
Key Insights:
- Over January 2025, pro-Kremlin media in Lithuania intensified their campaign to erode trust in NATO, Western alliances, and Lithuania’s national security strategy. NATO was portrayed as an unreliable shield controlled by alleged hidden powers, while Lithuania’s plans to increase defence spending drastically were ridiculed as totally reckless and unsustainable. These narratives aimed to create a sense of vulnerability, pushing the idea that Lithuania’s alignment with the West is not just misguided but actively harmful to its stability and future.
- Throughout the month, Kremlin-backed disinformation relentlessly targeted Lithuania’s historical memory and political landscape to weaken national unity. The January 13th commemorations were mocked as exaggerated nationalism, while the forget-me-not symbol—a marker of remembrance—was discredited to diminish the significance of Soviet-era resistance. Political instability was also exploited, with Agnė Širinskienė’s resignation spun into a broader attack on the government’s credibility. The ultimate goal was to fracture Lithuanian society, delegitimize its leadership, and create an environment of distrust and political paralysis.
- A persistent effort was made to portray Ukraine’s war effort as a doomed endeavor, portraying its soldiers as desperate and unwilling to fight while framing its leadership as reckless and corrupt. Pro-Kremlin outlets sought to convince Lithuanians that their country’s support for Ukraine was not just futile but dangerous, leading the nation toward militarization and direct involvement in an unwinnable conflict. These narratives aimed to diminish public support for Ukraine and isolate Lithuania from its allies by instilling fear and exhaustion.
- In January, it was announced, that Lithuania is making a significant commitment to strengthening its defence capabilities in response to the growing threat from Russia. The State Defense Council has agreed to increase military spending to between 5% and 6% of GDP for the period 2026–2030, marking a sharp rise from the current level of just over 3% of GDP. This move aligns with growing concerns about regional security and echoes calls from NATO allies, including the U.S., for member states to boost their defence budgets. The decision reflects Lithuania’s strategic priority to ensure readiness in the face of potential military threats and underscores its determination to reinforce its national security infrastructure.
Overview of the findings:
- Nearly identical number, 1112 articles, compared to 1110 articles analysed during December of 2024, were scrutinised from four Kremlin-aligned media outlets still actively operating in Lithuania.
- Throughout January 2025, Kremlin-aligned narratives in Lithuania continued to center around the anti-government sentiment, scepticism toward NATO, and disinformation about Ukraine, aiming to erode trust in national leadership and Western alliances. The inauguration of Donald Trump was used to fuel claims of Western instability, while Lithuania’s increased defence spending was ridiculed as unrealistic and harmful to other sectors. Meanwhile, NATO’s credibility was repeatedly questioned, and Ukraine was depicted as doomed to failure, reinforcing fears of war and discouraging further Lithuanian support.
- The YouScan media monitoring tool managed to capture even 42,103 content pieces (an increase of nearly 5% compared to the previous month) related to pro-Kremlin media in Lithuania, including different posts, videos, tweets, and comments written under them.
- The graph below indicates daily engagement levels throughout January. A more detailed breakdown based on visible trends follows:

- The most significant engagement surges occur around January 14–15, January 20–21, and January 27–28. The first spike in mid-January strongly corresponds to the January 13th commemoration in Lithuania, which was usually actively targeted by pro-Kremlin propaganda. The second one reveals the increased activity of Kremlin-aligned sources commenting on Trump’s inauguration. The third peak at the end of January can hardly be concluded around any specific event but rather in covering a lot of different ones.



- While engagement fluctuates overall, it remains relatively stable within the 10k–20k range, with occasional spikes exceeding 20k, as described above. This indicates a consistent audience consuming and interacting with Kremlin-aligned sources and narratives they present, with occasional surges driven by viral disinformation or significant news events.
Story of the Month:
Lithuania’s Defence Budget Increase
During January, media outlets in Lithuania were swamped with news about the country’s decision to ramp up its defence spending to an unprecedented 5–6% of GDP from 2025 to at least 2030. This move, driven by escalating regional security threats and NATO’s push for more significant military commitments, signals a major shift in Lithuania’s defence policy. With tensions high due to Russia’s continued aggression against Ukraine and broader geopolitical uncertainties, Lithuania is taking proactive steps to strengthen its military capabilities. The announcement also aligns with calls from U.S. leadership for European allies to shoulder a larger share of defence responsibilities, positioning Lithuania as one of NATO’s top defence spenders relative to its GDP.
Despite this notable achievement in reinforcing national security, the decision also provided extended material for pro-Kremlin media and hostile actors to exploit. Outlets that correspond with Kremlin narratives and other malign influencers quickly seized the opportunity to spread disinformation, portraying the increase in defence spending as reckless and detrimental to Lithuania’s economy and social welfare. Narratives suggesting that NATO is coercing Lithuania or that its leaders are prioritizing militarization over citizens’ well-being gained traction in anti-Western circles. These efforts highlight the ongoing hybrid threats Lithuania faces, where strategic decisions are challenged on the battlefield and in the information space.

Many content pieces appeared online discussing the news about the defence budget increase, and many of them gathered notable social media user engagement. For example, some authors harshly criticised Lithuania’s decision to allocate up to 6% of its GDP to defence, arguing that this move will deepen social division and fuel resentment among the population. They pointed out that even major NATO countries, such as the U.S., dedicate a smaller percentage of their GDP to defence, questioning whether Lithuania’s unprecedented spending could be justified in any way. Furthermore, he warns of the severe economic and social consequences this decision may bring: according to him, excessive defence spending could shift the financial burden onto ordinary citizens, leading to higher taxes, a struggling small-business sector, and deteriorating public services, including healthcare. This policy was portrayed as reckless and suggests that Lithuania’s leadership prioritises military interests over its people’s well-being, mindlessly following NATO directives without considering the long-term damage to the nation’s economy and social stability. Social media users welcomed such harsh criticism of the decision with active support (see screenshot on the right). All of the comments that were mocking the whole government or, specifically, President Gitanas Nausėda got heavily engaged and supported by fellow followers. Moreover, articles managed to misguide people, ensuring that the extra money for the budget increase would be taken from their personal savings. This idea was visible throughout different sources, forming a very malign narrative and further dividing society on this issue.
Examples of well-engaged comments under the post: “I’m not sure about other countries, but our president is out of his mind”; “WHAT RIGHT DOES HE HAVE TO TAKE PEOPLE’S SAVINGS, IT IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE. HE IS A CRIMINAL, A THIEF. SUCH THINGS ARE CRIMINAL.“


Criticism from “the inside” – from politicians currently in the Government – has also attracted a lot of support. Remigijus Žemaitaitis, the leader of the “Nemuno Aušra” party, has criticised the State Defense Council’s decision, calling it irrational and unfeasible. He emphasized that the VGT’s recommendations are not binding for the Seimas or the Government. Žemaitaitis also questioned the lack of clarity regarding the funding sources for this increase and suggested that the current defence budget is sufficient. He indicated that his faction would not support this decision in the Seimas and urged the President to provide detailed proposals on financing the proposed defence spending increase. Followers of Žemaitaitis strongly encouraged his stance and encouraged him „to take action, stopping this reckless decision.“

As usual, YouTube content stood out with the engagement levels among all social media platforms, and the defence budget topic was widely discussed among the channels, corresponding with Kremlin-aligned narratives. Videos with headlines, such as “We need to imprison them, but we elect them instead | Trump’s inaugural speech – not a word about Ukraine and Russia” (screenshot on the right), “So who are the idiots here? Us or the authorities?”or “Who will benefit from the 6% ?” appeared online, further discussing the growth of defence spending. YouTube channels aligning with pro-Kremlin narratives have been actively spreading messages aimed at discrediting this decision. In various videos promoting this viewpoint, a coordinated effort was made to argue that raising the defence budget is not only unnecessary but also financially unrealistic. A recurring theme in these narratives is that Lithuania simply “has no money” for such expenditures, that “other sectors will suffer,” and that the decision itself is “illogical and irrational.” The messaging consistently portrayed the move as reckless and detrimental to the country’s economy. Once again, the claim was reinforced that these funds would be taken directly from the people, fuelling fears of financial hardship. Statements such as “Militaristic madness has no limits and only increases its appetite” were used to paint the government’s decision as extreme and unsustainable. Additionally, selectively framed questions were employed to cast doubt on the necessity of such an increase. Phrases like “Has defence really become the most funded area of the state?” and “At whose expense will this happen?” were strategically inserted to suggest that vital public services would be sacrificed in favour of military spending. Finally, parallels between increased defence funding and “war funding” were drawn, intentionally equating them, and creating a much more negative attitude towards the planned budget increase.
The controversy surrounding Lithuania’s defence budget increase illustrates how strategic policy decisions can be easily weaponized in the information space. While the move intended to enhance national security and fulfil NATO commitments, it also allowed malign actors to exploit public concerns and fuel anti-government sentiments. Pro-Kremlin media and specific political figures amplified narratives, framing the decision as irrational, financially challenging, and harmful to ordinary citizens. These narratives successfully generated public outrage and division by selectively highlighting the potential economic consequences and pushing misleading claims. The high engagement levels on social media and YouTube channels further demonstrate the effectiveness of such disinformation tactics in shaping public perception.
