“I keep repeating – speak a lot, write a lot – it’s
hopeless. And I can’t hold back.
The recent upheaval of the Lithuanian political elite and
the hastily started collecting signatures of Seimas members for the deletion of
Article 137 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania force us to return
to the fundamental principles of state structure and strategic thinking. The
aforementioned article, which laconically and clearly declares that “there
cannot be weapons of mass destruction and military bases of foreign states on
the territory of the Republic of Lithuania”, is being presented today as an
outdated anachronism that hinders our security.
Let’s distance ourselves from illusions – we have before us
yet another short-sighted, emotional and exclusively public relations-oriented
campaign. There is no deep strategy here. This is an attempt to demonstrate
momentary belligerence, which will not bring any tangible military benefits in
the long term, but will create new, difficult-to-control existential risks for
our geographically vulnerable state.
At least some of the signatories of the March 11 Act,
including myself, could afford a bitter smile.
In 1992, when creating and later adopting the Constitution
by referendum, we tried to capture such safeguards that would allow Lithuania
to survive the most difficult geopolitical storms. The formula at that time had
a clear goal - to legally eliminate any pretext for the Russian army to remain,
and to declare to the world our non-nuclear, peaceful status in the future.
The current government, it seems, is using this legal legacy
to demonstratively show how “resolute, belligerent and uncompromising” it is by
deleting it from the constitution. Removing the article in parliament, having
gathered a qualified majority of the Seimas members and bypassing a general
referendum of the people, can become a way to gain instant political points in
the transatlantic space. Thus, by declaring readiness to accept foreign nuclear
weapons in a country that has neither the physical infrastructure to store them
nor the operational depth to defend them, the desire to be even more visible
and “significant” is being realized. The ruling elite is happy to have found an
opportunity to demonstrate a tough stance.
I am forced to think, whether I like it or not, that the
great tragedy of this action is that the current Lithuanian diplomacy and
foreign policy makers simply do not know anything else, except for constant,
belligerent steps. They consistently operate in the same space of
confrontation, because by “heating up” each other, they are unable to generate
any alternatives.
Truly mature politicians should understand that positive
changes, even in the current tense international relations, are not necessarily
of a military nature. Security is not just divisions, tanks or the theoretical
possibility of planting a tactical bomb in Šiauliai. Security is the ability to
restore or maintain at least technical channels of relations with neighboring
states, to minimize hybrid threats, to use the institutional and economic
mechanisms of the European Union so that your country does not become a
training ground for direct military confrontation or a catalyst for actions
stimulating confrontation.
(A slight digression - the ruling majority, I am afraid, did
not understand and does not understand that the problem of the Minister of
Foreign Affairs is not the China issue (or not only it), but much deeper.)
After all, A. Einstein is credited with the words that
"madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a
different result." I say this, remembering my attempts to say that the
5th, 10th, 20th sanctions package or the allocation of 2, 3, 5 percent of funds
for defense does not lead to "deterrence", but only to their further
increase (of sanctions, percentages), if you will, leading nowhere or at least
not to security. I could recall that Europe's approach to the Russian invasion
of Ukraine began with helping Ukraine in the first days with helmets and moved
on to tanks, planes, drones, etc. Maybe someone will dare to say that we are
safer today than 5 or 10 years ago, when these "increases" began?
Foreign policy, like any other policy, must be evaluated according to its
results. And they are clearly not positive. It is not rational to make excuses
that it depended on other entities. That is why you are politicians, that is
why you are elevated above others, to predict the behavior of others and adjust
your own course of action.
Military logic has no emotions. It is cold. When a state
opens the door to nuclear weapons with its own hands, it instantly rises to the
list of first-class, priority targets on the military maps of a potential
adversary. This means that in the event of a possible conflict, preventive, not
defensive strikes will be launched on our territory (including the Vilnius
district and border areas). We ourselves, with our own hands, are destroying
the constitutional shield and voluntarily assume the burden of a nuclear
target, without receiving any additional physical security here and now in
return.
Returning to the Constitution’s amendment. The real
consequences of deleting Article 137 will be completely opposite to those
promised by the initiators. This step in an already maximally heated region
will become another moment of not “deterrence” (as some imagine), but a very
significant moment of escalation.
Article 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
states that “the most important issues of the life of the State and the Nation
shall be resolved by referendum”. The issue of the deployment of nuclear
weapons in Lithuania is not a question of “confiscating scooters”.
Dear Members of the Seimas, are you sure that you have
enough competence and responsibility to resolve this issue by circumventing the
will of the Nation expressed in an obvious and indisputable manner?!”
Komentarų nėra:
Rašyti komentarą