The Baltic Alliance

How we achieve real security

The events of the past few years, particularly since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, have been deeply concerning. Initially, I didn't pay much attention to that part of the world. Even as tensions rose, I assumed that President Putin might seize control of the Donbas region and stop there. However, the invasion and the ensuing conflict quickly drew my attention, prompting a deeper investigation into the war and, by extension, the preparedness of Western nations for a major armed conflict. The more I explored, the more I realized the uncomfortable reality: the West—particularly Europe—is alarmingly unprepared to defend itself against a major, determined adversary.

The United States is critical to ensuring security in Europe, especially within NATO. The alliance is strong with U.S. involvement, but without it, NATO risks becoming in reality a paper tiger. Remarks from former President Donald Trump questioning the U.S. commitment to defending European NATO allies, combined with growing sentiment in the U.S. to shift focus toward Asia, raise legitimate concerns. These factors, along with Hungary’s recent statement that it would not resist a Russian invasion to avoid bloodshed, cast doubt on NATO’s ability to act collectively in the face of a serious threat.

It’s increasingly hard to believe that the U.S. would risk its own security to defend Europe should Russia decide to invade, for instance, the Baltic states. Why would the U.S. risk nuclear conflict over cities like Riga or Vilnius? The global security environment has changed dramatically since the Cold War, and the alliances and security arrangements that once made sense no longer seem to align with today's realities. The interests of countries like the Baltic states and the United States, or even larger European powers like Germany and France, diverge significantly. As a result, those of us living in close proximity to Russia must recognize the need for self-reliance in defense. We cannot depend on NATO allies to sacrifice their soldiers for our security when it's not in their strategic interest. History is littered with broken alliances, and NATO could very well follow suit in the event of a significant conflict.

A Baltic Alliance

The countries of Scandinavia, the Baltics, Finland, Norway, Poland, and the Czech Republic—states that are geographically close to Russia and many of which border the Baltic Sea—share a common security concern: the threat posed by Russia. It stands to reason that these nations should unite in a defense alliance, a Baltic Alliance, understanding that if Russia attacks one of us, it’s only a matter of time before the rest are targeted. Putin, or his successor, would undoubtedly prefer to deal with us one by one. However, by coming together, we would command enough economic, demographic, and military strength to mount an effective defense.

Doesn’t show outlying territories like Svalbard and Greenland, and remember to discount Kalingrad/Königsberg

Such an alliance cannot merely be a symbolic agreement. It requires significant investment in defense industries, the procurement of military hardware, research and development, and, crucially, the integration of our armed forces. This would be a real defense alliance, not a paper one.

Germany’s exclusion from this proposed alliance is deliberate. Although it shares the Baltic Sea coastline, Germany’s cautious and hesitant approach to the Ukraine conflict, among other issues, demonstrates an incompatibility with the assertive and capable alliance we need. Effective deterrence comes not from rhetoric but from demonstrable capability and the willingness to act. Germany’s reluctance is not aligned with the urgency required in the face of a Russian threat. We need an alliance built on strength, not hesitation.

Countries like Romania and Bulgaria, which are also in close proximity to Russia, could potentially join such an alliance, further enhancing its strength. Ukraine, depending on the outcome of the current conflict, would also be a strong candidate for membership.

The Numbers

Military defense capabilities comes to a large extend down to numbers—troops, tanks, planes, ammunition, and the capacity to produce and transport these resources. A Baltic Alliance has the numbers needed to stand against Russian aggression. The combined population of the potential alliance states is approximately 85 million, and their collective GDP is around $3.4 trillion annually. If these nations were to allocate just 4% of GDP to defense, the annual defense budget would be approximately $137 billion, nearly equivalent to Russia’s projected military spending of $140 billion in 2024.

Population and GDP figures for Alliance countries. Also shows potential military budget

While the Alliance’s population is smaller than Russia’s (143 million), the difference is not insurmountable, and the Alliance would likely never out of soldiers during a prolonged conflict. Additionally, the Alliance states’ economies are far more efficient, allowing them to function with fewer people and less corruption compared to Russia. This advantage extends to the military, where logistical systems and automation would provide significant efficiency.

A Unified Military Structure

There is a scene in Game of Thrones where King Robert talks to Cersei, he asks her: “Which is the bigger number, 5 or 1?”, Cersei answers “5”, to which Robert replies: “One. One army, a real army, united behind one leader with one purpose” while holding up a clenched fist.

To be truly effective, the Baltic Alliance must function as a single, cohesive military force, not as a collection of nine separate armies with different doctrines, equipment, and logistics systems. A unified military would allow for seamless interchangeability of units, reduced logistical complexity, and more efficient procurement processes. Standardization and integration, while challenging, are critical to achieving this goal. The war in Ukraine has demonstrated that in a war of attrition, mass and efficiency are decisive. The minor differences between individual weapon systems—often chosen for political reasons—do not change the outcome of battles but do increase costs and complicate logistics.

The U.S. military, with its standardized systems, is a prime example of how this can be done successfully. If the U.S. can maintain one of the world’s most effective military forces with standardized equipment, there is no reason the Baltic Alliance cannot do the same.

Building a Defense Industry

For the Baltic Alliance to be truly independent and capable of long-term defense, it must develop a robust military-industrial complex that can produce essential weapon systems at scale. Several defense companies already exist in Alliance countries, including BAE and SAAB in Sweden, Kongsberg in Norway, and PGZ in Poland. However, these production capacities need to be expanded, and new developments must be undertaken to produce critical systems currently not available within the Alliance, such as advanced rocket artillery or ballistic missile defense.

While the Alliance may still need to procure certain niche systems—such as the F-35 fighter jets from the U.S.—it is crucial that reliance on foreign systems does not compromise our defense capability. If, for example, the U.S. decided that a political compromise with Russia was more important than our security, we cannot afford to be left vulnerable due to a dependence on U.S.-supplied weapons.

Nuclear Deterrence

Regrettably, nuclear weapons will likely be necessary if the Baltic Alliance is to safeguard its citizens and territory. The Ukraine war has shown that nuclear blackmail is highly effective. Russia’s constant nuclear threats have clearly influenced Western public opinion and slowed aid to Ukraine. Furthermore, hybrid attacks, such as cyberattacks and sabotage, seem to target Europe rather than the U.S., showing that Russia fears U.S. retaliation more than it does European powers, even nuclear-armed ones like France and the U.K.

Relying on nuclear guarantees from other nations is insufficient. The harsh reality is that no country, not even the U.S., would risk nuclear war with Russia over, for example, Baltic territory. We must be prepared to defend ourselves, even if it means developing our own nuclear deterrent.

Conclusion

In summary, the Baltic Alliance must be more than a symbolic defense pact. It must be a fully integrated military force with its own industrial base, standardized equipment, and, if necessary, nuclear capabilities. Only then will we be able to ensure our security in the face of an aggressive and determined adversary like Russia.