Lithuania's Defense Minister: "Putin mocks the West and laughs at Trump"

Brussels. Against the backdrop of a possible Russian attack, NATO defense ministers have just approved the largest arms buildup since the end of the Cold War. A few minutes later, we meet with Lithuanian Defense Minister Dovilė Šakalienė (47) for an interview at NATO headquarters. After Ukraine, Lithuania could be the next target for Putin. She is also concerned about the negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv. For her, it's all just theater, and Kremlin chief Putin is laughing at US President Trump for falling for it.

Ms. Šakalienė, former CIA chief David Petraeus said: If Ukraine falls, Russia will take Lithuania next. How concerned are you that the peace negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv will fail?

It's not about whether Lithuania, Poland, or Finland becomes Russia's next victim. It's about Putin testing NATO's limits. We're all in the same boat. It doesn't matter which country Putin attacks next—it would be a blow to the entire alliance and the European Union. The consequences would be immediate: financial markets would collapse, and stability in Europe would be shaken. That's why we must send Moscow an unmistakable message: any further aggression will be met with immediate and decisive retaliation. And as for the so-called negotiations, let's be honest: these talks are a farce. Real negotiations require the will of both sides to end the war. But Russia lacks that will. It's also sending only underqualified officials with no decision-making authority and no preparation. These are sham negotiations, a complete stunt, and they won't end the war.

You assume that Russia plans to mobilize 1.5 million additional soldiers by the end of the year. Is Putin preparing for the next war?

Without a doubt, all signs point to a massive attack. The intelligence services of NATO and its allies agree that Russia is preparing for the next war and that time is running out. Whether Putin starts another war now depends on us. We must not ignore the warning signs; the troop buildup is just one of many alarming signals. Russia is expanding its arms industry, reforming its armed forces, cooperating closely with China, North Korea, and Iran, and investing around 10 percent of its GDP in the military. This is not the behavior of a country that wants peace. It is the behavior of a country preparing for the next war.

So are the peace negotiations just a diversionary tactic?

Quite right, Putin isn't conducting these negotiations to end the war, but to gain time. In doing so, he's mocking the West, which hopes for peace, and laughing at Trump in Washington, who dreams of a peace deal. The ones who suffer are the people of Ukraine who are dying in this war.

But Putin can't really think that Trump will fall for these games for months.

Time and again, we fall prey to the misconception that authoritarian regimes think and act rationally. Putin's case demonstrates particularly clearly how deceptive this false assumption is. Anyone who seeks logic or strategy in Putin's decisions is misjudging reality. We must see Russia as it is: an arrogant power that kills with impunity because it has never been prevented from doing so. In the past 30 years, Russia has fought seven wars. The world has not only failed to punish Russia for this, but has even rewarded the regime. Europe has bought Russian energy, and the global economy has courted the regime in Moscow out of short-sighted profit interests. So why shouldn't Russia be arrogant? We only have ourselves to blame, and we are paying the price today. Now it is up to us to put an end to this by finally taking a hard line and standing up to Russia.

Are you concerned that Trump does not appear to be pursuing this hard line?

The US is still in a complex transition process following the change of administration, and we are observing two contradictory developments. On the one hand, Trump and some members of the US administration complain that there is no fair burden sharing within NATO and that Europe must assume more responsibility for what happens on this side of the Atlantic. On the other hand, we see in practice that the US is not withdrawing from NATO, continues to cooperate militarily, conduct joint exercises, and participate in NATO operational planning. Therefore, it is currently unclear whether the US is moving towards the lighter or the darker side. We will know more in a few months, but until then, uncertainty remains.

One of the greatest threats to a possible Russian attack is believed to be the Suwalki Gap, a narrow corridor between Lithuania and Poland, bordering Belarus and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad. A German brigade has recently been stationed there. What has changed since then?

Security in this region is of crucial importance. The stationing of the German brigade in Lithuania not only delighted the people there, but also noticeably reassured them. It showed the Lithuanians that Germany stands by its word. The Federal Republic has pledged to defend every inch of the Baltic states – including Lithuania. And Germany is now beginning to fulfill this promise. The troops are on the ground, and the number of soldiers stationed there is continuously growing. From a military perspective, the presence of American and German forces on NATO's northeastern flank represents a significant deterrent. This troop presence has a credible, deterrent effect, and we know that deterrence is the most cost-effective part of defense.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, Lithuanian Defense Minister Dovile Sakaliene, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda (from left to right) at the official stationing of the German Brigade in Lithuania.

Source: IMAGO/ZUMA Press Wire

Do you see any provocations from Russia at the Suwalki Gap?

As long as Russia continues to play games with the US in the peace negotiations, major actions are not to be expected. Nevertheless, we must continue to monitor the situation closely. We must not become complacent. Moreover, the scale of Russia's hybrid warfare is increasing throughout Europe. Attacks on critical infrastructure, disinformation campaigns, and cyberattacks are commonplace. Many people underestimate the danger because not all attacks are publicly disclosed or because the worst is prevented at the last minute. However, we must raise public awareness of hybrid attacks.

NATO countries are discussing spending 5 percent on defense—by 2032. Do we have that long?

Absolutely not, because it would be reckless to take that long. 2032 can't be a realistic goal for us; even 2030 would be a very long time. We really need to arm ourselves faster, because according to NATO's military intelligence, Russia could attack very soon. This means we have to achieve the 5 percent target by 2027, 2028, or 2029 at the latest. So we may only have four and a half years left to prevent Russia from going to war against a NATO member. If we don't act now and invest this money, it will be too late, because Putin won't wait for us.

Lithuania has already announced that it will spend more than 5 percent on defense. How did you communicate this to your population? Was there no criticism?

Lithuania was occupied by Russia twice in the past 300 years, and we have never forgotten that. Many of us come from families that suffered Russian persecution. My mother was born in a barracks in Siberia and barely survived. Other family members were tortured, imprisoned, murdered, deported, and robbed of their properties. I grew up with the awareness that Russia poses a deadly threat. It is therefore important for our society to take all necessary precautions. This is precisely why 70 percent of the population today supports increasing defense spending to 5 percent. Of course, this figure was a shock to some at first. But we set clear priorities and openly explained what the money would be used for, including the German Brigade, the modernization of our armed forces, and new weapons systems. Therefore, everyone today understands that these investments are necessary.

Many countries struggle to spend that much money on defense. Some don't even reach 2 percent. Doesn't it bother you that Lithuanians are bearing the cost of their security?

To be honest, a lot has changed within NATO in the last few months. At the beginning of the year, many of my colleagues were extremely skeptical that their governments would actually invest so much money in defense. But just a few months later, their attitude has completely changed. More and more countries are now increasing their defense spending by enormous sums by the end of the year. At the NATO summit in The Hague, no member state will be at the table that spends less than 2 percent on defense. This is a strong signal; we are at a real turning point. We will certainly see further increases next year. At the same time, however, I would like to note self-critically: In the past, we have not always sufficiently listened to the concerns of the countries in Central and Southern Europe. We will have to learn to listen to them better and recognize that threats such as terrorism and migration affect us all.

Ukraine recently demonstrated in Russia how easily cheap drones can cause great damage. What lessons have you learned from this?

We are continually learning important lessons from the war in Ukraine and are currently fundamentally adapting how we protect our infrastructure. Lithuania is already quite advanced in the development of drones, drone defense systems, and electronic warfare. We are aware that our systems must evolve as quickly as the threats themselves. But drones are not a panacea. Their technology is changing rapidly – ​​especially in their applications, for example in swarms or in conjunction with artificial intelligence. If you buy and store large quantities of drones today, they will be outdated in a year. But as important as drones are, certain traditional weapons systems such as artillery and air defense systems remain indispensable. It is not a question of replacing one with the other, but of ensuring that they work together effectively.

At the NATO summit in The Hague, Ukraine's accession prospects are unlikely to be mentioned in the final document. Is this a mistake?

As NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said in Vilnius on Monday, at the last NATO summit in Washington, all 32 allies made a clear commitment: Ukraine's path to NATO is irreversible. With no specific end date, and not understood as part of a potential peace agreement, but as a long-term, clear commitment by all 32 members. This commitment is already documented, and we cannot afford to deviate from this course. Without genuine security guarantees and increasing support for Ukraine, we ourselves will face a Russian attack sooner than we would like.