“The general hysteria is a favorable background for discussing Russian demands”
US President Joe Biden plans to consider the possibility of deploying several thousand of his troops in the Baltic countries and Eastern Europe by the end of the week. This was reported by The New York Times. Why is this being done, and even in the context of the negotiations that have begun with Russia on security guarantees? MK asked a political scientist to answer this question.
Photo: en.wikipedia.org”Biden is abandoning the policy of restraint on the Ukrainian issue and is considering sending US troops to Eastern Europe and the Baltics,” the author of the article writes in the NYT. According to him, senior Pentagon officials presented Biden with several options for action in the event of “Russian aggression against Ukraine.” One of them is the deployment of an American military contingent of up to 5,000 people in the Baltic States and Eastern Europe.
Earlier, the American president has already stated that, if necessary, the United States is ready to increase its military presence in Romania and Poland. The head of Romania, Klaus Iohannis, supported this decision.
All these statements take place against the backdrop of supplies of ammunition and lethal weapons from the United States to Ukraine. On his Twitter page, Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksiy Reznikov said that Kiev had received more than 80 tons of weapons from the United States as military aid. “And this is not the end,” the minister noted.
Russian political scientist, TV and radio host Dmitry Kulikov spoke about the military significance of such steps by the United States:
– In my opinion, the military significance of such actions on the part of the United States, in fact, is not high. All these actions are aimed more at whipping up the atmosphere and creating as many informational reasons for hysteria as possible, especially around Ukraine. The Americans, on the other hand, believe that this is the most favorable background for discussing the demands that Russia has presented to the United States and NATO. And there are two “tricky” pluses in this that the political American mind sees. On the one hand, the more terrible the hysteria, the more relieved will be some decisions that Washington may have to make in the matter of Russia's demands. On the other hand, it is a demonstration of “strength”, even more likely the creation of a phantom of strength and the loudest possible cry: “How strong we are and how seriously we can resist Russia.” Both directions of this action are, first of all, imitative and image character for the United States.
From my point of view, the fundamental military significance here is not great, but this could theoretically be followed by some other actions in relation to the same Ukraine. Moreover, for America, this may result in the fact that negotiations with Russia will not continue. Because, let me remind you, we demanded not to deploy foreign troops on the territory of such states as Bulgaria, Romania and others that joined NATO after 1997. To which the United States, it turns out, defiantly declares: “We will place additional places there right now.” In principle, everything that happens can lead to the end of the negotiation process.
– It's hard to say for sure. The American position is ambivalent. They really need to somehow agree with Russia. Well, how to agree – more precisely, to build relations there, so that they order something, and Russia quickly fulfills it. And they would call it “an agreement.” But it is clear that this will not happen. Therefore, the United States is in such a suspended situation: against the backdrop of everything that is happening, they also need an agreement with Russia, or at least a long process of negotiations, indicating that there is some kind of truce between us. Further, they could manipulate this process of negotiations, try to somehow deceive us, speculate on this process in relation to China, and so on. This is what they want the most. Run another fictitious process called “Negotiations with the Russians.” But I think that such a scenario will not suit us, and if our demands are not accepted, then I consider the probability that fictitious and demonstrative negotiations will continue very low.