(Washington) The United States are increasing their warnings about the possibility of an imminent invasion of Ukraine by Russia but, faced with the emergence of criticism of their credibility, they are now trying to justify this alarmism, without necessarily rendering public the evidence that could support their accusations.
Posted yesterday at 6:33 p.m.
“It’s not alarmism, it’s just the facts,” defended the head of American diplomacy Antony Blinken at a press conference on Monday.
Washington began in the fall to sound the alarm on an extraordinary Russian military deployment on the Ukrainian border, accusing President Vladimir Putin of considering a major attack.
In recent days, Joe Biden’s government has leaked what US intelligence considers to be the current state of the threat: According to its findings, Russia already has 110,000 troops on Ukraine’s borders, nearly 70% of the 150,000 troops needed for a full-scale invasion, which could be deployed by mid-February.
The principals interested in this threat have however curtly relativized it. “Do not trust apocalyptic forecasts”, reacted Sunday the head of the Ukrainian diplomacy Dmytro Kouleba.
Small giveaway? The White House said last week that it would no longer call a potential invasion “imminent.”
Especially since the Europeans had also expressed their annoyance at the end of January.
“I don’t think there is anything new that could increase the feeling of fear of an immediate attack”, explained the head of European diplomacy Josep Borrel, calling to “avoid” “alarmist reactions “.
Monday, alongside Antony Blinken in Washington, however, he seemed more in tune with the Americans.
“140,000 soldiers massed at the border, they are not there to have tea! exclaimed Josep Borrell, saying that Europe was going through its “most dangerous moment” since the end of the Cold War.
“The problem with American credibility right now is that they’ve been talking for three months about an imminent invasion,” said Nina Khrushcheva, a professor of international relations at New York University’s New School.
For her, “American intelligence is not only not always perfect, but it is also often tailor-made for a political purpose”.
She points to Saddam Hussein’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, cited as the reason for attacking Iraq and overthrowing its leader in 2003 without ever being found, but also, more recently, the inability of the CIA to predict the fall rapid response by the Afghan government in favor of the American withdrawal.
Embarrassment
An exchange at the State Department’s daily conference on Thursday illustrated a certain embarrassment of the American government.
Washington had just claimed to have evidence that Moscow is planning to film a fake Ukrainian attack on Russia in order to use it as a pretext to invade Ukraine.
Long pressed with questions about this evidence, the spokesman for American diplomacy Ned Price kicked into touch each time, limiting himself to explaining that this information came from American intelligence and that the simple decision to “declassify” it should be considered. as a token of “trust”.
“If you doubt the credibility of the American government, the British government or other governments, and prefer to believe the information of the Russians…”, he ended up getting carried away, in a tense exchange which aroused many reactions.
For Nina Khrushcheva, “of course, nothing that emanates from intelligence can be shared”: “It is quite possible that the Russians are preparing a false flag operation or a campaign of propaganda, disinformation. »
“By crying wolf too often”, she warns, however, “that does not mean that the wolf does not come, but we must be careful” not to make the American plea “less credible”.
Faced with this beginning of controversy, the American government is working to explain itself – without providing more elements.
“The best antidote to disinformation” from the Russians, “is information, and that’s what we have tried to provide,” Antony Blinken said on Monday.
His spokesperson also tried to smooth things over.
“I will certainly never be able to give you the proof that you claim,” admitted Ned Price. “We are trying to find a complex balance” between saying too much or not enough, he summed up, explaining that while “unveiling Moscow’s efforts”, Washington does not want to “jeopardize” its “sources” and its “methods”, and therefore its “ability to continue to collect this kind of information”.