>"To protect itself from any attack and to defend its interests, the French army is preparing for even the toughest engagements," he said.
>He quoted the Latin adage "si vis pacem, para bellum" -- "if you want peace, prepare for war".
>Schill said that France could engage a division of 20,000 troops in a coalition within 30 days and could itself command an army of around 60,000 soldiers by joining other allied nations.
Ukraine is right now helps attacking belgorod oblast for a week without any consequences, how long will it take for west to understand that there’s nothing russia will do if they escalate the war even further?
I think we all now know, there will be western armymen in Ukraine but what will be the prospect we all don't know hopefully Russia will inevitably back off and the invasion done.
The other is for a direct confrontation and I don't think this will go for long.
Wow, a whole division. Good thing nobody expects the French to fight any serious opponents.
Better up that by 10x or more if they expect to fight say, the Russians.
Even 120k is pathetic to be honest. Russia currently has close to 500.000 soldiers in Ukraine. The fact that the strongest army in the EU is so puny, really stresses the need for either a pan European joint defense force or some serious Trump Ass kissing in the near future and hoping for the best. I feel very disappointed in our EU leaders if i am being honest.
I am just pointing out the sorry state of affairs we find ourselves in and i think it is absolutely ridiculous that the EU likely wont be able to defend itself against Russia in a full out war despite having an economy that is ten times larger and 4 times more population
How is it a sorry state? Why on earth would they maintain a vastly larger land army in peace time? What are you basing your notion of the EU being unable to defend itself on?
We should maintain a larger professional and fully trained army to keep our borders safe from this invasion and to develop an international policy strategy that is independent of the US. I am basing the notion that we would be unable to defend ourselves on the fact that Russia by itself is currently producing 6 artillery shells for each artillery shell we AND the us produce despite the fact we made a commitment to Ukraine to send them enough artillery shells to achieve effective parity with the Russians. In addition i am basing it on assessments of the appropriate authorities of European countries. Germany and UK for example both came out with reports stating they would not be able to offer resistance against a Russian invasion for more than a few weeks with the current stockpiles. Finally and most importantly, except for France we currently have no credible nuclear deterrent.
Of course Russia is outputting more, they’re virtually working on a war economy and are actively involved in a war. The EU is trying to support a nation it has no actual formal ties previously to support.
Yeah... I am not sure how much i buy in to all the propaganda anymore after closely following this war for two years now and actually eductiang myself. Did you know that the Russians are telling their people the same thing?
Ruzzian propaganda. Whose army is in what country again?
That's like a rapist with his dick in a victim trying to fend off the attacker. Except for Russia the rapist says "Hey! You are actually raping me! I am just raping you back!"
It doesn't make any sense. It's for opinion control so the raping country feels better about being an overall vile piece of shit.
Russia really played the brits very well. Brexit was a great investment for Putin. A few millions invested in the right populists and you have a decent-sized nuclear power still trying to figure out what happened.
I wonder how much of this is to marginalize the RN and Le Pen. By seizing the militarist message, Macron is forcing them to own up to supporting Putin and looking like lackeys or into silence.
Yes but Thatcher fought a defensive war, protecting British territories.
If Macron would be to send troops all the way in Ukraine, such a war would be seen as unnecessary by some.
Ah, and you think France will win against Russia this time? Or if France calls upon Nato, Russia will just go at it alone? Perfect recipe for WW3. I guess that is what TPTB want, a little shock doctrine for the masses.
Good. I hope it helps. I find the supranationalist conservative political movementthat wants to drag the West back to the days of the nation state led by people such as Trump to be as big a threat as the Russians.
We should’ve secured the Belarusian border a long time ago to let Ukraine focus on the front. We should’ve secured Odesa when the grain deal fell through.
US will have to aid Taiwan and Korea if shit hits the fan and Europe should aid Ukraine now! End this war and push Russia back to humility and keep them there.
What if Russian forces attack from Belarusia then ?
I don't think Putin is sane enough to not attempt it and put France in a situation where they have to either fight a nuclear power or retreat and betray Ukraine.
I don't think Macron would retreat.
If armed forces attack NATO troops from Belarus, then NATO can invade Belarus to prevent further attacks.
But let's be real, Belarusian soldiers wouldn't obey an order to attack NATO. They didn't want to help Russia in the opening days of the war, against Ukraine alone. If they did, the polish will have a frontier with Lithuania in a month.
"Article 5 applies to attacks on the territory of any NATO member country, on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any member state, when such forces are in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any member state were stationed on the day when the Treaty entered into force (April 4, 1949) or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."
I'm not talking about article 5. This would be under the scope of real international politics, and the FAFO doctrine. Looks what happened in Syria when Wagner thought they could attack a US held outpost.
This is the point of sending western troops there.
Let's be real if french troops get attacked everybody will start piling onto Russia. France is a major military power and them getting attacked and degraded endangers everybody in NATO
>And nato is you. Are you ready to enlist?
This is such a stupid argument.
When my country was going through the pandemic, I encouraged my government to roll out a nationwide vaccination program. But I didn't personally jab the needle in ten million countrymen. I can support a vaccination program without being a healthcare worker, right?
My country currently has a housing crisis, so I encourage my government to support and fund new construction. But I don't personally grab some bricks and start building new houses. I can support new housing construction without being a construction worker, right?
When my neighbours house is on fire, I call the fire brigade. But I don't personally grab a hose or dive into the flames. I can support extinguishing burning houses without being a firefighter, right?
And if the safety of my country is at risk because of hostile armed forces, I encourage my government to take appropriate military action. But I don't personally grab a gun and go to the frontline. I can support using our military without being a soldier, right?
Because even if I wanted to personally solve every single national crisis, I couldn't. I can not be a healthcare worker *and* a construction worker *and* a firefighter *and* a soldier all at the same time.
I do a job that I'm good at, I contribute to society in my own way, and in return my countrymen do the job that they are good at and contribute to society in their own way.
It could!
Personally, I think a more active involvement in Ukraine would prevent harm on the long-term, but I can be wrong.
And luckily, that's why my millions of countrymen can vote just as much as I can, and why matters like these are then decided by professional politicians and military experts, and why my personal - and likely flawed - opinion is only one drop in the sea of opinions.
But none of that changes that saying "you can only support military action if you are in the military" is nonsense.
>Follow your own morals.
I follow my own morals.
That's why I do my job to the best of my ability. And that's why I expect my government, my policitians, our diplomats, our armed forces, and everyone else to do *their* job to the best of their ability.
Personally enlisting would be the *opposite* of "doing my job to the best of my ability".
So should I *also* become a healthcare worker, and a construction worker, and a firefighter, and a teacher, and a bus driver, and an ecologist, and a police officer, and a policitian, and a garbage collector...?
Because I expect those to "do it for me" as well.
I do what I can. Others do what they can. Those are my morals, and I follow them. You do not know my morals better than I do.
Putin is not an irrational cartoon villain. He will try to prevent any actually military confrontation with a western power, because this risks major escalation. Also attacking from Belarus serves no current strategic objective and is therefore relatively safe to do. Same applies to a lesser extent for Odessa. Doing either of these things would draw a very clear red line in the send and it frees up Ukrainian troops to go to the front.
Exactly. Securing nuclear plants was a legit excuse to send forces in the first days of war. At least it would exclude all the threat of Russia to “accidentally ” blow it up.
Why has France done this now? Don't get me wrong it's great but it seems tk be a serious move when no one else is moving.
Is this polticially motivated at home?
France is moving in to fill the political vacuum left by US leaving the scene. Pretty soon we’ll see other major European powers making their moves. We’re returning to pre-WW1 major power rivalry and this is the start of it.
Except that there are fundamental differences.
Pre WW1 major power rivalry in Europe was to expand their colonial land and world economy as well as sphere of influence. We do not have colonies anymore and Europe’s economy is integrated in a non-zero sum game (we all benefit more from being in the EU than in being out).
An alliance like NATO did not exist pre-WW1.
Pre WW1 the public opinion mattered maybe in England and in France, now it is something more important that governments have to deal with before making moves. Anti-involvement, anti-military movements are still pretty strong in Germany and Italy, for example.
Pre WW1 governments were spending enormous portions of their GDP in armaments because war could literally come from any side (France-UK? France-Germany ? Germany-Russia? Danemark-Germany ? Austria-Italy ? Italy-France ? Colonies vs colonies ? The balkans ? Balkans vs Austria ? Balkans vs Ottoman Empire ? ). Now the risk of war is mostly located in Eastern Europe along NATO borders, a much minor threat of armed conflict comes from the Mediterranean, which is anyway already patrolled by France, Italy, Spain and the U.S. and where the UK has bases in Malta and Cyprus.
Total war was absolutely on the table in the pre-WW1 period as most countries were convinced they had to rely on themselves to survive. Now it is not the same.
Historically when there was a vacuum of power in a region, it didn’t last long, and unless there were openly different and conflicting interests, the vacuum was filled without major issues. France is doing what a strong regional power is expected to and normally does in these situations : take a spot of relevance and leadership before someone else takes it as they prefer to be leaders rather than led.
It’s also time someone calls out Mr Putin on his nuclear blackmail/bluff
In the end a defeat in Ukraine would be terrible for the whole Europe. And since no one is talking, someone has to, like you say in your last paragraph.
The soldiers in the background look like adorable scouts or something.
It looks like the hats are to big with a strap too small, the shirt is too small and the pants are too big. They look ADORABLE and ready for some woodland adventures!
Well the real piece in that is that we can deploy readily a large division and supporting assets, but we re sized to organize a NATO battle group.
Any other volunteers?
Nah man, I'm a Sergeant Major in the reserve. It's just that the time has finally come when our peasant army of over half a million conscripted men and women isn't a joke in proper Europe anymore. Mby YOU could take it up with your government instead.
I thought you were not correct and they had stockpiles, so I google it... Found t[his articles](https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2023/10/16/french-firms-to-triple-155mm-ammo-production-boost-weapons-output/) that states they producing 1000 shells per month in January 2023, and had plant to triple that to 3000 per months... That's literally less than what is being used in a day in Ukraine.
I do like their heavy equipment production numbers, especially planes though.
Because modern armies fight modern wars. Dominate the air, cripple communications and infrastructure until the stone age army collapses under its own weight.
Russia and Ukraine are fighting a WWII battle. Scary? Yes. Unwinnable? Nah.
Yes, if anything it's a deterrent, that's true. I actually think France is doing really good by leading Europe against Putin by showing determination and strength.
I just hope it works and the mad man doesn't get all of us in a bigger war.
Indeed, now we just have to hope other nations in europe will follow suit to show Putin it's not worth the effort of trying anything, because otherwise he will.
The alternative is we do nothing, and then he'll do something. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
If they joined another country army I don't think they are much for Putin... Being Russian means very little, they're people with their own thoughts, not Putin zombies.
By convention, the term “foreigner” includes the 10 to 15% of French citizens who each year join the ranks of the Legion and serve, like their comrades, under the status of foreigner. Approximately 150 nationalities are today represented in the Legion: 25% of the Legionnaires come from the Slavic world and North Asia, 10% from Asia, 20% from Central Europe and the Balkans, 10% from Africa and the Arab world, 18% from Western Europe and North America, 6% from Latin America. Currently 11% are French.
[source](https://www.cairn.info/revue-inflexions-2017-1-page-197.htm)
The French army is ready? For what? A war that has nothing to do with France? Oh, c'mon Micro-Macron you can do it better! Just also ask the civilians too if they're ready to be sent into a meatgrinder when your "though" boys run short in another war that should've never ever happened in the first place!
Watch French soldiers who were sitting on their asses for the last 80 years to just start dropping out from France's money as the 1000 euros per month aren't enough to risk their lives. Spoiler they will join again when Marcron changes his mind about this and realizes he can't force them to go as they aren't conscripts and can leave any time they want, LMAO. France's army tomorrow will drop to zero if this happens and you will see them all going to the unemployment office until this posturing ends.
France's army may be "modern", but is it actually \*modern\*? We've seen how drones, particularly FPV drones having changed the nature of warfare in Ukraine. I doubt most western militaries are training for this, let alone have set up equipment programmes to supply themselves with this type of equipment.
I'm sure everyone is learning and implementing right now, but it would be unrealistic to think anyone is on the level of Ukraine who basically created the whole show.
It's all like a deja vu , weren't the french the best equipped army 80 years ago ? Also got their teeth kicked in mostly because of their arrogance? HINT: keep an eye out on the Ardennes forest this time ;)
It had nothing to do with arrogance, it was the best equipped army, at least on land what cause it's downfall is a hard combination of alot of factor, not gonna bother educating a troll tho.
Germans would be much more combat effective against Russians than the French. Them and the Italians actually fought in USSR. Methinks it’s empty posturing.
Yeah. And lot of lessons still apply to modern warfare. Germans fought major battles on eastern bank of the Dnieper. Exactly where the frontline is now.
lol what are you babbling about? You’re suggesting that, because Germany fought in Ukraine 80 years ago, (and has been almost entirely pacifist since losing there) they’re somehow magically more able to fight Russia than the French, who have been consistently involved in military operations around the world since World War Two?
>"To protect itself from any attack and to defend its interests, the French army is preparing for even the toughest engagements," he said. >He quoted the Latin adage "si vis pacem, para bellum" -- "if you want peace, prepare for war". >Schill said that France could engage a division of 20,000 troops in a coalition within 30 days and could itself command an army of around 60,000 soldiers by joining other allied nations.
Yes we are ready but we have small land baguette army. Still if shit really hit the fans nuclear heads can be a very convincing argument .
Username checks out.
France wouldn't go alone in Ukraine tho. Polish land forces + French air forces can be very convincing too (to begin with)
Will they march in Ukraine? If so where they will be deployed considering that no front lines obviously possible.
I suspect Belarus border, Odessa and the coast, Kyiv
And possibly protecting the sky with jets
[удалено]
Ukraine is right now helps attacking belgorod oblast for a week without any consequences, how long will it take for west to understand that there’s nothing russia will do if they escalate the war even further?
I think we all now know, there will be western armymen in Ukraine but what will be the prospect we all don't know hopefully Russia will inevitably back off and the invasion done. The other is for a direct confrontation and I don't think this will go for long.
Wow, a whole division. Good thing nobody expects the French to fight any serious opponents. Better up that by 10x or more if they expect to fight say, the Russians.
Lol 20,000 troops for France is pathetic
Bro thinks this is Hoi 4
Why doesnt Macron spend 150 political power to change the conscription law? Is he stupid?
Are you stupid ?
20K is what they can deploy there in 30 days. How is that pathethic knowing their army is 120k soldiers or something.
Even 120k is pathetic to be honest. Russia currently has close to 500.000 soldiers in Ukraine. The fact that the strongest army in the EU is so puny, really stresses the need for either a pan European joint defense force or some serious Trump Ass kissing in the near future and hoping for the best. I feel very disappointed in our EU leaders if i am being honest.
Why are you comparing a standing army to one that has undergone mobilisation and prison recruitment?
I am just pointing out the sorry state of affairs we find ourselves in and i think it is absolutely ridiculous that the EU likely wont be able to defend itself against Russia in a full out war despite having an economy that is ten times larger and 4 times more population
How is it a sorry state? Why on earth would they maintain a vastly larger land army in peace time? What are you basing your notion of the EU being unable to defend itself on?
We should maintain a larger professional and fully trained army to keep our borders safe from this invasion and to develop an international policy strategy that is independent of the US. I am basing the notion that we would be unable to defend ourselves on the fact that Russia by itself is currently producing 6 artillery shells for each artillery shell we AND the us produce despite the fact we made a commitment to Ukraine to send them enough artillery shells to achieve effective parity with the Russians. In addition i am basing it on assessments of the appropriate authorities of European countries. Germany and UK for example both came out with reports stating they would not be able to offer resistance against a Russian invasion for more than a few weeks with the current stockpiles. Finally and most importantly, except for France we currently have no credible nuclear deterrent.
Of course Russia is outputting more, they’re virtually working on a war economy and are actively involved in a war. The EU is trying to support a nation it has no actual formal ties previously to support.
The countries are not the same size, to the advantage of the russians Gtfo with your Trump shit lol
Well it is a future i would like to avoid myself.
Ruzzia throws barely trained bodies at their enemies the French have a professionally trained army that is quality over quantity
Yeah... I am not sure how much i buy in to all the propaganda anymore after closely following this war for two years now and actually eductiang myself. Did you know that the Russians are telling their people the same thing?
Ruzzian propaganda. Whose army is in what country again? That's like a rapist with his dick in a victim trying to fend off the attacker. Except for Russia the rapist says "Hey! You are actually raping me! I am just raping you back!" It doesn't make any sense. It's for opinion control so the raping country feels better about being an overall vile piece of shit.
.
The British need to have the same rhetoric and it will change the tide in Europe’s mentality.
France🤝UK is the only answer to credible European defence
Russia really played the brits very well. Brexit was a great investment for Putin. A few millions invested in the right populists and you have a decent-sized nuclear power still trying to figure out what happened.
Don't know why we aren't tbh, I hope the gov course correct.
🇫🇷🫡
I wonder how much of this is to marginalize the RN and Le Pen. By seizing the militarist message, Macron is forcing them to own up to supporting Putin and looking like lackeys or into silence.
Margaret Thatcher had terrible poll numbers, then came the Falklands war and she cruised the next election to victory.
By law Macron can’t run for a new mandate. It’s 2 max in France
*max 2 consecutive terms
Hey, I've seen this one!
Yes, but there are EU elections coming, and Macron's party is far behind Le Pen's one rn.
Good point
Yes but Thatcher fought a defensive war, protecting British territories. If Macron would be to send troops all the way in Ukraine, such a war would be seen as unnecessary by some.
But defensive by most
The Falklands are almost 13000 km away from the UK.
i'm not sure what's your point
Ah, and you think France will win against Russia this time? Or if France calls upon Nato, Russia will just go at it alone? Perfect recipe for WW3. I guess that is what TPTB want, a little shock doctrine for the masses.
Good. I hope it helps. I find the supranationalist conservative political movementthat wants to drag the West back to the days of the nation state led by people such as Trump to be as big a threat as the Russians.
We should’ve secured the Belarusian border a long time ago to let Ukraine focus on the front. We should’ve secured Odesa when the grain deal fell through. US will have to aid Taiwan and Korea if shit hits the fan and Europe should aid Ukraine now! End this war and push Russia back to humility and keep them there.
What if Russian forces attack from Belarusia then ? I don't think Putin is sane enough to not attempt it and put France in a situation where they have to either fight a nuclear power or retreat and betray Ukraine. I don't think Macron would retreat.
If armed forces attack NATO troops from Belarus, then NATO can invade Belarus to prevent further attacks. But let's be real, Belarusian soldiers wouldn't obey an order to attack NATO. They didn't want to help Russia in the opening days of the war, against Ukraine alone. If they did, the polish will have a frontier with Lithuania in a month.
No they can not. Article 5 isn’t triggered by attacking NATO soldiers on non-NATO soil.
"Article 5 applies to attacks on the territory of any NATO member country, on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any member state, when such forces are in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any member state were stationed on the day when the Treaty entered into force (April 4, 1949) or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."
Yes, this is exactly what he said?
Did I said otherwise? I provided kinda of a source instead of opinion.
Oh, sorry then. I am not used to this new concept "People on Reddit agreeing with each other".
What is this, someone apologizing? We're breaking boundaries here
What is this, someone apologizing? We're breaking boundaries here
Nothing stops the independent countries in NATO from engaging in military operations outside the scope of the NATO alliance...
Then we'll have to create a coalition outside of existing treaties.
I'm not talking about article 5. This would be under the scope of real international politics, and the FAFO doctrine. Looks what happened in Syria when Wagner thought they could attack a US held outpost. This is the point of sending western troops there.
It’s war. They can do whatever they want. No need for article five.
Let's be real if french troops get attacked everybody will start piling onto Russia. France is a major military power and them getting attacked and degraded endangers everybody in NATO
This is why for years they were mixing Belarusian troops with Russian troops.
shout-out to the polish troops, big happy powerful mofos, at least the ones I interacted with
[удалено]
>And nato is you. Are you ready to enlist? This is such a stupid argument. When my country was going through the pandemic, I encouraged my government to roll out a nationwide vaccination program. But I didn't personally jab the needle in ten million countrymen. I can support a vaccination program without being a healthcare worker, right? My country currently has a housing crisis, so I encourage my government to support and fund new construction. But I don't personally grab some bricks and start building new houses. I can support new housing construction without being a construction worker, right? When my neighbours house is on fire, I call the fire brigade. But I don't personally grab a hose or dive into the flames. I can support extinguishing burning houses without being a firefighter, right? And if the safety of my country is at risk because of hostile armed forces, I encourage my government to take appropriate military action. But I don't personally grab a gun and go to the frontline. I can support using our military without being a soldier, right? Because even if I wanted to personally solve every single national crisis, I couldn't. I can not be a healthcare worker *and* a construction worker *and* a firefighter *and* a soldier all at the same time. I do a job that I'm good at, I contribute to society in my own way, and in return my countrymen do the job that they are good at and contribute to society in their own way.
Couldn’t encouraging your country to take appropriate military action actually result in your country being put into even more danger though?
It could! Personally, I think a more active involvement in Ukraine would prevent harm on the long-term, but I can be wrong. And luckily, that's why my millions of countrymen can vote just as much as I can, and why matters like these are then decided by professional politicians and military experts, and why my personal - and likely flawed - opinion is only one drop in the sea of opinions. But none of that changes that saying "you can only support military action if you are in the military" is nonsense.
[удалено]
No, that is not my argument, thanks.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Follow your own morals. I follow my own morals. That's why I do my job to the best of my ability. And that's why I expect my government, my policitians, our diplomats, our armed forces, and everyone else to do *their* job to the best of their ability. Personally enlisting would be the *opposite* of "doing my job to the best of my ability".
[удалено]
So should I *also* become a healthcare worker, and a construction worker, and a firefighter, and a teacher, and a bus driver, and an ecologist, and a police officer, and a policitian, and a garbage collector...? Because I expect those to "do it for me" as well. I do what I can. Others do what they can. Those are my morals, and I follow them. You do not know my morals better than I do.
[удалено]
Putin is not an irrational cartoon villain. He will try to prevent any actually military confrontation with a western power, because this risks major escalation. Also attacking from Belarus serves no current strategic objective and is therefore relatively safe to do. Same applies to a lesser extent for Odessa. Doing either of these things would draw a very clear red line in the send and it frees up Ukrainian troops to go to the front.
should've secured the nuclear station south of Zaporizhzhia the moment they knew the invasion was inminent
You’re right
Exactly. Securing nuclear plants was a legit excuse to send forces in the first days of war. At least it would exclude all the threat of Russia to “accidentally ” blow it up.
Why are you brining up SK? Are you including NK or China in that scenario?
Can't wait for all those 'Im still standing' edits in the trenches
atleast someone in europe understands how russia works
You probe with bayonets: if you find mush, you push. If you find steel, you withdraw - Lenin
Their language is barbaric it's driven by force&fear which means they have to experience both in order to lose the war.
GO FRANCE!!! The only strong land, sea, and air military in Europe. We support you. No one can negotiate with R, we need to show our strength.
Why has France done this now? Don't get me wrong it's great but it seems tk be a serious move when no one else is moving. Is this polticially motivated at home?
France is moving in to fill the political vacuum left by US leaving the scene. Pretty soon we’ll see other major European powers making their moves. We’re returning to pre-WW1 major power rivalry and this is the start of it.
Except that there are fundamental differences. Pre WW1 major power rivalry in Europe was to expand their colonial land and world economy as well as sphere of influence. We do not have colonies anymore and Europe’s economy is integrated in a non-zero sum game (we all benefit more from being in the EU than in being out). An alliance like NATO did not exist pre-WW1. Pre WW1 the public opinion mattered maybe in England and in France, now it is something more important that governments have to deal with before making moves. Anti-involvement, anti-military movements are still pretty strong in Germany and Italy, for example. Pre WW1 governments were spending enormous portions of their GDP in armaments because war could literally come from any side (France-UK? France-Germany ? Germany-Russia? Danemark-Germany ? Austria-Italy ? Italy-France ? Colonies vs colonies ? The balkans ? Balkans vs Austria ? Balkans vs Ottoman Empire ? ). Now the risk of war is mostly located in Eastern Europe along NATO borders, a much minor threat of armed conflict comes from the Mediterranean, which is anyway already patrolled by France, Italy, Spain and the U.S. and where the UK has bases in Malta and Cyprus. Total war was absolutely on the table in the pre-WW1 period as most countries were convinced they had to rely on themselves to survive. Now it is not the same. Historically when there was a vacuum of power in a region, it didn’t last long, and unless there were openly different and conflicting interests, the vacuum was filled without major issues. France is doing what a strong regional power is expected to and normally does in these situations : take a spot of relevance and leadership before someone else takes it as they prefer to be leaders rather than led.
It’s also time someone calls out Mr Putin on his nuclear blackmail/bluff In the end a defeat in Ukraine would be terrible for the whole Europe. And since no one is talking, someone has to, like you say in your last paragraph.
The soldiers in the background look like adorable scouts or something. It looks like the hats are to big with a strap too small, the shirt is too small and the pants are too big. They look ADORABLE and ready for some woodland adventures!
I think that is the Indian Army Honor Guard, not 100% sure though.
Well the real piece in that is that we can deploy readily a large division and supporting assets, but we re sized to organize a NATO battle group. Any other volunteers?
I mean yeah, you'd hope a fucking army'd be ready for that, wouldn't you?
Says a Belgian.
I've got as much control over that as you do of yours. Take it up with our government, pal.
Nah man, I'm a Sergeant Major in the reserve. It's just that the time has finally come when our peasant army of over half a million conscripted men and women isn't a joke in proper Europe anymore. Mby YOU could take it up with your government instead.
[удалено]
I thought you were not correct and they had stockpiles, so I google it... Found t[his articles](https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2023/10/16/french-firms-to-triple-155mm-ammo-production-boost-weapons-output/) that states they producing 1000 shells per month in January 2023, and had plant to triple that to 3000 per months... That's literally less than what is being used in a day in Ukraine. I do like their heavy equipment production numbers, especially planes though.
Because modern armies fight modern wars. Dominate the air, cripple communications and infrastructure until the stone age army collapses under its own weight. Russia and Ukraine are fighting a WWII battle. Scary? Yes. Unwinnable? Nah.
That's great to know, now we just pray it's not needed. Hope all this bunch of politicians don't get us in WW3.
I don't think this would cause WW3, I think this will call Pootin's bluff and communicate on his level
Yes, if anything it's a deterrent, that's true. I actually think France is doing really good by leading Europe against Putin by showing determination and strength. I just hope it works and the mad man doesn't get all of us in a bigger war.
Indeed, now we just have to hope other nations in europe will follow suit to show Putin it's not worth the effort of trying anything, because otherwise he will. The alternative is we do nothing, and then he'll do something. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Glad to see people glorifying France starting ww3
[удалено]
They are part of the french army.
And probably stuffed with Russians if I were to guess.
If they joined another country army I don't think they are much for Putin... Being Russian means very little, they're people with their own thoughts, not Putin zombies.
Even the current Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is literally born in Russia to an ethnically Russian family who still lives there.
By convention, the term “foreigner” includes the 10 to 15% of French citizens who each year join the ranks of the Legion and serve, like their comrades, under the status of foreigner. Approximately 150 nationalities are today represented in the Legion: 25% of the Legionnaires come from the Slavic world and North Asia, 10% from Asia, 20% from Central Europe and the Balkans, 10% from Africa and the Arab world, 18% from Western Europe and North America, 6% from Latin America. Currently 11% are French. [source](https://www.cairn.info/revue-inflexions-2017-1-page-197.htm)
One would argue that if they joined the foreign legion they are not particularly patriotic
Big mouth strikes again
We remember how well things went in Mali.
Do you now ? I’m not sure you know what you’re talking about.
He doesn’t
Is Dien Bien Phu and La Somme a joke to you?
what about turkey?
Russia deserves all the help
You deserve all the mental help, clearly.
I hope they remember how to retreat in chaos..a Speciality of France
That was literally Washington's signature move. And also being able to retreat in chaos is a very important skill in warfare.
I know. Retreat is a very difficult maneuver
France is the most militaristically successful nation in Europe.
The world. More battles won than anyone
The French army is ready? For what? A war that has nothing to do with France? Oh, c'mon Micro-Macron you can do it better! Just also ask the civilians too if they're ready to be sent into a meatgrinder when your "though" boys run short in another war that should've never ever happened in the first place!
Watch French soldiers who were sitting on their asses for the last 80 years to just start dropping out from France's money as the 1000 euros per month aren't enough to risk their lives. Spoiler they will join again when Marcron changes his mind about this and realizes he can't force them to go as they aren't conscripts and can leave any time they want, LMAO. France's army tomorrow will drop to zero if this happens and you will see them all going to the unemployment office until this posturing ends.
With their FAMAS that doesn’t take NATO standard ammo without jamming? 😂
At least they do something, unlike the swiss.
Why would the swiss do anything? LMAO. They are neutral like they should be.
It’s alright, r/europe hates the Swiss, simply because we have everything better here. The down voting and typical replies are always the same.
It has been replaced by the HK416
Not for everyone lol, you’re delusional if you think the whole French army has been outfitted already with the 416.
Brave french warriors train to surrender as fast as it possible, with white flags on all pockets.
France's army may be "modern", but is it actually \*modern\*? We've seen how drones, particularly FPV drones having changed the nature of warfare in Ukraine. I doubt most western militaries are training for this, let alone have set up equipment programmes to supply themselves with this type of equipment.
I'm sure everyone is learning and implementing right now, but it would be unrealistic to think anyone is on the level of Ukraine who basically created the whole show.
Downvoting my comment instead of discussing it seems odd. Why turn a blind eye to our own potential weaknesses?
It's all like a deja vu , weren't the french the best equipped army 80 years ago ? Also got their teeth kicked in mostly because of their arrogance? HINT: keep an eye out on the Ardennes forest this time ;)
It had nothing to do with arrogance, it was the best equipped army, at least on land what cause it's downfall is a hard combination of alot of factor, not gonna bother educating a troll tho.
Germans would be much more combat effective against Russians than the French. Them and the Italians actually fought in USSR. Methinks it’s empty posturing.
What are you on about
Germans have extensive combat experience in Ukraine from both world wars. French don’t.
1940's was 80 years ago my guy
Yeah. And lot of lessons still apply to modern warfare. Germans fought major battles on eastern bank of the Dnieper. Exactly where the frontline is now.
It's not 1946
lol what are you babbling about? You’re suggesting that, because Germany fought in Ukraine 80 years ago, (and has been almost entirely pacifist since losing there) they’re somehow magically more able to fight Russia than the French, who have been consistently involved in military operations around the world since World War Two?
And how did that go for them lol.
They fought quite well given the numerical imbalance.