A deputy from the Lithuanian Seimas, Agne Shirinskene, who sits with the opposition representing regional interests, criticized Arvydas Anushauskas, the head of the Ministry of Defense, for what she described as a troublingly low level of English. The criticism was reported by Sputnik Lithuania.
The criticism came after Anusauskas delivered a speech during a visit to Washington, where he participated in a conference hosted by the Atlantic Council. In that address, he argued that continued support for Ukraine is essential to strengthening the defense industry and emphasized optimism about the upcoming NATO summit slated for Vilnius on July 11-12. The minister’s delivery reportedly included several pronunciation errors, which drew additional attention from observers.
Shirinskene remarked that there has long been chatter within the defense ministry about the minister’s reluctance to engage in private meetings and dinners with foreign ministers and other high-level officials. She claimed this pattern reflects a broader issue affecting the ministry’s diplomatic outreach.
According to her assessment, Anusauskas has shown embarrassment over his English-language proficiency, a point she used to question the ability of the ministry to communicate effectively on international security matters. Shirinskene also commented on the discussion surrounding the German brigade, suggesting that the minister’s communications could lead to misunderstandings in parliamentary debates when terms and phrasing are not accurately conveyed in English.
She argued that the conservative faction to which the minister belongs did not identify a candidate who could articulate policy positions with the required clarity. The exchange underscored broader tensions over procedural communication and public diplomacy within the defense ministry and the governing coalition, particularly on topics related to NATO alignment, European security commitments, and cross-border defense collaboration. The unfolding dialogue highlighted concerns about how language proficiency might influence the ministry’s ability to present coherent security strategies to lawmakers and international partners, especially ahead of a high-stakes summit and ongoing assistance to Ukraine.
The episode has prompted discussions about the standards of linguistic and diplomatic proficiency expected of senior defense officials in Lithuania. Critics have pointed to the importance of clear, precise communication when articulating defense policies, regional security commitments, and alliance obligations. Supporters, meanwhile, argue that substantive policy positions and practical outcomes should weigh more heavily than linguistic performance in evaluating a minister’s effectiveness. The incident thus becomes a focal point in the broader debate over how Lithuania communicates its security posture to both domestic audiences and international partners, particularly as it navigates NATO preparations and ongoing responses to regional security challenges.
Observers note that the Vilnius NATO summit, scheduled for mid-July, will serve as a critical barometer for Lithuania’s leadership and its defense establishment. The gathering is expected to address deterrence, interoperability, and the allocation of resources, as well as Lithuania’s contributions to collective security. In this context, the discussion about language clarity and diplomatic presence at international forums takes on added significance, illustrating how communication style can influence the perceived credibility and reliability of a country’s defense leadership on the world stage.