“To assume Belarusian authorities do not see this activity and need help to catch the smugglers is, at minimum, naive,” says Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys, speaking about the illegal contraband balloons that have entered Lithuanian airspace. He added that the acts constitute a crime for which Lithuania will seek accountability.
These excerpts come from an interview with Budrys aired on LRT Television.
While the border with Belarus remains closed for an undisclosed amount of time, the Foreign Ministry has been tasked with coordinating an additional sanctions package. What might that include?
We are in talks with the European Commission about how to respond to this hybrid attack from Belarus. Last week, we informed EU institutions at various levels about what we experienced. It was not only balloons – there were also violations of our airspace by Russian aircraft.
We see several potential measures. One is expanding sanctions on Belarus to cover hybrid activities; that has not yet been done. We also need to harmonise certain sanctions applied to Russia and Belarus. The aviation sector is particularly important – there sanctions against Belarus remain comparatively weak. We also see a need to consider additional customs duties and quotas on Belarusian exports to the EU for goods that are not already sanctioned.
That may have a limited effect: in 2024, Belarus exported about €1.3 billion worth of goods to the EU, so it is not a crippling lever.
If there were a single huge lever to pull, we would have pulled it long ago. We understand that complex measures work – pressure accumulates across sectors. One area is a billion, another is half a billion; that is how pressure builds.
Another key issue is establishing accountability for breaching international norms – for enabling organised criminal activity across the border and endangering civil aviation. That is a crime; Lithuania will pursue accountability, just as it has sought over instrumentalised migration.
The prime minister has said the measures send a clear signal to Belarus. Why appeal to the Lukashenko regime to act? Why should it respond to us?
Because our actions should encourage them to act as we do. If their diplomatic message is such that Belarus is supposedly seeking to review and soften its relations, then, at the very least, they should avoid behaving so schizophrenically: stop exerting pressure on a neighbouring state in such a primitive, brutal way, undermining civil aviation safety and stoking public anxiety. It shows that their conduct does not match their declarations.
We will respond as the international community and the EU, treating this as a hybrid attack – applying both tactical and long-term measures.
In the long term, I do not see scope for normal relations or trade while this continues. This is another reason, among many, why we must strengthen our stance.
Is there any contact with the Lukashenko regime over the balloons?
At a technical level, border services could liaise and verify matters on their side. Historically, our side has reported what we observed on theirs.
One must understand that such activity cannot be happening uncontrolled; someone is releasing these means. Given how Belarus organised instrumentalised migration, with many services and units involved, it is naïve to think Belarusian institutions do not see it or simply need help to catch smugglers.
There were proposals to ask the US to press Lukashenko. Have such talks taken place, or are they planned?
We have informed the United States repeatedly about Belarus’s activity with meteorological balloons disrupting normal life here. We will continue to do so and ask the US to apply firm measures.
Have you formally asked the US for help to engage the regime?
We do not need others to talk to the regime on our behalf. We know what works and what does not. We have lived alongside this regime for almost 30 years and experienced a range of pressure tactics. No one knows the regime better than we do; others should consult us about what measures to take.
What has worked is pressure, sanctions, and that is what we must pursue.
If we knew how to speak to Belarus, why have we not done so sooner? The balloons began when – two years ago?
Perhaps we delayed and failed to package the issue properly. Indeed, there were more balloons last autumn than now. We now apply a much higher standard for civil aviation safety and do not permit even minimal risk to aircraft on approach or landing. That is the change.
This activity continues. If the aim was to attract political attention and stir public tension, then, yes, Belarus has succeeded in that. But our response, viewed as a broad counter to hybrid activity, is substantial.
Are we preparing to ask Ukraine for help defending against such hybrid attacks?
Ukraine certainly has experience, especially in counter-drone measures. Other countries – such as South Korea, which has faced meteorological balloon incursions from the North – also have relevant expertise. We will work with those institutions and share contacts.
The previous government prepared a regional plan on border closures with neighbours; are talks underway now with Latvia and Poland? Poland closed its border during Zapad exercises, then reopened. Have you been in contact?
We will consult on the measures we are taking. We have been informing neighbours about airspace violations and related risks. Before deciding on a longer border closure at Wednesday’s cabinet meeting, we will consult with neighbours so that any action is more effective collectively.
Do you envisage a joint decision with Latvia and Poland to close borders with Belarus?
I would not rule it out. The question is the form and duration, but a clear regional position is needed. We see this as hostile activity directed at us, so normal relations cannot be assumed. Regional cooperation should also cover customs procedures and shared standards at the border – who we allow in, what standards we apply; we have good experience of working together.
Do we now have a clear, unified government position that this is a hybrid attack rather than ordinary smuggling?
Yes, we now have an agreed understanding of the situation. Looking back a year or more, I can say we may have missed the opportunity to frame the problem properly at the time. Back then, we viewed it through a different lens – as a form of criminal activity – and thought criminal intelligence might be best placed to deal with it. I’m referring to the situation in September and October 2024.
Now we are defining the problem as part of a hybrid operation directed against us. This shift isn’t just about changing our interpretation – it’s based on the complete inaction of Belarusian institutions, which rules out any notion that they are simply unable, rather than unwilling, to act. That possibility is no longer being considered, especially given the other signals coming from their side.
There has been widespread public criticism of the authorities’ response, particularly over their handling of incidents at weekends. These balloons have been crossing our skies for two years now, yet we still lack fully effective countermeasures. Are we capable of protecting our strategic infrastructure?
Protecting critical infrastructure such as airports is vital. We have discussed long-term EU funding for measures and will press for additional finance. Last year, various kinetic options were tested, but they are limited. We must keep developing tools; there is no single solution that someone simply forgot to consider.
Hearing those who now criticise actions taken a year ago, I ask them to look in the mirror and assess realistically what can be done, and focus on that, rather than stoking more tension with claims of inaction.
There have been suggestions to relocate Vilnius airport because of its vulnerability. Would you support moving it?
If relocation is needed, it should be for other reasons – passenger convenience, capacity – not because meteorological balloons terrorise us. We will clamp down on other means. Moving a multibillion-euro infrastructure for this reason alone is not something I will even consider.
Newsletter
Every Friday morning.
