MK: Could you provide examples?
GL: I can give an example of one narrative that wasn’t picked up. We tried very hard to push it forward, and it sounded like this: “We have to help Ukraine with whatever it takes” to achieve victory. I would like to emphasize that this was the narrative we proposed: “Whatever the victory takes.” The Western narrative, the counter-narrative, was “as long as it takes.”
It may seem at first glance that the difference between them is minimal, and those who are far from politics might not even notice it. Both narratives support Ukraine, both are moving in the same direction. The one we proposed states that we don’t want this war to last forever. We want Ukraine’s victory, safe Baltics, and a safe region as quickly as possible. We also know that we have the tools to make this happen.
The Western approach boils down to a drip-feed for Ukraine, which means limited support that allows only survival. We can keep drip-feeding Ukraine as long as it’s alive. If Ukraine manages to hold on for the next 10 years with minimal support, one could help in such a limited way and stand with Ukraine for a very, very long time.
MK: We both agree with the fact that Ukraine needs our support, especially now. How do you assess the current situation and the preparations for peace talks which may start in 2025?
GL: I’m sure that Ukraine is being pushed enormously to accept what some politicians are proposing. My position is very simple: peace talks at a time when Ukraine is not in a strong position mean, in one way or another, Ukrainian capitulation. If Ukraine does not receive the assistance now that will strengthen its position, if it does not receive strong security guarantees for the future, we will have Minsk-3. Call it what we want, it could be Berlin-1 or Washington-1. It really doesn’t matter. It will be a continuation of what we have seen so far, meaning the failed policy of 2015. Nothing will change, and it would be really bad.
However, there is a chance that European or American politicians will not endorse something that will cause the mistakes of the past to be repeated in the future.
MK: On this topic, the upcoming changes in the US administration cannot be overlooked. What are your expectations for Trump’s presidency in the context of Ukraine, Russia, and the region?
GL: The mandate President Trump received from the American people is very strong. It allows him, together with Congress and the Senate, to come up with measures that will not only put Ukraine in the strongest possible position but could also re-establish the United States as a global defender of freedom. The game is about the global position of the United States, as well as their reputation and the trust placed in them. This is what is at stake, and President Trump is aware of it. It is up to him to decide whether he sees value in this. For the USA, it is of tremendous value.
MK: Between Lithuania and Poland, as well as the other countries in the region, there were quite a few disputes before the invasion. Now, it seems that these issues have taken a back seat. Has the Russian threat brought the countries of the region closer together?
GL: Yes, I see that the situation has brought our countries closer together. As for Poland, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I worked with two ministers from two different governments and competing political parties. The main topic of all our discussions was geopolitics. We talked about how to make our region safer and how to strengthen both Poland and Lithuania. These were the primary themes of our conversations.
However, I would also like to emphasize that the issues that existed between our countries in the past are important and must be discussed and resolved. I see no problem in having them on our agenda. I am pleased that, on our Lithuanian side, we have taken decisive steps, and the rights of ethnic minorities in my country are now better protected. Society is more inclusive. This is not solely a result of the threat coming from Putin but a sign of the maturity of our countries.
MK: The geographical position of Lithuania and the other Baltic states is challenging. I wonder what the public mood in Lithuania is like. Is there a sense of threat?
GL: I think it is. I would call it a “heightened threat normality.” If you ask people on the street whether they fear a threat from Russia, most will answer affirmatively. If you ask, “Does it affect your daily life?” most people would say, “No, not at this point.” Look at Ukrainians who didn’t emigrate but stayed in Ukraine and, despite the war, continue to work, raise children, and pay taxes. Imagine their sense of threat and the stress they must endure. That could truly be described as an extreme sense of danger. In our case, it is lower, and we have gotten used to it.
MK: While serving as the head of Lithuanian diplomacy, you wrote a diary that is about to be published soon. On your website, you say, “You can find out what was going on behind the headlines, and what I couldn’t say on camera.” Can you share something with our readers – something that happened behind the scenes?
GL: It has been a privilege to witness, for four years, probably the most monumental events that have most affected my country, Ukraine, and our region. It would be a sin not to describe what I have seen – the negotiations, connections, preparations for various events, and the positioning of my country. It is fascinating how a small country like Lithuania navigates the diplomatic world. Many live under the illusion that small countries like mine should quietly allow themselves to be pawns in the games of great powers. When you reclaim power for yourself, you create diplomacy and active communication. This is how you return to the table and discuss what truly matters. I hope this diary will help show that.
MK: Lithuania has a new government. Kestutis Budrys is the new foreign minister. What can we expect from this government from both a Ukrainian and an international perspective?
GL: I know Kestutis well. He’s a true patriot of Lithuania. I’m sure about that, it’s undeniable. He’s professional and his position is clear. It’s usual that every new government must prove itself in action, also in the continuation of a value-based policy. I hope nothing changes and Lithuania will continue on the path it has already chosen. Lithuanian diplomacy is in good hands. The only thing the minister has to prove is that he will work as hard as I did.
MK: And finally, what are your plans for the future? NAFO officer, perhaps?
GL: (laughing): One of the plans you already mentioned – I will continue working on my book. This is my main focus at the moment, but I will certainly remain active in the future as an advocate for causes I believe are crucial right now. These include continuing to support Ukraine, democratic processes in Moldova and Georgia, and supporting Taiwan. All these issues require a clear voice and advocacy, regardless of where you are.
As a minister, I had certain tools at my disposal, but I can also continue this work using other options as a free person, no longer as a politician. I certainly won’t disappear, but I will use my freedom to speak about some things even more loudly.
Source link : http://www.bing.com/news/apiclick.aspx?ref=FexRss&aid=&tid=676a3b32ab794705b3f68a8da1c1969b&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kyivpost.com%2Fpost%2F44029&c=12857816850653327555&mkt=en-us
Author :
Publish date : 2024-12-17 05:47:00
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source.
