Debate over “Lithuania for Lithuanians” slogan intensifies after March 11 conflict

A Vilniaus University lecturer’s removal of a “Lithuania for Lithuanians” banner on March 11 has reignited debate over whether the slogan is patriotic or extremist, as police investigate the incident for public order violations and alleged assault, reports LRT.

Konstantinas Andrijauskas, a docent at Vilnius University, tore down the banner from a viaduct in Vilnius, arguing the phrase carries extremist connotations. Police have launched a probe into potential breaches of public order and accusations that Andrijauskas attacked another individual during the confrontation. Supporters of the slogan insist it is a patriotic expression with no ties to far-right ideology, while critics argue it has been co-opted by nationalist extremists.

Dovydas Skarolskis, a conservative member of Vilnius City Council and intellectual historian, told LRT Radio that the meaning of such slogans depends on context. “People imagine this is exclusively patriotic youth, a youth march […] but we must sense the historical context,” he said. Skarolskis noted that when 19th-century nationalist Vincas Kudirka used the phrase, it reflected nation-building efforts common across Eastern and Central Europe. “Today, it’s no longer used by those building a state—we already have one. In our region, such slogans are most often employed by far-right or even extreme-right individuals.”

Gražina Bielousova, an anthropologist specialising in politics and religion, emphasised that the slogan frequently appears alongside other far-right rhetoric. She cited a 2018 incident in which an Ecuadorian man holding a “Lithuania for All” sign was assaulted by a group chanting “Lithuania for Lithuanians.” Bielousova criticised those now defending the slogan’s use, noting they have previously targeted Andrijauskas with personal attacks over his appearance and heritage, despite his contributions to Lithuania and Ukraine.

Seimas member Vytautas Sinica argued that intent matters most, stating that the slogan could simply reflect opposition to migration and multiculturalism. “If I used it to say Lithuania should remain Lithuanian, I see no extremism in that,” he said. However, he acknowledged that if a slogan requires constant explanation, it may be better abandoned to avoid ambiguity.

Sinica also stressed that in a democratic society, individuals must tolerate speech they find offensive rather than taking justice into their own hands. “I understand why someone might feel excluded by this slogan. If you’re foreign, you might interpret it as saying Lithuania is only for Lithuanians—but in a democracy, we must endure things we find unacceptable or even hurtful. We can speak out, but we can’t decide for ourselves who gets to speak and who doesn’t.”