The Conversation with Eduardas Vaitkus, Dedicated to His Candidacy in the Lithuanian Presidential Elections

"Just as Lithuania is important to me, Russia is important to Vladimir Putin," says Eduardas Vaitkus, a medical doctor who has independently run for president, describing the Moscow leader as a particularly experienced politician. According to the candidate, V. Putin is "doing what the head of the country must do."

"And I fully understand that others would say that we need to be even stricter. Even stricter. Because you can't humiliate yourself that much anymore," said E. Vaitkus in an interview with Elta.

Speaking about the leader of the Russia, E. Vaitkus does not shy away from praise. And although he calls the leader of the former Soviet Union Joseph Stalin a dog,  he assures that he cannot call V. Putin  that. In general, according to E. Vaitkaus, if it were not for V. Putin, "Russia would be torn into pieces".

"I recommend to everyone (to listen to - ELTA) Putin's speech in Munich <...>. Analyze according to the characteristics of the voice - with what words, in what voice, in what timbre he pronounces certain words," said the politician aspiring for the post of Lithuania's leader.

Despite such rhetoric, E. Vaitkus rejects the label of a pro-Russian candidate attached to him by political opponents and competitors and says that he is pro-Lithuanian.

"My perception is that only Lithuania is important. If I were Chinese, I would probably say that only China is important. My task: as long as I am alive, to try so that the situation in Lithuania does not go as it is going now, to war and destruction", E. Vaitkus explained his vision.

"And that's why I say that Lithuania is not for sale," he added.

- As the presidential election campaign is in full swing and more and more discussions, debates and speeches are heard in the public space, a clear difference between you and the other candidates can be seen when it comes to foreign policy. In your program, you call on citizens to advocate for a neutral Lithuania. Expand your mind - what does neutral Lithuania mean?

- At the beginning, let's say how I see the situation now. Now we, all the people of Lithuania, are literally being dragged into the war. Psychologically trained. Already two years ago, on the lips of Dalia Grybauskaitė, it was necessary to start a direct war with Russia. Then, this idea came to the present in various variations - war is simply inevitable, war will still be necessary, it is necessary to prepare, Russia will not attack us for several years, but after we are ready, then they will definitely attack... Such speeches are constant. Now the question is - why are we being dragged into that war and who is dragging us? That our local government - I call it the government of traitors - is self-evident and clear here. Why? And what happened here? And in order to find out what happened here, you first need to understand what is happening on the territory of Ukraine. What happens there directly affects us.

- You call what is happening in Ukraine a proxy war.

- Yes. Here, according to terminology, a classic proxy war. Proxy war - Western countries are waging war against Russia on the poor land of Ukraine, with the blood of Ukrainians. Due to the fact that from a geopolitical point of view, Western countries have not found a common solution. America is definitely in first place here. America is the main player.

Let's remember when the proxy war was on the territory of Vietnam. The Soviet Union waged war against America on the territory of Vietnam - millions died. This is in the current proxy war - the horror is unimaginable, there is a war of this level in Europe. And for what?

There was talk that everyone needs to be safe. Natural. There were talks about the fact that all European countries signed documents that contained the idea - the security of all of us is a common matter, the security of one country cannot be achieved at the expense of the security of other countries. This provision, in my opinion, is very good and fair, because we must all be equal. One cannot be more superior than the others. This provision in 2021 was finally changed. <...>. In 2008, as a result of the expansion of NATO, the conclusion was reached that Ukraine cannot be accepted into NATO, because the acceptance of Ukraine into NATO is tantamount to declaring war on Russia. Yes in 2008 said Angela Merkel. Germany, France agreed to it and the American president also agreed. So why should we go to war? Why?

In 2021 the Americans said - we will decide again on Ukraine's membership in NATO. And already in Ukraine is (under construction - ELTA) infrastructure, military training, etc. - steps have already been taken. We just need the last anointing - we accept Ukraine into NATO, although the same situation applies - such Western actions mean a declaration of war against Russia. Russia can only assess in this way - and it has articulated and said so.

Western countries then said - let us know how Russia will ensure its security. We are among those Western countries, but it was not our decision here, we are just following the instructions. The West has planned - not Lithuania - that Russia will not have enough political will to respond to this situation by war, they do not have sufficient economic capabilities, (...) there will be no political will and they will not do anything. (...)

  - What you are saying gives the impression that the war in Ukraine is provoked by the West and NATO - as you call it in the program, an aggressive military bloc?

- Yes. Several main NATO countries – though it is really only one. Their policy was as follows - we still move and do it, despite the promise (not to expand NATO - ELTA). Since Russia kept swallowing these stages of development, it could be predicted that it would swallow this one as well. And they calculated, also economically and with conventional military weapons, that it would be possible to destroy Russia economically - and if we destroy it economically, then it cannot wage war, that's all. From the perspective of the West, we will defeat Russia and achieve our interests, and what will happen next with it is a separate issue. And the problem was that there was political will. (...)

- Let's return to the situation in Ukraine. Listening to your arguments and vision, I want to ask - who do you think Crimea belongs to?

- Very easy question. I have already answered it many times. Crimea currently belongs to Russia.

- Then I will clarify - is Crimea occupied by Russia? Is it a territory belonging to Russia per se?

- Crimea belongs to Russia. Crimea used to belong to Ukraine. Even longer, Crimea belonged to the Soviet Union. Even earlier, Crimea belonged to tsarist Russia - and so we will go back to the Greek cities, where the Greeks had their inhabitants, or to the Crimean Khanate.

The problem with Crimea is that we, the Western countries, set such a precedent with the example of Serbia and Kosovo. Kosovo is a historical territory of Serbia, now Albanians live there. What did they do? They said that Kosovo unilaterally secedes from Serbia, although they should decide jointly... But they said - unilaterally. And we, Lithuania, and other Western countries, except for Spain, recognized that Kosovo has such a right.

Let's go back to Crimea - Russian troops were in Crimea under the treaty. For some reason, the Ukrainian army withdrew from the territory of Crimea without firing a shot. Without any shot. So did the army leave with instructions from Kyiv or without instructions from Kyiv? We don't even talk about it. How could (the army - ELTA) not resist if this is an occupation? How could that be?

The people of Crimea said their will - there is an idea that there are not only human freedoms, but also the rights of nations. A willing nation lives one way, a willing nation declares its will and lives differently. The people of Crimea expressed their will in a referendum. (...) Later, Western countries conducted repeated polls - and those polls still show that the majority of the population is in favor of Crimea being a part of Russia. They declared their independence and (aspires - ELTA) to then be a part of Russia.

When we let the genie out of the bottle with Kosovo... As I remember then, Russian President Putin said - what are you doing, you are setting a precedent, countries can be divided. After releasing this genie, now Lithuania's position, I imagine, can be of two types. One, if we adhere to a value position and do not use double standards, then we say - since we recognized Kosovo, we simply must recognize Crimea, because we have no other option. Or then we reverse our decision - which is also impossible to do realistically - that we do not recognize the independence of Kosovo and then we do not recognize Crimea as independent. And then Crimea joins the Russian team - and you can't do anything.

- Let's return to the topic of NATO. You participated in a discussion at the Center for Eastern European Studies and spoke about the fact that Lithuania should withdraw from this Alliance. Why?

- We participate in the military bloc. And at the beginning, my rhetorical question is - is this a very important or not very important choice for Lithuania? I say right away - it is a very important choice to participate in some kind of military bloc, to assume obligations for other countries as well. Then I say - what is written in the Constitution? That the most important issues of life are decided by the people of Lithuania, not by the government. This is my one argument - the Lithuanian authorities decided for all of us that we must be in this military bloc.

The Second World War ended in Europe and Stalin - that big dog, thug - thought that Germany should be a united state, not divided. This was the idea of the Soviet Union. And the second thought - Germany must be a neutral state, not a military one. This idea was categorically opposed by England and America. And because of this, Germany was divided, because of the introduction of weapons into the part of Germany - because we are at war.

- Let's get back to the question.

- Yes. Being in such an aggressive military bloc, my rhetorical question is, are we safer? Or just less secure? My analysis is as follows and my conclusion is that being in that aggressive bloc that seeks confrontation with Russia, our security has not increased, but decreased.

Then I give the example of Austria, which was occupied by the USSR army. A very big injustice was done in Europe after the First World War. Terrible injustice. And one of the points - Austria had no right to unite with Germany. 

Lithuania could be like Austria. An independent state, a neutral state. And we do not confront anyone.

- But if we compare Austria and Lithuania - that Austria is what Lithuania could focus on. After all, Austria does not have such neighbors as Belarus and Russia. Isn't this a game changer?

- There was a USSR army in Austria.

- Once upon a time. But we are talking about today.

- And why is the army of the Soviet Union no longer there? This army could have stayed. Just as the USSR army was in East Germany, it could have stayed in Austria as well.

- But, I will repeat, we are talking about today's Austria and today's Lithuania.

- And in today's Austria... Austria has three or four times more inhabitants than Lithuania, and the army is almost the same size as Lithuania's, the difference is not much. Austria had an army several times larger, although it had no borders with Russia and Belarus. But do you know why Austria was more smart? Because there was a NATO doctrine - that if anything, a tactical atomic weapon would be fired and exploded near Austria. That said to the Austrians - no, no, no, we will do whatever you want, not a word about a nuclear weapon near us or on our territory. And they had two or three times more of their soldiers. Then that concept was scrapped.

I'm going back. If we accept that Russia has the same rights as us, the rest of Europe - let's make this assumption (we refuse in reality to accept this assumption) - then Russia has nothing to attack us for, because we guarantee security. Are they crazy? For all to live in peace and safety and prosper economically - so wonderful and great.

- Due to your vision and approach to foreign policy, some opponents, politicians and public figures call you a pro-Kremlin, pro-Russian actor. Do you consider yourself to be one?

- During the times of the USSR, I was very anti-Soviet in my internal attitude. I remember it very well. (...)

I was born in Lithuania. Since I was born here, my task is to make Lithuania a little better. This is not only my perception, but also my experience - Lithuania is the only reason why our life can gain meaning. If Lithuania is unimportant, then we are no longer here. If we don't have our own tradition, Lithuanian traditions, we don't have any cementing medium. We are all sideways and we are gone. And for some reason I want us, the honorable people of the honorable country, to show our example to the rest of the world - how to manage our country and how to raise moral characteristics to a high level. Not that morality and decency are not the dimension of this world. This would mean that everything is possible, everything can be bought and sold.

My perception is that only Lithuania is important. If I were Chinese, I would probably say that only China is important. My task: as long as I am alive, to try so that the situation in Lithuania does not go as it is now - to war and destruction. (...)

- In conclusion - you do not consider yourself pro-Russian, not pro-Kremlin, but pro-Lithuanian?

- Just like that. And that is why I say that Lithuania is not for sale.

- What do you think, how do you rate Vladimir Putin?

- I think he is a particularly experienced politician. And I liked the statement - I don't know if it's true, but I assume that it could be true - (...) that Putin is Yeltsin's conscience. This statement was made with the idea that Yeltsin sold out Russia. Totally sold.

In this context, there is one video that I also remember very well - Yeltsin goes and greets everyone, and Putin looks at Yeltsin with such a look... I wouldn't want anyone to look at me like that. Instead, I think that just as Lithuania is important to me, Russia is important to Putin.

- Many Western leaders do not avoid bad words when talking about Putin - they call him both a murderer. Earlier, in response to another question, you called Stalin a dog. Would you call Putin that?

- No, no way. By no means.

- Why?

- If viewed from the leader's position, he does what the head of the country must do. And I fully understand that others would say that we need to be even stricter. Even stricter. Because it is impossible to humiliate yourself so much.

I understand this. If a nation has no self-respect, if people have no self-respect - you can do whatever you want with people. The situation in Lithuania was terrible in 1990-1995. I remember it well. But the situation in Russia was even more dire. If not for Putin, in my opinion, that Russia would have been torn apart a long time ago. And instead, I recommend to everyone (listen - ELTA) Putin's speech in Munich - 2007 or 2008. Only 30 minutes. An elementary truth has been told. Analyze according to the characteristics of the voice - with what words, in what voice, in what timbre he pronounces certain words.

- If you become the president, would you emulate the leader of Russia? How about a certain ideal of politics, head of state, authority?

- I cannot say about the authority. He just does what he has to do. Now I'm thinking... I'm soft on the one hand, but hard on the other. Tough in the sense that where I feel it's important, I won't budge and I won't budge. But where it can be both this way and the other way - God, do as you will, I don't care. It is in some places, where it is important from the point of view of moral or state direction - there can be no deviations. But everywhere else - we can unite in diversity. Let's be different, let's be happy that we are all different, and not all, God forbid, be ranked according to one. Then it would be a nightmare. To rank everyone according to one truth, according to one instruction - it would be a betrayal of Lithuania as an idea.

- Summarizing the topics of foreign and security policy: in the program you write about the fact that war propaganda should be punished. What do you consider war propaganda?

- I can think that Russia is a threat, and it won't be propaganda - maybe I'm thinking right, maybe I'm thinking wrong, but a person can have such an opinion, it's natural.

When Grybauskaitė said that it is necessary to start a direct war with Russia, I wrote a statement to the Journalists' Ethics Commission and I have their answer that this is her opinion. Is this not a violation of the Constitution? Because it is written in the Constitution that war propaganda is prohibited. Then I added Delfi, 15 minutes, LRT to them, for whom the law provides - if they publish war propaganda, fines are provided. The Ethics Inspectorate of Journalists said that war propaganda is not war propaganda and therefore there is no need to punish here. <...>.

- You mentioned some media - out of curiosity, what media do you read and follow?

- In the past, I used to read Delfi, I wrote messages that they made a mistake, that someone... There was an experience with Delfi before one election. I remember, then I wrote two messages (articles - ELTA). One - why old Landsbergis disappointed me. I wrote arguments - because he acted like a mafia boss. And the second one is about Dalia Grybauskaitė.

- But what are you following, reading now?

- Then Delfi banned me from posting my comments. And then when the elections were over, they already allowed it.

I am currently reading only LRT because it is the official state mouthpiece. Either Delfi or ELTA - these are foreign agents, because they are not managed from Lithuania. The hosts are not in Lithuania. Instead, my opinion is that it is necessary to publicly declare and say it. It is necessary to adopt the Law on Foreign Agents in Lithuania.

- So what?

- Oh, a lot.

"Because I wanted to ask you to name examples of who you think are foreign agents." But since you have already named the media that I represent - explain what would change such a law? Would it be of any benefit?

- In 1938 Hitler's propaganda was already a thing all over the world. Therefore, America in 1938 passed its own Foreign Agents Act - declare, submit and mark that you represent something other than the local American situation, but from somewhere else. Keep informed and keep working - work, do what you want. But there will be information for people.

<...>. The hosts of foreign agents are not in Lithuania. And the question is, first, how much the owners interfere, how much the owners do not interfere. We will never know anything.

- Every citizen can open media websites, requisites - find information about the owners of those media. Why some additional law on foreign agents, which I think you will agree has a negative connotation - knowing how that law works in Russia and what kind of public reaction we see in Sakartvel.

- You are trying to say that the law adopted and operating in America, which has not been repealed, is somehow inappropriate on the scale of Lithuania. What I am trying to say is that I am taking an example from America and at this point I agree that such a provision, which was also implemented by Hungary last year (can be adopted - ELTA). Details are a separate issue. But since February 1st of this year, this law, which you say could be very bad, is already working in Hungary. I'm not in favor of not taking a good example from America, am I? <...>.

- Continuing the analysis of your electoral program. You say that a referendum should be held on the return of the litas, and you also propose to enshrine cash in the Constitution.

- Yes, of course.

- Speaking of cash - why is it needed?

- We are moving towards digitization at a steady pace and... The situation of enslavement and lawlessness is already extremely high.

For the sake of interest, the Bank of Sweden in Lithuania directly intervened in the Lithuanian presidential elections. 

The Swedish bank took it and decided that I could not make orders for the printing and transport of the newspaper from my electoral Swedbank account. I cannot make such an order - it was the decision of the Swedish bank.

- You mean your personal account?

- No, not personal. Account opened for elections.

They said you are allowed to spend 20k euros per month. I wrote to them - please let me spend 22 thousand. They said - we will not allow it. I appealed to the Central Election Commission that by March 1 I can't process orders from the electoral account, the Swedish bank is interfering in the presidential election. The Supreme Election Commission, which should ensure that the elections are conducted democratically, equally, etc., said - we cannot do anything.

Then I sent (appeal - ELTA) to the Lithuanian Seimas, to the chairman of the Budget and Finance Committee. They forwarded to the Bank of Lithuania and the Bank of Lithuania said at the beginning of March - so from March 1 already allows making orders, the issue is already closed. I say - no, it is not finished, I am asking for your official answer.

Now I have their official answer that the Bank of Sweden had the right not to allow me to make orders, not to increase my limit, because they have that right due to anti-corruption and anti-money laundering.

I have approached the Swedish ambassador to consider negotiating with Swedbank to allow me to use the money. The Swedish ambassador wrote back in English that this is a problem between me and Swedbank and we have to solve it separately. I wrote to him - this is interference in the elections of the president of Lithuania, because I cannot carry out an election campaign for two weeks because I have no money.

Now the funnest part is demonstrating the level of absurdity. My personal account, which I also have at Swedbank, was combined with the election account. And one 20 thousand euro limit was set for them. This is if, for example, I make transfer of 20 thousand from the election account, I cannot use anything from my personal account. I can not do anything.

And finally...

- And back to the question...

- The Bank of Sweden is behaving like this because the Seimas of Lithuania - the Seimas of traitors - allows them to do so. Grants such powers. My treasurer, a stranger who has to manage the electoral account, she also has her own personal account in this Swedish bank. And her personal account was added to that election, she couldn't complete her order. <...>.

- Mr. Vaitkus, however, I want to return to the question. Again, you talk about enshrining cash in the Constitution. You give an example of an order of about 20 thousand euros. So if it's not bank account transfers, how would you imagine a settlement of this size - I'll bet, you're not going to carry money with your suitcases?

- In my opinion, a person has the right to manage his personal property as he wishes. If he wants to carry luggage, he must have that right.

- Then let's sum up the points and agree - if cash was enshrined in the Constitution, does this mean that all bank transfers and credit cards disappear, or is it more of a value proposition?

- You said it right and you got the idea. I use it and pay for my purchases by phone - it's just very convenient, very good. Why not take advantage of technological opportunities? I'm for it.

But if technological possibilities take over your daily life - believe me, it is very easy for you to limit the purchase of gasoline. You have money, but you can't buy anything because that bank won't let you make a transfer, as an example.

This would not be the only decision of Lithuania - there are also countries in Europe that have also legalized cash in the Constitution. <...>.

- We talked about foreign agents, about the situation of cash and banks, that they have been given too much power. To some people, such thoughts may sound like conspiracy theories. Stories about Soros, the Bilderberg Club, Bill Gates, Masons... Do you think such stories are true or fiction?

- I will answer differently. You mentioned Bill Gates - I check him out on Twitter. It was Bill Gates who said a week ago that the mortality of old people with the corona virus is low. Its manifestation is low mortality. From the corona.

Remember all that hysteria... Here in Lithuania, Minister Veryga introduced a quarantine - when it made no sense from a medical point of view. It was introduced as a practice by the government with a passport of opportunity to discriminate against the people of Lithuania - if you approve of this discrimination, then we will be able to push even harder in the future. Just a test, an experiment way - let's see how much we can force you until you start protesting.

(...) And all this was done deliberately, causing fears and hysteria. And through fears and hysteria, the governing mechanism was refined. It's obvious to me. <...>.

- Summarizing what we talked about - don't get confused, it gives the impression that you are not looking so much at the future perspective, but more at the past. But finally, let's make a prediction: if you become president, how will Lithuania look in 5 years, after your term in Daukantas Square?

- Peace in Europe must be achieved in a mandatory manner. This is the first, most important task. If there is no peace in Europe, our fate will also be sad.

As you may know, Poland has been striving to become a nuclear power for 9 years. Polish military pilots have long been trained to drop atomic bombs. They are already ready. Germans at the party level, at the ministerial level, talked about the fact that Germany does not need an atomic weapon. And then the American ambassador in Warsaw said that she hopes that if such a situation happens, that in that case Poland will understand the necessity and the atomic weapon will be on Polish territory.

(...) When we talk about Lithuania in 5 years, we must achieve peace. And it will not be possible to achieve peace if we do not treat all countries equally, if we say, that some are higher countries and others are lower.

In this context, I remember Winston Churchill, who said: it is natural that the races of people of higher development destroy the races of lower development. Such a beautiful sculpture of Churchill in front of Parliament in London... Naturally, some people destroy others. If we don't give up this idea, if we don't apologize for the government's rhetoric, I find it terrifying to say that all Russians are terrorists. (...) By saying this through the lips of our government - not of an ordinary person, but through the lips of the government - we invite fire on ourselves and give opportunities to our opponent to say that Lithuania must be without Lithuanians. We give such opportunities, it is a provocation.

- If you become president, would you apologize to the Russians?

- No, no way. I can't apologize for others because it's unnatural. That's all I can say in this context.

When LRT showed during the news program that either 10 or 11 million euro fund is created and this money will be paid to those who arrest Lukashenka, I wrote a letter the other day to the Belarusian citizen Aliaksandr Lukashenka, in which I wrote five sentences. One sentence, that I do not support the position of the Lithuanian authorities, that such a fund is being established and that all people should be informed about it. I don't agree. And my task is to prevent Lithuania from becoming a terrorist state. But LRT, a state institution, decided that it was necessary to report such a message.

So when we deliver such a message, then let's think again - we are giving a tool and we are in the danger zone. I am for the fact that Lithuania is a friendly country for all surrounding countries. That we will not give Klaipėda region to anyone. We will definitely not give up Vilnius region. It is a historical legacy, a tradition, and we cannot abandon it without losing face.

And if we lose our face - then we are no good at all. We cannot refuse this. We deal with all our neighbors with an open heart - in good faith. If you are not in a good mood, that's fine, we don't communicate with you. (...) The Pope of Rome also said - so peace has been needed for a long time. Especially since war always ends only in peace. So what else do we need?

- Out of curiosity, did you receive an answer from Lukashenka?

- No. I wrote to him as a citizen of Belarus - specifically and deliberately, because his position does not matter. I deliberately wrote, I wrote in Russian - to Aliaksandr Lukashenka, a citizen of Belarus. No answer.

The interview with E. Vaitkus is part of the cycle dedicated to the presidential elections. Interviews with all candidates for the post of the country's leader are held at the initiative of Elta."

Eduardas Vaitkus has some good ideas for Lithuania. Colonialism against Russians has to be killed, sorry Churchill, if not for other reasons then at minimum for sake of peace and urgently needed improvement of life on Earth. Landsbergis' mafia has to be tried in court of law. The Bank of Sweden has to be shown its place in sovereign Lithuania. We should be allowed to use our cash freely without feeding the bank of Sweden or any other rich and too influential for its own good bank.