The United States provides Estonia with various forms of assistance, but military aid remains the most significant. Last year, the U.S. Congress approved $228 million in security aid for the Baltic states. Estonia received just under $50 million of that sum, but the money did not simply land in the country's bank account.

"Generally, the U.S. does not provide direct cash payments. Instead, it supplies equipment. There is also considerable confusion surrounding the figures, as the way the U.S. calculates the total amount of aid differs from the methods used by other countries. The aid package includes all costs associated with administering, delivering and securing the assistance," explained Jonatan Vseviov, secretary general of the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

"If we look at the congressional allocation, absolutely everything is included: salaries, fuel expenses, procurement — everything necessary for maintaining these forces," said Kusti Salm, former Ministry of Defense undersecretary.

Salm believes that even more important than congressional aid is the U.S. military presence in Europe, which he describes as the backbone of defense in the region.

"When we talk about NATO as an alliance, all military command structures across the armed forces — land, air and naval — are ensured by the United States," Salm noted.

"Moreover, the U.S. excels in often-overlooked capabilities such as satellites, Starlink, command and control, intelligence, ground surveillance and reconnaissance, thanks to its extensive space assets," security expert Alexandr Burilkov pointed out.

However, U.S. priorities are changing, driven in part by the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.

"The U.S. is running low on key munitions, particularly long-range air defense missiles. This is one reason why Washington is accelerating its shift away from Europe — because it lacks the capacity to sufficiently equip its forces in the Indo-Pacific region, where countering China has become an increasing concern," Burilkov explained.

"In the U.S., there is also a regular process of reassessing the global deployment of its armed forces. Every new president, including Donald Trump, will likely initiate this review. Changes could follow as a result," Vseviov said.

The U.S. has not yet made any definitive decisions and any implementation would take time. Salm believes that Europe would struggle to manage without U.S. support, particularly when it comes to strategic command in a large-scale conflict. The U.S. has control over everything from training to the suppression of enemy air defenses.

"The U.S. has pre-positioned a vast amount of equipment in Europe, meaning that any rapid response or troop deployment is heavily dependent on American resources. While different scenarios could be considered, if that equipment were to be removed, conducting a war on the European continent would become significantly more challenging in terms of timing," Salm explained.

If the U.S. were to withdraw its presence, European armed forces would need to expand by 300,000 personnel, according to calculations by the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel. Additionally, annual defense spending would have to increase by at least €250 billion. Burilkov believes that some gaps could be filled immediately — for example, by increasing artillery shell production.

Overall, there are positive signs in the defense industry, but production levels have not yet reached a point where Europe can both support Ukraine and rearm itself.

"Does this mean that we shouldn't even try? Absolutely not. We already have a strong space industry. We also have our own aviation industry. Ultimately, European aircraft primarily need to focus on defending European airspace, which is a mandate we are capable of fulfilling — especially as new fighter jet programs across Europe near completion," Burilkov said.

However, political will has always been a challenge in Europe. According to Vseviov, it remains to be seen whether European leaders truly understand the need for significant increases in defense spending.

"Europe must be able to stand on its own two feet and take greater responsibility for its security than it has in the past. This is also the best way to ensure that the United States continues to see us as a serious partner and remains engaged with us," he said.

The future remains uncertain, but what is clear is that any cracks, doubts or uncertainties among allies weaken deterrence. Russia, in particular, would watch such developments with great satisfaction.

"This increases the security threat for us and raises the historical likelihood of miscalculation, which means that we must sharpen our own defense readiness. There is no other solution. At times, we must adopt a form of nihilistic confidence that we can handle things ourselves," Salm stated.

However, Europeans may not be the only ones who stand to lose if U.S. military aid or presence diminishes.

"For me, the biggest question is how this would serve the national interests of the United States. With a reduced military presence comes a decline in overall influence, leverage and deterrence capabilities worldwide. In the end, the U.S. stands to lose just as much on the global stage as it might hope to gain financially or in other ways," Salm concluded.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!