Linguist: Nausėda’s address projects a strong but arrogant presidential image

A public speaking expert says Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda’s annual address to parliament projects a strong but arrogant image, according to a BNS report.

Neringa Bliūdžiūtė, a language and public speaking specialist, noted that while the president maintained a clear narrative—particularly on external and internal security threats—his speech lacked concrete details and personal accountability.

“A positive aspect is the clarity,” Bliūdžiūtė told BNS. “There is one very strong theme running through the entire address: external and internal threats and our response to them. This is commendable.”

She praised Nausėda for framing current uncertainties, such as the recent drone incident, and for outlining the need for national action in a more dangerous world. However, she criticised the lack of specificity and the president’s avoidance of personal responsibility, particularly on issues where public expectations were high, such as government formation and his response to cultural protests.

“In the government formation process, and in his reactions to the actions of the leader of ‘Nemuno aušra’ and the cultural protest, where people expected and demanded presidential accountability, he did not take it then, and in this address, he continues to avoid it,” Bliūdžiūtė said.

She added that while Nausėda briefly acknowledged responsibility in one instance, he quickly shifted to a non-apology, stating that “culture definitely gained from it.” Instead, she argued, he should have directly addressed whether he had erred.

Bliūdžiūtė also noted the president’s tendency to include personal grievances in the address, such as the middle-finger gesture during a cultural protest, which she described as a sign of weak leadership. She observed that his speech, as usual, was rich in stylistic devices like metaphors and tripartite phrases—“we will ponder,” “paper tiger,” “tip of the iceberg”—which she called a personal trait.

Compared to previous annual addresses, this one was more coherent, she said. “Earlier, the addresses were more scattered, with many topics mentioned but not woven into a single narrative. This time, it was clearer and more precise—a success, because annual addresses often try to cover everything, like a Christmas tree.”

Overall, Bliūdžiūtė said the speech left a good impression initially, but over time, the absence of the president’s visibility and stronger leadership became noticeable.