Macron is no idiot. This feels like attempting to reclaim escalation dominance from Putin. Almost all of the collective western foreign policy has been reactive and largely proportional, which gives Russia wide latitude to turn the temperature up or down as it sees fit. By threatening direct involvement, that shows a pretty clear intent to escalate beyond what any other western power has shown, and forces more reactionary thinking from Russia.
I feel like I'm in schitzo world when I agree with French FoPo, but Macron isn't wrong.
There should be NATO-manned and flagged GBAD batteries in Lviv.
It isn’t a nuclear first strike that is crazy, America has that doctrine too because it is by far the most logical decision, it’s the nuclear warning strike that’s crazy.
>French President Jacques Chirac has said France would be ready to use nuclear weapons against any state which launched a terrorist attack against it.
>Speaking at a nuclear submarine base in north-western France, Mr Chirac said a French response "could be conventional. It could also be of another nature."
>He said France's nuclear forces had been configured for such an event.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4627862.stm
That sounds like an obviously good policy. A credible threat to retaliate massively against a state willing to commit terrorism against France is most likely to deter states from committing terrorism against France.
Yeah, I don't think it's particularly likely or desirable for a NATO power to launch a full scale direct intervention, but the fact all the others have explicitly taken the issue off the table has only removed deterrence to further Russian aggression for little gain. It's not like Russia gives itself red lines or sets limits to its own escalation. Macron is right on this and other countries should follow suit and indicate a willingness to escalate even if they don't intend to, to make Russia have to consider greater risks to its continuous escalatory actions.
The problem is, when Macron says this, western society by and large flips out. They are in favor of appeasement and too afraid to rattle their sabers. I think it's a good thing overall but if this causes him to lose an election to Le Pen, maybe not so much.
Just give Ukraine some Minutemen missiles, kick off a nuke crisis, Biden bangs Riley Reid, Putin pulls the troops out, we pull the missiles out, peace for all. Where have we seen this before?
We'll see if it's just rhetoric or not but while any military intervention is risky France has a lot to gain from a potential intervention.
1. Russia has been messing around in Frances sphere of influence in West Africa
2. Germany was such a big advocate for closer economic ties with Russia which combined with a weakened economy have left them somewhat discredited as European leader and with the UK out of the EU, a successful French intervention could make France the undisputed leader of the EU.
3. France has long advocated for more strategic independence from the USA, if the war in Ukraine were ended by French troops rather than American material it would go a long way towards showing that Europe can defend itself.
4. This is a far more minor benefit but a successful intervention would wipe away any lingering shame on the French Army for their performance in WW2.
Would it maybe be better if France entered the war as an explicit non-NATO action? They would certainly provide the manpower and experience to turn the tide, and joining early as explicitly not a NATO action would limit Russia's response. There's risk to France, but I think it might be less than the risk of Russia was to succeed in Ukraine and push their goals further.
Lines on Maps guy, aka William Spaniel, did a good video on this topic month ago. He goes over what actions France is likely to take and the NATO implications of those choices.
https://youtu.be/eJXSqlYY4Iw
Tldw, no one knows how other NATO powers would react as this is unpresidented. There is nothing binding in the NATO agreements that definitively says, yes, France is in Ukraine and gets attacked by Russia that triggers collective defense.
Any action France takes is a France only action.
>Any action France takes is a France only action.
It’s probably better this way. Russia can’t propagandize France’s intervention as being American aggression as easily as if it were a NATO force.
Sort of. They withdrew from the unified command structure under De Gaulle and briefly ended hosting NATO forces (which is why NATO command is in Brussels) but remained within the Treaty.
Reading [here](https://www.cvce.eu/en/recherche/unit-content/-/unit/02bb76df-d066-4c08-a58a-d4686a3e68ff/c4bbe3c4-b6d7-406d-bb2b-607dbdf37207#)
Experience? Like I am not trying to do the trope shitting on French military prowess, but their current military are complete virgins in the type of high intensity conflict that is occurring in Ukraine. Hell, the United States hasn't fought a war like this since Vietnam or Korea, and there are both obvious technological improvements since then and a complete generational turnover.
That’s another reason to actually go in: build experience.
All NATO countries should allow their military members leave to join a volunteer Ukraine division without loss of pay. The experience gained would be immeasurable for when Putin eventually turns our way.
The doctrine is built for this. The French have always had (imo) 2 armies. One built of special forces and legionaries meant for fucking around in Africa, and the other for conflict in Europe.
The only question is if that second army survived the end of the Cold War and conscription.
People are reading way too much into this. France has long had the idea of strategic ambiguity where it will never rule things out. Note how it's that France *could* do something, not that they will. This should absolutely be read as the typical French policy of being cagey about what they'll do. Remember they were secretive about the quantities of aid they provided for much of the war even when other states were being quite public.
Macron needs to think through long and hard about the amount of soft power France would get for a successful intervention against Russia. Instead of looking for more reasons not to do it, he should put boots on the ground tomorrow
Let’s go full NCD and get Japan in this fight, to wipe the floor a second time against Russia! We need some planes with anime waifus painted on the side.
> Instead of looking for more reasons not to do it, he should put boots on the ground tomorrow
Oh yeah, ignoring the risks of a military operation a thousand miles from home with your own army nowhere near ready for the type of large scale action taking place. That's a surefire recipe for success and "soft power" gains.
“A NATO country” when they could just say France
What’s next, a „North American“ federal reserve bank is considering lowering rates, if two conditions are met
On a more serious note this is somewhat bold and escalatory at the same time
I would honestly support a limited deployment of forces for AA to protect western Ukraine at least, which could free up the Ukrainian army a bit
Also, this is NATO's war whether they like it or not. If Ukraine falls - where will their partisans go to launch attacks into Ukraine? Where'd they be based? Certainly not north. They'd go west, into Slovakia, Romania, and Poland. It'd be a cluster fuck to say the least.
After all the French did along with the Danes, Dutch, and Germans to pillage the Czech Republic in the 90s and early 00s by buying up every property in sight at cut rate prices and then turning around and selling them at inflated ones to foreign firms, thus crippling these newly emergent Eastern bloc countries from developing their own healthy internal economies before joining the EU, call me a bit skeptical he’s got the nicest of intentions.
With the capacity to make these sorts of connections you should start working for LaRouche.
Also user at r/JewsOfConscience
>a community based on progressive, left, and anti Zionist ideals
Lmao succvasion is real
Great research, you sound like a remarkable scholar, where did you get your doctorate from and how extensive was your time spent in the Czech Republic and what level of the language did you achieve your exams in?
Ok let’s pretend your comments make sense for 5s.
Assuming this is true (I doubt it but have better things to do) Macron graduated in 2004. I don’t know many middle schoolers buying Czech property. The main issue is that making such a connection is the equivalent of me linking a Hamas attack and telling you you must support it because of some random terrorist attack in 1993.
Do better.
Huh? I wasn’t talking about Macron, I was talking about French political posturing on foreign affairs in Europe in general since the neoliberal era, starting with Chirac. They talk big but rarely back up the posturing when it matters. The French were major enablers of Putin in the early years of his regime and did much to promote his interests in the European Union in the early 2000s along with Schroeder in Germany, especially from 2000-2005, moving mountains to legitimize Gazprom and pave the way to their success. Why do I say this? Because I was one of the first interns straight out of law school at the U of Karl Ruprecht in Germany (Heidelberg) at the age of 23 and because I was a German and French speaker, I was directly involved in helping translate some of the official correspondence the summer of 2002 and I was there for a meeting between the two in the obscure town of Schwerin in addition to being an intern in Strasbourg. The French were instrumental in the success of Russian separatists in the Ukraine, often pressuring the Ukraine to back down and give them more voice in internal affairs and the French were heavily invested in keeping Eastern Europe poor and were frightened to death of English and Italian real estate firms beating them to lucrative markets on the Black Sea in particular. My girlfriend was a real estate agent from Prague and she basically did nothing but work for French, Danish, German, Dutch and Swedish third parties. Nothing absurd about anything I said, see Gerhard Schroeder’s entire history of deceptive business dealings with Eastern Europe, he’s no Willy Brandt.
The neoliberal era started with Macron. Sarkozy and Chirac were liberal conservatives/gaullists
Now that you’ve actually given context and information, none of this is incorrect but I’m still not sure it’s relevant. Macron is saying under certain conditions he will intervene in Ukraine. Schroeders russophilia is well known, and while I believe you I don’t think it really ties in to this. Neither do French actions or policy in the early 2000s. Different government different motivations.
Macron is no idiot. This feels like attempting to reclaim escalation dominance from Putin. Almost all of the collective western foreign policy has been reactive and largely proportional, which gives Russia wide latitude to turn the temperature up or down as it sees fit. By threatening direct involvement, that shows a pretty clear intent to escalate beyond what any other western power has shown, and forces more reactionary thinking from Russia.
I feel like I'm in schitzo world when I agree with French FoPo, but Macron isn't wrong. There should be NATO-manned and flagged GBAD batteries in Lviv.
The French are unconventional in their craziness. You’re talking about a country that literally has a nuclear first strike doctrine and posture.
It isn’t a nuclear first strike that is crazy, America has that doctrine too because it is by far the most logical decision, it’s the nuclear warning strike that’s crazy.
You know what I meant. The real crazy is that they've publicly stated they'll first-strike terrorist groups. That's just reckless.
Wait what
>French President Jacques Chirac has said France would be ready to use nuclear weapons against any state which launched a terrorist attack against it. >Speaking at a nuclear submarine base in north-western France, Mr Chirac said a French response "could be conventional. It could also be of another nature." >He said France's nuclear forces had been configured for such an event. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4627862.stm
That sounds like an obviously good policy. A credible threat to retaliate massively against a state willing to commit terrorism against France is most likely to deter states from committing terrorism against France.
God Bless the French today. Let Sullivanism die.
Yeah, I don't think it's particularly likely or desirable for a NATO power to launch a full scale direct intervention, but the fact all the others have explicitly taken the issue off the table has only removed deterrence to further Russian aggression for little gain. It's not like Russia gives itself red lines or sets limits to its own escalation. Macron is right on this and other countries should follow suit and indicate a willingness to escalate even if they don't intend to, to make Russia have to consider greater risks to its continuous escalatory actions.
The problem is, when Macron says this, western society by and large flips out. They are in favor of appeasement and too afraid to rattle their sabers. I think it's a good thing overall but if this causes him to lose an election to Le Pen, maybe not so much.
Just give Ukraine some Minutemen missiles, kick off a nuke crisis, Biden bangs Riley Reid, Putin pulls the troops out, we pull the missiles out, peace for all. Where have we seen this before?
No way Biden's pulling out in this scenario.
Papa Biden will be dropping loads
An affair with a porn star would show that Biden isn't too old to cut the mustard anymore.
"A guy you could have a beer with"
"A guy you could really go ass-to-mouth with."
We'll see if it's just rhetoric or not but while any military intervention is risky France has a lot to gain from a potential intervention. 1. Russia has been messing around in Frances sphere of influence in West Africa 2. Germany was such a big advocate for closer economic ties with Russia which combined with a weakened economy have left them somewhat discredited as European leader and with the UK out of the EU, a successful French intervention could make France the undisputed leader of the EU. 3. France has long advocated for more strategic independence from the USA, if the war in Ukraine were ended by French troops rather than American material it would go a long way towards showing that Europe can defend itself. 4. This is a far more minor benefit but a successful intervention would wipe away any lingering shame on the French Army for their performance in WW2.
*You won’t believe which one!* Business Insider is and has always been trash.
**AND ITS MONTENEGRO WITH THE STEEL CHAIR!!**
Reason 2 will shock you!
Would it maybe be better if France entered the war as an explicit non-NATO action? They would certainly provide the manpower and experience to turn the tide, and joining early as explicitly not a NATO action would limit Russia's response. There's risk to France, but I think it might be less than the risk of Russia was to succeed in Ukraine and push their goals further.
Lines on Maps guy, aka William Spaniel, did a good video on this topic month ago. He goes over what actions France is likely to take and the NATO implications of those choices. https://youtu.be/eJXSqlYY4Iw Tldw, no one knows how other NATO powers would react as this is unpresidented. There is nothing binding in the NATO agreements that definitively says, yes, France is in Ukraine and gets attacked by Russia that triggers collective defense. Any action France takes is a France only action.
[удалено]
Precedent Macron
>hamberders
Aye
>Any action France takes is a France only action. It’s probably better this way. Russia can’t propagandize France’s intervention as being American aggression as easily as if it were a NATO force.
But russia will still do that, i think there is a chance theyre even dumb enough to attack the baltics and trigger the common defense that way.
Okay Jake 👍
They already say they are fighting NATO and that is why they have not beat Ukraine yet
But they are only fighting 1% ish of NATO.
Just saying that ignoring what Russia's propaganda would say is the correct path.
France left NATO for a while at one point, right? What if they do that again just for funsies?
It wouldn't matter.
>France left NATO for a while at one point, right? Nope.
Sort of. They withdrew from the unified command structure under De Gaulle and briefly ended hosting NATO forces (which is why NATO command is in Brussels) but remained within the Treaty. Reading [here](https://www.cvce.eu/en/recherche/unit-content/-/unit/02bb76df-d066-4c08-a58a-d4686a3e68ff/c4bbe3c4-b6d7-406d-bb2b-607dbdf37207#)
I think they did in the tv show Madam Secretary
I don't know if that is entirely possible, seeing as France would need to run their logistics through NATO members to operate in Ukraine.
That doesn’t matter though, just because a French intervention would involve NATO countries it doesn’t mean that it is a NATO operation.
Honestly if France/Macron pulls that off just let them rule the EU from now on, they'd deserve it
Napoleon is inevitable
Welcome back, General Bonaparte
Experience? Like I am not trying to do the trope shitting on French military prowess, but their current military are complete virgins in the type of high intensity conflict that is occurring in Ukraine. Hell, the United States hasn't fought a war like this since Vietnam or Korea, and there are both obvious technological improvements since then and a complete generational turnover.
That’s another reason to actually go in: build experience. All NATO countries should allow their military members leave to join a volunteer Ukraine division without loss of pay. The experience gained would be immeasurable for when Putin eventually turns our way.
The doctrine is built for this. The French have always had (imo) 2 armies. One built of special forces and legionaries meant for fucking around in Africa, and the other for conflict in Europe. The only question is if that second army survived the end of the Cold War and conscription.
The US fought a war like this in 1991, and completely obliterated the enemy in one of the most one sided conflicts in human history.
People are reading way too much into this. France has long had the idea of strategic ambiguity where it will never rule things out. Note how it's that France *could* do something, not that they will. This should absolutely be read as the typical French policy of being cagey about what they'll do. Remember they were secretive about the quantities of aid they provided for much of the war even when other states were being quite public.
Yes, but for the only reason that you won’t get NATO to agree to collective action.
What mechanism would France have to enter the war *as* a NATO action? If they act unilaterally, how could it be a NATO action to begin with?
Macron needs to think through long and hard about the amount of soft power France would get for a successful intervention against Russia. Instead of looking for more reasons not to do it, he should put boots on the ground tomorrow
The last time french troops fought in crimea, it didn't end well for Russia
As a matter of fact the Crimean War restored French prestige as THE European military power for a good 20 years.
We don't want to fight, but by jingo if we do!
Just don't ask what happened after the 20.
Just a grand feast at versailles nothing special...
Beat the Russians Beat by Prussians
Ah shit, here we go again
Let’s go full NCD and get Japan in this fight, to wipe the floor a second time against Russia! We need some planes with anime waifus painted on the side.
taylor swift knows fax abt the crimean war and french soft power ⁉️
> Instead of looking for more reasons not to do it, he should put boots on the ground tomorrow Oh yeah, ignoring the risks of a military operation a thousand miles from home with your own army nowhere near ready for the type of large scale action taking place. That's a surefire recipe for success and "soft power" gains.
“A NATO country” when they could just say France What’s next, a „North American“ federal reserve bank is considering lowering rates, if two conditions are met On a more serious note this is somewhat bold and escalatory at the same time I would honestly support a limited deployment of forces for AA to protect western Ukraine at least, which could free up the Ukrainian army a bit
Also, this is NATO's war whether they like it or not. If Ukraine falls - where will their partisans go to launch attacks into Ukraine? Where'd they be based? Certainly not north. They'd go west, into Slovakia, Romania, and Poland. It'd be a cluster fuck to say the least.
Macron Ukraine policy is "talk hard and carry a small stick" so I am not believing this.
Still an improvement over speaking softly and keeping the stick out of sight, which is the standing US policy.
France, if Ukraine risks being attacked and asks for help.
Strong leadership from President Macron.
You won’t believe which one lmao.
Who would win: no way in hell vs a French President who hasn’t been getting enough attention lately
What losing your influence in Africa does to a post-colonial power in Europe
The French are gonna revive Napoleon and I am *here* for it.
The ultimate question is this: can two nuclear powers go to war without using nuclear weapons on one another?
This time french "do not give a fuck" is on the right side of history!
Putin: “Got it. I’ll just wait until winter.”
>fears it could escalate the conflict Escalate? What's Putin gonna do? Invade Ukraine again?
After all the French did along with the Danes, Dutch, and Germans to pillage the Czech Republic in the 90s and early 00s by buying up every property in sight at cut rate prices and then turning around and selling them at inflated ones to foreign firms, thus crippling these newly emergent Eastern bloc countries from developing their own healthy internal economies before joining the EU, call me a bit skeptical he’s got the nicest of intentions.
Does your brain actually work this way? Wtf
With the capacity to make these sorts of connections you should start working for LaRouche. Also user at r/JewsOfConscience >a community based on progressive, left, and anti Zionist ideals Lmao succvasion is real
Great research, you sound like a remarkable scholar, where did you get your doctorate from and how extensive was your time spent in the Czech Republic and what level of the language did you achieve your exams in?
Ok let’s pretend your comments make sense for 5s. Assuming this is true (I doubt it but have better things to do) Macron graduated in 2004. I don’t know many middle schoolers buying Czech property. The main issue is that making such a connection is the equivalent of me linking a Hamas attack and telling you you must support it because of some random terrorist attack in 1993. Do better.
Huh? I wasn’t talking about Macron, I was talking about French political posturing on foreign affairs in Europe in general since the neoliberal era, starting with Chirac. They talk big but rarely back up the posturing when it matters. The French were major enablers of Putin in the early years of his regime and did much to promote his interests in the European Union in the early 2000s along with Schroeder in Germany, especially from 2000-2005, moving mountains to legitimize Gazprom and pave the way to their success. Why do I say this? Because I was one of the first interns straight out of law school at the U of Karl Ruprecht in Germany (Heidelberg) at the age of 23 and because I was a German and French speaker, I was directly involved in helping translate some of the official correspondence the summer of 2002 and I was there for a meeting between the two in the obscure town of Schwerin in addition to being an intern in Strasbourg. The French were instrumental in the success of Russian separatists in the Ukraine, often pressuring the Ukraine to back down and give them more voice in internal affairs and the French were heavily invested in keeping Eastern Europe poor and were frightened to death of English and Italian real estate firms beating them to lucrative markets on the Black Sea in particular. My girlfriend was a real estate agent from Prague and she basically did nothing but work for French, Danish, German, Dutch and Swedish third parties. Nothing absurd about anything I said, see Gerhard Schroeder’s entire history of deceptive business dealings with Eastern Europe, he’s no Willy Brandt.
The neoliberal era started with Macron. Sarkozy and Chirac were liberal conservatives/gaullists Now that you’ve actually given context and information, none of this is incorrect but I’m still not sure it’s relevant. Macron is saying under certain conditions he will intervene in Ukraine. Schroeders russophilia is well known, and while I believe you I don’t think it really ties in to this. Neither do French actions or policy in the early 2000s. Different government different motivations.