US President Donald Trump has been a fierce critic of NATO for years, but his military attacks against the alliance have increased during the Iran war. Trump has ripped NATO allies for not participating in the war and threatened to withdraw the United States from the alliance.
Trump’s presidency has been seen as a major test for the transatlantic alliance and led Europe to take more independent measures when it comes to defense. The tension he has created between Washington and NATO has raised serious questions about whether it will survive.
But while some NATO leaders have criticized Trump for his leadership style and decision-making, not everyone in the alliance sees him as a problem.
Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kestutis Budrys actually believes that NATO will be better off in the long run because of Trump. “At the end of the day, when we look back on this period, I’m sure the conclusion will be that President Trump made this union stronger, not weaker,” Budrys said. Foreign Policy Saturday during an interview at the GLOBSEC Forum in Prague, Czech Republic.
Moreover, Budrys seemed to agree with some of Trump’s accusations against NATO in relation to the Iran war, saying that European countries should have been more willing to help the United States resolve the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz. “That’s our partner that needs our involvement,” Budrys said. “NATO partners should do their part and also take our solution to this situation.”
Budrys also spoke about the escalation of the drone conflict in the Baltics, his lack of hope for a Ukraine peace deal, and what needs to be prioritized at the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey, in July.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Foreign Policy: You were in Sweden for a meeting of NATO foreign ministers. What are your biggest takeaways?
Kestosis Precautions: We have to prepare for the Ankara summit, that was the purpose of our meeting—and bring attention to at least three or four priorities. First of all, NATO and its security are indivisible. What is happening right now on the border of drone incidents, and Russia’s ridiculous accusations of the Baltic countries helping Ukraine or providing air space for attacks against Russia, we should take it seriously. This is an attempt to exacerbate the situation. It shows Russia’s weakness, but it also shows their willingness to escalate tensions with us. That is for us not only to respond with voice, but also with full deployment on the front line, strengthening the Eastern Sentry, Baltic Sentry operations, and also focusing on making air missile defense integrated with speed and (increasing) the ability to deal with drones.
The second thing is for Europe to speed up and increase defense spending. Before our summit (in Ankara), we should show each other and demonstrate that we are implementing the Hague commitment (for members to increase defense spending to 5 percent of GDP by 2035). And for Europe, it is also important to approach Russia from 360 degrees because they are everywhere, from the Arctic to the Mediterranean Sea and also in all fields, from cyberspace to space. For Europe, that’s a lot of homework.
Third is Ukraine. We have to agree on a very predictable, long-term process on how we will help Ukraine and how we will share this burden. We know what their needs are, we know what they need, and we understand that a payday loan doesn’t cover everything.
And the fourth is the defense sector. We believe in an open, unfettered transatlantic defense sector. We should build one and cut red tape and all the protectionism and economic nationalism and build a market that would produce Russia.
FP: Drone strikes are a priority for the Baltic states right now, and leaders in the region have called for a full air defense mission to respond. What would that look like, and what else needs to be done to address this growing problem?
KB: The EU also needs to invest in capacity at the border. That is why we are calling on the Eastern Flank Watch to include an anti-drone capability. We call for increased spending in the new MFF (Mulannual Financial Framework) for building stability on the front line, as well as special attention from the European Commission to this particular problem. It is not only about drones, but various types of measures against the activities of Russia and Belarus against us. And also deal with different hybrid activities.
And not only about the Baltic. We should talk about strengthening the front line all the way from Finland back down south to the Mediterranean. There is a lot to do, and we have to incorporate Ukraine’s expertise and lessons learned from there. The presidents of Lithuania and Ukraine have signed an agreement on defense cooperation and the ability to deal with drones. This is an important step for both sides, but we have to do it across Europe.
FP: Both Ukraine and Russia seem to be to insist on American peace talks. The conversation is stuck. There has been no progress. Europe is reportedly considering appointing an envoy to handle these negotiations on its behalf with Russia. Are you hopeful that we will see any progress in this area in the near future?
KB: The quick answer is no. I have no hope. What we have seen is how (Russian President Vladimir) Putin has avoided any results in the US attempt to reach a peace agreement, after more than a year with genuine diplomatic efforts. Putin was lying to everyone and delaying, and we are seeing the results.
Together we should take steps to punish him for this behavior. He was just wasting our time. And he’s wasting Ukrainian lives, destroying their infrastructure, and just continuing to do what he was doing. So we understand that it is about him, not about our creativity. This is not a discussion session. This is about the power of love. And we should have a clear understanding of what we demand and what is the goal of this conversation. That is how we will decide if we are successful or not. I don’t think the time is right now.
We should also prepare different scenarios and how we will be able to change his mind. And I don’t know the answer. Frozen items. Let’s use them. Additional restriction packages. Put Rosatom on it. Enter Lukoil. Lithuania was always recommending. Bringing pain to Russia. This is how it should work. Otherwise it is preordained (to give) bad results.
FP: In recent days, there have been mixed messages from the Trump administration regarding the deployment of US troops to Poland. Did (US) Secretary of State Marco Rubio provide further clarification on this when the ministers met in Sweden?
KB: It was he announced by President Trump (that 5,000 US troops would be sent to Poland), and we expect that it will be implemented soon.
We have every reason why the US military should be on the front lines. In Lithuania, we have the best conditions as a host nation—support as well as training sites—so that we can increase the number of troops currently there. We think that it is economic, financial, military, and strategic in the interests of the United States, and not to mention our interests, for them to be there. And I believe that this set of reasoning is what led to this decision and announcement.
FP: Trump has been insulting NATO allies for not participating in the Iran war. Do you think there is any fair case to be made that NATO should participate in this war?
KB: NATO partners should do their part and also take our own solution to this situation, first of all starting with freedom of navigation in the (Strait of) Hormuz. Just go out and check the price of gas. It affects us. It is our intention to solve it. That is our partner who needs our participation. We should do that, at least consider it.
From the beginning, the reaction was negative. From Lithuania, we are open to any kind of help that we can provide. We made a decision in Lithuania that we will contribute to the best of our ability in de-mining and also in the operations that will be carried out in that area. Whether it’s the US-led Maritime Freedom Initiative or the British-French-led International Military Mission, we will be part of it. We intend to solve this.
Instead of discussing how it was established, and what is the legal and political basis on it, we should discuss more if it is in the interest of Europe. And if it’s an interest, and I’m sure it is, and also Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, we should take steps to protect it. We have to stop expecting and believing that someone else will do our job.
FP: It is not only the Iran war that Trump has criticized NATO allies. He has also caused tension on issues ranging from Greenland to his historic comments about NATO troops not being on the front lines in Afghanistan. Many countries were understandably angry. Are you worried that the Trump administration is doing long-term damage to the trans-Atlantic alliance?
KB: We have a strong transatlantic alliance. All these situations you listed—we resolved them in the spirit of partners and in a manner without additional and unnecessary tensions. And we are still committed to each other. We should not expect that it will be easy ahead of us. There are some issues that we have to discuss and resolve. Economic issues, taxes and other regulations, for example. But if we act like we did, calmly and understand that we have to think about the bigger picture and be more interested, we can do that – whether it’s the situation in the Gulf or any other situation.
What we should also show very clearly is that we are united among ourselves. I remember those concerns before the Hague summit or even now before the ministerial meeting. All were successful. Therefore, now looking at the Ankara summit, in order to make it a success, we have to send a strong message that we are united. Because if we now question the credibility of the transatlantic relationship or Article 5, how can we manage to make our opponents believe in it? This is the essence of mutual protection: whether or not your partner will come.
And at the end of the day, when we look back on this period, I’m sure the conclusion will be that President Trump made this union stronger, not weaker. And The Hague’s defense investment commitment is one of the elements to prove it. So, if there is a desire on the part of Europe to do more, give more, fine, let’s do it. But not instead of NATO. It helps with NATO.
