I have several things in common with my guest in this episode. Victoria Chimleyton-Nilsson and I were both born into Saudi publics. We both became chess grandmasters and we both left chess to end the politics. I think it is fair to say that while I reach greater heights in the chess world as a former speaker of the Lithuanian legislature, she defy the roles higher in the political world. Her home of Vilnius Lithuania has a special place in my heart. My first chess baptism by fire outside my home city Baku Azerbaijan came at the all-union-used Games in Vilnius in 1973. I was just 10. Well, most of my opponents were 4-5 years older. I did not perform well, but I did meet Alexander Sergeiushni-Kitsin, a state trainer of the US-SUSPORS committee, my future friend, mentor and reliable supporter in the most difficult periods of my chess career. From the Atlantic, this is Otopras in America and I'm Geryka Sporov. Putting nostalgia aside, Lithuania has become a hot spot as one of the most ardent defenders of Ukraine against Russia's invasion. Lithuania also recognizes that should Ukraine fall? It is at the top of the list of targets for Putin's attempt to rebuild the Soviet Union in his image. But despite obvious threats, this Baltic country has offered refuge to many Russian political dissidents. All of this is why I wanted to speak for Victoria. She is part of a conversation now unfolding all across Europe. About how to face new aggressive authoritarian states, as the United States re-evaluates its role as the global leader of the free world. Hello, Victoria. Hello, Gery. It's a great pleasure to have you in our program. I think it will be more natural if we start with something that unites us. Actually, united us prior to the political issues that brings us now together. It's chess, the game of chess. Could you say a few words about your past from the game of chess into politics? Yes, well, pleasure to be here. I'm a chess grandmaster and that's actually something that I always say prior to all of my political titles. I started playing chess quite early. I became a quite a successful female chess player and was a European champion at some point. Well, around the age of 30, I decided to turn into national politics in Lithuania. From that point, about 10 years, I've been the parliament member in Samas and also holding different positions. Still, for the bigger part of my life, I used to be a professional chess player. So that, of course, leaves a mark as well. You, Gery, will very well know for the whole life. I can't help but ask a question that I've been terrorized by for years since I left professional chess. Does chess help you in your political life? Oh, yes. I know this question. Yes, yes. Well, I've been thinking about different ways to answer it. I think chess generally trains quite some of fantastic qualities, your ability to focus memory. I think it helps being a good winner and being a good loser, although not always. But when I try to compare politics and the chess, I see nothing but a difference. Chess is a very honorable game. It's a game where two people play at the chess board, according to the rules, they both know. Politics is nothing but, I mean, it's a... The rules are constantly changing. The challenges are unknown. The situation is vague and there are so many grey zones. So, you know, if I have to choose one of the two areas, I will always say that, you know, chess is straightforward, nice, beautiful game politics. It's something that overall matters more, but it's much more tricky. Yes, but you are very successful in politics as well. So you're not just a member of Lissian and Samus, the Lissian empowerment. You are the speaker of the parliament for quite a while. And I'm sure, you know, you have still many more political heights to conquer in the future. Yeah, that's true. I mean, my political career, it took off very quickly and I became the youngest ever speaker of Lissianian parliament. Well, a few years back in 2020 and my term finished not so long ago. But, yeah, in politics, I think, you know, many things are about appearances in politics, as we all very well know. And having the reputation of a chess grandmaster helps. There is no doubt about that. Having the title, having the titles from the chess times is a helpful thing in making your words, your statements more credible, more solid, I would say. And that has certainly helped me in my career so far. And hopefully will continue to help in the years to come. Well, it's great to hear that tells me that your voters have very high IQ if they can just, you know, just recognize the value of chess judgment in your statements. So now speaking about the voters, so just give a little bit of just a background of Lissianian politics because Lissianian was part of the Soviet Union occupied after Soviet Nazi pact back in 1939, 1940. And you were born still in the Soviet Union, but it became an independent country. And I remember it was the first one to declare independence from the Soviet Union. But just, you know, brief us about Lissianian politics and how independent Lissianian managed in this 35 years of its moral history. Yes, well, some major things you have mentioned 35 years might seem like not a long time, but our country was also independent in the beginning of the 20th century. We have, you know, we are successors to that independence. So we have a tradition of being independent. And before that, we had a commonwealth with Poland for sort of centuries. So this European tradition being part of European family of countries. This is something that comes very strongly in our tradition, in our culture. And, you know, it's basically, well, there is no debate about that as I said. We were the first country to break away from the Soviet Union back in 1990, March 11th. That was the time when, you know, it was in the air already, but still countries, Western countries were somewhat hesitant about encouraging the so-called Soviet republics to break away. Because if, well, of course, you remember that time very well. Gorbachev was something of darling, of the West, with his perestroika and other things. But our history is completely different. In 1989, we had an amazing event when almost 2 million people held hands together in the Baltic way, connecting Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, in a completely peaceful way, showing that, well, we are independent, well, we strive to be independent nations. But it was a difficult road. And in 1991, January 13th, we had a tragic events around, and a parliament around the TV Tower in Vilnius, when Russian troops, they were here, they captured, they were trying to capture the TV Tower, trying to capture the parliament, and people were killed, and many people were injured. So while on our side, it was a huge unification of all the country. Of course, the empire did not want to let us go easily. And only in 1991, February the first country to recognize our independence was Iceland, then a bit later Denmark followed suit, and then already we gained recognition from other countries all over the world. But now for 35 years we've been independent, and we've been also a member of NATO and a member of the European Union for 21 years. So if Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia would not be members of NATO today, do you think that Russian tanks will be already rolling on the streets of Vilnius? Well, the risk of that would definitely be much bigger. Also, I will remind, or maybe inform the listeners that Vilnius is a capital that is only 30 kilometers away from the border with Belarus, and for any kind of military purposes, well Belarus, Lukashenka's Belarus is unfortunately under the heel of Putin's Russia today, and well has been for a while now. So of course our geopolitical situation is, well, it is as it is, but it's not very auspicious for, you know, for feeling safe or relaxed. That's one thing. Secondly, of course, there is no doubt if Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia would have stayed in this grey zone like for instance, unfortunately Moldova, Georgia state. Well, there is a recipe that Russia has been using and that recipe is that no country where there is an unresolved so-called military conflict can join NATO and that we've seen in Moldova, that we've seen with Transnistria, that we see also in Georgia, which has now unfortunately been also politically, well, you could say, captured in a way or here. It's written in a way or has at least turned from its European and Euro-Atlantic aspirations. And I think what we are suffering from as Europe is that Putin, you know, likelihood wakes up every morning thinking about not just how do I defeat Ukraine, but how do I, this mantle NATO, how do I defeat Europe? And our leaders, leaders on the democratic side are thinking, well, how do we avoid war? And that instead of leading to becoming more resilient, quite often leads to indecision, to concessions, and to a lot of self-imposed red lines. And we see that it's not leading us to be more safe. That is actually that has the opposite effect. So let's also shift to just another element of this war. You said Putin wakes up every morning and he thinks about this global war because Putin's Russia is at war with the free world. This is the like, if Putin is not a potential World War III as for many Western politicians, but he is already fighting World War IV because in his mind World War III was a cold war that Soviet Union has lost. And now he's trying to take revenge for this loss. And that's what he has been saying and his propaganda keeps saying. And one of the elements of this war, because he may not be feeling strong enough to challenge NATO directly, it's a hybrid war. Yes, hybrid war and that again, you're absolutely right. I mean Putin does not feel reckless or whatever you may call it, enough to challenge NATO militarily. And that's one more reinforcing point. How important it was that Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia became members of NATO on time. But hybrid is different. It's operating in the grey zone. It is creating distrust in societies, creating well a feeling with insecurity. And planting narratives that later can be somehow useful in potential future aggressions. So in case of Lithuania, we have been on the receiving end of propaganda war for many years. Now, and we're also quite good at recognizing it. The thing is that with our historic memory, with the road to independence, that is after all still alive in the memory of most people. It's not easy to make us believe some of the narratives that they are trying to plant. But I think when it comes to hybrid warfare, one example, one fresh and quite effective example was the instrumentalization of migrants in 2021, while Lukashenko regime. What has happened is that people from different countries, from Syria, from some countries from Africa, were shipped to Belarus. And in hundreds pushed through the border to Lithuania, to Poland, to Latvia, some at gunpoint. And the idea was to disrupt the situation enough, because well, it could be hundreds, it could be thousands, it could be tens of thousands. And this was a very difficult challenge to deal with, because we, in Lithuania, we have never experienced anything like that before. And when we look back at hindsight, this was 2021, this feels like part or a stage of preparation for Russia's second invasion into Ukraine, for the full-scale invasion, destabilizing the region. And Victoria, you just already talked about the full-scale invasion. So this is the faithful date of February 24, 2022, when Putin began this, this massive invasion of Ukraine, having all the one goal to destroy Ukraine in the statehood, which again, he was not even hiding behind some kind of diplomatic formulas. So today, does Europe as an institution recognize its responsibilities over Ukraine? And this, it's always, it's a growing sense that Europe keeps talking, while not acting enough, still having some resources. So is European Union, is acting adequately now, since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, and 11 years after the beginning of the war with annexation of Crimea? It's not acting forcefully enough, and well, several things, Europe could, without much difficulty, out-produce Russia, militarily, when we look at economic power. But because of different reasons that does not happen yet, there is a lot of bureaucracy, it takes a long time, and so on and so forth. But that in itself is unacceptable, that's one thing. Second, of course, Europe has changed massively from 2022 February, and it has done, especially maybe, well, you know, in the first year, somewhat more than was expected by some. But I really disagree with those who say that now, with the American New Administration, well, making the decisions that it is making, that the ball is in the court of Russia, I think the ball is firmly in the court of Europe. And if Europe does not act more forcefully when it comes to sanctions, when it comes to supporting Ukraine, it will, again, you know, it will reinforce this view, first of all, by Putin, that Europe is weak, which it's not necessarily, but also this weakness is inviting for aggression. So, yes, I think Europe can do more, I think Europe should do more, and it is a time for Europe to stand up very clearly, as America takes a more, you know, you can call it, trans-sectionalist or extreme transactionalist. I think this is the term, another term is isolationism, but anyway, a different role than we would traditionally expect from America. But I also have to add that, you know, being a Lithuanian, well, we can see very concrete things happening in Europe that would have been unthinkable just a few years back, for instance. Recently, the German brigade started, well, was basically inaugurated, started stationing its military here in Lithuania. It will be a 5,000 soldier brigade with their families here, so things are happening and also reinforcing the NATO eastern flank, but when we speak about Ukraine, yes, Europe can and should do more. We'll drive back. You already talked about, you know, very high steam for America, and I think it's probably across the region, eastern Europe, where people always looked at America as a beacon of hope, as the country, that one day could help them to throw away the yolk of Soviet occupation. True. How do you evaluate American administrations? When you became a member of parliament, so Obama was there, then you had first Trump, then you had Biden, now you have Trump back. Let's just go quickly over this period and to see this is the, what America did, what America could have done, what America deliberately delayed, or have not done, and what America is doing now. Well, I think one major thing that has to be mentioned and stressed, America for Lithuania is so much more than any given administration. It is as you have said, it's a beacon of freedom, it's a beacon of democracy, and it is something that, well, we have so heavily relied, well, you know, idealistically, ideologically, during the most difficult times, and for a good reason, I think. So it cannot be reduced, I would say, to any one administration. But I think what is fair to say that many administrations, if not most, in the recent history, start off with trying to make friends, usually with Putin, because he's been around for so long, right? But normally towards the end, they decide that, well, yeah, that was not a good idea, but a lot of precious time has been lost. So there is this, yeah, there is this somehow, this pattern that's being repeated over and over again, and it is unfortunate, because nothing has changed on the Russian side with Putin. It has just been consequently getting worse. What I find, well, today, most frustrating, is that suddenly we have to return back to saying absolutely obvious things like Russia is an aggressor. What it is committing in Ukraine are war crimes. They are attacking children's cancer hospitals on the eve of a NATO summit in Washington. Well, as an example, right? Just one example, but there are so many. So this idea that you have to repeat very banal, very obvious things that are very obvious for anyone who's been even mildly interested in what has been happening in Ukraine, it is frustrating. I imagine if it's frustrating for us, how much more frustrating it should feel to Ukrainians. And when I talk to my Ukrainian colleagues, which also do quite a lot, well, sometimes I am in awe of their, I don't know what it can be called. I think it's the end of the year. I don't know. They understand that they have no other choice but to resist Russian aggression, but of course they are, I believe, deep down they depressed. But you have Europe and America, and it seems now that the transatlantic unity now is in great danger. So do you still think, have any hopes in NATO in its current form? Or do you believe that due to the very untraditional behavior of the current administration, so Europe will have to look for some other arrangements? I think that NATO countries must should and well are doing more to allocate more money, more resources to their defence. But the situation, as I see it as simple, there is a war going on in Europe, and Europe has to do its utmost to help Ukraine and also prevent this war from expanding further in Europe, which there is risk of Russia continues being unchecked. And well, what also is, of course, another very worrying track is that lack of punishment for Putin's regime. There cannot be peace if peace is unjust if the war criminals are not called for being war criminals, but can immediately go back to the table with the world leaders, shake hands and do business. That's not a fundamental for a peaceful tomorrow, and I think it's not very... It's not wise to think that the world is so simple. But as a politician, you have to look at the reality, whether it's not a very happy picture, and to deal with facts. And the facts are just telling us that American administration expressed more interest in taking care of the free speech rights of the far right groups, rather than about the well-being of Europe. And do you believe that at one point, under some circumstances in the future, the United States can live NATO? It cannot be totally ruled out, but the main scenario right now, in my opinion, is that US will leave more to Europe to deal with European problems, so to speak. And European countries have to step up in terms of their defence expenditure and rely on European NATO more than anything else. Lithuania and other European countries, they are willing to work an extra mile to boost their defence. So recently, your country and I think two-ball, the other-ball-de-nations left the global agreement that banned landmines. Yes. So you are planning to mine your entire border. That's right. So that's quite a step. I think it's a right direction, but it shows that you recognise how real the threat is. Absolutely. And it was not an easy decision from the human rights perspective, but it was a quick decision. And it is connected to the fact that, well, we consider the danger real. So Latvia, Estonia, not just Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland are leaving the Ottava Convention, we'll have left already. And that means that we will both, we can produce landmines and also mine our borders. Interestingly enough, the Russian propaganda channels reacted to it quite strongly saying that, well, this is further sign of a planned aggression against Russia from the NATO side. So that gives you an idea of how sometimes dumb that propaganda is because it is so clearly a very defensive step. You mine your border in order not to be attacked from that side. Okay. Leaving Ottava Convention is once there, but would your country and other Eastern European countries and Germany, of course, consider at one point, you know, leaving non-proliferation treaties and developing nukes and just making sure that these nuclear missiles will be aimed at Moscow from a short distance. Well, it's a theoretical, of course, discussion, but yes, in our region, well, Poland is talking about nukes. And well, there is the serious discussion about France's nuclear umbrella for the Baltic countries among the others as well. So we are thinking in the terms also of how to boost our security, our 360-degree security here in Europe, not necessarily relying on transatlantic security. Everything that we discussed is just indicates that Europe now is looking, especially Eastern Europe and Central Europe, looking for its own, you know, resources to boost its own defenses, even as you just agreed, you know, building its nukes or having nuclear weapons in the region. Is it the result of just America basically walking away and departing from withdrawal of a great defender or the guardian of the free will? Well, first of all, for us in Lithuania, it is crucial, it is very important to show that we are good allies in NATO, in the European Union, that when we say that we care about security and defense, we do not just want to free-ride and rely on someone who is bigger and stronger than us. But we do our part and maybe even do more than we are expected. That has been the principle of how we operate from the, you know, for 35 years and I think it's important. Second, when it comes to America, you know, it is a challenge to see that the values that have been, you know, figuratively speaking, shining so brightly for so many decades, perhaps changing colors to an extent. And if I have to put it bluntly, it will also take longer for us to start seeing the United States in a different light and we have a lot of good cooperation. But Europe has to step up. Europe has been for very long, relying on that the peace dividend is forever and that is not the case. We have learned some painful lessons. We in the eastern NATO flank are happy to drive the process further beat on defense, you know, more money for defense beat on supporting Ukraine as much as possible or developing defense industries as quickly as possible. And so all of these things are very important and all of this is done defensively in order to avoid a war. So we are peaceful people. We are an example that a country can live, could have a great standard, can have free speech, can have human rights in quite a short time. And that is the painful thing for Kremlin. They do not want to see successful countries from the former empire because it might lead their people to think that there is another way. There is another track for their country as well and that is definitely very scary for their regime. But we can summarize it saying that when America walks away in the world becomes more dangerous place. Absolutely. Victoria, thank you very much and again good luck. Thank you, Ari. And looking forward to seeing you in wellness. This episode of Autocracy in America was produced by Arlene O'Revallo, our editor is Dave Shaw, original music and mix Baroque smircia, fact checking by Inna Alvarado, special thanks to Polina Kasparo and Mick Gringo. Claudia Nebe is executive producer of Atlantic Audio. Andreo Valdas is our managing editor. Next time on Autocracy in America. I know that some politicians abroad have this wishful thinking that the war is so horrible that okay, occupation is not good but at least it will stop the war and decrease human suffering. But believe me, I document war crimes in occupiat territories for 11 years. Occupation doesn't stop human suffering. Occupation just makes human suffering invisible. I'm Gary Kasparo. See you back here next week.
