LITHUANIA | ANTISEMITISM & BIAS | ŽEMAITAITIS AFFAIR | OPINION

◊

OPINION

◊

VILNIUS—The following is a transcript (in English translation) of an excerpt from the October 15, 2025 interview with Lithuania’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Kęstutis Budrys (Social Democratic Party) on one of the most popular Lithuanian news sites, 15min, that appeared under the title “Kęstutis Budrys’ Interview with 15min: on Libel against Tsikhanouskaya and the Stain of Antisemitism.”

The incident under discussion this time comes from yet another antisemitic Facebook post by Remigijus Žemaitaitis, leader of the populist Nemuno Aušra (‘Nemunas’ Dawn’) party, currently one of the three parties in the ruling coalition, together with the Social Democrats (LSDP) and the Union of Peasants and Greens (LVŽS). It is the first time since independence and the rise of Lithuanian democracy in 1990/1991 that an overtly antisemitic party has been accepted into the governing coalition. See Defending History’s monitoring of aspects of the affair. In the most recent outrage, the party leader attacks a major beloved Lithuanian intellectual (a former culture minister and current director of the Lithuanian Museum of Art) by fabricating for him a supposed Jewish heritage.

But Minister of Foreign Affairs Budrys goes far beyond dealing with the issue in isolation. In the opinion of many in the Jewish and Western communities here, the minister, with all the brevity needed in the interview format, goes well beyond previous foreign ministers’ understanding of the Holocaust and what it means for Lithuania, with an outstanding sense of moral clarity and the courage to say things that are so often distorted in this part of the world so as to avoid them being said.

By speaking openly about how hordes of everyday people who had never harmed anyone turned into Nazi collaborators over a period of some two weeks in 1941.

By explaining, in the language of his countrymen, not with condescending Western phrasings, how the poison of racism and antisemitism was related to what happened back then — and in the uncertain world of today, with the murderous Putinist empire threatening all its peaceful neighbors — how it lingers as a danger upon the horizon today.

By explaining to his countrymen that for a public figure to degrade an opponent by accusing him of having Jewish family heritage is not only a symptom of a sick society (one in which someone can even hope to have traction with such “accusations”), it is a matter that threatens Lithuania’s stature in the world. Yes, if Western soldiers are coming to put their lives on the line to defend NATO’s eastern flank, they need to be assured that they are defending the collective values of the West, not one of the sick old racist societies in which political party leaders make hay by scapegoating national minorities or indeed people of another faith, color, religion, orientation, or heritage.

By explaining the analogy of historic mass violence against Jews with the mass violence wreaked on the Ukrainian people by Putin’s barbaric invasion.

By explaining that “the fact that we haven’t fully answered the questions of why there was such a high level of collaboration in Lithuania and why the extermination of Jews began so early in Lithuania in 1941” is relevant to a looming anniversary.

By mentioning that upcoming anniversary of the events of June 1941. Left unsaid, but profoundly implied, is the warning that any who would have the state celebrate the killers of the first week of the Holocaust (from 23 June 1941) as some kind of national heroes are doing no favors, not for the proud moral fabric of Lithuania’s successful democracy, nor for the status among the nations that is so vital to the Western alliance being ready to make sacrifices for all its members. This is a painful issue that Defending History has been tracking for many years.

Both the local and the international Defending History community send their heartfelt congratulations and feelings of admiration to Foreign Minister Budrys, wishing him godspeed and success.

◊

Defending History English translation of transcript of broadcast interview (from ±28.00 to ±36.30):

Vaidotas Beniušis, editor-in-chief of “15min”: Let’s move on to domestic politics, Minister. President Gitanas Nausėda said this week, and I quote: “What happened last Friday caught the attention of our allies.” What does he mean? Last Friday, Remigijus Žemaitaitis published a post claiming that the relatives of cultural figure Arūnas Gelūnas are of Jewish origin, published a fictitious surname, and accused Gelūnas of organizing a coup. I see this as a rather, well, not “rather,” but a very disgusting attempt to spread the opinion that “disguised Jews” are organizing a coup in Lithuania. We know what associations all this brings to mind, given our history. How do you assess this story, what happened, first of all, personally, how do you see it as simply a human being?

Kęstutis Budrys, Minister of Foreign Affairs: Well, it’s absolutely despicable and disgusting, beyond the pale. It doesn’t even matter what status the politician has, for any citizen of Lithuania doing something like this is completely beyond the pale. I am convinced that there will be a legal assessment of this, and it will be clear and unambiguous. The fact that this is an active politician, and an active politician with the power of governance and corresponding responsibilities, is, of course, a major complication that forces us to think about ourselves and as a state, about ourselves and as a society.

Because there is another part of me that feels worried, when someone thinks that calling another person a Jew could have an effect on others there, whether they are his supporters or not. I am very sad that the person who was called a Jew, which in itself should not even be used as an argument here, feels a duty to justify that he is not a Jew, as if that was also something bad.

That forces us to talk, in general, about the level of antisemitism in Lithuania and whether we really have a good relationship with the Jewish community, with the history of the Holocaust in Lithuania, and with the experiences of our society. No matter how much we sprinkle ashes on our heads here, saying, well, something has changed here, such manifestations, such actions and reactions ultimately show that we are sick as a society and that there must be targeted action to eradicate these manifestations, nip them in the bud, that is, both stereotyping, an instance of which you have cited, that there is a Jewish “conspiracy” against something, a Jewish “underground”, and that the Freemasons are active, or something else, both the stereotyping of individual groups and their rejection, these are all manifestations and elements of xenophobia, which is truly a malignant growth and cancer in our society. If it wasn’t, such things just wouldn’t happen.

And this is not a question of one person. In every society, in every country, we will certainly find someone who will express one opinion or another that will cause people to exchange glances and so on. But the fact that this resonates to such an extent in Lithuania, and that it is used as a political tool, an argument to belittle another person’s efforts: no matter what you do, because you are Jewish, it means you are against us and so on — well, there is something close to programming evil here.

And the fact that we haven’t fully answered the questions of why there was such a high level of collaboration in Lithuania and why the extermination of Jews began so early in Lithuania in 1941. Next year marks the anniversary of that, and we still don’t have a complete answer as to what is going on here and why we have such recurring stories, why it is possible to talk like this at all and why it is considered normal.

The more time passes, the more it shows the depth of the problem in Lithuania. And yes, perhaps the history of the Holocaust and the lack of understanding of it is one of the answers. Because the question there was the same: what happened that a large part of our compatriots decided within two weeks that they could contribute to such activities? And under what conditions could this happen or not happen again? And, seeing what is happening, the form of aggression being carried out in Ukraine, what Russian forces are doing in Ukraine, which is much more brutal even than what the NKVD did in occupied territories in individual cases, I cannot believe that, after 85 years, we have changed qualitatively as people in Lithuania. On what basis can I say this? Is there a lack of antisemitic manifestations? Well, we have them.

Is there a lack of deeper problems that need to be dealt with? In the sense that we believed that humans had evolved somewhere and now we are somehow culturally superior? Not at all. And that is where the big problem lies. All the consequences related to relations with allies, the questions that arise – these are but the tip of the iceberg. We have to look at the reasons why this is happening in Lithuania in the first place.

Vaidotas Beniušis: So, as a minister, aren’t you ashamed to work in a coalition that includes “Nemuno Aušra” and a person who spreads such antisemitic narratives?

Kęstutis Budrys: I have to do what I have to do. My job is to defend the interests of the Republic of Lithuania abroad through foreign policy measures. And I do that and will continue to do so. But yes, there are things that mustn’t be defended, there are things that can be regretted, there are things where the damage done needs to be minimized if it cannot be avoided, and yes, there are things that need to be discussed.

And yes, sometimes questions arise as to why, when certain events related to our history, related to the history of Jews in Lithuania, take place in Lithuania, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs pays much more attention to them than others. Is this our foreign affairs? I will be there in any case, as a citizen of Lithuania, I care about this. But it is obvious that we all need to put more effort into this.

Vaidotas Beniušis: But let’s talk briefly about that “tip of the iceberg,” as you described it, that is, the reaction of our allies. To what extent does the presence of “Nemuno Aušra” in the ruling coalition damage Lithuania’s international reputation?

Kęstutis Budrys: It has an impact, I can confirm that. To assess the extent of the effect, the amount of damage done, and what could be done alternatively, we probably need to ask others who make more objective assessments, because I can very quickly fall into political speculation. But it does have an impact. And especially when talking to our closest allies, the fact that we have to talk about it at all already has an impact. Well, at least that needs to be understood. The question of whether everything is really okay with you is important, it is fundamental.

If we were to compare it to something, how would it look to us if we had an ally in whom we invested our time, effort, and forces, for example, by deploying forces, and that ally had a completely different approach to what is extremely important to us? To Lithuania’s struggle for freedom, for example. To symbols that are important to us.

For example, an ally with whom we want to deploy forces, who would not think that anything bad happened here on May 9th [1945], and why it is not a good thing to go to Moscow and march on the Red Square and so on. These are values and identity issues that are important to us. This would raise the question of whether we really see things the same way. If you think differently, then I would feel obliged to explain things.

However, when we talk about universal things that should not even be debated, it is because this is a topic that we should not be surprised about. It is absolutely natural to me that this is a topic. And it is absolutely natural that, let’s say, in other cases, when something happens in other countries, such as a large protest against people of Jewish ethnicity during a football match, or some other event, it does not justify excuses like “Oh, something like that is happening elsewhere, too.”

But I see that the responsible persons in those countries feel obliged to explain what happened there, what they did to prevent it, and what they will do to prevent it from happening again. And that is everyone’s duty. And in this case, we shouldn’t be asking, “Have they already asked us about this? Have they already said anything?” I sometimes feel that, if it’s already out in the open, it’s my responsibility to explain where we stand on this.