„The president took the easiest path. He talked about things that are very popular. This has given me the impression that the speech was adapted more to the elections [to the Seimas – ELTA],“ Rima Urbonaitė, political analyst with Mykolas Romeris University (MRU), told the news agency in a comment following Gitanas Nausėda’s annual speech.
She noted that the speech contained no references to the judicial system. Nausėda barely mentioned foreign policy and did not offer his „reflections“ on universal conscription, division, civil protection, which had been part of his address last year, according to Urbonaitė.
Gabrielė Burbulytė-Tsiskarishvili, political scientist with Klaipėda University (KU), commented that the current context calls for placing an emphasis on concrete foreign policy problems in the annual address.
„After all, there was a presidential election, there was the first round, where we had a candidate [Eduardas Vaitkus – ELTA] who openly demonstrated anti-Western sentiments. I missed that point. After all, this is the president’s direct responsibility. So, I missed a stronger emphasis on the fact that Lithuania, at least during his term of office, will not leave the path of Euro-Atlantic integration,“ she said.
The two experts agreed that highlights of the annual address relate to the president’s earlier expectations for the new government that will emerge in the autumn.
„I believe that this speech is very much linked to the upcoming parliamentary elections. It calls on people to change the government. We have seen quite clear statements from the president that we allegedly need to mobilise, because it is very clear who is engaged in dividing society,“ said Urbonaitė.
At the end of his address, President Nausėda referred to the scandal surrounding the former social minister, Monika Navickienė.
„I had intended to conclude at this point. Unfortunately, recent events have prevented me from doing so. How is it possible that we have lowered the standard for links with business interests to such an extent that when the fact of flying together with a person with a criminal past comes to light, all we can say is the long-forgotten phrase „The minister is innocent – the environment is guilty“?“ he said.
According to Urbonaitė, the very end seemed unnatural as the assessment of the much-debated story was obviously expected in the main part of the speech.
„This turned out to be quite artificial. It was logical to assume that the speech itself would address it,“ the MRU political scientist said.
Burbulytė-Tsiskarishvili saw the ending as too different from the overall tone of the speech.
„There was an expectation that this issue would be mentioned. But it was not included in the speech. And then, suddenly, there was a strike. It worked like a special effect. It put the audience back into a state of constant tension. It was a contrast to the speech,“ the KU political analyst summarised.