According to the Žinių Radijas program Aktualusis Interviu, after a threat warning was issued in Lithuania, the public was divided into two camps, lrytas.lt reports.
Some say the authorities and decision-makers acted professionally, arguing that this was a serious test demonstrating how the state would respond in a real crisis. Others argue the opposite: the warnings caused chaos, some people lacked clear information, and the behaviour of certain politicians only heightened the tension.
The country’s top leaders also faced criticism—the prime minister spoke about the situation only a few hours after the air raid alert was cancelled, and the president offered his comments late in the evening during an interview with LRT.
Was this reaction too slow? Or perhaps, in the face of a crisis, what matters most is not speed, but responsibly verified information? What did this situation reveal about the state’s preparedness for potential threats? Are institutions capable of communicating in a way that makes people feel informed rather than frightened? And is the public visibility of politicians during a crisis no less important than the agencies’ operations themselves?
Communication expert Aistis Zabarauskas and Matas Baltrukevičius, an associate analyst at the Vilnius Institute for Policy Analysis, discussed this on the Žinių Radijas program Aktualusis Interviu.
– Mr Zabarauskas, how would you assess the situation: was this a successful test of the state’s preparedness, or a minor communications crisis?
Zabarauskas: Before I start criticising everyone, I’d first like to offer some praise: we’ve truly made significant progress since last year, when a drone carrying explosives flew in, state leaders were taken to shelters, and the public wasn’t even informed about it.
We have now made significant progress. It is good that the threat was announced, and the team did not hesitate to upgrade the alert from yellow to red, with all the consequences that entailed.
For people who follow the news, that was enough. The basic information was provided promptly. Therefore, first and foremost, we must commend institutions such as the National Crisis Management Centre, the Fire and Rescue Department, the military, the police, and the Ministry of National Defence for communicating in a coordinated, clear, and timely manner.
Of course, there are also lessons to be learned: regarding the role of LRT within the overall communication infrastructure, and regarding the crash of the 72. The platform and its inability to handle such high traffic volume.
Speaking of more serious lessons not yet learned and what could have been done better, the communication from the country’s leaders.
The prime minister responded more than six hours after the incident, and the president, 11 hours later. There was no communication on this matter at all on the speaker of the Seimas’s account.
Communication must be swift and clear. Six or eleven hours after the incident, the messages from state leaders contained no new information that had emerged since then. This means that messages of this nature could have been published as early as 12:30 p.m. or 1:00 p.m. Lithuanian time.
This is important because when critical events occur, people first look to their leaders. Children look to their parents; society looks to its leaders. First and foremost, to political leaders, because their job is to make decisions. Then, to institutional leaders, whose job is to manage the situation.
If we move on to the specific statements, there is much to discuss as well.
– Mr Baltrukevičius, speaking of politicians, even when viewing the crisis cynically, it is obvious: one can go public, hold a live broadcast, reassure the public, and even accumulate political capital in this way. Why do you think our country’s leaders didn’t do that yesterday?
Baltrukevičius: I’ll add that journalists interviewed Juozas Olekas in a shelter, so apparently, there was at least some communication effort on that side.
It’s hard to say to what extent the country’s leaders themselves felt caught off guard by this situation, or how prepared they were for the possibility that it could quickly reach us as well. From the outside, it seems logical to expect that, but you can’t get inside a person’s head.
I also got the impression that the institutions were communicating and explaining. The institutions whose job it was to help the public understand what was happening and what to do did their job well.
However, the question of why communication came so late certainly remains. We heard the president and prime minister attempt to frame this as a new reality, but at the same time, this could have been an opportunity to more clearly outline what can be done to reduce the occurrence of such situations. <…>
This is where a very fine line emerges—how to maintain the state’s preparedness.
In reality, there will likely never be technological solutions that would allow us to warn the residents of Pilaitė while sparing those in Naujininkai, so that the impact affects as small a portion of the population as possible. Therefore, a very complex task lies ahead—deciding how the state should act and how institutions should communicate to maintain order. Still, panic does not arise, nor does it become background noise that people ignore.
– Mr Zabarauskas, which messages do you have in mind when you say there is cause for criticism? Are you referring to these? We’ve heard reports in many places that it was a Ukrainian drone, that Belarus is assisting Lithuania, and that the signal resembled a drone. Still, it’s unclear whether the drone actually left Lithuanian territory.
Zabarauskas: More was said: you’ll get even more messages; we’re sorry—there was no need to apologise. More of this—I guarantee—will lead to us no longer paying attention. Psychologically, it’s too difficult to maintain the same level of reaction over a long period of time.
It was said that the education system is in bad shape. However, we don’t know that: we have bad examples, but we also have fantastically good ones. The education community should now be sharing experiences and helping one another understand how to act in such situations.
Another rather dangerous message was voiced late in the evening, in response to the question of what would happen if 50 drones arrived. At least it’s a good thing that no further improvisations were allowed afterwards. However, it was then stated that this would already constitute an attack against a NATO member state and that Article 5 would need to be invoked.
It is reckless to say such things, as it undermines the credibility of one’s own words. I expect more drones will fly into Lithuania over the next 1.5 years. We won’t be able to prove that Moscow was behind it, so Article 5 won’t be invoked.
In my work, I follow the worst-case scenario method: you consider the worst possible outcome and plan your actions accordingly. Then it’s much easier to act in other circumstances.
Looking at the first air threat incident in Lithuanian history, I wonder what the worst-case scenario could have been. And it could have been this: not a drone that accidentally strayed, but an organised Russian attack using Ukrainian drones.
In this scenario, we mistakenly said we had received a warning from Belarus. As if to say, “Look how good they are.”
Such information does not provide residents with any additional insight into what to do, so it could have been withheld. We must follow the “need-to-know” principle.
The second point is that there are already voices saying that Ukraine is sending drones into Russia and that we should say something to Ukraine. We’re starting to blame the victim again.
If we assess this episode using the worst-case scenario, we have to admit we missed the hybrid information attack.
– Mr Baltrukevičius, there is a certain scepticism among listeners. People are calling in, writing comments to Žinių Radijas, and saying: It hasn’t even been identified yet what was there, and already there’s talk of a drone. Why are politicians running to hide? Is it possible to explain to people why they need to hide and who should do so?
Baltrukevičius: There will soon be 3 million drone experts in Lithuania. We’re also hearing the same old narrative again: “We’re not learning anything from Ukraine.”
However, the reality is much more complex than we would like.
Right now, the most important task for politicians is to have a plan and to speak as clearly as possible about what Lithuania can and intends to do to minimise such situations.
If yesterday we heard the message “get used to it—there will be more of these cases,” it was necessary to add that we will try to take certain steps, to set priorities, so that there is clearer, positive news about what Lithuania intends to do to ensure that such situations recur as rarely as possible.
Be the first to comment