It is positive that it is proposed to restrict the ability of Russian and Belarusian citizens and related legal entities to acquire real estate near objects of national security importance and military training grounds. It is also important that not only formal company owners but also the true beneficiaries are assessed.
Read more New theoretical human age limit – 190 years: why can’t we live forever?
Also welcome is the aim to protect Lithuania’s cultural, educational, scientific, sports, art, and entertainment space from individuals who support Russian aggression, operate in occupied Ukrainian territories, justify gross human rights violations, or participate in the propaganda of repressive regimes.
However, this is where a fundamental flaw in the project emerges. The proposed restrictions apply almost exclusively to Russian and Belarusian citizens and legal entities. But how will third-country citizens be treated who perform in occupied Ukrainian territories, participate in Kremlin propaganda events, publicly support the war, and use their name and authority to help legitimize the increasingly fascist Russian regime?
Under the currently proposed regulation, such individuals may remain outside the scope of the law simply because their passport does not state Russian or Belarusian citizenship. This means that two performers can stand on the same propaganda stage, speak the same words, and serve the same regime, yet one would be subject to restrictions while the other would not. Does the danger posed by a supporter of aggression depend on their passport?
I believe that not only a person’s citizenship but primarily their actions should be assessed: whether they supported aggression, performed in occupied territories, participated in propaganda events, justified the war, or helped the regime create an impression of supposed normalcy. Culture cannot become a fig leaf to cover up war crimes.
Read more Iran says it has summoned French envoy over interference in internal affairs
No less important is the practical implementation of these provisions. Who will determine that a specific person supported aggression? Who will collect and evaluate information? Who will make the decision and what will be the appeal procedure? What information will event organizers be required to disclose, and what responsibility will they bear for non-compliance with the requirements?
The proposed declaration also raises questions. A mere signature under a politically correct text cannot erase a person’s previous activities. The declaration cannot become an indulgence for those who yesterday served the aggressor’s propaganda and today, wishing to enter European stages, suddenly declare themselves neutral.
Thus, the direction of the project initiated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is correct, but its application is too narrow, and the implementation mechanism is insufficiently clear. If we truly want to protect Lithuania’s public and cultural space, we must evaluate not only citizenship but also specific actions. Because it’s not passports that serve the Kremlin – it’s people.
