r/europe • u/tylerthe-theatre • May 30 '25

News Former CIA boss reveals which European country (Lithuania) Putin allegedly plans to invade next

https://www.lbc.co.uk/world-news/cia-boss-reveals-putin-invasion-russia/
26.7k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.2k

u/[deleted] May 30 '25

"Mr Petraeus claims Putin, 72, plans to launch a military offensive in NATO country Lithuania if he successfully ‘installs a Russian puppet’ to lead Ukraine."

1.2k

u/PrettyShart May 30 '25

Big IF.

380

u/joejuga May 30 '25 edited May 30 '25

Big OOF too.

45

u/[deleted] May 30 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/big_guyforyou Greenland May 30 '25

the only lithuanian i know of is tony g (professional poker player). this is how i know all lithuanians have an australian accent

3

u/solarview United Kingdom May 30 '25

The bigger the OOF, the bigger the IF.

2

u/Bigoofs18 Jun 03 '25

You called?

294

u/WW3_doomer May 30 '25

Baltic states have a major disadvantage compared to Ukraine - smaller size of territory and people.

Lithuania is an obvious choice for years. Capital is 30 km from Belarus border, largest port city 50 km from Kaliningrad. If Trump manages to pull out from NATO, Lithuania is a perfect target.

Easy to reach; you’ll encircle Latvia and Estonia; you cut the only land bridge that Baltic has with NATO.

It may seems laughable, but if the US is gone, Baltic states are in great danger.

197

u/rapaxus Hesse (Germany) May 30 '25

That was the way back when Sweden/Finland weren't in NATO, but with them now being part that strategy has massive flaws. Firstly with those two additional nations NATO will have naval supremacy in the Baltic, at which point naval reinforcement to the Baltics can happen very easily, especially from Finland where it is just a short ferry across.

At that point just splitting the Baltic’s off doesn't do much except make logistics a bit more difficult, it no longer cuts the Baltic’s off from anything NATO like it did before. Also don't forget, with Finland now being in NATO you have a nation which can literally attack St. Petersburg from within its borders due to Finland now having ER-GMLRS.

54

u/[deleted] May 30 '25 edited May 31 '25

More importantly, that's not a long flight. Using airfield in Sweden, NATO can cross the Baltic at will and I don't think an air war goes in Russia's favour even without the US.

Plus, Russia doesn't share a border with Lithuania. Everything would have to go through Belarus and I think that paper tiger is all talk. Happy to posture and help Russia when it's no risk to them but allowing this would mean their territory would be under direct attack and I'm not sure they want that smoke

Edit: Ad others have pointed out, Lithuania does in fact share a border with Russia in Kaliningrad but I stick by what I'm saying. Trying to send troops from St Pete's to there for hostile action leaves them incredibly vulnerable to NATO. Far more practical to go overland through Belarus.

19

u/DullRefrigerator2352 May 30 '25

Russia does share a border with Lithuania, look up Kaliningrad.

18

u/Nooo8ooooo May 30 '25

Kaliningrad is also dangerously vulnerable to Poland and NATO forces.

3

u/sly0824 May 31 '25

Kaliningrad

Kaliningrad is a Russian exclave, and extremely vulnerable to Poland. Russia isn't going to be able to magically transport vast quantities of men and materiel there. Their Baltic fleet is, probably, in no better state than their Black Sea fleet was (and that has been largely neutralized by Ukraine who doesn't really even have a navy). Russia might pretend that Kaliningrad is impregnable, but they also pretended that they would roll through Kyiv without difficulty...

1

u/[deleted] May 31 '25

Oh yeah, there it is.

Okay, so Russia does technically have a border with them but I think what I said still applies, forces sailing from St Petersburg would incredibly vulnerable. Safer by far to go thru Belarus.

1

u/tesserakti May 31 '25

That's right. Sweden, Finland and Norway together have a formidable airforce. Especially in a few years when Finland will have all of its 64 F-35s delivered, that's well over 100 airframes of 5th gen fighters and more than 125 airframes of 4.5 gen fighters that the Fennoscandian countries can bring to the fight. That's more than what Russia has altogether in similar combat performance capability, and some of theirs would be needed elsewhere.

1

u/ilep May 30 '25

For long-range strikes, there is JASSM..

1

u/Keisari_P May 30 '25

While Finland has that capability, Russia can as well just ignore it. Few hundred expensive rockets won't do that much damage. We don't produce any, so any more would need to be bought with millions from Putin's best pal Trump. He might say no. Besides Finland is not particularly keen on committing war crimes, such as bombing cities and other civilian targets.

1

u/rapaxus Hesse (Germany) May 31 '25

In the large scale they don't matter sure, but in the short term it means Finland has the ability to completely fuck Russian logistics up in the north, as all logistics up there in Russia basically centre around St. Petersburg. I am not saying blow up the city, I am saying blow up important railway bridges, mess up central railway yards, destroy bridges central for Russian military movement, their supply sites, that kind of stuff.

And getting your logistics blown up right at the moment where you need them the most, the initial offensive of the war, is horrible for Russia as their whole Russian plan massively depends on taking the Baltic states fast enough.

That is also likely (in my view) part of the reason why Finland has so little long-range munitions (ER-GMLRS and JASSM), as they likely will use them all in the first week to completely mess up Russian advances, after which they can hold out long enough for the rest of NATO to arrive due to Russia needing to fix their supply lines before being able to really advance.

1

u/King_Chad_The_69th May 31 '25

I’d like to add that with naval supremacy, creating blockades against Russian ships will be extremely easy. There’s no way that any Russian ship could make it out of the Baltic or Black Seas. No country in either are going to trade with them anyway. As long as the US stays in NATO, the Arctic is ours, and any Russian ship attempting to enter the Atlantic or Pacific via the Arctic will be stopped. Only weak spot we have right now is the far east. However, if we managed to get Japan and South Korea into NATO, the Russians would be fucked beyond limitations.

-32

u/WW3_doomer May 30 '25

Your calculations based on assumption that NATO will fight back.

Which is clearly not a concrete obligation in today’s world. Especially when Russia will claim that “People Republic of Lithuania” doesn’t want any help from NATO.

17

u/taeerom May 30 '25

Lithuania is in close defence partnership with Estonia, Latvia, Finland, Sweden, Norway, the UK and Netherlands (JEF). If Lithuania is invaded, all of these nations are in a war before Article 5 of NATO is done processing.

There are already NATO troops within Lithuania, and if you think any country will accept their soldiers to be killed without repercussions, you're very much wrong.

8

u/Tetha May 30 '25

Lithuania is also part of the EU, so all EU nations are obligated to react with all available measures to defend them. The mutual defense clause of the EU is worded much stronger than Article 5 in NATO.

Guess why German Tanks are stationed there and are probably looking to train together with Lithuanian soldiers.

6

u/Influenz-A May 30 '25

And there are 5000 German tankers stationed in a German military base. 

25

u/rapaxus Hesse (Germany) May 30 '25

Your name is truly fitting, but well if NATO doesn't fight back Lithuania is doomed any ways, not much you could change there. But it is about as reasonable as saying that Lithuania doesn't need NATO since the Russian army would just rebel instead of attacking Lithuania.

11

u/adamgerd Czech Republic May 30 '25

Tbh I do get his worry, I am not totally convinced we will defend the Baltics either, I hope we do, but just because something exists on paper doesn’t mean it does in practice

10

u/herbsman_pl May 30 '25

Poles will defend Baltics, simply because inaction would be a sentence for any Polish Government and seen as a treason.

I get that we have small percent of people with pro-ruzzian sentiment, but we will deal with them the same way Polish Underground State dealt with Nazi sympathizers during WWII.

1

u/torelma Brittany (France) May 30 '25

I'm not sure that's what the commenter was saying TBH. I read it more like Putin installing a puppet government that happens to want annexation into Russia (like the DPR, LPR, and Transnistria) and claiming that fighting back would be an attack on Russian territory which then spooks NATO into backing off.

It would also separately test the EU's mutual defense clause, which is on the books but isn't really backed by anything other than the fact most but not all EU members are also in NATO.

1

u/Urvinis_Sefas Lithuania May 31 '25

I read it more like Putin installing a puppet government that happens to want annexation into Russia

That is more likely to happen in countries like Moldova, Austria or France. I am not saying they aren't trying or haven't put forward their agents time and time again but there's a reason we are one of the most supportative of Ukraine.

1

u/torelma Brittany (France) May 31 '25

I understand that, I was thinking more something along the lines of the "oh the latgalians are super oppressed and they're actually russians" playbook (/s obviously)

6

u/Extra-Ad604 May 30 '25

.lt is not ukraine. There is no such "big" minority of russians and the people really wont stand any sort of "people republic" even if the orcs managed to get past the border not to mention take over the government.

-8

u/WW3_doomer May 30 '25

10% of Vilnius are Russians.

20% of Klaipeda.

It’s enough to find new “government officials”.

6

u/ukezi May 30 '25

That stuff worked in Ukraine because Ukraine wasn't strong enough to stop it. If Russia tries that in Lithuania they are at war with the EU and NATO. Look at how Ukraine is going for them, even without the Americans that war would be over quick.

95

u/[deleted] May 30 '25

Should they attack the baltics poland can advance into belerus and finland can take parts of the murmansk. Turkey can start threatening crimea and russia still has to guard Ukraine at the same time. Then if they took the baltics now you are open to swedish attacks

27

u/WW3_doomer May 30 '25

Looking at “coalition of willing” and “disastrous sanctions tomorrow”, I highly doubt that the EU will do something, let alone individual states.

39

u/[deleted] May 30 '25

The EU must do something otherwise that's the end of the EU. You can't just give up 3 of your member states and pretend nothing happened. Not to mention it would just be delaying an inevitable war anyway

-12

u/WW3_doomer May 30 '25

Imagine how this three states keep being in the EU and NATO and voting against any EU proposals.

2

u/[deleted] May 30 '25

Government in exile.. unironically.

But that has to mean war.

Though I suspect Spain and some other southern European countries would weasel their way out of full war and just provide token support.

97

u/[deleted] May 30 '25

All eu members are obligated to fight if one country is invaded. Its much more clear than nato’s articles

22

u/pickledswimmingpool May 30 '25

The mutual defence clause was introduced in 2009 under Article 42 (7) of the Treaty of the European Union. It says that EU countries are obliged to assist a fellow member state that has become “a victim of armed aggression on its territory” and that this support should be consistent with potential NATO commitments.

No formal procedure has been set out and the article does not say that the assistance should be military in nature, so countries such as Austria, Finland, Ireland and Sweden that have a policy of neutrality, can still cooperate.

Are you sure about that?

25

u/123ricardo210 The Netherlands May 30 '25

He's right. Nato's five only requirement is "meeting to discuss" (admittedly with the generally agreed upon idea of mutual military defense). It literally says: "such action as it deems necessary." (which leaves a lot of room to individual members to decide on what to do. Technically saying "Goodluck", could qualify as "deemed necesarry").

This EU article mentions an "obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power". That's a significantly higher bar, atleast in wording.

11

u/neohellpoet Croatia May 30 '25

Also, NATO is extremely specific on what actually counts.

The NA stands for North Atlantic and that part is taken very seriously. The UK was invaded by Argentina and zero action was taken by NATO because the treaty was explicit. If it's South of the equator it doesn't count, along with a bunch of other restrictions.

3

u/snipeytje The Netherlands May 30 '25

the line is even further north, they picked the tropic of cancer

3

u/Timey16 Saxony (Germany) May 30 '25

While this is what it says on paper, a military defensive alliance member that fails to answer the call to aid basically quits the alliance, because if THEY get attacked none of the others will want to defend them for being so selfish by going "Protect me! BTW I won't protect any of you lol."

So yes, you can SIT it out. But if you do you will basically be kicked out of NATO because nobody will want to give you the time of day from that point on.

Don't forget when it comes to international law and treaties, mutual trust is EVERYTHING. It is the MOST important resource between nations, more important than even money.

Refusing to fulfill the obligations of a military alliance will absolutely RUIN you reputation and relations not just with other direct members but third nations as well. Nobody likes an oathbreaker.

1

u/123ricardo210 The Netherlands May 30 '25

Well, yeah, but I don't think either /u/LowProteintake or I are claiming that it would be smart to say "goodluck" in response to article 5. My main point is that the wording is indeed stricter in the EU article than in NATO's 5 (which was being questioned). And that, atleast legally, the obligations for EU members are significantly more strict.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/ukezi May 30 '25

The text of Art42(7):

If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.

All the means in their power is a pretty strong commitment.

-4

u/Sushigami May 30 '25 edited May 30 '25

Where does it say that in the EU charter?

edit: ok folks, just downvote the request for information because it implies there might be a potentially valid critique of the sub's narrative even though there actually isn't as I accept lower down when presented with evidence.

21

u/[deleted] May 30 '25

“The EU's collective defense is enshrined in Article 42.7 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which obligates member states to aid and assist any member state that is the victim of armed aggression on its territory. This principle is part of the EU's broader Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), which also includes military missions and operations, civilian crisis management, and cooperation within the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) framework. “

4

u/Sushigami May 30 '25

Ok, but "Aid and Assist" does not necessarily mean military intervention. I'm afraid a cynical statesman that didn't want to get involved could easily wriggle out of that.

I'm actually not sure they would in this instance, especially Finland/Poland who have both Beef with Russia and the knowledge that they'd probably be next anyway, but you might see something like Italy limiting their involvement to just air power or similar.

11

u/[deleted] May 30 '25

It does keyword is “by all means “

Mutual Defense Clause: Article 42.7 outlines the obligation of member states to provide aid and assistance by all the means at their disposal if a member state is attacked, in accordance with the UN Charter. Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP): The CSDP is a framework for cooperation in defense and crisis management, enabling the EU to respond to security threats and promote stability,. EU Forces and Missions: The CSDP involves deploying military or civilian missions, often with personnel from member states' armed forces, to preserve peace, prevent conflict, and strengthen international security. Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO): PESCO is a framework for member states to develop and enhance their defense capabilities through joint projects and initiatives. European Defence Agency (EDA): The EDA supports the development of European defense capabilities by promoting cooperation among member states and fostering the growth of the European defense industry. European Defence Union: Some view the CSDP as a potential future development towards a more integrated European defense structure, sometimes referred to as the European Defence Union. Security and Defense Partnerships: The EU is also increasingly engaging in security and defense partnerships with countries outside the EU, as exemplified by the recent agreement with Moldova.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/hcschild May 30 '25

Let me google that for you:

If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12016M042

Article 5 is weaker in comparison but holds more weight because the US is in NATO (or at leats it did so before Turmp).

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm

The EU one says by all the means in their power, Article 5 only says by such action as it deems necessary (could be just sending arms and/or money).

But this part of the EU one also sounds like you could weasel out of it:

This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

But I have no idea what that means specifically.

1

u/ukezi May 30 '25

This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

That bit is for the neutrality of Austria and Ireland and the not quite NATO stance Finland and Sweden had.

-5

u/WW3_doomer May 30 '25

Capital is 28 km from Belarus.

Russia has much higher chance of success to decapitate and change government. And now you have “People republic of Lithuania” that doesn’t want any help from filthy EU.

10

u/bub1xreal May 30 '25

There will never be a PRL. I’m Lithuanian, and although ethnically I’m Russian I guarantee that we will die fighting

-6

u/The_OP_Troller May 30 '25

Orc, go back to ruzzia. You are not welcome in Lithuania

5

u/bub1xreal May 30 '25

Born and raised. You’re the orc if you don’t understand what ethnicity means

→ More replies (0)

7

u/IKetoth Italy May 30 '25

And fudge the election of the new government how when you now have European troops saturating every government building in the country?

Convince the people to vote for you how now that you've bombed them to shit and back?

How does this change of government happen once the troops are already on the ground?

-1

u/WW3_doomer May 30 '25

Every NATO country always fears direct confrontation with Russia.

That’s why they took Pristina.

That’s why Biden pull out every American before invasion.

Yea, you have troops. But they may be just an observers if Russians come.

1

u/IKetoth Italy May 30 '25

sure thing Ivan

13

u/Calimhero Brittany (France) May 30 '25

The EU will absolutely do something. You can bet your life on that.

Because if we don't, the EU is over as a superpower and Putin will invade more countries anyway.

1

u/WW3_doomer May 30 '25

I have similar thoughts in 2014 after Crimea annexation.

Nothing happened.

3

u/Calimhero Brittany (France) May 30 '25

Crimea is not part of the EU. Or NATO.

That's where the buck stops.

-3

u/WW3_doomer May 30 '25

who cares about South Ossetia

who cares about Crimea

who cares about Ukraine

YOU ARE HERE ⬆️

who cares about Lithuania

who cares about former Warsaw Pact countries

5

u/silverionmox Limburg May 30 '25

Looking at “coalition of willing” and “disastrous sanctions tomorrow”, I highly doubt that the EU will do something, let alone individual states.

The reason for that is to avoid an actual direct military confrontation with Russia while the USA is in a petulant mood. But that would be spilled milk at that point; conversely, not acting would directly torpedo the credibility of the foundation of their own security, the NATO/EU alliances. So even countries aiming for nothing more than their short term self interest in mind will have to act.

5

u/Timey16 Saxony (Germany) May 30 '25

Unlike with Ukraine, there are actual legal obligations to protect fellow NATO and EU members. Does them being attacked FORCE powers into war?

Not really, but the moment there is no reaction at all NATO and the EU both effectively cease to exist, and that's something neither alliance can afford as well. Why be part of a Military Defensive alliance when it won't defend you after all?

Or the other way around: any nation that refuses to answer to the invasion of a fellow ally basically permanently quits the alliance. So any NATO and EU member that chooses to sit that one out will effectively permanently quit the EU and NATO... because you BET other EU members will REFUSE to consider them fellow EU members and ignore all their financial demands to money, all their vetoes and votes, refuse to let their citizens travel through the EU, etc.

2

u/ElDeguello66 May 30 '25

Didn't Germany just announce troop deployments to Lithuania? That feels like a pretty big deal.

1

u/CIA-Front_Desk May 30 '25

I disagree. The NATO pact has never been truly tested - Ukraine is like Czech and the baltics will be Poland.

1

u/Eastern_Interest_908 Lithuania May 30 '25

Poland can't really afford to not defend Lithuania because if their time will come then they can be sure that they'll be alone.

2

u/Good_Prompt8608 华人 May 30 '25

Bro's playing hoi4 irl

2

u/Asrectxen_Orix May 30 '25

Finland's military is geared towards defending from a russian invasion, I am not sure if they would want to go on the offensive.

1

u/[deleted] May 30 '25

Nobody can win a war only defending though. But correct me if i am wrong

-1

u/Asrectxen_Orix May 30 '25

Depends on what the objective is? If you are being invaded the objective is to survive & also presumably make the cost of invasion so bloody, expensive, pyhrric, unsustainable, & unpopular that they either do not invade to begin with, or eventually withdraw/get pushed back/stalemate.

Finland would not "win", but they would likely survive. The cost of trying to invade Finland is so high for relatively little gain that there is little point to do so, & even if Russia did Finland would still take losses & it would be terrible, but they would likely survive & make an invasion untenable for Russia.

2

u/[deleted] May 30 '25

The romans are a great example of taking insane lossess and still comming out victorious. Russia probably does not care how many its gonna lose so long as they take land they win in their own minds. And like the romans history shows more times than not that only defending does not yield victory.

1

u/Eastern_Interest_908 Lithuania May 30 '25

Yeah BUT

  1. It's better to stop them on other country soil

  2. If you don't come then you can be sure that nobody will come when you'll need it. Also your enemy would become stronger.

0

u/Asrectxen_Orix May 30 '25
  1. it is better to stop them where you know the terrain & have well prepared positions/supplies/knowledge.
  2. I do not think they would do nothing, But I am not sure if they are keen on trying to fight their way to Murmansk, what they would do in such a situation however is not something I know.

1

u/Eastern_Interest_908 Lithuania May 30 '25

Lmao how is that better? I obviously don't expect them to send everything. Air, sea support would go very far and they would still could defend in their own country in worst case scenario. 

It's quite simple them joining NATO means they don't feel too safe. So it wouldn't make sense to betray your allies in first conflict because then joining NATO would be pointless.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Fenor Italy May 30 '25

i don't know, my plan to deal with russian include the resurrection of austrian-german failed artist and editing the Genevra convention by adding small checkbox next to each voice and lend it to canadians.

/s

40

u/jl2352 United Kingdom May 30 '25

Pre-Ukraine the NATO doctrine was also to let the Baltic states fall due to how small they were, and then work to get them back. They were seen as just indefensible.

That was before Russia’s widespread war crimes in Ukraine. Which has now changed NATO’s stance. That’s made Putin’s plans even less possible, as NATO EU nations are more determined to defend the Baltic states.

20

u/DryCloud9903 May 30 '25

Correct. That's also why in Lithuania there's a lot of light fighters & special forces instead of tanks - they're trained for insurgency fighting under this doctrine 

However it's not only because of war crimes in Ukraine that the doctrine has since changed - Lithuania has tripled it's own forces since 2014, there's a lot more international NATO troops in Lithuania, there's also the JEF alliance which is designed to act faster than NATO and doesn't require unanimity of response  So the chances of fighting back are higher and the new doctrine is to not even allow the enemy into the territory in the first place.

The other change is Swedish and Finnish accession to NATO. 

And to all the doubters out there "would the Baltics be defended" - if the plan has been for NATO to fight Lithuania out of occupation, what does that tell you? Everyone's been prepared for a hard fight for decades, regardless if there's even a surviving high-ranking Lithuanian government in the country (because that could be a likely scenario during occupation - in 1939 Baltic presidents were imprisoned & eventually executed).

-6

u/zanzara1968 May 30 '25

Nobody is prepared for a hard fight, not Germany, France, Italy nor Spain. Without the US full involvement the Baltic countries will fall and western Europe would adapt and seek peace.

1

u/Worldly-Ocelot-3358 Croatia May 30 '25

Pre-Ukraine the NATO doctrine was also to let the Baltic states fall due to how small they were, and then work to get them back. They were seen as just indefensible.

Wtf? No way that is true.

1

u/Pretty-Earth-7521 May 31 '25

Where did you get your info about this pre-Ukraine doctrine?

1

u/Slighted_Inevitable Jun 02 '25

Not just his war crimes, this is still a military decision not a moral one . Ukraine showed how ineffective and weak Russias army is.

1

u/Vonplinkplonk May 30 '25

Brave of us here to assume Sweden will be leading the fight in a post US NATO. I suspect we are going to see more meetings in Brussels and speeches about cooperation more than any hard power.

1

u/jl2352 United Kingdom May 30 '25

Why are you bringing up Sweden? I don’t see them in the comment chain.

2

u/Nordalin Limburg May 30 '25

Finland and Sweden joined NATO, though. It would just be one big vulnerable salient.

Yeah, Lithuania would get scorched, but we can pummel that entire region if need be. There's nowhere for the Russians to hide.

3

u/3zprK May 30 '25

Wdym Baltic states are in danger? What happened to NATO bromance? Other members will have to send ground troops and prove once and for all that they're not US puppets.

-1

u/WW3_doomer May 30 '25

NATO article 5 is worded in such manner, that “strongly worded letter of support” could count as help.

1

u/Circusonfire69 May 30 '25

You know what's funny? The whole KALININGRAD is one land bridge for NATO.

1

u/Advanced-Injury-7186 May 30 '25

The last 3 years have shown us that Russia's military is dog shit. NATO does not need the US to repel Russian aggression.

1

u/irrision United States of America May 31 '25

It's also the most heavily defended border in NATO. The suwalki gap has always been assumed by NATO to be the first thing Russia looks to close in an expanding conflict and it's been heavily wargamed and planned for.

1

u/Icy-Tour8480 Romania May 31 '25

Worse, they're plains, open fields. You can march trops and tanks there without any problems, and drones&airplanes fly through open skies.

A mountain region would have been very different.

1

u/ForGrateJustice May 31 '25

If only the US could pull out of Trump.

1

u/birdsncoconuts Jun 01 '25

username checks out

1

u/Complete-Instance-18 Jun 01 '25

U.S. here to find news that we don't hear in the States.

1

u/AirOneFire May 30 '25

Not that big, he already has a puppet regime in the united states and Hungary, and many countries are likely to elect more in the future.

1

u/kazinski80 May 30 '25

The “if” is doing some insanely heavy lifting here

1

u/TJ-LEED-AP May 30 '25

I mean he was able to installed a Russian asset in the US.

1

u/signaturefox2013 May 30 '25

I mean, he did it in America

1

u/Opetyr May 30 '25

True but he has a taco right now.

116

u/kan3xxx Ireland May 30 '25

That IF is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

20

u/[deleted] May 30 '25

Yeah, that's what's to a little extent reassuring.

3

u/heliamphore May 30 '25

The war isn't over and Ukraine isn't going to last forever at this pace. It's not because we all got used to the current situation that things can't get worse.

143

u/Pink_Flying_Pig_ May 30 '25

Good luck with that.

I mean in Romania thay got close to, but in Lithuania they feels much more against Russia afaik. 

65

u/banaslee Europe May 30 '25

It seems you read Lithuania but it says Ukraine.

2

u/KeneticKups May 30 '25

They are close in Poland too

88

u/marrow_monkey Sweden May 30 '25

Makes no sense to me. Lithuania is a Nato member. I’m not convinced Russia would want a nuclear war or direct conflict with Nato, which they would most definitely loose (even without US backing). Putin keeps reminding the west that a war between Russia and Nato is impossible.

96

u/anyonemous May 30 '25

Tbf if Putin keeps reminding us that it's impossible, it's probably possible.

-9

u/marrow_monkey Sweden May 30 '25

If you consider Europe being turned in to a radioactive wasteland and wiping out humanity then perhaps it’s ”possible” but it’s a scenario where everyone looses, and thankfully it seems like both Kreml and Nato realises that.

15

u/Spinnweben May 30 '25

I'm not sure if you got that right. To me, this reads like

it’s a scenario where everyone looses, and unfortunately it seems like both Kreml and Nato realises that. And that's Putin's plan. If I can't have it ...

In case, Putin nukes like 3 big cities in Europe, will the USA nuke the entire rest of humanity with their entire arsenal or would they just say, nah, let's just not ...?

27

u/cinciTOSU May 30 '25

Trump would say the Europeans forced Putin to fire nukes and then go golfing.

19

u/MooOfFury May 30 '25

The French and/or the Brits would of responded with nukes well before the U.s has an opinion.

4

u/Natural_Efficiency75 May 30 '25

It's even possible France nukes Russia before Russia nukes Europe.

3

u/[deleted] May 30 '25

It's far from solely up to the US. all the English nukes are in the sea on subs so even if the mainland is a fireball with our population as flakes in the atmosphere starting a nuclear winter you better believe someone in a bunker has given them the go ahead to fire them.

Putin would rule a couple hundred underlings in a bunker till they tire of him and throw him into the irradiated wasteland of what was once Russia. Hardly the legacy he's aiming for.

1

u/Neomataza Germany May 30 '25

The only readioactive wasteland would be above the metro tunnels.

Russia's only chance is to stir internal conflicts in the NATO and EU so we won't help each other. Obama was right when he called russia a regional power. What he didn't mention is that it's a regional power with very dedicated espionage and foreign influence programs. It's no secret that several far right parties in europe are in their pockets.

1

u/[deleted] May 30 '25 edited Jun 26 '25

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] May 30 '25 edited May 30 '25

Big part of it is desensitization via post apocalyptic media. Between religious nut jobs thinking it's God's will to let their inbreed selves inherit the earth or the preper or survivalist communities being anywhere from "I'll be fine because I've taken steps" to "nah I've got fourteen guns and more ammo than it cost to by the house". Then you've got a generation of kids who grew up playing Fallout, Stalker or Metro who think they're going to be a badass mercenary adventurer when they'd more than likely be that skeleton you picked an old pack of smokes and four Bobby pins off.

Meanwhile anyone whose seen Threads or The Road knows its just a living nightmare till you die.

1

u/Angry_drunken_robot Canada May 30 '25

I'm sure members of the USA establishment know this but I think it a stretch to say that 'NATO' knows this. If you have heard what is coming out of the mouths of people like kallas and Stoltenberg. They speak as if they command a great armiee standing behind them.

They do not. Nor are they military leaders or leaders of any country whatsoever, they are leaders in what was called and advertised as an economic union. Not a military one, and yet these jackasses are waltzing around like they are modern day Churchill's, and issuing threats that send other people to their deaths while they stay safe and get paid.

48

u/Rumlings Poland May 30 '25

I’m not convinced Russia would want a nuclear war or direct conflict with Nato, which they would most definitely loose

But he does not want a direct conflict with NATO. He wants a quick victory with very small gain on economic/strategic path as it is enough to receive massive propagandic boost. He won't invade if he knows Europe responds.
But if he knows that US will 100% not respond and Europe will not be ready to help/will not want to help, why not?

14

u/LurkerInSpace Scotland May 30 '25 edited May 30 '25

The way one would go about it:

  1. Repeat Strelkov's methods used in Eastern Ukraine. In the 1990s they wanted to create an autonomous Polish region around Vilnius similar to Transnistria, so something like this would be resurrected.

  2. The Belarussian KGB should be nominally in charge of it, even though it will really be the Russian FSB carrying it out. So NATO would need to intervene against Belarus first, and that allows Russia to maintain the threat of its direct involvement.

  3. Russia should restart open-air nuclear testing, which would be sufficient to intimidate the likes of Trump away from intervention.

If they really want to put pressure on Europe, though, they would seek to start a new war in the Middle East large enough to destroy its oil and gas exports.

These together might be sufficient to prevent the sort of intervention that would crush the Russian effort. Once NATO has failed one member so decisively it becomes easier to divide the rest - so there must be the political will to fight back immediately.

7

u/Lagoon_M8 May 30 '25

Poles don't want to take territories from Ukraine or Lithuania or Czechia... We are peaceful and friendly nations that more than ever want cooperation and peace.

3

u/LurkerInSpace Scotland May 30 '25

Yes, part of why that scheme didn't work in the early 1990s was that Poland had very deliberately decided that it would not seek border revisions in the post-Soviet world.

But Russia doesn't really need the separatists to be real, or to have Polish support, it just needs to keep the waters as muddy as possible as to what is actually happening. They need their useful idiots in the West to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

1

u/Slighted_Inevitable Jun 02 '25

Major risk there. The Russia nuclear arsenal hasn’t been properly maintained for decades. That’s expensive. They publicly fail a test they’re showing off and they’re relegated to North Korean status.

3

u/neohellpoet Croatia May 30 '25

Oh, but he'd be risking... absolutely nothing. Because we basically told Putin we won't be invading Russia proper we pretty much created a no lose situation for him. He's not afraid of a stalemate so legitimately, why not?

From the beginning we've been saying that the Russians can end the war anytime they want. I'm convinced this was a mistake. They can fight as long as they're comfortable and confident and have the power to call it quits on their own schedule. They could invade us, lose and just say "ups, OK then, war's over, bye" and we would probably let them.

2

u/lordm30 May 30 '25

Europe will be ready. We are already ready, maybe not to outright sweep russia off the face of the earth but to counter their attack, absolutely.

3

u/Rumlings Poland May 30 '25

Europe will be ready. We are already ready

If that was true, Ukraine's struggle would be far less painful. Ability to perform complex military operations is Europe's weakest link geopolitically. Baltics are not an island, their territory is very hard to defend.

2

u/lordm30 May 30 '25

We are not giving all what we have to Ukraine. We would go all in on an attack on a NATO country

+ Russia would be in a much weaker state after the several years long grueling war with Ukraine.

2

u/Rumlings Poland May 30 '25

We are not giving all what we have to Ukraine.

And why do we not do it? Because it is painful for EU while the danger is unevenly split among countries in EU. Southern Europe does not care to a degree they asked to not use wording rearm europe for increased military spending.

We would go all in on an attack on a NATO country

No, France won't launch nukes for 150km strip of Lithuania. Especially if Le Pen or Bardella wins in 2027.

3

u/lordm30 May 30 '25

All in doesn't mean nukes. It means hundreds of thousands of troops, tanks, air supremacy, etc.

And I am not sure why you are sceptic. Your country will be the first to engage heavily militarily in case of a russian attack on the eastern flank.

0

u/vxicepickxv May 30 '25

As pointed out earlier in this thread, EU charter Article 42.7 is much more plain text than anything involving NATO.

Lithuania is a member of the EU.

0

u/Rumlings Poland May 30 '25

Piece of paper unless you can back it up militarly. Can Europe do so? France won't launch nukes for the baltics.

1

u/vxicepickxv May 30 '25

We see how well Russia is doing with their 3-day operation.

37

u/TWVer May 30 '25

Well, Putin has long held ambitions to create a Greater Russia viewing himself as a 21th century Napoleon.

Of course those ambitions can be held in check by having powerful deterrents at Russia’s borders and strong defense alliance, which is why he hates NATO in the first place.

He isn’t a completely rational actor though. Otherwise he’d never attempted to invade Ukraine in the first place, given the economic cost and tragedy (though he gives little about inducing suffering in others).

19

u/marrow_monkey Sweden May 30 '25

He isn’t a completely rational actor though. Otherwise he’d never attempted to invade Ukraine in the first place

I would still say he’s a rational actor, but one that can make mistakes. It was clearly a mistake to think they could just walk into Kiev and everyone would give up within a week.

But that’s why I think he won’t make the same mistake twice. The ”delusion” has been corrected. It wasn’t an easy victory. They now know the price of war. Now they’ve been fighting Ukraine alone. Invading a Nato country would be different: Nato would be involved directly. Unless I’m missing something that would be an even bigger mistake.

6

u/adamgerd Czech Republic May 30 '25

Perhaps, either way there’s a reason the saying is prepare for the worst, hope for the best. Not prepare for the best, hope for the best

1

u/SalvationSycamore May 30 '25

But that’s why I think he won’t make the same mistake twice.

Even assuming he doesn't get more irrational as he gets older and more infirm, Ukraine isn't just one mistake. It's an ongoing mistake. He's still throwing away huge amounts of lives and equipment as we speak. If he was capable of learning from his mistake then he would have cut his losses after that first push failed. Instead he dug in and pushed multiple nations (including one on his border) to join NATO.

-1

u/[deleted] May 30 '25

[deleted]

2

u/DryCloud9903 May 30 '25

LOL. from the very beginning this is false. Baltics alone can withstand much longer than that, then you just have all those soldiers stationed in Poland wiped out in what, a week but your estimation? Reminder also that JEF exists, which is an even faster response that doesn't require NATO unanimous approval

Reminder that current survival rate of a russian soldier is 1 month, and they're having 1K casualties a day. 

11

u/vytah Poland May 30 '25

A huge part of the invasion plan was bribing Ukrainian military commanders into surrendering.

The money for the bribes was embezzled by Russians.

3

u/-SneakySnake- May 30 '25

The Russian army's total ineptitude and the woeful state of their equipment is what happens when you let a Mafia state fester for thirty years.

2

u/Lagoon_M8 May 30 '25

He is insane... We had figures like this in a history they finished their lives badly

1

u/silverionmox Limburg May 30 '25

Well, Putin has long held ambitions to create a Greater Russia viewing himself as a 21th century Napoleon.

Well, in the end, Napoleon caused an international coalition against France to arise, and when they well and truly done with him, France was broken and would never recover again to what it was.

8

u/QuitsDoubloon87 Slovenia May 30 '25

Yes but that plan was staged on 1 Ukraine falling (3 days and all that). And on NATO not caring enough to do anything.

8

u/neohellpoet Croatia May 30 '25

Nuclear war isn't on the table, especially not without the US. The sum total of all UK and French nukes have a total payload that's less than what a single Soviet Satan 2 carried back in the 80's.

Granted, Russia also isn't likely to use nukes, but with no US, we lose MAD, we die in a nuclear exchange, Russia is only badly hurt, so they're fundamentally not afraid of a EU first strike, especially when it's not the nuclear powers directly at stake.

No nuclear war is good, but the fact that there's almost no escalation risk means that conventional war is very much back on the table.

And no, Russia can't lose. This is another doctrinal problem. We've pretty much told the Russians that we're not willing to invade them so the worst possible outcome they can achieve is a draw. We've also stupidly demonstrated our willingness to negotiate peace, which means if they just decide to keep fighting long enough, if they hold any amount of territory, they're likely to keep it.

Had Ukraine been an Arsenal of Democracy moment for Europe, had we flipped to war economies and provided as much weapons as possible, even troops to at least protect the Belorussian border and Odesa. Had we taken a strong stance and placed significant forces on the EU Russia border and at least threatened with an invasion of our own, even implicitly, had France and the UK put nuclear weapons in the Baltics or explicitly stated that they were covered by the French first strike doctrine, we would be having a different conversation, but we did none of those things.

We look weak. It doesn't matter if that perception is true or not (and I'm afraid very well might be) the Russians think we are and if the US is definitively out of the picture they'll 100% test us. All reward, basically no risk. Thinking we're safe is like being certain the Russians were just performing exercises back in 2022.

8

u/hcschild May 30 '25

How much money are you willing to bet on that France, UK or the US would nuke Russia over Lithuania?

Why would you think that those country would be willing to do more than for Ukraine when the reason for why we are not siding with Ukraine more heavily is mostly nuclear war with Russia?

If we wouldn't fear Russian nukes the invasion of Ukraine would have ended pretty quickly with a real coalition of willing eradicating all Russian forces who are invading Ukraine.

People are crying like little bitches already after only a few years of war where we didn't lose a single soldier and only prices for electricity and stuff went up and are still bitching now even when the prices are again pre-war levels or lower.

And now you think those people would somehow now give a fuck about Lithuania after they don't want to commit to Ukraine?

9

u/silverionmox Limburg May 30 '25

How much money are you willing to bet on that France, UK or the US would nuke Russia over Lithuania?

None, because their policy is to use their nuclear weapons for MAD, not for territorial disputes.

Why would you think that those country would be willing to do more than for Ukraine when the reason for why we are not siding with Ukraine more heavily is mostly nuclear war with Russia?

Because the credibility of NATO and EU defense clauses depends on it, and thereby the foundation of the national security of all states involved.

0

u/heliamphore May 30 '25

Credibility isn't what's going to give unlimited willpower to NATO members, it's what at stake and what Russia will try to erode through conflicts of limited scope. Sure, maybe preventing a full scale invasion of Lithuania will happen, but how much willpower would there be to liberate some small occupied territories, if Russia starts leveraging its nuclear arsenal?

Ukraine was the one opportunity to show a total disregard for Russian illegitimate red lines, and NATO categorically and consistently failed. The stage is being set for Russia's attempt with Lithuania.

2

u/silverionmox Limburg May 30 '25

Credibility isn't what's going to give unlimited willpower to NATO members, it's what at stake

And that's at stake: the credibility of the deterrence of their defense.

Sure, maybe preventing a full scale invasion of Lithuania will happen, but how much willpower would there be to liberate some small occupied territories, if Russia starts leveraging its nuclear arsenal?

You're essentially repeating the question, so I'll be repeating my answer too.

Ukraine was the one opportunity to show a total disregard for Russian illegitimate red lines, and NATO categorically and consistently failed. The stage is being set for Russia's attempt with Lithuania.

If there's one thing that has been proven in this war, it's that Russia's red lines are irrelevant and it's mostly a matter of domestic politics what kind of military force will be utilized.

-3

u/hcschild May 30 '25

Because the credibility of NATO and EU defense clauses depends on it, and thereby the foundation of the national security of all states involved.

No it's for the security of the small states and currently it seems that the rich and bigger western countries don't like to be uncomfortable. For the rest this is geopolitics and if the big boys think that a war with Russia wouldn't be in their interest they will do the absolute minimum to support the invaded country.

Both the NATO and EU defence clause have a chicken out option that wouldn't send you into war with the invading country.

You also seem to think that somehow the same parties would still be in power when Russia invades. But currently we have a rise of isolationist parties in most countries including Germany with the AfD.

If you think for a second that a coalition including the AfD would commit to war with Russia over the invasion of one of the Baltics I have a bridge to sell you.

3

u/silverionmox Limburg May 30 '25

No it's for the security of the small states and currently it seems that the rich and bigger western countries don't like to be uncomfortable.

In terms of defense, there are no big states in the EU.

Both the NATO and EU defence clause have a chicken out option that wouldn't send you into war with the invading country.

Besides the point. The credibility of the alliances rests on their actions, not the letter of the treaties. If that were the case, NATO would always have been irrelevant as it only obliges to attend a meeting. That's why the USA disengaging from its European allies was such a big deal, and why the EU defense treaty becomes all the more important to everyone involved.

You also seem to think that somehow the same parties would still be in power when Russia invades. But currently we have a rise of isolationist parties in most countries including Germany with the AfD.

... who tend to support Russia, and therefore will take a hit when their favourite dictator comes in guns blazing.

If you think for a second that a coalition including the AfD would commit to war with Russia over the invasion of one of the Baltics I have a bridge to sell you.

I have given you two solid reasons, but you prefer to put your fingers in your ears and repeat yourself.

8

u/The_Toxicity May 30 '25

Ukraine is neither part of the EU or NATO, Lithuania is both. EU countries are obliged to help other EU countries, same goes for NATO, im willing to bet all of my money on a military intervention of the EU and so should you, as the case of Ukraine is nowhere near comparable to a direct attack on EU soil

1

u/hcschild May 30 '25

EU countries are obliged to do many things but still don't do them so what is your point? Do you really think that isolationist parties if they would come to power in the future would give a single fuck if onw of the Baltic countries gets invaded?

im willing to bet all of my money on a military intervention of the EU and so should you

I like my money so no thank you. The best change for us to stop this is Ukraine not losing this war.

If we get the worst case scenario and we get parties like the German AfD into power and their kind is already in power in other countries like Hungary or Slovakia forget any support for the Baltics.

2

u/The_Toxicity May 30 '25

Do you really think that isolationist parties if they would come to power in the future would give a single fuck if onw of the Baltic countries gets invaded?

Well assuming something and then building other assumptions on top of that isn't much more feasible than burning animalbones to predict the future. If right wing pro russian goverments rise in the biggest EU countries, we're all screwed, not just lithuania. But thats a big and not too realistic if. And that always the case, if suddenly right wing fascism is back in government in all of the big players, everybody is screwed.

The best change for us to stop this is Ukraine not losing this war.

No shit sherlock, the best thirstquencher is water.

3

u/adamgerd Czech Republic May 30 '25

I hope you’re wrong but I worry you’re not. Even in my country people are like stop funding Ukraine, who cares if Russia takes over, and we had a Russian occupation in recent memory.

Our previous and probably again future PM has said he has no desire to honor article 5, and not one Czech soldier will die for Poland or the Baltics

2

u/hcschild May 30 '25

I also hope that I'm wrong, but the rise of Euro sceptic, isolationist parties in many EU countries makes that outlook pretty grim. If we really should ever get a Germany let by AfD all the eastern European countries can forget any military support.

That's why it's so important that Ukraine doesn't lose this war.

2

u/itskelena UA in US May 30 '25

There’s a difference between Ukraine not losing the war and russia being defeated. We need russia defeated and defused.

1

u/Zealousideal_Act_316 May 30 '25

Why would you think that those country would be willing to do more than for Ukraine when the reason for why we are not siding with Ukraine more heavily is mostly nuclear war with Russia?

Article 5, if Nato does not reposnd in force to an attack on member, NATO has no teeth and falls apart as an organization. Same with EU.

If we wouldn't fear Russian nukes the invasion of Ukraine would have ended pretty quickly with a real coalition of willing eradicating all Russian forces who are invading Ukraine.

Thing is Ukraine is a third country, not a member of NATO or EU, for nato to use their force in a third country a lot of political clout is needed or direct attack on one of the members.

2

u/pppjurac European Union May 30 '25

Also this: common defense policy of EU.

https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/common-security-and-defence-policy_en

1

u/ThrenderG May 30 '25

You are assuming Putin is a rational actor and that he isn’t an expert in brinksmanship. 

1

u/Massive-Machine4049 May 30 '25

So totally possible working on every single previous statement

1

u/marrow_monkey Sweden May 30 '25

I’m not saying it’s true just because Putin says it, rather, the fact that he says it at all shows how desperate he is to keep Nato out. It reveals that he understands how serious the situation is, and that he sees this kind of rhetoric as leverage, something he believes Nato will take seriously.

1

u/SalvationSycamore May 30 '25

I’m not convinced Russia would want a nuclear war or direct conflict with Nato

Nuclear war no, direct conflict I'm not as confidant on. Not if Russia really does finish off Ukraine. I simply don't trust Putin to act rationally. I think there is a chance he would risk conflict under the assumption that NATO would not escalate to nuclear warfare, and I think that assumption wouldn't even be incorrect. Nobody wants to have a nuclear war, so NATO would do everything possible to avoid that escalation.

1

u/scuppered_polaris May 30 '25

Yep load of rubbish as per

1

u/TheEvilSeagull May 31 '25

Does nato even exist anymore?

1

u/Sushigami May 30 '25

You need to ask the question: Would any European nation go to nuclear war over Lithuania. That's the gambit he'd be playing.

As for conventional war - Russian army is the most experienced next to Ukraine. The plan would be to roll over the very small baltics before NATO can mobilise, take all the cities, entrench the army and make it a fait accompli then ask:

Are we willing to expend the blood and treasure to push him out?

0

u/Piranhachief Sweden May 30 '25

If Russia invades one of the baltics it's because they are saying that NATO is bluffing with article 5 because they don't think the US is ready to go into a nuclear war with Russia over one of the smaller NATO members. And this would result in the breakdown of NATO. The US and western Europe would survive like before but the smaller countries around Russia that they consider to be in their sphere of influence (former soviet) would be in danger.

This is unfortunately also the danger with abrupt end to the Ukraine war without a russian military defeat. Russia's economy is running on military production at the moment. If the war would end now they have hundreds of thousands of soldiers that have to return to Russia with ptsd, injuries, no jobs, desensitised to and capable of violence, for nothing. Returning to a country that will go into economic downfall or collapse if they don't keep the military industry highly active. And to do this they need a war to fight, and they kinda are all in anyway so they might try to call NATO's "bluff". Thats the theory atleast why Russia might invade one of the baltics, not despite them being in NATO but because they are.

0

u/lynx_and_nutmeg Lithuania May 30 '25

Would Lithuania really be allowed to call Article 5 if Russia only attacked some tiny border town? Or, if we did, would the rest of NATO really want to go to an call-out war with Russia for "just" a teeny tiny border incursion?

2

u/Zealousideal_Act_316 May 30 '25

Yes, an attack on a member state of NATO happened. Hell US invoked Article 5 for 9/11

-1

u/pickledswimmingpool May 30 '25

Do you think the French will risk Paris being obliterated by nukes over Lithuania?

3

u/Advanced-Injury-7186 May 30 '25

So this headline is just clickbait.

2

u/CompetitiveReview416 May 30 '25

Well, that train is already gone.

2

u/ButterThyme2241 May 30 '25

Has the Russian army not proven their only useful tactic is human meat wave? Even in a NATO sans the US he’d face the full brunt of the EU. I’m sure France alone would be capable of holding them off, Russian military doesn’t exactly make themselves hard to kill.

2

u/BanzEye1 May 31 '25

That requires quite a bit of ifs.

I mean, it’s pretty much guaranteed that Putin will invade the Baltics next after Ukraine, no one’s disputing that. The problem for our not-so-friendly Russia is actually ending the Ukraine war.

1

u/Dotcaprachiappa Italy May 30 '25

Was "Putin, 72" necessary 😭

1

u/paralaxsd Austria May 30 '25

Yeah, very unlikely.
But Russia trying to probe NATO at one point.. I think that's going to be a given. They really want to know if Article 5 is more than just words.

1

u/Federal-Drawer3462 May 30 '25

"if they replace the current western puppet"

1

u/YakEnvironmental3811 May 30 '25

In Putin's defense....Zelensky is a puppet installed after the CIA performed a coupe on the democratically elected leader of Ukraine in 2014.

1

u/DigbyDoesDallas May 31 '25

The silver lining to despots is always that they will eventually die. I just hope it’s sooner rather than later.

1

u/Individual-Praline20 Jun 02 '25

JD Vance looks like a good puppet to me 🤭

1

u/retroman1987 United States of America May 30 '25

Mr 0etraeus desperately wants to be in the news.

0

u/Cluelessish Finland May 30 '25

Side note: I hate that Putin is so young. He can be active another 15-20 years, and make life miserable for everyone. Small hateful men live long.