The Pentagon has crafted a proposal to place tanks, fighting vehicles and other heavy armaments in various Eastern European locations to deter possible Russian aggression against former Soviet-bloc countries.

The proposal, confirmed by American military officials, still has to be approved by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and Barack Obama, so there’s no telling if the move will ever happen. But it indicates a growing concern in upper levels of American military about Russia’s intentions beyond its own borders and a willingness to actually do something about it. That alone should be at least a small comfort considering Obama’s failed foreign policy.

The amount of equipment proposed is only enough to supply 5,000 American troops, spread out across Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (about 150 troops per country), and Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and possibly Hungary (about 750 troops per country). This is a token force compared to what Russia could bring to bear in a first strike against any nations along its vast western border, but it does send a signal to the Russian military that the U.S. intends to meet its security commitments.

The U.S. government and its allies in NATO have tiptoed around Russia for years, beginning with a 1997 agreement where NATO pledged it would not seek “additional permanent stationing of substantial ground forces” in nations close to Russia. During NATO’s 2004 expansion to include the Baltic states, the U.S. and its European allies again made a big deal of not permanently stationing equipment or troops along the Russian frontier.

Western concerns over not upsetting Russia have done little but assure Russian President Vladimir Putin that we will avoid conflict at pretty much any cost. His adventures in Georgia, Crimea and Ukraine have been motivated in part by a lack of willpower in the West to do anything to stop him. In fact, Putin’s principle advantage is the inept and weak foreign policy attitudes of Obama and a sustained weariness of conflict in Western Europe.

To get an understanding of the political climate in Europe, it’s worth taking a close look at a recent Pew Research poll. In a survey of over 11,000 people in eight NATO countries, Pew found that while many blame Russia for the current Ukrainian crisis few are willing to do much about it beyond supplying aid. Even worse, some publics — including a large percentage of German — are not even interested in supporting NATO’s Article 5, which states that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all members.

This rejection of the core tenet of the NATO alliance is more prevalent in older member states. More recent additions to the organization like Poland and the Baltic states remember what it was like to suffer under Soviet repression. They’ve had Russian tanks in their streets, and they do not want them to return. They are also interested in maintaining closer military ties with the U.S. directly rather than relying on NATO as a whole for their common defense. They have witnessed the weakness that lies within the Western European core of the organization, the UK notwithstanding.

Obama has not made it easy to be a friend of the United States, though. One of his very first moves in office was to scrap a missile defense system meant to protect Eastern Europe from a ballistic attack from the Middle East. He claims it was unnecessary and needlessly provocative to the Russians. So he scrapped an attempt to protect our Eastern European allies in favor of the famous Russian “reset” which allowed that country to run roughshod through several former Soviet nations. Where Putin will stop, nobody knows.

Obama’s ineptitude on the world stage has been proven time and again through his empty promises to cage bad actors in Libya, Syria, Iran, North Korea and most significantly Russia itself. He makes bold statements and does nothing to back them up. When his bluff is called, he blames any of a long list of unassociated bogeymen for his own error.

Putin just last week told the Italian news service Corriere Della Sera, “I think that only an insane person and only in a dream can imagine that Russia would suddenly attack NATO.” But attacking NATO may not be his end game. He need only push against its borders to see just how much pressure can be applied before the West either throws up its hands or responds with force.

The Pentagon proposal, if adopted and set in motion, is the first signal in a long time that the West, or at least the U.S., is prepared to respond with force against Russia if a crisis should emerge. Russian defense official Gen. Yuri Yakubov stated that if the proposal becomes reality it “will be the most aggressive step by the Pentagon and NATO since the Cold War. Russia will have no option but to build up its forces and resources on the Western strategic front.”

Hopefully this won’t deter the White House, because Russia is likely to continue its armed forces buildup regardless. Although, considering the lack of understanding that Barack Obama has shown in foreign policy so far, it’s hard to believe he would come to his senses now.

Troops and armaments are only the first step in dealing with Russia. To counter the Great Bear, America needs to also offer more support to Ukraine and uphold the sanctions against Russia. Time will tell whether Obama sees it more important to strive for world security rather than keep appearances as a community organizer.