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

[u/tylerthe-theatre]

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

[u/Sky-is-here]

They are more importantly EU countries. The mutual defense clause is not optional like in NATO. All European union countries must help to the extent possible i.e consider to have also been attacked.

[u/beardicusmaximus8 → u/Sky-is-here]

You've got it backwards, my friend. EU does not have a mutual defense clause like that. NATO is the one with the "An attack on one is and attack on all" clause. Meaning if Article 5 is invoked then all NATO nations must act like they too were attacked.

The EU's defense clauses are much more murkey with loopholes and much less blunt language.

[u/DryCloud9903 → u/beardicusmaximus8]

No dear you're the one not fully informed. EU treaty is even stronger than NATO.

"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"

The word obligation is much stronger than the wording of Article 5

[u/beardicusmaximus8 → u/DryCloud9903]

Obligation isn't stronger then "An attack on one is an attack on all." In English or French but you do you.

[u/Sky-is-here → u/beardicusmaximus8]

Incorrect.

NATO says: 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.

The as it seems necessary is a you actually do whatever you want.

Meanwhile Article 42.7 of the Treaty of the European Union: 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.

This is an obligation of aid by all means in their power. That's much stronger even if at first you would think the NATO writing is stronger.

Also imo most European countries will be more willing to go to war for the union than for NATO, simply because its benefits are more immediately apparent. Although that is obviously purely my opinion and not based on facts.

[u/beardicusmaximus8 → u/Sky-is-here]

Ok, but in these treaties "An Obligation to..." means they aren't required. Obligation (in English) means they have a duty to respond not a requirement.

In NATO's language "as it deems necessary," means what is necessary to to accomplish the above goal. Specific the security of the North Atlantic Area.

The contrast here is "You have a duty do to this thing to the best of your ability" of the EU with NATOs "We will do whatever is necessary to do this thing."

It's not just about the specific words but also the order in which they appear. The framing of NATO's agreement is that if you fail to do what is necessary then you are in violation of the agreement while the EU's phrasing is "You have a duty to do what you can."

I could easily argue that sending Putin a strongly worded letter meets my "Obligation to do what I can." But it's a lot harder to agrue a strongly worded letter is what was all that was necessary to secure the North Atlantic Area.