I'm not convinced that's what the other commentors was talking about, but thanks for attempting to translate. I can respond to what you're saying though.

Yes, the Lithuanian tech in question is inferior, but that's sort of beside the point. The point is that it's a system unconvincingly reinventing what a significant Lithuanian ally has mastered. Further, the volunteer-based initiative begs the question: where are the state investments, official installations, official initiative in general?

I'm all for open-source hacking, volunteering, etc. But, state defence is a task for the state: defence development is too.

It is embarrassing to watch Baltic airports suspend traffic regularly because of Belorussian baloons or whole of Vilnius shuffling to underground parking structures because a drone-like radar blip appeared a few hundred kilometers away. We need meaningful investment in defence and we need it yesterday. A volunteer initiative to counter these modern airspace threats is so little so late that it's frankly upsetting.

As for deterrence, a volunteer organization for passive listening will not be part of the risk assessment in Kremlin. We need a political class that understands the price of kowtowing, the price of in-fighting, and a defensive capability that is meaningful.

As for concrete solutions, these are democratic governments: vote, discuss, don't be silent. This open-source initiative, as I said initially, is cute: and it might actually make waves where it matters: but my point this is not what we need in of itself.

Further, as I was saying before: cooperation with Ukrainians: trading technology, expertise: establishing long-term industrial relationships.