As much as I support the Latvia mission, I think recent experiences with our Southern neighbour make me somewhat leery of any "permanent" commitments. Certainly move to postings vs rotational deployments to ease the personnel issues and upgrade the facilities as required but is there really a strictly military need that requires a "permanent" commitment vs an ongoing mission that we can continue to renew going forward?
My concern is that Russia is in long-term decline and while that poses a definite risk in the near term and requires a strong deterrent response from NATO, we are also seeing some pretty seismic geopolitical shifts around us. Ongoing US commitment to NATO is in question and there are also concerns about how long our political goals will continue to align with our European NATO partners.
Nationalist and far-Right parties are increasingly seeing electoral success in many European countries. Hungary already has Orban. The UK Reform Party is leading in the poles. The National Rally may win in France. The AFD could possibly win in several Eastern German states in the next election. The Law and Justice Party when in power in Poland had a major illiberal bent. Italy has the Lega Nord and The Brothers of Italy. Geert Wilder's Party for Freedom is the largest party in the Netherlands House of Representatives. Nationalist/Right Wing parties have increased their share of the votes in recent elections in many other European countries as well, including the Denmark and Sweden with whom we are partnered in the Latvia mission.
I think it's important to remember the words of Lord Palmerston:
“Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”