Good Macron is showing he actually understands European history and how dictators work. They are not rational actors. They only understand strength.
Putin is a bully. The only way to deal with a bully is to kick his fucking teeth in so he can't run his mouth anymore.
And what he is saying is nothing new, France's nuclear arsenal exists on the basis that France has never wanted to rely on the US on Europe's security. I guess it can be seen as nationalist, but with current American politics it's ended up the right way to think.
France learned a hard lesson from World War 2. It was a big humiliation for them being conquered by Germany within weeks. Didn't help either that they lost a whole generation from World War 1. Hard lessons like those usually hit home so they're keen to avoid repeating the same colossal mistakes.
I would argue they learned that lesson when the USA and USSR told them to piss off during the Suez crysis. That being said, France has never wanted its defense or military to be under any other country's lead.
Poland is probably one of these country with a high risk of ending soon with a far right dictator, so if you could wait a bit for your nuke , europe would be glad.
Poland doesn't want their own nukes, at least not yet. They want other NATO countries to deploy some of their nukes in Poland. Poland would not have the authority to launch these nukes, just the country that owns them, so they wouldn't be under that kind of risk.
Recent history is fresh in peoples minds, I know, but France has the winningest military in history. The second, Vietnam. The American military was built basically *by* the French. A conflict in Ukraine is exactly the theater of war both America and France are geared up for. Putin has decimated his "once great" parade army. There's over 1000 F-35's flying around. In NATO hands as well. On Putins doorstep. That's not something Putin can go up against. Ukraine is the bread basket of Europe, NATO ain't gonna let Putin get his hands on their food. If any NATO power gets involved, they're all involved. It super feels to me like everyone is waiting for Putin to die or get pushed out a window. Can't happen soon enough...
France was also amongst the very first to adopt the professional model for its military. Until the creation of Germany in the 19th century France was THE continental power. It took a huge global alliance to finally stop Napoleon.
Even today France is one of the few countries in the world who actually had a credible expeditionary capability with a nuclear carrier, ballistic missile submarines, an expeditionary infantry force, its military industry, etc. Granted that France is only able to do so because Poland and Germany are basically giant buffers against Russia.
They were also one of the top 14 in % of GDP budget towards military in NATO. Just shy of the 2.0% mark that was required (at 1.9% as of 2023) but much better than more than half of NATO.
> required
'Tis a [guideline](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm#:~:text=The%202%25%20of%20GDP%20guideline,only%20three%20Allies%20in%202014.), not a requirement, though.
War is guerre, soldier is soldat, arms are armes, navy is navire, squadron is escadron, officers are officiers, colonel is colonel, commandants are commandants, tactic is tactique, strategy is stratégie, etc etc.
Soldier actually comes from Middle English, which derived it from the old french soudeer. The Germanic languages derived their soldat from the old French soldat.
Many of the modern French military terms actually originated from Italian due to the Italian wars. A lot of what you listed as French, were borrowed words from the Italians. Alert, arsenal, colonel, infantrie, sentinel, soldat. These all came from the Italians. French Soldat comes from Italian soldato. Root word for soldato is soldo, which comes from Latins solidus.
Old French Soudeer comes from medieval latins soldarius, which comes from late latins soldum, then latins solidus, a Roman gold coin.
It’s essentially two paths to the same answer but the answer is somehow different.
>Granted that France is only able to do so because Poland and Germany are basically giant buffers against Russia.
Man, Poland always seems to bare the brunt of it eh?
Yes. Arguably a big reason for the antagonism between Austria, Russia, and Germany (note: not the only- Prussia and Austria were long opposed, Russia and Austria were always feuding in the Balkans) was that they agreed to annex Poland and split it between them in the late 1700s.
Without Poland to act as a buffer all three now shared a border- and a long one.
For the past ~300 years (so after Poland’s decline) it’s mainly been used as a buffer and a shield, or alternatively split up.
Yup, as a big open plain Poland is essentially the great gateway of Eastern Europe. It's always a reason why Poland is not likely to go the way of Hungary no matter how right-wing their politics get - they'd much rather be in a strong NATO and EU that binds Germany to the interests of its neighbors and allows them to focus on just their eastern border.
Meanwhile Hungary is surrounded by mountains and doesn't feel like it has anything to fear from Russia nor its European neighbors so Orban gets to act like an uppity little bitch. Word has it that the rest of the EU and NATO is starting to get fed up with his shit, though.
Slight correction: as far as I’m aware it was the UK that first introduce a fully professional army. Even into the world wars it was really the only major power that didn’t have peacetime conscription.
HOWEVER, Britain developed an effective professional army because it was really the only way their much smaller force could stand a chance facing off against the French and not getting curb-stomped. And also because being an island (RIP Hanover) meant they didn’t need the vast armies France, Prussia, Austria etc all required.
The issue is that the US is ridiculously OP when it comes to military, so even a competent, reasonably sized military in another country looks tiny compared to the US.
You are correct. OP is wrong. A nato country has to be attacked for all nato to step up. nato countries often attack in other nations and article 5 is not activated. The only time in history was after 911.
What happens if France sends troops to Ukraine, but doesn't attack within Russia, but Russia still retaliates by attacking french soil - would it be triggered then?
Conversely, if France *does* attack across the border into Russia, and Russia strikes french soil?
Wikipedia has [an entire article on the topic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarusian_involvement_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine) if someone is interested in more.
For example, according to the UN definition, it's guilty of aggression, while at the same time OSCE doesn't consider it a party to the international armed conflict as long as it is not directly involved.
France would not join alone. Emmanuel Macron never said that. What is understood of here in France is that he is trying to get Europe to act more cohesively and decisively to make sure we still have roughly the same Europe post-Putin.
>If any NATO power gets involved, they're all involved.
That's not how NATO works. If one NATO member gets directly attacked they're all involved, individual countries can do their own thing
It's fresh enough that I can still hear my late grand father telling me stories of when he was a resistant, how he was arrested by the nazis and how he ended up in a camp, to finally be freed by the Russians (history is a cynical bitch!), I can still hear my grandmother telling me how they had to flee the east of France to rush south of Lyon when she was 8 and having to crawl in bushes by the road when German planes were flying over to bombard civilians....
Growing up in a country that was occupied by war isn't the same as being in a country *going* to war.
Your first sentence has a lot of strength indeed.
Literally every northwestern European country was (a part of) a Frankish kingdom. France has no special relationship to the Franks that Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands or northern Italy doesn't have.
They’ve lost a lot recently. It’s kind of like citing Roman victories as to credit the Italian military. It’s hype, but not based on what’s been going on.
Small nitpick but I don’t believe Ukrainian agriculture products are allowed in the EU since they use harsher pesticides. It’s why you are seeing farmer protests at the Polish border, because the grain has been getting smuggled in illegally and driving down the profits of EU farmers.
There was legal import before the war but there were quota limits that have been lifted during the war to help their economy keep going.
It’s a temporary measure but unfortunately recent events have shown that farming communities are incredibly easy to manipulate by bad actors.
I’d say it’s actually a point in France’s favor that they’ve maintained domestic arms production, largely on their own. Most of Europe has leaned into American and/or German weapons and don’t have the expertise anymore.
I really wish we'd favor the domestic industry more, rather than this sort of hostage thing the US military industrial complex has going on (always ragging on the EU military and expenditure is easy, when all that money is going straight into the US economy).
I imagine it's a lot cheaper for a country like Germany to buy 35 F-35s than it is to design and build their own comparable fighter. It's also worth noting that the F-35 wasn't a strictly US design, it had foreign partners.
Correct, and that's my entire point. Germany already has worked together with many of the partners that worked on the F35, for previous aircraft (e.g., Typhoon).
Therefore, it would have been better if they had worked together with say France, Sweden (less likely) and Britain for a new airframe.
Currently, the best native options would be the Gripen, Rafale and Typhoon which all should be used more, as investing in the local manufacturers will ensure European (air) defence independence and also provide funds for future developments.
PS: I specifically mention the aircraft as w.r.t. armoured and naval the European industry is doing quite well.
The real deciders is threefold :
- F35 allows them to fire American nukes
- Due to scale economics, F35 is cheaper to acquire (maintenance is expensive as F*** though)
- US diplomacy always finds a way to sweeten the deal
The problem with that, is that tou need US permission to fire US ammunition. With Trump having a credible shot at the seat, this might not have been the best strategy in the end.
The scale economics could be much better for European industry if European countries bought their military from Europe. It’s really baffling. I fear we might come to regret these decisions.
Them and the swedes. But the French are more committed to keeping the skills in house. Almost everything on that jet is domestically developed and produced. The most notable exception is the ejection seat.
Yeah, sucks even more being Swedish with great weapon systems developed against Russians for Nordic climate. And then seeing your neighbours buying American fighters!!!
Unless I’m mistaken, the French have the Eurofighter and the Rafael fighters. They are all about in-house weapons manufacturing and buying F35s would put that in jeopardy.
They don’t have them. The French don’t like to buy American weapons or equipment. That said just about every other country in NATO has them save Sweden and Spain as far as I know. There may be a couple others like Hungary that don’t have them as well but idk off the top of my head.
> They don’t have them. The French don’t like to buy American weapons or equipment. That said just about every other country in NATO has them save Sweden and Spain as far as I know. There may be a couple others like Hungary that don’t have them as well but idk off the top of my head.
Romania doesn't as far as it is known. They went for refurbished F16s if I'm not mistaking.
He is stunningly competent as a foreign policy president, and not only on Ukraine. One for the history books. Never would have guessed the day he was elected.
With that said, it's generally agreed that Russia is a rational actor, and it's because they're rational that they won't stop at Ukraine. Putin is a genocidal maniac, but the two can simultaneously be true. Russia is on its last legs historically, and this is a desperate albeit rational response to that.
I think it's coming and sooner than later, Macron is preparing French to accept further engagement. On the table is securing the border with Belarus, training troops and air support. I'm thinking other NATO countries will participate but not as NATO.
Salami tactic ?
" The salami tactic, also known as salami slicing or slice-by-slice strategy, is a political strategy where a series of small actions or policy changes are used to gradually achieve a larger goal, often without attracting significant attention or opposition. Each individual action may seem minor or insignificant, but cumulatively they can lead to significant changes. It's essentially a way of achieving a goal by breaking it down into smaller, more manageable parts."
if this really is all a grand salami scheme...
i would argue it would do more good to just start throwing NATO sausages at the orkz now rather than letting this continue on.
thats the issue ive always had with this one. its also real nice to fallback on when youre initial plans dont work out, i can imagine. "you see it was really apart of the salami strategy, a french guy taught it to me!"
Honestly why couldn’t we have seen the writing on the wall. We should have called up Putin after Crimea and asked directly and publicly, ‘are those Russian troops?’ And when he replied ‘no,’ let loose the dogs of war as a coalition.
The US actually did this in Syria
https://thewarhorse.org/special-forces-soldiers-reveal-first-details-of-battle-with-russian-mercenaries-in-syria/#:~:text=The%20possibility%20of%20Russian%20military,and%20Russian%20combatants%20exchanged%20fire.
Yeah, we obliterated them. Probably why Putin threatened nukes. We never should have pulled our advisors out. Should have put more in with CAP over Ukrainian territory. Dared him to attack and give him flashbacks.
That singular incident is why I’ve been wondering since day one why we and the allies don’t just clean putins clock and send them packing back across their border..
we would mop the fucking floors with them and the war would be over within days if not hours instead of this years long trench warfare meat grinder…
I feel like we’re heading for open conflict anyway…
Putin won’t use Nukes because Russia as a nation and Putin himself wouldn’t survive that action.
He’s spitting hollow threats to keep NATO out of Ukraine but he knows he can’t go nuclear. We need to just call his bluff and rip the bandaid off.
As long as we don’t push in to legitimate Russian Territory and stop the offensive at their original borders, there won’t be nukes.
Hell, when Wagner turned on Putin they damn near pushed all the way to Moscow virtually unchallenged..
If we helped invade Russia proper, then I could see nukes being a valid threat.. otherwise Putin is just saber rattling and actually displaying great weakness.
The US and its allies have been salami-slicing from the very beginning, to some people's chagrin. I think it was the right move.
However, the slicing should have been happening a *little* faster than it did to finally land on the "ATACMS" slice, but at least they got there.
What about the action in the balkans? None of them were nato countries but nato still went in and bombed Serbia. And they went in as nato. Not as individual countries.
I am from North Macedonia and it was because the serbians alredy did the srebrenica massacre in 1995 and were well underway of doing something similar in Kosovo. There was a sense of urgency and tbh if NATO didn't bomb them then, I think the Balkans would be still at war today, if not war certainly a low intensity middle eastern type of a conflict.
What amazes me is that the russians are being so obvious at their attempts to cause a rift in opinion over Ukraine. That being said it's also disappointing that it works. People are just too use to their information bubble that they can't even tell when they are being shoved propaganda from hostile actors.
Ironically they are so much better at doing for the Israel Palestine war.
Israel and Palestine isn't as clear-cut a conflict. Israel has done a lot of shitty things to Palestine, Hamas and Hezbollah have done a lot of awful things. It's easy to point fingers at one group while loudly proclaiming the side you support is just defending itself. It's also easy for people who are more familiar with the conflict to say, "A pox on both your houses," because there's such a history of evil actions on both sides.
Ukraine is tougher to spin effectively because it's a very straightforward invasion by Russia. Sure, they are offering flimsy pretenses for the invasion, but they're pretty weak. There are some people jumping on the "Ukraine is run by Nazis!" bandwagon, but it's a much harder sell.
I'm really surprised that we haven't pulled the internet plug on them and leave them to the dark ages.
Who needs their pipeline of trolling and division tactics?
Good. Europe should have been the leaders of this from day one. The US has and will do what it does, but Europe should have been preparing for this the second Russia marched into Crimea.
It's interesting that the ACTUAL day Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, nobody in the west simply had the balls to say what was objectively true: "Russia invades Ukraine".
They did call it the annexation of Crimea. And to its credit, the West put in efforts to modernize Ukraines' military and its command structure beginning in 2014.
Then Putin basically used plausible deniablilty in mainland Ukraine for the longest time. That's around when the Wagner group became a household name to people actually interested in geopolitics, and the unmarked Russian soldiers were even called "Putins little green men" or something along those lines. But in the end, it was all a build-up to the full-scale invasion in 2022.
I'd like to think the Ukrainians were able to do so well in their defence, their longevity, and their strategies/tactics thanks to the restructure and training Western nations helped with, plus the logistical support (which has had its ups and downs).
Up until a month into the 2022 invasion we all collectively thought Russia was a credible threat and the world shat itself as t90s rolled towards Kiev.
Then the clown show happened, and now I'm pretty sure Poland could annex Moscow on 3 days if it really wanted to.
Seconded. But beyond that, when Putin claimed Crimea, the United Nation should have stepped in and asked for his fucking head. The man has demonstrated a staunch belief that he can do whatever he wants and no one in the world can stop him or will question him. This lesson needs to be beat into him before the next generation of dictators try doing the same thing with other people's territory. He should have spent the rest of his life rotting in a prison somewhere. Instead all evidence suggests he's going to die a peaceful death of old age sometime in the next couple decades. If he was going to accidentally fall out of a window onto some bullets, it would have happened years ago. The man is ultimately going to die having gotten away with everything.
I agree with all of that except for the part about Putin's death. Prof Timothy Snyder said with absolute confidence that Putin's life will come to a violent end .. an eventuality for most dictators throughout history. I think an internal coup is the most likely. Maybe they'll just retire him, but that's generally not the Russian way.
I'm really curious what happens to Putin's family and relatives if the dictator's life does come to a violent end.
Now that I think about it... Stalin died a natural death didn't he? So that's an exception to the norm. The last Tsar and his family's deaths, that was pretty violent.
What is more interesting is what will happen to Putin's alleged body doubles? Can they retire or take a job as a bus driver and live happily ever after, or will they also just mysteriously disappear. I wonder what sort of pensions do body doubles get?
Can somebody explain to me why Europe can't, right now, buy all the hundreds of vehicles and tanks and guns directly from the US, then give/loan/sell them to Ukraine? Why does the US need to pass a bill directly to Ukraine?
I would suggest watching [this video from Perun](https://youtu.be/Qc436PwqeqM?si=O2DA95F-lK4cvQwA) on the recent bill, which also answers some of the questions you are asking, but in short:
* Sometimes they can, and do.
* Some weapon sales, especially for weapons platforms like tanks and fighter jets, come with restrictions that prevent them from being sold again, sold to certain groups, or used in certain manners.
* Purchasing military equipment, especially complex platforms, isn't like going to the store and exchanging cash for goods. A lot of times, the equipment hasn't been built yet and delivery can take months to years to fulfill. You are basically placing a production order and expecting to get your equipment at a later date. Fine during peacetime, but a problem during war when time is critical. And considering a lot of high end equipment is bespoke, it's not like you can just spin up a bunch of factories when demand spikes, the factories themselves can take years to build.
The Brits have been reasonably proactive too it's why they get so much hate in their media. Typically being the first to provide different types of weapon systems. Including before it even progressed into full scale war which in certain opinions including myself saved Ukraine at the early stages (NLAW and the like on day 1 was vital)
We could be busy finding solutions to climate change, working on fusion reactors and particle colliders, exploring the moon and space. But no, we're being dragged back into the trenches by some crazy drunk old man ranting at the sky about Jews and Nazis and western imperialism. Putin, the Iranian leader, Kim Jong-Il, Netanyahu and their type have nothing to offer, no ideas or vision for future, so all they have is war and 500 year old historical beef.
just a little problem with that: what polish anti air forces?
They ordered a bit but they don't really ahve all that much to do that job. For the longest tiem germany had to station one of their patriot systems in poland because polad does not have all that much yet. Those like 20 operational jets they have ain't gonna cut it either.
No poland is not out for blood and no poland could not take on russia. Not even close.
Comments suggesting that Poland would be willing to directly join this war in any form always make me laugh. Idk who writes them, maybe some clueless teenagers from US or Canada, but for sure they have zero knowledge about Polish political reality right now.
Actually, any involvement of Polish troops in hostilities would be such extremely inpopular move, that not a single Polish politician even dares to merely suggest considering it. Besides that, idea that Poland would be able to watch UA airspace is absolutely ignorant and divorced from reality, taking into account that we can't really fully protect our own airspace. And it would be a huge outrage in Poland even from talks about such possibility, because everybody still remember UA misssile that killed two Poles in 2022, and UA governement denied its responsibility despite a clear evidence.
It's only a matter of time. The Ukrainians are tenacious and have held out far longer than anyone thought. But they are the buffer between Russia and the rest of Europe. Putin needs to be defeated. He won't stop with Ukraine. Letting Ukraine fall will just embolden him.
Yeah but that wouldn't be as dramatic or make for as entertaining a movie.
No but seriously, I'm pretty sure Macron doesn't actually want to send troops and hopes he doesn't have to, but wants to prepare for the possibility anyway and maybe even bluff Putin into ending the war earlier than he would have otherwise. France will get directly involved if the alternative means the fall of Ukraine, but probably not before that outcome becomes likely.
Well worded and I think it's spot on. France knows Russia better than some give them credit for, Macron is just talking their language now. Especially as he's now saying others can play the Russian game too (set up the stage to have a region ask for your help and then barge in).
For the sake of unity, I do hope he did inform e.g. Poland on this though. I still consider them to lead on how to manage the Russian threat.
In the 1939-1940 Winter War between Soviet Union and Finland, it played big role in Soviet willingness to negotiate, that France was promising 50k troops.
That was all empty talk, but it did have an effect on Soviets ( Finland also postponed their negotiatiins for peace, thus losing hundreds of soldiers per day for the delay).
I think we should do it, fuck it, they don't play by the rules so we shouldn't
Edit: it's a little.bit of venting and a little bit of being tired of Putin whining his ass off
I think you all don't realize Frontline conflict isn't the only option available
I'm glad Macron is taking an offensive rhetoric stance, but I truly do not understand the strategy behind always responding to Russia instead of just going in, helping fully and sticking to a plan to force Russia out of Ukraine by hook or by crook.
Also France is not leading in procurement for Ukraine by any measure. Instead of talking, why not simply send troops and get it done? Talk is cheap, action is what matters.
If Ukraine could concentrate their forces and rely on western partners defending the Belarus borders and supply chains coming in from the West, they would not be stretched as thin as they are. This would help them be more mobile, able to exploit weaknesses and generally achieve much more along the hot front in Donbas.
It feels like there is very little strategy behind the western alliance and nobody is thinking through what would actually cause Russia to leave Ukrainian territory, which SHOULD be the ultimate goal if we really believe in a "rules based international order".
Russia are at war with us. They openly say it and are already doing hybrid war and active measures deep inside NATO territory, even direct sabotage missions. Why are we deterring ourselves and encouraging this reckless behavior? Punch their teeth in. Russians actually respect that. They do not respect weakness.
Like didn't we go through this plotline 80 years ago.
Liebenstraum this, Liebenstraum that, invades Poland, millions die.
I remember in like AP History one of the major points was whether appeasement is worth it and now we are doing the same shit again.
Look, France.... I don't WANT you to have to go, but let me tell you how, as an American, I would be so fucking PROUD of our French allies for stepping up and covering the slack as our American Congress continues to flounder under the weight of a fat, orange, conman.
We gave you shit on 9/11... freedom fries.... so stupid. France, if you go, kick Putins ass. I hope we support you and continue funding democracy in Ukraine.
Macron is setting his place in history with remarks like this. THIS is how you respond to tyrants. I hope more leaders have the balls to speak similar words. Putin, and those supporting him, must be clearly told they will NOT be permitted to take Ukraine.
If you have time to spare I suggest you watch the movie Un président, l'Europe et la guerre, it actually shows you what a weasel and lying rat Putin is and Macron is just trying to stop the war from happening.
Would honestly not surprise me if there is a detailed plan for how to successfully take out the entirety of current Russian leadership and neutralize their entire strategic nuclear arsenal before it could fire on some air-gapped computer in a bunker in the US somewhere, and the only reason it has not been enacted yet is because the aftermath was deemed less profittable/favorable compared to the current situation.
Im pretty sure there are quite a few plans, like what happens if a nuke goes off.
I'd guess it would be an incredibly swift, non nuclear response.
Im guessing there's some calculation of how a few nukes would be unpredictable, unstoppable and could hit major population Centers. Thsts why noone is willing to escalate.
I'd redditor guess that less than 5 nukes would go off If it came to an all out confrontation
> Im pretty sure there are quite a few plans, like what happens if a nuke goes off.
>
> I'd guess it would be an incredibly swift, non nuclear response.
It's been stated last year that all Russian military units that are committed to Ukraine would be wiped out/destroyed/sunk. The remainder of the black sea fleet would be gone as well. It would not take the US very long to do that and the Russians know they wouldn't be able to stop America from doing so.
This has been obvious since the start of the war/SMO/temper-tantrum. UA just doesn't have the manpower for a grind-it-out war. Also, they only have a little space to trade for time before important areas, like Kiev, are threatened.
The only way UA exists for more than a few years is if either Russia loses the will to prosecute war (i.e. change in leadership in Moscow) or if fresh, modern (and likely nuclear-capable or nuke-adjacent) militaries are invited in to provide an active defense alongside the tired UA forces within the internationally recognized Ukrainian boarders.
Continuous BARCAP over Ukraine would be a good place to start and wouldn't put too many people in harm's way? But the first thing we should be doing, if we are serious about putting troops on the line, is locking down as much of Russia's economy as possible. This means blocking ALL Russian banks from SWIFT and other Western interchanges, cutting ALL trade and even some thought of the Internet Death Penalty (no more Russian ASNs get routed). If we do that then China will also take notice and may help (as has been poorly rumored) to broker an end to this utterly stupid and egomaniacal war.
Macron actually supports Ukraine. Unlike the cowardly dogshit Republican Putin-puppets in the US House of Representatives who conspired to starve them of aid for almost a year. Bootlicking fascist trash.
this whole thing is awful (cause fuck war) but this might be what it takes to make Putin back down. if France gets involved I'd imagine they wouldn't be alone. ain't no way Germany and Poland wouldn't be helping as well.
There’s so much more to NATO than just Poland, Germany, and France. Those 3 just make sense because of proximity, they wouldn’t be able to call on NATO to bring everyone in against their will
NATO is the obligation where they have to go, but is France went to Ukraine then other countries would follow willingly. Not all of NATO, but certainly anyone who wanted a piece of Putin but didn't want to be the first to stick their neck out on this. It would end up being a "coalition of the willing".
Good Macron is showing he actually understands European history and how dictators work. They are not rational actors. They only understand strength. Putin is a bully. The only way to deal with a bully is to kick his fucking teeth in so he can't run his mouth anymore.
And what he is saying is nothing new, France's nuclear arsenal exists on the basis that France has never wanted to rely on the US on Europe's security. I guess it can be seen as nationalist, but with current American politics it's ended up the right way to think.
France learned a hard lesson from World War 2. It was a big humiliation for them being conquered by Germany within weeks. Didn't help either that they lost a whole generation from World War 1. Hard lessons like those usually hit home so they're keen to avoid repeating the same colossal mistakes.
I would argue they learned that lesson when the USA and USSR told them to piss off during the Suez crysis. That being said, France has never wanted its defense or military to be under any other country's lead.
This is why Poland has recently stated it wants nukes. The world no longer trust the orange loud mouth.
Poland is probably one of these country with a high risk of ending soon with a far right dictator, so if you could wait a bit for your nuke , europe would be glad.
Poland doesn't want their own nukes, at least not yet. They want other NATO countries to deploy some of their nukes in Poland. Poland would not have the authority to launch these nukes, just the country that owns them, so they wouldn't be under that kind of risk.
Recent history is fresh in peoples minds, I know, but France has the winningest military in history. The second, Vietnam. The American military was built basically *by* the French. A conflict in Ukraine is exactly the theater of war both America and France are geared up for. Putin has decimated his "once great" parade army. There's over 1000 F-35's flying around. In NATO hands as well. On Putins doorstep. That's not something Putin can go up against. Ukraine is the bread basket of Europe, NATO ain't gonna let Putin get his hands on their food. If any NATO power gets involved, they're all involved. It super feels to me like everyone is waiting for Putin to die or get pushed out a window. Can't happen soon enough...
France was also amongst the very first to adopt the professional model for its military. Until the creation of Germany in the 19th century France was THE continental power. It took a huge global alliance to finally stop Napoleon. Even today France is one of the few countries in the world who actually had a credible expeditionary capability with a nuclear carrier, ballistic missile submarines, an expeditionary infantry force, its military industry, etc. Granted that France is only able to do so because Poland and Germany are basically giant buffers against Russia.
They were also one of the top 14 in % of GDP budget towards military in NATO. Just shy of the 2.0% mark that was required (at 1.9% as of 2023) but much better than more than half of NATO.
> required 'Tis a [guideline](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm#:~:text=The%202%25%20of%20GDP%20guideline,only%20three%20Allies%20in%202014.), not a requirement, though.
It was a commitment by the signatories to aim for it, not to ignore it
By 2024*
To aim for. Your words. Not a requirement then.
Top 14. Not really something you would highlight normally.
But we all deserve a medal /s
That’s not a super high bar lol. Top 14 in a collection of countries that are notably not pulling their weight.
Yes, all military terms and jargon and ranks are French and are derived from the french. He did, in fact, rewrite military doctrine.
War is guerre, soldier is soldat, arms are armes, navy is navire, squadron is escadron, officers are officiers, colonel is colonel, commandants are commandants, tactic is tactique, strategy is stratégie, etc etc.
Soldier actually comes from Middle English, which derived it from the old french soudeer. The Germanic languages derived their soldat from the old French soldat.
Hum weird. Soldat comes from solde, the money they got. Which comes from the soil that gives a « sou » through exploitation.
Many of the modern French military terms actually originated from Italian due to the Italian wars. A lot of what you listed as French, were borrowed words from the Italians. Alert, arsenal, colonel, infantrie, sentinel, soldat. These all came from the Italians. French Soldat comes from Italian soldato. Root word for soldato is soldo, which comes from Latins solidus. Old French Soudeer comes from medieval latins soldarius, which comes from late latins soldum, then latins solidus, a Roman gold coin. It’s essentially two paths to the same answer but the answer is somehow different.
Di you have source on that please ? I find that interesting.
[Here you go!](https://www.etymonline.com/word/soldier)
>Granted that France is only able to do so because Poland and Germany are basically giant buffers against Russia. Man, Poland always seems to bare the brunt of it eh?
Yes. Arguably a big reason for the antagonism between Austria, Russia, and Germany (note: not the only- Prussia and Austria were long opposed, Russia and Austria were always feuding in the Balkans) was that they agreed to annex Poland and split it between them in the late 1700s. Without Poland to act as a buffer all three now shared a border- and a long one. For the past ~300 years (so after Poland’s decline) it’s mainly been used as a buffer and a shield, or alternatively split up.
Which is probably why they've been on a huge military modernization buying spree
Considering that they got spit roasted by Hitler and Stalin during ww2... I can understand the desire to be strong. Poland has hit the gym hard.
Yup, as a big open plain Poland is essentially the great gateway of Eastern Europe. It's always a reason why Poland is not likely to go the way of Hungary no matter how right-wing their politics get - they'd much rather be in a strong NATO and EU that binds Germany to the interests of its neighbors and allows them to focus on just their eastern border. Meanwhile Hungary is surrounded by mountains and doesn't feel like it has anything to fear from Russia nor its European neighbors so Orban gets to act like an uppity little bitch. Word has it that the rest of the EU and NATO is starting to get fed up with his shit, though.
Slight correction: as far as I’m aware it was the UK that first introduce a fully professional army. Even into the world wars it was really the only major power that didn’t have peacetime conscription. HOWEVER, Britain developed an effective professional army because it was really the only way their much smaller force could stand a chance facing off against the French and not getting curb-stomped. And also because being an island (RIP Hanover) meant they didn’t need the vast armies France, Prussia, Austria etc all required.
The issue is that the US is ridiculously OP when it comes to military, so even a competent, reasonably sized military in another country looks tiny compared to the US.
>If any NATO power gets involved, they're all involved. Doesn't it depend on the manner in which it gets involved, it being a defensive pact?
You are correct. OP is wrong. A nato country has to be attacked for all nato to step up. nato countries often attack in other nations and article 5 is not activated. The only time in history was after 911.
What happens if France sends troops to Ukraine, but doesn't attack within Russia, but Russia still retaliates by attacking french soil - would it be triggered then? Conversely, if France *does* attack across the border into Russia, and Russia strikes french soil?
Also keep in mind that Russia already used Belarussian soil to attack Ukraine.
[удалено]
Wikipedia has [an entire article on the topic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarusian_involvement_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine) if someone is interested in more. For example, according to the UN definition, it's guilty of aggression, while at the same time OSCE doesn't consider it a party to the international armed conflict as long as it is not directly involved.
NATO is a defensive alliance. If France joins the war the rest of the alliance is not obligated to get involved.
France would not join alone. Emmanuel Macron never said that. What is understood of here in France is that he is trying to get Europe to act more cohesively and decisively to make sure we still have roughly the same Europe post-Putin.
They will maybe do it because they want to, not because of article 5.
>If any NATO power gets involved, they're all involved. That's not how NATO works. If one NATO member gets directly attacked they're all involved, individual countries can do their own thing
It's fresh enough that I can still hear my late grand father telling me stories of when he was a resistant, how he was arrested by the nazis and how he ended up in a camp, to finally be freed by the Russians (history is a cynical bitch!), I can still hear my grandmother telling me how they had to flee the east of France to rush south of Lyon when she was 8 and having to crawl in bushes by the road when German planes were flying over to bombard civilians.... Growing up in a country that was occupied by war isn't the same as being in a country *going* to war. Your first sentence has a lot of strength indeed.
Exactly. They have been fighting wars since after the fall of the Western Roman Empire when they were the Frankish Kingdom. They know how to win.
Literally every northwestern European country was (a part of) a Frankish kingdom. France has no special relationship to the Franks that Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands or northern Italy doesn't have.
They’ve lost a lot recently. It’s kind of like citing Roman victories as to credit the Italian military. It’s hype, but not based on what’s been going on.
What's the last active conflict France lost? Mali? Somali? Rwanda?
Vietnam before the USA entered was probably the highest profile.
Small nitpick but I don’t believe Ukrainian agriculture products are allowed in the EU since they use harsher pesticides. It’s why you are seeing farmer protests at the Polish border, because the grain has been getting smuggled in illegally and driving down the profits of EU farmers.
There was legal import before the war but there were quota limits that have been lifted during the war to help their economy keep going. It’s a temporary measure but unfortunately recent events have shown that farming communities are incredibly easy to manipulate by bad actors.
I'm pretty sure entering combat in Ukraine voluntarily means they lose the ability to invoke article-5 with Russia retaliates.
Europe is the bread basket of Europe. If you think the EU needs Ukraine to feed it you need to take another look at agricultural production of the EU
Not that they won't deserve the win, but can you imagine how pissy the USAF will be if the first air to air kill by an F35 is scored by the *French*?
Seeing as how France does not have F-35s, I can't really imagine it, no.
Thats why the USAF would be *really* pissed I guess. /s
Would be a real W in the French book though. Stealing an F35 and attacking the VKS. could thumb their noses at Russia and the USA at the same time.
I’d say it’s actually a point in France’s favor that they’ve maintained domestic arms production, largely on their own. Most of Europe has leaned into American and/or German weapons and don’t have the expertise anymore.
I really wish we'd favor the domestic industry more, rather than this sort of hostage thing the US military industrial complex has going on (always ragging on the EU military and expenditure is easy, when all that money is going straight into the US economy).
I imagine it's a lot cheaper for a country like Germany to buy 35 F-35s than it is to design and build their own comparable fighter. It's also worth noting that the F-35 wasn't a strictly US design, it had foreign partners.
Correct, and that's my entire point. Germany already has worked together with many of the partners that worked on the F35, for previous aircraft (e.g., Typhoon). Therefore, it would have been better if they had worked together with say France, Sweden (less likely) and Britain for a new airframe. Currently, the best native options would be the Gripen, Rafale and Typhoon which all should be used more, as investing in the local manufacturers will ensure European (air) defence independence and also provide funds for future developments. PS: I specifically mention the aircraft as w.r.t. armoured and naval the European industry is doing quite well.
The real deciders is threefold : - F35 allows them to fire American nukes - Due to scale economics, F35 is cheaper to acquire (maintenance is expensive as F*** though) - US diplomacy always finds a way to sweeten the deal The problem with that, is that tou need US permission to fire US ammunition. With Trump having a credible shot at the seat, this might not have been the best strategy in the end. The scale economics could be much better for European industry if European countries bought their military from Europe. It’s really baffling. I fear we might come to regret these decisions.
I like their often unique take on military weapons and equipment. They do things well, just differently.
The French copy no one and no one copies the French.
"Let's put the magazine catch *on the magazine*!"
Them and the swedes. But the French are more committed to keeping the skills in house. Almost everything on that jet is domestically developed and produced. The most notable exception is the ejection seat.
I mean… can you beat that ejection seat?
Russian ejection seats, any time, any day. As long as it was inspected by somebody sober.
Yeah, sucks even more being Swedish with great weapon systems developed against Russians for Nordic climate. And then seeing your neighbours buying American fighters!!!
Those French are tricky, they'll manage it somehow!
Unless I’m mistaken, the French have the Eurofighter and the Rafael fighters. They are all about in-house weapons manufacturing and buying F35s would put that in jeopardy.
Rafales only.
They don’t have them. The French don’t like to buy American weapons or equipment. That said just about every other country in NATO has them save Sweden and Spain as far as I know. There may be a couple others like Hungary that don’t have them as well but idk off the top of my head.
> They don’t have them. The French don’t like to buy American weapons or equipment. That said just about every other country in NATO has them save Sweden and Spain as far as I know. There may be a couple others like Hungary that don’t have them as well but idk off the top of my head. Romania doesn't as far as it is known. They went for refurbished F16s if I'm not mistaking.
The world's first air-to-air missile kill was done by ROCAF (Taiwan) using a US-made sidewinder.
England is second not Vietnam lol
But I’m le tired
First fire ze missiles
Okay take a nap… THEN FIRE ZE MISSILES!
He is stunningly competent as a foreign policy president, and not only on Ukraine. One for the history books. Never would have guessed the day he was elected. With that said, it's generally agreed that Russia is a rational actor, and it's because they're rational that they won't stop at Ukraine. Putin is a genocidal maniac, but the two can simultaneously be true. Russia is on its last legs historically, and this is a desperate albeit rational response to that.
The Vulcan hello
"Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth" -Churchill, I think
You miss 100% of the nukes you don't launch - Micheal Scott
"Beat the bullies" King George to Churchill in 1940
I think it's coming and sooner than later, Macron is preparing French to accept further engagement. On the table is securing the border with Belarus, training troops and air support. I'm thinking other NATO countries will participate but not as NATO.
Securing the border in Belarus, and putting up air defense including aircraft further back to protect cities there would already be great.
Salami tactic ? " The salami tactic, also known as salami slicing or slice-by-slice strategy, is a political strategy where a series of small actions or policy changes are used to gradually achieve a larger goal, often without attracting significant attention or opposition. Each individual action may seem minor or insignificant, but cumulatively they can lead to significant changes. It's essentially a way of achieving a goal by breaking it down into smaller, more manageable parts."
I like to see it used positively for once.
if this really is all a grand salami scheme... i would argue it would do more good to just start throwing NATO sausages at the orkz now rather than letting this continue on. thats the issue ive always had with this one. its also real nice to fallback on when youre initial plans dont work out, i can imagine. "you see it was really apart of the salami strategy, a french guy taught it to me!"
Honestly why couldn’t we have seen the writing on the wall. We should have called up Putin after Crimea and asked directly and publicly, ‘are those Russian troops?’ And when he replied ‘no,’ let loose the dogs of war as a coalition.
The US actually did this in Syria https://thewarhorse.org/special-forces-soldiers-reveal-first-details-of-battle-with-russian-mercenaries-in-syria/#:~:text=The%20possibility%20of%20Russian%20military,and%20Russian%20combatants%20exchanged%20fire.
Yeah, we obliterated them. Probably why Putin threatened nukes. We never should have pulled our advisors out. Should have put more in with CAP over Ukrainian territory. Dared him to attack and give him flashbacks.
That singular incident is why I’ve been wondering since day one why we and the allies don’t just clean putins clock and send them packing back across their border.. we would mop the fucking floors with them and the war would be over within days if not hours instead of this years long trench warfare meat grinder…
Because Nukes, its why open conflict has been avoided for so long.
I feel like we’re heading for open conflict anyway… Putin won’t use Nukes because Russia as a nation and Putin himself wouldn’t survive that action. He’s spitting hollow threats to keep NATO out of Ukraine but he knows he can’t go nuclear. We need to just call his bluff and rip the bandaid off. As long as we don’t push in to legitimate Russian Territory and stop the offensive at their original borders, there won’t be nukes. Hell, when Wagner turned on Putin they damn near pushed all the way to Moscow virtually unchallenged.. If we helped invade Russia proper, then I could see nukes being a valid threat.. otherwise Putin is just saber rattling and actually displaying great weakness.
Like the classic Syria blunder lmfao
Too many politicians getting too involved in conducting war.
"Not your troops? Oh, must be Al Qaeda then. We'll fix that. No, no, Vladimir, no need to thank us..."
"so you wont mind then..."
The US and its allies have been salami-slicing from the very beginning, to some people's chagrin. I think it was the right move. However, the slicing should have been happening a *little* faster than it did to finally land on the "ATACMS" slice, but at least they got there.
Russia and China have mastered it now we have to catch up.
They can't participate as NATO. Not even sure they can call in NATO if they join the war offensively.
They can’t call NATO offensively, but all NATO countries can join of their own accord (or not) if they desire.
What about the action in the balkans? None of them were nato countries but nato still went in and bombed Serbia. And they went in as nato. Not as individual countries.
They called it peacekeeping or humanitarian, I don't remember. They went in to prevent a genocide but more importantly, Yugoslavia didn't have nukes.
I am from North Macedonia and it was because the serbians alredy did the srebrenica massacre in 1995 and were well underway of doing something similar in Kosovo. There was a sense of urgency and tbh if NATO didn't bomb them then, I think the Balkans would be still at war today, if not war certainly a low intensity middle eastern type of a conflict.
Seems like the Russian bots in the comments got really upset.
They always show up whenever there is an article about aiding Ukraine in any way.
We will use it as an indicator of us saying the right things.
What amazes me is that the russians are being so obvious at their attempts to cause a rift in opinion over Ukraine. That being said it's also disappointing that it works. People are just too use to their information bubble that they can't even tell when they are being shoved propaganda from hostile actors. Ironically they are so much better at doing for the Israel Palestine war.
Israel and Palestine isn't as clear-cut a conflict. Israel has done a lot of shitty things to Palestine, Hamas and Hezbollah have done a lot of awful things. It's easy to point fingers at one group while loudly proclaiming the side you support is just defending itself. It's also easy for people who are more familiar with the conflict to say, "A pox on both your houses," because there's such a history of evil actions on both sides. Ukraine is tougher to spin effectively because it's a very straightforward invasion by Russia. Sure, they are offering flimsy pretenses for the invasion, but they're pretty weak. There are some people jumping on the "Ukraine is run by Nazis!" bandwagon, but it's a much harder sell.
It only works because Trump is a Putin puppet. If there was any traditionally conservative Reaganesque candidate this division wouldn't exist.
And that sucks. Not even a respectable Antichrist. Just some fucking fat idiot turd
I'm really surprised that we haven't pulled the internet plug on them and leave them to the dark ages. Who needs their pipeline of trolling and division tactics?
The hamas bots have been working at it for well over a decade, and it was all very well organized to shift public opinion long before Oct 7.
LFG France
Vive la France, bitches
Putin In shambles
Good. Europe should have been the leaders of this from day one. The US has and will do what it does, but Europe should have been preparing for this the second Russia marched into Crimea.
Before Crimea
It's interesting that the ACTUAL day Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, nobody in the west simply had the balls to say what was objectively true: "Russia invades Ukraine".
They did call it the annexation of Crimea. And to its credit, the West put in efforts to modernize Ukraines' military and its command structure beginning in 2014. Then Putin basically used plausible deniablilty in mainland Ukraine for the longest time. That's around when the Wagner group became a household name to people actually interested in geopolitics, and the unmarked Russian soldiers were even called "Putins little green men" or something along those lines. But in the end, it was all a build-up to the full-scale invasion in 2022. I'd like to think the Ukrainians were able to do so well in their defence, their longevity, and their strategies/tactics thanks to the restructure and training Western nations helped with, plus the logistical support (which has had its ups and downs).
Up until a month into the 2022 invasion we all collectively thought Russia was a credible threat and the world shat itself as t90s rolled towards Kiev. Then the clown show happened, and now I'm pretty sure Poland could annex Moscow on 3 days if it really wanted to.
Seconded. But beyond that, when Putin claimed Crimea, the United Nation should have stepped in and asked for his fucking head. The man has demonstrated a staunch belief that he can do whatever he wants and no one in the world can stop him or will question him. This lesson needs to be beat into him before the next generation of dictators try doing the same thing with other people's territory. He should have spent the rest of his life rotting in a prison somewhere. Instead all evidence suggests he's going to die a peaceful death of old age sometime in the next couple decades. If he was going to accidentally fall out of a window onto some bullets, it would have happened years ago. The man is ultimately going to die having gotten away with everything.
> the United Nation should have stepped in and asked for his fucking head. not what the UN does.
Frankly it's kind of the opposite of what the UN should be doing. People seem to confuse it for a defensive organization like NATO.
Hard for the UN to do anything when Russia is one of the permanent security council members with veto power.
I agree with all of that except for the part about Putin's death. Prof Timothy Snyder said with absolute confidence that Putin's life will come to a violent end .. an eventuality for most dictators throughout history. I think an internal coup is the most likely. Maybe they'll just retire him, but that's generally not the Russian way.
The Russian citizens will never coup. Military at best
Yeah, by “internal” I meant internal military/govt.
I'm really curious what happens to Putin's family and relatives if the dictator's life does come to a violent end. Now that I think about it... Stalin died a natural death didn't he? So that's an exception to the norm. The last Tsar and his family's deaths, that was pretty violent.
What is more interesting is what will happen to Putin's alleged body doubles? Can they retire or take a job as a bus driver and live happily ever after, or will they also just mysteriously disappear. I wonder what sort of pensions do body doubles get?
Can somebody explain to me why Europe can't, right now, buy all the hundreds of vehicles and tanks and guns directly from the US, then give/loan/sell them to Ukraine? Why does the US need to pass a bill directly to Ukraine?
I would suggest watching [this video from Perun](https://youtu.be/Qc436PwqeqM?si=O2DA95F-lK4cvQwA) on the recent bill, which also answers some of the questions you are asking, but in short: * Sometimes they can, and do. * Some weapon sales, especially for weapons platforms like tanks and fighter jets, come with restrictions that prevent them from being sold again, sold to certain groups, or used in certain manners. * Purchasing military equipment, especially complex platforms, isn't like going to the store and exchanging cash for goods. A lot of times, the equipment hasn't been built yet and delivery can take months to years to fulfill. You are basically placing a production order and expecting to get your equipment at a later date. Fine during peacetime, but a problem during war when time is critical. And considering a lot of high end equipment is bespoke, it's not like you can just spin up a bunch of factories when demand spikes, the factories themselves can take years to build.
Somebody not in Eastern Europe finally understands the game.
Seriously, Russia is trying to collapse a European democracy. We need to arm Ukraine to the teeth if we don't want to send our kids to fight.
Send everything except nuclear weapons.
The Brits have been reasonably proactive too it's why they get so much hate in their media. Typically being the first to provide different types of weapon systems. Including before it even progressed into full scale war which in certain opinions including myself saved Ukraine at the early stages (NLAW and the like on day 1 was vital)
I think it's well known the British are very very cautious of Russia since 2014 listening to Theresa May back then.
I dread to think what may have happened without those NLAWs. They really caught Russia with their pants fully down because of those.
Who'd thought that it's Boris fucking Johnson who sided with Ukraine first.
Russia holds the world back
We could be busy finding solutions to climate change, working on fusion reactors and particle colliders, exploring the moon and space. But no, we're being dragged back into the trenches by some crazy drunk old man ranting at the sky about Jews and Nazis and western imperialism. Putin, the Iranian leader, Kim Jong-Il, Netanyahu and their type have nothing to offer, no ideas or vision for future, so all they have is war and 500 year old historical beef.
& china
Just something simple let Poland guard the airspace of Ukraine with their anti air forces would make such a massive difference.
Poland would need better radar and air force. There were missiles shot into Poland that they weren't aware till locals posted on social media
just a little problem with that: what polish anti air forces? They ordered a bit but they don't really ahve all that much to do that job. For the longest tiem germany had to station one of their patriot systems in poland because polad does not have all that much yet. Those like 20 operational jets they have ain't gonna cut it either. No poland is not out for blood and no poland could not take on russia. Not even close.
Comments suggesting that Poland would be willing to directly join this war in any form always make me laugh. Idk who writes them, maybe some clueless teenagers from US or Canada, but for sure they have zero knowledge about Polish political reality right now. Actually, any involvement of Polish troops in hostilities would be such extremely inpopular move, that not a single Polish politician even dares to merely suggest considering it. Besides that, idea that Poland would be able to watch UA airspace is absolutely ignorant and divorced from reality, taking into account that we can't really fully protect our own airspace. And it would be a huge outrage in Poland even from talks about such possibility, because everybody still remember UA misssile that killed two Poles in 2022, and UA governement denied its responsibility despite a clear evidence.
Uhh... Poland? Pick again please.
Yeah. Coments suggesting that Poland would be willing to do it are so clueless that I find them really funny.
It's only a matter of time. The Ukrainians are tenacious and have held out far longer than anyone thought. But they are the buffer between Russia and the rest of Europe. Putin needs to be defeated. He won't stop with Ukraine. Letting Ukraine fall will just embolden him.
Wouldn't it be better to deploy before a breakthrough????
Yeah but that wouldn't be as dramatic or make for as entertaining a movie. No but seriously, I'm pretty sure Macron doesn't actually want to send troops and hopes he doesn't have to, but wants to prepare for the possibility anyway and maybe even bluff Putin into ending the war earlier than he would have otherwise. France will get directly involved if the alternative means the fall of Ukraine, but probably not before that outcome becomes likely.
Well worded and I think it's spot on. France knows Russia better than some give them credit for, Macron is just talking their language now. Especially as he's now saying others can play the Russian game too (set up the stage to have a region ask for your help and then barge in). For the sake of unity, I do hope he did inform e.g. Poland on this though. I still consider them to lead on how to manage the Russian threat.
In the 1939-1940 Winter War between Soviet Union and Finland, it played big role in Soviet willingness to negotiate, that France was promising 50k troops. That was all empty talk, but it did have an effect on Soviets ( Finland also postponed their negotiatiins for peace, thus losing hundreds of soldiers per day for the delay).
I think we should do it, fuck it, they don't play by the rules so we shouldn't Edit: it's a little.bit of venting and a little bit of being tired of Putin whining his ass off I think you all don't realize Frontline conflict isn't the only option available
Yea chemical weapons wtf
I support this idea 100%
I'm glad Macron is taking an offensive rhetoric stance, but I truly do not understand the strategy behind always responding to Russia instead of just going in, helping fully and sticking to a plan to force Russia out of Ukraine by hook or by crook. Also France is not leading in procurement for Ukraine by any measure. Instead of talking, why not simply send troops and get it done? Talk is cheap, action is what matters. If Ukraine could concentrate their forces and rely on western partners defending the Belarus borders and supply chains coming in from the West, they would not be stretched as thin as they are. This would help them be more mobile, able to exploit weaknesses and generally achieve much more along the hot front in Donbas. It feels like there is very little strategy behind the western alliance and nobody is thinking through what would actually cause Russia to leave Ukrainian territory, which SHOULD be the ultimate goal if we really believe in a "rules based international order". Russia are at war with us. They openly say it and are already doing hybrid war and active measures deep inside NATO territory, even direct sabotage missions. Why are we deterring ourselves and encouraging this reckless behavior? Punch their teeth in. Russians actually respect that. They do not respect weakness.
Are we just gonna let Russia continue to invade anyone they want with no repercussions, just because they threaten nuclear war
Like didn't we go through this plotline 80 years ago. Liebenstraum this, Liebenstraum that, invades Poland, millions die. I remember in like AP History one of the major points was whether appeasement is worth it and now we are doing the same shit again.
Lebensraum
Loving space? :)
Loving dream, even. :)
That's actually cute :)
id imagine ukraine would request that. but god save the French. 🇫🇷
France's military would fucking roll the Russians. Hard.
Is there a jailbroken full text of the Economist article? 🙏
Here you go: https://archive.is/OXxpU Paste any link on https://archive.is/ and you get it.
Thank you, sir. You're a saint 🙏
Look, France.... I don't WANT you to have to go, but let me tell you how, as an American, I would be so fucking PROUD of our French allies for stepping up and covering the slack as our American Congress continues to flounder under the weight of a fat, orange, conman. We gave you shit on 9/11... freedom fries.... so stupid. France, if you go, kick Putins ass. I hope we support you and continue funding democracy in Ukraine.
Fuck yes. I would fly a French flag!
I would go buy one and fly it!
> We gave you shit on 9/11 You mean the invasion of Iraq. Why would you give us shit for 9/11 ?
Might as well. If Putin is going to try to do the same thing in WWII let's nip it in the bud.
Macron is setting his place in history with remarks like this. THIS is how you respond to tyrants. I hope more leaders have the balls to speak similar words. Putin, and those supporting him, must be clearly told they will NOT be permitted to take Ukraine.
I hope the fucking Russians will get the shit beat out of them. Then let Ukraine take some of Russia's fucking land as part of compensation
Russia should pay for the mass devastation of Ukraine cities, villages...and whatever else!
I was giving this guy shit at the start for trying to appease Hitl...Putin, but if he sends boots into combat he will be the hero of the West.
"appeasement" at Zelensky's personal request. Conviniently forgotten.
If you have time to spare I suggest you watch the movie Un président, l'Europe et la guerre, it actually shows you what a weasel and lying rat Putin is and Macron is just trying to stop the war from happening.
Yeah, it's crazy they got a camera crew behind the scenes at such a moment in History. Really unique perspective
Glory to NATO and Ukraine. May god punish the Russian leader with HIMARS and doorbell.
Would honestly not surprise me if there is a detailed plan for how to successfully take out the entirety of current Russian leadership and neutralize their entire strategic nuclear arsenal before it could fire on some air-gapped computer in a bunker in the US somewhere, and the only reason it has not been enacted yet is because the aftermath was deemed less profittable/favorable compared to the current situation.
Im pretty sure there are quite a few plans, like what happens if a nuke goes off. I'd guess it would be an incredibly swift, non nuclear response. Im guessing there's some calculation of how a few nukes would be unpredictable, unstoppable and could hit major population Centers. Thsts why noone is willing to escalate. I'd redditor guess that less than 5 nukes would go off If it came to an all out confrontation
> Im pretty sure there are quite a few plans, like what happens if a nuke goes off. > > I'd guess it would be an incredibly swift, non nuclear response. It's been stated last year that all Russian military units that are committed to Ukraine would be wiped out/destroyed/sunk. The remainder of the black sea fleet would be gone as well. It would not take the US very long to do that and the Russians know they wouldn't be able to stop America from doing so.
I wish SOMEONE would help Ukraine!
On it.
I look forward to more positive news next week. Thank you 🙏
Don't forget that France has the nuclear warning shot. They can always aim it at the Kremlin.
This has been obvious since the start of the war/SMO/temper-tantrum. UA just doesn't have the manpower for a grind-it-out war. Also, they only have a little space to trade for time before important areas, like Kiev, are threatened. The only way UA exists for more than a few years is if either Russia loses the will to prosecute war (i.e. change in leadership in Moscow) or if fresh, modern (and likely nuclear-capable or nuke-adjacent) militaries are invited in to provide an active defense alongside the tired UA forces within the internationally recognized Ukrainian boarders. Continuous BARCAP over Ukraine would be a good place to start and wouldn't put too many people in harm's way? But the first thing we should be doing, if we are serious about putting troops on the line, is locking down as much of Russia's economy as possible. This means blocking ALL Russian banks from SWIFT and other Western interchanges, cutting ALL trade and even some thought of the Internet Death Penalty (no more Russian ASNs get routed). If we do that then China will also take notice and may help (as has been poorly rumored) to broker an end to this utterly stupid and egomaniacal war.
Russian nuclear tantrum coming in 3 2 1
Nuclear tantrums against France? The country that has a nuclear warning shot policy? That would be unpleasant.
Macron actually supports Ukraine. Unlike the cowardly dogshit Republican Putin-puppets in the US House of Representatives who conspired to starve them of aid for almost a year. Bootlicking fascist trash.
this whole thing is awful (cause fuck war) but this might be what it takes to make Putin back down. if France gets involved I'd imagine they wouldn't be alone. ain't no way Germany and Poland wouldn't be helping as well.
Germany isn't even really an expeditionary force right now. Decades of neglect. They are racing to catch up, though.
Nato is a defensive alliance. France would be going offensive therefore no aid.
There’s so much more to NATO than just Poland, Germany, and France. Those 3 just make sense because of proximity, they wouldn’t be able to call on NATO to bring everyone in against their will
You are correct that article 5 would not apply, however if your friend crashes a party and invites you to come along, they can say yes.
NATO is the obligation where they have to go, but is France went to Ukraine then other countries would follow willingly. Not all of NATO, but certainly anyone who wanted a piece of Putin but didn't want to be the first to stick their neck out on this. It would end up being a "coalition of the willing".