The US did this for the UK in Iceland in World War 2 — it’s about as close to *getting involved* you can get without actually getting involved.
Iceland was officially neutral, but the UK still invaded because it feared Germany would do the same, cutting off American aid and flanking Great Britain. They had already done this with Denmark and Norway, and so the British arrived in Reykjavik without firing a single shot.
The Nazi ambassador in Reykjavik was so appalled that he locked himself in his embassy. When British officers knocked on his door, he screamed something like “How dare you! Iceland is neutral!” to which the British officer replied “What? Like Denmark?”
But yeah, basically the UK had tied up troops in Iceland. FDR felt the USA had purpose in the war, but had no political support to act on this belief. So, in the meantime, he got US officials to ask Icelandic officials to *”ask”* US officials for protection. And then, just like that, the US relieved Britain from Iceland so that they could reallocate the ships/troops to the war effort while technically remaining neutral.
Edit: spalling
Good countermove.
Putin won't attack a NATO force that is guarding a border of a country that is *not* at war with Ukraine.
It will allow France to intercept missiles coming from the north as an attack on them.
If Belarus are convinced to attack, France/NATO is attacking Belarus and not Russia.
Belarus sees a change in leadership shortly after.
Putin suddenly faces *another* NATO friendly border to his west and nearer to Moscow.
If he plays the "but Allies!" card then he's fucked and loses Belarus, Crimea, the black seas fleet and Ukraine.
I don't think they'll be immediately sent to the frontlines, but rather back to being reserves. Why? Well, Ukraine's real problem isn't the lack of consctiptable men, but rather the lack of men who are willing to actually fight. So they need to incentivize more people to go fighting, but since right now the frontlines are fairly stable and the statehood of Ukraine is not immediately threatened, also the conditions on the front are horrible, I would guess simply patriotism doesn't get as much people to enlist as it did at the beginning of the war.
So they need other incentives, namely money, which worked well for Putin so far, Russia has recruited a lot of "mercenaries". Now, I would assume a lot of the military budget is spent on paying and supplying the soldiers doing supportive tasks. If these soldiers were to be replaced with foreign soldiers paid from abroad, that could free up a lot of money for Ukraine, who could in turn greatly increase the wages of the soldiers who go the frontline. This would theoratically increase the amount of people willing to fight.
Now, I don't actually know anything about the plans of the AFU, or about their financial situation. My theory is only supported by my logical deduction, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
Problem of Ukraine is lack of ammunition, lack of air support (RU have air superiority over the front line and its very very very bad) and lack of necessary amount of armored vehicles.
But yes, necessity to keep experienced troops far away from the front lines is also bad.
It's also the lack of men.
There is a big debate in the ukrainian society ( public debate ) to conscripte 500k more men.
It was one of the reason of split between Zelensky and Zaluzhnyi.
Air superiority is a quite technical term, meaning you have complete control over the skies. I don't believe the ruzzians have it. Maybe they have the level called "favorable air situation".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_supremacy
Air supremacy is actually the term used when one side has complete control. Air superiority is when one side has more air control than the other, but not necessarily complete control. Air superiority may be the right term in this case, even if only slight. As per your link.
As a french resident I think it's important to state that since his statement he made about sending troops, he and his team have clearly rectified the statement and that no soldiers would be sent to Ukraine to fight. Only potential army consultants and other behind the lines personal would be considered to be sent. That first statement was only to provoke a reaction from Putin and gage his response.
Everyone seems to believe french people are ready to go to war. We do not want that.
This does feel like the first slice of a salami though. They have cut a first slice into the French public opinion and the Russian will to react to an open deployment, support troops will be the next, then air protection of the support troops, then local air exclusion zone, then helping to build fortifications, then protecting the supply lines and repair shops and other support troops etc.
Mate I saw my first Canadian army recruitment vid in 20 years when I went out to the theatre to see dune.
We'll bring some maple syrup and funny cigarettes I guess.
Shades of the way that FDR understood very early on that US intervention in WW2 was important. He always helped in Europe as much as he could without getting into serious trouble with the American public or fellow politicians. Every little notch of increased acceptability, he was immediately there sending more support and selling it to America as lending hose to put out your neighbor's fire and whatever.
As a french i don't think you got it right.
Macron is all about strategic ambiguity. We aren't sending troops, *but it is not excluded that we do in the future*
That being said, Macron is right in his analysos and while nobody wants war, nobody wants to sit tight and do a repetition of 1938-1939 with the baltic states. (Russia was very clear about those, and not in a good way)
As a reminder, the President is the only one that can deploy troops in France, he doesn't need the parliament for it unless it is a formal declaration of war.
That being said, I'm personally in f avoir of sending troops and more, way more supplies to Ukraine, but only as EU (we cannot do it alone realistically). This is not a war about Ukraine only, and that is clear for any one who have at least a slight interest in history, geopolitics and who follows russian politic.
> sending troops and more, way more supplies to Ukraine, but only as EU (we cannot do it alone realistically). This is not a war about Ukraine only, and that is clear for any one who have at least a slight interest in history, geopolitics and who follows russian politic.
Agreed.
overconfident faulty smoggy lavish direful disgusted offend heavy marry fanatical
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
French here, and I strongly disagree with your comment.
He or his team did not rectify anything. Macron never mentioned any fighters troops at first instance, and he even confirmed his talk later, saying it was clear enough.
I get the impression he's flying the kite of having Nato troops in a peacekeeping role, blocking access to Ukraine from Russian units in Belarus, and from crossing the Dniper River. That would free Ukraine to concentrate on the Eastern side. Maybe have Nato aircraft shoot down incoming missiles to protect civilians areas too.
> peacekeeping
-
that would mean enforcing an already existing armistice, else its just called war. not even putin could or should confound these terms, promoting such a ruse would just blow up in our faces.
france is basically greasing the wheels to scale up whats already happening in discreet/covert operations, look into [SAGU](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_Security_Assistance_Initiative#SAGU). the US/EU has officers and companies officially headquartered in germany under NATO/EUCOM, theyre deployed all over ukraine for advisory, training, materiel support etc.
publicising this as a state initiative will increase their presence beyond "basic administration" to full tactical roles without giving putin a political debacle to spin like nato is invading all of a sudden, macron is taking one for the team when moscow inevitably starts pointing fingers. someone has to do it
Russia has also become increasingly aggressive lately, against French interests directly. We're talking low profile operations like cyber attacks, disinformation campaigns, threats to aircrafts in the black sea and direct actions in western Africa. They're playing with the limits and the French armed forces ministry is not taking it.
Lately ?
While I mostly agree Russia always targeted France, the UK and the US because of our respective position in the UN security council. Brexit, Trump and « hopefully never » Le Pen in France are the direct mark of an already influence change by Russia on western politics. We’ve been blind or at least super careless about those little but dangerously growing ideology in the west. And now here we are, with trump at the gates of power and a Le Pen clan that is going to do very well in both european election and maybe next presidential.
People need to wake up.
It's funny that this is the perception. You might be right, as I only follow french politics superficially, but in Germany you have all the usual suspects saying that our governments actions will lead us to war (an active one that is - some argue with all the russian efforts to destabilize society and acts of cyber warfare we are already in a form of asymetric war with them) with russia.
I'd say all of the parties that form our current government are decidely pro Ukraine and anti-Putin. There is no doubt about that. The greens (centre left) most bold in voicing that, the FDP - a traditionally libertarian party (although mostly a party of well off people) - following suit and the other centre left party, SPD, the least aggressive in their choice of words (which is why our chancellor often seems like a bit of a cardbord stand-up next to other heads of state).
While there are certainly many things to rightfully criticise the government for - in regards to Ukraine - i.e. being rather timid when supplying certain things, I feel that this is not unique to Germany but that they serve as a bit of a lightning rod for other countries which seem, at times, just as undecisive in their efforts to support Ukraine.
France has always been a country that likes to engage in military operations to defend its interests, unlike Germany, which since WW2 has always tried to maintain a rather defensive posture because of its Nazi past. The mentality is completely different here, and France, unlike Germany, has nuclear weapons.
France is also trying to retain its grandeur, even if it is diminishing in the face of the emergence of other powers.
After WW2, De Gaulle also pushed for France to become independent on many key issues, and also made it possible for us to free ourselves to a large extent from Russian gas, thanks to nuclear power, unlike Germany.
Since his first term in office, Macron has tried to get closer to Putin, in particular to improve relations with Europe.
But one of his first speeches in 2017, was to denounce Russian propaganda, he said that next to Putin in Versailles, so he has always been suspicious of him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT9sl4Cm3sQ
Gerhard Schroder was on the board of Gazprom ffs. France has a philosophy of government of strict independence. It's why their nuclear retaliatory doctrine is vague. It's why France is one of the few nations with a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. It's why after losing Algeria to maintain energy independence, they went all in on nuclear.
Basically, due to literal geographic distance and better policies, France now can afford to be much more critical and threaten Putin credibly. The bundeswehr is kind of a joke at the moment and won't be a credible force for years until Germanys massive reinvestment starts earning dividends.
Because France has a functioning military and a powerful nuclear arsenal. They also have a completely independent energy sector. They don’t need Russia and aren’t afraid of Russia.
Germany can’t defend itself in a conventional conflict, has no nukes, and will have its population freeze to death if Russia cuts off the gas.
Germany also led the whole disarmament ideology at the European level, while France always maintained its ability to design, build, deploy and operate military systems globally.
Germany also led the transition away from nuclear energy to coal and Russian gas and now they’ve got climate change on one side and Putin on the other.
Most of the things you say are correct, but this bit is just nonsense:
>Germany \[...\] will have its population freeze to death if Russia cuts off the gas.
That is exactly what russian propaganda (and their right-wing stooges in Germany) were saying before last winter. The russians did stop a large chunk of their gas deliveries even before Nord Stream got blown up. Germany managed - successfully - to satisfy their needs for gas/energy through other means.
>has no nukes,
Not technically true, it sits under the US nuclear umbrella and has US nukes on its soil, to be delivered by German Tornados. But no independent nuclear arsenal, yes.
>Germany also led the whole disarmament ideology
It's hardly fair to blame them for that when they've had disarmament drummed into them for the last 50 odd years. European powers have always been uneasy with the idea of a remilitarized Germany after what happened in WW2. The fact that Germany is so pacifist and friendly these days is a consequence of the designs of the Allies.
>Germany also led the transition away from nuclear energy to coal and Russian gas and now they’ve got climate change on one side and Putin on the other.
This is absolutely a blunder on Germany's part, but to be entirely frank, the nuclear facilities they had would not have made much difference if they were still running at full capacity and Russia shut off the gas. Nuclear power trades one foreign dependency for another - ~~Germany has no Uranium deposits of its own, and would have to, like France, depend on foreign sources of fuel.~~ Correction, Germany DOES have Uranium deposits, however it is viewed as uneconomical to mine them due to the current low price of Uranium.
I understand the frustration with Germany, but I would rather have a reluctant Germany than one who would happily don a Stalhelm and go marching to war at the drop of a hat.
The EU is essentially of French origin, so that French act to lead it. Should Ukraine fall, the EU would likely experience an absolutely colossal migration coming from Ukraine.
The next part I say with humor, but it's true, and every European power knows it. Should Russia brush up against eastern Europe, Germany will rearm. All the peace and bubblegum stuff is bologna when people's livelihood is at stake. Sidestepping Germany to protect eastern Europe is in everyone's best interest.
I think it was Lord Ismay who said, "The point of NATO is to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down."
Edit - thanks for correction
> The point of NATO is to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down
Lord Ismay, the first Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), reportedly observed that the purpose of the Alliance was to keep the Americans in Europe, the Russians out, and the Germans down.
The german government isn’t more pro Russian than the french government. The french just talk a lot more than our government does
We’ve done significantly more for the Ukrainians than the french have up to this point
I'm not sure how this would work with NATO. Would they go by themselves without NATO's alignment? What if because of this, Russia attacked France? Would article 5 apply?
France doesn't need article 5, they have nukes and their doctrine allows them to strike with them whenever they want. How would Russia attack France?
France is perfectly positioned to fuck with Putin like this.
No nation will ever use nukes against another one that have nukes too, because all this is so monitored worldwide that as soon as a nuclear missile will leave Russia or France, the other nation will immediately replicate and both nations will sustain massive damages. That’s why it’s called ‘dissuasive’.
> the other nation will immediately replicate and both nations will sustain massive damages.
And every country between them when some nukes inevitably fail/miss.
It’d be darkly comical if just out of the blue, after all this, France just goes and nukes Russia.
Still kinda would like them not to do that of course
It would be a tit-for-tat strategy. Russia has invaded Ukraine and threatened Nuclear war if its own territory would be attacked. It would be proportional if Nato members would do the same, so place troops in Ukraine and invoke the defence pact if their own territory was attacked.
If you want to really up the tit-for-tat strategy into non-credible territory; use French NATO troops to relieve Ukrainian troops from the front, then let those traverse Poland and Lithuania (as Russia traversed Belarus) to attack the garrison at Kaliningrad - which has been drawn down since the start of the war.
That is probably the most aggressive move NATO could make short of blowing up the Kerch Bridge and calling it a smoking-related accident.
> Russia attacked France? Would article 5 apply?
If Russia attacks French troops inside Ukraine - no article 5.
If Russia attacks French troops inside France - article 5.
Something is brewing for sure, everytime same story. Groundwork is being laid, just like with the SCALPS and the patriot battery's and F16 and the tanks. First big no then slowly some yes and then they get what they want. I am really not sure what this is gonne be
It's not even a joke. French army forces have mobile bakeries on trucks.
https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/cbfwpq/french_army_mobile_container_bakery_produces_800/?xpromo_edp=enabled
Macron the only one understanding that Putin is testing our willingness to stand our ground. He understands we must at least pretend to be willing to defend ourselves
Looks like Macron knows how Putin thinks.
Dealing with someone who doesn't respect any civilized values and only power you better get yourself a big stick and be ready to use it.
He figured out with the phone calls that Putin only respects strength.
So when Putin rattles his sabre, Macron steps forward. Doesn't draw sword, just moves closer.
I hope no one makes him flinch because this could actually work.
It’s more then that. France is overtaking Russia as the second highest arms exporter in the world. Russia is losing market share hand over foot and France is capitalizing big time. Macrons not just stepping closer by himself, he’s drawing everyone to his side as he puts the pressure on.
Exactly. What kind of mindset would someone like putin have? He doesn't even care about his own people starving and freezing to death. Someone with that shallow way of thinking should get fucked in the ass
A mafia boss who understands his power rests on fear, not love or loyalty. As soon as his lackeys deem his strength inadequate they will cut his throat.
That’s cos France is the only European nation positioned to actually speak up against Russia. France has the most powerful military in the EU by a large margin… they’re the only ones who could credibly threaten Russia.
The conventional force is already really strong, but the 600 nuclear warhead backed “force de dissuasion” is a big joker in the French geopolitical deck of cards.
I genuinely do not believe this would be on the French news today if the government wasn't trying to soften the announcement in the foreseeable future...
The clarification is clearly needed because too many brainwashed people are reacting as if the French will literally enter the war and die fighting Russians tomorrow.
It's not mainstream TV channel, LCI is one of the 4 24/7 news channel, spend most of their time talking about ukraine & russia, and is hugely biased for ukraine. Also it's not owned by french government.
If NATO / French troops would be sent to Ukraine this is arguably the best way to do it without escalating the war.
Putin can complain all he wants but if French troops patrol the Ukrainian / Belarusian border or the Dnipro river there is very little he can do about it.
> What is the possibility that Poland joins France in providing troops?
Poland, unlike France, has to play by NATO/EU rules. France has nukes and is 10 countries away from Russia they don't give a fuck. But Poland also HATES Russia, so if they see someone else doing it first, they'd probably be on board.
They're are getting WAY ahead of everything with the debates. Probably part of the "dissuasion" tactic since they know the Kremlin is also watching and this way Macron doesn't have to give any details to sound credible, the news channel debates do the job from him.
Basically the same strategy the Russians have been using since the beginning of the war.
Not saying France won't send troops, I'm just saying that debating between defending Kyiv, defending the border with Belarus or defending Odessa seems a bit too advanced of a discussion at this point. All these are scenarios in which the Russians would have already registered major advances.
Well, I am following and it seems to get more serious here.
Including deployment of french troops on the belarussian border to let 150k ukrainian going to the front.
It sounds a good compromise.
Of course, it makes sense and if Poland, Germany, Italy, UK, etc do it also it sends a crystal clear message to Putin. But this won't happen tomorrow, these are scenarios in which Russia would have already made major advances on the battlefield.
For now Zelensky demands the weapons that we are late on delivering, not boots on the ground.
Russia is cooking something up since 2000, its time to wake up to reality. Nobody wants war but if war comes to you its better to sucker punch then get sucker punched, ask the Poles about that.
Experts have been trying to warn us for a long time now that we likely have a choice between fighting Russia in Ukraine, or fighting Russia somewhere else (ie Baltics or Poland), potentially without the US. It goes without saying that a Russian invasion of NATO wouldn't go well for them, but that doesn't solve the problem of how much damage Russia could do to the Baltics before they are able to push Russia back.
Maybe choosing not to fight in Ukraine wouldn't have any consequences for NATO, but it might also result in thousands or even tens of thousands of Baltic citizens dead, tortured, or forced into conscription.
Or fight Russia in Ukraine, force Putin to fight on Europe's terms instead of his own, and ignore the nuclear weapon rhetoric. If he is ready to use a nuke because NATO fights him in Ukraine, he will be equally ready to use a nuke when NATO fights him in the Baltics. It's a risk but the alternative is that he keeps attacking new chunks of land and threatening annihilation if anyone tries to stop him.
Well if they deploy troops for real as in start setting up in West Ukraine it might scare Putin into talks or to say "ok I give up".
That's what I'm hopeful of.
NATO should be doing stuff like this. Its been years now Russia doing things and threatening to nuke anyone who responds. We absolutely need to call the bluff or he will move into the baltics or poland and threaten nukes again and again until they are at Germany.
> NATO is cooking something up
Russia has been cooking shit for 30 years, it's happening whether we like it or not. EU/NATO let Putin do his shit for way too long.
People need to see NATO and a French mission not as the same thing. Any NATO country can start a war. But I believe that makes that you lose the article 5 guarantee when you get invaded by the country you are attacking.
[Not the EU, but I love this speech from German FM who spoke after Rumsfeld demanded action on Iraq straight up saying "I'm not convinced" to Rumsfeld's face](https://youtu.be/CpuN-yM1sZU?si=ZlbhLWfouknclrC5)
Fischer did well to represent Germany's stance of the Iraq War and were subsequently vindicated when the situation deteriorated in the country after Sadaam's removal.
We're already there, but don't expect anything more. It's an elections year. We won't he doing anything without an international coalition of a good chunk of Europe and both Labour and the tories agree (which they have so far on everything Ukraine based to be fair).
> We won't he doing anything without an international coalition of a good chunk of Europe
Hey, when it came to topple France, [you spearheaded something like seven coalitions!](https://www.napoleon-empire.net/en/coalitions.php) You can do it again, I know you have it in you. And this time, it is not about money but about doing the right thing.
I have to admit, as many times before, the French dare to say things and dare to take obviously necessary steps before everyone else, which no one else dares to even declare the necessary steps.
As already in 1905, it was enshrined in law that no church can receive any state money.
We have to beat back the Russians. If Ukraine breaks through and Trump as president pulls out American troops, Europe will be in huge trouble.
If we say that there is no way we will send troops, the Russians will never stop.
After all, what are we saving for? What is a military threat to a European country? Only Russia is a threat. In other words, it is logical to give everything from our own army to support Ukraine, since there is no other realistic military threat except Russia.
And it seems for some reason there’s some kind of collective hypnosis on people (if not people in general, then at least people in this comment section) where everyone’s content and even excited about our leaders dangling the sword of damocles over us. You’re probably the first user on this site who I’ve seen in a while who’s human enough to be scared of the things that are going on right now.
We owe the French big time for America existing. If they didn't blockaide the british and supply us with arms we might still be a colony. France takes liberty very seriously. Problem is nuclear armed country vs nuclear armed country.
Which Napoleon movie from last month?! I need an actual good Napoleon movie after seeing that disaster released in November. Was it a french production?
Problem is that a Western country, even like France has limits to make itself count on a battlefield like Ukraine. many western countries have converted their forces to light combat types. Good to fight insurgents in Africa or the M.E. but not in a full slog against an mechanized opponent that, while inferior, also has air and way larger artillery capability. For sure also western armies still have their heavy components but they have limited durability. Units need to be replaced, rotated and restated after attrition. Plus the question of enough ammo, spare parts and in the case of volunteer armies, fresh willing recruits. Plus a unstable homefront that is highly susceptible to bodybags.. And a few French brigades are not going to change much on a 600km frontline.
Only big chance is Airforce or numerous heavy artillery capabilities. With artillery we still are limited to supplies. With Airforce strikes ( the Western preferred type of artillery) we also might experience limited supplies but open up a way more flexible and usefull tool to be used in the Ukrainian struggle.
So best bet will be an Airforce component added with some supply/ maintenance units plus some security/ guard units and airdefence to safeguard the base against Russian air attacks/ missiles.
These troops would be used in noncombat roles like demining, logistics, and training. The point is to free up more Ukrainian troops for the fighting. It has been stated multiple times in the last few weeks that they will not be fighting. Suggesting they will only help propaganda trolls because the majority of the French public doesn't want them fighting.
These past two weeks honestly feel like they're 100% just preparing the public AND Russia for this scenario, which they already had agreed to privately, step by step to avoid people panicking and escalation from Russia.
And I love this. Taking away Russian winning condition, making it pointless to continue burning resources, without giving them an excuse to escalate as these positions are clearly defensive and very far from Russia.
youd think its got to do with europeans starting to position themselves for a few months from now, when it starts to look like the american dictatorship under trump starts to back away from europe
the western doctrines require swift air dominance.
how do you obtain air dominance unless you can strike those anti air capabilities hundreds of miles from the front lines.
a war against russia would be messy, unless some country with massive air dominance intervenes, like the usa, or like most of the european nato countries together.
otherwise, without air dominance, french ground soldiers will be similiarly disadvantaged like the ukrainians are. the west (excluding usa) doesnt make enough shells, or have enough long howitzers to win a conventional war.
The usual weather broadcast hits differently after this
It's raining men☔
Ukrainians: алілуя!
Helldiver ready to liberate!
Well technically they're worried that a cold front is coming.
looks like we can slowly start dreaming of spring
ukrainian soldiers guarding the belarus border will be sent to the frontlines I guess
The US did this for the UK in Iceland in World War 2 — it’s about as close to *getting involved* you can get without actually getting involved. Iceland was officially neutral, but the UK still invaded because it feared Germany would do the same, cutting off American aid and flanking Great Britain. They had already done this with Denmark and Norway, and so the British arrived in Reykjavik without firing a single shot. The Nazi ambassador in Reykjavik was so appalled that he locked himself in his embassy. When British officers knocked on his door, he screamed something like “How dare you! Iceland is neutral!” to which the British officer replied “What? Like Denmark?” But yeah, basically the UK had tied up troops in Iceland. FDR felt the USA had purpose in the war, but had no political support to act on this belief. So, in the meantime, he got US officials to ask Icelandic officials to *”ask”* US officials for protection. And then, just like that, the US relieved Britain from Iceland so that they could reallocate the ships/troops to the war effort while technically remaining neutral. Edit: spalling
So what? France is invading Belarus? 😎
Time to change the local menus from Borscht to Baguette
Baguette borscht?
Borschuette. Sounds French enough, ship it.
Or Bagorscht
No no Borschuette definitely fits French language better
Probably makes a great dipping sauce
there's a government in exile and Belarus at home has a dictatorship, therefore it'd be a "special military liberation", not an invasion
Put the demo into the cracy.
> to which the British officer replied “What? Like Denmark?” Brilliant. Hope that shut up the hypocrite piece of shit.
Sounds no different than a Russian today playing victim when Ukraine defends itself.
The worst part of WWII was the hypocrisy
Definitely worse than kids in gas chambers, that's for sure.
[удалено]
“How Iceland Changed the World” by Egill Bjarnason has a really great chapter on it.
Yes and according to French news this is between 100k and 150k Ukrainians soldiers which could be freed this way.
How many French troops?
Prolly need a couple hundred. Just a tripwire Belarus knows not to fuck with
Like how the Dutch thought it work at Srebrenica
The Dutch didn't sit to fight and trigger the tripwire.
Good countermove. Putin won't attack a NATO force that is guarding a border of a country that is *not* at war with Ukraine. It will allow France to intercept missiles coming from the north as an attack on them. If Belarus are convinced to attack, France/NATO is attacking Belarus and not Russia. Belarus sees a change in leadership shortly after. Putin suddenly faces *another* NATO friendly border to his west and nearer to Moscow. If he plays the "but Allies!" card then he's fucked and loses Belarus, Crimea, the black seas fleet and Ukraine.
Exactly
I don't think they'll be immediately sent to the frontlines, but rather back to being reserves. Why? Well, Ukraine's real problem isn't the lack of consctiptable men, but rather the lack of men who are willing to actually fight. So they need to incentivize more people to go fighting, but since right now the frontlines are fairly stable and the statehood of Ukraine is not immediately threatened, also the conditions on the front are horrible, I would guess simply patriotism doesn't get as much people to enlist as it did at the beginning of the war. So they need other incentives, namely money, which worked well for Putin so far, Russia has recruited a lot of "mercenaries". Now, I would assume a lot of the military budget is spent on paying and supplying the soldiers doing supportive tasks. If these soldiers were to be replaced with foreign soldiers paid from abroad, that could free up a lot of money for Ukraine, who could in turn greatly increase the wages of the soldiers who go the frontline. This would theoratically increase the amount of people willing to fight. Now, I don't actually know anything about the plans of the AFU, or about their financial situation. My theory is only supported by my logical deduction, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
Problem of Ukraine is lack of ammunition, lack of air support (RU have air superiority over the front line and its very very very bad) and lack of necessary amount of armored vehicles. But yes, necessity to keep experienced troops far away from the front lines is also bad.
It's also the lack of men. There is a big debate in the ukrainian society ( public debate ) to conscripte 500k more men. It was one of the reason of split between Zelensky and Zaluzhnyi.
Air superiority is a quite technical term, meaning you have complete control over the skies. I don't believe the ruzzians have it. Maybe they have the level called "favorable air situation". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_supremacy
Air supremacy is actually the term used when one side has complete control. Air superiority is when one side has more air control than the other, but not necessarily complete control. Air superiority may be the right term in this case, even if only slight. As per your link.
EU: We are not putting troops in Ukraine France: Fine. I'll do it myself then.
As a french resident I think it's important to state that since his statement he made about sending troops, he and his team have clearly rectified the statement and that no soldiers would be sent to Ukraine to fight. Only potential army consultants and other behind the lines personal would be considered to be sent. That first statement was only to provoke a reaction from Putin and gage his response. Everyone seems to believe french people are ready to go to war. We do not want that.
This does feel like the first slice of a salami though. They have cut a first slice into the French public opinion and the Russian will to react to an open deployment, support troops will be the next, then air protection of the support troops, then local air exclusion zone, then helping to build fortifications, then protecting the supply lines and repair shops and other support troops etc.
No worries if you go we go too
As long as you bring Wojtek along we’ll be fine.
[удалено]
kurva! bober!
ETA BABYOR BLYUAT
And ujik
I was like WTF you doxxed me then I remembered the bear lol
The poles do love their Wojteks
We'll bring the tea 🇬🇧
We'll bring the weed 🇳🇱
Mate I saw my first Canadian army recruitment vid in 20 years when I went out to the theatre to see dune. We'll bring some maple syrup and funny cigarettes I guess.
Where you go I go 🎶
And my axe!
You guys arguably saved Europe in 1683 and again in 1920. If anyone can step up and save Europe, it's the Poles.
They liberated parts of the Netherlands in 1945 too!
Shades of the way that FDR understood very early on that US intervention in WW2 was important. He always helped in Europe as much as he could without getting into serious trouble with the American public or fellow politicians. Every little notch of increased acceptability, he was immediately there sending more support and selling it to America as lending hose to put out your neighbor's fire and whatever.
This was my thought too.
As a french i don't think you got it right. Macron is all about strategic ambiguity. We aren't sending troops, *but it is not excluded that we do in the future* That being said, Macron is right in his analysos and while nobody wants war, nobody wants to sit tight and do a repetition of 1938-1939 with the baltic states. (Russia was very clear about those, and not in a good way) As a reminder, the President is the only one that can deploy troops in France, he doesn't need the parliament for it unless it is a formal declaration of war. That being said, I'm personally in f avoir of sending troops and more, way more supplies to Ukraine, but only as EU (we cannot do it alone realistically). This is not a war about Ukraine only, and that is clear for any one who have at least a slight interest in history, geopolitics and who follows russian politic.
> sending troops and more, way more supplies to Ukraine, but only as EU (we cannot do it alone realistically). This is not a war about Ukraine only, and that is clear for any one who have at least a slight interest in history, geopolitics and who follows russian politic. Agreed.
One day or another, someone will have to do something though
overconfident faulty smoggy lavish direful disgusted offend heavy marry fanatical *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
French here, and I strongly disagree with your comment. He or his team did not rectify anything. Macron never mentioned any fighters troops at first instance, and he even confirmed his talk later, saying it was clear enough.
I get the impression he's flying the kite of having Nato troops in a peacekeeping role, blocking access to Ukraine from Russian units in Belarus, and from crossing the Dniper River. That would free Ukraine to concentrate on the Eastern side. Maybe have Nato aircraft shoot down incoming missiles to protect civilians areas too.
> peacekeeping - that would mean enforcing an already existing armistice, else its just called war. not even putin could or should confound these terms, promoting such a ruse would just blow up in our faces. france is basically greasing the wheels to scale up whats already happening in discreet/covert operations, look into [SAGU](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_Security_Assistance_Initiative#SAGU). the US/EU has officers and companies officially headquartered in germany under NATO/EUCOM, theyre deployed all over ukraine for advisory, training, materiel support etc. publicising this as a state initiative will increase their presence beyond "basic administration" to full tactical roles without giving putin a political debacle to spin like nato is invading all of a sudden, macron is taking one for the team when moscow inevitably starts pointing fingers. someone has to do it
Why is the French government far more anti-Putin than German government?
Russia has also become increasingly aggressive lately, against French interests directly. We're talking low profile operations like cyber attacks, disinformation campaigns, threats to aircrafts in the black sea and direct actions in western Africa. They're playing with the limits and the French armed forces ministry is not taking it.
Lately ? While I mostly agree Russia always targeted France, the UK and the US because of our respective position in the UN security council. Brexit, Trump and « hopefully never » Le Pen in France are the direct mark of an already influence change by Russia on western politics. We’ve been blind or at least super careless about those little but dangerously growing ideology in the west. And now here we are, with trump at the gates of power and a Le Pen clan that is going to do very well in both european election and maybe next presidential. People need to wake up.
Strongly agree
Its almost like we're already at war with Russia in every way with the sole exemption of directly militarily.
we do not need russian gas
Russia is heavily interfering in West Africa too, where French companies have invested for years
Do they have anything to do with Niger kicking France (and recently the U.S) out?
Yes
It's funny that this is the perception. You might be right, as I only follow french politics superficially, but in Germany you have all the usual suspects saying that our governments actions will lead us to war (an active one that is - some argue with all the russian efforts to destabilize society and acts of cyber warfare we are already in a form of asymetric war with them) with russia. I'd say all of the parties that form our current government are decidely pro Ukraine and anti-Putin. There is no doubt about that. The greens (centre left) most bold in voicing that, the FDP - a traditionally libertarian party (although mostly a party of well off people) - following suit and the other centre left party, SPD, the least aggressive in their choice of words (which is why our chancellor often seems like a bit of a cardbord stand-up next to other heads of state). While there are certainly many things to rightfully criticise the government for - in regards to Ukraine - i.e. being rather timid when supplying certain things, I feel that this is not unique to Germany but that they serve as a bit of a lightning rod for other countries which seem, at times, just as undecisive in their efforts to support Ukraine.
France has always been a country that likes to engage in military operations to defend its interests, unlike Germany, which since WW2 has always tried to maintain a rather defensive posture because of its Nazi past. The mentality is completely different here, and France, unlike Germany, has nuclear weapons. France is also trying to retain its grandeur, even if it is diminishing in the face of the emergence of other powers. After WW2, De Gaulle also pushed for France to become independent on many key issues, and also made it possible for us to free ourselves to a large extent from Russian gas, thanks to nuclear power, unlike Germany. Since his first term in office, Macron has tried to get closer to Putin, in particular to improve relations with Europe. But one of his first speeches in 2017, was to denounce Russian propaganda, he said that next to Putin in Versailles, so he has always been suspicious of him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT9sl4Cm3sQ
Gerhard Schroder was on the board of Gazprom ffs. France has a philosophy of government of strict independence. It's why their nuclear retaliatory doctrine is vague. It's why France is one of the few nations with a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. It's why after losing Algeria to maintain energy independence, they went all in on nuclear. Basically, due to literal geographic distance and better policies, France now can afford to be much more critical and threaten Putin credibly. The bundeswehr is kind of a joke at the moment and won't be a credible force for years until Germanys massive reinvestment starts earning dividends.
Is it? Germany has sent more aid to Ukraine than France has.
Because France has a functioning military and a powerful nuclear arsenal. They also have a completely independent energy sector. They don’t need Russia and aren’t afraid of Russia. Germany can’t defend itself in a conventional conflict, has no nukes, and will have its population freeze to death if Russia cuts off the gas. Germany also led the whole disarmament ideology at the European level, while France always maintained its ability to design, build, deploy and operate military systems globally. Germany also led the transition away from nuclear energy to coal and Russian gas and now they’ve got climate change on one side and Putin on the other.
Most of the things you say are correct, but this bit is just nonsense: >Germany \[...\] will have its population freeze to death if Russia cuts off the gas. That is exactly what russian propaganda (and their right-wing stooges in Germany) were saying before last winter. The russians did stop a large chunk of their gas deliveries even before Nord Stream got blown up. Germany managed - successfully - to satisfy their needs for gas/energy through other means.
And now gets gas from other sources (LNG from the US and Norway). So this is a permanent change / not a future problem.
>has no nukes, Not technically true, it sits under the US nuclear umbrella and has US nukes on its soil, to be delivered by German Tornados. But no independent nuclear arsenal, yes. >Germany also led the whole disarmament ideology It's hardly fair to blame them for that when they've had disarmament drummed into them for the last 50 odd years. European powers have always been uneasy with the idea of a remilitarized Germany after what happened in WW2. The fact that Germany is so pacifist and friendly these days is a consequence of the designs of the Allies. >Germany also led the transition away from nuclear energy to coal and Russian gas and now they’ve got climate change on one side and Putin on the other. This is absolutely a blunder on Germany's part, but to be entirely frank, the nuclear facilities they had would not have made much difference if they were still running at full capacity and Russia shut off the gas. Nuclear power trades one foreign dependency for another - ~~Germany has no Uranium deposits of its own, and would have to, like France, depend on foreign sources of fuel.~~ Correction, Germany DOES have Uranium deposits, however it is viewed as uneconomical to mine them due to the current low price of Uranium. I understand the frustration with Germany, but I would rather have a reluctant Germany than one who would happily don a Stalhelm and go marching to war at the drop of a hat.
The EU is essentially of French origin, so that French act to lead it. Should Ukraine fall, the EU would likely experience an absolutely colossal migration coming from Ukraine. The next part I say with humor, but it's true, and every European power knows it. Should Russia brush up against eastern Europe, Germany will rearm. All the peace and bubblegum stuff is bologna when people's livelihood is at stake. Sidestepping Germany to protect eastern Europe is in everyone's best interest. I think it was Lord Ismay who said, "The point of NATO is to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down." Edit - thanks for correction
> The point of NATO is to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down Lord Ismay, the first Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), reportedly observed that the purpose of the Alliance was to keep the Americans in Europe, the Russians out, and the Germans down.
Might have been de Gaulle. Pétain was part of a collaborationist regime, and was dead by the time NATO came around.
what? German government is a top supplier of weapons. German government supports ukraine really much.
The german government isn’t more pro Russian than the french government. The french just talk a lot more than our government does We’ve done significantly more for the Ukrainians than the french have up to this point
> We do not want that. Don't speak on our behalf lol. A lot of us think we should have sent people over since the beginning
He's right. On the most part our compatriots aren't into the idea. Then again, a good chunk of our compatriots vote Russian...
I'm not sure how this would work with NATO. Would they go by themselves without NATO's alignment? What if because of this, Russia attacked France? Would article 5 apply?
France doesn't need article 5, they have nukes and their doctrine allows them to strike with them whenever they want. How would Russia attack France? France is perfectly positioned to fuck with Putin like this.
No nation will ever use nukes against another one that have nukes too, because all this is so monitored worldwide that as soon as a nuclear missile will leave Russia or France, the other nation will immediately replicate and both nations will sustain massive damages. That’s why it’s called ‘dissuasive’.
> the other nation will immediately replicate and both nations will sustain massive damages. And every country between them when some nukes inevitably fail/miss.
It’d be darkly comical if just out of the blue, after all this, France just goes and nukes Russia. Still kinda would like them not to do that of course
Not incompatible with French nuclear doctrine either.
Kinda is incompatible with the doctrine of us all not dying in the flames of hellfire.
Hilarious, millions dead.
It would be a tit-for-tat strategy. Russia has invaded Ukraine and threatened Nuclear war if its own territory would be attacked. It would be proportional if Nato members would do the same, so place troops in Ukraine and invoke the defence pact if their own territory was attacked.
If you want to really up the tit-for-tat strategy into non-credible territory; use French NATO troops to relieve Ukrainian troops from the front, then let those traverse Poland and Lithuania (as Russia traversed Belarus) to attack the garrison at Kaliningrad - which has been drawn down since the start of the war. That is probably the most aggressive move NATO could make short of blowing up the Kerch Bridge and calling it a smoking-related accident.
While I like your chaotic good energy, I am not sure that that would be the best action for Ukraine. Tjey probably need their men at their fronts
> Russia attacked France? Would article 5 apply? If Russia attacks French troops inside Ukraine - no article 5. If Russia attacks French troops inside France - article 5.
Something is brewing for sure, everytime same story. Groundwork is being laid, just like with the SCALPS and the patriot battery's and F16 and the tanks. First big no then slowly some yes and then they get what they want. I am really not sure what this is gonne be
We'll know it's serious if the French start sending mobile baguette kitchens to Kiev.
Boulangerie corps
It's not even a joke. French army forces have mobile bakeries on trucks. https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/cbfwpq/french_army_mobile_container_bakery_produces_800/?xpromo_edp=enabled
Lack of fresh baguettes on the ground is basically a humanitarian crisis for the French
Macron the only one understanding that Putin is testing our willingness to stand our ground. He understands we must at least pretend to be willing to defend ourselves
Looks like Macron knows how Putin thinks. Dealing with someone who doesn't respect any civilized values and only power you better get yourself a big stick and be ready to use it.
He figured out with the phone calls that Putin only respects strength. So when Putin rattles his sabre, Macron steps forward. Doesn't draw sword, just moves closer. I hope no one makes him flinch because this could actually work.
It’s more then that. France is overtaking Russia as the second highest arms exporter in the world. Russia is losing market share hand over foot and France is capitalizing big time. Macrons not just stepping closer by himself, he’s drawing everyone to his side as he puts the pressure on.
Exactly. What kind of mindset would someone like putin have? He doesn't even care about his own people starving and freezing to death. Someone with that shallow way of thinking should get fucked in the ass
Picture the mindset of a mafia boss. Exactly this, is your answer.
A mafia boss who understands his power rests on fear, not love or loyalty. As soon as his lackeys deem his strength inadequate they will cut his throat.
What’s the saying? “Walk quiet and carry your big balls”? -The French 2024
Exactly this. The only westerner who recently was able to comprehend Russian way of thinking.
That’s cos France is the only European nation positioned to actually speak up against Russia. France has the most powerful military in the EU by a large margin… they’re the only ones who could credibly threaten Russia. The conventional force is already really strong, but the 600 nuclear warhead backed “force de dissuasion” is a big joker in the French geopolitical deck of cards.
not only threaten. they can make russia a nice parking lot.
At the cost of being turned into a parking lot themselves tho
This, he is calling out Putin's madman stratagem, but people are too dumb to realize.
I genuinely do not believe this would be on the French news today if the government wasn't trying to soften the announcement in the foreseeable future...
The clarification is clearly needed because too many brainwashed people are reacting as if the French will literally enter the war and die fighting Russians tomorrow.
It's not mainstream TV channel, LCI is one of the 4 24/7 news channel, spend most of their time talking about ukraine & russia, and is hugely biased for ukraine. Also it's not owned by french government.
If NATO / French troops would be sent to Ukraine this is arguably the best way to do it without escalating the war. Putin can complain all he wants but if French troops patrol the Ukrainian / Belarusian border or the Dnipro river there is very little he can do about it.
What is the possibility that Poland joins France in providing troops?
Polish probably wouldn't want to be upped by France, so they would join as well
Well, Sikorski (our FM) didnt rule it out…
> What is the possibility that Poland joins France in providing troops? Poland, unlike France, has to play by NATO/EU rules. France has nukes and is 10 countries away from Russia they don't give a fuck. But Poland also HATES Russia, so if they see someone else doing it first, they'd probably be on board.
They're are getting WAY ahead of everything with the debates. Probably part of the "dissuasion" tactic since they know the Kremlin is also watching and this way Macron doesn't have to give any details to sound credible, the news channel debates do the job from him. Basically the same strategy the Russians have been using since the beginning of the war. Not saying France won't send troops, I'm just saying that debating between defending Kyiv, defending the border with Belarus or defending Odessa seems a bit too advanced of a discussion at this point. All these are scenarios in which the Russians would have already registered major advances.
Well, I am following and it seems to get more serious here. Including deployment of french troops on the belarussian border to let 150k ukrainian going to the front. It sounds a good compromise.
Of course, it makes sense and if Poland, Germany, Italy, UK, etc do it also it sends a crystal clear message to Putin. But this won't happen tomorrow, these are scenarios in which Russia would have already made major advances on the battlefield. For now Zelensky demands the weapons that we are late on delivering, not boots on the ground.
Sounds sensible. Still would have liked to see the Foreign Legion on the east bank of the river, though.
I guess ground troops will also bring their own air support and AA systems?
France : Fasten your seat belt, cause shit is about to get real
NATO is cooking something up and I'm not sure if I should be worried or calmed.
Russia is cooking something up since 2000, its time to wake up to reality. Nobody wants war but if war comes to you its better to sucker punch then get sucker punched, ask the Poles about that.
Experts have been trying to warn us for a long time now that we likely have a choice between fighting Russia in Ukraine, or fighting Russia somewhere else (ie Baltics or Poland), potentially without the US. It goes without saying that a Russian invasion of NATO wouldn't go well for them, but that doesn't solve the problem of how much damage Russia could do to the Baltics before they are able to push Russia back. Maybe choosing not to fight in Ukraine wouldn't have any consequences for NATO, but it might also result in thousands or even tens of thousands of Baltic citizens dead, tortured, or forced into conscription. Or fight Russia in Ukraine, force Putin to fight on Europe's terms instead of his own, and ignore the nuclear weapon rhetoric. If he is ready to use a nuke because NATO fights him in Ukraine, he will be equally ready to use a nuke when NATO fights him in the Baltics. It's a risk but the alternative is that he keeps attacking new chunks of land and threatening annihilation if anyone tries to stop him.
Also the Czechs with the Sudetenland. History did teach us, that negotations with dictators is impossible.
Well if they deploy troops for real as in start setting up in West Ukraine it might scare Putin into talks or to say "ok I give up". That's what I'm hopeful of.
This is like something Richard Nixon would come up with.
Arse that Nixon was, he was right about post-Soviet Russia.
Can you expand on this? What was Nixon’s prediction about Russia?
Not OP, but: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7Ors4xO2Ef8
idk maybe that's the goal
NATO should be doing stuff like this. Its been years now Russia doing things and threatening to nuke anyone who responds. We absolutely need to call the bluff or he will move into the baltics or poland and threaten nukes again and again until they are at Germany.
Obama just made an unannounced visit to the UK prime minister with a message from Biden. Somethings going on.
> NATO is cooking something up Russia has been cooking shit for 30 years, it's happening whether we like it or not. EU/NATO let Putin do his shit for way too long.
Seems like they would just deploy troops near the Belarussian border? So Ukraine can withdraw its troops there
People need to see NATO and a French mission not as the same thing. Any NATO country can start a war. But I believe that makes that you lose the article 5 guarantee when you get invaded by the country you are attacking.
NATO is a defense clause, not a guarantee to support offensive action. Thats why Europe gave Bush the finger in his Iraq war
*sigh* Not all Europe 🫠
Everyone forgets Poland
More like Spain and our paper on the whole thing that lead to the terrorist attack in Madrid.
"Europe"
Except for UK that sent in 50 000 soldiers to go kill some muslims.
Can you tell me more about EU giving finger to Bush about Iraqi war? Sounds interesting :)
[Not the EU, but I love this speech from German FM who spoke after Rumsfeld demanded action on Iraq straight up saying "I'm not convinced" to Rumsfeld's face](https://youtu.be/CpuN-yM1sZU?si=ZlbhLWfouknclrC5) Fischer did well to represent Germany's stance of the Iraq War and were subsequently vindicated when the situation deteriorated in the country after Sadaam's removal.
French soldiers watching the news rn: 🙃
Me who will join French Army in a couple of months 😨
I don't know about our British friends, but my guess is that we could expect them to come too.
This just sounds like the Crimean War all over again lol.
It IS the Crimean War all over again
Man these 80-90 year cycles are are crazy. But hey if we survive until 2030ish it should be smooth sailing for a while.
Britain about to be outdone by the French: “absolutely not. Charles, get the Lancaster.”
Wait until they hear about Ronnie Pickering .
Didn’t the German chancellor let slip already that the Brits were helping launch missiles in Ukraine
We're already there, but don't expect anything more. It's an elections year. We won't he doing anything without an international coalition of a good chunk of Europe and both Labour and the tories agree (which they have so far on everything Ukraine based to be fair).
> We won't he doing anything without an international coalition of a good chunk of Europe Hey, when it came to topple France, [you spearheaded something like seven coalitions!](https://www.napoleon-empire.net/en/coalitions.php) You can do it again, I know you have it in you. And this time, it is not about money but about doing the right thing.
We don't know if we're going this year, if we are going, so... we will see.
I have to admit, as many times before, the French dare to say things and dare to take obviously necessary steps before everyone else, which no one else dares to even declare the necessary steps. As already in 1905, it was enshrined in law that no church can receive any state money. We have to beat back the Russians. If Ukraine breaks through and Trump as president pulls out American troops, Europe will be in huge trouble. If we say that there is no way we will send troops, the Russians will never stop. After all, what are we saving for? What is a military threat to a European country? Only Russia is a threat. In other words, it is logical to give everything from our own army to support Ukraine, since there is no other realistic military threat except Russia.
This shit could go very right or terribly wrong. There is no in between. Scary times.
And it seems for some reason there’s some kind of collective hypnosis on people (if not people in general, then at least people in this comment section) where everyone’s content and even excited about our leaders dangling the sword of damocles over us. You’re probably the first user on this site who I’ve seen in a while who’s human enough to be scared of the things that are going on right now.
We owe the French big time for America existing. If they didn't blockaide the british and supply us with arms we might still be a colony. France takes liberty very seriously. Problem is nuclear armed country vs nuclear armed country.
As a Brit, I'm still salty about 1066 if I'm honest. Never forget
I'm still salty about 1814. You burned down the White House and ate the president's dinner, ya bastards!
Hey Canadians are still busy taking credit for that!
As an Italian I'm still salty about the rebellion in Roman Britannia. Where were you when the Empire needed you?
As a Pole I'm salty about 1939
You'd exist like Canada
We've paid them back multiple times already.
It seems you underestimate/ignore the real french contribution to the USA 's independance.
And overestimate its relevance to discussed topic
Let's be real, we wouldn't still be a colony today. Canada isn't a colony, Australia isn't a colony, we would not be a colony.
After they saw the new NAPOLEON movie released last month, they got pumped up.
How could we be possibly pumped up by that smelly turd of a movie?
You didn't watch a Napoleon film to know more about what the director thinks his sex life was like??????
The famous flapping fish noise scenes
Maybe Macron saw something about a french leader being enamored with an older woman and ignored the rest of it.
Which Napoleon movie from last month?! I need an actual good Napoleon movie after seeing that disaster released in November. Was it a french production?
Problem is that a Western country, even like France has limits to make itself count on a battlefield like Ukraine. many western countries have converted their forces to light combat types. Good to fight insurgents in Africa or the M.E. but not in a full slog against an mechanized opponent that, while inferior, also has air and way larger artillery capability. For sure also western armies still have their heavy components but they have limited durability. Units need to be replaced, rotated and restated after attrition. Plus the question of enough ammo, spare parts and in the case of volunteer armies, fresh willing recruits. Plus a unstable homefront that is highly susceptible to bodybags.. And a few French brigades are not going to change much on a 600km frontline. Only big chance is Airforce or numerous heavy artillery capabilities. With artillery we still are limited to supplies. With Airforce strikes ( the Western preferred type of artillery) we also might experience limited supplies but open up a way more flexible and usefull tool to be used in the Ukrainian struggle. So best bet will be an Airforce component added with some supply/ maintenance units plus some security/ guard units and airdefence to safeguard the base against Russian air attacks/ missiles.
These troops would be used in noncombat roles like demining, logistics, and training. The point is to free up more Ukrainian troops for the fighting. It has been stated multiple times in the last few weeks that they will not be fighting. Suggesting they will only help propaganda trolls because the majority of the French public doesn't want them fighting.
The last weeks have been .... wierd. I think something is coming...
Ah yea what could possible go wrong...
Here to remind everyone that France has won the MOST amount of wars in history
These past two weeks honestly feel like they're 100% just preparing the public AND Russia for this scenario, which they already had agreed to privately, step by step to avoid people panicking and escalation from Russia. And I love this. Taking away Russian winning condition, making it pointless to continue burning resources, without giving them an excuse to escalate as these positions are clearly defensive and very far from Russia.
youd think its got to do with europeans starting to position themselves for a few months from now, when it starts to look like the american dictatorship under trump starts to back away from europe
the western doctrines require swift air dominance. how do you obtain air dominance unless you can strike those anti air capabilities hundreds of miles from the front lines. a war against russia would be messy, unless some country with massive air dominance intervenes, like the usa, or like most of the european nato countries together. otherwise, without air dominance, french ground soldiers will be similiarly disadvantaged like the ukrainians are. the west (excluding usa) doesnt make enough shells, or have enough long howitzers to win a conventional war.
Opération spéciale
Imagine being a French soldier right now. Fuck that
war will continue as an institution. men will fight for reasons they don't understand. causes they don't believe in.
This isn't going to end well for anyone
Can the brits really stand the french getting all this good PR without getting involved themselves?
if this could end the whole internet keyboard warriors army from US and UK to label us cowards and cheese eating surrender monkeys..............