Disagreements over defense spending in Lithuania

  "The data of the survey published last week show that 36 percent of respondents do not approve of more funds being allocated to defense, 31.5 percent would not agree to pay higher taxes, but believe that business could do it, 18.6 percent are willing to pay higher taxes for defense, while 13.9 percent of respondents have no opinion.

 

     Most attention was paid to the large proportion of those who opposed the new taxes, 3.5 times as large as those who supported them (36 plus 31.5 equals 67.5, divided by 18.6, we get 3.6 times). The results can be evaluated in different ways. I would be inclined (I emphasize - inclined) to think that this shows the common sense of the majority Lithuanians, their ability to resist the "sky is falling" scenarios put forward by the highest government officials, that after a while Russia will attack Lithuania or other NATO countries. For others, it shows that there are many stupid people (majority) who do not care about the security of Lithuania, who are influenced by Russian propaganda and disinformation.

 

     Urbanites and more educated people support the increase of national defense, villagers and poorer people are against it. Difference of opinion is not necessarily determined by knowledge and education. Called to serve, a village boy will serve. The cream of the crop will more easily avoid service and are unlikely to be sent to an infantry company.

 

     The more funds are allocated to defense, the less will be left for reducing segregation and various social services important to the less well-off. After becoming president of the United States in April 1953, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe Dwight D. Eisenhower aptly observed that "every weapon manufactured, warship launched, missile fired ultimately represents a theft from those who are hungry and underfed, from those who are cold and underclothed." The richer people do not need social services, so they are not important to them.

 

     There's no need to jump to conclusions from one survey, but the results are troubling for advocates of increasing defense spending. Minister of National Defense Arvydas Anušauskas says that higher funding for defense is necessary in order to develop the necessary capabilities in time, and the fact that a majority of society does not feel the threat is not just. I don't understand what the opposition to increasing the defense budget has to do with justice, how do you define justice? Maybe it would be wrong to avoid paying higher taxes if they were passed, but that's another question.

 

     In order to determine which behavior is the most rational under conditions of uncertainty, it is necessary to calculate which possible alternative maximizes the product of utility and probability for all possible actions.

 

     Let's say that maximum preparation to stop or deter a Russian attack is much more useful than investing money in education and health care if Lithuania is occupied or ravaged by Russia. But what are the chances that Russia will decide to attack? If the additional spending provides a better defense that can stop a Russian attack (say a security value of 1000) but the probability of an attack is 5 percent, the defense benefit is 50. If the benefit of greater investment in social services is 200, and the probability is 50 percent, then the benefit (100) is twice the increased defense benefits. The example here is for illustration purposes only, but it shows that the benefits of increased defense capabilities depend on how potential actions by the Russian government are assessed.

 

     Many Western politicians, political scientists and military personnel believe that if Russia is allowed to win in Ukraine, after five or ten years the Kremlin will direct its army to NATO countries or destabilize them by hybrid means.

 

     These apprehensions are difficult for me to understand. During the current conflict, Russia has not attacked any NATO country, even those through which modern weapons are supplied to Ukraine. Empty threats aside, it has not responded to increased Western support, not only in weapons but also in intelligence.

 

     Intercepted conversations of German generals released these days show that US, British and French officers stationed in Ukraine are helping to plan attacks on such important targets as the Kerch bridge.

 

      Ukraine is a special obsession of Putin and many Russians, other countries are not given such importance, so it is unlikely that there will be an attempt to subdue them.

 

     Some observers regret that no consensus has been reached in the security policy, that it is politicized, that the Soc-Dem voter will automatically reject everything proposed by the conservatives. I don't think partisanship affects security policy that much, or at least it can't be claimed without a deeper analysis.

 

     Many politicians believe that common solutions should be found on important issues. Consensus is useful if it is sincere and flexible, not imposed and rigid and dogmatic. It is important to leave the freedom to change your mind and demand change.

 

     The great British economist John Maynard Keynes said that, "when the facts change, I change my opinion - what do you do, sir?" Except for war, a country does not need too much unity, it is important to maintain diversity of thought and opinion, especially since the government leaders are used to thinking that they know the most, assess the situation most accurately, so they wait for their opinions to be approved.

 

     When it comes to security, caution is a virtue, as is developing independent and reasoned thinking. It is to be hoped that the reluctance to accept the government's appeals uncritically is useful, even if it only forces it to better explain government's aims, rather than taking them for granted."