"All the Baltic countries have been steadfast in support of allies of the United States since they gained their independence following the fall of the Soviet Union and have continued to be supportive in the ongoing war on terror"
About this Quote
Loyalty is the quiet currency of small states, and Shimkus is cashing it in. By stacking phrases like "steadfast", "since they gained their independence", and "continued to be supportive", he builds a moral ledger: the Baltics have paid their dues, on time, for decades. The point isnt really Baltic foreign policy; its American obligation. The sentence is designed to make reciprocity feel less like strategy and more like simple decency.
The context matters. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania joined NATO in 2004 with fresh memories of Soviet occupation and a clear-eyed fear of Russia. Their support for the U.S. after 9/11 (troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, intelligence cooperation, political alignment) wasnt just ideological solidarity; it was a down payment on collective defense. Shimkus frames that bargain as continuity: independence -> alliance -> "war on terror", a tidy narrative that converts messy post-Cold War geopolitics into a story of reliable friends.
The subtext is aimed at a domestic audience tempted by fatigue and retrenchment. Invoking the "war on terror" signals bipartisan-era patriotism and tries to anchor Baltic commitments in an emotionally loaded American project, not in the less popular work of deterring Russia. Its also a subtle rebuke to any U.S. wavering on NATO: if these countries stood with us when it was costly and distant, what does it say about America if we dont stand with them when the threat is at their doorstep?
The context matters. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania joined NATO in 2004 with fresh memories of Soviet occupation and a clear-eyed fear of Russia. Their support for the U.S. after 9/11 (troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, intelligence cooperation, political alignment) wasnt just ideological solidarity; it was a down payment on collective defense. Shimkus frames that bargain as continuity: independence -> alliance -> "war on terror", a tidy narrative that converts messy post-Cold War geopolitics into a story of reliable friends.
The subtext is aimed at a domestic audience tempted by fatigue and retrenchment. Invoking the "war on terror" signals bipartisan-era patriotism and tries to anchor Baltic commitments in an emotionally loaded American project, not in the less popular work of deterring Russia. Its also a subtle rebuke to any U.S. wavering on NATO: if these countries stood with us when it was costly and distant, what does it say about America if we dont stand with them when the threat is at their doorstep?
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|
More Quotes by John
Add to List
