Lithuania’s MEP Rasa Jukneviciene: 'By not helping Ukraine as much as it needs, we may be repeating 1938'

At a time when much of Europe treads carefully around the shifting geopolitics of war, energy, and security, one Baltic Member of the European Parliament is not mincing words. In this candid and wide-ranging interview, Rasa Jukneviciene, a veteran Lithuanian politician and a current Member of the European Parliament (MEP) representing the European People’s Party (EPP), Vice-Chair of the European Parliament’s Euronest Delegation, and EPP Vice-Coordinator at the Subcommittee on Security and Defence (SEDE) offers a rare and unapologetically direct assessment of the West’s faltering resolve in assisting Ukraine, the dangers of appeasing authoritarian regimes, and the looming risk of repeating the mistakes of the past. “I cannot rule out that the history may be on the verge of repeating itself – unless Europe wakes up fast,” MEP Jukneviciene told The Baltic Times Magazine.

You are perhaps the only Baltic MEP who has criticized the new US administration so harshly over its lenient stance on Russia and its war in Ukraine. What concerns you most?
To be honest, I have never been a big fan of Mr. Donald Trump, yet, in his first presidential term in 2016-2020, he increased US military presence in Europe and provided it US weaponry. In terms of popularity, he is clearly no match to Barack Obama, who was loved all over Europe. Speaking of defence in Europe, it is Russia that has recently significantly increased its military capabilities – not Europe and not NATO. I still believe if the Ukrainians had received enough military support after they pushed the Russian troops out of Kherson and Kharkiv, they could have freed the entire country; however, the support it needed so badly was not on hand. 

So, all the American presidents preceding Trump have erred on Russia; however, it is Trump who has been so overtly Russia-friendly, seeing it from the prospect of a deal-making. That is a big mistake. What I see now happening reminds me of the year 1938, when the then–British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain demonstrated a policy of appeasement toward Adolf Hitler and famously declared "peace for our time" after signing the Munich Agreement in September 1938, which led to World War II. No exaggeration: we live at a time of epochal shift now, and I cannot be certain that the mistakes the US makes now will not turn into a major calamity – for Europe and for Lithuania, too.

Can Europe alone afford its security? Do you see any European leaders emerging who can bring everyone together to build a new, perhaps US-less, security model?
Continuing the topic of Trump, it was him who woke up Europe, prompting it to rapidly ramp up its defence through new substantial funding. Until now, it was the United States that contributed 70 percent of the NATO budget, leaving the EU’s contribution of the remaining 30 percent looking ridiculously low. So, indeed, on that, I am on the same page as Trump – the Americans cannot continue to pay bills for Europe’s security, and, let’s admit, until now, it was happening with most of Europe enjoying high living standards, high-quality social care, and et cetera – at the expense of the Americans, many of whom live worse off than us here. That’s the reality.
Since the beginning of the war against Ukraine, the European Union spent only a mere 0.1% of its GDP for Ukraine, which is miserable, particularly considering that we see Ukraine as the guarantor of our own security, emphasizing that its fight is ours, too. I saw once an illustration that touched me deeply: an EU citizen spends as much helping Ukraine each month as they do on an average of 1.2 cups of coffee per month. Following this example, couldn’t we spare Ukraine the cost of three cups of coffee each month?
To answer your question about Europe’s defence capabilities: we are still far from where we need to be, but I hope we will be fully capable of defending ourselves in a couple of years from now. I see some promising signs already – such as the ReArm Europe initiative. Now renamed to Readiness 2030, it is a central component of the Readiness 2030 strategy, which focuses on strengthening Europe's defense and military capabilities and aims to increase defense production, readiness, and military cooperation among European countries.
Besides, the European Union has launched the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) program, a €150 billion defense loan initiative designed to enhance the EU's military capabilities and reduce reliance on external allies.
For Europe to execute the strategies efficiently, the capitals of the EU member states, not Brussels, must move forward. And they need to cooperate. I also count on the new German leadership, who clearly understands its increased role in the European security mechanism.

New defence cooperation treaties, even within NATO, like that between Poland and France, also among the Baltic Sea states, have been signed recently. Do you approve of that?
Unless it emerges as a new alternative to NATO, I am not concerned about such cooperation. Considering that Europe’s input to NATO makes up only 30 percent, I stand for enhanced multi-formatted defense and security cooperation among EU member states and the Baltic and Nordic states – within NATO, understandably.

In the Kiev Security Forum held on May 9, which coincided with the Victory Day celebrations in Russia, you said this: “The end to the Kremlin regime must be put in this war, and we should not be afraid of seeing its loss.” Are there MEPs in the newly composed European Parliament who still feel sentiments for the Kremlin?
Although the new European Parliament sees more members representing fringe ideas – both on the left and the right – the European People’s Party, which I represent, the largest political group in the European Parliament, maintains a resolute and comprehensive stance in support of Ukraine. We view Ukraine as an integral part of Europe, advocating for its full integration into both the European Union and NATO. The other mainstream EP parties maintain similar views. Altogether, now, approximately 500 of 720 euro-parliamentarians support pro-Ukraine initiatives and legislation, which is encouraging.

However – I need to admit - that some of my colleagues fear the capitulation of Russia and its possible consequences. Thence, a limited use of the European Union’s potential in the war, particularly when Ukraine had the upper hand after chasing the Russians from Kharkiv and Kherson. What Europe does is help Ukraine war off Russia but not win the war. Sadly. And worryingly, Russia is amassing troops on the border with Finland. Who can deny that Russia mulls opening a second front if the war in Ukraine stalls?

Yet perhaps you must acknowledge that the world has recently become multi-polar geopolitically – with China and Russia along with the flailing United States, which is something that Putin has always wanted. Do you agree and what does that bode to the West?
I still believe that Russia’s role is exaggerated. Perhaps it is just a matter of time when China will swallow it up, especially in the East – from various standpoints.
It is untrue that sanctions against Russia failed – they did not, and we see that from Putin’s request to Trump to partially lift them. Russia is as powerful for as long as it holds on to its nuclear weaponry. In my opinion, it is China that is, illustratively speaking, an unknown terrain for us. America has long realized China’s menace and focuses on it. Sadly, under Trump, America has alienated many of its allies – in Europe, too, which weakens its foothold internationally.

As the vice-chair of Euronest Parliamentary Assembly, a political forum that fosters cooperation between the European Parliament and the parliaments of countries involved in the EU’s Eastern Partnership, what developments in Euronest’s state partners would you like to discern?
A line needs to be drawn between the countries that, have the status of EU candidate countries, such as Ukraine and Moldova, and those that do not. Unfortunately, it is Georgia that is disappointing many.  Me, the EP spokesperson on Georgia, too. What is happening there – the crackdown on the opposition, the rigged recent elections – is undoubtedly orchestrated from the Kremlin and plays into its hands. Meanwhile, Moldova was able to ward off Russia’s interference for now, but Moscow will do all it can in the upcoming parliamentary elections in Moldova this autumn. Our outreach to Belarus is very limited understandably, but the European Union supports the Belarusian opposition and its leader, Svetlana Tsikhanouskaya, in exile in Vilnius. And, despite what the critics say, she does a tremendous job in representing the Belarusian opposition worldwide.
Surprisingly to many, the Armenians have shifted towards the European Union, understanding that it is Europe – not Russia – it can count on in determining its future – especially solving the issue of Nagorno Karabakh.

Are you concerned about the rise of radical political forces – both on the right and the left – that frown at the term “liberal democracy”, yet are unable to propose anything better? What does that bode for Europe and Lithuania, too?
It certainly poses a big challenge. Perhaps every European state has turned into a battlefield of fierce ideas, some of them are quite fringe and potentially threatening the liberties Europe has fought hard to defend. Most of the time, the Kremlin stands behind the extremist forces, especially those on the radical right. It does this by concealing its aggressive disinformation warfare under the nice slogans of traditional values, family, et cetera. As I mentioned, there are many patterns today that resemble those from nearly a hundred years ago, when Hitler rose to power – and that is deeply alarming. It remains to be seen how everything will play out, but I still place my trust on the conscientiousness of the European people.