[TrumpCard]

For defending the Baltics, I’m assuming a NATO force so the burden is not all on the US. And in an ideal world, a NATO force that includes the Finnish and Swedish navies in the Baltic Sea. And again notionally, in a world with a lot more military spending than NATO currently commits so that an armored division is not such a disproportionate commitment. Yes, there are issues with supply lines and defense in the event of a conflict, but the point of such a forward based force is to deter through mutually assured destruction. Considering Estonia is probably within artillery range of the outskirts of St. Petersburg, I’d be a lot more worried as Russia than as NATO in that scenario. Obviously, it requires an enormous commitment, but we did that and a heck of a lot more in the Cold War.

[TrumpCard]

For defending the Baltics, I’m assuming a NATO force so the burden is not all on the US. And in an ideal world, a NATO force that includes the Finnish and Swedish navies in the Baltic Sea. And again notionally, in a world with a lot more military spending than NATO currently commits so that an armored division is not such a disproportionate commitment. Yes, there are issues with supply lines and defense in the event of a conflict, but the point of such a forward based force is to deter through mutually assured destruction. Considering Estonia is probably within artillery range of the outskirts of St. Petersburg, I’d be a lot more worried as Russia than as NATO in that scenario. Obviously, it requires an enormous commitment, but we did that and a heck of a lot more in the Cold War.