Why is the Lithuanian government rushing to push through huge new taxes, to raise our spending on mines and other weapons to 6 percent of GDP, an unprecedented level in peacetime?

 

 

 

Because there is a large audience in Lithuania that watched the conflict in Ukraine as a sports match. If the negotiations are successful, the conflict will end, and that audience will walk away. The Lithuanian "elite" wants to quickly raise its ratings among such "Ukrainian enthusiasts" by doing something that attracts people's attention. The fact that such behavior of the government is ending up destroying Estonian business is of no interest to anyone. Everyone cares only about their personal place at the trough of power until the end of their personal lives. People understand that taking on debt and drastically raising taxes is an unpopular idea. Therefore, the Lithuanian "elite" lies that no one will ever suffer because of such selfish actions of the Lithuanian elite. This lie is becoming more and more blatant every day:

 

“The Lithuanian “elite” intends to significantly, very significantly increase defense spending. Last November, President Gitanas Nausėda claimed that defense may need to allocate 5–5.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) annually. Appetite grows not only while eating, but also while thinking.

This year, the President believes that defense will need to allocate 5–6 percent. The military's needs over the next five years amount to 12–14 billion euros.

 

According to G. Nausėda, the increase in defense funding will be achieved using a mixed financing model. Internal borrowing will be used, using the opportunities of the European Union and finding additional resources, which will be discussed with the institutions.

 

G. Nausėda recently claimed that “it would be wrong if people got the impression that we intend to solve the country's security problems by worsening their financial or social situation. There is really no such goal (emphasis mine).” This is not the goal, but it will probably be a consequence. What is spent on defense cannot be used for other purposes. In a figurative sense, the spent euro no longer exists, which means that some programs, investments and initiatives will inevitably have to be abandoned for the sake of defense.

 

Our partners explain more to their citizens

 

Other European countries are more transparent and honest about how much the increase in defense spending will cost, which programs will be reduced, which services will be limited. February 25 Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that the United Kingdom (UK) would increase defence spending to 2.6% of GDP (including intelligence spending) by 2027 and aim to reach 3% of defence spending in the next parliament. The government would “fully fund the increased defence investment” by reducing foreign aid spending from 0.5% of gross national income (GNI) to 0.3% in 2027. The move to 0.3% would mean a further reduction in the value of UK aid. In 2021, foreign aid spending was cut from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI in response to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.

 

Other European countries are also planning to reduce their foreign aid, sometimes quite drastically. France, for example, is planning to cut development aid by up to 40%. If the proposed cuts are approved, France’s contribution will fall to 0.45 percent of gross national income. In 2021, the country signed a law committing to meet the United Nations target of spending 0.7 percent of its gross national income (GNI) on aid by 2025. Only Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg and Sweden met the target in 2023, but France was on track that year, allocating 0.55 percent of its GNI.

 

The German government, which had already slashed its development and humanitarian aid budgets in 2024, is planning to cut humanitarian aid by almost half again this year. It should be noted that the budget has not yet been approved. The Swedish government more than halved its foreign aid budget in 2023, followed by a sharp cut in funding for development research. The United States has made the most radical cuts in foreign aid. In a sweeping six-week purge, the Trump administration has eliminated 83 percent of the programs run by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which took decades to build.

 

If the Bible tells people to beat swords into plows, Western countries are now beating their plows into swords, with catastrophic consequences for the world’s poorest people and undermining decades of efforts to build “soft power” as a counterweight to autocratic states. The world will be bleaker and less forgiving of foreign aid and development cuts.

 

Where can we get the money?

 

With the exception of generous support to Ukraine, Lithuania is a recipient of foreign aid, not a donor, so savings that would offset increased defense spending will have to be sought elsewhere. The largest share of discretionary spending in the state budget goes to various social services. The government will continue to increase pensions, the monthly minimum wage, child support and other programs designed to help the poorer population, whose situation has improved significantly over the past seven years. All governments that have promoted this growth can be happy with this result.

 

There are significant shortcomings in various areas, especially in healthcare. Insufficient investment is made in such infrastructure elements as hospitals, rehabilitation centers, nursing homes. Even in prestigious hospitals, such as Santariškės and Republican Vilnius University Hospital in Lazdynai, four patients are admitted to each room. Some patients find it difficult to tolerate such forced communication. In the US, one patient is often admitted to a room, two is the maximum. Many hospitals and nursing homes, especially in the provinces, are old and shabby, little different from barracks, patients are crammed into small rooms. It is hardly possible to spend the last days of one’s life here with dignity.

 

I suspect that neither Aurelijus Veryga nor Arūnas Dulkys have visited many of these institutions, because it is inconceivable that they would not have demanded repairs in their shock. The staff is probably honest and competent, but they must also feel discomfort due to the poor working environment, which may contribute to the factors that encourage them to seek work in other countries.

 

The average life expectancy is increasing. Last year it was 71.5 years for men, 81.3 for women. It is predicted that in the year of the military division’s completion, life expectancy will be 73.3 for men, 82.4 for women. The probability of heart attacks and strokes increases with increasing age. Medical rehabilitation options are poor. There are only 17 rehabilitation institutions in Lithuania that provide rehabilitation services for nervous system diseases.

 

Many institutions are in Druskininkai, Birštonas and Palanga, few in Vilnius, none in Kaunas. It is not easy to get into them, which I experienced when a loved one had a stroke. There are simply not enough places, so sometimes you have to wait quite a long time, although the sooner rehabilitation starts, the higher the chance of success.

 

There are other problems. There is a shortage of doctors and nurses, many important medicines are not reimbursed, and therefore are not available to patients. I do not know why at least part of the price cannot be reimbursed.

 

There are also many problems in education. In 2022, the average age of teachers was 51 years (now it is rather higher), because young people are not attracted by teachers' salaries. And more state funding is needed here.

 

The impression is that too little care is taken of seniors and young people. If absolute priority is given to defense and the creation of a division, there will be no funds left for either of them, not only until 2030, but until the loans are paid off.

 

I have no doubt that the 12-13 billion euros allocated for defense will eat up the funds needed to improve the health and education systems. In each case, the President and Prime Minister should follow the example of the UK Prime Minister and speak openly and honestly about how and how much defense will cost, instead of acting as if, like in a Disney movie, only insignificant challenges arise here.”