Bill Overview
Title: Baltic Defense and Deterrence Act
Description: This bill requires the Department of State to establish and implement an initiative to increase security and economic ties with the Baltic countries (i.e., Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania). The bill also requires the Department of Defense to establish and implement an initiative to deepen security cooperation with the Baltic countries.
Sponsors: Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL]
Target Audience
Population: People in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania
Estimated Size: 50000
- The Baltic countries are Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, with a combined population of approximately 6.5 million.
- The legislation aims to increase security and economic ties, implying that these populations will directly benefit from enhanced safety and economic opportunities.
- US security and economic partners, entities involved in defense and economic projects related to the Baltics will also be impacted indirectly.
- The ripple effects of increased security in the Baltic region may also impact neighboring countries in terms of regional stability and potential shifts in geopolitical dynamics.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily targets increased security and economic cooperation between the US and the Baltic countries, focusing on defense and diplomatic sectors.
- The immediate impact would likely be experienced by individuals in the military, diplomatic corps, defense contractors and associated industries, and economics with ties to the region.
- Given the significant budget allocated, we must consider both direct and ripple effects, whereas it's mainly directly benefiting those involved in the execution and support of the initiative.
- Indirect effects could impact broader geopolitical stability in Europe, potentially reducing tensions that might otherwise affect international markets or security concerns.
- Budget constraints limit the reach, focusing budget distribution on strategic value projects which may not drastically increase overall employment but enhance existing operations' efficiency.
Simulated Interviews
Diplomat (DC)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy will enhance our strategic alliances and ensure greater stability in a key region.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Defense Contractor (Virginia)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy opens up new business avenues for companies like ours in the cybersecurity domain.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Economist (California)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Strengthening economic ties will benefit both regions' economies, potentially leading to broader international cooperation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Army Major (North Carolina)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I expect increased joint exercises and cooperation to improve tactical readiness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired Military Officer (Texas)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could solidify our Baltic allies' positions, reducing potential for conflict in Eastern Europe.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
International Relations Professor (New York)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies enhancing diplomacy contribute to global stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cybersecurity Analyst (Illinois)
Age: 33 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- An enhanced focus on the Baltic region presents cyber collaboration opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Small Business Owner (Florida)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased economic activity could lead to more business opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Manufacturing Executive (Michigan)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy may foster better economic linkages opening new markets for us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Policy Analyst (Washington)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation will likely strengthen NATO ties in a turbulent region.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $230000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $260000000)
Year 2: $235000000 (Low: $205000000, High: $265000000)
Year 3: $240000000 (Low: $210000000, High: $270000000)
Year 5: $250000000 (Low: $220000000, High: $280000000)
Year 10: $260000000 (Low: $230000000, High: $290000000)
Year 100: $300000000 (Low: $270000000, High: $330000000)
Key Considerations
- Geopolitical considerations in the Baltic region, particularly related to Russian influence.
- NATO's existing commitments and how this initiative aligns with broader US defense strategy.
- Potential economic benefits from stronger trade ties may not fully offset the costs immediately but could yield long-term gains.