The White House spokeswoman on Wednesday defended the Biden administration’s decision to deploy additional U.S. troops to eastern Europe as a response to Russian aggression and not a move that is intended to escalate tensions in the region.

What You Need To Know

  • The White House spokeswoman on Wednesday defended the Biden administration’s decision to deploy additional U.S. troops to eastern Europe as a response to Russian aggression

  • “There is one aggressor here. That aggressor is Russia,” said White House press secretary Jen Psaki

  • The purpose of the U.S. deployment, she explained, was to “reassure and defend” allies including NATO members

  • Others criticized the addition of U.S. forces in the region as escalatory and toothless

The Pentagon announced earlier in the day that 2,000 troops would deploy from the United States to Germany and Poland, while another 1,000 already located in Europe would move into Romania, which borders Ukraine.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki responded to concerns about whether the troop movements would be used by Russia as a reason to invade Ukraine.

“There is one aggressor here. That aggressor is Russia,” Psaki said. “They are the ones who have gathered tens of thousands of troops on the border. They are the ones who are threatening to invade a sovereign country.”

The purpose of the U.S. deployment, she explained, was to “reassure and defend” allies including NATO members, some of whom also announced additional troop movements on Wednesday.

At a cancer moonshot event on Wednesday, Biden said his decision to deploy troops has been "totally consistent" with what he told Russian President Vladimir Putin from the beginning.

"As long as he’s acting aggressively, we are going to make sure we reassure our NATO allies in Eastern Europe that we’re there and Article 5 is a sacred obligation," Biden added. 

Anatol Lieven, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, called the addition of American forces “empty posturing” in a statement.

“This move’s main value is that the U.S. could offer to withdraw these troops again as part of a diplomatic compromise with Russia, whereby Russia withdraws its forces from the Ukrainian border,” Lieven said.

And one long time former diplomat to the region was quick to warn against any escalation in eastern Europe.

“So much of what we’re seeing today … simply reflects, I would say, almost a willful determination not to learn from history,” said Jack Matlock, former U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, in a briefing with reporters.

“I think NATO expansion was a bad idea,” Matlock added, noting he believed the expansion contributed to tensions today.

Others, meanwhile, like Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, supported the president’s decision to “stand firmly against Putin’s efforts to divide” NATO.

President Joe Biden last week said that he would deploy U.S. troops to support NATO “if, in fact, [Putin] continued to buildup and/or was to move,” into Ukraine.

Psaki explained on Wednesday that though Russia had not moved into Ukraine, the president views the country’s continued buildup of troops near the border as enough reason to bolster forces.

“There’s no question that, if you look at President Putin's actions, they have been escalatory, not de-escalatory,” she said, later adding: “He could invade at any time. That’s true. We still don’t know that he’s made a decision.”