Talinn tightrope

The case for the White House adding Tallinn as a first leg of Barack Obama's trip to the NATO summit in Wales is easily made. The most acute reason is the crisis over Ukraine, which understandably has rattled NATO's Eastern European members generally, and Estonia - which not only borders Russia, but also has a sizeable Russian-speaking minority - in particular.

What's more, from Washington's perspective the small country also serves as a role model for most other European NATO allies, as it spends the proscribed 2 percent of GDP on defense - only the UK and Greece do as well. And finally, Estonia under the leadership of President Toomas Hendrik Ilves has proved to be a staunch US ally that punches above its weight, especially in the area of cybersecurity.

Against that backdrop, Obama's first goal was to calm nerves in Estonia and the other Baltic countries and to assure NATO's Eastern European members that Washington will stand by their side in the face of an increasingly aggressive Russia. Estonians and others therefore expected a strong presidential reaffirmation of NATO's Article 5 that an attack on one country is an attack on the alliance and triggers a unified response. Obama fulfilled their wish, at least rhetorically, calling Washington's security pledge to Estonia "unbreakable, unwavering and eternal" and promising: "You lost your independence once before. With NATO you will never lose it again."

Mixed message

But if anyone knows that action speaks louder than words, it's NATO's Eastern European members who are pressing for tangible signs of NATO's response to the changed security environment in their neighborhood. And they got it - sort of. Obama promised additional air force units for Eastern Europe. And he promised to push NATO to extend the increased NATO presence as long as necessary and to bolster the alliance's rapid reaction force. But he shied away from endorsing demands for permanent bases in the area or calls to revoke the NATO-Russia Agreement.

Impressing his first audience - NATO's Eastern European members - of Washington's conviction to confront a resurgent Russia if necessary was easy compared to driving home that same message to Obama's second audience - the Kremlin. Obama tried a carrot and stick approach, warning Russia that its aggression in Ukraine was counterproductive while at the same time stating that the West welcomed a strong Russia if it reversed course and left Ukraine. Carefully calibrating his remarks vis-à-vis Russia, he avoided raising the temperature by using inflammatory language. But again Obama did not rock the boat as many Eastern European leaders had hoped.

Merkel style

The third constituency that closely eyed Obama's remarks resides in the US. Conservative lawmakers like John McCain have long accused Obama of dithering in the Ukraine crisis and not being forceful enough vis-à-vis Putin. That is a view, however, that is not shared by the American public that does not consider the Russia-Ukraine conflict as a pressing threat for the US. In a new poll, Americans regard Islamic terrorism, Iran's nuclear program and even North Korea's nuclear program as more dangerous to the US than events in Eastern Europe. That's why a more direct confrontation with Russia or a significantly revved up US involvement in that region is simply not in the cards.

For his US audience - and in fact for all his listeners - Obama's Tallinn visit ultimately offered a little bit of everything: affirmation that Washington's weight still matters in the world, tough words for Moscow, but no new substantial military commitment that could get the US entangled in what Obama views as a regional struggle. In other words: Obama did not go out on a limb. Viewed from a German perspective, Obama's nuanced remarks in Tallinn - minus some melodramatic moments - could have been delivered by German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

His many critics will surely call his Tallinn remarks tepid and accuse Obama of hedging his bets. But given the volatility of the situation in Ukraine, the complexity of NATO decision-making and a sober assessment of America's domestic sentiment and global challenges, this may have been exactly what the doctor ordered.