Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Lithuania's prime minister: Volkova must not be allowed to remain in Lithuania — it's a matter of national security

Inga Ruginene called the statements of an associate of Navalny unacceptable; BNS and the Migration Department are considering revoking the associate's residence permit. We examine the legal grounds and what this means for Ukraine's security.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

January 7, 2026 · 2 min read

Lithuania's prime minister: Volkova must not be allowed to remain in Lithuania — it's a matter of national security

Quiet decisions weigh more than loud statements

Lithuanian Prime Minister Inga Ruginiene openly stated that Leonid Volkov's remarks about Ukrainian officials are unacceptable and that such a person should not remain in the country. The national broadcaster LRT quotes this position. The prime minister's words triggered an official procedure: the Department of State Security (BNS) is conducting an investigation, and the Migration Department is awaiting its conclusions before making a decision.

The prime minister's position

“In my personal opinion, such statements are unacceptable and such a person should not remain in Lithuania”

— Inga Ruginiene, Prime Minister of Lithuania

What was published

A recording (and a screenshot) appeared online in which, according to publications, Volkov allegedly rejoices at the possible killing of the commander of the Russian Volunteer Corps, Denis Kapustin, and criticizes Ukrainian officials, in particular the former chief of the Main Intelligence Directorate, Kyrylo Budanov. The very fact of publishing such material in a country that is a refuge for many political exiles has provoked public resonance and a reaction from authorities.

Legal context

Under Lithuanian law, a temporary residence permit can be annulled if an alien's stay poses a threat to national security, public order, or public health. On January 6, 2026, the Migration Department reported that it may consider revoking Volkov's residence permit — however the final decision will depend on the BNS's findings.

Why this matters for Ukraine

First, public calls or rejoicing over violent acts against figures associated with the war undermine the legitimacy of those opposing the regime in Russia and create information risks for Ukraine's partners. Second, when people in exile openly attack Ukrainian officials, it provides fodder for disinformation narratives and can complicate the coordination of international support.

International context and conclusion

The Lithuanian government's actions are an example of how allies respond not only to major geopolitical moves but also to the behavior of those within their jurisdiction. Analysts and diplomats note that such precedents set a standard: refuge is not automatic and comes with responsibility for public statements.

Now the ball is in the hands of Lithuania's security structures: will the BNS confirm a national security threat, and will the statements turn into formal restrictions. For Ukraine, it is important that partners maintain consistency between rhetoric and practice — since both security and reputational capital in international support depend on it.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026