{"id":39158,"date":"2019-10-28T00:00:30","date_gmt":"2019-10-28T00:00:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/uncategorized\/2019\/10\/28\/does-major-joint-military-procurement-really-work-in-the-baltics\/"},"modified":"2026-08-18T20:57:49","modified_gmt":"2026-08-18T20:57:49","slug":"does-major-joint-military-procurement-really-work-in-the-baltics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/global\/europe\/2019\/10\/28\/does-major-joint-military-procurement-really-work-in-the-baltics\/","title":{"rendered":"Does major joint military procurement really work in the Baltics?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

WASHINGTON \u2014 On paper, the Baltic nations appear to have closely aligned defense modernization needs that make the joint procurement<\/a> of advanced military equipment a no-brainer. After all, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania have historically shared national interests, are currently facing a similar threat from Russia and each have relatively small defense budgets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Joint procurement would drive down costs for large defense articles<\/a> by allowing the smaller Baltic nations to buy in greater numbers. It would also allow the countries to share maintenance responsibilities, which would save money. And it would drive greater interoperability in countering an adversary\u2019s simultaneous attack all three nations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But then there\u2019s the reality of the situation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI think there are many misperceptions on Baltic integration,\u201d Janis Garisons, state secretary for the Latvian Ministry of Defence, told Defense News during a September visit to Washington<\/a>. \u201cI think this is a little bit of a wrong perception that there is a lot of added value in those common procurements.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Garisons, the No. 2 civilian at the ministry, said he is not against joint procurement efforts, but believes such initiatives work best when purchase ammunition, small arms, or chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defense equipment \u2014 purchases already in the works among the European neighbors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But for major defense articles, the legal and logsitical challenges of coordinating a trilateral contract, combined with a lack of major savings, means it might not be worth it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe do common procurements when it\u2019s possible, but I have to say, I haven\u2019t seen much savings on those because even if you combine all three numbers, it\u2019s not like the U.S. buying together with the U.K. \u2014 thousands and thousands<\/a>. It is still numbers that are very small,\u201d Garisons said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lithuania\u2019s vice minister for defense, Giedrimas Jeglinskas, agrees that joint procurement of major defense articles may never be feasible among the three Baltic nations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cJoint procurement, multinational procurement \u2014 I don\u2019t think it exists that much in the world,\u201d Jeglinskas told Defense News<\/a> during a visit to Washington in October. \u201cMost of the programs out there are joint development. But when you talk about something like three-country procurement, it has been really hard for us to achieve.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Like Garisons, Jeglinskas said smaller transactions have proven successful, specifically the joint procurement of mines with Estonia and gas masks with Latvia. But even then, \u201cthe syncing of the budgets and the procurement plans for each country [is difficult]. Say we are ready to buy gas masks this year, but the Estonians may buy them two years ahead. And that\u2019s just the small things.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kusti Salm, the director of the Estonian government\u2019s Centre for Defence Investment, told Defense News that joint procurement among the Baltic states is challenging given the need to sync up defense budget cycles, noting that \u201cthe amounts we procure are small and do not always bring us the economies of scale.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the idea of joint procurement is popular, there is a \u201cgenuine disconnect\u201d between the idea and the reality, according to Chris Skaluba, a former Pentagon official who is now the director of the Atlantic Council\u2019s Transatlantic Security Initiative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Skaluba points to two reasons for this: The first is that while the Baltic states are concerned about Russia, both Latvia and Estonia are more directly concerned with the threat of \u201clittle green men\u201d \u2014 a reference to masked soldiers in green uniforms who led Russia-backed separatists in the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine. The concern steps from the high populations of ethnic Russians in Latvia and Estonia. In response, those two countries are focuses on homeland defense, whereas Lithuania is focused on resisting a direct Russian invasion \u2014 an approach that requires a different set of equipment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Secondly, America\u2019s famously convoluted security cooperation process makes trilateral procurement from the Western ally tricky. Small purchases of ammunition or night vision goggles are doable, but the more advanced the gear, the higher the costs and the stricter the regulations. Throw in three separate national budget cycles and the process \u201ccan be daunting and just not worth the squeeze when you\u2019re through with all that work,\u201d Skaluba said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cDo I think all sides could be more determined and find creative ways to do this? I do. I think maybe something that is technically difficult but not super expensive, like unmanned aerial vehicles, would be a good test case,\u201d Skaluba said. \u201cBut I\u2019m also sympathetic that because of how regulations work, the congressional requirements, having to work through [the U.S. Department of] State<\/a> and the Pentagon, any major purchase is difficult. Trying to do that times three is three times as hard.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\t