MPs warn of gaps in protection of strategic sites

Members of Lithuania’s parliamentary Committee on National Security and Defence see shortcomings in the country’s preparedness for threats, particularly in protecting strategic sites, LRT reported, citing the ELTA news agency. They pointed to problems with institutional coordination, technological capabilities and funding.

The committee’s chairman, Rimantas Sinkevičius, said after members visited the Second Operational Services Department that state institutions could be better prepared for possible Russian provocations.

Calls for greater focus on internal security

Dainius Gaižauskas said politicians were paying too little attention to internal security, even though external and internal threats were closely linked.

“We are devoting too little attention to Lithuania’s security. As much money, attention and initiative as we devote to countering external threats should also be devoted to ensuring internal security,” Gaižauskas, a politician from the Lithuanian Farmers and Greens Union, told ELTA.

He said previous incidents showed that Russian special services operate inside NATO countries, and that Lithuania therefore needed to strengthen not only its defences against external threats but also the capabilities of services subordinate to the Ministry of the Interior.

These include the police, the State Border Guard Service and the Public Security Service, he said. The services had repeatedly reported that they needed more attention, personnel, funding and systems, rather than having all efforts focused on external threats.

Gaižauskas also criticised the response to information about possible Russian provocations targeting strategic sites. He said authorities had known about such threats since June, raising questions about what responsible institutions had done since then.

“If everything was known in June and the threat was truly important and real, what did the minister of national defence initiate and start doing immediately in June, and what can he say has already been done in July and August?” Gaižauskas said.

Some information about the protection of strategic sites is classified, but Gaižauskas said the measures presented to committee members were insufficient.

He said the issue was not only financial and required a comprehensive approach covering funding, technology, institutional systems, the preparedness of leaders and the transfer of information.

As an example, he cited a recent incident on the border with Belarus. In his assessment, the fact that the interior minister was not informed about the incident in time exposed problems in communication between institutions.

Gaižauskas said he expected internal security to receive more attention on the political agenda in the autumn. He added that the committee had agreed more attention should be devoted to eliminating internal threats, and that this should influence decisions by the national defence and interior ministers.

Kasčiūnas points to air threats

Laurynas Kasčiūnas, deputy chairman of the committee, also agreed that institutional preparedness could be improved.

He identified the protection of critical infrastructure from threats in the air as one of the weak points.

“The coordination of institutions should be better, and there should certainly be better equipment, especially where threats from the air are concerned. This is probably our weak point: protecting our critical infrastructure,” Kasčiūnas told ELTA.

He said processes in this area needed to be accelerated and the state’s existing capabilities used more effectively.