OBSERVATIONS
At this particular point in this particular situation, it would be foolish for any US official of significant rank to risk further escalation by publicly accusing the Kremlin of ‘bluffing,’ regardless of what the official actually believes is happening.
Having said that, there are a number of reasons some analysts still believe the buildup could be a ‘strategic feint’ including, but not limited to, the fact it would be foolish for the Kremlin to provide Kiev the inordinate amount of time and intelligence necessary to organize an asymmetric defense—as the Russians have done in this case.
It would also be incredibly wasteful and counter-productive, in this case, for the Russian military to mount a thinly veiled deception. In order for a bluff to work, it must be believable—and one might also simply construe Secretary Austin’s comments this morning as a public statement that the US military is also going to act as if the buildup is sufficiently believable.
It may be more instructive, in this case, to pay attention to what the US Secretary of Defense did NOT say.
Secretary Austin did say “If [the Russians] were redeploying to garrison, we wouldn't be seeing the kinds of things in terms of, not only combat power, but also logistical support, medical support, combat aviation that we've seen in the region…We see a lot of tanks and armored vehicles there. We see a lot of artillery. We see rocket forces.”
So, while the SECDEF did say he saw a lot of things a serious invasion would need, he did NOT say if the US noticed the subtle absence of anything a serious invasion would need (as some analysts have suggested may be the case).
Of course, the subtle absence may not be intended to fool so much as to communicate Russia is able to hold Ukraine at risk again in the future—perhaps even the near future and with less obvious notice—if it is not able to extract sufficient concessions from the current escalation.
Secretary Austin also said the US would not “employ forces in Ukraine” and he said he would do his best to make sure the situation did not "spillover" into neighboring countries. He did NOT say why it might spillover into neighboring countries. Of course, he may be referring to an imminent refugee crisis or some other eventuality.
Though he also did NOT say the US would not (for example) support missile strikes against requisite fuel depots and supply lines, stage drone attacks on select military targets in Ukraine, up-arm/re-supply Ukrainian forces and/or facilitate other less conventional warfare strategies from nearby countries—all of which could result in varying degrees of ‘spillover.’
Secretary Austin did say Russia has “been very deliberate in terms of assembling the right kind of combat and combat support capabilities, in the border region, and so he has a number of options available to him there. And he could, he could attack in short order.”
Secretary Austin did NOT say Russian tanks WILL be rolling on Kiev in short order—though enabling western audiences to believe those images are “highly likely” serves:
1. US geo-economic interests in Europe by increasing the appetite for US LNG shipped from Texas versus Russian natural gas delivered via the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
2. Regional geopolitical interests by congealing the NATO alliance whose on-going reason for existence is less obvious in the absence of a pressing Russian threat.
3. Domestic political interests at both the White House (US) and 10 Downing Street (UK) where the US President and UK Prime Minister (respectively) are struggling politically.
Having said that, there are a number of reasons some analysts still believe the buildup could be a ‘strategic feint’ including, but not limited to, the fact it would be foolish for the Kremlin to provide Kiev the inordinate amount of time and intelligence necessary to organize an asymmetric defense—as the Russians have done in this case.
It would also be incredibly wasteful and counter-productive, in this case, for the Russian military to mount a thinly veiled deception. In order for a bluff to work, it must be believable—and one might also simply construe Secretary Austin’s comments this morning as a public statement that the US military is also going to act as if the buildup is sufficiently believable.
It may be more instructive, in this case, to pay attention to what the US Secretary of Defense did NOT say.
Secretary Austin did say “If [the Russians] were redeploying to garrison, we wouldn't be seeing the kinds of things in terms of, not only combat power, but also logistical support, medical support, combat aviation that we've seen in the region…We see a lot of tanks and armored vehicles there. We see a lot of artillery. We see rocket forces.”
So, while the SECDEF did say he saw a lot of things a serious invasion would need, he did NOT say if the US noticed the subtle absence of anything a serious invasion would need (as some analysts have suggested may be the case).
Of course, the subtle absence may not be intended to fool so much as to communicate Russia is able to hold Ukraine at risk again in the future—perhaps even the near future and with less obvious notice—if it is not able to extract sufficient concessions from the current escalation.
Secretary Austin also said the US would not “employ forces in Ukraine” and he said he would do his best to make sure the situation did not "spillover" into neighboring countries. He did NOT say why it might spillover into neighboring countries. Of course, he may be referring to an imminent refugee crisis or some other eventuality.
Though he also did NOT say the US would not (for example) support missile strikes against requisite fuel depots and supply lines, stage drone attacks on select military targets in Ukraine, up-arm/re-supply Ukrainian forces and/or facilitate other less conventional warfare strategies from nearby countries—all of which could result in varying degrees of ‘spillover.’
Secretary Austin did say Russia has “been very deliberate in terms of assembling the right kind of combat and combat support capabilities, in the border region, and so he has a number of options available to him there. And he could, he could attack in short order.”
Secretary Austin did NOT say Russian tanks WILL be rolling on Kiev in short order—though enabling western audiences to believe those images are “highly likely” serves:
1. US geo-economic interests in Europe by increasing the appetite for US LNG shipped from Texas versus Russian natural gas delivered via the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
2. Regional geopolitical interests by congealing the NATO alliance whose on-going reason for existence is less obvious in the absence of a pressing Russian threat.
3. Domestic political interests at both the White House (US) and 10 Downing Street (UK) where the US President and UK Prime Minister (respectively) are struggling politically.
OUTLOOK
Copyright © 2025