RFI: Who do you think is responsible for the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam in southern Ukraine?
Gabrielius Landsbergis: Russia has been bombing civilian infrastructure since day one, constantly lying about the bombers’ identities. I think from this experience it is very clear that we can definitely blame Russia and demand that it take responsibility. Ukraine must win the war and Russia must pay the price for all the damage caused.
On July 11, your country will host the NATO summit in Vilnius. Ukraine is hoping for guarantees for its candidacy in the alliance. Will you support this request?
I am absolutely convinced that if we want the European continent to be safe, Ukraine must become a member of NATO. We can discuss when that should happen, but I think we need to be very clear on that point. In fact, in 2008 we gave Ukraine the impression that it would be part of NATO, but it was 15 years before we got back to the subject. We lost 15 years, and during that time Georgia and Ukraine were invaded. So I think it’s time to sit down and find a solution to make our promises come true.
But what is the solution? What do you expect from NATO members?
I think a binding commitment would be the best outcome. A binding pledge that would allow Ukraine to know what to expect and ensure it is not a vague promise for the next 15 years. You need a schedule, concrete steps, some kind of algorithm for how this work is supposed to go. And I can tell you it’s not an easy discussion. We still have a little over a month to do that and I can’t tell you if we’ll make it.
Guarantees for Ukraine’s security until accession will also be discussed. Do you push it? And what should that look like?
When it comes to weak security measures or the supply of additional weapons to Ukraine, most people would think that is not enough. When it comes to security guarantees, like what Sweden or Finland received before they joined, it’s much stronger. This would indicate that in the event of an attack, the country might not be defended by the Alliance but rather on a bilateral basis, which would provide a security shield. So when we talk about it, it’s very, very important to look at the content of what’s going to be in the box.
They also expect NATO to strengthen their eastern flank…
Lithuania is in a special geographical situation: we are sandwiched between Russia (the Kaliningrad enclave) and Belarus, and therefore our security problems are greater than they normally would be. We see that Russia is in a bad position in Ukraine at the moment, but if we look to the future, in 3, 5 or 7 years, we know that it will be able to rebuild itself. If there is no radical change in Moscow, we will have two dangerous neighbors on our side.
But what do you actually expect from NATO? Additional soldiers, anti-aircraft? What do you need most?
I believe the best deterrent is always having troops in place. So we need more soldiers. After the first invasion of Ukraine in 2015, NATO decided to station troops in the Baltic States. Today we have a German battalion in Lithuania and we think it works very well. Therefore, additional NATO troops would be a logical step after a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. But the use of additional equipment and air defense means would also make a lot of sense. So that we feel as protected as countries further west.
Does Article 5 not provide sufficient protection for the Baltic States?
That has undoubtedly been the case so far. But looking ahead, one has to admit that Russia has crossed a psychological red line. This country is an aggressor that has justified a full-scale invasion against its neighbor. So the idea is that he might find some justification for another invasion. That’s what worries us. Therefore, we demand that this threat be translated into further defense and reinforcement of the eastern flank.
Let’s talk about Ukraine again. In your opinion, has the counterattack, which has been announced for months, begun?
It’s difficult to say ! Honestly, I’m one of those people who checks Twitter every morning to see what’s new. But I have full confidence. Kiev has shown great military and political skill when it comes to implementing the goals set. The only remaining concern is: did we send them enough equipment? And if not, can we send you something else?
Do you think the West has done enough or should have done more and must do more?
The only thing you can think of is that we could have done some things faster… You remember the debate in Ukraine when President Zelenskyy asked about ways to secure the skies over Kiev. A year ago we said that it is not possible, that it will never be possible. A year later they are successfully using Patriot systems. Ditto for the F-16. So I think we shouldn’t blame ourselves, but we shouldn’t make the same mistakes in the future. Let’s take into account that they are able to learn and use the equipment provided, that this equipment is very efficient and that we can supply it. So if there is something that can be delivered faster, I think it should be done.
What will be the relationship between your country and Russia after the war? If Ukraine has regained control of its territories but Vladimir Putin is still in power, would you consider resuming a relationship with Moscow?
The only answer I can think of right now is deterrence. We want the strategy to be such that Putin never thinks about outside adventures again. It’s the only thing we’re thinking about right now. Is there trust? NO. Does trust need to be restored? Unfortunately, not. And we want one thing: we want Russia to lose in Ukraine, we want Ukraine to win, and what then happens in Russia is Russia’s business. She will take care of it as she sees fit. But we must know that we will be defended so as not to be attacked by Russia.
>> Read also: