Are there any good English sources on this? I can't find too much. Just a couple articles
has the following from 2004, but it's very vague:
>Lithuania is strongly not interested in the restitution of the situation before World War II regarding its borders, which Estonia and Latvia are. Such a step would leave Lithuania in a situation where it would to answer to substantial territorial claims from all of its neighbors. That is also the reason why it always stresses a lack of border problems with Russia, as well as the fact that it has already signed a corresponding treaty with Moscow.
The most detailed source I found was https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1324&context=journal_of_international_and_comparative_law
in which there is an explanation that
>The boundary with the Soviet Union derives from the Soviet Russian-Lithuanian treaty of July 12, 1920 (the Moscow Peace Treaty).
and it asserts:
>The Lithuanian-Soviet treaty of October 10, 1939, (the Transfer of Vilnius Treaty), which dealt with the transfer of Vilnius and the Vilnius Territory to Lithuania, and the protocol on the Lithuanian-Soviet boundary of October 27, 1939, are also invalid. These were unequal treaties that were imposed upon Lithuania by threats
Later, the article described that the October 10 treaty restored the city and 21% of the Vilnius territory as recognized by the 1920 treaty (which had since been occupied by Poland until German-Russian invasion in 1939), but withdrew Lithuanian claims on the remainder, ceding them to Russia. It's not immediately clear to me how much of that territory is in modern Lithuania (this article was written in 1991, and so is quite out of date in that regard). That article goes on to say:
>At times, President Gorbachev has stated that the Soviet Union should detach all territories that were added to Lithuania after her annexation in 1940. These areas consist of the four territories of Švenčionys, Šalčininkai, and Druskininkai, which were ceded to Lithuania by the Byelorussian SSR in 1940, and the territory of Klaipėda, which reverted to Lithuania in 1945 after the unconditional surrender of Germany and the restoration by the Allies of the German frontiers as they appeared on December 31, 1937.
Which at least gives some territorial claims Russia might revive. The article subsequently explains that the territories ceded in 1939 were given to the Belarus SSR, then ceded again back to Lithuania only after
it had been occupied by the USSR, and specifically in the same document that integrated them. In 1990, the Lithuanians rejected that document in its entirety, including those ceded lands even though (at the time the article was written) they were held by Lithuania.
But for Vilnius, it concludes:
>There have been three Lithuanian-Soviet boundaries since the signing of the Moscow Peace Treaty. The first boundary was established under article 2 of the treaty. The second was the boundary of the Transfer of Vilnius Treaty. The third, and last, was the administrative boundary between Byelorussia and Soviet occupied Lithuania, which was established on November 6, 1940. This became the factual boundary of the Republic of Lithuania on March 11, 1990. Each of these boundaries has assigned Vilnius to Lithuania. There were no other boundaries between Lithuania and the Soviet Union. If the Soviet government, in order to claim Vilnius for itself or for any of its republics, repudiates each of these boundaries, then it can claim, with equal justification, any city or any part of Lithuania.
As far as I can tell, Lithuania's position is that the 1939 treaty and anything from then until independence is invalid, but that since the 1920 was signed between the USSR and an independent Lithuania, they consider it valid, and therefore claim all territory considered Lithuanian under its terms. The article implies that this position excludes certain territory that may be part of modern Lithuania, but DOES include Vilnius. The implication is that Russia (on behalf of its pet Belarus) may be able to press some claims, but I don't see where they could claim the capital.
Note that this post was written at the same time that I was reading the report, so there may be contradictions or incomplete thoughts and things were explained.
As an aside, the Tiiman report contained this interesting passage:
>What practical risks may exist because of the lack of border treaties in Europe? One of them is the possibility that at a certain moment Russia may declare that, due to the lack of a border treaty, it cannot control immigration through this particular border region and open the gate for Third World immigration to Europe through the Baltics. The possibility of such behavior from Russia is highly remote, because this issue is also regulated by many other multilateral agreements, which are obligatory for Russia as well. So Moscow is not in the position to act in such an irrational way. Also, we have to take into consideration substantial changes in the world of security measures after September 11th. Russia is strongly supporting the anti-terrorism movement (with the intention of having a free hand in other areas), so such behavior from Moscow is not feasible.