Lithuanian Prime Minister I. Šimonytė has voiced significant apprehension regarding the upcoming negotiations concerning Ukraine in Riyadh. Her concerns stem from what she perceives as an imbalance in negotiating power, with Ukraine, described as “weaker objectively” with “fewer people, lower army, and lower capacity,” facing a challenging situation. Šimonytė’s worries extend beyond the immediate outcome of the war, encompassing anxieties about the implications of the 2021 December ultimatum. This ultimatum, shrouded in mystery, has amplified fears within the Lithuanian goverment about potential long-term security compromises.

The Prime Minister articulated her concerns with stark directness: I am very worried. Sincerely,I am very worried. It is clear from what is visible at least on the surface that when it comes to reaching the ‘dyl’ between two sides, one of which dose not go into any language at all, the other side that is weaker objectively has fewer people, lower army, and lower capacity Ukraine as the meeting approaches Riyadh.

This statement underscores a deep-seated fear that UkraineS position may be compromised due to its relative disadvantages compared to the opposing side. The reference to a side that does not go into any language at all hints at the complexities and potential intransigence of the negotiations.

Broader Security Implications and the 2021 Ultimatum

Šimonytė’s anxieties are not solely focused on the immediate outcome of the conflict in Ukraine.She also expressed concern about the potential resurgence of issues related to the 2021 December ultimatum. According to the politician, there is a question not only in the outcome of Ukraine and this war, at least for some political figures under pressure from Ukraine, but also a question about 2021.December ultimatum.

The Prime Minister emphasized the broader implications of these issues, stating, Which,whatever it may,and even people who think that Ukraine is not our question,we do not have too much engagement,and we do not have to be what I categorically disagree,that issue is already our question. If this issue is on the table too, that security situation is not just changed, but it has changed very dramatically. This highlights the interconnectedness of European security and the potential for significant shifts in the geopolitical landscape.

Maximizing Support for Ukraine

Šimonytė stressed the importance of providing maximum support to Ukraine to stabilize the front line and strengthen its negotiating position. She lamented the missed opportunities in 2022, stating, It is indeed understood that our inventiveness, when 2022 Ukraine really started to repeat the Russian army well, and if it had received enough military support, we could only speculate how the situation would have looked at the moment. But this was not the case, now that the main task is to maximize Ukraine, stabilize the front line, and give it the best cards in negotiations.

She further criticized those who appear to be undermining Ukraine’s position, adding, But the image that the last cards that Ukraine have, the people who have just been presumed as Ukrainian allies are trying to spit out. This suggests a sense of betrayal or disappointment with the actions of some of Ukraine’s supposed partners.

Divergent Responses to Threats: A Comparison with Poland

The article draws a comparison between Lithuania’s approach to security threats and that of Poland, highlighting the Polish Prime Minister’s plan to hold all men for military service and withdraw from the Ottawa Convention prohibiting mines. I.Šimonytė attributes these different responses to varying perceptions of threats among political leaders. it truly seems to me that 2025 The word of the Lithuanian language will be ‘do not matter’. apparently, when political leadership does not matter, and other political leaderships are important, different decisions follow, said I. Šimonytė.

She further elaborated on the implications of withdrawing from the Ottawa Convention, stating, Of course, withdrawing from the Ottawa Convention, knowing how sensitive it is, because these are the anti -penetrate mines, because much harm has been done to people in different parts of the world, the humanitarian side is as if it is clear. But simultaneously occurring we understand where we are geographically. We understand that we have neighbors who have no scruples, and that our meticulousness can turn against us in these circumstances. Those decisions can be made when it is indeed too late to make those decisions.

Defense Funding and the Changing Security Landscape

Šimonytė emphasized that the current security surroundings necessitates a reevaluation of defense funding strategies. She noted that the previous assumption that 3-4% defense funding would be sufficient is no longer adequate. this is just a change in the posture of the US management, where it is not clear what it is, because when people say ‘don’t listen to what you say there and look at what you do,’ is not much optimistic when we look at what they do. Thus, that rethinking should be done more than once to three months or half a year, and every week, said I. Šimonytė.

Regarding the plan to increase defense funding to 5-6% of GDP, the politician expressed openness to the idea, provided there is consensus on the tax changes or debt financing required. It will be very good if the European Commission softens the treatment of the Maastricht criterion.There is a very clear purpose – everything is in order, said I.Šimonytė.

She also addressed concerns about the potential impact on financial markets, stating, Let’s distance ourselves from these things, say the Lithuanian economy will grow, as it is forecasted now – 3 percent. for the next five years, you will borrow at about the interest you are borrowing for now, probably, even if we want to shorten the time of purchase, then there will be some steady costs when that mountain is over.

Šimonytė further explained the financial implications, stating, According to us, they are about 4 percent. from GDP plus interest that will have to be paid for that very high debt we will take over these several years. At least for this part, in order to remain lasting in general public finances, sources of income must appear.

Option defense Strategies and the Seimas Discussion

The Prime Minister acknowledged the uncertainty surrounding defense procurement and the need for alternative strategies. the current ambition, which looks good in terms of public relations, is based on the assumptions that at least some experts on the overall defense are questioning, and whether it is indeed unneeded, with a plan A on the National Division, to have an IT plan for additional measures that would be national or regional. Again, I don’t want to be one of the three million generals that we really have, but I think these are things worth seeing. And perhaps the Seimas, discussing it on March 18., will have the prospect to talk more sincere about it, said I. Šimonytė.

Opposition to French Nuclear Deterrent Proposal

remgijus Žemait

Lithuania’s Security Fears: A Balancing Act Between Ukraine adn Geopolitical Shifts

Is Lithuania’s anxiety about the Ukraine negotiations a harbinger of a wider European security crisis? The answer, according to experts, is a complex one.

Interviewer: Dr.Anya Petrova, a renowned expert on Eastern European geopolitics, welcome to World-Today-News.com. Prime Minister Šimonytė’s recent statements express deep concern over the upcoming Ukraine negotiations in Riyadh. Can you delve into the reasons behind Lithuania’s anxieties?

dr. Petrova: Absolutely. Lithuania’s apprehension stems from a multifaceted understanding of the situation, going far beyond the immediate conflict in Ukraine. Lithuania’s worries are grounded in several key issues: the perceived power imbalance in the negotiations,the lingering concerns surrounding a mysterious 2021 ultimatum,and the broader implications for regional security. The Prime Minister’s worry is not just about the immediate outcome of the war; it’s about the long-term security implications for Lithuania and its allies.

Interviewer: The Prime Minister mentions a lack of engagement from one side in the negotiations. How does this perceived intransigence impact the negotiation process and Lithuania’s concerns?

dr. Petrova: The prime Minister’s statement about one side not engaging (“does not go into any language at all”) highlights a major obstacle.This lack of diplomatic engagement significantly weakens Ukraine’s negotiating position, raising fears of a compromised outcome. This creates an environment ripe for exploitation, possibly leading to concessions that could harm Ukraine’s long-term security and territorial integrity. Such an outcome would,in turn,ripple across Eastern Europe and impact Lithuania’s own security architecture. This perceived intransigence directly relates to Lithuania’s concern about a potential resurgence of issues linked to the 2021 December ultimatum.

Interviewer: You mentioned the 2021 December ultimatum. Can you shed more light on its significance and how it connects to the current situation?

Dr. Petrova: The 2021 December ultimatum remains shrouded in mystery,but its very existence fuels apprehension within the Lithuanian government. The lack of transparency regarding its contents contributes to the prevailing atmosphere of uncertainty and amplifies fears of potential long-term security compromises. It highlights a larger narrative of unexpected pressures on Eastern European nations and underscores the unpredictability of geopolitical shifts. This mystery highlights vulnerabilities in security agreements, and this concern isn’t unique to Lithuania.

Interviewer: Prime Minister Šimonytė emphasizes the need for maximum support for Ukraine. How crucial is this support, and what are the potential consequences of insufficient aid?

Dr. petrova: Maximum support for Ukraine is absolutely critical, not only for the immediate resolution of the conflict but also for preventing a wider destabilization of the region. Providing Ukraine with necessary military and diplomatic support is vital for stabilizing the front lines and strengthening its negotiating stance. Insufficient aid can lead to a situation where Ukraine is forced to make unfavorable concessions, impacting not only its sovereignty but also triggering a domino effect on neighboring countries. The lithuanian government and othre European leaders rightly highlight that a weakened Ukraine invites further aggression in the region. This has notable strategic and security implications for all of its allies.

Interviewer: The interview also touches upon differing responses to security threats, particularly contrasting Lithuania’s approach with Poland. what accounts for these differences?

Dr. Petrova: The differences in approach between Lithuania and Poland, exemplified by Poland’s mobilization plans and potential withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention, stem from varying perceptions of immediate threats and risk tolerance. Poland’s more proactive stance reflects a more immediate sense of vulnerability,potentially influenced by its geographical proximity to the conflict zone and its larger population. Lithuania’s cautious approach, in contrast, underscores its emphasis on diplomacy and international cooperation; though it is indeed clear that it also recognizes the seriousness of the situation and is actively reevaluating its defense spending. Both approaches though, highlight the urgent need for a frank discussion of security in the region and the challenges of balancing humanitarian concerns with the immediate security needs of a nation.

Interviewer: The Prime Minister discusses the need to re-evaluate defense funding.What are the implications of this reassessment for Lithuania’s budgetary strategies and broader economic implications?

Dr. Petrova: The reassessment of defense funding highlights the stark reality for Lithuania and other nations in the region. The previously accepted defense spending levels are deemed insufficient, forcing a rebalancing of budgetary priorities.While increasing defense spending to 5-6% of GDP presents a viable solution, it necessitates careful consideration of the economic implications, including potential tax changes or increased debt. This involves a detailed cost-benefit analysis involving a careful assessment of economic growth projections versus the potential costs associated with more robust investments into national defense. The financial considerations highlight the gravity of the situation and the unprecedented costs associated with maintaining regional security.

Interviewer: The interview concludes with a discussion of defense procurement strategies, including the need for alternative plans and the upcoming seimas discussion. What should we anticipate from these discussions?

Dr. Petrova: The discussions regarding defense procurement strategies and alternative defense plans indicate that Lithuania recognizes the need for versatility and adaptability in the face of evolving security threats. We should anticipate ongoing debate surrounding the optimization of resource allocation and a possible shift toward diversifying defense partnerships and procurement strategies. This highlights a need for broader strategic discussion about defense, going beyond immediate needs to address long-term security and strategic flexibility.

Interviewer: Dr. Petrova, thank you for providing such insightful perspectives on Lithuania’s security concerns. This interview shines a light on a critical issue; the need to engage in frank reflection about regional stability and security.What would be your final takeaway message for our readers?

Dr. Petrova: Lithuania’s anxieties regarding the Ukraine negotiations are a microcosm of a larger issue: the evolving geopolitical landscape of Eastern Europe and its impact on regional stability. The complexities of the negotiations,the uncertainty about the 2021 ultimatum,and the need for increased defense spending all point towards a need for increased vigilance,international cooperation,and a reassessment of national security strategies. I strongly encourage our readers to delve deeper into the topic to gain a more complete understanding of these complex challenges and engage with us in the comments section below to share your thoughts.