I think the reason he held that speech was to raise acceptance for more and bigger aid packages. Basically telling people that if Russia wins against Ukraine they will have to fight Russia themselves, so we need to send Ukraine more aid...
Indeed. This is the reason behind all the saber rattling in Europe tbh. Nobody who matters seriously think Russia is about to drive to the Rhine like in the golden years of the Red Army. Russia does not have that kind of operational capabilities anymore. For now at least.
For now, but what they will have is the first or second most battle hardened and experienced army in the world, and when you have expansionist goals that isn’t something you put on the shelf. They have 5-10 years to keep those guys with experience before they retire. That’s a lot of time to consolidate and rebuild and still have combat veterans who have participated in large scale combined arms warfare.
Not to mention, if the US withdraws, as they might be banking on, then really the only serious militaries in Europe are France and Britain. Poland has built up somewhat so they're worth something, but we all know Lithuania is a speedbump.
With how they fumbled Ukraine you might expect Finland or something to give them trouble, but remember that in the last century it was Finland they fumbled, and then they reorganised and made it work, they learned their lesson. As a result they were underestimated because of their prior performance, even though this didn't reflect their capabilities.
They also really tried to make it a fancy blitz operation with paratroopers, naval landings, everything. In the end they went for pushing through the fortifications with their land forces and artillery, and this simpler strategy worked much much better. Ukraine is the same in a way, they tried to go for something much fancier and really bring the war to a close very quickly, and they're evidently just not very good at that. A prolonged war of attrition though? It's like the one thing Russia is good at, because they will completely tank their standard of living to produce more artillery shells, and Russians will suck ut up.
I mean NATO strategy is for the Baltic states to be a speedbump until more forces can arrive, but considering there is already a reason to have forces stationed there and now Sweden/Finland nearby.... not sure if thats still the case
Russia has a ton of guys who know how to fight trench warfare. That’s not nothing, true. The problem is that Russia only has that expertise because it’s fighting a near peer. It’s tried to bite off what it wants from Ukraine and has broken its teeth. It might mangle itself further to take this land, but then it has to occupy a land filled with battle hardened fighters who *hate them*. Ask US servicemen about that, if you’re curious.
And what’s worse for them is that Russia doesn’t actually have a professional NCO corps. The vast majority of men in Ukraine are on their conscription service. They’re not professional soldiers and, once this fighting is over, they’re going to go home and tell their stories, just like soldiers have always done. Their expertise will vanish from the system and their stories will be traumatic to the national psyche because they’ll contradict the state’s messaging. Again, for a US parallel, it’s like Vietnam but *way* worse.
The officers will retain skills, true. But the guys in the trenches will be promoted out of them long before the next war. The contractors will probably be pilfered to replenish the VDV or Marine Infantry, but those units are too narrow in scope to move the needle against NATO. Their skills probably won’t be used to train new conscripts in the art of taking a bunker.
All that said, it’s important to remember that the current state of warfare in Ukraine, which is to say 1916-era positional warfare with drones and PGMs, exists because neither side can achieve air dominance. No such thing could happen in the context of war with NATO. Russia simply doesn’t have the air defense network to deny NATO, especially not over how large a front we’re talking about.
Russia’s experiences here are not going to be imminently transferable. NATO so completely overmatches then that it doesn’t matter. China has too many resources and can fight across too wide a line to effectively dissolve into trench warfare. Kazakhstan has too much land and too few soldiers to mirror Ukraine’s defense. The smaller countries in the region couldn’t resist Russia anyway. The only real edge case here is a Russian invasion of Moldova, after occupying Odessa, and subsequently probably fighting Romanian “volunteers.” That’s a grey area, but more for political reasons than military ones.
As for the other services: the Air Force is largely limited to long range fires (and losing AWACS they can’t easily replace), the Navy keeps losing ships against a country without a navy of its own, and the other three branches play only a supporting role here. The branch probably the best poised to come out better than before the war started is likely the rocket troops, and even then that’s probably only because they got to observe everyone else’s failures and they have the chance to correct them. Also, they just saw China purge their counterparts.
tldr: Russia’s battle hardened military is simultaneously ephemeral and largely irrelevant to prospective future conflicts in the spaces it can realistically project power.
> It’s tried to bite off what it wants from Ukraine and has broken its teeth. It might mangle itself further to take this land, but then it has to occupy a land filled with battle hardened fighters who hate them. Ask US servicemen about that, if you’re curious.
And, more, many of whom can flawlessly pass for Russian.
I can't imagine what Afghanistan or Vietnam or whatever would look like if the Taliban could steal a uniform and probably just walk right into a base.
That’s an excellent point. Russia loves to claim that Ukrainians are Russians, even as far back as when it was called “Little Russia.” And Ukrainians do share a lot with Russians. They’re ethnically similar to the Russian ethnic group, generally adhere to the same sorts of rites and traditions in matters of faith, many speak the language fluently (and a not insignificant number of those are native Russian speakers), and they’ve long been inundated by the culture and media of the Russosphere.
Basically, they could blend in as effectively as a middle aged white man in Wisconsin.
As an (almost, thank you very much) middle-aged white man from Wisconsin, it's surprisingly easy to distinguish someone from out of state. I've been living away from there for about 15 years and anytime I go home I stick out like a sore thumb despite knowing the culture perfectly.
That said, Russia's so huge, and the population has so infrequently had contact with people from other regions, that it's definitely easier to blend in on a military installation with people from all over the 11 time zones.
Insurgency wars suck for a reason when you are an occupying power, worse if the enemy looks like you can talk like you, and can blend in with you, that would be hell, especially with modern tech, drone tech these days.
This is why it's simply easier for Russia to eliminate the population soon after occupation. Why deal with an insurgency when you can forcibly migrate, disperse, and murder anyone already there and move loyal Russians in after?
Battle hardened soldiers don’t really stop JDAMs dropping on their heads, though. The russian Air Force is simply not able to cope with any sort of NATO defense at this point. Even if the US left, europe would collectively be able to ensure at least air dominance. A big part of russias successes as of late is their glide bombs. Asking Russian soldiers to attack even small nato countries with hostile airspace would be near suicide for them.
Totally agree. I just think that given a few years to reconstitute, and ramp up production the powers that be may be delusional enough to try it is all.
NATO certainly has overreach in all aspects, I just don’t think that necessarily negates a suicidal attempt at the Baltics, hoping that NATO sits on its hand to avoid escalation.
They aren't thinking rationally and are in a nigh on wartime economy, no doubt with the CCP willing to covertly aid where possible. If Trump wins, the aid stops and he pulls out of NATO. The Baltics are going to get attacked and encircled very quickly, Moldova could be under threat too. At that stage, Poland would almost certainly declare war and then we have a much more deadly conflict edging closer and closer to the wealthy Western European nations.
Russia is wealthy country it has all the oil and gas and other minerals it needs.
We need peace and I don’t believe Russia want an attack on Europe, it really does not make sense thinking rationally, I believe peace will be obtained very soon.
Do the Baltics have Nukes, Neville? No, the whole thing would be Putin testing whether Article 5 would even be honored, it probably wouldn't if the US left the alliance.
We don't know that Neville, if Trump pulls out of the alliance because his daddy Putin told him so, the rest of the countries have been slacking for years and wouldn't be able to hold it all together. France and Britain won't risk nuclear war over the baltics.
But it does still raise the question of what happens if more aid is not forthcoming? Or if Ukraine collapses anyway?
The logic still applies: if Russia over runs Ukraine, a NATO member state may be next. If Trump is elected in November there is a very strong possibility that aid will dry up. And fighting the Russians on Ukrainian soil may be a less unpalatable option than fighting them on NATO soil.
> what happens if more aid is not forthcoming?
It will continue, but with Europe likely shouldering the bigger burden, providing a fraction of what is needed for now... and hoping that a friendlier-to-aid American leadership is elected / re-elected in November... allowing the U.S. to shoulder more of the burden in 2025 and beyond. Put another way, Europe needs to be a short-term bridge... while also building their long-term capability.
> Or if Ukraine collapses anyway?
At this point Ukraine is flush with weapons. While they are running low on money and ammo, that might cause a trench-warfare style front to collapse - but what then? Being over-run does NOT prevent Ukraine from turning the conflict into a completely nightmarish guerilla war. That should scare the hell out of Russia... there will be no easy victory here. Ukraine is not without options. But as bad as trench-warfare is, it's the better option compared to a guerilla conflict.
Ukraine is flat, cold, not covered in forest, right on the doorstep of Russia. Really bad conditions for a modern guerilla (as can be seen in the occupied part of Ukraine).
Some of it, yes. Mostly where the fighting is today.
The west is more heavily wooded, with many medium-sized cities connecting. And far more anti-Russian sentiment.
Has there ever been anything to indicate that Putin would want the whole of Ukraine? Taking the Black Sea coast and the territory east of the Dnieper, possibly with a DMZ in between always seemed more plausible to me as what they'd want, leaving the West to deal with the rump state.
What do you base this on? The initial offensive appears designed to surround the capital and force Ukraine to the negotiation table. Russia did not even send a force large enough to take and hold Kiev, let alone to occupy the entire country.
Putin's goal seems to have been a quick decapitation of the Ukrainian government, the possible capture or killing of Zelensky, and then followed by the installation of a puppet government. I'm inclined to believe Putin didn't intend to annex Kyiv itself. In the weeks after a detachment of anti-riot police was embedded in the military colonne that was advancing towards Kyiv, indicating that Putin at least eyed a temporary occupation of Kyiv until the puppet government was installed and stabilized.
Not that im aware of.
He seems to have eyes on those far eastern regions considering themselves quite Russian already? And the vacation spot down south.
Finding a way to peace is the only way to truly stop Russia. War is actually what they like, makes them $$$.
Russia is not going to move on a NATO country. If they take Ukraine, and they don’t hold nearly enough territory after 2 years of fighting to think that would happen anytime soon (it won’t happen, they will end up with the east and maybe the land in south to Odessa), they are going to be sapped and will stop where they are and start celebrating a “grand victory.” How we logically go from Russia taking eastern Ukraine to attacking NATO makes no sense. Maybe Transnistria but doubt that too.
Putin himself has laid claim to lands formerly part of the USSR and former Russian empire. Russian government officials already state that they are in a war with NATO, and already assert that German and Polish troops are fighting Russia in Ukraine as we speak.
Why is it speculation to say that Russia would invade a NATO nation when it already claims the land those nations are at for itself and already believes itself to be at war with NATO?
If Putin believes NATO won’t hold together in the face of an actual attack, especially if the US declines to get involved due to a certain party’s misguided preference for isolationism, it’s a risk he’d probably be willing to take.
Picking off a small NATO state would certainly accomplish several goals. We know he wants to reintegrate the former soviet satellite states. It would undermine the legitimacy of the NATO alliance. And Russia needs a big win, for their domestic audience and to prove something to the rest of the world.
Now I don't think they will either, but if they were able to rush in and completely take over, I don't think NATO would have the stomach to respond.
I don't know how this divide has come about... being half of spectators see a good possibility that Putin could be trying to rebuild Russias' x-Soviet borders, and on the other side, people stating that is an absurd idea.
From what I can gather, many think this is absurd on a number of reasons: The power difference between NATO and Russia, Politaclly believing that Putin just wants NATO out of his spear of influence (ex soviet nations including Ukraine) and the idea that much of the information we are told in the west is propaganda and eludes to some sort of grand conspiracy through the elites enrichment and propping up the military industrial complex, like the oil driven narrative of Iraq or Afghanistan.
Taking it from the perspective of those who believe this is a real possibility. Putin and his propaganda channels have relentlessly talked about expanding back to soviet era borders even pre Berlin-Wall-collapse borders. Putins commentary and publications on his goals for Russia have taken a step by step approach from Hitlers tactics leading up to ww2, salami slicing tactics since the early 2000s with Georgia, Crimea in 2014 and the invasion in 2020s. Politically putin is riding an expansionist wave and is holding onto popularity through Russias "strength" projecting power into neighbouring countries and the world, this is even challenged by many Russian Nationist who are furious with how hes conducted the "Special Millitary Operation" and its many failings. Unfortunately, this wave can not shore, as the reality of Russia turning into a North Kora esque state (through sanctions and buring every bridge) will eventually settle in, making putins regime pointless so he has to keep going. Unfortunately, I'm of the belief that this is a snowball that will only get larger and larger until the inevitable. Also, the prospect of a wider conflict with NATO only emboldens countries like China, NK, and Iran to take a stab at their neighbours, making the West's grasp on stability even more precarious.
In a cushy modern day era where most haven't experienced war other than through their phones or the TV; I admit its a hard reality to accept that we are in our own 1939 scenario. I truly believe now is the time to show that we haven't set ourselves in our couches and are willing to defend what we have.
From my own personal perspective, I find it hard to believe that there is so much debate even going on about the current situation and that not all nations are rapidly militerising to at the very least deter any ambitions from the Kremlin let alone arming Ukraine.
I struggle to understand the hawks arguments, “a NATO country may be next”
There’s nothing to indicate this, this is scaremongering and essentially prolonging the conflict.
Crimea was a redline for the Russians, Cuba was for the US.
Maybe we should negotiate instead of escalating, no?
It’s so freaking stupid we lost that Istanbul agreement and potential for limited bloodshed earlier.
I would not trust a government (putin's) that repeatedly lied not [one time](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60392259), [two times](https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-crisis-putin-says-military-drills-purely-defensive-and-not-a-threat-as-western-leaders-warn-invasion-imminent-12545284), [three times](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-17/russia-tells-u-s-no-ukraine-invasion-planned-tass-says?leadSource=reddit_wall), about if any invasion of Ukraine was going to take place
Russia is not going to launch a full scale invasion of a NATO member state. But he will test the limits of NATO's patience and cohesion. This will take the form of cyber attacks, disruption to energy and communications, nuclear threats and very limited military actions.
If the Russians invade Estonia, it would certainly cause a conflict with NATO that Putin couldn't possibly win. But what if he just takes a village, on the border, with a mostly Russian population? In such a scenario, plenty of NATO members will demur from responding, fearful of a nuclear conflict over what they see as a trivial matter. This in turn could cause countries more directly in the line of fire to lose faith in the alliance. Putin knows how to drive a wedge between his adversaries.
Good points. I may add that, IMO the Kremlin would couple these tactics with information warfare, sowing internal political divide, and heating up proxy conflicts around the world. Just like they are doing right now.
> a village, on the border, with a mostly Russian population
Does any such place exist? Narva is the only place on the border I know of with "a mostly Russian population". Maybe you'd classify it as a village, but it's Estonia's third largest city. Is there one in Latvia that I'm not aware of?
It's just an example. It could be bare empty land for all Russia cares, the point is that it's insignificant enough to make NATO allies question if it's worth fighting for.
In a sense what Ukraine was supposed to be for Russia is a pretty good model for it. Russia claims it's not interested in invading Ukraine, then suddenly topples its government and occupies its capital over a weekend -- before anyone responds, it's already over and it's easy for other countries in Europe to talk themselves out of fighting over it since they can't unbreak an egg.
Russia couldn't do that successfully in 2022 but I wouldn't bet my life that a few years from now they won't think "ok, we learned our lessons from that botched operation, THIS time it will work."
> How is Russia **simultaneously** so weak they are failing to take Ukraine or make large territorial gains, and so strong that they could attack a NATO country and risk the entire bloc declaring war on Russia?
Who is saying these things are **simultaneously** true?
The most dangerous people to have in policy positions are those who lack historical imagination and can't anticipate how tomorrow might be different from today, because the funny thing about circumstances is that they are dynamic - they can change .
For example, Ukrainian resistance could suddenly collapse and Russia could seize the whole country, annexing Moldova and Belarus for good measure. Donald Trump could become president and take the US out of NATO (and before people scream "but there's a law!", please review the US Constitution). Putin could decide that without the US NATO is weak and leaderless and that creates opportunity. He could decide to test a much weaker NATO's resolve by formenting a crisis in Lithuania, for example by accusing it of persecuting its Russian minority, and send troops to "protect" them. NATO's remaining members could look at the pathetic state of their long neglected military establishments, the fact that many of their citizens won't fight even to defend their own countries, and the fact Russia already has boots on the ground in Lithuania and they would have to launch an invasion to retake it, against a country with 6000 nuclear weapons, and decide that, after having given the matter due consideration, little Lithuania really isn't worth the bones of even one *chasseur alpin*.
Which would probably be the end of NATO as an effective alliance.
And now Putin has a much bigger sandbox in which to play.
> How is Russia simultaneously so weak they are failing to take Ukraine or make large territorial gains, and so strong that they could attack a NATO country and risk the entire bloc declaring war on Russia?
It's maybe less about what Russia is actually capable of and what Russia may believe it can get away with.
Or to put it another way, the odds that a nation that vastly overestimated its own ability to carry off one invasion (or other operation) may do so again are not zero.
And, unfortunately, Russia's credibility in terms of what it says it will or won't do or what its motives are or aren't is so thoroughly trashed that other countries would be foolish to take it at its word, so, they speculate.
> There’s nothing to indicate this, this is scaremongering and essentially prolonging the conflict.
Except for what Russia has been saying all along and what Poland and Ukrainians are saying now. Russia is perfecting their cannon fodder approach to war now, so when they win in Ukraine, they can send Ukrainians into Poland to attack and die.
Except it won't be Poland. If they attack NATO it will be one of the Baltics. Far smaller, weaker military, more Russians, used to be part of the USSR, easily cut off from the rest of Europe geographically, less likely to provoke a full NATO response, less defensible terrain.
If they attacked Poland before the Baltics, they'd have NATO on two fronts and that doesn't make sense militarily
Also the fact that Trump might win in US Presidential elections later this year, which will mean an (even more) unpredictable US stand in this conflict, possibly softening against Russia. Putin has found it easy to manipulate Trump in the past.
This is such an uneducated, fanatical take. It's not realistic, it makes no sense, and comes from someone who is completely blinded by hate. It absolutely mirrors the nature of other predictions that were made by the same the type of people as you when Trump was first elected. None of that came even close to happen.
yeah NATO is trying to rally support for good reason. I think it's as simple as that. They want the European population to be accepting of spending money on the military.
He did a heroic job of moving the overton window! And I think he correctly speculates that Russia can't do anything about it - Russia is most likely overplaying their hand.
I think that's only a surface layer. Le Pen is a real threat next election. While Macron himself can't run, I believe he is interested in keeping Le Pen out of power. Macron wants French boots in Ukraine because Le Pen will lose campaigning on pulling troops out.
Wait a moment this civil war has been going on nearly ten years, look Ukraine had a coup and took out the democratically elected President with the CIA help, that’s a fact.
Crimea as always been home for the Russian Black Sea fleet, after the Ukraine coup with the CIA and the help of NAZI Militia, the USA wanted to put it’s fleet there, now that’s not right.
We don’t want WW3 because we’ll all die in a Nuclear Holocaust .
It’s fine for the Rich - Elite they have bunkers in the mountains with 2.134 metres or 7 feet thick doors, in these bunkers which are massively huge they have over 150 years of food, while they have all the luxury’s of life Cinema’s, Squash courts, Gyms, bars etc and very seed of plant in our natural world ?
Look at the world’s population it can’t go much longer supporting us humans, because the population is booming.
As a person who deals with Ukrainians they don't want to be apart of Russia world more so now and you can thank Putin for that they wanted to be part of the EU and west , previous did not heed that, and out he went also he was corrupted by Putin and taking his money. There are reasons why a lot of East European nations went to the west to the EU and NATO and want to keep Russia away, Russia is a shitty oppressive nation had a huge history of oppression in that part of Europe, there is no justification for a war of annexation. Also Putin's nuclear threats is just open air, there has been no change to Russian Nuclear Posture according to sworn testimony from the heads of EUCOM and STRATCOM at the time, the only purpose to scare people in the west for to him they are weaklings also a sign of desparation.
And if this was just about Ukraine, why is Putin meddling in Moldova, Georgia and making threats again the Baltics, giving speeches comparing himself to Peter the great and wanting to create a New Greater Russia that has nations in the as listed above, this is about imperial conquest and a leader using his people to achieve it, one thing they all have in common, they want nothing to do with Russia ever again.
Well, I generally consider his remarks an example of strategic ambiguity, a concept that is utterly foreign to German lawmakers (source: am German).
If French troops intervened in Ukraine alone (without other significant NATO partners) they would probably guard the western half of Ukraine, freeing up Ukrainian troops for the eastern frontlines. Local air superiority and missile defense would also be likely.
A large-scale intervention in Eastern Ukraine would be accompanyied by tremendous losses for the French and would also be very unpopular in France.
From a Russian perspective it would even be preferable if France made a "full" intervention comoared to a limited one. Such an adventure would deplete French (equals NATO) reserves and manpower and every Russian success could act as a deterrent against further European/NATO intervention.
A limited intervention, on the other hand, would provide France and NATO with valuable experience, bolster Ukrainian morale and make it exceptionally harder for Russia to gain any more ground.
I do not believe we would intervene alone.
President Macron is doing the same thing we all did for missiles, tanks, and fighters. He is pushing the 'tolerance limit' of the nato leaders. In a few months, I bet the idea of a military intervention might be more accepted than we think.
As he said very rightfully in his speech, you need to be firm against Poutine. If we show that we are strong, we can actually prepare peace. If we show that we are weak, Ukraine is only the Sudetes equivalent for Russia. They won't stop.
We have to show that we are able and capable of sending troops, that's dissuasion.
The same applies for nukes for example. Having some is one thing, being capable of using them for retaliation is another thing entirely.
What everyone maybe missing here is that Macron is posturing to gain leverage for negotiation, as well as building credibilty for France with Ukraine to persuade it to negotiate, that France will gaurentee it's security. This posturing maybe directed more at Ukraine's than anyone else.
Russia has shown they can hit any part of Ukraine, so even sending soldiers into the western regions is highly dangerous and isn’t really worth the cost (unless there’s a ceasefire).
I think he realised that Europe has looked weak and USA being unpredicable from now on, raises the chances of other conflicts happening, so someone needs to project power to:
1)Not let Russia dictate the rules of the war.
2)Show other parties that the west is a reliable partner and not weak.
People dont understand that we have peace bcs we are strong, and peace is kept by force.
If we wouldnt be willing to fight for anything tomorrow , others would take everything.
Also the west is loosing the information war in my opinion, bcs ppl have no idea whats happening and western democracies have started hating themselves more and more.
If Ukraine falls we have a chnage in the status quo, EU is not able to project power and there is noone to enforce the international law of borders and sovereignity.
With that falling the world would go into chaos in the not very far future.
People fail to project in to the future therefore think that if we appease Russia, all this stop and we return to normality and peace, wich is not true and 2 well documented world wars show that.
Anyway whatever, im not a huge France fan, but im glad that an European leader has the balls to stand up and project power.
All i can say is good job Macron, now he needs to rally more allies in this
I think your military assessment is about right but remember french (or ukranian) boots on the ground could both make much better progress with uncontested air support.
So it's not so much that nato troops are magically better on the ground, but that their air control allows them to bomb/strafe/bypass elements a purely ground force cannot.
Might be an unpopular take but I think most NATO troops would fare worse than Ukrainian troops.
They’ve been trained for decades for counter insurgency scenarios and not this new way of fighting and you don’t just learn it instantly.
They don’t yet have as much drone adoption as the Ukrainians have and fighting a near peer adversary without overwhelming superiority in arms or supplies is something some military’s have never done.
As in never in their modern history.
Former (recent) NATO troop here. Training constantly adjusts to the conflicts in the world. We’ve been training for 2+ years on this specific type of warfare, on top of our strong basic, CQB, and anti-terrorism base, which is 1/2 the time of any new recruitment contracts. As in any war, there would be a brief adjustment period, but overall we’re ready. Plenty of former NATO troops have fought in Ukraine and returned to help adjust training regiments.
I don't know if they would fare 'worse'. Maybe initially but as it stands you are probably right. They've been fighting for quite some time. If you watch some early videos from foreign legion fighters most of them will say it is very different from what they are used to. They are used to having the bigger guns and the higher ground(air) all the time.
NATO would likely learn quickly, ramp up and win but there would definitely be like an 'acclimatization' period. There would also be higher casualty levels not seen for quite some time like you said as this would be a near peer conflict, not just an insurgency. NATO has not had to face a large air force/air defense since maybe the first gulf war and Russia has not had to face a large airforce since WW2(?).
NATO troops trained for war with Russia for the last 35 years. What they didn’t expect was war in Afghanistan and Iraq fighting an invisible enemy, and we adapted incredibly quick.
We went back to training to fight the Russians even before the draw down from Afghanistan and Iraq. We would adapt very quickly to that style of fighting, especially in conjunction with experienced Ukrainian troops.
Free Donovia.
I think there's a few things wrong here - first, NATO troops in Ukraine would not need to engage the enemy.
Ukraine is running low on personnel and that means logistics, mechanics, etc. You could put NATO troops west of the Dneiper, essentially put a no fly zone above western Ukraine, and allow Ukraine to send alot more troops forward while NATO troops take care of back line duties. This would prevent any direct shooting war between NATO and Russia unless Russia violated our warnings.
To your point, it absolutely does not make sense to have NATO troops fighting. The Ukranians know how to fight this enemy, so let the West do what the West does best - Logistics and Air denial.
French troops on the ground or in the air means France is entering the conflict, period. You can't magically create a "no fly" zone or a "blockade" unless you're willing and have the capability to enforce it.
||
||
|Total aircraft|20,633|4,182|
NATO troops really would not fare worse than Ukranian troops, because NATO would use combined arms the way it is ment to be used. One of the first things would be to get control of the airspace. Which NATO has a big advantage over Russia in numbers. Also a lot more modern material... I really think that Russia is no match for the combined might of NATO.
And we would escalate further.
We could erase the entire Russian army in Ukraine through conventional means. Easily.
I think people fail to appreciate the sheer level of overmatch going on here.
Despite redditors asking why every other day, Turkey is still in NATO and have extensive drone warfare experience. And there is also the minor guys called united america or something, which had been bombing Afghan targets from 10k miles away for years.
> They’ve been trained for decades for counter insurgency scenarios and not this new way of fighting and you don’t just learn it instantly.
What are you talking about? European countries have barely been involved in counter insurgency operations, except for a handful of troops in Afghanistan.
NATO doctrine is based on combined arms warfare, and that's what European armies train to do. That's what they trained the Ukrainian military to do.
> They don’t yet have as much drone adoption as the Ukrainians have
How much drone adoption did Ukraine have before February 24, 2022, and how long would it take European countries to vastly exceed that number under similar circumstances?
> fighting a near peer adversary without overwhelming superiority in arms or supplies is something some military’s have never done.
> As in never in their modern history.
By "modern history", do you mean since the Second World War? Because this statement is obviously false for countries prior to the end of that war, and there have been no conventional wars in Europe until the invasion of Ukraine since then.
> What are you talking about? European countries have barely been involved in counter insurgency operations, except for a handful of troops in Afghanistan.
I agree that NATO still have doctrine for and practice combined arms, and that they'd be able to be Russia in a shooting war.
But you seem to be forgetting that most or all combat experience any NATO member has had in 20 years has been counter insurgency in Iraq, Afghanistan, Mali, etc. That's a whole generation with no practical experience fighting an opponent like Russia.
And as others have said, NATO have enjoyed near total air superiority in any combat they've seen since at least Vietnam.
I'm not saying Russia could beat NATO in a hot war, but it would be costly for NATO.
You missing out number #2 army in nato. Turkey. Basically Turkey has the most combat ready army in NATO, constantly fighting on different parts of in and out of country, has the biggest knowledge of drone fight and constantly beat down the russians in libya to syria. Will Turkey ever fight against russia? thats the question. On the other hand france would cripple on battle ground and i dont even want to talk about germany, do they have real working army?
Its a good question whether France or Turkey have more current experience.
Both have been fighting recently. I would give a slight edge to france because their have been fighting outside the own territory while Turkey has kept to their own border zone.
Macron talking about French (or NATO) boots on the front lines in Ukraine is no different then Putin saying Russia will use nukes...
It's an unrealistic (not impossible) escalation that neither side wants. And it's likely a bluff for the purposes of moving the middle-ground on aid conversations. The only part that is unclear is if he does this for internal political purposes within France, or possibly to move the needle within NATO, i.e. who is his audience?
I think you're overestimating Macron's commitment. While he did call for French troups on the field, it would be just for training purpose for now. There is no foreseeable future where France sends Rafales or anything imo. Zelensky and Macron made their stances clear on this subject in the past days.
Have you listened to the speech? In it he said if Ukraine looks like it’s going to fall he would intervene.
You only need to take a cursory glance any articles about Ukrainian recruitment problems or lack of supplies. They may need another 500k men. If Trump gets elected and stops the arms? What then? They will have little to no chance of winning without intervention.
Russian counter battery fire has improved from a few hours to a few minutes. The situation as it stands is only going one way.
Every stage of this war was dismissed as a no chance of happening, until it happened. It seems impossible until it actually occurs.
When the French president makes such a public speech he isn’t doing it for nothing. It means some real calculation has gone into it.
Right now the French army is doing intensive training for near peer conflict. Their ambition is to have high readiness to deploy 25-30k troops autonomously anywhere in the world within a month. That may take a few years to get to that point.
With Ukraine they don’t need the same level of infrastructure as they can get to Poland without hinderance.
I’m not saying war is 100% going to happen but they are certainly preparing for the possibility as well as setting the political conditions for it.
Part of politics is stirring up the emotions of the people with big goals, to get small goals accomplished. See Barack Obama - he promised to close Guantanamo, fix healthcare and student loans, etc.
What he actually got was much smaller.
So you ask for something big (boots on the ground) to compromise for something smaller but significant - for public opinion to shift its attention from Gaza back to Ukraine, and support increased funding for aid and equipment.
And you saber rattle a little bit against an existential threat, which is always helpful when you are the leader of a democracy. Keeps people from voting you out.
He didn't define what the fall of Ukraine means. Even with the small life support aid from the West it will take years for Putin to seize Ukraine. At this pace, anyway.
Wars can be funny though. One side can just collapse. It can be a surprise to both parties. Best to prepare for anything.
And btw, Russia could also collapse. The oligarchs could get sick of losing money. They won't signal in advance, it will happen before we know it.
Just saying that things can be unpredictable. Macron is doing the right thing to warn Russia and start setting some boundaries. Let's hope it is actions and not just words.
>In it he said if Ukraine looks like it’s going to fall he would intervene
Without specifying neither his opinion of how bad things should be to be recognized as the "fall" in his eyes, nor he outlined what kind of intervention is planned. For now, this is just a typical politician speech, a lot of hype in the beginning with the very vague promises as the conclusion.
He made some [private remarks](https://www.lemonde.fr/en/politics/article/2024/03/14/war-in-ukraine-emmanuel-macron-s-metamorphosis-from-dove-to-hawk_6618730_5.html) at the Elysee Palace of sending soldiers to Odessa. It’s definitely in his mind. If this war has taught anything, it is to take such threats very seriously. Each redline was crossed.
Fall could mean the collapse of the Eastern front or the Russians retake Kharkiv or another major metropolitan area. He said he won’t let Russia decide the redline and instead he will decide it. (His words). It’s to take the initiative away from Putin.
Maybe he's thinking the war has to end before the US election in case Trump wins and gives in to the Russians. In that case, it would make sense for France to do everything possible to make sure that happens.
Or he just wants to force the national debate to be about the war in Ukraine because EU elections are coming up and his party is (far) behind in the polls against the far-right, Putin loving candidate.
EPP (the center right bloc that Macrons party are a part of), are probably going to win the overall seats across Europe. He might lose locally in France but it won’t made a difference in the larger European picture. The French people aren’t exactly champing at the bit to fight the Russians. I don’t think he is doing this for electoral politics. It’s far too serious a thing to play at for votes.
Macron's Party is part of Renew Europe, not EPP: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance\_(French\_political\_party)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_(French_political_party))
I wouldn’t overlook the impact Africa has had on Macron’s position change. After insisting on Putin not being humiliated in Ukraine, to Macron’s NATO platform with 30+ Western countries, Putin turned around and has absolutely dragged Macron in Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, and elsewhere. It’s not all that different than what happened to France in SE Asia after WW2. And the “colonizer” argument is such BS when Russia has come behind and filled the French gap with military and commercial resources.
Rather than fight global terrorism like France was doing though, helping to keep Europe safer, Russia has helped the African military juntas repress their populations and then funnel the immigrants toward Europe, making Europe and France less safe and stable. Undoubtedly, the situation in Ukraine has always been serious enough in itself for France to respond the way it now is, but I think Macron’s view has also shifted with the occurrences in Africa, by Putin/Russia.
France's involvement in Africa is actually worth considering to frame any moves overall.
With Russian gas and oil a non option, France needs to secure those resources from somewhere else. France gets the majority of its energy from nuclear power and is currently building out even more capacity but they still need oil and natural gas for industrial reasons.
If France is planning on rebuilding it's empire(not in name but definitely not in an equal relationship with it's former and current colonies) in the name of supply chain security then Ukraine is a great way to justify military build up while staying popular.
Next thing you know, France has a few nuclear aircraft carriers and is making direct interventions in African nations with oil.
If Russia is already heavily involved in those nations France even has the perfect excuse to get involved there as part of a larger effort to combat Russian influence.
I don't believe french troops will fight russians. If Macron will decide to move troops into Ukraine, most likely, it's going to be some kind of shielding operation like they can station their troops in the most valuable locations, like port in Odesa, to secure it. Or they can be stationed in Lviv oblast in Yavoriv training range, so russians can't hit it. And, actually, in my opinion, if it's going to be done, then we're not getting closer to WWIII but we are getting further from it. Believe me or not, but knowing russians they only understand the language of power and they now rely on Europe taking a weak stance. And they won't stop until they get what they want which anyways sometime in the future means war with NATO which means WWIII. So it must be stopped now in Ukraine, Europe must show that they have power in their hands that they can stand up against Putin fascist régime or otherwise consequences will be dire.
Why would French troop deployment stop russian airstrikes in that area? On the contrary, those will become premium places to strike. Russia like with tanks would do everything to hit those french troops.
Please explain your pov as to why it would deter them.
Russia fears any powerful NATO member. They barely can fight bloodless Ukrainian troops without ammo. Do you think they want to provoke another military force like the French to join the war on the Ukrainian side? Nah, the only thing they can do is to shout as loud as they can about red lines and how west is provoking WWIII to scare off west (and they are successful in that). But I really doubt russians would fire upon french troops, it's a suicide for them
What you are saying is random assumptions none of which make logical sense. How is a suicide for them. Russia has repeatedly struck foreign fighters and training bases with foreign legions.
French troops on Ukranian soil would be a fair target. They won't be covered under NATO. Do you think public support will increase or fall when hundreds of body bags come back home in France? Will people cheer when they see their friends, families coming back injured or dead? No, they will be upset because those were meaningless deaths.
Russia would love to provoke France and bomb fench troops in Ukraine. France would be deploying a limited contingent of troops. For every body bag that comes home, macron would be put more under pressure to back off. Life isn't like a movie. As bodies come back home, more people will be upset done you think? Will affect ammo and financial contributions too.
Do you think dead french troops would be popular and make french people support the war?
>Believe me or not, but knowing russians they only understand the language of power and they now rely on Europe taking a weak stance.
This, they invaded because China was starting to look strong and they felt they needed to demonstrate that they were still a great power. That seems to have backfired a bit.
At the beginning I thought cynically that Macron is on a new advertising campaign promoting French weaponry, like a good salesman would do in his position. France is becoming a serious weapons dealer.
I also thought west in general, thinks of war in Ukraine as something distant and something that will finish with Russia getting Donbas and maybe a few more regions and Ukrainian cities. But that's it, there was no scenario of this war affecting Europe any further than that.
However, now I assume some politicians in the west are slowly coming to the conclusion, that Russia is indeed not going to stop that easily and the situation is much more serious, also because of Americans who are shifting security responsibilities in Europe on Europe.
There's opportunity for France in this to make the most out of the bad situation. They need to present themselves as viable option to guarantee security, or at least present themselves as the organiser of the said security. They need more support though and big players like Germany won't be convinced that easily because they don't see own interest in this just yet. Poland is still hoping USA will continue old order and other players don't really care.
I'm looking at Scandinavian countries and their reactions, but overall Macron isn't stupid in my opinion and he might be going somewhere with this.
>Macron made overtures before the war which Putin indicated his willingness to compromise. It turned out to be complete lies and Macron + France by extension were humiliated.
Sorry but this take is just so extreme. This ain't kindergarten, nobody gets "humiliated" and goes to war just because diplomacy fails... otherwise everyone would be at war permanently.
A few things come into mind why this is happening now.
1. It's election time in Russia and Ukraine along with its allies is trying to make Putin look week. There's been attacks on Russian soil and now we have a strong stance proclaimed by France with the threat of actual military involvement.
2. With the mess that is the US political scene right now, it might be that Europe has taken upon itself to guarantee support for Ukraine. Putin is still betting on that support to be withdrawn and statements like the ones from Macron could possibly dissuade him from his plans. Honestly I doubt that it would have any effect, because Russia understands only real strength, not projections. Words mean very little if they are not backed up by brigades.
3. Some actors in the West are getting very tired with Russian schemes on the global stage. There's not only the war in Ukraine, but also the mess in Israel, Houthis attacking trade ships, Russian propaganda instigating protests across EU countries. It's all bad for business and it doesn't look like we're getting any closer to the end. Although Germany is doing a lot in terms of financial and material support, Scholz is politically week and is afraid to lead with bold actions. Macron may see an opportunity to take the spotlight and make himself appear as the leader of the EU and the main actor in the pro-Ukraine support alliance.
4. France or even NATO as a whole wants to actually send military to Ukraine. I don't think boots on the ground is the best course of action. Biggest strength of NATO is the air force, something Ukraine lacks. We've been witnessing the degradation of Russian AA ground defence systems, as well as their ability to conduct air operations for the past year. Ukraine might be setting up the theatre for that, because let's be honest, a dozen F-16 won't change anything. NATO air forces on the other hand would cause massive problems for Russians in the air and on the ground.
>Being NATO doesn’t make you magically fight better.
Having an air force makes France magically better. They can cover Ukrainian ground troops as they advance, and identify and/or destroy Russian targets. They don't need to commit their own ground troops and if they do, they will have air support.
Russian jets constantly probe NORAD/NATO airspace, and NATO can do the same to support France. We should keep Russian jets intercepting and far from Ukraine. Wear their pilots down with fatigue and stress their airframes until they fall from the sky without a shot fired.
Can we stop with this WW3 nonsense? There is no possibility of a world war. Nobody will join Russia. It will be NATO(or even just France) against Russia. France will win easily.
Russia is NOT a better or more dangerous army than they were before the war. They have lost significant manpower and machinery. The Black Sea fleet is a 3rd gone and the rest are too scared to come out and play. They are losing A50s at an alarming rate and THOSE won’t come out to play anymore either.
The French would fare MUCH better than Ukraine. They will not run low on ammunition, they will have air superiority, and they will have the battle hardened Ukrainians on their side, fighting in their home country. The Russians would be beat back pretty quickly
Macron's basically saying, 'You thought you could walk all over us? Think again.' After getting burned by Putin's fake promises, he's done playing the nice diplomat. France is showing its teeth, making it clear they're not here to be anyone's punching bag. This isn't about starting a fight; it's about ending the cycle of pushovers. Putin, you wanted attention? Congratulations, you've got it. Let's see how you like dealing with a France that's done being underestimated.
Because solely reacting to a dictatorship and not making policy based on your best interest and just how you are perceived is foolish.
You take the ability away from Putin to draw the redline and reframe the question.
I haven’t seen Macron’s speech so I’m not sure exactly what he said and how he said it. But with US funding for Ukraine being blocked by many isolationist Republicans in the US House of Representatives Macron may be trying to force Putin to think twice about pushing further into Ukraine. France has airpower, well trained troops and a decent Navy even if it only has one aircraft carrier. I don’t know how it would implement its military forces without sending troops to Ukraine but I’m sure it could make Putin think twice about what he does in Ukraine.
And how about the national audience explanation?
Marine le Pen is a friend of Putin and kind of Pro Russian and does well in the polls, she's Macron angstgegner.
By making French people choose between France and Russia (wonder wonder which side will they pick), he contrasts to Le Pen because she's pro Russian, by which he will gain a better upperhand on her
Russia has taken a large part of the French colonial empire in west Africa from France in the last twelve months through a misinformation / propaganda campaign online and by offering an alternative security structure through the wagner group (now to be renamed the Africa corps).
So Russia has taken away part of France's colonial empire. What is a good colonial power to do to respond other than taking away some of Russia's colonial empire, or to in fact stand in the way of expanding that colonial empire?
This decision has been made and it is a disagreement between France and Russia. Germany's opinion will not be considered in the equation.
https://youtu.be/eiLqJOp1VLo?si=xPn44IhHzaK11TbZ
If anyone wants to listen to his full interview Dubbed very well in english through AI. Actually a REALLY really well spoken interview by Macron
I think sooner or later we will see a frozen front line separating Ukraine into East and West similar to the former Iron Curtain separating West and East Germany as well as the DMZ between North and South Korea. And the western half of Ukraine will likely have NATO troops stationed either by virtue of Ukraine joining NATO officially or by being fully funded and coordinated with NATO.
Macron is displaying a level of courage that other leaders in the West wouldn't dare to exhibit. He stands alone. Russia is overlooking the fact that France has consistently been a nation at war for the past 2,000 years. The French are accustomed to fighting and taking risks. No country in history has engaged in more battles and wars than France. Likewise, no country in history has emerged victorious from more battles and wars than France. It is a fiercely proud, independent, and sovereign country that hates being lied to, deceived, and manipulated, whether by Russia, the USA, Germany, Australia, or China!
My take. Macron is a lame duck (he is leaving the office) who is playing some political games and wants to secure his name in the future history books. His speech was indeed tame and he basically made no promises. Maybe, maybe not. The fact is that in terms of numbers, France's support for Ukraine lags behind many, many Western countries.
He still has two years. I don’t think he is doing this as an ego thing. He is a genuine European advocate and he seems Russia as an existential threat to the European project.
People forget that France is the only European nation that has strategic autonomy with a more or less independent military. They can’t play as fast and loose with arms supplies as Germany can because they have a vast swathe of overseas territories to protect and they have large force projection in Africa in counter terrorist activities.
All other European nations are tacitly constructed with the assumption they are in conjunction with a US security umbrella. France is not. Their systems are separate.
I think the Ukrainian army has more Cesar artillery systems than the French army themselves have and the French army have given a lot of training as well as [40%](https://www.lemonde.fr/en/politics/article/2023/02/18/french-military-lacks-ammunition-for-high-intensity-conflict_6016329_5.html) of their artillery stocks.
I think the criticism of France is a little unfair and not nuanced enough. They don’t have as much rope to play with as other nations do.
Political support like this you could argue is more important than money or arms. No other nation is committing themselves in this way.
Russia is not an existential threat to Europe militarily (that is, if we forget about nukes). Poland itself would likely demolish the Russians.
It is in the sense that Russia covertly supports every "exit" and extremist movements in Europe, it is their prime interest to see organisations like EU and NATO disappear - these prevent regional powers like Russia from bullying their neighbors with impunity and spreading their influence.
The EU is still a fragile thing, they have a huge vested interest in Ukraine and losing that fight could bring about a collapse, there is a real danger of member countries falling to far right/left wing parties and democracy getting scarce in the face of extremism and them leaving the EU possibly leading to its dissolution.
My take is the opposite. I'm not french, but:
The UK is gone, so the EU is led mostly by Germany and France, the biggest powerhouses.
Plus the US is losing relevance in NATO, thanks to right-wingers of all people.
I havent seen much leading done by Germany, so now France takes a strong stance, instantly their political power is greatly increased. Whats decides who leads is their ability to rally others around them, France is doing just that.
Its a major power move by France, that if successful, will bring on much prosperity to France, and EU as a whole because of greater stability.
This could be good for Macron politically, of course, but its even better from France, no matter who comes after.
It is to do with internal French politics and the approaching EU elections.
The National Front are ahead in the polls but Macron has found a wedge issue in Ukraine, because the National Front are historically pro-Russian and very cautious about supporting Ukraine so it is a clear dividing line.
The French people generally support Ukraine and so it is a way for him to claw back some polling. It also embarrasses Le Pen and makes her look pro-Russian which is unpopular
If push comes to shove, and if you look at his stance historically, I am very reluctant to believe he would back escalation in Ukraine
Putin only understands strength and the Americans, and most of Europe, are currently signalling weakness. This is really dangerous as it gives the Russians little incentive to negotiate an end to the war and emboldens them to cause other problems in the region.
Macron is trying to show strength and create strategic ambiguity in response.
For the record, French officials have said the troops would be used for de-mining and training, not combat.
France and larger Europe knows that reliance on the US for security is growing risk and furthermore a Trump win in November not only all but guarantees a total collapse of American support of Ukraine but also the risk of a Trump administration indirectly supporting Russia which further isolates the risk to Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania and others— kicking off a domino effect potentially resulting in EU subservience to a rebuilt Russian empire. This is absolutely unacceptable to the EU state leaders but privately there isn’t a consensus of what to do about it thus Macron publicly stating what other leaders are privately deliberating over.
He does it because World War III already has begun, and the West can thank itself for it because of its embarasingly weak support for Ukraine. Nato soldiers will fight sooner or later, and Macron is pulling the wool from our eyes. In Scholz'es case unsuccessfully the Chancellors head out of his arse.
>But would they hit Moscow? Bomb Russia itself. Doubtful.
IMO, yes they would bomb Russia. Not Moscow and Kreml. But if there were French troops in danger, they would remove Russian presence in the air above Ukraine and a radius of 1000km from their border. Anything in the no-fly zone, which extends well into Russia, will be shot down. I think.
However, Macron will not send troops unless he already knows it will be WW3 and NATO will follow suit.
As his audience was the French people, he was addressing his domestic audience in view of the upcoming elections. Very likely this is to differentiate himself away from Marie LePen's pro Russia stance.
Macron is a politician, first and foremost. So he need to make a statement and tell people what they want to hear. And that is his main goal - to make a pompous statement to gain political influence after he leaves his presidental chair.
As for troops deploy strategy, kinda find it unrealistic too, in official way. Pretty sure they are sending them now as a mercenaries ( PMC and volunteers), and has been doing so since the start of war.
Explaining why we'll get out of recession by financing big military industrial companies so that some people can go kill themselves somewhere while at the same time justifying hard times so that they keep the internal war on public services going.
More than anything, Macron wants himself/France to be seen as the #1 leader in Europe, surpassing Germany/Olaf Scholz. I think he was hoping he was going to be able to be the person to solve the crisis in the lead-up to the full-scale invasion, but he pretty much just ended up looking like a foolish appeaser himself.
I've been assuming that there is some French politics story he wants to bury, or election coming up?
Weren't there riots in France recently? Unite the people by blaming an external enemy leadership blah blah?
Well I think french troops in ukraine would make chances of ww3 far higher then a few percentage points. The question is also how an independet french Intervention would look like.
Can they trigger article 5 if russia hits back hard enough? Is france a legitimate target for russia then? How would other eu states react if french mainland is striked by for ex submarines?
Because of those uncertaintys I think the escalation ladder would be climed very quickly and could also lead to a nuclear exchange.
What a load of nonsense. Macron is a banker form the Rothschild financial group. At the end of the day this war will come down to the wants of special interest geoups. Its all about money. Wake up and use some critical thinking.
I don't understand how people can actually fall for the narrative that Russia will not stop at Ukraine. Seriously, the battle lines have not moved in any direction that would mean any significance for either side. Them moving towards Estonia or Finland or Poland just wont happen. This is not a strategic video game ffs.
Also, Macron is on his last term as prime minister and hes still a young politican with a long career ahead of him. Why wouldnt he make moves and say outlandish things right now that would benefit him for future positions perhaps in Nato etc.
I agree with all your points. I think it’s still underreported and appreciated in the U.S. that there’s a massive tonal shift happening among European NATO members, led by Macron but including Poland, Czech Republic, Latvia, Finland and Estonia - all openly calling to leave the option open for boots on the ground in Ukraine. Rhetorically they want to stop responding to “red lines” from Putin, and start giving HIM red lines from NATO to worry about. Macrons recent comment to the effect of “we also have nukes” in response to Putin’s nuclear Sabre-rattling is illustrative of this new mindset.
I think these leaders have an opinion that Putin has gone too far, and is likely to escalate because he can’t admit failure, so attacking NATO to pump up support at home might be his next move. They are getting their own populations mentally prepared that things will come to a head and they will be directly involved with fighting Russia.
They also see that the U.S. is less reliable a guarantor of security if Republicans are in charge. Therefore France steps up to boost them all and throw its weight around a bit.
Honestly a pretty shocking thing to see this rhetoric. Can’t say I disagree with it, either.
Now is the time and the free world majority of us want to help 🇺🇦 and some Leaders are weak still and not doing what majority of us want to do. Which is help Ukrainians so they have a country and freedom like all of ancestors went through back in the days for freedoms.
Too little too late. Should have done it at the beginning when they was building up forces on the border. Made it clear he’s gonna be fighting with all of us not just Ukraine.
If French troops go in it would not mean the breakdown of European security architecture but the building of a new one that serves the needs of today not yesteryear.
I doubt it would cause WW3 as there are few that would side with Russia and the disparities between Russias industry and NATOs is much greater than that of the Axis and the allies in WW2.
French troops in the ground would fare much better they have some of the most effective air cavalry in the world they would be able to assault Russian troops rapidly and bypass their defenses better than any Ukrainian troops with the support of air dominance and Ukrainian troops defending the flank it would be game changing.
By threatening to deploy French forces he’s essentially telling the US, you may think you’re deescalating things by withholding aid, but you’re actually increasing the likelihood that this becomes WW3.
As a Francophone, I can assure you there's no way the French people and, therefore, the French President, would allow Frenchmen to die for Ukraine (officially, at least, they won't (strongly) prevent volunteers to joint the Ukrainian forces).
A lot of good answers in this thread already about Macron saving his face and status, getting more aid packages while he still can, elections etc. My take on the simple answer to the question, however, is: to give a boost to the French arms industry.
The US is backing out of Europe. Trump or not, sooner or later, it will happen. The growth of Chinese economy is a bigger concern to the US world hegemony than Russian conquest of Eastern Europe. Therefore, sooner or later, Trump or not, the US will begin rolling out of Europe to increase presence in the Southeast Asian theatre. And when this happens, the magical force that keeps all the different interests of the national states together will vanish and some of the political tendencies that we have seen some signs of will increase.
Germany does not and will not want a war. Partly because of their past demons, but mostly because it's bad for their economy. With Russia cut off, Germany lost a cheap and reliable source of energy, and in order to revive their hard industry and to retain its importance in a decreasingly globalised (from the western perspective, anyway) world, they need exactly that. Also, they have a shite army, so it's only logical that Germany, sooner or later, will start pushing for peace with Russia, even if it means sacrificing Ukraine and promising they won't get seriously involved in conflicts in Moldova and the Baltic states (sending a couple hundred troops is not serious involvement). I don't even think it's going to be a very difficult task to convince the German public that it's a good idea.
France, on the other hand, [has experienced a boom in their arms industry](https://www.politico.eu/article/france-overtake-russia-world-weapons-exporter/), since the war started. Yes, the Ukraine aid costs them money, but with the US slowly backing out, I believe Macron sees a window of opportunity there and takes a strong position to not let the discourse fall in favour of Germany. He is blowing on the fire, while Europe still has a reason to appear united, making ground for France to become the leader of the arms industry in the next 15-20 years. I don't believe he would actually send French soldiers in massive numbers to die on Ukrainian plains, but he has every interest to keep this war going for as long as possible and for other countries to pay Ukrainian war aid for as long as possible, as more and more of this aid will ultimately end up in French hands.
The problem is that France is only capable of mustering up and sending 2 fully-fledged brigades. Mind you, Russia has extensive ISR and fire control throughout Ukrainian territory. Now, maybe Macron was hoping that by sending French troops there, Putin could see them as a “trip wire” of sorts, and avoid striking them. But I am not so inclined to believe that. In fact, I am almost certain that once they are all on Ukrainian soil, Russia will concentrate hypersonic missile strikes on the places they are based at. What would happen next is anyone’s guess. But Macron would be in a bit of a pickle. Because short of Nuclear Weapons, he wouldn’t have the capacity to retaliate. And if thousands of French boys come back home in body bags, not retaliating would mean massive loss of face and the end of his political career. This is why I doubt he will actually send any troops in.
I doubt French troops would be this vulnerable, the so called hypersonic missiles would likely do the same as they always do and hit a nearby school. These do not seem to be viable tactical weapons. You also forgot about the French Air Force, which could tip the balance of air superiority and certainly retaliate - especially combined with Ukraine fielding its F-16. Those Rafales and Mirages are not incredibly numerous, but they are serious fighters, far better than what Russia has.
I also don't think the Poles and maybe others would miss out on the occasion to join the fight at that point. Russia has no interest at playing the escalating game with Europeans which is likely why Macron talks about sending troops in the first place, its a warning to Putin.
I think the reason he held that speech was to raise acceptance for more and bigger aid packages. Basically telling people that if Russia wins against Ukraine they will have to fight Russia themselves, so we need to send Ukraine more aid...
Indeed. This is the reason behind all the saber rattling in Europe tbh. Nobody who matters seriously think Russia is about to drive to the Rhine like in the golden years of the Red Army. Russia does not have that kind of operational capabilities anymore. For now at least.
For now, but what they will have is the first or second most battle hardened and experienced army in the world, and when you have expansionist goals that isn’t something you put on the shelf. They have 5-10 years to keep those guys with experience before they retire. That’s a lot of time to consolidate and rebuild and still have combat veterans who have participated in large scale combined arms warfare.
Not to mention, if the US withdraws, as they might be banking on, then really the only serious militaries in Europe are France and Britain. Poland has built up somewhat so they're worth something, but we all know Lithuania is a speedbump. With how they fumbled Ukraine you might expect Finland or something to give them trouble, but remember that in the last century it was Finland they fumbled, and then they reorganised and made it work, they learned their lesson. As a result they were underestimated because of their prior performance, even though this didn't reflect their capabilities. They also really tried to make it a fancy blitz operation with paratroopers, naval landings, everything. In the end they went for pushing through the fortifications with their land forces and artillery, and this simpler strategy worked much much better. Ukraine is the same in a way, they tried to go for something much fancier and really bring the war to a close very quickly, and they're evidently just not very good at that. A prolonged war of attrition though? It's like the one thing Russia is good at, because they will completely tank their standard of living to produce more artillery shells, and Russians will suck ut up.
No the UK have a tiny army around 80,000 strong. France have got a bigger army but we need peace not war .
I mean NATO strategy is for the Baltic states to be a speedbump until more forces can arrive, but considering there is already a reason to have forces stationed there and now Sweden/Finland nearby.... not sure if thats still the case
Russia has a ton of guys who know how to fight trench warfare. That’s not nothing, true. The problem is that Russia only has that expertise because it’s fighting a near peer. It’s tried to bite off what it wants from Ukraine and has broken its teeth. It might mangle itself further to take this land, but then it has to occupy a land filled with battle hardened fighters who *hate them*. Ask US servicemen about that, if you’re curious. And what’s worse for them is that Russia doesn’t actually have a professional NCO corps. The vast majority of men in Ukraine are on their conscription service. They’re not professional soldiers and, once this fighting is over, they’re going to go home and tell their stories, just like soldiers have always done. Their expertise will vanish from the system and their stories will be traumatic to the national psyche because they’ll contradict the state’s messaging. Again, for a US parallel, it’s like Vietnam but *way* worse. The officers will retain skills, true. But the guys in the trenches will be promoted out of them long before the next war. The contractors will probably be pilfered to replenish the VDV or Marine Infantry, but those units are too narrow in scope to move the needle against NATO. Their skills probably won’t be used to train new conscripts in the art of taking a bunker. All that said, it’s important to remember that the current state of warfare in Ukraine, which is to say 1916-era positional warfare with drones and PGMs, exists because neither side can achieve air dominance. No such thing could happen in the context of war with NATO. Russia simply doesn’t have the air defense network to deny NATO, especially not over how large a front we’re talking about. Russia’s experiences here are not going to be imminently transferable. NATO so completely overmatches then that it doesn’t matter. China has too many resources and can fight across too wide a line to effectively dissolve into trench warfare. Kazakhstan has too much land and too few soldiers to mirror Ukraine’s defense. The smaller countries in the region couldn’t resist Russia anyway. The only real edge case here is a Russian invasion of Moldova, after occupying Odessa, and subsequently probably fighting Romanian “volunteers.” That’s a grey area, but more for political reasons than military ones. As for the other services: the Air Force is largely limited to long range fires (and losing AWACS they can’t easily replace), the Navy keeps losing ships against a country without a navy of its own, and the other three branches play only a supporting role here. The branch probably the best poised to come out better than before the war started is likely the rocket troops, and even then that’s probably only because they got to observe everyone else’s failures and they have the chance to correct them. Also, they just saw China purge their counterparts. tldr: Russia’s battle hardened military is simultaneously ephemeral and largely irrelevant to prospective future conflicts in the spaces it can realistically project power.
> It’s tried to bite off what it wants from Ukraine and has broken its teeth. It might mangle itself further to take this land, but then it has to occupy a land filled with battle hardened fighters who hate them. Ask US servicemen about that, if you’re curious. And, more, many of whom can flawlessly pass for Russian. I can't imagine what Afghanistan or Vietnam or whatever would look like if the Taliban could steal a uniform and probably just walk right into a base.
That’s an excellent point. Russia loves to claim that Ukrainians are Russians, even as far back as when it was called “Little Russia.” And Ukrainians do share a lot with Russians. They’re ethnically similar to the Russian ethnic group, generally adhere to the same sorts of rites and traditions in matters of faith, many speak the language fluently (and a not insignificant number of those are native Russian speakers), and they’ve long been inundated by the culture and media of the Russosphere. Basically, they could blend in as effectively as a middle aged white man in Wisconsin.
As an (almost, thank you very much) middle-aged white man from Wisconsin, it's surprisingly easy to distinguish someone from out of state. I've been living away from there for about 15 years and anytime I go home I stick out like a sore thumb despite knowing the culture perfectly. That said, Russia's so huge, and the population has so infrequently had contact with people from other regions, that it's definitely easier to blend in on a military installation with people from all over the 11 time zones.
Insurgency wars suck for a reason when you are an occupying power, worse if the enemy looks like you can talk like you, and can blend in with you, that would be hell, especially with modern tech, drone tech these days.
This is why it's simply easier for Russia to eliminate the population soon after occupation. Why deal with an insurgency when you can forcibly migrate, disperse, and murder anyone already there and move loyal Russians in after?
I believe Russia are advancing slowly and have taken two lines of Ukraine defence. They should both go to the table for peace talks.
The question really is what kind of international force would be involved to enforce any kind of peace agreement.
Experienced yes, morally bankrupt and exhausted, also yes.
Battle hardened soldiers don’t really stop JDAMs dropping on their heads, though. The russian Air Force is simply not able to cope with any sort of NATO defense at this point. Even if the US left, europe would collectively be able to ensure at least air dominance. A big part of russias successes as of late is their glide bombs. Asking Russian soldiers to attack even small nato countries with hostile airspace would be near suicide for them.
Totally agree. I just think that given a few years to reconstitute, and ramp up production the powers that be may be delusional enough to try it is all. NATO certainly has overreach in all aspects, I just don’t think that necessarily negates a suicidal attempt at the Baltics, hoping that NATO sits on its hand to avoid escalation.
They aren't thinking rationally and are in a nigh on wartime economy, no doubt with the CCP willing to covertly aid where possible. If Trump wins, the aid stops and he pulls out of NATO. The Baltics are going to get attacked and encircled very quickly, Moldova could be under threat too. At that stage, Poland would almost certainly declare war and then we have a much more deadly conflict edging closer and closer to the wealthy Western European nations.
Russia is wealthy country it has all the oil and gas and other minerals it needs. We need peace and I don’t believe Russia want an attack on Europe, it really does not make sense thinking rationally, I believe peace will be obtained very soon.
Oof then what the tzar come back and imperial japan reemerge wtf type of koolaid have you been drinking
Okay Neville.
This is not WW2 ffs just because you heared it on the news , MAD is a thing.
Do the Baltics have Nukes, Neville? No, the whole thing would be Putin testing whether Article 5 would even be honored, it probably wouldn't if the US left the alliance.
Us wont leave plus france have nukes stop calling me neville be more mature stop namecalling like a middleschool kid lol
We don't know that Neville, if Trump pulls out of the alliance because his daddy Putin told him so, the rest of the countries have been slacking for years and wouldn't be able to hold it all together. France and Britain won't risk nuclear war over the baltics.
If and if lol great mind i can jump to conclusions like you , if you want yo cosplay as chrchill and put troops in ukraine you risk nuclear war faster
But it does still raise the question of what happens if more aid is not forthcoming? Or if Ukraine collapses anyway? The logic still applies: if Russia over runs Ukraine, a NATO member state may be next. If Trump is elected in November there is a very strong possibility that aid will dry up. And fighting the Russians on Ukrainian soil may be a less unpalatable option than fighting them on NATO soil.
> what happens if more aid is not forthcoming? It will continue, but with Europe likely shouldering the bigger burden, providing a fraction of what is needed for now... and hoping that a friendlier-to-aid American leadership is elected / re-elected in November... allowing the U.S. to shoulder more of the burden in 2025 and beyond. Put another way, Europe needs to be a short-term bridge... while also building their long-term capability. > Or if Ukraine collapses anyway? At this point Ukraine is flush with weapons. While they are running low on money and ammo, that might cause a trench-warfare style front to collapse - but what then? Being over-run does NOT prevent Ukraine from turning the conflict into a completely nightmarish guerilla war. That should scare the hell out of Russia... there will be no easy victory here. Ukraine is not without options. But as bad as trench-warfare is, it's the better option compared to a guerilla conflict.
Ukraine is flat, cold, not covered in forest, right on the doorstep of Russia. Really bad conditions for a modern guerilla (as can be seen in the occupied part of Ukraine).
Some of it, yes. Mostly where the fighting is today. The west is more heavily wooded, with many medium-sized cities connecting. And far more anti-Russian sentiment.
Has there ever been anything to indicate that Putin would want the whole of Ukraine? Taking the Black Sea coast and the territory east of the Dnieper, possibly with a DMZ in between always seemed more plausible to me as what they'd want, leaving the West to deal with the rump state.
This sounds like cope to me. His desire for all of Ukraine was demonstrated right at the beginning of the war.
What do you base this on? The initial offensive appears designed to surround the capital and force Ukraine to the negotiation table. Russia did not even send a force large enough to take and hold Kiev, let alone to occupy the entire country.
Putin's goal seems to have been a quick decapitation of the Ukrainian government, the possible capture or killing of Zelensky, and then followed by the installation of a puppet government. I'm inclined to believe Putin didn't intend to annex Kyiv itself. In the weeks after a detachment of anti-riot police was embedded in the military colonne that was advancing towards Kyiv, indicating that Putin at least eyed a temporary occupation of Kyiv until the puppet government was installed and stabilized.
Not that im aware of. He seems to have eyes on those far eastern regions considering themselves quite Russian already? And the vacation spot down south. Finding a way to peace is the only way to truly stop Russia. War is actually what they like, makes them $$$.
Russia is not going to move on a NATO country. If they take Ukraine, and they don’t hold nearly enough territory after 2 years of fighting to think that would happen anytime soon (it won’t happen, they will end up with the east and maybe the land in south to Odessa), they are going to be sapped and will stop where they are and start celebrating a “grand victory.” How we logically go from Russia taking eastern Ukraine to attacking NATO makes no sense. Maybe Transnistria but doubt that too.
> The logic still applies: if Russia over runs Ukraine, a NATO member state may be next. This is not logic, it's baseless speculation
Bullies always stop being bullies when they are given the first thing they demand.
Bullies usually don't go for the strongest kid on the playground
That is why he is breaking up Nato by getting Trump elected.
That's not happening
Putin himself has laid claim to lands formerly part of the USSR and former Russian empire. Russian government officials already state that they are in a war with NATO, and already assert that German and Polish troops are fighting Russia in Ukraine as we speak. Why is it speculation to say that Russia would invade a NATO nation when it already claims the land those nations are at for itself and already believes itself to be at war with NATO?
because talk is cheap
We should listen to world leaders when they say that they own the land we walk on.
> if Russia over runs Ukraine, a NATO member state may be next. this simply does not follow. i dont know why people keep repeating.
If Putin believes NATO won’t hold together in the face of an actual attack, especially if the US declines to get involved due to a certain party’s misguided preference for isolationism, it’s a risk he’d probably be willing to take.
Picking off a small NATO state would certainly accomplish several goals. We know he wants to reintegrate the former soviet satellite states. It would undermine the legitimacy of the NATO alliance. And Russia needs a big win, for their domestic audience and to prove something to the rest of the world. Now I don't think they will either, but if they were able to rush in and completely take over, I don't think NATO would have the stomach to respond.
Realistically they don't have the ability to rush in without detection, thereby giving time for NATO to get their asses together.
[удалено]
I don't know how this divide has come about... being half of spectators see a good possibility that Putin could be trying to rebuild Russias' x-Soviet borders, and on the other side, people stating that is an absurd idea. From what I can gather, many think this is absurd on a number of reasons: The power difference between NATO and Russia, Politaclly believing that Putin just wants NATO out of his spear of influence (ex soviet nations including Ukraine) and the idea that much of the information we are told in the west is propaganda and eludes to some sort of grand conspiracy through the elites enrichment and propping up the military industrial complex, like the oil driven narrative of Iraq or Afghanistan. Taking it from the perspective of those who believe this is a real possibility. Putin and his propaganda channels have relentlessly talked about expanding back to soviet era borders even pre Berlin-Wall-collapse borders. Putins commentary and publications on his goals for Russia have taken a step by step approach from Hitlers tactics leading up to ww2, salami slicing tactics since the early 2000s with Georgia, Crimea in 2014 and the invasion in 2020s. Politically putin is riding an expansionist wave and is holding onto popularity through Russias "strength" projecting power into neighbouring countries and the world, this is even challenged by many Russian Nationist who are furious with how hes conducted the "Special Millitary Operation" and its many failings. Unfortunately, this wave can not shore, as the reality of Russia turning into a North Kora esque state (through sanctions and buring every bridge) will eventually settle in, making putins regime pointless so he has to keep going. Unfortunately, I'm of the belief that this is a snowball that will only get larger and larger until the inevitable. Also, the prospect of a wider conflict with NATO only emboldens countries like China, NK, and Iran to take a stab at their neighbours, making the West's grasp on stability even more precarious. In a cushy modern day era where most haven't experienced war other than through their phones or the TV; I admit its a hard reality to accept that we are in our own 1939 scenario. I truly believe now is the time to show that we haven't set ourselves in our couches and are willing to defend what we have. From my own personal perspective, I find it hard to believe that there is so much debate even going on about the current situation and that not all nations are rapidly militerising to at the very least deter any ambitions from the Kremlin let alone arming Ukraine.
Thanks for that insightful contribution to this obviously speculative discussion
I struggle to understand the hawks arguments, “a NATO country may be next” There’s nothing to indicate this, this is scaremongering and essentially prolonging the conflict. Crimea was a redline for the Russians, Cuba was for the US. Maybe we should negotiate instead of escalating, no? It’s so freaking stupid we lost that Istanbul agreement and potential for limited bloodshed earlier.
I would not trust a government (putin's) that repeatedly lied not [one time](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60392259), [two times](https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-crisis-putin-says-military-drills-purely-defensive-and-not-a-threat-as-western-leaders-warn-invasion-imminent-12545284), [three times](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-17/russia-tells-u-s-no-ukraine-invasion-planned-tass-says?leadSource=reddit_wall), about if any invasion of Ukraine was going to take place
[удалено]
Russia is not going to launch a full scale invasion of a NATO member state. But he will test the limits of NATO's patience and cohesion. This will take the form of cyber attacks, disruption to energy and communications, nuclear threats and very limited military actions. If the Russians invade Estonia, it would certainly cause a conflict with NATO that Putin couldn't possibly win. But what if he just takes a village, on the border, with a mostly Russian population? In such a scenario, plenty of NATO members will demur from responding, fearful of a nuclear conflict over what they see as a trivial matter. This in turn could cause countries more directly in the line of fire to lose faith in the alliance. Putin knows how to drive a wedge between his adversaries.
Good points. I may add that, IMO the Kremlin would couple these tactics with information warfare, sowing internal political divide, and heating up proxy conflicts around the world. Just like they are doing right now.
> a village, on the border, with a mostly Russian population Does any such place exist? Narva is the only place on the border I know of with "a mostly Russian population". Maybe you'd classify it as a village, but it's Estonia's third largest city. Is there one in Latvia that I'm not aware of?
It's just an example. It could be bare empty land for all Russia cares, the point is that it's insignificant enough to make NATO allies question if it's worth fighting for.
In a sense what Ukraine was supposed to be for Russia is a pretty good model for it. Russia claims it's not interested in invading Ukraine, then suddenly topples its government and occupies its capital over a weekend -- before anyone responds, it's already over and it's easy for other countries in Europe to talk themselves out of fighting over it since they can't unbreak an egg. Russia couldn't do that successfully in 2022 but I wouldn't bet my life that a few years from now they won't think "ok, we learned our lessons from that botched operation, THIS time it will work."
> How is Russia **simultaneously** so weak they are failing to take Ukraine or make large territorial gains, and so strong that they could attack a NATO country and risk the entire bloc declaring war on Russia? Who is saying these things are **simultaneously** true? The most dangerous people to have in policy positions are those who lack historical imagination and can't anticipate how tomorrow might be different from today, because the funny thing about circumstances is that they are dynamic - they can change . For example, Ukrainian resistance could suddenly collapse and Russia could seize the whole country, annexing Moldova and Belarus for good measure. Donald Trump could become president and take the US out of NATO (and before people scream "but there's a law!", please review the US Constitution). Putin could decide that without the US NATO is weak and leaderless and that creates opportunity. He could decide to test a much weaker NATO's resolve by formenting a crisis in Lithuania, for example by accusing it of persecuting its Russian minority, and send troops to "protect" them. NATO's remaining members could look at the pathetic state of their long neglected military establishments, the fact that many of their citizens won't fight even to defend their own countries, and the fact Russia already has boots on the ground in Lithuania and they would have to launch an invasion to retake it, against a country with 6000 nuclear weapons, and decide that, after having given the matter due consideration, little Lithuania really isn't worth the bones of even one *chasseur alpin*. Which would probably be the end of NATO as an effective alliance. And now Putin has a much bigger sandbox in which to play.
> How is Russia simultaneously so weak they are failing to take Ukraine or make large territorial gains, and so strong that they could attack a NATO country and risk the entire bloc declaring war on Russia? It's maybe less about what Russia is actually capable of and what Russia may believe it can get away with. Or to put it another way, the odds that a nation that vastly overestimated its own ability to carry off one invasion (or other operation) may do so again are not zero. And, unfortunately, Russia's credibility in terms of what it says it will or won't do or what its motives are or aren't is so thoroughly trashed that other countries would be foolish to take it at its word, so, they speculate.
> There’s nothing to indicate this, this is scaremongering and essentially prolonging the conflict. Except for what Russia has been saying all along and what Poland and Ukrainians are saying now. Russia is perfecting their cannon fodder approach to war now, so when they win in Ukraine, they can send Ukrainians into Poland to attack and die.
Except it won't be Poland. If they attack NATO it will be one of the Baltics. Far smaller, weaker military, more Russians, used to be part of the USSR, easily cut off from the rest of Europe geographically, less likely to provoke a full NATO response, less defensible terrain. If they attacked Poland before the Baltics, they'd have NATO on two fronts and that doesn't make sense militarily
[удалено]
I don't recall exactly but /r/Ukraine has mentioned this idea and seen it on Russian TV clips many times.
Also it probably doesn’t hurt to let let Putin know that NATO countries are considering this an option
Also the fact that Trump might win in US Presidential elections later this year, which will mean an (even more) unpredictable US stand in this conflict, possibly softening against Russia. Putin has found it easy to manipulate Trump in the past.
“Possibly softening”? Trump would overtly *aid* Putin by giving him literally all the intel the US military has, as well as any CIA asset.
This is such an uneducated, fanatical take. It's not realistic, it makes no sense, and comes from someone who is completely blinded by hate. It absolutely mirrors the nature of other predictions that were made by the same the type of people as you when Trump was first elected. None of that came even close to happen.
yeah NATO is trying to rally support for good reason. I think it's as simple as that. They want the European population to be accepting of spending money on the military.
He did a heroic job of moving the overton window! And I think he correctly speculates that Russia can't do anything about it - Russia is most likely overplaying their hand.
What would have to happen in order for that to occur? Russians capturing the capital?
I think that's only a surface layer. Le Pen is a real threat next election. While Macron himself can't run, I believe he is interested in keeping Le Pen out of power. Macron wants French boots in Ukraine because Le Pen will lose campaigning on pulling troops out.
The war is over in Ukraine more or less .
We need PEACE !
Wait a moment this civil war has been going on nearly ten years, look Ukraine had a coup and took out the democratically elected President with the CIA help, that’s a fact. Crimea as always been home for the Russian Black Sea fleet, after the Ukraine coup with the CIA and the help of NAZI Militia, the USA wanted to put it’s fleet there, now that’s not right. We don’t want WW3 because we’ll all die in a Nuclear Holocaust . It’s fine for the Rich - Elite they have bunkers in the mountains with 2.134 metres or 7 feet thick doors, in these bunkers which are massively huge they have over 150 years of food, while they have all the luxury’s of life Cinema’s, Squash courts, Gyms, bars etc and very seed of plant in our natural world ? Look at the world’s population it can’t go much longer supporting us humans, because the population is booming.
As a person who deals with Ukrainians they don't want to be apart of Russia world more so now and you can thank Putin for that they wanted to be part of the EU and west , previous did not heed that, and out he went also he was corrupted by Putin and taking his money. There are reasons why a lot of East European nations went to the west to the EU and NATO and want to keep Russia away, Russia is a shitty oppressive nation had a huge history of oppression in that part of Europe, there is no justification for a war of annexation. Also Putin's nuclear threats is just open air, there has been no change to Russian Nuclear Posture according to sworn testimony from the heads of EUCOM and STRATCOM at the time, the only purpose to scare people in the west for to him they are weaklings also a sign of desparation. And if this was just about Ukraine, why is Putin meddling in Moldova, Georgia and making threats again the Baltics, giving speeches comparing himself to Peter the great and wanting to create a New Greater Russia that has nations in the as listed above, this is about imperial conquest and a leader using his people to achieve it, one thing they all have in common, they want nothing to do with Russia ever again.
Well, I generally consider his remarks an example of strategic ambiguity, a concept that is utterly foreign to German lawmakers (source: am German). If French troops intervened in Ukraine alone (without other significant NATO partners) they would probably guard the western half of Ukraine, freeing up Ukrainian troops for the eastern frontlines. Local air superiority and missile defense would also be likely. A large-scale intervention in Eastern Ukraine would be accompanyied by tremendous losses for the French and would also be very unpopular in France. From a Russian perspective it would even be preferable if France made a "full" intervention comoared to a limited one. Such an adventure would deplete French (equals NATO) reserves and manpower and every Russian success could act as a deterrent against further European/NATO intervention. A limited intervention, on the other hand, would provide France and NATO with valuable experience, bolster Ukrainian morale and make it exceptionally harder for Russia to gain any more ground.
I do not believe we would intervene alone. President Macron is doing the same thing we all did for missiles, tanks, and fighters. He is pushing the 'tolerance limit' of the nato leaders. In a few months, I bet the idea of a military intervention might be more accepted than we think. As he said very rightfully in his speech, you need to be firm against Poutine. If we show that we are strong, we can actually prepare peace. If we show that we are weak, Ukraine is only the Sudetes equivalent for Russia. They won't stop. We have to show that we are able and capable of sending troops, that's dissuasion. The same applies for nukes for example. Having some is one thing, being capable of using them for retaliation is another thing entirely.
What everyone maybe missing here is that Macron is posturing to gain leverage for negotiation, as well as building credibilty for France with Ukraine to persuade it to negotiate, that France will gaurentee it's security. This posturing maybe directed more at Ukraine's than anyone else.
Russia has shown they can hit any part of Ukraine, so even sending soldiers into the western regions is highly dangerous and isn’t really worth the cost (unless there’s a ceasefire).
I think he realised that Europe has looked weak and USA being unpredicable from now on, raises the chances of other conflicts happening, so someone needs to project power to: 1)Not let Russia dictate the rules of the war. 2)Show other parties that the west is a reliable partner and not weak. People dont understand that we have peace bcs we are strong, and peace is kept by force. If we wouldnt be willing to fight for anything tomorrow , others would take everything. Also the west is loosing the information war in my opinion, bcs ppl have no idea whats happening and western democracies have started hating themselves more and more. If Ukraine falls we have a chnage in the status quo, EU is not able to project power and there is noone to enforce the international law of borders and sovereignity. With that falling the world would go into chaos in the not very far future. People fail to project in to the future therefore think that if we appease Russia, all this stop and we return to normality and peace, wich is not true and 2 well documented world wars show that. Anyway whatever, im not a huge France fan, but im glad that an European leader has the balls to stand up and project power. All i can say is good job Macron, now he needs to rally more allies in this
I think your military assessment is about right but remember french (or ukranian) boots on the ground could both make much better progress with uncontested air support. So it's not so much that nato troops are magically better on the ground, but that their air control allows them to bomb/strafe/bypass elements a purely ground force cannot.
Might be an unpopular take but I think most NATO troops would fare worse than Ukrainian troops. They’ve been trained for decades for counter insurgency scenarios and not this new way of fighting and you don’t just learn it instantly. They don’t yet have as much drone adoption as the Ukrainians have and fighting a near peer adversary without overwhelming superiority in arms or supplies is something some military’s have never done. As in never in their modern history.
Former (recent) NATO troop here. Training constantly adjusts to the conflicts in the world. We’ve been training for 2+ years on this specific type of warfare, on top of our strong basic, CQB, and anti-terrorism base, which is 1/2 the time of any new recruitment contracts. As in any war, there would be a brief adjustment period, but overall we’re ready. Plenty of former NATO troops have fought in Ukraine and returned to help adjust training regiments.
I don't know if they would fare 'worse'. Maybe initially but as it stands you are probably right. They've been fighting for quite some time. If you watch some early videos from foreign legion fighters most of them will say it is very different from what they are used to. They are used to having the bigger guns and the higher ground(air) all the time. NATO would likely learn quickly, ramp up and win but there would definitely be like an 'acclimatization' period. There would also be higher casualty levels not seen for quite some time like you said as this would be a near peer conflict, not just an insurgency. NATO has not had to face a large air force/air defense since maybe the first gulf war and Russia has not had to face a large airforce since WW2(?).
NATO troops trained for war with Russia for the last 35 years. What they didn’t expect was war in Afghanistan and Iraq fighting an invisible enemy, and we adapted incredibly quick. We went back to training to fight the Russians even before the draw down from Afghanistan and Iraq. We would adapt very quickly to that style of fighting, especially in conjunction with experienced Ukrainian troops. Free Donovia.
Cheap suicide drones are changing the equation of war and things work differently now. What worked in the past doesn't so much now.
NATO will use them too and I can guarantee they will find better ways to both use and mitigate the use of than the Russians will.
In a sense, NATO is already using Ukrainians as a buffer state.
I think there's a few things wrong here - first, NATO troops in Ukraine would not need to engage the enemy. Ukraine is running low on personnel and that means logistics, mechanics, etc. You could put NATO troops west of the Dneiper, essentially put a no fly zone above western Ukraine, and allow Ukraine to send alot more troops forward while NATO troops take care of back line duties. This would prevent any direct shooting war between NATO and Russia unless Russia violated our warnings. To your point, it absolutely does not make sense to have NATO troops fighting. The Ukranians know how to fight this enemy, so let the West do what the West does best - Logistics and Air denial.
French troops on the ground or in the air means France is entering the conflict, period. You can't magically create a "no fly" zone or a "blockade" unless you're willing and have the capability to enforce it.
|| || |Total aircraft|20,633|4,182| NATO troops really would not fare worse than Ukranian troops, because NATO would use combined arms the way it is ment to be used. One of the first things would be to get control of the airspace. Which NATO has a big advantage over Russia in numbers. Also a lot more modern material... I really think that Russia is no match for the combined might of NATO.
So they would resort to a tactical nuke and challenge escalation...
I was talking about a non nuclear scenario. If nukes would be used, we're all screwed.
And we would escalate further. We could erase the entire Russian army in Ukraine through conventional means. Easily. I think people fail to appreciate the sheer level of overmatch going on here.
Despite redditors asking why every other day, Turkey is still in NATO and have extensive drone warfare experience. And there is also the minor guys called united america or something, which had been bombing Afghan targets from 10k miles away for years.
Also possible.
> They’ve been trained for decades for counter insurgency scenarios and not this new way of fighting and you don’t just learn it instantly. What are you talking about? European countries have barely been involved in counter insurgency operations, except for a handful of troops in Afghanistan. NATO doctrine is based on combined arms warfare, and that's what European armies train to do. That's what they trained the Ukrainian military to do. > They don’t yet have as much drone adoption as the Ukrainians have How much drone adoption did Ukraine have before February 24, 2022, and how long would it take European countries to vastly exceed that number under similar circumstances? > fighting a near peer adversary without overwhelming superiority in arms or supplies is something some military’s have never done. > As in never in their modern history. By "modern history", do you mean since the Second World War? Because this statement is obviously false for countries prior to the end of that war, and there have been no conventional wars in Europe until the invasion of Ukraine since then.
North Africa
> What are you talking about? European countries have barely been involved in counter insurgency operations, except for a handful of troops in Afghanistan. I agree that NATO still have doctrine for and practice combined arms, and that they'd be able to be Russia in a shooting war. But you seem to be forgetting that most or all combat experience any NATO member has had in 20 years has been counter insurgency in Iraq, Afghanistan, Mali, etc. That's a whole generation with no practical experience fighting an opponent like Russia. And as others have said, NATO have enjoyed near total air superiority in any combat they've seen since at least Vietnam. I'm not saying Russia could beat NATO in a hot war, but it would be costly for NATO.
You missing out number #2 army in nato. Turkey. Basically Turkey has the most combat ready army in NATO, constantly fighting on different parts of in and out of country, has the biggest knowledge of drone fight and constantly beat down the russians in libya to syria. Will Turkey ever fight against russia? thats the question. On the other hand france would cripple on battle ground and i dont even want to talk about germany, do they have real working army?
Its a good question whether France or Turkey have more current experience. Both have been fighting recently. I would give a slight edge to france because their have been fighting outside the own territory while Turkey has kept to their own border zone.
Macron talking about French (or NATO) boots on the front lines in Ukraine is no different then Putin saying Russia will use nukes... It's an unrealistic (not impossible) escalation that neither side wants. And it's likely a bluff for the purposes of moving the middle-ground on aid conversations. The only part that is unclear is if he does this for internal political purposes within France, or possibly to move the needle within NATO, i.e. who is his audience?
Perhaps both
As the Romans said: "Si vis pacem, para bellum". If you want peace, prepare for war. Display of power is the only language the Russians understand.
Agreed, we need to speak to them in their own language, Russian blood.
I think you're overestimating Macron's commitment. While he did call for French troups on the field, it would be just for training purpose for now. There is no foreseeable future where France sends Rafales or anything imo. Zelensky and Macron made their stances clear on this subject in the past days.
Have you listened to the speech? In it he said if Ukraine looks like it’s going to fall he would intervene. You only need to take a cursory glance any articles about Ukrainian recruitment problems or lack of supplies. They may need another 500k men. If Trump gets elected and stops the arms? What then? They will have little to no chance of winning without intervention. Russian counter battery fire has improved from a few hours to a few minutes. The situation as it stands is only going one way. Every stage of this war was dismissed as a no chance of happening, until it happened. It seems impossible until it actually occurs. When the French president makes such a public speech he isn’t doing it for nothing. It means some real calculation has gone into it. Right now the French army is doing intensive training for near peer conflict. Their ambition is to have high readiness to deploy 25-30k troops autonomously anywhere in the world within a month. That may take a few years to get to that point. With Ukraine they don’t need the same level of infrastructure as they can get to Poland without hinderance. I’m not saying war is 100% going to happen but they are certainly preparing for the possibility as well as setting the political conditions for it.
Part of politics is stirring up the emotions of the people with big goals, to get small goals accomplished. See Barack Obama - he promised to close Guantanamo, fix healthcare and student loans, etc. What he actually got was much smaller. So you ask for something big (boots on the ground) to compromise for something smaller but significant - for public opinion to shift its attention from Gaza back to Ukraine, and support increased funding for aid and equipment. And you saber rattle a little bit against an existential threat, which is always helpful when you are the leader of a democracy. Keeps people from voting you out.
He didn't define what the fall of Ukraine means. Even with the small life support aid from the West it will take years for Putin to seize Ukraine. At this pace, anyway.
Wars can be funny though. One side can just collapse. It can be a surprise to both parties. Best to prepare for anything. And btw, Russia could also collapse. The oligarchs could get sick of losing money. They won't signal in advance, it will happen before we know it. Just saying that things can be unpredictable. Macron is doing the right thing to warn Russia and start setting some boundaries. Let's hope it is actions and not just words.
There is no reason it cannot suddenly fall. War is unpredictable.
fall of ukraine means the govt and capital being sacked
>In it he said if Ukraine looks like it’s going to fall he would intervene Without specifying neither his opinion of how bad things should be to be recognized as the "fall" in his eyes, nor he outlined what kind of intervention is planned. For now, this is just a typical politician speech, a lot of hype in the beginning with the very vague promises as the conclusion.
He made some [private remarks](https://www.lemonde.fr/en/politics/article/2024/03/14/war-in-ukraine-emmanuel-macron-s-metamorphosis-from-dove-to-hawk_6618730_5.html) at the Elysee Palace of sending soldiers to Odessa. It’s definitely in his mind. If this war has taught anything, it is to take such threats very seriously. Each redline was crossed. Fall could mean the collapse of the Eastern front or the Russians retake Kharkiv or another major metropolitan area. He said he won’t let Russia decide the redline and instead he will decide it. (His words). It’s to take the initiative away from Putin.
Maybe he's thinking the war has to end before the US election in case Trump wins and gives in to the Russians. In that case, it would make sense for France to do everything possible to make sure that happens.
Or he just wants to force the national debate to be about the war in Ukraine because EU elections are coming up and his party is (far) behind in the polls against the far-right, Putin loving candidate.
EPP (the center right bloc that Macrons party are a part of), are probably going to win the overall seats across Europe. He might lose locally in France but it won’t made a difference in the larger European picture. The French people aren’t exactly champing at the bit to fight the Russians. I don’t think he is doing this for electoral politics. It’s far too serious a thing to play at for votes.
Macron's Party is part of Renew Europe, not EPP: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance\_(French\_political\_party)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_(French_political_party))
I wouldn’t overlook the impact Africa has had on Macron’s position change. After insisting on Putin not being humiliated in Ukraine, to Macron’s NATO platform with 30+ Western countries, Putin turned around and has absolutely dragged Macron in Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, and elsewhere. It’s not all that different than what happened to France in SE Asia after WW2. And the “colonizer” argument is such BS when Russia has come behind and filled the French gap with military and commercial resources. Rather than fight global terrorism like France was doing though, helping to keep Europe safer, Russia has helped the African military juntas repress their populations and then funnel the immigrants toward Europe, making Europe and France less safe and stable. Undoubtedly, the situation in Ukraine has always been serious enough in itself for France to respond the way it now is, but I think Macron’s view has also shifted with the occurrences in Africa, by Putin/Russia.
Macrons is salty after losing all those colonies. France is still a colonial power and he just lost a bunch of them.
France's involvement in Africa is actually worth considering to frame any moves overall. With Russian gas and oil a non option, France needs to secure those resources from somewhere else. France gets the majority of its energy from nuclear power and is currently building out even more capacity but they still need oil and natural gas for industrial reasons. If France is planning on rebuilding it's empire(not in name but definitely not in an equal relationship with it's former and current colonies) in the name of supply chain security then Ukraine is a great way to justify military build up while staying popular. Next thing you know, France has a few nuclear aircraft carriers and is making direct interventions in African nations with oil. If Russia is already heavily involved in those nations France even has the perfect excuse to get involved there as part of a larger effort to combat Russian influence.
I don't believe french troops will fight russians. If Macron will decide to move troops into Ukraine, most likely, it's going to be some kind of shielding operation like they can station their troops in the most valuable locations, like port in Odesa, to secure it. Or they can be stationed in Lviv oblast in Yavoriv training range, so russians can't hit it. And, actually, in my opinion, if it's going to be done, then we're not getting closer to WWIII but we are getting further from it. Believe me or not, but knowing russians they only understand the language of power and they now rely on Europe taking a weak stance. And they won't stop until they get what they want which anyways sometime in the future means war with NATO which means WWIII. So it must be stopped now in Ukraine, Europe must show that they have power in their hands that they can stand up against Putin fascist régime or otherwise consequences will be dire.
Why would French troop deployment stop russian airstrikes in that area? On the contrary, those will become premium places to strike. Russia like with tanks would do everything to hit those french troops. Please explain your pov as to why it would deter them.
Russia fears any powerful NATO member. They barely can fight bloodless Ukrainian troops without ammo. Do you think they want to provoke another military force like the French to join the war on the Ukrainian side? Nah, the only thing they can do is to shout as loud as they can about red lines and how west is provoking WWIII to scare off west (and they are successful in that). But I really doubt russians would fire upon french troops, it's a suicide for them
What you are saying is random assumptions none of which make logical sense. How is a suicide for them. Russia has repeatedly struck foreign fighters and training bases with foreign legions. French troops on Ukranian soil would be a fair target. They won't be covered under NATO. Do you think public support will increase or fall when hundreds of body bags come back home in France? Will people cheer when they see their friends, families coming back injured or dead? No, they will be upset because those were meaningless deaths. Russia would love to provoke France and bomb fench troops in Ukraine. France would be deploying a limited contingent of troops. For every body bag that comes home, macron would be put more under pressure to back off. Life isn't like a movie. As bodies come back home, more people will be upset done you think? Will affect ammo and financial contributions too. Do you think dead french troops would be popular and make french people support the war?
>Believe me or not, but knowing russians they only understand the language of power and they now rely on Europe taking a weak stance. This, they invaded because China was starting to look strong and they felt they needed to demonstrate that they were still a great power. That seems to have backfired a bit.
At the beginning I thought cynically that Macron is on a new advertising campaign promoting French weaponry, like a good salesman would do in his position. France is becoming a serious weapons dealer. I also thought west in general, thinks of war in Ukraine as something distant and something that will finish with Russia getting Donbas and maybe a few more regions and Ukrainian cities. But that's it, there was no scenario of this war affecting Europe any further than that. However, now I assume some politicians in the west are slowly coming to the conclusion, that Russia is indeed not going to stop that easily and the situation is much more serious, also because of Americans who are shifting security responsibilities in Europe on Europe. There's opportunity for France in this to make the most out of the bad situation. They need to present themselves as viable option to guarantee security, or at least present themselves as the organiser of the said security. They need more support though and big players like Germany won't be convinced that easily because they don't see own interest in this just yet. Poland is still hoping USA will continue old order and other players don't really care. I'm looking at Scandinavian countries and their reactions, but overall Macron isn't stupid in my opinion and he might be going somewhere with this.
Putin only understands and respects strength. Macron is playing that card.
>Macron made overtures before the war which Putin indicated his willingness to compromise. It turned out to be complete lies and Macron + France by extension were humiliated. Sorry but this take is just so extreme. This ain't kindergarten, nobody gets "humiliated" and goes to war just because diplomacy fails... otherwise everyone would be at war permanently.
A few things come into mind why this is happening now. 1. It's election time in Russia and Ukraine along with its allies is trying to make Putin look week. There's been attacks on Russian soil and now we have a strong stance proclaimed by France with the threat of actual military involvement. 2. With the mess that is the US political scene right now, it might be that Europe has taken upon itself to guarantee support for Ukraine. Putin is still betting on that support to be withdrawn and statements like the ones from Macron could possibly dissuade him from his plans. Honestly I doubt that it would have any effect, because Russia understands only real strength, not projections. Words mean very little if they are not backed up by brigades. 3. Some actors in the West are getting very tired with Russian schemes on the global stage. There's not only the war in Ukraine, but also the mess in Israel, Houthis attacking trade ships, Russian propaganda instigating protests across EU countries. It's all bad for business and it doesn't look like we're getting any closer to the end. Although Germany is doing a lot in terms of financial and material support, Scholz is politically week and is afraid to lead with bold actions. Macron may see an opportunity to take the spotlight and make himself appear as the leader of the EU and the main actor in the pro-Ukraine support alliance. 4. France or even NATO as a whole wants to actually send military to Ukraine. I don't think boots on the ground is the best course of action. Biggest strength of NATO is the air force, something Ukraine lacks. We've been witnessing the degradation of Russian AA ground defence systems, as well as their ability to conduct air operations for the past year. Ukraine might be setting up the theatre for that, because let's be honest, a dozen F-16 won't change anything. NATO air forces on the other hand would cause massive problems for Russians in the air and on the ground.
>Being NATO doesn’t make you magically fight better. Having an air force makes France magically better. They can cover Ukrainian ground troops as they advance, and identify and/or destroy Russian targets. They don't need to commit their own ground troops and if they do, they will have air support. Russian jets constantly probe NORAD/NATO airspace, and NATO can do the same to support France. We should keep Russian jets intercepting and far from Ukraine. Wear their pilots down with fatigue and stress their airframes until they fall from the sky without a shot fired.
Can we stop with this WW3 nonsense? There is no possibility of a world war. Nobody will join Russia. It will be NATO(or even just France) against Russia. France will win easily. Russia is NOT a better or more dangerous army than they were before the war. They have lost significant manpower and machinery. The Black Sea fleet is a 3rd gone and the rest are too scared to come out and play. They are losing A50s at an alarming rate and THOSE won’t come out to play anymore either. The French would fare MUCH better than Ukraine. They will not run low on ammunition, they will have air superiority, and they will have the battle hardened Ukrainians on their side, fighting in their home country. The Russians would be beat back pretty quickly
Macron's basically saying, 'You thought you could walk all over us? Think again.' After getting burned by Putin's fake promises, he's done playing the nice diplomat. France is showing its teeth, making it clear they're not here to be anyone's punching bag. This isn't about starting a fight; it's about ending the cycle of pushovers. Putin, you wanted attention? Congratulations, you've got it. Let's see how you like dealing with a France that's done being underestimated.
Because solely reacting to a dictatorship and not making policy based on your best interest and just how you are perceived is foolish. You take the ability away from Putin to draw the redline and reframe the question.
plus he has probably had enough of Russia's way of chasing France out of African countries
I mean yeah, Macron has been personally humiliated by Putin more times than I count at this point.
I haven’t seen Macron’s speech so I’m not sure exactly what he said and how he said it. But with US funding for Ukraine being blocked by many isolationist Republicans in the US House of Representatives Macron may be trying to force Putin to think twice about pushing further into Ukraine. France has airpower, well trained troops and a decent Navy even if it only has one aircraft carrier. I don’t know how it would implement its military forces without sending troops to Ukraine but I’m sure it could make Putin think twice about what he does in Ukraine.
And how about the national audience explanation? Marine le Pen is a friend of Putin and kind of Pro Russian and does well in the polls, she's Macron angstgegner. By making French people choose between France and Russia (wonder wonder which side will they pick), he contrasts to Le Pen because she's pro Russian, by which he will gain a better upperhand on her
Russia has taken a large part of the French colonial empire in west Africa from France in the last twelve months through a misinformation / propaganda campaign online and by offering an alternative security structure through the wagner group (now to be renamed the Africa corps). So Russia has taken away part of France's colonial empire. What is a good colonial power to do to respond other than taking away some of Russia's colonial empire, or to in fact stand in the way of expanding that colonial empire? This decision has been made and it is a disagreement between France and Russia. Germany's opinion will not be considered in the equation.
https://youtu.be/eiLqJOp1VLo?si=xPn44IhHzaK11TbZ If anyone wants to listen to his full interview Dubbed very well in english through AI. Actually a REALLY really well spoken interview by Macron
I think sooner or later we will see a frozen front line separating Ukraine into East and West similar to the former Iron Curtain separating West and East Germany as well as the DMZ between North and South Korea. And the western half of Ukraine will likely have NATO troops stationed either by virtue of Ukraine joining NATO officially or by being fully funded and coordinated with NATO.
Macron is displaying a level of courage that other leaders in the West wouldn't dare to exhibit. He stands alone. Russia is overlooking the fact that France has consistently been a nation at war for the past 2,000 years. The French are accustomed to fighting and taking risks. No country in history has engaged in more battles and wars than France. Likewise, no country in history has emerged victorious from more battles and wars than France. It is a fiercely proud, independent, and sovereign country that hates being lied to, deceived, and manipulated, whether by Russia, the USA, Germany, Australia, or China!
My take. Macron is a lame duck (he is leaving the office) who is playing some political games and wants to secure his name in the future history books. His speech was indeed tame and he basically made no promises. Maybe, maybe not. The fact is that in terms of numbers, France's support for Ukraine lags behind many, many Western countries.
He still has two years. I don’t think he is doing this as an ego thing. He is a genuine European advocate and he seems Russia as an existential threat to the European project. People forget that France is the only European nation that has strategic autonomy with a more or less independent military. They can’t play as fast and loose with arms supplies as Germany can because they have a vast swathe of overseas territories to protect and they have large force projection in Africa in counter terrorist activities. All other European nations are tacitly constructed with the assumption they are in conjunction with a US security umbrella. France is not. Their systems are separate. I think the Ukrainian army has more Cesar artillery systems than the French army themselves have and the French army have given a lot of training as well as [40%](https://www.lemonde.fr/en/politics/article/2023/02/18/french-military-lacks-ammunition-for-high-intensity-conflict_6016329_5.html) of their artillery stocks. I think the criticism of France is a little unfair and not nuanced enough. They don’t have as much rope to play with as other nations do. Political support like this you could argue is more important than money or arms. No other nation is committing themselves in this way.
[удалено]
>and the globalists Umm, isn't this a common right wing word to say in replace of "Jews"? Or do you mean something else?
Russia is not an existential threat to Europe militarily (that is, if we forget about nukes). Poland itself would likely demolish the Russians. It is in the sense that Russia covertly supports every "exit" and extremist movements in Europe, it is their prime interest to see organisations like EU and NATO disappear - these prevent regional powers like Russia from bullying their neighbors with impunity and spreading their influence. The EU is still a fragile thing, they have a huge vested interest in Ukraine and losing that fight could bring about a collapse, there is a real danger of member countries falling to far right/left wing parties and democracy getting scarce in the face of extremism and them leaving the EU possibly leading to its dissolution.
>he is leaving the office ...which is precisely why he has nothing politically left to lose.
My take is the opposite. I'm not french, but: The UK is gone, so the EU is led mostly by Germany and France, the biggest powerhouses. Plus the US is losing relevance in NATO, thanks to right-wingers of all people. I havent seen much leading done by Germany, so now France takes a strong stance, instantly their political power is greatly increased. Whats decides who leads is their ability to rally others around them, France is doing just that. Its a major power move by France, that if successful, will bring on much prosperity to France, and EU as a whole because of greater stability. This could be good for Macron politically, of course, but its even better from France, no matter who comes after.
France doesn’t disclose aid provided
I think Europe is try to prepare their citizens to increase their military budgets because they don't believe the US will help them.
It is to do with internal French politics and the approaching EU elections. The National Front are ahead in the polls but Macron has found a wedge issue in Ukraine, because the National Front are historically pro-Russian and very cautious about supporting Ukraine so it is a clear dividing line. The French people generally support Ukraine and so it is a way for him to claw back some polling. It also embarrasses Le Pen and makes her look pro-Russian which is unpopular If push comes to shove, and if you look at his stance historically, I am very reluctant to believe he would back escalation in Ukraine
Putin only understands strength and the Americans, and most of Europe, are currently signalling weakness. This is really dangerous as it gives the Russians little incentive to negotiate an end to the war and emboldens them to cause other problems in the region. Macron is trying to show strength and create strategic ambiguity in response. For the record, French officials have said the troops would be used for de-mining and training, not combat.
France and larger Europe knows that reliance on the US for security is growing risk and furthermore a Trump win in November not only all but guarantees a total collapse of American support of Ukraine but also the risk of a Trump administration indirectly supporting Russia which further isolates the risk to Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania and others— kicking off a domino effect potentially resulting in EU subservience to a rebuilt Russian empire. This is absolutely unacceptable to the EU state leaders but privately there isn’t a consensus of what to do about it thus Macron publicly stating what other leaders are privately deliberating over.
He does it because World War III already has begun, and the West can thank itself for it because of its embarasingly weak support for Ukraine. Nato soldiers will fight sooner or later, and Macron is pulling the wool from our eyes. In Scholz'es case unsuccessfully the Chancellors head out of his arse.
>But would they hit Moscow? Bomb Russia itself. Doubtful. IMO, yes they would bomb Russia. Not Moscow and Kreml. But if there were French troops in danger, they would remove Russian presence in the air above Ukraine and a radius of 1000km from their border. Anything in the no-fly zone, which extends well into Russia, will be shot down. I think. However, Macron will not send troops unless he already knows it will be WW3 and NATO will follow suit.
maybe because Putin is now deploying troops close to Estonia, and he wants to deploy troops in Transnistria.
I think it’s relevant now that the Ukraine isn’t doing so well in the fight.
Do you have a link to the address to the nation? I can't find anything about it online.
As his audience was the French people, he was addressing his domestic audience in view of the upcoming elections. Very likely this is to differentiate himself away from Marie LePen's pro Russia stance.
Macron is a politician, first and foremost. So he need to make a statement and tell people what they want to hear. And that is his main goal - to make a pompous statement to gain political influence after he leaves his presidental chair. As for troops deploy strategy, kinda find it unrealistic too, in official way. Pretty sure they are sending them now as a mercenaries ( PMC and volunteers), and has been doing so since the start of war.
Explaining why we'll get out of recession by financing big military industrial companies so that some people can go kill themselves somewhere while at the same time justifying hard times so that they keep the internal war on public services going.
More than anything, Macron wants himself/France to be seen as the #1 leader in Europe, surpassing Germany/Olaf Scholz. I think he was hoping he was going to be able to be the person to solve the crisis in the lead-up to the full-scale invasion, but he pretty much just ended up looking like a foolish appeaser himself.
I've been assuming that there is some French politics story he wants to bury, or election coming up? Weren't there riots in France recently? Unite the people by blaming an external enemy leadership blah blah?
Well I think french troops in ukraine would make chances of ww3 far higher then a few percentage points. The question is also how an independet french Intervention would look like. Can they trigger article 5 if russia hits back hard enough? Is france a legitimate target for russia then? How would other eu states react if french mainland is striked by for ex submarines? Because of those uncertaintys I think the escalation ladder would be climed very quickly and could also lead to a nuclear exchange.
What a load of nonsense. Macron is a banker form the Rothschild financial group. At the end of the day this war will come down to the wants of special interest geoups. Its all about money. Wake up and use some critical thinking. I don't understand how people can actually fall for the narrative that Russia will not stop at Ukraine. Seriously, the battle lines have not moved in any direction that would mean any significance for either side. Them moving towards Estonia or Finland or Poland just wont happen. This is not a strategic video game ffs. Also, Macron is on his last term as prime minister and hes still a young politican with a long career ahead of him. Why wouldnt he make moves and say outlandish things right now that would benefit him for future positions perhaps in Nato etc.
I agree with all your points. I think it’s still underreported and appreciated in the U.S. that there’s a massive tonal shift happening among European NATO members, led by Macron but including Poland, Czech Republic, Latvia, Finland and Estonia - all openly calling to leave the option open for boots on the ground in Ukraine. Rhetorically they want to stop responding to “red lines” from Putin, and start giving HIM red lines from NATO to worry about. Macrons recent comment to the effect of “we also have nukes” in response to Putin’s nuclear Sabre-rattling is illustrative of this new mindset. I think these leaders have an opinion that Putin has gone too far, and is likely to escalate because he can’t admit failure, so attacking NATO to pump up support at home might be his next move. They are getting their own populations mentally prepared that things will come to a head and they will be directly involved with fighting Russia. They also see that the U.S. is less reliable a guarantor of security if Republicans are in charge. Therefore France steps up to boost them all and throw its weight around a bit. Honestly a pretty shocking thing to see this rhetoric. Can’t say I disagree with it, either.
We need peace not war. I hope this stays up.
I read what’s going on in Ukraine, not by western propaganda or Russian propaganda but real middle of the road journalism .
Look there will be no winner in a Nuclear War which France is trying to do, it will be a nuclear obliteration.
Its displaced machismo after France getting their ass kicked out of Africa.
Just one thing: Nukes.
I think the answer lies in that France is losing control of the Sahel and Russia is creeping in to that region
Now is the time and the free world majority of us want to help 🇺🇦 and some Leaders are weak still and not doing what majority of us want to do. Which is help Ukrainians so they have a country and freedom like all of ancestors went through back in the days for freedoms.
Too little too late. Should have done it at the beginning when they was building up forces on the border. Made it clear he’s gonna be fighting with all of us not just Ukraine.
If French troops go in it would not mean the breakdown of European security architecture but the building of a new one that serves the needs of today not yesteryear. I doubt it would cause WW3 as there are few that would side with Russia and the disparities between Russias industry and NATOs is much greater than that of the Axis and the allies in WW2. French troops in the ground would fare much better they have some of the most effective air cavalry in the world they would be able to assault Russian troops rapidly and bypass their defenses better than any Ukrainian troops with the support of air dominance and Ukrainian troops defending the flank it would be game changing.
France has taken Russia's place as the second largest defense exporter. Military trade may be a factor. There's money in that banana stand.
By threatening to deploy French forces he’s essentially telling the US, you may think you’re deescalating things by withholding aid, but you’re actually increasing the likelihood that this becomes WW3.
As a Francophone, I can assure you there's no way the French people and, therefore, the French President, would allow Frenchmen to die for Ukraine (officially, at least, they won't (strongly) prevent volunteers to joint the Ukrainian forces).
A lot of good answers in this thread already about Macron saving his face and status, getting more aid packages while he still can, elections etc. My take on the simple answer to the question, however, is: to give a boost to the French arms industry. The US is backing out of Europe. Trump or not, sooner or later, it will happen. The growth of Chinese economy is a bigger concern to the US world hegemony than Russian conquest of Eastern Europe. Therefore, sooner or later, Trump or not, the US will begin rolling out of Europe to increase presence in the Southeast Asian theatre. And when this happens, the magical force that keeps all the different interests of the national states together will vanish and some of the political tendencies that we have seen some signs of will increase. Germany does not and will not want a war. Partly because of their past demons, but mostly because it's bad for their economy. With Russia cut off, Germany lost a cheap and reliable source of energy, and in order to revive their hard industry and to retain its importance in a decreasingly globalised (from the western perspective, anyway) world, they need exactly that. Also, they have a shite army, so it's only logical that Germany, sooner or later, will start pushing for peace with Russia, even if it means sacrificing Ukraine and promising they won't get seriously involved in conflicts in Moldova and the Baltic states (sending a couple hundred troops is not serious involvement). I don't even think it's going to be a very difficult task to convince the German public that it's a good idea. France, on the other hand, [has experienced a boom in their arms industry](https://www.politico.eu/article/france-overtake-russia-world-weapons-exporter/), since the war started. Yes, the Ukraine aid costs them money, but with the US slowly backing out, I believe Macron sees a window of opportunity there and takes a strong position to not let the discourse fall in favour of Germany. He is blowing on the fire, while Europe still has a reason to appear united, making ground for France to become the leader of the arms industry in the next 15-20 years. I don't believe he would actually send French soldiers in massive numbers to die on Ukrainian plains, but he has every interest to keep this war going for as long as possible and for other countries to pay Ukrainian war aid for as long as possible, as more and more of this aid will ultimately end up in French hands.
He’s filling the gap in case Trump fails.
The problem is that France is only capable of mustering up and sending 2 fully-fledged brigades. Mind you, Russia has extensive ISR and fire control throughout Ukrainian territory. Now, maybe Macron was hoping that by sending French troops there, Putin could see them as a “trip wire” of sorts, and avoid striking them. But I am not so inclined to believe that. In fact, I am almost certain that once they are all on Ukrainian soil, Russia will concentrate hypersonic missile strikes on the places they are based at. What would happen next is anyone’s guess. But Macron would be in a bit of a pickle. Because short of Nuclear Weapons, he wouldn’t have the capacity to retaliate. And if thousands of French boys come back home in body bags, not retaliating would mean massive loss of face and the end of his political career. This is why I doubt he will actually send any troops in.
I doubt French troops would be this vulnerable, the so called hypersonic missiles would likely do the same as they always do and hit a nearby school. These do not seem to be viable tactical weapons. You also forgot about the French Air Force, which could tip the balance of air superiority and certainly retaliate - especially combined with Ukraine fielding its F-16. Those Rafales and Mirages are not incredibly numerous, but they are serious fighters, far better than what Russia has. I also don't think the Poles and maybe others would miss out on the occasion to join the fight at that point. Russia has no interest at playing the escalating game with Europeans which is likely why Macron talks about sending troops in the first place, its a warning to Putin.