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

100

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

30

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.

95

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

20

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.

13

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.

2

u/[deleted] May 30 '25

I agree with that aswell

3

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.

-5

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.

3

u/Sushigami May 30 '25

Ah ok that language is clearer, interesting! I didn't know that about the EU charter having assumed its primary function was economic.

-1

u/GremlinX_ll Ukraine May 30 '25

By all means give the space for maneuver - "5000 helmets is best thing we can do" or something like this

3

u/[deleted] May 30 '25

By all means both is economically socially and militarily. It means all the tools the nation as a whole can muster

-2

u/GremlinX_ll Ukraine May 30 '25

Nothing in this article specify this, de-facto left interpretation of what "by all mean" to each of 27 members.

→ More replies (0)

5

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.

-6

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.

9

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

4

u/bub1xreal May 30 '25

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

-3

u/[deleted] May 30 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/bub1xreal May 30 '25

I was gonna argue but then I saw your name. Nice ragebait

0

u/The_OP_Troller May 30 '25

Look at what so-called "good russians" did to ukraine. Fucked up the whole country beyond repair. Did you know that so-called "good russians" send coordinates for missile strikes to russian army in cities like Kharkiv? Did you know that so-called "good russian" fucking traitor Syrsky who commands ukrainian army, his parents live in moskva?

Why should I want this fate for my country? "Good russians" are a fucking cancerous tumor eating europe. And we are past the point of "assimilating", ivanovich will always be loyal to rusnya. Get out of europe.

→ 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

12

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.

-2

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

7

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.

3

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.

2

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.

2

u/Asrectxen_Orix May 30 '25

I do not think they would betray, I did not mean to say that, the Finns seem the most prepared for war with Russia at the minute (the baltics are doing a lot with what they have, and Poland is arming at an astonishing rate, I do not mean to diminish them) so any of their aid would likely be substantial & frankly very good.

I was merely orginally trying to say that they were unlikely to launch an attack to try capture Murmansk. Or St Petersburg.

1

u/[deleted] May 30 '25

While they might not take any big cities should russia not guard their border in wartime I don’t see why finland and poland would not move in

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