As the world has watched the war in Ukraine and seen the evidence of the threat posed by Russia, among those who sense that threat most acutely are the three Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. The fundamental facts of these states’ existence—their comparatively small size, proximity to Russia, and position on the northeastern flank of the NATO alliance—combine to make the threat both direct and real.
But what can the three countries do to deter Russian military aggression in the future—and defend against that aggression should it occur? Just as importantly, what can NATO do to contribute to both? That’s the subject of this episode of the MWI Podcast. In it, John Amble is joined by Mark Cancian. A retired Marine officer and senior adviser with the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, he is also the author of a recently published report, “Repel, Don’t Expel: Strengthening NATO’s Defense and Deterrence in the Baltic States.”
From the need to scale up NATO’s presence in the Baltics to the challenge of adapting force structure to make combined NATO forces ready and capable to the challenges the alliance has experienced in fulfilling commitments it has made at successive summits, the conversation addresses a range of subjects integral to the effort to enhance the defense of these three NATO allies.
You can listen to the full episode below, or find it on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Spotify, TuneIn, or your favorite podcast app. While you’re there, be sure to subscribe. And if you’re enjoying the MWI Podcast, please take a moment to give it a rating or leave a review.
Image credit: Spc. Charles Leitner, US Army
In order to strengthen NATO’s defense and deterrence in the Baltic States, one thing that NATO — and Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania — (much like much of the rest of the Western and/or modern world) CLEARLY must do, this is to develop effective means and methods to deal with — and defeat — those enemies/opponents/competitors (those both at home and abroad) who see such things as democracy, human rights and a unfettered market economy as not being in their best interests.
In this regard, can someone point me to NATO documents — and/or portions therein — which clearly and decisively address these such threats/these such matters?
Again, B.C brings out the 800lb elephant in the room. Why are the West’s economic and national interests not aligned with their national strategic interests? In a microscopic look at a much larger national, and western, problem we now have a sold-out inaugural walking tour showcasing San Francisco’s rapid and relentless decline. Now, the Baltic states don’t appear to have been bamboozled by the West’s infatuation with immigration/migration, but they have certainly followed the piped piper that has contributed to their collective massive emigration, reduced GDP and exceptionally low birth rates. The question is, are their economies industrial based or retirement based, or worse, like San Fransico’s and many other large western cities – shuttered? Though speaking in generalized terms above, it still boils down to, how do we fund this without a real economy? How do we man it without a population to man it with? How do we equip it without an industrial base?
So, for western leaders who want to understand where we are headed and why we have recruitment issues, get a ticket to the San Francisco walking tour – this is what your policy choices have delivered! Do the Chinese or Russians need to invade in the near term or sit back and watch the implosion in real time? Are our external enemies/opponents/competitors greater than those internal?
Should read: Why are the West’s economic and national interests not aligned with their national security interests?