he says he's truly worried about 202a. why? gabrielius landsbergis, welcome to hardtalk. thank you. pleasure being here. you were very candid, expressing your deep concern about 202a. why are you so worried? well, i think that there is not enough, i'd say, understanding as to what's at stake if ukraine is unable to push russia out of its country.

we see russia mobilising, continuously mobilising, even though it's not officially declared. we see them arming, we see them entering what is called a war economy, producing weapons, getting weapons from iran and north korea. and with the momentum on the battlefield in eastern ukraine. exactly. and us faltering, stumbling. and whenever, you know, balts speak usually or, you know, the countries from the eastern flank would speak, it's notjust because we feel that it's morally right to defend ukraine, but we also take this as an existential question... ..that means that if russia is not stopped in ukraine, it will continue — because a machine that size, it's very difficult to stop and it needs to... it cannot be stopped with just, you know, well—wishing. it has to be stopped by military means. do you think america's eventual commitment of that $60 billion worth of aid and assistance to ukraine has been a game—changer? or do you fear that, still,

the biden administration, even in the speed that it is sending the new arms to ukraine, is constrained by a wish not to escalate with putin? yeah, i think that, you know, we've been, since the very beginning, when the west formulated its strategy towards the war in ukraine, against ukraine, it has been more about the red lines to ourselves. you know, we've been sending messages to putin like, "we're not going to do this, we're not going to do that," and, you know, all these messaging so that we're not part of this, not of this conflict. and i think it hindered... it hindered our political decision—making process, it hindered our ability to explain the situation to our electorates. you're using the past tense, but is it still...? it's still there. it's still there, obviously. i mean, we changed throughout the, you know, couple of years. you know, at first, we said that we're not going to send, you know,

this sort of ammunition, not this sort of equipment. and now we're there, we're sending this. but i don't think that we have grasped the concept that we need to establish red lines not to us, but to putin. he needs to be deterred on continuing, you know, because if now he knows that we are deterring ourselves, there are things that we're not going to do, and with what you started, with nuclear threats, it's him deterring us. it's him saying, "look, if you're going to support ukraine "to a certain extent, i might do something." but what's your message, then? you know, when, in the last 48 hours, we have putin ordering his military to deploy battlefield nuclear weapons in another training exercise which is going to be pretty close to ukraine, the ukrainian border, when he does that, is your message to western partners, "ah, ignore it, it's simply a bluff. "forget about the russians being the most powerful nuclear "weapons state in the world. "it's irrelevant. "he'll absolutely never use them"? is that your message?

i would ask a question. can we count the times that he did that in the past? and i tell you, that's a number of times. he said... so it's all bluff? it's always... it was always a bluff. he has nothing to gain from it. he has all to lose. you know, now, he has certain countries on his side. at least he believes that, right? he has china that is clearly supporting russia. he has certain, you know, countries from the global partners — you know, in africa and latin america — that are closer to putin's camp. he would lose that in an instant if he would get real... the thing is, you don't persuade people like jake sullivan, the national security advisor in washington, when you say that, cos he clearly is concerned about the danger, the real danger of escalation. you don't convince other european leaders like olaf scholz, who — many times — has referred to his desire to avoid dangerous escalation. they believe in this concept of avoiding escalation.

yeah, but, i mean, it's... the only path that our strategy leads to — i mean, if we're sticking to this strategy — it might lead to devastation of a country and it might lead to an actual conflict, you know, that's outside ukraine. other countries might be involved because, basically, it's... we're sending a very clear signal to putin — "if you threaten us, we back down." so now we have to ask a question — if he would attack another country and threaten with tactical nukes, what would we do? and this is the biggest problem that we do have. that's why we need to push back. that's why we need to push back, that if you would test anything, the answer would be ten times worse that you would expect right now... right, but that's the language of a spiral leading, frankly, to armageddon. i mean, you're the foreign minister of lithuania. and with all due respect, you know, you're a fairly small country in europe.

in washington, in berlin, in london — and, of course, in moscow — you know, they have to really consider very carefully the strategic realities in a way that perhaps, living in vilnius, you know, you're a little bit divorced from actual responsibility. well, we are not divorced from actual reality. well, that's true. you know, we are, you know, a country that is a front line country, and we are the closest — you know, as nato gets — to where the war is. so we... you know, we tend to measure our words, and we believe that giving in to bullying actually leads to more bullying. and this is, you know, what we started, why the war is so... why we're so worried about the situation currently, you know, why it worries us so much, because we believe that russia has no... we are not putting any guardrails for russia to move ahead. and i don't honestly, you know, believe that the assistance

is a game—changer. honestly, i believe that at least the sense is right now that there's a certain calming down in the west when the congress approved, you know, the package — kind of, "oh, ok, you know, "we dodged the bullet once, and maybe now "we need to reconsider. "you know, we gained some time." you know, the time is against us. russians are building up. they�* re moving ahead. the logistics takes time and it's not delivered. the whole package is not delivered, you know, in one swoop, so... does it look like it's being delivered slowly to you? i know that there has been some preparations and certain elements are already moving in. at least this is, you know, what we have, information from ukrainians, but it's far from everything. so it will reach ukraine, but we have to imagine that the other side is not waiting, you know, kind of giving us time, giving us respite and...waiting until we have everything that we need, you know, in order for us to feel comfortable. they will use this moment until ukraine is at the most vulnerable. and this is where we need to step up.

you... we've talked extensively about the nuclear threat and the strategies behind responding to putin's nuclear threats. but you say, more widely, "we need to remove our own red lines." and that's an echo of something that president macron said just a few days ago, when he did ponder out loud about the possibility of, ultimately, notjust france, but nato partners sending troops onto the ground in ukraine. do you believe that is a serious possibility? and would you, in lithuania, be prepared to send your own men and women to fight in ukraine? i think it cannot be moved out from the table. and this is... i've been very clear from the very start that lithuania will be part of any coalition that will help ukraine win — with our limited capacity, with our, you know, limited resources that we do have. we understand the size of our country. but then, again, whenever certain solutions are offered, decisions are being discussed, there's always a no at the table.

and this is... you know, it's not helping us. you know, we cannot build a united front if there's always a country that says, "look, you know, "this is going too far." therefore, you know, we supported france and the french president when he... but the problem... yes, you supported france, but clearly many others didn't. the germans didn't. the americans didn't. but that's not the expectation... no, but the danger of you talking the way you're talking with me today, the danger is that you simply expose the very deep divisions within the so—called western alliance backing ukraine, cos the divisions are very real and they're very deep. but they're already exposed. and i don't think that it's that big of a problem because... you don't? no, i don't think so. don't you think putin will be listening to our conversation and actually enjoying the fact that you're saying things that would be never said in berlin or washington? well, i'm sure that putin knows that, you know, there are certain countries that are not sending long—range missiles to ukraine. but then, again, there are countries who say,

"look, we can do this," and we're in one of those countries right now. and there are countries who say, "look, you know, our technology can "never be used to attack targets in russia," while there are countries — and we're in one now — which says, "you can actually do that with "the weapons that we provide." so there is no unity, right? but it provides a strategic opportunity for ukraine. they are able to use what they get. they are getting certain technology that otherwise, if we would be just sticking to the lowest denominator, we would not be having, you know, any sort of this conversation, and probably ukraine might not even exist. you seem to be absolutely insistent that ukraine can win — and win in terms of recovering every inch of its sovereign territory, including crimea. there are so many people within your partner and alliance group in the west who simply — they may not say it publicly, but privately — do not believe that. but it's up to us. a war requires...two things. one thing is political will. the second is logistics. but there's also a role for realism and honesty. no, but, i mean, ukrainians clearly

show that they have political will — more than enough... right now, there's a real problem in ukraine in convincing young men that it is in their interest to join the armed forces. mobilisation is a real problem. it's very difficult to mobilise people when you're not providing them ammunition. and again, it's on us. so i would, you know, if i were to look for the problems, i would put a very big mirror and sit in front of it and ask questions, not to ukrainians, but to our own leaders, where we are. are we serious about this? do we understand the consequences if ukraine is unable to win? because, honestly, i... you know, i've participated in the conversation and i've heard the arguments, but i've never heard a real answer as to how one imagines a putin would stop, a person like putin would stop. what leverages do you expect to have? are you expecting to make a phone call or something like that? at which point, why would he stop? you know, with. ..

well, let's continue with that idea of, why and where would putin stop? you seem notjust to be very involved and a very hawkish advocate of more assistance to ukraine and ukraine winning its war. but you also seem to be sending a message, both to your own people and to the wider public in europe and the united states, that your country, too, is under very real threat from russia. you seem to be saying that you could actually envisage a russian attack on lithuania coming very quickly. where do you get any evidence to support that? well, you know, at the very beginning, answering yourfirst question, i said, it's notjust morally right to support ukraine, it's existential. no, but aren't you just sowing a fear amongst your own people, a fear that isn't actually justified? even your own president, at the end of last year, told you to take a seat and calm down after you'd suggested it was only a matter of time before russia sent troops. i'm not the only one to suggest

that, and you probably know that, you know, a number of leaders in eastern flank were saying exactly the same thing. i mean, even the german defence minister is saying exactly the same thing on his way to reform his military force. yeah, he was talking about a five—to—eight—year timeframe. you're talking about a much more immediate one. in fact, it led the commander of your own country's armed forces to say, this year, next year, the possibility of a war between russia and a nato country is very low, extremely low. no, i'm not being quoted correctly. my estimations are not different from other countries in our region. the thing is that the situation might change, depending on how ukraine fares. if ukraine is able to win and to push, you know, the front back and, you know, kind of to sustain its victory, so to say, winning in the front, then i think that we're in a very much different strategic situation. if they are unable, and if, you know, the situation deteriorates fast, this is where dangers come from. and we've talked a lot

about your dissatisfaction with the level of support and assistance being given to ukraine. what about the level of military support and backing being given to the baltic states within nato? mm—hm. you know, the germans, for example, have committed to providing a brigade of troops specifically to protect lithuania. but as i understand it, it's now clear, those troops aren't going to be fully ready and in place until 2027. and there's still a debate in germany about how many of them will actually be sent to your country, and how many will remain inside germany. no, the debate is... i think we have that settled. do you? yes, it's, it's a full, combat—ready brigade and, you know, the amount is about 5,000. all on your territory? all on our territory. and we have to be... you know, it's a task for us as well. and how do you think the russians are going to respond to that? well, that's, you know, not the biggest of our concerns at this point. shouldn't it be? because we are reacting to what the russians are doing already. i understand but, again, we come back to this spiral

and to each side accusing the other of escalatory action. and, you know, nato not so long ago was promising there wouldn't be permanent nato bases inside the baltic states. now, you're saying we're going to have 5,000 german troops. and i noticed the president of poland is even advocating for nuclear weapons to be positioned on his territory. yeah, and that might not be even enough. i mean, i'm not talking about the polish decision, but i'm saying about the 5,000. you know, we would expect even more troops in the baltics. and the same happening in latvia, you know, with a canadian brigade being deployed there, and, you know, us talking about universal conscription. it's not been decided yet. but basically, we have to be open—eyed and clear—eyed as to what is happening outside our borders. just one quick thought about what's happening inside your borders right now. one of your officials, the head of the lithuanian national crisis management centre,

said that russia is already systematically conducting disinformation campaigns and provocations inside lithuania in order to raise tension. how concerned are you about the reality of this sort of hybrid, cyber warfare? yeah, very concerned. and it's not just. .. it's notjust the cyber element and it's notjust disinformation. it's already, you know, we're seeing kinetic action as well, meaning that there are, you know, people being hired or being instructed from russia, you know, to operate within nato territory. we still call it a hybrid area because it's, you know, not a direct attack on the country, but it's an uncharted territory that i think merits an answer. and, as well, we need to start drawing red lines. we see what's happening. we know... and one more thing on this. you can't protect russian dissidents on your own territory, it seems. leonid volkov, who's a close ally of alexei navalny, was actually attacked with a hammer inside your country. are you doing more now to protect russian dissidents? and there are hundreds

of them on your territory. there are russians and then belarusians and, obviously, ukrainians who, you know, who chose to stay in lithuania and other countries. we're doing everything that we can to protect them. and the good news is that the people who attacked russian opposition, they have been apprehended. but it tells you something — that, basically, russia is active in nato territories. so, for us, actually, you know, in order to be safe, to secure the people, our people, and those who chose to live with us, those who fled the regimes in belarus and in russia, we need to step up. let's. .. and it needs also combined effort. you know, it's. .. we cannot expect, you know, just a country like lithuania, who are standing alone. right, let's move to a different geopolitical arena. i mean, many would argue, maybe a lot of lithuanians would argue, that it was foolish of you, while you are so intent on combating what you see as the very real, present danger of russia, the threat posed by russia,

was it wise of you to pick a fight with china at the very same time, which is exactly what you, as foreign minister, have chosen to do? well, we'd never picked up a fight with china. that's a very common misunderstanding. we intended to support the island of taiwan, which opened a representative office in lithuania. and you chose to allow this office to be designated as the office of taiwan, where, in many other european capitals, they find a form of words, usually referring to taipei, which, of course, is the capital. but i think we... without using that word taiwan. you knew it was going to massively annoy — indeed, infuriate — beijing, but you allowed it to happen. yes, but this is the way that democracies support each other. and lithuania was supported in 19905 by, you know, a small island of iceland. you know, when it was the first country, you know, to support our independence, and it suffered from

moscow, you know. it was sanctioned by soviet union back then, but still it was the first country to recognise lithuania's independence. so, definitely, there is merit to, you know, to democracies supporting each other. isn't the truth, foreign minister, that you massively underestimated what the chinese reaction was going to be? no, i think that they wanted... you know, they moved the red line themselves. you know, kind of, this is... you could have predicted it, but you didn't. indeed, yourformer deputy foreign minister said, yes, china's harsh response was "unforeseen." so, i guess that was a failing on your part. well, i think that it was a new phenomenon. i mean, it's massively hit many businesses in your country. it has... trade with china, obviously, has fallen off a cliff, cos china is no longer prepared to trade with you. they've tried to stop other multinational companies having trade ties with lithuania. look. i have to, you know, stop you there. you know, using words like "massively", it's not completely correct.

lithuania has never been exposed, you know, to china's market, as some other countries are. no, i take your point. you were never hugely tied to china, but in terms of the actual monetary value of trade with china, it went down from 350 million euros in 2020 to 100 million after you took this decision. yes, it's like one tenth of what we have in our trade with czech republic. so, honestly, i think that we... you know, it was survival. i guess, the bigger diplomatic point, and you are, you know... but i would... i would like to answer that still. europe getting tough with china. hang on, we don't have much time. i just want to get to this point. you went to brussels and you said this in december 2021. you said to your european colleagues, "a strong reaction "is necessary at eu level in order to send a signal to china "that politically—motivated economic pressure will not be tolerated." well, here we are in 202a. german exports to china are still massive. as we speak, the french, president macron et al, are hosting president xi. your desire to see europe get tough with china, well, it hasn't... imean, it's... ..followed through, has it? i think that we are on the verge of falling in the same trap

that we have been with, with russia. you know, a massive dependence, which very quickly becomes political. and to answer your previous question, we diversified. we actually did what many countries are preaching currently. de—risking is the keyword in many capitals, here as well. and we de—risked. you know, falling off the cliff is not the right word. you know, we diversified. the trade went to other countries. you know, we've increased by 36% our exports to indo—pacific. that's a big number. and now, i mean, even ourtrade with china now is back. you know, even though we are completely not doing anything about it. i mean, just, you know, it's starting to open up. if i may, there's a big strategic sort of picture here, and i wonder how you fit, for example, with president macron�*s, er, strongly—stated view that it would, quote, "be a big mistake for europe

to get dragged into a confrontation "between china and the us over taiwan." it's part of his message to europe that we have to develop strategic autonomy. we have to cut some of those ties to the united states... well, look... ..given that we can no longer trust the united states to act in europe's interest. you in lithuania seem to take a different view. well, i don't believe that we can actually trust a country that is using trade as a weapon. that's for one. i don't think that we can trust a country that's supporting russia in its war, in its illegal war against ukraine. so this is where my argument comes from. but should lithuania be in lockstep with the united states, particularly at a time when us politics is so deeply uncertain and we may be looking at the prospect of a trump presidency again? imean, we... at this point, we see our interest in this. and it's clear. you know, with that i started. you know, first of all, it's

supporting other democracies, right? because we came out into the... you know, we were rediscovered as a country and we came back from the occupation in a very similar manner. we were supported by others. so that's one thing. and then there's a practical element, right? a dependency on a non—democratic country is, it will hinder you in the future. it will harm you in the future. we've seen that with russia. this is a very practical argument. sadly, we have to end there. but gabrielius landsbergis, thank you very much forjoining me on hardtalk. thank you. hello there. our settled week of weather is set to continue. in fact, thursday, it was warmest

day of the year so far. we reached a high of 24.6 celsius in stjames�*s park, london. when you round that up to 25, that is 77 fahrenheit. we could see similar values over the next couple of days with high pressure staying with us, but this weak weather front will continue to bring some showery outbreaks of rain and a cooler feel across the northern isles. it'll be a relatively mild start to our friday morning. double digits, some early morning mist and fog quickly melting away, a lot of sunshine coming through. we'll get a little bit of fair weather cloud developing into the afternoon, but on the whole, a promising day. more sunshine as well for scotland in comparison to thursday. top temperatures here of 20 to 22 degrees. we could see 2a further south. into the start of the weekend, we continue with this warm, sunny theme. however, the risk of some sharp showers will start to increase. now, as we go through the early hours of saturday morning, we could see some fog coming in off the north sea, anywhere from the vale of york down into lincolnshire, over into the south—east.

again, double figures to greet us first thing on saturday morning. so, could be a pretty murky start across eastern england, but we'll expect that sunshine to get to work quite strong at this time of year. a lot of sunshine coming through. risk of a few scattered showers anywhere north of manchester, up to the scottish borders, but top temperatures generally at around 23 or 2a celsius once again. now, as we move into sunday, we've got this weather front which will enhance the risk of some sharp, thundery downpours and some showers moving up from the near continent. now, if we get some sunshine across east anglia and south—east england, we could see temperatures as high as 26 degrees. a lot of uncertainty about the detail for sunday, but at the moment, there's a greater chance of seeing some sharp thundery, downpours developing. and so out to the west, not quite as warm. then into monday, an atlantic influence is set to return, low pressure will start to push in from the west as the high drifts

away, and that means that it will turn wetter and windier. and that is going to stay with us throughout the week, so it looks likely to see showers or longer spells of rain returning.

welcome to newsday, reporting live from singapore, the headlines. benjamin netanyahu says israeli forces will press ahead with military operations alone if necessary, as the white house calls for restraint. stormy daniels clashes in court with donald trump's defence team, during her second day of testimony at his criminal trial in new york. president putin uses victory day celebrations to justify his war with ukraine — saying russians are living through a difficult period. and the british girl who was born deaf and can now hear again after revolutionary gene therapy treatment.

it's seven in the morning in singapore, and two in the morning in gaza and i want to start the program with this. "if we have to stand alone, we will stand alone." those are the words of benjamin netanyahu, after us presidentjoe biden confirmed the white house had paused a delivery of munitions, that could be used in a major assault on the city of rafah, in the south of gaza. for weeks america has said such an attack would lead to many civilian deaths — with more than a million palestinians sheltering in the southern city. but as the families of more than 100 israeli hostages continue to pressure their government, israel remains adamant that an assault is the only way to finish off hamas and secure their release. in the past few minutes the white house has said it's provided israel with some alternatives on how to go

after hamas operatives.