two newly created posts. The European Union has best operated (and at times been heavily criticized for) when driven by leaders who have tirelessly worked to integrate the disparate economies of Europe, contribute to social change, push for the removal of barriers both physical and economic, and promote general peace on the Continent—all of which largely occurred under the radar.

Yes, the EU is somewhat of a Byzantine organization. But it’s better for the future of the EU that the new posts created by the Lisbon Treaty are not occupied by someone like Blair, who would likely not operate well with the rather complicated voting rules of European institutions. Boring is better for Europe.

The Obama Administration has scuttled plans for radar and ballistic missile interceptor sites in the Czezch Republic and Poland, respectively. This is a most welcome change in policy and will go ways to repairing America’s relationship with Russia. But what does it mean for the Czech Republic and Poland?

It is only twenty years ago that both these countries were under the influence of the Soviet Union, and members of the Warsaw Pact. After the fall of the Iron Curtain, both were very interested in expanding and deepening ties with Western Europe and the United States. Poland and the Czech Republic joined NATO in 1999, and both countries joined the European Union in 2004. Furthermore, both contributed to the occupation of Iraq (and Poland was one of only four countries to contribute ground troops to the invasion).

The missile defense plan was a sign of closer relations between the two recently-democratic states and the United States, but one that greatly antagonized Russia. In the end, President Barack Obama decided rapprochement with Russia was of greater concern than missile defense installations based in these two countries. (It should be noted the administration is planning a missile defense system based in the eastern Mediterranean, or Turkey.)

Some commentators have argued this is an abandonment of our Eastern European allies, or a ’surrender’ to Russia. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said in a statement, “Scrapping the U.S. missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic does little more then empower Russia and Iran at the expense of our allies in Europe.”

This is absurd. As a NATO member, America is already committed to the defense of both Poland and the Czech Republic. Regardless, both countries have already been successfully integrated into the Western framework. Despite the overwhelming problems America faces in bringing more countries into the liberal, democratic order, it’s important to point out the success stories, too. Both are liberal, capitalist democracies with numerous peaceful transfers of power. Poland and the Czech Republic, then, are examples of successful transitional states. The predominant challenges facing the two countries are no longer military in nature, no matter how fearful their governments may be of a Russian resurgence.