Wednesday, the U.S. military paraded armed personnel carriers near the russia border as a means of deterring Russian aggression against the “vulnerable” border city of Narva, considered by many to be a potential target for the emboldened country.
The Washington Post reports:
The armored personnel carriers and other U.S. Army vehicles that rolled through the streets of Narva, a border city separated by a narrow frontier from Russia, were a dramatic reminder of the new military confrontation in Eastern Europe.
The soldiers from the U.S. Army’s Second Cavalry Regiment were taking part in a military parade to mark Estonia’s Independence Day. Narva is a vulnerable border city separated by a river from Russia. It has often been cited as a potential target for the Kremlin if it wanted to escalate its conflict with the West onto NATO territory.
Despite the strategic logic of the move, liberal commentary site Vox fears parading troops “just 900 feet from Russia’s border” might be “dangerously provocative” and cause us to “spiral into World War Three”:
On Wednesday, the US Army did something that seemed, and maybe was, dangerously provocative: it paraded soldiers and armored vehicles from the Second Cavalry Regiment in the Estonian town of Narva, just 900 feet from Russia’s border. […]
There is a logic to this sort of demonstration, which is surely meant to show Russia that the US is sincerely committed to the defense of Estonia, which is a member of NATO. In other words, it is meant to deter Russia from starting a Ukraine-style conflict in Estonia, which could plausibly spiral into World War Three. At the same time, such a demonstration is also dangerous, as it risks being misinterpreted by Moscow as an act of aggression and thus making war more likely.
Vox’s Max Fisher explains that the heart of the problem is the two nations’ differing standards for what types of acts they consider “triggers” for all-out war. What could be posturing from America’s perspective, might be a clear provocation of war from Russia’s.
Fisher goes on to argue that Putin “does not want World War Three,” so he would likely respond by carrying out “more indirect provocations of the sort he deployed at first in Ukraine.” In other words, Putin’s response to such “dangerously provocative” shows of military might by America will be to keep doing what he’s already been doing…
But no worries, as Vox points out, Obama is super-serious about his “commitment to deterrence”—so serious, in fact, that he traveled all the way to Estonia gave a speech about it.
—Courtesy of Truth Revolt