Lithuanian MEP Petras Austrevicius: 'We are in an existential fight, and we cannot afford to lose it'

Are the hard-fought European values and liberal democracy at risk? The question arose during the heated, insult-laden debates over approving the new 2024–2029 European Commission, the EU's executive body, in the European Parliament this November. The Baltic Times Magazine sat down with Petras Austrevicius, a Lithuanian Member of the 2024–2029 European Parliament representing the Renew Europe Group, a centrist and liberal political alliance, to gain first-hand insights into the direction of the new European Parliament.

Is the Europe we know and value at risk from the far right and far left?

Speaking from the perspective of a Member of the European Parliament, I believe so.

Analyzing recent political campaigns, including the elections to the European Parliament, reveals that revisionism is both emerging and taking hold, challenging liberal democracy as Europe's foundational principle.

 In some discussions, democracy remains accepted – with even radicals supporting free elections and core civil rights – yet the term “liberal” is being gradually erased. Even the political groups farther from the European People’s Party in the European Parliament are no exception – they opt out of using the common EU term “liberal democracy”, claiming that it is obsolete and inefficient, which I find deeply concerning. Thence, we start seeing an increase in what I call heretic proposals, and I am afraid they will abound in this term of the European Parliament.

The results of the last European Parliament election held last year clearly show the emergence of two large groups – the Patriots for Europe (a right-wing to far-right sovereigntist political group) and Europe of Sovereign Nations, the most radical force of the right in the European Parliament, which were significantly smaller and less organized in the 2019-2024 European Parliament. 

Although they compete, now they form a tangible political force in the Parliament. Their rise has been partly boosted by U.S. President-elect Donald Trump (this interview was conducted in November, following the U.S. presidential election – TBT). They promote narratives more characteristic of an autocracy: a strongman leader, a homogenous society, swift decisions without preceding discussions, and so on. Sometimes, I feel uneasy about that, but this is the reality we are facing. The wide reach of social media teeming with tons of fact-check-less information, along with the unfulfilled promises or failures in social policy delivery, are also among the reasons for this. 

Globalization has brought not only advantages but also challenges. Europe faces increasing competition from regions such as Southeast Asia and Latin America. Additionally, waves of migration to the continent have posed integration challenges, and, to be honest, efforts to integrate newcomers have often failed. All of this plays into the hands of right-wing populists.

As a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, do you see any signs of change in the EU’s transatlantic relations with the United States following the U.S. presidential election? Is the EU prepared for such changes?

I must acknowledge that there is temporary uncertainty about what to expect from the new U.S. administration. It may choose to reassess the existing model of transatlantic cooperation we have maintained until now. However, whether this will happen, to what extent, and how, remains to be seen. To be honest, the anticipation is sometimes exaggerated, but I would say: “Let’s wait and see.” I do not doubt that changes, particularly in terms of economic cooperation, will follow with Trump in the Oval Office. However, these changes seem more likely to be moderate than drastic. The ties we have built over decades simply cannot be severed abruptly. I’d be very saddened if changes dampen our cooperation. The radicals I mentioned earlier eagerly anticipate the Trump presidency, welcoming it wholeheartedly. However, in reality, the status quo of our transatlantic partnership is likely to have a cooling and sobering effect. No matter how powerful the United States may be, they still need reliable partners like us – and we have always been such.

The European Parliament appears to have hastily allocated 1 billion euros for defence following the U.S. presidential election. This suggests that the new U.S. administration might place Europe in a position where we must rely more heavily on our own resources. As a member of the EP Subcommittee on Security and Defence (SEDE), do you agree?

Indeed, the economy, as well as defence and security, will be the two areas most impacted in our dealings with the new U.S. administration. Like many others, I ask this: if we receive bad news from Washington, will we be ready to stand on our own? Frankly speaking, with the current resources – no. Of the 155 billion annual EU budget, only a mere one percent is allotted for defence and security.  It is preposterous to believe that such a small percentage can guarantee European or national security.

Meanwhile, as EC President Ursula von der Leyen noted, Russia is spending up to 9 percent of its gross domestic product on defence, while the average among EU member states is just 1.9 percent, far too little.

The new EU budget must be fundamentally different, far more focused on the bloc’s defence and security.  If the European Union allocates 30 percent of its budget to agriculture and regional development, it must increase defence funding to at least four to five percent. This would represent a tangible contribution to European defense and encourage all member states to allocate more resources to their national defence. 

Now, only seven NATO member states, including all three Baltic states, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, contribute more than three percent of their GDP to defence.

However, with major European powers struggling politically (as of December 23, when this interview was transcribed, the governments of France and Germany had collapsed – TBT), it remains to be seen whether they will muster the political will to invest in defence. In addition, there are a few EU member states that advocate so-called neutrality on key defence issues. However, I believe we are in a situation where they cannot be allowed to hinder the efforts of the rest.

In November 2024, the Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court unanimously issued warrants of arrest for Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel. Previously, the UN’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ordered Israel to end its occupation of the Palestinian territories “as rapidly as possible” and make full reparations for its “internationally wrongful acts.” However, the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen visited Israel in October 2023 to express solidarity following attacks by Hamas, an ambiguous decision to some. Where do you stand on this?

I stand by the opinion I’ve expressed already that Israel is not interested in the continuation of the war in the Middle East. As a democracy and a market economy, it is Israel that is suffering most now – economically and politically. It is Israel that has been attacked – brutally and it had the right to defend itself. I welcome the truce between Israel and Liban (the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon, initiated on November 27, 2024, marks a significant step toward reducing hostilities in the region. This U.S.-brokered 60-day truce requires Israel to withdraw its forces from southern Lebanon and mandates Hezbollah to pull back north of the Litani River – TBT).

It is astounding to discover how deeply – literally – Hezbollah was entrenched, utilizing an extensive network of underground corridors stocked with modern, next-generation Russian-made weaponry. Surprisingly, UN peacekeeping troops were stationed nearby, yet they seemingly overlooked these entrenchments, a fact I find hard to believe.

A war – and this too – is horrible, but it allowed Israel to subdue Hezbollah and the other terrorist organizations in the country and the region on the whole.

What do you make of the situation in Georgia, where the country’s European path has suffered a significant setback, if not a complete collapse? Meanwhile, the nail-biting victory of pro-European forces in Moldova could signal that the European Union is losing some of its traction and appeal. Do you agree?

Indeed, by deciding to join the European Union alongside others in 2004, Lithuania secured growth, security, and stability. At that time, Russia and pro-Russian forces were much weaker than they are now. Over the years, however, they have successfully employed new forms of warfare – hybrid tactics that include orchestrating migrant crises at our borders and waging information warfare. Social media, barely present in 2004, has since become a powerful tool, now teeming with pro-Russian narratives and propaganda.

I believe we have entered a new stage where the ideological battle between Western, values-driven democracies and the malign forces of the past has escalated to unprecedented heights – and this conflict will not subside in the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, the worst may still lie ahead. If we do not remain united – with clear messages and prompt communication – winning hearts and minds will be more difficult than ever before.

This is an existential fight, and we cannot afford to lose it.