On Tuesday, four U.S. soldiers participating in a training exercise in Lithuania lost communication with their unit and have not been seen since. In Vilnius, where I currently am, news of their disappearance—and reports suggesting they may have died—has spread at an unusually slow pace, especially considering how a headline like “Four U.S. Soldiers Missing on the Belarusian Border” could signal the onset of a global conflict. Yesterday, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte stated that the soldiers were dead, but later retracted his statement, now claiming they are merely missing. The Lithuanian defense minister, Dovilė Šakalienė, announced that the soldiers’ vehicle had been located in a remote area and that “specialized machinery” would be necessary to access it. A tone of sadness implies that the chances of the soldiers being alive are slim.
The U.S. Army reported that the soldiers were in an M88 Hercules armored recovery vehicle, which is about 20 times heavier than a Tesla Cybertruck and designed for lifting and towing tanks. A local who has trained in the marshy terrain where the exercise was held mentioned that heavy vehicles can easily get stuck in this environment, and even on foot, one could face difficulties. Once a vehicle starts to sink into the mud, it can continue to descend until fully submerged. He noted that under such conditions, even if a soldier manages to exit the vehicle, it is “nearly impossible” to escape the area. A soldier burdened with heavy gear could become literally trapped in the mud.
Thus far, no one has implied that the soldiers’ deaths resulted from enemy action—specifically, actions by Belarusian or Russian forces—except in the context that the presence of Americans in Lithuania aims to deter a potential Russian attack. (Belarus is effectively under Russia’s control.) Even an accidental death of a soldier overseas raises concerns regarding the purpose and value of their deployment. Approximately 1,000 Americans are stationed in Lithuania near the border at Pabradė, in rotations that commenced in 2019 and intensified following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. A new rotation has just arrived. Germany, which recently committed to spending 1 trillion euros on its military over the coming years, also has troops in Lithuania and is expected to increase their numbers to over 5,000. In the Old Town of Vilnius, I encountered German soldiers in uniform, enjoying cappuccinos at a tourist café, and this morning a Luftwaffe Bombardier business jet was seen at the Vilnius airport.
This week, the Lithuanian foreign minister visited Washington, D.C., to express her country’s desire for more American troops. A significant number of nonmilitary NATO personnel have already arrived in all three Baltic capitals, turning them into espionage and diplomacy battlegrounds, reminiscent of Berlin or Vienna during the Cold War. The Trump administration has occasionally suggested it is weary of stationing troops in countries perceived as too weak or unwilling to fund their own defense, as was the case with Germany for many years. By investing heavily and preparing its citizens for potential conflict, Lithuania positions itself as a viable alternative. “We’re courting the Germans, but we have our eyes on the Americans,” remarked a Lithuanian defense analyst. “The message is that if you consider pulling soldiers out of Germany, don’t send them back to the U.S.; bring them to Lithuania.”
[David Frum: At least now we know the truth]
The potential accidental deaths of these four soldiers will not halt plans or requests for redeployment. Nor should they: The Baltic states represent a unique case where both Trump’s and Biden’s strategies align, advocating for increased U.S. support, as the Baltics contribute morally and materially to American strength. Politicians in these nations have quietly expressed their discontent with President Donald Trump’s perceived friendliness towards Vladimir Putin and his willingness to negotiate deals that could undermine Ukraine. Nonetheless, Trump has not suggested that he views the Baltics as having the same alleged issues as Ukraine (corruption, ungratefulness) or that Russia holds any kind of natural claim over them. In the same Oval Office meeting where he and Vice President J. D. Vance criticized Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump stated he is “committed” to the Baltics.
However, the high-stakes nature of unrest in this region should cause concern regarding any mishaps. There is little advantage for Russia in harming or abducting U.S. soldiers: any Russian or Belarusian aggression against NATO in Lithuania would likely invite serious repercussions against Russia, escalating tensions in a predictable manner, leading to dire consequences for Russia at best and a catastrophic outcome for humanity at worst. The concern, however, lies in the presence of U.S. soldiers operating armored vehicles on one side of a border, while enemy forces are positioned on the other side; even innocent mistakes carry significant geostrategic implications. Ordinary tragedies can escalate into larger crises, and in these unusual circumstances—where soldiers remain unaccounted for days after their disappearance—conspiracy theories can proliferate.
Yesterday, a reporter inquired of Trump whether he had been briefed about the soldiers’ disappearance. He claimed he had not. So far in Europe, he has managed to pressure Germany and others to meet defense-spending commitments that they had previously ignored under less effective pressure from prior U.S. administrations. This has been a notable success. However, the downside of this confrontational approach—telling other nations, even allies, You’re on your own, suckers—is that when he must inform his own citizens that American soldiers have died in a distant country, his most rational explanations may come across as insincere, and his commitment to the mission may appear dubious. This mission is of significance, and it will be intriguing to see how he justifies, if the soldiers are confirmed dead, that their sacrifices were not in vain.
