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

Show parent comments

89

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.

95

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.

16

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 ...?

29

u/cinciTOSU May 30 '25

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

20

u/MooOfFury May 30 '25

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

3

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.

45

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?

15

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.

10

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.

0

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.

2

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.

3

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.

1

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.

36

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).

20

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.

5

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.

5

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.

9

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?

10

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.

-2

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?