Geopolitics and Security Studies Center, together with the Embassy of Japan in Lithuania, organized a dialogue on security and economic resilience to discuss shared challenges. The event also marked the 35th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the Embassy of Japan and Lithuania.
The first panel, “Economic Hardball: Who Takes the Hit? Responding to Economic Coercion,” moderated by GSSC Project Manager Dominykas Nedzinskas, featured insights from Tom Hashimoto (Vilnius University), Kotaro Shiojiri (The Japan Institute of International Affairs), and Raigirdas Boruta (Government Strategic Analysis Center STRATA, GSSC). The second panel, “Across Two Oceans: Shared Security Challenges,” moderated by GSSC Project Manager Donata Ketlerytė, included insights from Ken Endo (Hokkaido University), Vida Mačikėnaitė-Ambutavičienė (International University of Japan), Ričardas Šlepavičius (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania), and Vidmantas Kaladinskas (Government of the Republic of Lithuania).
The first panel analyzed the logic of economic coercion and its practical impact on states. It emphasized that economic pressure—ranging from trade restrictions to technological or financial leverage—has become a systemic part of geopolitical competition. The experiences of both Lithuania and Japan demonstrated that these measures are not episodic but structural, often combined with diplomatic and informational actions to form a complex structure of pressure. The discussion highlighted a dual strategic direction: reducing critical dependencies on risky partners while simultaneously increasing one’s own importance in global value chains, aiming not only for resilience but also for a deterrent effect. It was noted that supply chains increasingly function as interconnected networks rather than linear structures, where disruptions to one element can have broader economic and political consequences. This creates tension between the logic of economic openness and security, forcing a reconsideration of the traditional benefits of open markets.
The second panel examined the security links between Europe and the Indo-Pacific. The discussion stressed that although the idea of the “indivisibility” of security faces growing challenges due to regional specificities, a shared perception of common threats is strengthening in practice. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, actions by China, and increasing geopolitical competition are fostering closer cooperation between geographically distant states with similar interests. It was also noted that flexible partnership models are gaining importance—particularly in the areas of cybersecurity, technology, and information exchange. At the same time, the effectiveness of regional formats was critically assessed, highlighting both their limitations due to a lack of political continuity and their potential in smaller formats to ensure more efficient coordination. The changing role of the United States was also mentioned, which remains important but requires more active engagement from partners and the alignment of interests.
The discussion revealed a broader structural dilemma: how to reconcile strategic autonomy, economic efficiency, and international cooperation so that resilience is not just declared but practically implemented. The event highlighted that it is precisely interregional partnerships, based on identifying common interests and developing practical solutions, that are becoming an essential response to an increasingly complex and interconnected security environment. The fundamental question remains not only “why,” but also “how”—how to create mechanisms that enable coordinated and agile action in conditions of multi-layered risk, without losing either flexibility or strategic direction.