The Cost of Appeasement

What Would It Really Cost to Defend the Baltics?— Or what we pay if we try not to.

“Appeasement is cheaper — until it isn’t.”

In a world still digesting the fallout from Ukraine, it’s worth asking a question no Western leader wants to answer publicly:
What would it cost — economically and militarily — if Russia invaded Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania?
Not hypothetically. Not in a war game. But in reality.

Because unlike Ukraine, the Baltics are NATO members. And Article 5 isn’t just a treaty clause — it’s a tripwire.

And if Russia crosses it, the West has two choices:

1. Fight, risking full-scale war but defending the alliance’s credibility.

2. Appease, and watch 80 years of European security unravel in real time.

Neither is cheap. But the second might be suicidally affordable.

---

💥 Scenario: Russian Invasion of the Baltics

Let’s assume the nightmare:

• Russia launches a combined arms offensive into Estonia and Latvia.

• NATO’s forward posture delays but cannot stop rapid territorial gains.

• A decision must be made: go in hard — or go home and hope for the best.

RAND warned in 2016 that Russia could reach Riga and Tallinn in under 60 hours. That was before its military was bloodied, then hardened, in Ukraine. But it was also before NATO reinforced Poland and Eastern Europe post-2022.

---

💸 Option A: Defence by Deterrence

(Cost Before the Shooting Starts)

• Forward Basing: $20–30 billion/year to permanently station 4–5 brigade equivalents in the Baltics and Poland.

• Stockpile Replenishment: $50–100 billion for shells, missiles, spare parts — just to refill what’s been shipped to Ukraine.

• Air & Missile Defense: Add $50–80 billion across Europe for systems like Patriot, IRIS-T, and drones.

🎯 Total: ~$150–200 billion/year across NATO — or about 0.5–1% of total NATO GDP.

🧠 That’s deterrence. It’s not cheap — but it’s a bargain compared to what comes next.

---

🚨 Option B: Post-Invasion War Effort

(Cost After We Hesitate)

If NATO chooses to liberate the Baltics after a Russian occupation — or worse, dithers into a frozen conflict — the costs explode.

Here’s what it might take:

💣 Just matching Cold War tempo would mean 4–5% of GDP on defence — per country. That’s Cold War money, and it doesn’t include rebuilding the Baltics or responding to escalations in Moldova, Poland, or Finland.

---

📉 What Appeasement Actually Costs

If NATO refuses to act, or acts weakly — the “cost of appeasement” is not measured in defence budgets. It’s measured in:

• Market instability: Russian pressure spreads. Sweden, Finland, Poland, and Romania arm independently.

• Currency shock: Eurozone and dollar markets take hits from mass capital flight.

• Credibility collapse: Taiwan, South Korea, and others re-evaluate alliances.

• Global rearmament: Japan, Australia, India start rearming — but trust frays.

Imagine 1938 with nukes and TikTok.

---

📊 Historical Comparisons

---

🧾 GDP Reality Check

Let’s look at what 2 extra % of GDP really means:

• Germany (~$4.5T GDP): +$90B/year

• France (~$3.1T): +$60B/year

• UK (~$3.3T): +$65B/year

• U.S. (~$27T): +$540B/year

That’s not World War III levels — but it is a Cold War reboot, with matching budgets.

---

🚫 “Letting It Slide” Is Not Free

The idea that the West can afford to “lose” the Baltics is fantasy economics. Letting Russia absorb NATO territory would shatter the post-WWII security order. Global trade, alliance stability, and dollar dominance all depend on one thing:

🧱 The belief that borders are enforced.

Lose that belief, and you don’t just lose Latvia — you lose the system that built Silicon Valley, the EU, and 80 years of (relative) peace.

---

🐘 Final Thought: It’s Pay Now, or Pay in Rubles Later

The West doesn’t need to want war to prepare for it.

But not preparing guarantees either:

• A war that costs far more later, or

• A peace that collapses your economy anyway.

Appeasement looks cheap — until you have to buy back everything it lost.