C1: Cyber
Baltic Business Quarterly ( BBQ), "Baltic Business Quarterly: Spring 2021 by German-Baltic
Chamber of Commerce - issuu", Spring 2021,
https://issuu.com/ahkbaltaktuell/docs/bbq_2021_spring_einseitig // JS
The Covid-19 pandemic has not only had an impact on business and the economy, but also
reshaped cyberspace. The increased use of digital technologies has become the "new normal"
in many organisations. This has created security blind spots for malicious persons who have also
set their sights on the Baltics. We used to focus more on protecting our own infrastructure and
building defensive walls within our organisation. The arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic changed
the way we work, and where we work from. Telecommuting and the rapid digitisation of
businesses have produced new threats," A. Filatovs said, noting the effect that COVID-19 has
had on cybersecurity risks. A consequence of the forced digitisation caused by the pandemic in
Latvia is that the number of cyberattacks on private devices at home (desktop computers,
routers, smart TV's etc.) had a particularly sharp increase in 2020. "Compared to the prepandemic levels, cyberattacks have risen 15 to 30 percent. We periodically also see attacks
against telecommuting tools, like VPN (Virtual Private Network) and RDP (Remote Desktop
Protocol), with an increase of some 209%6," A. Filatovs explained. He also pointed at the
European trend of attacks focusing more on
Cameron Mccord, Charged Affairs, 11-12-2018 ["Russia’s Baltic Cyber Campaign Leaves NATO
Endangered" https://chargedaffairs.org/russias-baltic-cyber-campaign-leaves-natoendangered/]Accessed6-30-2021 // JS
As a solution, NATO should take advantage of its pre-existing but underutilized training
institutions, accredited as “Centres of Excellence,” to promote cooperation among the Baltics.
These Centres can efficiently share NATO member-states’ best practices and lessons learned in
cyber-preparedness with Baltic leaders and specialists. This training can also motivate the
Baltics countries to work together, by emphasizing how little borders will do to contain an
attack’s market effects, when one targeted economy is strongly linked to its neighbors, as the
Baltics are. Estonia, with its exceptional first-hand experience of devastating cyber attack, has
the means and the strategic interest to help strengthen Latvian and Lithuanian cyber defenses.
The United States also has a role to play in assisting its Baltic allies in cyber defense. The most
effective means will not be through new, high-level NATO engagements, but rather through
proven, existing channels for targeted assistance like the State Partnership Program (SPP).
Started in 1993 as a mechanism for linking U.S. National Guard programs to former Soviet
Union countries, the SPP has transferred U.S. military and technological expertise to countries
around the world. Indeed, one of the more successful partnerships on cybersecurity has been
between Estonia and the Maryland National Guard. Partnerships with Latvia and Lithuania,
taking the Estonia one as a model, would benefit both the Baltics and the United States, since
the cyber tactics that Russia perfects in the Baltics are applied elsewhere, including, it is
suspected, in Russian sponsored cyber attacks of U.S. infrastructure as early as 2016. The SPP
allows the United States to gain insights from allies to help [and] grow collective cyber
defensive capabilities. The mechanisms to improve the Baltic region’s cyber vulnerability are
already in place among NATO member states, ready to be used.
Stephen Jewkes, Oleg Vukmanovic, Retuers, May 11 2017, https://www.reuters.com/article/usbaltics-cyber-insight/suspected-russia-backed-hackers-target-baltic-energy-networksidUSKBN1871W5 // JS
NATO and cyber security experts believe hackers are testing the Baltic energy networks for
weaknesses, becoming familiar with how they are controlled in order to be able to shut them
down at will.
Jeremy Straub, 8-16-2019, "A cyberattack could wreak destruction comparable to a nuclear
weapon," World from PRX, https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-08-16/cyberattack-could-wreakdestruction-comparable-nuclear-weapon // JS
a cyberattack with widespread impact, an intrusion in one area that spreads to others or a
combination of lots of smaller attacks, could cause significant damage, including mass injury
and death rivaling the death toll of a nuclear weapon.
C2: Econ
[Welschner ‘20] - Econ Bad Now
Alexander Welscher, No Publication, May 2020 ["Economy vs. Virus: Where are we heading in
the Baltic states?" https://eng.lsm.lv/article/features/commentary/economy-vs-virus-whereare-we-heading-in-the-baltic-states.a360260/] Accessed 7-19-2021 // JS
The economy in the Baltic States is heading for its worst year since the financial crisis 2008
[Defense News ‘17] - Mil spending high
Defense News 17, 8-8-2017, "Rising Tensions Boost Nordic, Baltic Spending,"
https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2015/06/27/rising-tensions-boost-nordic-balticspending/ // JS
HELSINKI — Deepening regional tensions caused by Russian military muscle flexing are
prompt[ed]ing Finland, Sweden and the Baltic states to boost defense spending despite stalled
economies. Closer defense collaboration between NATO and the non-aligned Finland and
Sweden has drawn sharp rebukes from Russia, which is growing increasingly concerned that
one or both may join the Western Alliance. Added tensions over Russia's military intervention in
Ukraine are propelling Finland and Sweden to dig ever deeper to find the capital they will need
to boost military spending within the framework of tighter national budgets and troublesome
public finance deficits. NATO-aligned Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania also are diverting funding
from other departments and public programs to invest more heavily in their militaries. The
proposed deployment by the United States of heavy weapons to the Baltic states in 2016,
including tanks, infantry vehicles and artillery, also is expected to heighten tensions while
Germany likely will deploy rotating infantry troops for the first time to Estonia in 2016.
Reinforcing military budgets and capabilities, despite the high cost, is the most effective
response to potentially scaled-up aggression by Russia in the wider Baltic region, said Juozas
Olekas, Lithuania's defense minister. The Baltic states had sought NATO and US troops and
prepositioned equipment since Russia annexed Crimea in March 2014. Lithuania wants NATO to
station a permanent battalion-size force and equipment in Lithuania "at the earliest possible
time," Olekas said. "This strong and credible allied deterrence, together with militarily
purposeful forces and the prepositioning of equipment, is critical to the security of the Baltic
region."
[Lockie ‘16] - Aff Assuades Econ
Alex Lockie 16, 5-12-2016, "How NATO should respond to Russian aggression in the Baltics,"
Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/nato-should-respond-to-russian-aggressionin-the-baltics-2016-5 // JS
Additionally, as the democracies involved in NATO do not run their media apparatuses,
cooperation between the private businesses that create the media and the public entities that
decide on policy must be increased. Furthermore, NATO states need to be free to act. In the
case that Russian forces are amassing on a member state's borders, that state cannot be asked
to wait for approval from all 28 members before acting. [However] Given the right framework,
a focused NATO would be a formidable force capable of deterring Russia and allowing the Baltic
states to focus on their own domestic development, instead of fearing conventional, or worse,
nuclear conflicts with a resurgent and aggressive Russia.
[Hudson ‘11] - Austerity Bad
Michael Hudson, Counterpunch, "The Baltic Tigers’ False Prophets of Austerity CounterPunch.org", December 6, 2011, https://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/06/the-baltictigers-false-prophets-of-austerity/ // JS
The extremely high social and demographic costs of such policies put the very future of
sustainable economic growth in the region into question. Investments in education,
infrastructure, and public services that are preconditions of the “high,” knowledge-based and
higher productivity-based economic development were slashed, while the brain drain
intensified. Although Prime Minister Kubilius was promoting his administration’s economic
development strategy based on knowledge and innovations, the very austerity measures
implemented by his government were relegating Lithuania to the “low road” of economic
development based on low standards in salaries and labor conditions.. consider that Lithuania
almost tripled its level of unemployment from 5.8 per cent in 2008 to 17.8 per cent in 2010.
Although by 2011 unemployment began to decline to 15.6 per cent, this happened not as much
because of creation of new jobs, but because of mass outmigration from Lithuania. Public
sector wages were cut by 20-30 per cent and pensions by 11 percent, which in combination
with growing unemployment led to dramatic increases in poverty. If in 2008 there were
420,000 or 12.7 percent of population living in poverty, by 2009 the poverty rate increased to
20.6 per cent
[Baltic Times ‘18] - Infra bad
The Baltic Times, 07-09-2018, "Lithuania hopes for ''military mobility'' investment into Rail
Baltica, roads," The Baltic Times,
https://www.baltictimes.com/lithuania_hopes_for___military_mobility___investment_into_rai
l_baltica__roads/ // JS
Lithuanian officials says they hope to get at least 430 million euros under constant prices
(without inflation taken into consideration) from the so-called military mobility fund. "Around
310 million euros will be needed to adapt road infrastructure, airports will need around 80
million euros and the state-run port[s] of Klaipeda will need around 40 million euros," Dalia
Paredniene, spokeswoman for the Ministry of Transport told BNS Lithuania.
[Heo ‘17] - Aff leads to investment
Heo, Uk & Ye, Min. (2017). U.S. Military Deployment and Host-Nation Economic Growth. Armed
Forces & Society. 45. 0095327X1773821. 10.1177/0095327X17738219.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320984127_US_Military_Deployment_and_HostNation_Economic_Growth // JS
Overall, there is a positive and statistically significant relationship between U.S. military
deployment and various aspects of the host state’s economic performance. We find strong
support for three of the four hypotheses, indicating that U.S. troop deployment has positive
effects on the economies of host nations. In terms of the effects of U.S. troop deployment on
investment, our empirical analysis supports our hypothesis that U.S. military deployment has a
positive effect on host country’s domestic and FDI. Again, the rationale for this hypothesis is
that meaningful size of U.S. troop deployment will improve the host country’s security, which
will provide an investment friendly environment. According to our analysis, each additional 100
U.S. troops deployed leads to approximately a US$21 million increase in total domestic and
foreign investment. Turning to the effects of control variables, the presence of a democratic
regime has a positive and statistically significant impact as expected. Investment is expected to
be higher in democracies than other types of government due to the better protection of
private property, the rule of law, and the presence of a market system. According to our
empirical analysis, a one point increase on the “polity score”(indicating greater democracy)
brings in approximately US$0.4 billion more domes-tic and FDI. However, the effects of interest
rates and the GDP growth rate of the previous year are statistically insignificant. While we
expected the positive effects of government spending on investment as government
expenditures are often made to improve economic infrastructure, the results showed that it
had a negative and significant effect on investment. Although this result is counterintuitive,
theoretically this kind of relationship between government expenditures and investment can
exist if government expenditures are partially financed through deficits. Perhaps, the
theoretical mechanism is that deficit financing for the government expenditures leaves less
money in the private sector, which likely raises interest rates. As a result,private investment
may decrease. For example, an increase in U.S. military spending(a large component of
government expenditures) through deficit financing resulted in redu
[Trautmann ‘20] - Infra good
Catherine Trautmann, 06-2020, "Fourth Work Plan of the European Coordinator," North Sea
Baltic, https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/default/files/4th_nsb_wp.pdf // JS
The impact analyses performed under the Growth and Jobs study allow capturing the direct
effects of the new infrastructure developments in the transport sector and the indirect effects
on supplying industries and the wider economic impacts induced by mechanisms such as higher
productivity diffusing to other economic agents and into future years at regional/national scale.
For the North Sea-Baltic Corridor, according to this study, the implementation of the whole EUwide core TEN-T (reference vs. baseline in 2030) will result, in the corridor Member States
during the period 2017 - 2030, in an increase of cumulated GDP by 0.8%, corresponding to
about € 527 billion, and in the generation of a total of 2.2 million additional man-years of jobs.
C3: Unifying NATO
Bruce Jones, June 14, 2021, “The Future of NATO in an Order Transformed,” Bookings Institute
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2021/06/14/the-future-of-nato-in-anorder-transformed/, //SJID
As the alliance contemplates the conclusion to its 20-year operation in Afghanistan, it confronts
serious questions about its roles and relevance from political camps on both sides of the
Atlantic. The starting point for the alliance must be to recognize that it leaves Afghanistan in a
world entirely transformed from when it entered. NATO started operations in Afghanistan at
the height of American unipolarity, at the peak of the Western dominance of the international
system. It leaves at a moment when the West is constrained internally and challenged
externally, including by authoritarian powers of growing capacity — and perhaps growing
coordination. To chart its future role in this world, NATO needs to start by addressing the core
question of its geographical scope. It should start in Europe. NATO was born as an instrument
to protect Europe and the democratic West from a threat from Moscow. Its first task in 2021
and beyond must be to protect Europe and the democratic West from a threat from Moscow.
That threat is nowhere near as severe as it was during the Cold War and it is of very different
character, but it is a threat nonetheless and a complex one, involving gray operations like the
Skripal attack, political interference, and nuclear saber-rattling. It would be the height of irony if
in seeking to respond to China or other new challenges, NATO failed to mount an adequate
response to Russia. Not all the instruments to respond to Russia are in NATO’s hands; many of
them reside with the European Union. But that is a bureaucratic and institutional distinction
that can be overcome; the broader point is that Europe working with the United States must
restore a sense of collective defense against Moscow’s efforts to weaken the West. NATO has a
vital role in that.
…
Last, but perhaps most importantly, NATO members will ultimately have to grapple with the
question of European strategic autonomy. Asked the other way around, they have to address
the issue of U.S. reliability. Here, it’s worth highlighting that NATO came through the Trump
experience far less scared than many other multilateral arrangements; the alliance has deep
support in the U.S. defense establishment and in Congress. Still, the issue looms over the
question of NATO’s future.
Michael Rubin, 08-20-21, “NATO Is Dead Man Walking After Afghanistan Debacle,” 1945,
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/08/nato-is-dead-man-walking-after-afghanistan-debacle/,
//SJID
Biden’s decades in the Senate shaped his mindset. He follows the public mood more than
leading it. He rightly gauges that Americans are tired of conflicts overseas and do not
understand the importance of holding the forces at bay which would overturn the liberal order
every American has enjoyed since the end of World War II. NATO may be an institution in the
West, but its core mission remains largely forgotten. There has been a generational change.
Most Congressional staff—and even some congressmen—have no real memory of the Cold
War. Many look at it as just another structure among many. Diplomats focus on the trees rather
than the forest. Debates about member contributions trump discussion of when and whether
to fight, especially as Russia turns to grey zone warfare, uses private security contractors, or
simply sends in Spetsnaz absent any identifying emblems. The Afghanistan withdrawal,
however, and the shamelessness with which Biden, like Trump before him, turns his back on
allies, should raise questions about whether America would really uphold its NATO
commitments, or whether some future president would simply try to spin his or her way out of
them. Certainly, the states of Eastern Europe should recognize that Biden, Secretary of State
Antony Blinken, and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan would likely craft statements about
the mistakes of NATO expansion and the need for Washington to focus on its core interests
further West. Pentagon officials and diplomats might contest any lessening of America’s
commitment with indignation, but the reality is NATO is a Dead Man Walking. It is shameful to
say, but if Russia were to move into the Baltics or Poland tomorrow, the White House would be
AWOL. Europe would be on its own.
John Rossomando, 8-26-2021, "Russia, Belarus plan massive anti-NATO military exercise in
wake of Afghan defeat," Center for Security Policy, https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/russiabelarus-plan-massive-anti-nato-military-exercise-in-wake-of-afghan-defeat/, //SJID
Vladimir Putin has emerged as a major beneficiary of President Joe Biden’s surrender in
Afghanistan and his backing off from sanctions against the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Russia and
Belarus have announced plans to conduct a joint military exercise from Sept. 10 to 16 called
Zapad 2021 that takes on added significance due to NATO’s humiliation in Afghanistan and the
lack of confidence in the alliance among its easternmost members. They say it will point out the
“futility” of NATO reinforcing Poland and the Baltics in the first major show of force since
Biden’s reckless withdrawal. Over 200,000 troops, 80 aircraft, 760 military vehicles, and 15
ships will be involved in the exercise, the Russian news site Gazeta.ru reported. “They want to
tell us that there is a projection of a military bloc for the Kaliningrad enclave so that we feel and
understand it. We are ready for these hints and made it clear to them. I believe that during the
Zapad-2021 exercise we will once again try to show our partners that there is no need to do
this, there is no need to bother the Russian bear,” Andrei Kartapolov, head of the Main
Military-Political Directorate of the Russian Armed Forces, told a Moscow radio station. Russia
and Belarus have held similar exercises in prior years, but this exercise takes on added
significance in the wake of Biden’s humiliating performance and leadership in Afghanistan.
Earlier this year the Polish military suffered a major defeat in a wargame that exposed its
vulnerability to attack by Russian forces in the adjacent Kaliningrad region, which exposed the
weakness of NATO’s eastern flank. Russia and Belarus are also in discussions to deploy Russia’s
S-400 surface-to-air missiles to Belarusian territory, which aims to deny NATO aircraft access to
the airspace over Poland and the Baltics. Biden’s hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan has
America’s most vulnerable NATO allies thinking about alternatives. It has visibly shaken their
confidence. This is particularly true of Poland and the Baltic States, which have felt threatened
by Russia since it invaded Crimea in 2014. Instead of projecting strength in the face of Russian
aggression, NATO now projects weakness, something that Putin will likely exploit. “This kind of
troop withdrawal caused chaos. Chaos causes additional suffering,” Artis Pabriks, Latvia’s
defense minister, told local radio last week according to The Financial Times. Such long-term
missions were unlikely in the future, he added: “This era is over. Unfortunately, the West, and
Europe in particular, are showing they are weaker globally.” Poles are nervous about the defeat
in Afghanistan and worry they will feel the consequences on their borders with the Russian
bear breathing down their necks. A post from an unidentified ordinary Pole that appeared on
the Polish news website Wirtualna Polska lashed out at Biden and NATO, saying “Shame on the
USA and NATO! Thousands of young people have died, and now they are running like rats from
a sinking ship.” Another poster warned that history would repeat itself and that Poland was on
its own. A leading Polish journalist warned that Russian provocations to undermine NATO
would likely increase. “… [T]he number of military provocations will increase, not only in the
airspace, but also in the Baltic Sea, where Russia is strengthening its navy. Moscow is also likely
to try to undermine the cohesion of the Alliance, or even launch a targeted attack on one of its
weak members, testing the reaction of others,” Grzegorz Janiszewski wrote in the Polish news
magazine Do Rzeczy. Biden has left our allies on NATO’s eastern flank feeling they are on their
own. The destruction of NATO’s credibility could make war more likely. Putin has used the Nord
Stream 2 as a wedge to divide NATO. The pipeline circumvents Ukraine and gives Russia
leverage over the West to pit it against Ukraine in the Russians’ favor and is widely considered
an aspect of gray-zone warfare. Biden’s decision to back down against Putin over the Nord
Stream 2 project particularly angered Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, who had
been a staunch supporter of Trump’s effort to sanction work on the pipeline. And Germany’s
heir apparent to Chancellor Angela Merkel, Armin Laschet, was blunt about the fallout from the
disorganized [said] withdrawal from Afghanistan. “This is the greatest debacle that NATO has
seen since its foundation, and it is an epochal change that we are facing,” Laschet said. Merkel
criticized the fact German troop deployments in Afghanistan were dependent on the U.S.
government. Biden’s Afghanistan catastrophe accomplished what Biden claimed would happen
if former President Donald Trump was re-elected. It has discredited NATO. Biden ran for
president saying he would work to strengthen the NATO alliance, in contrast with Trump. He
even ran an ad that accused the former president of being “dangerously incompetent” due to
his frosty relations with NATO leaders. “If we give Donald Trump four more years, we will have
a great deal of difficulty of ever being able to recover America’s standing in the world and our
capacity to bring nations together,” Biden said in the ad. The president claimed in a Democratic
debate in July 2019 that “the NATO alliance will fall apart” if Trump were re-elected. However,
Biden, a man who spent the Trump years crowing about his support for NATO and condemning
the former president’s skepticism of the alliance, has discredited the United States in the eyes
of members of the alliance. “I think that what has happened shows that Europe needs to
develop this famous ‘strategic autonomy’ in order to be ready to face challenges that affect us
eventually,” EU High Representative Josep Borrell of Spain said during an extraordinary
videoconference of EU Foreign Ministers, noting that the Afghanistan experience reminds
Europe that it needs to make other arrangements for its security. Biden is who he claimed
Trump would be. History shows that weakness and appeasement invites wars. Biden has given
Putin more in eight months as president than Trump gave in four years. In the late 1990s, Putin
is alleged to have said that the way to destroy NATO was from within. It seems that Biden is
giving Putin his wish.
Nicholas Burns, February 2019, "NATO at Seventy: An Alliance in Crisis," Belfer Center for
Science and International Affairs, https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/nato-seventyalliance-crisis, //SJID
The single greatest challenge NATO faces today is the critical need for reviving strong, reliable
American leadership. With American leadership, anything is possible within the Alliance; absent
American leadership, progress will be slow at best. At the most basic level the next American
president must reaffirm U.S. commitment to the Alliance, especially the Article 5 collective
defense pledge, in both words and deeds. Given the opportunity to do so within months of his
inauguration in May 2017, President Trump refused to honor the U.S. commitment to Article 5,
even while unveiling a memorial at the new NATO headquarters commemorating its historic
invocation after 9/11. Persistent disrespect toward some key democratic leaders and warmth
toward some autocrats, denigration of NATO and the EU and penchant for unpredictable
statements and decisions combine to erode European governmental and public confidence in
American leadership. Actions speak louder than words, but words still count. Effective
deterrence and defense—the essence of NATO—depend not only on capability, but also on
adversaries’ perception of allies’ collective political will. The U.S. demonstrates its commitment
to NATO with senior diplomatic and military leadership, troop deployments to Europe including
to the Baltics and Poland active participation in NATO exercises and prepositioning equipment
to ease rapid reinforcement. Especially under the leadership of Secretary of Defense James
Mattis, NATO made progress on readiness, mobility, cyber security and command structure
reforms. Fortunately, bipartisan congressional support is unwavering: Senate and House
resolutions in 2017 reaffirming U.S. commitment to the Alliance, the introduction of a Senate
bill preventing the President from leaving NATO without Senate approval in 2018 and 2019, the
passage of a House resolution in 2019 prohibiting the appropriation of funds to withdraw the
U.S. from NATO and steady funding increases for the European Deterrence Initiative. Polls show
that the American people, too, understand the value of NATO and support the Alliance,
including America’s Article 5 commitments. This public support for trans-Atlantic ties is deeply
rooted, as NATO allies represent six of the ten largest diaspora groups in America. The Trump
administration’s Secretaries of State and Defense have reassured allies of the U.S. commitment
to NATO at the annual ministerial-level meetings. All of these measures are necessary for
deterrence and defense, but not sufficient if the U.S. President casts doubt on America’s
commitment. Meeting the challenges outlined in this report begins with American leadership
and American leadership begins at the top. This report outlines a daunting array of challenges
facing NATO. The scale and scope of today’s challenges combine to mark dramatic change—a
strategic inflection point—unlike any moment in NATO history except 1989-1991. The end of
the Cold War, however, was a time of promise and optimism. In sharp contrast, today the trend
lines are negative. NATO faces a crisis, with severe challenges from both within and beyond.
The fundamental question now is whether the Alliance can adapt to contend with the dramatic
changes in the security environment and remain relevant. The need for action is urgent. Just
maintaining the status quo would spell failure. Renewing U.S. presidential leadership is a crucial
requirement. U.S. congressional support for protecting and extending NATO as a vital U.S.
national interest is key. Allies, too, must step up to provide the resources required, share in
Alliance leadership and commitment and sustain Alliance cohesion.
Barbara Kunz, November 2015, “Sweden’s NATO Workaround Swedish Security and defense
policy against the backdrop of Russian Revisionism,” IFRI Security Studies Center,
https://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fs64kunz_0.pdf, //SJID
In 1994, the then Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildit wrote a widely read article in Foreign
Affairs in which he argued that Russia’s relations with the Baltic States would be the true litmus
test for Russian foreign policy. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have since become both EU and
NATO members without decisive interference from Moscow. Yet, two decades on, a new “Baltic
litmus test” has emerged: NATO’s credibility and thus future are very much dependent on its
willingness and ability to defend its Baltic allies. Much more than during Cold War times, NATO
access to the Baltic Sea has therefore become of crucial relevance. Sweden, due to its
geographical location and the strategic advantages it represents, is a potential key factor in
defending the Baltic “peninsula”, which, as some claim, has become “the new West Berlin”.
However, NATO access to Swedish territory, quite apart from Stockholm’s support in defending
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, is not self-evident. Sweden, officially non-aligned, stands outside
of the alliance.
Chris Miller [Director in the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Eurasia Program. He is also
Assistant Professor of International History at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts
University], 1-5-2016, "Why the Baltics?," Foreign Policy Research Institute,
https://www.fpri.org/article/2016/01/why-baltics/, //SJID
Why the Baltics? Of the European Union’s half a billion residents, scarcely more than 1% live in
one of the Baltic countries. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are tiny countries in terms of their
landmass and their population. Yet they punch far above their weight. From energy policy to egovernment, from geopolitics to economic policy, the Baltic countries are playing an outsized
role in Europe’s future. If the Baltics are known for anything today, it is for their precarious
geopolitical position. Located on the eastern shores of the Baltic Sea, these countries are on the
frontlines of the struggle between Russia and the West for influence in Europe’s borderlands.
The Baltics are nearly surrounded by Russia and its ally Belarus, save only for a short border
that Lithuania shares with Poland. Since the invasion of Ukraine, security has been at the top of
the Baltics’ to-do list. As members of NATO and the EU, the Baltics are protected by treaty
commitments with the United States and European powers. Yet they have been taking steps to
bolster their defense, spending more on their own militaries and encouraging NATO allies to
station troops and supplies on their territory.
Hans Binnendijk 19, 3-19-2019, "5 consequences of a life without NATO," Defense News,
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/03/19/5-consequences-of-a-lifewithout-nato/, //SJID
The most catastrophic impact of NATO’s retirement would be the risk of Russian aggression and
miscalculation. Without a clear commitment to defend allied territory backed up by an
American nuclear deterrent , President Vladimir Putin will certainly see opportunities to seize
land he believes is Russian. He has already done this in Georgia and Ukraine. Had they not
joined NATO, the Baltic states would probably already be occupied by Russian troops. Certainly
Putin would also see an opportunity to seize more of Ukraine without the “shadow” of NATO to
protect it. History teaches us that major wars start when aggressive leaders miscalculate.
German leader Adolf Hitler attacked Poland in 1939, believing that after then-British Prime
Minister Neville Chamberlain’s Munich Agreement, England would be unlikely to respond.
North Korea attacked South Korea in 1950 after the United States appeared to remove Seoul
from its defensive perimeter. Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, believing
the United States had signaled that it would not respond. In each case, miscalculation led to
larger conflict. Secondly, NATO’s retirement would also decrease American military reach, its
political influence and its economic advantage. American bases throughout Europe not only
provide for the defense of Europe — they bring the U.S. a continent closer to trouble spots that
threaten vital American interests. Fighting the Islamic State group, clearly an American interest,
would have been markedly more difficult without permanent U.S. bases in Europe and without
the American-built coalition that included every NATO nation. Without NATO, the mutual
security interests that underpin both U.S. bases and coalition operations would be undermined.
This extends to the economic realm. U.S. annual trade in goods and services with Europe
exceeds $1 trillion, and U.S. total direct investment in Europe nears $3 trillion. These economic
ties enhance U.S. prosperity and provide American jobs, but they require the degree of security
now provided by NATO to endure. NATO’s retirement would thirdly exacerbate divisions within
Europe. NATO’s glue not only holds European militaries together — it provides the principal
forum to discuss and coordinate security issues. The European Union is unlikely to substitute
for NATO in this respect because it has no military structure, few capabilities and no
superpower leadership to bring divergent views together. Germany and France already seek a
plan B should NATO collapse, but without the United Kingdom in the European Union, an allEuropean approach is likely to fail. The added insecurity of NATO’s collapse would also amplify
current populist movements in Europe. The consequence could be renationalization of
European militaries, a system that brought conflict to the 19th and early 20th centuries. The
fourth consequence of life without NATO would be global. American bilateral alliances in Asia
would each be shaken to their core should NATO fail. America’s defense commitments there
would become worthless. With China determined to claim a dominant position in Asia, the
collapse of NATO would cause America’s Asian partners to seek accommodation with China,
much as the Philippines is in the process of doing. Trump’s decision to abandon the economic
Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement has already given China new advantages in the region.
Without credible American security commitments, there would be little to stop China from
controlling the South China Sea and probably occupying Taiwan as well. Add to this equation
the new footholds that China is building in central Asia, Africa and Europe: Abandoning NATO
would help assure China’s competitive success. The final impact of NATO’s retirement would be
the near collapse of what has been called the “liberal international order.” This order consists
of treaties, alliances, agreements, institutions and modes of behavior mostly created by the
United States in an effort to safeguard democracies. This order has kept relative peace in the
trans-Atlantic space for seven decades. The Trump administration has begun to unravel
elements of this order in the naive notion that they undercut American sovereignty. The entire
European project is built on the edifice of this order. NATO is its principal keystone. Collapsing
this edifice would undercut the multiple structures that have brought seven decades of peace
and prosperity.
Affirm.