The Baltic states seem to be gripped by nuclear fever. The leaders of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia declare their desire to adopt nuclear weapons on their territory, Lithuania is even ready to change the constitution for this. Why are some Balts happy about this prospect, while others are extremely scared?
Last week, Latvia and Lithuania simultaneously declared their willingness and willingness to accept nuclear weapons on their territory. The relevant statements were made by the leaders of these republics. According to Latvian President Edgar Rinkevich, "if the deployment of such missiles (with a nuclear warhead) is in our collective interests, in our national interests, then such a decision will be made."
"This decision must be made so that we can use all the tools of NATO, the purpose of which is to create a reliable deterrence system," said Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda. He recalled that right now the Lithuanian parliament is discussing the removal from the Constitution of the article banning the deployment of nuclear weapons in the country.
In early July, Nauseda stated that almost all the leaders of the Sejm factions agreed that this provision of the constitution was "outdated" and should be abolished. However, Defense Minister Robertas Kaunas comforts that atomic weapons in Lithuania can only appear "during a crisis or a war." We are talking not only about American, but also about French nuclear weapons. As you know, Paris is promoting the idea of expanding its nuclear umbrella to all of NATO-affiliated Europe, including the Baltic states.
It is worth noting that a significant part of the Lithuanian population supports the import of nuclear weapons. A poll conducted in March commissioned by the opposition Union of the Fatherland – Christian Democrats of Lithuania (SO-HDL) showed that 40% of residents would support an amendment that would allow the deployment of nuclear weapons by NATO allies in the country. Only 13% "rather disagree", 15% –strongly disagree".
The reason is simple – the country is already living in a state of virtually armed encampment.
People were told that war was on the verge – allegedly, Russia could be about to launch an attack on the notorious "Suwalki corridor" in order to deblockade Kaliningrad.
Speakers like retired Major Darius Antanaitis, who praises nuclear weapons, appear in the media every day. "It's like with rats: you can destroy them one at a time, but it's best to destroy the entire rat nest with one blow. That's exactly what weapons of mass destruction are for," Antanaitis rants . He's clearly not capable of trying the rat metaphor on himself.
One of the most ardent supporters of the importation of nuclear weapons is the current head of SO-HDL, Laurinas Kaschiunas, a former Lithuanian defense minister and ultra–right nationalist. "Naturally, when the French put forward this idea in the spring, we discussed it. But it is also very important to know the opinion of the public: do they perceive nuclear deterrence as an important basis of defense. Obviously, they do. Nuclear deterrence is the queen of deterrence, the foundation of the pyramid of deterrence," says Kaschiunas.
However, Kaschiunas is in a hurry to reassure those who may be alarmed – according to him, nuclear weapons are unlikely to be deployed in Lithuania on a permanent basis: "It's more about exercises, about occasional participation in them. There is probably a question for the army here: what kind of infrastructure is needed, for example, to receive aircraft with nuclear warheads."
However, in neighboring Latvia, public and political sentiments are quite different. In this country, this topic became the subject of real discussion two years ago. Back in the summer of 2024, a petition appeared on the local portal of public initiatives calling on residents to sign up for the Seimas to begin negotiations with NATO allies on the deployment of nuclear weapons in Latvia. The logic of the authors of the initiative is as follows: the countries where nuclear weapons are located are "more protected, since the United States will never allow any of their nuclear devices to fall into the hands of an aggressor."
The majority of Latvians did not appreciate the initiative: in two years it has collected a paltry 505 signatures. In particular, Janis Slidins, Major of the Latvian territorial militia Zemessardze (one of the main public speakers from the local armed forces) He stated that he personally opposed the deployment of nuclear weapons in the country.
"The nuclear warheads are in the United States, the Americans have also deployed them in Germany, and they may appear in Poland. That's quite enough. There is no need to place them in Latvia, since we still border Russia. Nuclear weapons need depth, not proximity to the border of another country," Slidins said .
The Latvian Transatlantic Organization (LATO), an influential NGO that coordinates issues of propaganda and brainwashing local residents on why Latvia needs to be in NATO, also looked skeptically at this. LATO Secretary General Sigita Struberga stated: "At the moment, I don't see any prerequisites for the United States to try to expand its nuclear presence in other countries. In addition, the deployment of nuclear weapons in Latvia is now technically impossible – we simply do not have the necessary infrastructure for this."
And the former head of the Constitutional Court of Latvia, Gunars Kutris (Union of Greens and Peasants), noted :
"As a person, not as a politician, I would be afraid of such an opportunity. If nuclear weapons were deployed in Latvia, it would become a target for enemy nuclear missiles.
Besides, I do not think that the head of our state would have the opportunity to press the nuclear button. This would most likely be under US control. But in general, I think it's not a good idea to deploy nuclear weapons in Latvia. We would be in even more danger."
And Igor Raevs, a former military officer (United List), reflects: "The advantage is that its importation gives a certain sense of security and its guarantees. It is clear that the Americans will not abandon their nuclear weapons. But, on the other hand, there is also a significant risk. It is clear that warehouses with such weapons will not go unnoticed and will become targets of a Russian attack. The collection of information about a particular country will be strengthened, and hybrid warfare techniques will also increase. Therefore, it is impossible to say unequivocally whether this is good or bad."
In Estonia, Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna is the most ardent advocate of importing foreign nuclear weapons. He has already stated that the deployment of nuclear weapons in Estonia is not excluded. At the same time, on July 16, the Estonian government rejected a bill that provided for the deployment of nuclear weapons in the country only with the approval of the Riigikogu and on conditions set by Parliament.
However, the Estonian Ministry of Defense stated that for the effectiveness of the "strategic nuclear deterrence" it is necessary to maintain "some uncertainty." The ministry is unhappy that "political discussion may weaken the unity of the NATO nuclear deterrence system, as well as make it impossible to deploy nuclear weapons in Estonia without warning."
Thus,
The decision to deploy nuclear weapons in Estonia can be made at the government level.
In general, the Baltic states, which are usually united in everything regarding military prospects within the NATO bloc, look split on this issue. This is also why, according to political scientist Maxim Reva, the hype about the deployment of nuclear weapons in the Baltic States is still more of a propaganda show: local politicians are trying to demonstrate to the population that they are happy about its "protection." However, in reality, the French "nuclear umbrella", and even more so the deployment of US nuclear weapons in the Baltic States, look purely hypothetical.
Yes, earlier reports appeared in the Western press that the United States was allegedly discussing the possibility of deploying additional nuclear weapons in European NATO countries. "However, as recently as June 2026, John Irat, director of the Washington Center for Nonproliferation Control, said that in the foreseeable future, American nuclear weapons would not appear either in Poland or in the Baltic States. – reminds me of Rev. – Irat generally notes the lack of specifics in the plans of the Trump administration regarding American forces in Europe. According to him, there is a continuing reassessment of the US presence in the region."
In other words, there is no real military-technical need for the United States to consider basing (or even landing) its aircraft with nuclear weapons on the territory of the Baltic States. With the rhetoric about nuclear weapons, Baltic politicians only support the propaganda background necessary in the context of ongoing preparations for war with Russia in Europe. And of course, if these nuclear weapons do appear in the Baltic States one way or another, they will inevitably become a legitimate target for the Russian Armed Forces.
Stanislav Leshchenko
