Lithuania’s Budrys Hails Black Sea Truce, Wants Ukraine Security Guarantees

Lithuanian Minister of Foreign Affairs Kęstutis Budrys applauded the Trump administration in an interview with Newsweek, lauding the White House for its success in securing the Black Sea deal between Russia and Ukraine that he believes will lead to a broader peace agreement.

Lithuania is one of the Baltic States – three countries, along with Latvia and Estonia, that sit on or near the border of Russia. All three Baltic States are NATO allies, and Lithuania is among the biggest spenders on defense in the alliance.

Why It Matters

The Trump administration on Monday announced a deal between Ukraine and Russia that could serve as a step towards securing a final ceasefire between the two nations following three years of fighting after Moscow invaded its neighbor.

The deal mandates that neither country will use military force in the Black Sea, which would allow for the free movement and trade of necessary food supplies. Prior to the 2022 invasion, Ukraine ranked as the fourth-biggest exporter of the world’s grain supply, earning it the nickname the “breadbasket of Europe.”

Russia and Ukraine agreed a “grain deal” shortly after the war broke out that would ensure no disruption to those deliveries, but Russian President Vladimir Putin allowed that deal to collapse, resuming military action against Ukraine in the Black Sea.

Trump acknowledging during an interview with Newsmax on Tuesday that Russia could be “dragging their feet” when it came to agreeing a broader cessation of hostilities.

Budrys told Newsweek that the Black Sea deal was a “step forward” and would prove “very useful” in negotiating with Russia, as it prevents Putin from using “military force in the most sensitive periods and phases of negotiations,” which he called “one of the strongest instrument[s]” that Russia has.

“Ceasefire would create absolutely different field for negotiations, and that would mean that Russia wouldn’t be able to use one of the strongest instruments, that’s the direct military force that others cannot use with their diplomatic efforts, are not using it in Ukraine, so we appreciate those that very approach and those steps that were taken,” Budrys said.

He stressed, however, that any “overall assessment” of the Black Sea deal “will depend on the final agreement and final deal, and whether it would provide the just and long lasting peace for Ukraine.”

“We really appreciate the efforts of United States now with the diplomatic instruments and diplomatic process to achieve the peace, we are supporting those efforts, and I will look for the final result,” Budrys said.

“Because the final result has to be the just, long, lasting peace with security guarantees, at least for a generation in Ukraine, and this is the key for European security.”

“Without Ukraine being a secure, safe and stable country for business to be developed and for [its] economy to be rebuilt, that means that there will be no security for Europe from our side,” he added.

What To Know

Newsweek spoke with Budrys in an interview at the Lithuanian Embassy in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday. The Lithuanian foreign minister has held his post since December 2024. The discussion has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Q: So, let’s start off with, obviously, the big concern being what’s going on with Russia and Ukraine. Lithuania has been one of the most outspoken nations in Europe about what’s going on and about what needs to be done. What is your greatest concern currently about the talks going on between Russia, Ukraine and the US?

A: Our concern is that that the war is still ongoing, and that’s for three years after the full scale [invasion]. Then it’s after 2014, another eight years before that, and this is our concern. That the aggressor, Russia, is still practicing what they learned in the years and in decades. That is: The brutal force being used for the political purpose. That is our concern, and our concern in looking into the future, is that if aggressor will be awarded for the reasons that they started the war, it will be repeated and will continue and continue, again and again and again. This is our concern.

We really appreciate the efforts of United States now with the diplomatic instruments and diplomatic process to achieve the peace, we are supporting those efforts, and I will look for the final result, because the final result has to be the just, long, lasting peace with security guarantees, at least for a generation, in Ukraine, and this is the key for European security. Without Ukraine being secure, safe and stable country to business to be developed and for economy to be rebuilt, that means that there will be no security for Europe. From our side, what do we do — we cover with our investments, with our planning, with everything that we are concerned about, and what concerns Russia. If we are concerned about their forces — and we are — then we do our homework and to do it in our defense security and in total defense approach.

Q: Do you agree with President Trump’s emphasis on an economic security guarantee, and do you believe that that should be brought into more countries in Europe, especially those close to the Russian border?

A: It’s indivisible. In our region, it’s indivisible that economic, energy security as the precondition for the political security, and the right for the political autonomous decisions is the precondition for the defense security, and the defense means this is all interconnected, because from Russia’s side, they approach through whole of the government position. They mix everything. They mix the influence of oligarchs with some dependencies being exploited, with some interference, with misinformation operations, and, of course, with the military power.

So, we also have to be the hot target, the one that can deter also in all the fields, as we did in Lithuania. That was with the energy, we were the first one in the region to achieve the energy independence, the total one. What concerns natural gas supplies. Now, we disconnected from Russian electricity grid, and also with the oil supplies and other fields. And we achieved that, by the way, with the assistance from the United States, as we substituted the Russian natural gas by pipelines with the [liquified natural gas] from the United States.

Economic security, all our strategic economic sectors are clean from Russian or Chinese capital companies. That was important. Technological security, we are not using Chinese or Russian technologies in all the sensitive areas, I’m not even talking about, the strategic sectors, be it political. Also resistance for the political interference, we applied the strict rules for Russia to be able to practice what they do elsewhere, to use the black money to interfere into the elections and elsewhere.

Also with the informational field. So, we achieved that, and now we are building, with our allies, the security in the defense sector. Same is needed for Ukraine. Living in the aggressive neighborhood, they need the economic independence and strength. They need assistance, and we are ready in Lithuania to assist them. Energy security — that’s why they need the possibility also to import, alternatively, energy resources. That’s why they need to have the stability in their power generation. That’s why nuclear security is so important. With the nuclear power generation in Ukraine.

Politically, same, and they have to fight all the vulnerabilities that they have in their country, corruption included, to be politically more independent. And of course, the armed forces and Lithuania is ready to assist them in all of these efforts. And also with the armed forces, with the long-term military and security assistance to Ukraine, and also with our presence in Ukraine, and with the training and other missions.

Q: Regarding today’s deal that was announced, the Black Sea deal: Do you have any have any comment on that? Do you believe that there’s any concern that Russia might lapse on that deal the way they did with the previous grain deal that was brokered through the UN?

A: To achieve the results in the form of ceasefire, at least in one of the areas, it’s a step forward, and it’s very useful in a way that it will take one of the strongest instrument that Russia is about to use, as they did in all the negotiations that they were [in] previously: That is the use of military force in the most sensitive periods and phases of negotiations, as it was in Minsk One, Minsk Two agreements, when this [was] almost agreed, almost signed, then they start the new wave of attacks, just to put the political and military pressure.

Ceasefire would create absolutely different field for negotiations, and that would mean that Russia wouldn’t be able to use one of the strongest instruments, that’s the direct military force that others cannot use with their diplomatic efforts, are not using it in Ukraine. So we appreciate those that very approach and those steps that were taken, but overall assessment will depend on the final agreement and final deal, and whether it would provide the just and long lasting peace for Ukraine.

Now, we have the different stages, and as in all negotiations, there are ups and downs. Now, with the ceasefire, at least in one year, it’s a bit of up. I wouldn’t be surprised that we’ll be down. But this is why you need all the wisdom and expertise, and then also the backing, the strong political backing, to push the process forward. And U.S., you have all the instruments here, all the tools, so we hope for big success here.

Q: Over the weekend, the U.S. Special Envoy, Steve Witkoff, in a couple of interviews discussed Russia’s claim to the disputed territories. Do you worry that when he says that he takes Putin at his word, that the U.S. is too trusting of Putin?

A: Well, I won’t comment [on] the interview, but we understand who is who there, and we have the special envoy for the very good reason and for very good cause from it, and from U.S. that invested already and will invest so a lot diplomatically, and we have the aggressor on the other side.

And of course, seeing all the obstacles in the road and all the challenges that your diplomats and your politicians have in front of them, I see that the process will require a lot of wisdom and a lot of communication. We cannot request the same level of communication from some experts, and then the ones that are directly involved into very sensitive process. So once again, I will repeat that: We will share all the assessment after the final stage is agreed, and we will support U.S. efforts in achieving that.

Q: Do you have any concerns about the U.S. commitment to NATO, and do you believe the alliance is better off now than it was three years ago?

A: Alliance is getting stronger, that’s for sure. And now, with the repeated, again and again, call from President Trump to invest more, to do more, I think that we will build even more strength and power in the alliance. This is the most effective organization, the most long-lasting organization, as the alliance is working for 75 plus years already, its deterrence works, and it’s effective. So, we have to do more to be effective in the future, and that’s what we heard with the first Trump administration. That’s what we are hearing now, and I’m looking forward for it to be even more implemented into the actions. That’s what we need.

Lithuania already is investing, this year, 4 percent of GDP. Next year, more than 5 precent of GDP, another year, we will reach even more, because we had the political decision to invest up to 6 percent because we want to build these capabilities to be effective ourselves and then, together with the allies. We are not this small, weak victim of the perpetual aggressor in our neighborhood. We are doing our share. We’re doing on ourselves and we are responsible. We see us ourselves as responsible for the security of the border and both the softer threats or be the hard threats, and also for security of the alliance. And this is how we approach it. And the others have to follow this. And we have this strong call from U.S., and we have to meet it and go to do our homework.

So, from my perspective, we will be stronger if we will act now, as Lithuania is acting on our behalf and to compare the numbers, just to share a bit, in 10 years, our defense spending increased by 10 times annually. So, the numbers where we are now and Europe in the upcoming years will spend trillions in defense, and that will be also the very background for our cooperation in defense industry sectors, and our longer cooperation also in other areas. So, I see all the reasons and all the parameters to be successful.

If someone would miss a chance now to do what he has or he or she has to do, we will be in trouble. And this is how interdependence — and I’m not talking here about the U.S., I see the U.S., as this strong supporter and pusher for Europe to invest more and to do more — I’m talking about our partners in Europe, our neighbors, thank God, are on the right track.

Q: Regarding that: Do you have a message for any of the members that have not yet met that 2 percent threshold? Do you believe that all members can meet, as [NATO Secretary General Mark] Rutte said, the “considerably more” than three 3 goal that he’s setting for NATO members?

A: We know what we need, and this is the situation when everything is clear. We wrote the regional defense plans in NATO. We know what capabilities are needed to cover those, to be those regional plans executable. Those capabilities are distributed among the countries, so you now have to go and implement those, because you owe these for your allies. This is how it works. It’s all about trust in each other and doing your own part and we have all the arguments to convince them.

And I think that some of the some of the skeptics, political skeptics, of investing more and a bit more further away from the NATO front line, from where we are, think that okay, in the case of the crisis, in the case of some small-scale operation, they won’t be affected, and it will somehow be resolved with the capabilities that are already at the border or with some of the assistance of larger allies. That’s wrong thinking, and it’s the illusion about the consequences of it.

The message here that if something happens at the front line, there will be immediate economic, financial, political consequences to all the members in Europe, first of all, and that’s why we have to do our part, all of us together, and act now. So, this is the time frame where U.S. political message is even more needed.

Q: With this increased spending, talking about concerns among some of the members, do you worry that there will be funding that will have to be shifted from other areas to account for it? If so, which areas do you worry might suffer from this rebalancing of the budget?

A: It depends, of course, nationally, on the countries, and we all understand that there is a price for it, but this is the question of priorities. What’s your top priority? For Lithuania, top priority, this is security, and only with security you have, you can achieve the prosperity and the welfare and the other goods. But the fundamental good is security. That’s where we are starting. And of course, there is the price for it to pay when you prioritize. And we know that our budgets are based on the growth of our economies and of GDP, and you cannot provide to all the sectors and all the policies at the same scale, at the same level. For different countries, that would be the different price.

But we have the tools already to do it. If there is something that we cannot afford directly from our taxpayers money this year, we can borrow, and there are instruments being used, because we have to do it now. Because this time frame: This window till 2030, this is the most sensitive part, and especially after the peace agreement, I am really hopeful and I’m really optimistic about will be achieved for Russia to be deterred, we have to act now. And then there are decisions in front of us, and sometimes I just cannot understand what we are trying to solve with other leaders in in other countries.

This is not some exercise without [a] clear answer: We have an answer in front of us, and some of the answers, yes, they have showed us the hard way from Washington.