Moving tanks to Eastern Europe is not a message to Russia
As the United States considers putting heavy weapons in Eastern European countries for the first time since the Cold War, most analysts and journalists are calling it a move intended to send a message to Russia and its Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. This is partially correct, but it’s not the primary reason.
No, there’s no conspiracy theory here. Some are calling it the first steps towards joining forces with Western European powers and establishing a more centralized military front for the United Nations to have influence in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. This theory is completely incorrect and I don’t believe I need to explain why.
When a government moves troops or missiles into an area, the message is designed to provoke fear. If the United States wanted to send the message to Russia, that’s what they would have done. When you want to invoke confidence of the people, you send tanks and heavy weapons. That’s why this particular message was meant for the European countries who may be starting to fear the same type of fate the befell Crimea and that’s engulfing Ukraine.
This isn’t a show of strength. It’s a show of force. There’s a difference and it’s why this isn’t the first steps towards any nefarious goals of the United States nor is it meant to somehow intimidate Russia. As strange as it may sound, it’s a message of hope and support in the form of big guns on the side of those who fear Russia. There’s no need to read anything more provocative into it than that.
Here’s the news portion from WABE:
All of the countries where the equipment would be placed were once in the Soviet sphere of influence. Until now, the West has resisted any such move in deference to Russian sensitivities.
The proposal specifies enough heavy equipment to support about 150 soldiers in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, and enough for another 750 soldiers in Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and possibly Hungary, according to the Times.