"We exchanged views on my interviews and articles. In general, it is possible that geopolitical scenarios are more threatening for Lithuania and would affect our geopolitical security situation if they come true. The members of the Presidium think it is appropriate, acceptable and understandable - we see the situation in the same way, and the question is what actions the state and our parties should take in that state," Landsbergis told journalists after the meeting of the Presidium of the party.
"This can and must translate into some political steps. We have now also asked the political committee (ELTA) to propose these other steps", he said.
However, Landsbergis did not want to disclose what could be included in the plan.
"We have not specifically formulated the Presidium's provision, defining those steps in concrete terms, leaving it to the Policy Committee to decide what those steps might be. This is a vast spectrum", said Landsbergis.
The party chairman says he has asked for the plan to be ready by the end of this year.
"If we assess the threat, we agree that we also see the threat - that's what we need, what we should do next as a political community," he stressed.
G. Landsbergis initiated the debate on national defence
Recently, the discussion of national security has been sparked by statements and calls by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Gabrielius Landsbergis, to revise the concept of national defence as soon as possible. In an exclusive interview with Elta, the politician stated that Lithuania avoids discussing the country's existential threats. Moreover, the head of the country's diplomacy stressed that Lithuania should not rely solely on the security guarantees of NATO Article 5.
Later, the Minister circulated a 10-point plan on how Lithuania's security could be strengthened - the conservative recalled the idea of universal conscription, called for more attention to be paid to investment in the defence industry, and for consideration of a special tax for national defence needs.
However, such statements by Landsbergis were met with ambivalence. Some MPs agreed that Lithuania must prepare for possible threats but wondered why the Minister was not taking appropriate action.
The debate was also prompted by the divergent positions of Landsbergis and Minister of National Defence Arvydas Anušauskas, who was not inclined to exaggerate his colleague's warnings and insisted that there were no dramatic changes in the geopolitical space relevant for Lithuania.
The President's Office took a similar stance - assessing Landsbergis's warnings, the Head of State wished the Government representative to sit down and calm down. Gitanas Nausėda also pointed out that politicians should not be swayed by doubts about the Allies' determination to defend Lithuania and activate NATO Article 5.
"What do we mean by that? President Joe Biden, who came to Vilnius and said that Article 5 is sacred, President Emmanuel Macron, who said similar things, and Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who also said the importance and sacredness of Article 5, are liars? Or are they just blabbermouths? I think they are not, and let us certainly not cast doubt on NATO as an organisation because Article 5 is at the heart of the NATO organisation," said Mr Nausėda.