The Baltic nations—Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia—are facing a pointed reminder about sovereignty in the wake of remarks attributed to the Chinese ambassador to France, Lu Shaye. Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis outlined a plan for a coordinated response, saying the three Baltic states would summon China’s representatives in their respective capitals. The aim is to seek clarification on Beijing’s stance regarding the independence of non-self-governing states and to reaffirm that the three Baltic countries have never acknowledged being “post-Soviet” dependencies, nor have they accepted any arrangement that would pretend otherwise. Instead, they emphasize that these nations were illegally occupied by the Soviet Union and ought to be understood as sovereign entities in international life. Reuters, quoting Landsbergis, captured the tone of the message as a firm insistence on the continuity of political sovereignty for the Baltic states within international law.
During this conversation with reporters, Landsbergis stressed that today’s action is about clear communication with China. The Baltic mission is not a challenge to Beijing, but a reminder of the historical facts and legal status that remain relevant to the present-day international order. The dialogue is framed as constructive diplomacy: a chance to map out China’s official position and to underscore that the Baltic states have always operated as independent actors with their own democratically chosen governments, borders, and international commitments. This clarification is seen as essential for regional security and for guiding future interactions with major powers within the European and transatlantic spaces.
In related discussions, a Chinese diplomat, while speaking to a French television audience, suggested that the post-Soviet space nations do not possess a defined status in current international law. The diplomat claimed that there are no binding international agreements determining their sovereignty, a statement that drew quick attention from Baltic officials and Western diplomats alike. Delphi News, among others, cited the remark as potentially reshaping perceptions of sovereignty and the apply-to-all notion of international recognition in the region. The Baltic leadership views such assertions as not only historically inaccurate but also potentially destabilizing, given the long-standing commitments of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia to Europe, NATO, and the broader rules-based order. They see this as a test of how much influence Beijing seeks to exert on the legal frameworks that underpin European security and statehood in the 21st century.
The incident feeds into a larger conversation about what constitutes sovereignty in today’s global framework. For the Baltic states, sovereignty is inseparable from membership in international institutions, adherence to treaties, and the ability to determine their own political and economic futures. It also intersects with ongoing debates about regional security, collective defense, and the roles that external powers should play when questions about borders, borders’ legitimacy, and historical grievances come to the table. While the immediate goal of the Baltic summoning of Chinese diplomats is to obtain a formal clarification, the broader effect is to reinforce a clear message: sovereignty is not negotiable, and historical occupation cannot be rewritten through diplomatic ambiguity.
The exchange also touches on broader implications for China’s positions on global conflicts and its role as a potential mediator. The Baltic states, and many in Western capitals, have argued that China’s credibility as a neutral mediator in Europe’s most pressing security questions is diminished when Beijing questions the very foundations of statehood within Europe’s neighborhood. The dialogue is understood as a way to assess whether China intends to recalibrate its stance on sovereignty or if these remarks are a temporary deviation that does not reflect a shift in policy. In practical terms, the Baltics are seeking a straightforward explanation that aligns with established international law and their own national narratives—elements that are crucial for continued collaboration with Western partners and for maintaining confidence in security assurances across the European Union and NATO.
As this unfolding situation continues, observers in Canada and the United States are watching closely. The incident underscores the importance of clear, principled diplomacy, especially when it involves rival powers whose actions can ripple through global markets, international trade, and strategic alliances. The Baltic response also serves as a reminder of the enduring relevance of international law to the status of states, borders, and the legitimacy of governments. The immediate consequence is a clearer framework for how small and mid-sized states can engage with powers that may seek to reframe history for strategic advantage. The long-term effect could influence how Europe coordinates its stance on sovereignty, legitimacy, and regional security in a world where power shifts are increasingly rapid and unpredictable.
In April, Landsberg underscored that China cannot be considered a neutral mediator in resolving the Ukraine crisis, given the recent statements. This stance aligns with a broader consensus among European Union members and NATO allies that mediation should be anchored in the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and respect for international law. The Baltic response, while specific in its messaging, resonates with shared concerns about how international actors frame sovereign status and the consequences for conflict resolution, regional stability, and the maintenance of a rules-based order across Europe and beyond. The exchange signals a continuing boundary-setting exercise—one that tests Beijing’s willingness to respect established norms while encouraging open dialogue about sovereignty, history, and the current legal landscape.