Maintenance

Gabrielius Landsbergis: "Russia must lose the war and Ukraine must win it"

Evacuations continue downstream of Kakhovka in southern Ukraine after the dam was destroyed and flooding on both banks of the Dnieper River. For Ukraine, Russia bears full responsibility for the disaster, accusations relayed by its Western partners. Like the Baltic countries, which are among Kiev's closest allies in NATO. RFI was able to meet this Thursday, June 8 in Paris with the Lithuanian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Gabrielius Landsbergis, on the occasion of a meeting organized by the French Institute of International Relations.

Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis at a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Oslo, June 1, 2023. AP - Hanna Johre

Text by: Daniel Vallot Follow

Advertising

Read more

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 and is constantly lying about the perpetrators of these bombings. I therefore think that in the light of this experience it is very clear that we can definitively blame Russia and demand that it assume its responsibilities. Ukraine must win the war and Russia must pay the price for all the damage caused.

On 11 July, your country will host the NATO summit in Vilnius. Ukraine hopes to obtain guarantees regarding its candidacy for membership of the Alliance. Will you support this request?

I am absolutely convinced that Ukraine must become a member of NATO if we want the European continent to be safe. We can argue about when that should happen, but I think we have to make a very clear commitment on that. Indeed, in 2008, we gave Ukraine the impression that it would be part of NATO, but it took 15 years for us to return to the subject. We lost 15 years, and during that time Georgia was invaded, and so was Ukraine. 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 believe that a binding commitment would be the best result. A binding commitment that would allow Ukraine to know what to expect and ensure that it is not a vague promise for the next 15 years. We need to have a timetable, concrete steps, a kind of algorithm on how this work will take place. And I can tell you that this is not an easy discussion. We have a little over a month left for that, and I cannot tell you whether we will succeed.

Guarantees for Ukraine's security will also be discussed, pending accession. Are you pushing for this? And what form should this take?

If it is a question of weak guarantees or providing additional weapons to Ukraine, most people would think that this is insufficient. If it is a question of security guarantees such as those obtained by Sweden or Finland until their accession, it is much stronger. This would suggest that the country will be defended in the event of an attack, perhaps not by the Alliance, but on a bilateral basis, which would constitute a security shield. So when we talk about that, it's very, very important to look at the content, what's going to be inside the package.

You also expect NATO to strengthen its eastern flank...

Lithuania is in a special geographical situation: we are stuck between Russia (Kaliningrad enclave) and Belarus, and therefore our security issues are higher than they normally would be. We see that Russia is in a bad position today in Ukraine, 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, then we will have two dangerous neighbors on our side.

But what do you expect concretely from NATO? Additional soldiers, air defense? What do you need most?

I think the best deterrent is always to have troops on the ground. So we need more soldiers. After the first invasion of Ukraine in 2015, NATO took the decision to deploy detachments 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 deployment of additional equipment and air defence assets would also be very useful. So that we can feel protected in the same way as countries further west.

Does Article 5 not offer sufficient protection to the Baltic States?

This has been the case so far, no doubt. But if we look to the future, we must admit that Russia has crossed a psychological red line. This country is an aggressor that justified a large-scale invasion against its neighbor. So the idea is that he could find a justification for another invasion. That is our concern. That is why we call for this threat to be translated into further defence and reinforcement of the eastern flank.

Let's talk about Ukraine again. In your opinion, has the counter-attack announced for months begun?

It's hard to say! Quite honestly, I'm one of those people who check Twitter every morning to see what's new. But I have full confidence. Kiev has shown great military and political competence when it comes to managing the objectives set. The only concern that remains is: have we sent them enough equipment? And if not, can we send them something more?

Do you think the West has done enough or should it have done more and should it do more?

The only thing we can think of is that we could have done some things faster... You remember the debate in Ukraine when President Zelensky asked for ways to secure the skies over Kiev. At the time, a year ago, it was said that it was not possible, that it would never be possible. A year later, they successfully used Patriot systems. The same goes for the F-16. I therefore believe that we should not blame ourselves, but that we should not make the same mistakes in the future. Let's take into account the fact that they are able to learn and use the equipment provided, that this equipment is very efficient and that we are able to deliver it. So if there's 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, could you consider having a relationship with Moscow again?

For now, the only answer I can think of is deterrence. We want the strategy to be such that Putin never again contemplates outside adventures. That's the only thing we're thinking about right now. Is there trust? No. Is it necessary to restore trust? Unfortunately, no. And there's one thing we want: we want Russia to lose in Ukraine, we want Ukraine to win, and then, whatever happens in Russia, it's Russia's business. She will deal with it as she sees fit. But we must know that we are defended so as not to be attacked by Russia.

>> See also:

  • Military training of Ukrainian soldiers in Lithuania
  • In the Baltic countries, the rights of Russian citizens restricted

Newsletter Receive all the international news directly in your mailbox

I subscribe

Follow all the international news by downloading the RFI application

Read on on the same topics:

  • Lithuania
  • Russia
  • Ukraine
  • Our selection