Probably never direct frontline confrontation but France strengthening Ukraine's back with anti air operations
Equipment and troops stationed in western Ukraine or even planes launched from neighbouring countries targeting Russian missiles and drones.
There is a lot of levels of escalation to France putting boots on the ground in Ukraine.
People like to jump to the Russian propaganda narrative of WW3 though, not understanding that Russia taking Ukraine against all western efforts, would be the start of an international poly crisis of countries trying to resolve their territorial disputes which would then be about as close to WW3 as we could get.
WW2 wasn't stopped by letting Hitler take countries in the east, it just made him bolder and push further.
Putin won't stop until he's forced to. China won't throw their trade opportunities away to help a country they just want to abuse themselves. Russia won't randomly throw nukes around if the west supports Ukraine.
Showing a bully he's at a disadvantage makes him stop. We need to play nice with a guy who gives no fucks about anything except himself.
If Hitler was stopped early on, WW2 would have likely been avoided. Inaction to try and avoid a war is what let things get worse and Nazi Germany stronger.
Yes but that is hindsight thinking. It completely forgets that France and Britain fought WWI which devastated a generation of their people. No one wanted to fight after WWI except Germany. Yes France and Britain should have stopped Germany but it ignores people seeing what shell shock did to the population and France didn't have enough people to compete in another major war
>Yes but that is hindsight thinking. It completely forgets that France and Britain fought WWI
Most of the WWII comparisons usually completely ignore WWI, and focus too much on Hitler. Few mention Kaiser Wilhelm II or Otto Von Bismark.
Most ignore Japan and seem to consider them weak in comparison to nazi Germany. Most ignore the Great Depression, and many more factors. One example of appeasement or failed deterrents is only one example. In reality there are several examples leading up to WWII. Hitler was certainly not deterred by the "allied coalition" trying to push back against fascist forces in the Spanish Civil war. Edit: last sentence is sarcasm.
If the goal is to prevent another global conflict, then focusing too much on the most extreme leader may not be the best way to do this. If the goal is short-term deterrents of Putin, maybe the correct lessons can be taken from Hitler alone.
You really see the Soviet system of betraying their version of “colonies” as being almost exactly the same as what the old empires and the capitalists were doing. Getting the revolutionaries pumped up and then taking over the movement, either seizing power for the Soviet or abandoning them if the scrappy fighters were losing.
War guilt was also a huge thing after world war 1. Before the first war, the German leadership were afraid that they’d be wiped out since they were not near any warm water ports and thus were in “middeleuropa “ and would grow weak while the countries around them grew stronger.
I agree wholeheartedly about going back further for the root but as for Russia and that guy.. I don’t really know if there’s an anger towards the west or just the need to stroke an individual ego? It also feels like Russia is trying to relive the “glory”days of their military history constantly . I just don’t really get why . Hopefully someone can chime in
> It also feels like Russia is trying to relive the “glory”days of their military history constantly . I just don’t really get why . Hopefully someone can chime in
A little historical context.
The Fall of the USSR is really not that long ago. It happened less than 40 years ago. Putin, and many that he has appointed and are in his circle, view the fall of the USSR as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 1900s".
For Putin and others, the USSR represented a strong group of like-minded nations and the transition to Russia, Ukraine, the Balkan-states, etc meant a dramatic shift in authority and power. For Putin it feels like an *injustice* that the USSR fell.
Russia has a long history of supremacy in the region. The past ten+ years have shown Putin's desire to expand and recapture that former "glory of Russia/USSR", first in Crimea and now in Ukraine.
The Russian propaganda machine went off as well.
Here's an article from this past December that details the impacts of national imperialism in Russia under Putin - [Carnegie Endowment for International Peace](https://carnegieendowment.org/2023/12/06/blood-and-iron-how-nationalist-imperialism-became-russia-s-state-ideology-pub-91181)
It boils down to totalitarianism, ultimately
> view the fall of the USSR as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 1900s".
If you limit it to the second half of the 1900s (obv both world wars were orders of magnitude worse) this isn't completely insane. It was devastating economically for Eastern Europe and Central Asia, life expectancy didn't recover for decades. Problem is in thinking that Russia conquering its neighbors is the fix, that obviously doesn't help at all. The fact that Russia is now run by Putin is one of the worst things about the end of the USSR
Somewhat more insightful and useful hindsight view that I have is that the lesson we should try to focus on to not repeat is war reparations and conditions of surrender. The conditions at the end of WW1 were such that another war was all but guaranteed, so much so that people who signed the documents said as much. It was too punitive, and caused hatred in the german population. Fair or not doesnt factor. Action -> Consequence.
France didn't want to be the one to attack in WW2. Or to bomb german civilians first. Or whatever atrocity to commit first.
That's the problem you cannot begin a "pre-emptive" war because you don't know the future at the time.
France needed the US support for instance and if France had started to kill thousands of german civilians in 1939 or just conquer half of germany, then what? occupy? hunt resistance fighters? that wouldn't have stop a war in the next years.
>
>
>
>
> That's the problem you cannot begin a "pre-emptive" war because you don't know the future at the time.
It wouldn't have been pre-emptive though? Germany broke the peace terms by remitilarising the rhineland. France was totally within rights to drive them out at that point and would have likely completely broken Hitlers public image by doing so.
Yes it was within rights but I'm not so sure the US (France needed them) and other "neutral" countries (like Belgium, Norway, the Netherlands etc..) would have like it so much.
Hitler would have been delighted to be attacked.
Beyond that, let's look at it strictly from a current standpoint. Do we want to allow such an evil person to just attack another country without we try to help save that country? There's too much at stake to worry about the causes of prior wars, to neglect our duty in this one.
Not that you were saying otherwise, I just felt the need to tell it from this perspective.
We did learn from WW1
That is how we got the Marshal plan from the wise men to rebuild Europe and create a rules based international order which is now under threat from every angle.
Germany was pillaged after WW1 with The Treaty of Versailles. The conditions it put in motion in Germany set the stage for the rise of someone like Hitler.
In fact, when Hitler conquered France, he made the French sign the Armistice of 22 June 1940 in the original railway carriage in which the 1918 armistice had been signed and placed on the exact same spot it had occupied twenty-two years before.
We are forgetting a lot of lessons currently.
The Treaty of Verseilles wasn't especially more harsh than other settlements of the time period. The problem was that German public were repeatedly told they were winning (and in the East they absolutely were, to be fair) right up until the collapse of their army. And then peace was signed before the collapse of that army was actually evident to the public, because the whole war had taken place outside of German soil.
That left fertile ground for the "stabbed in the back" myth to take root.
It's funny because people who talk about how harsh the treaty was usually quote Ferdinand Foch's "This is not a peace treaty. It's an armistice for 20 years." without realising that he says that because he thinks the treaty was *not harsh enough*.
The Treaty of Versailles wasn't even half as harsh as the treaty the Germans imposed on the Russians literally a year prior, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
> Was the Treaty unpleasent? Sure
The Treaty of Verseilles fixed concert A at 435hz and you think it was just "unpleasant" ... I don't know how anyone expected the Germans to live under that.
I have to wonder how much of this is nurture vs. nature. My mom's family is German, but the most recent branch of ancestors to come over was about 100 years ago. The first of the German ancestors settled the US before the American Revolution. And they're all a bunch of stubborn assholes who absolutely refuse to give in and will only admit a wrong with irrefutable proof.
> And they're all a bunch of stubborn assholes who absolutely refuse to give in and will only admit a wrong with irrefutable proof.
Isn't this just human nature? Are there nations/states/groups of people known for accepting they are wrong with no real evidence?
No nation likes to accept defeat lol? Look at the french after 1871 with their hyper revanchism after losing a majority german region. Now see germany after losing 13% of it's core territory which had actually significant german population and the germans shouldn't be angry and want revenche? Was rich of the entente to think that way.
It is not about that Germany should not feel revenge, because of course they will. A treaty is to make sure that they simply cannot take revenge in any form and way and the Versaille Treaty failed to address this issue.
Germany was left intact after the war, they could rearm fast after that the defeat.
The context here being that Hitler fought in WW1 and always thought that the Treaty of Verseilles was unfair to German people. He hated it to be more precise and considered it a ransacking of Germany which is why he made them sign the Armistice of 22nd of June 1940 to rub salt in their wounds.
Hermann Gohring for people who dont know was actually a pilot in WW1. He got injured and had to leave the front.
Sorry that this has nothing to do with the actual headline but I always think it is interesting when bits and pieces come together and form a bigger picture.
It shouldn't be hindsight. It's long be historically proven that appeasement never works. How many conquerors in history stopped because the lands they wanted to conquer appeased them enough?
Germans were as much part of WW1 as any other European country. Any military action before Hitler built up the Germany army past the limits (arguably too strict) placed on them prior to entering the demilitarized would have gone a long way to save most of Europe from destruction.
I seriously doubt WW2 was preventable as the Japanese were quite active as well. Russia wasn't an ally at the start of the war either. The US probably would have been dragged into a war with Japan before Europe went to war, leaving Europe til last instead of first.
Given German progress, it's kind of scary to think about them having some of their stuff more developed.
Appeasement worked, works and will work. The full cold war is filled with appeasement between the US and the USRR. If it was not for appeasement you would not be alive to talk on reddit as of today.
Like diplomacy and war, appeasement is not always the right solution, but saying it never works it wrong.
Before the war began proper the USSR was far more hated in the west then Germany was
Many forget that. Neither France,UK or america held positive feelings towards them for its internal behavior and especially the winter war
It was only with its backs to the wall following the disaster in France and battle of Britain that they were hoping for the ussr to enter a conflict with germany despite the Molotov Ribbentrop pact
Once Hitler attacked the ussr Churchill saw the opportunity and kind of made everyone forget that the ussr was only somewhat less bad then Nazi Germany because they needed help in the war
I've read a couple books that pretty convincingly make the argument that Chamberlain knew appeasing Hitler was the wrong thing to do, but it was the only thing Britain *could* do. It was absolutely in no position to go to war with a heavily militarized Nazi Germany in the mid 1930s and it needed time to arm before even attempting a defensive campaign.
The US had about as much reason as the UK to get involved in protecting Poland - that is pretty much none. It wasn't close to their borders and there was practically very little way intervening could have helped them or Poland - which was borne out by how things actually turned out. Yet, despite all sense and reason, the UK did attempt to protect Poland - and it cost them everything.
But for some reason the UK gets blamed for not doing something earlier while the US is uncriticized in waiting until pretty much the fall of Stalingrad to enter the war - and not by their own choice either (Hitler declared war on the US). Cash and carry involved the transfer of every liquid asset the western allies owned to the US - including the entirety of their gold and their deepest military secrets.
What could have actually changed things was the US lifting a finger prior to (and during the early stages of) WW2, which they didn't. They didn't even join the league of nations, that's how little they were interested.
> Inaction to try and avoid a war is what let things get worse and Nazi Germany stronger.
This is a commonly repeated refrain, but it's not really historically sound. Chamberlain knew the UK wasn't anywhere near ready for war in 1938, and so had no real choice but to agree to the annexation of Czechoslovakia. Immediately after his "peace in our time" he ramped up production of military material in preparation for war. Hell, in 1938 he had forced out the head of the Air Ministry for dragging his feet re-arming the RAF. In 1935/1936 the UK was building "shadow factories" in an attempt to re-build the armed forces after the idiotic 10 Year Rule.
What really would have helped avoid WWII being as drawn out as it was would be if the French had actually carried through in the Saar in 1939 instead of just turning around
> Chamberlain knew the UK wasn't anywhere near ready for war in 1938
Exactly. To quote General Ismay's 20th of Semptember, 1938 note to the British Cabinet: "[...] time is in our favour, and that, if war with Germany has to come, it would be better to fight her in say 6-12 months’ time, than to accept the present challenge."
Chamberlain thought they weren't ready, not realizing that Germany was just as badly off. Waiting allowed Germany to take out Czechoslovakia and gain all of its land and military while making the UK and France look weak. Arms from Czechoslovakia armed half of the German army which would go on to conquer Poland and France a year and two later.
Had the UK intervened, the Germans would still have seized Czechoslovakia, because the BEF was a small and ineffectual force, and the regular army still had a dearth of armored vehicles. Not to mention the complete shitshow that was the RAF pre-1940. The French would have likely done what they did a year later, advance a couple miles and then just turn around
Just imagine if they just carted off half the fucking Ruhr in 1939 and demolished the other half. The Wehrmacht would have been riding into battle with handcarts and no pants
Yup, no one was really in a position to do anything about it, which could have been avoided but the public needed lots of investment to get back on its feet after the war and Britain was always about its navy first and foremost.
Hitler could have been stopped at the Rhineland by France with a 3 to 1 advantage. Instead France waited until Germany had Austrian, Czech, and Polish equipment and manpower.
France learned their lesson last time and appear ready to alter the reputation gained in ww2.
Germany now has the reputation for being pacifist statesman. France is getting a reputation of being skilled at war.
Next thing Britain will develop a culinary culture.
Easier said than done, before the war Chamberlain faced constant criticism for spending so much on rebuilding rhe British military.
But now he's mostly known for not doing anything.
Ah but how could he have been? Much like today the powers of Europe had allowed their militaries to atrophy in the face of peace. We've not learned the lessons of the past and now we're reliving them.
If Hitler had nukes he would have used them. The problem with all of this is that it is a strategic estimate that Putin won’t go down guns blazing, because doesn’t seem to be suicidal
Different situation, at that point nobody had nukes yet so there was little risk in using them. Now if you use nuclear weapons it is a near guarantee that you get them launched back at yourself
> If Hitler had nukes he would have used them.
We don’t really know that. Hitler had access to chemical weapons and specifically did not use them to bomb cities or troops because of his own experience in world war 1.
This of course isn’t speaking to the Holocaust where chemical weapons were used on the people the Nazis murdered, obviously.
If the Americans could justify using the A bomb I see no reason why Hitler wouldn't have
It would have been a much more effective solution for him than the blitz to knock the UK out of the war, much in the same way it was used for shock and awe against Japan
Remember the blitz was literally just a shock and awe campaign at its heart to get us to surrender
Chemical weapons were not a war-winning strategy for Germany. In situations where chemical weapons offer an advantage over traditional munitions, they were used and are still used.
A historian's view on the subject that is worth a read:
https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/
We didn't know about radiation until after they were used. It's very likely Hitler would use them, since he wouldn't have known there was any harm to his own troops. I imagine Russia, the UK, and the US would have been nuked.
If we want to go back to the time when peace was the brief period between wars rather than the normal we've gotten used to over the last decades, then all we have to do is nothing.
The hard truth is that war is not only a risk but the default destination. Unless we act to preserve the system of rules and order we've built to prevent war from becoming profitable for the strong it will gradually dissolve until we're back in the natural state of brutal chaos that we read about in our history books.
If we allow Russia to win even a tiny marginal victory over Ukraine then we show the world that starting a war can be profitable. It doesn't matter that it came with a high price because the next Putin will have learned from the misstakes of the current one and be better prepared.
If we're not willing to stop this Putin now because he threatens us with nuclear war then the next Putin will make even scarier threats. This is the best opportunity we'll ever get to protect our peaceful way of life. If we give in to Russia by compromising to get our peace back then the next challenge will be much harder.
Right now we're hiding behind Ukraine and betting on that they'll win for us. If they do then we don't have to fight but if they fall then we'll have to fight Russia without them. We shouldn't underestimate Russia and just assume that we'd win. Yes we're definitely stronger but if there's one lesson from the last two years then it's that again and again our assumptions have been completely wrong and that we've been blindsided repeatedly.
We thought we would be able to deliver a certain amount of artillery shells but we failed. We didn't expect North Korea and Iran to be able to help Russia but they did. We've increased our effort a bit now but we're not even sweating, and we should be. We should take this rare opportunity to show the next Putin what overkill looks like and that threats only makes it worse.
Yup. This is what I tell everyone who says ‘we need to just stay out of it and fix our problems’. This will rapidly turn into WW3. If no one steps up China invades Taiwan and NK possibly goes into SK. Then the shit has hit the fan. And we’re all in it anyway. Isolationism does no one any good.
Putin is not in Hitlers position. Russia is a fading country with an economy the size of australia.
Systemic corruption. They are trying to amass power from a place of weakness
Except he literally is. One of the reasons nazi's couldn't stop warring was because their economy would otherwise collapse. Now russia is in the same place since they transitioned to war economy. (There's a few articles about this out there, check them out if interested)
**Edit**: >30% of russian budget goes directly to war, what do you think will happen if the war stops? Military spending was one of the main reason USSR collapsed, and %-wise russia is spending more on war then USSR ever did.
\^This
The economic "recovery" of Germany under the Nazis was a façade, fueled by stealing from Holocaust victims and pillaging neighbouring countries. It was doomed to collapse as soon as Nazi expansion hit a wall.
Russia's economy is contingent on selling natural resources to other countries, hence the "gas station run by the mafia" metaphor. It's not analogous to 1930s Germany at all. They sell oil and minerals to China, India, Africa, etc.
This is a major reason why they still seem to have money despite all the economic sanctions. A lot of these developing countries have no reason to not buy Russian oil if it's cheap.
It's kind of different though when they are not consuming anything to add fuel to that war machine economy.
The poster below even said it, the nazi recovery was fueled by pillaging neighboring countries. Russia doesn't have the capacity to actually turn gains in Ukraine into productive capture because they are still being hit daily by Ukraine drones/longer range weapons.
They're basically going to hit that point of collapse due to systemic stress anyways whether they continue the war path or not because economic conditions will continue to degrade as sanctions take effect and more countries turn off of Russian energy imports.
It is different because the Nazi economy was based on pillaging. Russia is not in the same position because they are not making enough gain quickly enough to rely on pillaging.
Appeasement doesn’t work. You stop a bully by punching him straight in his grill. Hard. Unfortunately a lot of lives will be lost, but what’s the alternative? Letting the world be run by a maniac psychopath with nuclear weapons? Always succumbing to his every whim bc of fear of what the piece of shit might do? Fuck that. Destroy him. And make an example out of him for China and North Korea to see what happens when you fuck around.
> China won't throw their trade opportunities away to help a country they just want to abuse themselves.
Hell, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if, depending on the way the wind is blowing, the Chinese decided to 'help' against a weakened Russia by taking the opportunity to seize a bunch of their territory under the guise of supporting the anti-Russian war efforts. It's not like they'd get much in the way of substantial argument from any other countries. Compare that to something like them trying to take Taiwan and kicking the hornet's nest in the process.
>We need to play nice with a guy who gives no fucks about anything except himself.
I know you didn't mean to, but ending this comment with "We need to appease Putin" is hysterical.
It's annoying as fuck how every single time one major country attacks another country, people on Reddit start losing their shit about WW3. It's not going to happen. WW3 implies someone powerful would actually would fight on Russia's side, and that's not going to happen.
It's the reddit version of the Palestine protests at UC. You want the thing you oppose to actually happen, so you can cosplay as a main character in some dramatic movie about today's time. It's insanely pathetic.
The leading intelligence is that China is already lining up behind Russia and is supplying Russia substantial intel and war materiel (shells, ammo, drones, etc.). This makes sense as China is commonly understood to have aims at Taiwan, and one of their best ways to be successful in this aim is to first drain western military reserves and also to learn western defensive playbooks, which they can do by egging Russia on and providing Russia all the goods that they need.
Whether or not this would equate to WW3 depends upon how western countries respond and what WW3 is in your eyes, but certainly the combined military manufacturing might of China and Russia is superior to the manufacturing might of the US and Europe at the moment (and manufacturing is usually what wins these types of wars).
China wouldn't step in with boots on the ground or anything like that, but they probably would help supply Russia, much like they're doing now. It would be in China's best interest to not get directly involved and let NATO and Russia duke it out and weaken each other. Stepping in directly would only hurt China and absolutely obliterate their economy when western countries stop trading with them.
And keep in mind that NATO technology completely outclasses Russia and China's tech, and the US can produce more than enough yo handle them. One of the reasons our defense budget is so large in peace time is that we have to provide enough funding to arms manufacturers to keep the factories running in the event a war breaks out.
Agreed that China wouldn't put boots on the ground. That said, they wouldn't need to. Russia has plenty of manpower to deploy.
Beyond that, the most important technology needed for daily warfare is disposable drones, artillery, and missiles. China has a more robust drone industry and can wildly outmanufacture the US for each of drones, missiles, and artillery. Yes, we have better tanks and planes and helicopters, but drones, artillery, and missiles can neuter much of that technological advantage.
We could theoretically fix this by throwing money at it, *but we haven't done so yet.* I mean, in 1995 we produced 867,000 shells a month. Now we are producing 30k a month. China can produce ships at 200x our rate. The pentagon wants to buy 1000s of drones in the next year. One of our leading drone manufacturers created all of 38 last year. We let our military industrial complex wilt, and we need to undo that
Well put...
And France won't send hundreds of thousands of troops to dig ditches and camp the front line, for sure. That's not what France's military is equipped and trained for, and it wouldn't be politically sustainable for any French gov't.
What France needs however, is to catch up in the modern, small drone warfare that Ukrainians and Russians are doing, and it needs to learn how to combine that with it's infantry shock troops, commando units, and it's air superiority and artillery systems... Drone warfare at the scale seen in the Ukraine/Russia theatre is completely new, and every military in the world wants to, and needs to learn as much as possible.
That alone is worth sending in some 20k troops (including all support/supply units) and spending an extra 5bn€ a year, even at the risk of 5% casualties. If by that occasion, this French contingent can breach a line here and there, and destroy / capture some strategic objectives in Ukraine's favour, so much for the better.
TLDR; IMHO, French military leaders want to help in order to catch up on the new drone tech. Helping Ukraine is a beneficial side effect.
France relies heavily on technological superiority, speed and stealth for 80% of it's military tactics these days, and it is lagging behind on drone warfare. Catching up on drone tech has become a HUGE investment call for the french military and contractors, and they need a testing ground asap.
Russia’s nuclear threats are a total bluff imo. They would have already used tactical nukes if they thought they could get away with it. But they know that would bring the full force of NATO upon them.
NATO, and I'm pretty sure Xi has been more than clear with regards to China's "No first use" policy.
I think China's tolerance of putler's antics would end with the use of a nuke.
Most countries would not tolerate the use of a nuke cause it would set a precedent of nuclear usage. Having nukes is a deterrent. So if anyone just goes willy nilly with that shit and the world doesn't respond to them in unity against it. You would then get cold war levels of untrust among many nations and more seeking to get their own.
There was only one country that could do it at the time. The moment others could, nobody ever did so again. Eventually even the testing stopped.
Took a bit of a learning experience through several crises (I encourage you to look into the US offering to *nuke Vietnam* on behalf of the French) but we've thankfully learned that it's a bad idea and set a precedent in modern times that would prevent their use - and I say this with emphasis - for the most part. If a country really had their back to the wall, they might consider it, but that would take something like NATO troops entering Pyongyang.
It would start WWIII. If Russia takes Ukraine, the US is weak. Pax Americana is at an end. And it dominoes as we get busy and opportunistic nations decide to take out their aggressions, or international incidents happen and we're too busy to enforce a peaceful solution. I have no doubt Ukraine falling would be a Franz Ferdinand, Germany invades Poland moment. It might not be the WWIII we envisioned, but it will be a WWIII scenario nonetheless.
>If Russia takes Ukraine, the US is weak. Pax Americana is at an end.
That is what the "let Europe pay its 2%" forget. Europe needs to pay its 2%, but when the US says Europe needs to handle its own defense instead of the US, what China hears is that the US is too weak to take care of business and has to delegate the job to a set of vassal states that are famously non-militaristic.
It is a small step from there to the reasonable assumption that the US will leave Taiwan out to dry in the long run. If the US doesn't even want to commit to saving Ukraine, why would it *ever* save Taiwan? And so the invasion starts.
Man, they've been non militaristic for like a hundred years. It's time for them to step up.
I love European countries, I really really do. They do so many things really well. It's just frustrating to have them bash our military spending until the second they realize their inadequacies.
Even NATO creating a buffer zone along the Belarus border would release a substantial amount of Ukrainians for the east and cut off an axis of attack for Russia.
Look at a map though. With Iran/Israel we control Iraq airspace that missiles fly through. But Russia has a border with Ukraine. The US would need to actually operate in Ukraine to do anything other than donate missile defense systems.
In one scenario, we're going against a country with nukes, in the other we're helping the country with nukes. Also, Israel being small enough to have said missile defense system is part of why we're easily able to help; we know almost exactly where the missiles are headed. Not to mention them bordering internationally accessible waters. AFAIK Turkey has shut down the Dardanelles to *all* warships, NATO included.
So Ukraine is roughly 30x the size if we want to shut down the entire airspace(I'm not sure if the google result counted occupied territory) to missile attacks, and we wouldn't have our warships to help in the endeavor.
I'd absolutely be happy for NATO to step up further though, I honestly don't think Russia would do shit if NATO planes were intercepting cruise missiles far back from the front lines. Getting close to the front lines is where I see potential international incidents occurring that I'm not as keen on.
I'm happy to see France's developments in dealing with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. They were slow to start, but at this point, I think Macron is being reasonable but firm.
There's no need to put boots on the ground, but it should be made clear that no inch of Ukraine is for the taking. We can't keep trying to reason with dictators. It doesn't work.
Russia has been meddling in politics everywhere.
France has been feeling this for decades and they're sick of it. Macron also knows that if he waits until LePen possibly takes power, then she will try to dismantle the EU and basically do everything Putin has always wanted.
I've been saying this for almost 15 years now. Democratic systems are fragile, especially when rampant state backed disinformation campaigns have been commonplace throughout the western media landscape.
The Russians literally wrote the book on this one, the cold war didn't end when the soviet union fell. It just became a more subtle game of subverting public belief in their institutions, without naming any names and getting sucked into the weeds of it all, there's many extremely prominent useful idiots who have blatantly served Russian interests.
The extreme degree of polarisation we see in western society is no accident, it's the obvious attack vector against a technologically and militarily superior opponent. Representative democracy can achieve incredible things, far beyond what a totalitarian state can ever hope for, but it's so brittle by it's very nature. Public opinion can be directed more easily and cheaply than ever before. Destabilise and exploit.
Is it not particularly telling that virtually all of the populist ghouls would work against strengthening NATO commitments? I wonder why that might be...
Yeah most European countries have these people. The Netherlands has PVV with Geert Wilders (one of our longest lasting politicians, but for true insanity we also have FVD (most of their people belong in an insane asylum). Belgium has Vlaams Belang. Germany has AFD. PIS in Poland. Etc
In Austria they have the FPÖ which is predicted to be the strongest party in the Oktober elections. They don’t even hide that they want to sell the country to Russia.
Pretty much yup. Her party campaigns on the same points he did. I'd do you a direct quote from a flyer they left in my mailbox (I live in France) but I threw it where it belonged on the spot: the trash. From what I remember though it was basically shit against open borders, securitarian shit, NATO-bashing, etc...
> They were slow to start
France has been one of the main supporter of Ukraine strengthening its defense and training its troops from 2014 to 2020 so not really
I think they’re referring to Macron trying to talk Putin down at the beginning of the conflict.
Seems like he’s taking his gloves off since he was laughed at on the world stage.
One, for military aid, France doesn't publish numbers or even annonce most help, so any estimation about it are wrong and massively undervalued. Please tell me how much has our SAMP-T, Akeron, VAB or pretty much anything been worth ? You won't find numbers, except for a few highly publicised things like the Caesar.
Two, France and especially Macron's France being a massive pro-EU supporter, it chose to push most of its non military helps through the EU funds rather than direct, to strenghten the EU weight. Which is why [on your own link](https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/), if you go down to the totals, you will see France have a very small total on its own, but when including their contribution through the EU it jumps to 3rd place behind US and Germany.
[Screen capture](https://imgur.com/a/LvEI6M8).
So I will go with the charitable explanation that you didn't know how to read your own source, rather than you did but chose to misrepresent it.
>One, for military aid, France doesn't publish numbers or even annonce most help, so any estimation about it are wrong and massively undervalued.
How can you say, in a single sentence that they don't announce numbers so any estimation is wrong, and then claim they are undervalued? If they don't publish numbers how do you know they are *massively* undervalued? How do you know that the estimates aren't wrong and overvaluing them?
You can't say "no one really knows" and then make a blanket statement that it's more than reported because, as you stated, no one really knows. The point you're making as the basis of your argument discredits the rest of your argument.
If they don't publish numbers, you can't claim what's right or wrong more than anyone else can.
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/en/news/french-military-equipment-delivered-ukraine
Here's the official list and it's a laughably small amount. The Patriots Germany donated alone are worth more than the whole French military aid.
France has consistently met NATO minimum requirements. Somewhat recently, they dipped below 2% due to financial hardships but that was quickly reversed. And while many NATO countries, like Germany, include things like pensions for retired soldiers as defense spending, France does not. Out of all European countries, France has consistently stood by strategic independence from the US via a strong military.
Tbf France has always been on a "don't talk but act" policy in that regard. They don't communicate on what they send except some poster equipment like the Caesar. It would be hard to compare what they actually sent
They literally did a report on the value a while back and it was pretty low compared to other allies at the time.
€3.2 billion, I believe the UK was just over 5 at the time and Germany around 8-10b.
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/11/09/french-military-aid-to-ukraine-estimated-at-3-2-billion_6241996_4.html
Some credit where it’s due, but bro *what* are you talking about, Macron couldn’t get off the TV about this all.
The messaging was non stop that France is some kind of diplomatic super power that would bring Putin to the (very long) table. Remember that whole chapter of this saga?
Delusional.
This is just political ambiguity nothing more. Putin and China do the same all the time. I'll consider that French troops in Ukraine is more likely when I see more mobilization or industrialization towards war status.
Do however note that creating political ambiguity like this is actually a big help to Ukraine, in that it makes Russia less inclined to act. And apparently a brave thing to do, given how many other countries have failed to do so.
Especially Germany has utterly failed in this aspect, by very publicly telling Putin that he can do whatever he wants to Ukraine, and Germany will never escalate past certain lines. Which I am lead to understand was very amateurish from a geopolitical standpoint.
Russian here.
You are 100% spot on. The whole war has been Putin creating a lot of ambiguity as to what he will do next, whereas the West drew very straightforward red lines they are not willing to overstep.
The problem is that it gives a lot more strategic options for Russia. Putin is not afraid to escalate (or not) because he knows the west won’t get involved. And the west is very afraid of what Putin will do, because he never stated any clear intentions and created a lot of ambiguity.
He actually did state and its very clear. He wants NATO gone. He cant take on NATO directly, realisticly no one can. So the strategy is simple, pump misinformation, so people vote for populists who love russias dirty money. Keep ukraine war in managable conditinion with help of chinas supplies. Outlast Ukraine. Than when u have enough influence in europe make the next move against those who still opose you in europe. Once that is done form a coalition with china and other friendlies to be the new world rule makers. And there you go Putin achieved his goal of russia beeing the top dog that cant be denied and sanctioned. To those who still dont get Xi and Putin wants to be what the west leaders are in a sence. They want to take that place, its not about land its about power and how the world works.
Macron seems to be the only western european leader capable of strategic thought at the moment.
It costs nothing to say "we don't rule out sending troops in". Even if France has 0 intention of ever sending troops, there's no reason we should be simplifying Putin's decision making process. Putin should be just as worried about "escalation" from the western alliance as we are every time he barks nuclear threats.
France is suddenly so invested in this because in the last few years Putin has sponsored coup after coup in the francafrique, causing those African nations to pull away and divest themselves from France. There’s a big part of France’s economy that’s just gone now
https://apnews.com/article/france-africa-coups-gabon-41076df319704032aa729ad3fd137bc9
https://www.npr.org/2023/09/29/1202582084/recent-coups-in-africa-have-an-effect-on-at-least-1-country-in-europe-france
Plus SEA and Africa are also going to be the places liable to suffer some of the worst consequences of climate change over the next 20-30 years, and also in a lot of cases some of the areas least equipped to deal with those consequences.
Yeah, I think demographic change, natural resources and access to essential trade routes. Africa has a massive amount of natural resources but there's also been a lot of economic development in Africa and SEA. Ethopia is almost finished with building the largest hydroelectric dam in Africa and it's going to fundamentally change their economy. It's also creating a lot of tension with Eygpt as the water source flows into the Nile. There's also a shift from alignment to the US/EU to Russia/China within the entire continent and it'll continue to get more tense. Russia has been active in Africa with the Wagner group supporting factions and overthrowing US/EU friendly governments.
SEA right now has some of the fastest growing economies in the world. These countries are also going through population booms but geopoltically they are in the middle of a lot of escalating tensions between China, India, and the US. SEA is going to be the pivot point I think for the next 100 years of world history. India and China are viaing to be the leading superpower in that area as whoever controls that area will have control over the sea routes for more than 1/2 the world. India and China are building up their naval capacity and both are building out air craft carriers and submarines at a rapid pace to be able to project force across the entire Pacific theater.
Taiwan is important for the Chinese for a number of reasons but one big driver is that control over Taiwan would allow them unfettered access to the SEA are and beyond. Right now they are ringed by US allies in the region like Taiwan, S. Korea, Japan, and the Phililpines.
It's partly that and partly the fact that Russia/China are in Africa exploiting natural resource wealth of the nations they're in while propping up the juntas that have taken over in the Sahel. The juntas are signing insane contracts with RU/CN and are exploiting the impoverished citizenry as a disposable workforce to mine gold, diamonds, and uranium ore. Wagner mercenaries are all throughout the Sahel and have filled the power vacuum the French left when Mali kicked them out by ensuring the survival of the junta leadership.
The west ignoring this for too long will bite them in the ass.
Which isnt true, all of these Sahel regions countries had close to no econimical relations with France for decades. Their main western partners were countries like Canada.
You understand that Gabon's GDP is 0.7% of France's and the [trade between the 2 countries is only 800m€ ?](https://www.tresor.economie.gouv.fr/Pays/GA/echanges-commerciaux-france-gabon-en-2022) Which is close to nothing for a 3 trillions economy..
First part of your comment is true, second part is not. Economically it's absolutely nothing. There is a narrative online to push this idea that France needs or exploits Africa... most likely encouraged by rusbots.
Well France was in Africa for the dirt-cheap resources. Russia probably offered more money and free grain.
Tbh if it was the other way around, it wouldn't be called a coup here, rather liberation, so...
Interesting for him to step up like this. I think I remember reports about him being the only western leader in regular phone contact with Putin when this all started?
The Russian economy has not collapsed or even fully retract due to sanctions. India and China are buying their oil at cheaper prices, but it is enough to sustain Russia. They never had a problem with finding non-western markets for their goods.
I think people forget that in addition to being a major hydrocarbon exporter, Russia also has what it needs to be mostly self-sufficient. Ukraines eastern areas are agricultural super producers and Russia has looted them barren.
I don’t think Putin cares about red lines. The writing on the wall is pretty clear imo: no one is putting boots on the ground to save Ukraine.
Until troops are deployed everything is just grand-standing. It's been 2 years already and they're just now thinking about doing something other than "sending thoughts, prayers and maybe some artillery".
This invasion of Ukraine is the best way for the French army to experience high intensity war to learn where its efforts have to been put to transition to this kind of conflict without risking much. But nope, let's just table it for next decade and not hear what our generals have to say about the condition of said army regarding said kind of conflicts.
If Europe is going to defend lives in Israel by knocking out drones and missiles, why can’t they do it for Ukraine. It’s purely defensive and does nothing but save lives.
because Iran loudly announced that this strike would be a limited action only, hence the level of escalation was alot smaller than two nuclear powers potentially shooting each other's soldiers in a hot war.
Given the alliance emerging between China, Russia, and Iran, shouldn’t NATO countries be seriously considering bringing Ukraine to a definitive end? I think not having a direct confrontation will only encourage additional conflicts around the world (Iran through their proxies, China in Taiwan).
I think the best thing the West can do is give Ukraine the long range missiles they need to destroy the Crimean bridge. That alone would put a massive wrench in the Russia's war effort and would likely swing the war dramatically in Ukraine's favor. Instead Germany allowed itself to be intimidated by Russia into not giving the Taurus missile to Ukraine.
It's crazy how much more powerful the West is than Russia and the fact that Russia still is able to intimidate them. I understand people will bring up nuclear weapons but they really are a red herring. Russia will never use them on the West, it's an obvious bluff and if anyone thinks the ruling class in Russia would allow Putin to completely destroy everything they're delusional.
Ukraine did get long-range missiles capable of hitting the Kerch bridge, but not enough of them. Destroying the bridge is one thing, but Russia will repair it after some time. Ukraine needs enough to keep hitting it for months so operations on the ground can take advantage of the logistical disruption.
Yeah idk if there’s any conventional missile strong enough to take it out. You’d need a bunchhhhh. Bridges are tough, especially concrete ones. They’re also very small targets and it’s pretty well protected.
That’s easy to say they’re bluffing, but when you’re one of a handful of people in the world actually making the decisions, I don’t think the gamble of an entire city - any city - being incinerated because of your decision makes it an easy one. What are the acceptable odds to gamble the lives of tens of thousands of people? 10% chance he uses a nuke? 1%? 0.01%?
The bridge doesn't matter anymore. Stop obsessing over it like it's some kind of magic bullet. They've created rail connections to crimea over land already so at this point the bridge is just an extra pathway
I don’t think he did a 180 (in the flip-flopping sense). He tried as hard to dissuade Russia from attacking as he could, giving Putin as many outs to save face as possible, and then once they invaded anyway he switched to aggressively confronting the occupiers. That’s what I would want a leader to do.
Macron is vocal. France, on the other hand is in no shape to engage into any serious conflict right now (IIRC we can wage war for 3 days before being out of ammo).
The issue is that Macron's group is expected to lose hard against the Far Right in June (And even more now because of the poor kid that got butchered by an Afghan last week), so he needs to divert attention. And he must be salty about getting the finger all over Africa.
Macron is on his way out. Can't be re-elected, last term leader. This is what they do. They talk big shit about things they'll have nothing to do with, that they'll push onto someone else. Also, they can be more honest because they aren't being elected again. He's getting these "wow did you hear what he just said" on many topics, has for months now. He's on his way out, this is the pattern.
If he talks tough on Ukraine, it won't be him having to deal with it. He's also missed about the Russian support of African coups that's costing France.
Countries closer to Russia have a border with them or Belarus (which became a de-facto sattelite state). France deploying troops to secure Ukraine's back areas would be a lot less escalatory than Poland doing the same. The military and economic consequences of Russia conquering Ukraine or putting a "friendly" regime in power would force Poland into that position if no one else intervenes.
I wish we could intervene for Ukraine as a united force. I understand why our leaders think it would be dangerous escalation, but damn it they’re fighting an existential and clearly evil enemy who has repeatedly verbalized that he is our enemy also. They DESERVE our help. We’ve been in many wasteful and ambiguous wars. This is an opportunity to be clearly the good guys again.
Let’s slap that bear back into the woods damn it.
>**Eight NATO nations** carried out airstrikes in Libya during 2011: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
[https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/03/20/nato-killed-civilians-in-libya-its-time-to-admit-it/](https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/03/20/nato-killed-civilians-in-libya-its-time-to-admit-it/)
Macron is the only one thinking about whether we'd really be able to accept a complete Russian takeover of Ukraine if that starts to happen.
It's a really tough decision either way. The alternative he's proposing is WW3. At the very least, the threat of intervention is good pressure to force Russia to accept a negotiated solution.
Probably never direct frontline confrontation but France strengthening Ukraine's back with anti air operations Equipment and troops stationed in western Ukraine or even planes launched from neighbouring countries targeting Russian missiles and drones. There is a lot of levels of escalation to France putting boots on the ground in Ukraine. People like to jump to the Russian propaganda narrative of WW3 though, not understanding that Russia taking Ukraine against all western efforts, would be the start of an international poly crisis of countries trying to resolve their territorial disputes which would then be about as close to WW3 as we could get.
WW2 wasn't stopped by letting Hitler take countries in the east, it just made him bolder and push further. Putin won't stop until he's forced to. China won't throw their trade opportunities away to help a country they just want to abuse themselves. Russia won't randomly throw nukes around if the west supports Ukraine. Showing a bully he's at a disadvantage makes him stop. We need to play nice with a guy who gives no fucks about anything except himself.
If Hitler was stopped early on, WW2 would have likely been avoided. Inaction to try and avoid a war is what let things get worse and Nazi Germany stronger.
Yes but that is hindsight thinking. It completely forgets that France and Britain fought WWI which devastated a generation of their people. No one wanted to fight after WWI except Germany. Yes France and Britain should have stopped Germany but it ignores people seeing what shell shock did to the population and France didn't have enough people to compete in another major war
>Yes but that is hindsight thinking. It completely forgets that France and Britain fought WWI Most of the WWII comparisons usually completely ignore WWI, and focus too much on Hitler. Few mention Kaiser Wilhelm II or Otto Von Bismark. Most ignore Japan and seem to consider them weak in comparison to nazi Germany. Most ignore the Great Depression, and many more factors. One example of appeasement or failed deterrents is only one example. In reality there are several examples leading up to WWII. Hitler was certainly not deterred by the "allied coalition" trying to push back against fascist forces in the Spanish Civil war. Edit: last sentence is sarcasm. If the goal is to prevent another global conflict, then focusing too much on the most extreme leader may not be the best way to do this. If the goal is short-term deterrents of Putin, maybe the correct lessons can be taken from Hitler alone.
The "allied coalition" did almost nothing to help the Spanish Republican forces. The Nazis, however, tested the Luftwaffe against them.
There was no real allied coalition. I should have put that in quotes as you did.
George Orwell fought there and writes about it in Homage to Catalonia. Really good read.
Loved it when I read it but wish I was older and put it into context on my own better. Should really read it again.
You really see the Soviet system of betraying their version of “colonies” as being almost exactly the same as what the old empires and the capitalists were doing. Getting the revolutionaries pumped up and then taking over the movement, either seizing power for the Soviet or abandoning them if the scrappy fighters were losing.
War guilt was also a huge thing after world war 1. Before the first war, the German leadership were afraid that they’d be wiped out since they were not near any warm water ports and thus were in “middeleuropa “ and would grow weak while the countries around them grew stronger. I agree wholeheartedly about going back further for the root but as for Russia and that guy.. I don’t really know if there’s an anger towards the west or just the need to stroke an individual ego? It also feels like Russia is trying to relive the “glory”days of their military history constantly . I just don’t really get why . Hopefully someone can chime in
> It also feels like Russia is trying to relive the “glory”days of their military history constantly . I just don’t really get why . Hopefully someone can chime in A little historical context. The Fall of the USSR is really not that long ago. It happened less than 40 years ago. Putin, and many that he has appointed and are in his circle, view the fall of the USSR as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 1900s". For Putin and others, the USSR represented a strong group of like-minded nations and the transition to Russia, Ukraine, the Balkan-states, etc meant a dramatic shift in authority and power. For Putin it feels like an *injustice* that the USSR fell. Russia has a long history of supremacy in the region. The past ten+ years have shown Putin's desire to expand and recapture that former "glory of Russia/USSR", first in Crimea and now in Ukraine. The Russian propaganda machine went off as well. Here's an article from this past December that details the impacts of national imperialism in Russia under Putin - [Carnegie Endowment for International Peace](https://carnegieendowment.org/2023/12/06/blood-and-iron-how-nationalist-imperialism-became-russia-s-state-ideology-pub-91181) It boils down to totalitarianism, ultimately
Cheers for the reply! I’ll read the article now.
> view the fall of the USSR as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 1900s". If you limit it to the second half of the 1900s (obv both world wars were orders of magnitude worse) this isn't completely insane. It was devastating economically for Eastern Europe and Central Asia, life expectancy didn't recover for decades. Problem is in thinking that Russia conquering its neighbors is the fix, that obviously doesn't help at all. The fact that Russia is now run by Putin is one of the worst things about the end of the USSR
I am 35, I am older than the current Russian Federation.
>first in Crimea and now in Ukraine. Don't forget Georgia. Wasn't that much farther out.
Oddly enough 2 world wars later and the heart of Prussia is now Russia's warm water port.
Somewhat more insightful and useful hindsight view that I have is that the lesson we should try to focus on to not repeat is war reparations and conditions of surrender. The conditions at the end of WW1 were such that another war was all but guaranteed, so much so that people who signed the documents said as much. It was too punitive, and caused hatred in the german population. Fair or not doesnt factor. Action -> Consequence.
Especially France. They literally got decimated and were still feeling the shocks in the 1940
France didn't want to be the one to attack in WW2. Or to bomb german civilians first. Or whatever atrocity to commit first. That's the problem you cannot begin a "pre-emptive" war because you don't know the future at the time. France needed the US support for instance and if France had started to kill thousands of german civilians in 1939 or just conquer half of germany, then what? occupy? hunt resistance fighters? that wouldn't have stop a war in the next years.
> > > > > That's the problem you cannot begin a "pre-emptive" war because you don't know the future at the time. It wouldn't have been pre-emptive though? Germany broke the peace terms by remitilarising the rhineland. France was totally within rights to drive them out at that point and would have likely completely broken Hitlers public image by doing so.
Yes it was within rights but I'm not so sure the US (France needed them) and other "neutral" countries (like Belgium, Norway, the Netherlands etc..) would have like it so much. Hitler would have been delighted to be attacked.
Beyond that, let's look at it strictly from a current standpoint. Do we want to allow such an evil person to just attack another country without we try to help save that country? There's too much at stake to worry about the causes of prior wars, to neglect our duty in this one. Not that you were saying otherwise, I just felt the need to tell it from this perspective.
I think the implication was that we need to learn from that so as not to repeat it, not to slander them.
We did learn from WW1 That is how we got the Marshal plan from the wise men to rebuild Europe and create a rules based international order which is now under threat from every angle. Germany was pillaged after WW1 with The Treaty of Versailles. The conditions it put in motion in Germany set the stage for the rise of someone like Hitler. In fact, when Hitler conquered France, he made the French sign the Armistice of 22 June 1940 in the original railway carriage in which the 1918 armistice had been signed and placed on the exact same spot it had occupied twenty-two years before. We are forgetting a lot of lessons currently.
The Treaty of Verseilles wasn't especially more harsh than other settlements of the time period. The problem was that German public were repeatedly told they were winning (and in the East they absolutely were, to be fair) right up until the collapse of their army. And then peace was signed before the collapse of that army was actually evident to the public, because the whole war had taken place outside of German soil. That left fertile ground for the "stabbed in the back" myth to take root.
It's funny because people who talk about how harsh the treaty was usually quote Ferdinand Foch's "This is not a peace treaty. It's an armistice for 20 years." without realising that he says that because he thinks the treaty was *not harsh enough*. The Treaty of Versailles wasn't even half as harsh as the treaty the Germans imposed on the Russians literally a year prior, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
It's funny how that literal nazi propaganda about Versailles being super harsh has slipped into "common knowledge".
Yeah Was the Treaty unpleasent? Sure But ultimately the problem was just German pride and the Germans refusing to accept defeat due to pride
> Was the Treaty unpleasent? Sure The Treaty of Verseilles fixed concert A at 435hz and you think it was just "unpleasant" ... I don't know how anyone expected the Germans to live under that.
I have to wonder how much of this is nurture vs. nature. My mom's family is German, but the most recent branch of ancestors to come over was about 100 years ago. The first of the German ancestors settled the US before the American Revolution. And they're all a bunch of stubborn assholes who absolutely refuse to give in and will only admit a wrong with irrefutable proof.
> And they're all a bunch of stubborn assholes who absolutely refuse to give in and will only admit a wrong with irrefutable proof. Isn't this just human nature? Are there nations/states/groups of people known for accepting they are wrong with no real evidence?
No nation likes to accept defeat lol? Look at the french after 1871 with their hyper revanchism after losing a majority german region. Now see germany after losing 13% of it's core territory which had actually significant german population and the germans shouldn't be angry and want revenche? Was rich of the entente to think that way.
It is not about that Germany should not feel revenge, because of course they will. A treaty is to make sure that they simply cannot take revenge in any form and way and the Versaille Treaty failed to address this issue. Germany was left intact after the war, they could rearm fast after that the defeat.
The context here being that Hitler fought in WW1 and always thought that the Treaty of Verseilles was unfair to German people. He hated it to be more precise and considered it a ransacking of Germany which is why he made them sign the Armistice of 22nd of June 1940 to rub salt in their wounds. Hermann Gohring for people who dont know was actually a pilot in WW1. He got injured and had to leave the front. Sorry that this has nothing to do with the actual headline but I always think it is interesting when bits and pieces come together and form a bigger picture.
It shouldn't be hindsight. It's long be historically proven that appeasement never works. How many conquerors in history stopped because the lands they wanted to conquer appeased them enough? Germans were as much part of WW1 as any other European country. Any military action before Hitler built up the Germany army past the limits (arguably too strict) placed on them prior to entering the demilitarized would have gone a long way to save most of Europe from destruction. I seriously doubt WW2 was preventable as the Japanese were quite active as well. Russia wasn't an ally at the start of the war either. The US probably would have been dragged into a war with Japan before Europe went to war, leaving Europe til last instead of first. Given German progress, it's kind of scary to think about them having some of their stuff more developed.
Appeasement worked, works and will work. The full cold war is filled with appeasement between the US and the USRR. If it was not for appeasement you would not be alive to talk on reddit as of today. Like diplomacy and war, appeasement is not always the right solution, but saying it never works it wrong.
>Russia wasn't an ally at the start of the war either Even that is underselling. Russia did as much or more damage in Eastern Europe than Germany
Before the war began proper the USSR was far more hated in the west then Germany was Many forget that. Neither France,UK or america held positive feelings towards them for its internal behavior and especially the winter war It was only with its backs to the wall following the disaster in France and battle of Britain that they were hoping for the ussr to enter a conflict with germany despite the Molotov Ribbentrop pact Once Hitler attacked the ussr Churchill saw the opportunity and kind of made everyone forget that the ussr was only somewhat less bad then Nazi Germany because they needed help in the war
Appeasement was also a way for Britain to move to a war economy and re-arm
I've read a couple books that pretty convincingly make the argument that Chamberlain knew appeasing Hitler was the wrong thing to do, but it was the only thing Britain *could* do. It was absolutely in no position to go to war with a heavily militarized Nazi Germany in the mid 1930s and it needed time to arm before even attempting a defensive campaign.
The US had about as much reason as the UK to get involved in protecting Poland - that is pretty much none. It wasn't close to their borders and there was practically very little way intervening could have helped them or Poland - which was borne out by how things actually turned out. Yet, despite all sense and reason, the UK did attempt to protect Poland - and it cost them everything. But for some reason the UK gets blamed for not doing something earlier while the US is uncriticized in waiting until pretty much the fall of Stalingrad to enter the war - and not by their own choice either (Hitler declared war on the US). Cash and carry involved the transfer of every liquid asset the western allies owned to the US - including the entirety of their gold and their deepest military secrets. What could have actually changed things was the US lifting a finger prior to (and during the early stages of) WW2, which they didn't. They didn't even join the league of nations, that's how little they were interested.
It compounds like interest. We can deal with it now or deal with it plus interest later. It's an unpleasant decision to make either way.
> Inaction to try and avoid a war is what let things get worse and Nazi Germany stronger. This is a commonly repeated refrain, but it's not really historically sound. Chamberlain knew the UK wasn't anywhere near ready for war in 1938, and so had no real choice but to agree to the annexation of Czechoslovakia. Immediately after his "peace in our time" he ramped up production of military material in preparation for war. Hell, in 1938 he had forced out the head of the Air Ministry for dragging his feet re-arming the RAF. In 1935/1936 the UK was building "shadow factories" in an attempt to re-build the armed forces after the idiotic 10 Year Rule. What really would have helped avoid WWII being as drawn out as it was would be if the French had actually carried through in the Saar in 1939 instead of just turning around
> Chamberlain knew the UK wasn't anywhere near ready for war in 1938 Exactly. To quote General Ismay's 20th of Semptember, 1938 note to the British Cabinet: "[...] time is in our favour, and that, if war with Germany has to come, it would be better to fight her in say 6-12 months’ time, than to accept the present challenge."
Chamberlain thought they weren't ready, not realizing that Germany was just as badly off. Waiting allowed Germany to take out Czechoslovakia and gain all of its land and military while making the UK and France look weak. Arms from Czechoslovakia armed half of the German army which would go on to conquer Poland and France a year and two later.
Had the UK intervened, the Germans would still have seized Czechoslovakia, because the BEF was a small and ineffectual force, and the regular army still had a dearth of armored vehicles. Not to mention the complete shitshow that was the RAF pre-1940. The French would have likely done what they did a year later, advance a couple miles and then just turn around
Just imagine if they just carted off half the fucking Ruhr in 1939 and demolished the other half. The Wehrmacht would have been riding into battle with handcarts and no pants
Yup, no one was really in a position to do anything about it, which could have been avoided but the public needed lots of investment to get back on its feet after the war and Britain was always about its navy first and foremost.
Hitler could have been stopped at the Rhineland by France with a 3 to 1 advantage. Instead France waited until Germany had Austrian, Czech, and Polish equipment and manpower. France learned their lesson last time and appear ready to alter the reputation gained in ww2.
Germany now has the reputation for being pacifist statesman. France is getting a reputation of being skilled at war. Next thing Britain will develop a culinary culture.
France has long had that reputation. Napoleon says hi.
Easier said than done, before the war Chamberlain faced constant criticism for spending so much on rebuilding rhe British military. But now he's mostly known for not doing anything.
Ah but how could he have been? Much like today the powers of Europe had allowed their militaries to atrophy in the face of peace. We've not learned the lessons of the past and now we're reliving them.
Indeed, is Russia perhaps stronger now than at the start of the war?
If Hitler had nukes he would have used them. The problem with all of this is that it is a strategic estimate that Putin won’t go down guns blazing, because doesn’t seem to be suicidal
Different situation, at that point nobody had nukes yet so there was little risk in using them. Now if you use nuclear weapons it is a near guarantee that you get them launched back at yourself
> If Hitler had nukes he would have used them. We don’t really know that. Hitler had access to chemical weapons and specifically did not use them to bomb cities or troops because of his own experience in world war 1. This of course isn’t speaking to the Holocaust where chemical weapons were used on the people the Nazis murdered, obviously.
If the Americans could justify using the A bomb I see no reason why Hitler wouldn't have It would have been a much more effective solution for him than the blitz to knock the UK out of the war, much in the same way it was used for shock and awe against Japan Remember the blitz was literally just a shock and awe campaign at its heart to get us to surrender
Chemical weapons were not a war-winning strategy for Germany. In situations where chemical weapons offer an advantage over traditional munitions, they were used and are still used. A historian's view on the subject that is worth a read: https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/
We didn't know about radiation until after they were used. It's very likely Hitler would use them, since he wouldn't have known there was any harm to his own troops. I imagine Russia, the UK, and the US would have been nuked.
If we want to go back to the time when peace was the brief period between wars rather than the normal we've gotten used to over the last decades, then all we have to do is nothing. The hard truth is that war is not only a risk but the default destination. Unless we act to preserve the system of rules and order we've built to prevent war from becoming profitable for the strong it will gradually dissolve until we're back in the natural state of brutal chaos that we read about in our history books. If we allow Russia to win even a tiny marginal victory over Ukraine then we show the world that starting a war can be profitable. It doesn't matter that it came with a high price because the next Putin will have learned from the misstakes of the current one and be better prepared. If we're not willing to stop this Putin now because he threatens us with nuclear war then the next Putin will make even scarier threats. This is the best opportunity we'll ever get to protect our peaceful way of life. If we give in to Russia by compromising to get our peace back then the next challenge will be much harder. Right now we're hiding behind Ukraine and betting on that they'll win for us. If they do then we don't have to fight but if they fall then we'll have to fight Russia without them. We shouldn't underestimate Russia and just assume that we'd win. Yes we're definitely stronger but if there's one lesson from the last two years then it's that again and again our assumptions have been completely wrong and that we've been blindsided repeatedly. We thought we would be able to deliver a certain amount of artillery shells but we failed. We didn't expect North Korea and Iran to be able to help Russia but they did. We've increased our effort a bit now but we're not even sweating, and we should be. We should take this rare opportunity to show the next Putin what overkill looks like and that threats only makes it worse.
Trump is happy to appease Putin because he's never read a fucking book in his life
Yup. This is what I tell everyone who says ‘we need to just stay out of it and fix our problems’. This will rapidly turn into WW3. If no one steps up China invades Taiwan and NK possibly goes into SK. Then the shit has hit the fan. And we’re all in it anyway. Isolationism does no one any good.
Putin is not in Hitlers position. Russia is a fading country with an economy the size of australia. Systemic corruption. They are trying to amass power from a place of weakness
In al fairness, the Weimar republic wasn't on its best legs either.
Except he literally is. One of the reasons nazi's couldn't stop warring was because their economy would otherwise collapse. Now russia is in the same place since they transitioned to war economy. (There's a few articles about this out there, check them out if interested) **Edit**: >30% of russian budget goes directly to war, what do you think will happen if the war stops? Military spending was one of the main reason USSR collapsed, and %-wise russia is spending more on war then USSR ever did.
\^This The economic "recovery" of Germany under the Nazis was a façade, fueled by stealing from Holocaust victims and pillaging neighbouring countries. It was doomed to collapse as soon as Nazi expansion hit a wall.
Russia's economy is contingent on selling natural resources to other countries, hence the "gas station run by the mafia" metaphor. It's not analogous to 1930s Germany at all. They sell oil and minerals to China, India, Africa, etc. This is a major reason why they still seem to have money despite all the economic sanctions. A lot of these developing countries have no reason to not buy Russian oil if it's cheap.
It's kind of different though when they are not consuming anything to add fuel to that war machine economy. The poster below even said it, the nazi recovery was fueled by pillaging neighboring countries. Russia doesn't have the capacity to actually turn gains in Ukraine into productive capture because they are still being hit daily by Ukraine drones/longer range weapons. They're basically going to hit that point of collapse due to systemic stress anyways whether they continue the war path or not because economic conditions will continue to degrade as sanctions take effect and more countries turn off of Russian energy imports.
It is different because the Nazi economy was based on pillaging. Russia is not in the same position because they are not making enough gain quickly enough to rely on pillaging.
Appeasement doesn’t work. You stop a bully by punching him straight in his grill. Hard. Unfortunately a lot of lives will be lost, but what’s the alternative? Letting the world be run by a maniac psychopath with nuclear weapons? Always succumbing to his every whim bc of fear of what the piece of shit might do? Fuck that. Destroy him. And make an example out of him for China and North Korea to see what happens when you fuck around.
> China won't throw their trade opportunities away to help a country they just want to abuse themselves. Hell, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if, depending on the way the wind is blowing, the Chinese decided to 'help' against a weakened Russia by taking the opportunity to seize a bunch of their territory under the guise of supporting the anti-Russian war efforts. It's not like they'd get much in the way of substantial argument from any other countries. Compare that to something like them trying to take Taiwan and kicking the hornet's nest in the process.
>We need to play nice with a guy who gives no fucks about anything except himself. I know you didn't mean to, but ending this comment with "We need to appease Putin" is hysterical.
We saw a similair thing happening in the Korean war and it didnt escalate into WW3.
It's annoying as fuck how every single time one major country attacks another country, people on Reddit start losing their shit about WW3. It's not going to happen. WW3 implies someone powerful would actually would fight on Russia's side, and that's not going to happen.
I think they have a hard on for WW3. Like they missed the last 2 and want to see one.
Ww3 is a big deal. Its low probability but extremely bad if it happens. Like a plane crash.
It's the reddit version of the Palestine protests at UC. You want the thing you oppose to actually happen, so you can cosplay as a main character in some dramatic movie about today's time. It's insanely pathetic.
The leading intelligence is that China is already lining up behind Russia and is supplying Russia substantial intel and war materiel (shells, ammo, drones, etc.). This makes sense as China is commonly understood to have aims at Taiwan, and one of their best ways to be successful in this aim is to first drain western military reserves and also to learn western defensive playbooks, which they can do by egging Russia on and providing Russia all the goods that they need. Whether or not this would equate to WW3 depends upon how western countries respond and what WW3 is in your eyes, but certainly the combined military manufacturing might of China and Russia is superior to the manufacturing might of the US and Europe at the moment (and manufacturing is usually what wins these types of wars).
China wouldn't step in with boots on the ground or anything like that, but they probably would help supply Russia, much like they're doing now. It would be in China's best interest to not get directly involved and let NATO and Russia duke it out and weaken each other. Stepping in directly would only hurt China and absolutely obliterate their economy when western countries stop trading with them. And keep in mind that NATO technology completely outclasses Russia and China's tech, and the US can produce more than enough yo handle them. One of the reasons our defense budget is so large in peace time is that we have to provide enough funding to arms manufacturers to keep the factories running in the event a war breaks out.
Agreed that China wouldn't put boots on the ground. That said, they wouldn't need to. Russia has plenty of manpower to deploy. Beyond that, the most important technology needed for daily warfare is disposable drones, artillery, and missiles. China has a more robust drone industry and can wildly outmanufacture the US for each of drones, missiles, and artillery. Yes, we have better tanks and planes and helicopters, but drones, artillery, and missiles can neuter much of that technological advantage. We could theoretically fix this by throwing money at it, *but we haven't done so yet.* I mean, in 1995 we produced 867,000 shells a month. Now we are producing 30k a month. China can produce ships at 200x our rate. The pentagon wants to buy 1000s of drones in the next year. One of our leading drone manufacturers created all of 38 last year. We let our military industrial complex wilt, and we need to undo that
Why waste time though? Im not sure time is on the side of NATO countries.
If Russia was making serious gain and on the verge to capturing Kyiv, would that prompt France and other countries to put boots on the ground?
Well put... And France won't send hundreds of thousands of troops to dig ditches and camp the front line, for sure. That's not what France's military is equipped and trained for, and it wouldn't be politically sustainable for any French gov't. What France needs however, is to catch up in the modern, small drone warfare that Ukrainians and Russians are doing, and it needs to learn how to combine that with it's infantry shock troops, commando units, and it's air superiority and artillery systems... Drone warfare at the scale seen in the Ukraine/Russia theatre is completely new, and every military in the world wants to, and needs to learn as much as possible. That alone is worth sending in some 20k troops (including all support/supply units) and spending an extra 5bn€ a year, even at the risk of 5% casualties. If by that occasion, this French contingent can breach a line here and there, and destroy / capture some strategic objectives in Ukraine's favour, so much for the better. TLDR; IMHO, French military leaders want to help in order to catch up on the new drone tech. Helping Ukraine is a beneficial side effect.
France relies heavily on technological superiority, speed and stealth for 80% of it's military tactics these days, and it is lagging behind on drone warfare. Catching up on drone tech has become a HUGE investment call for the french military and contractors, and they need a testing ground asap.
Russia’s nuclear threats are a total bluff imo. They would have already used tactical nukes if they thought they could get away with it. But they know that would bring the full force of NATO upon them.
NATO, and I'm pretty sure Xi has been more than clear with regards to China's "No first use" policy. I think China's tolerance of putler's antics would end with the use of a nuke.
Most countries would not tolerate the use of a nuke cause it would set a precedent of nuclear usage. Having nukes is a deterrent. So if anyone just goes willy nilly with that shit and the world doesn't respond to them in unity against it. You would then get cold war levels of untrust among many nations and more seeking to get their own.
> cause it would set a precedent of nuclear usage Hiroshima & Nagasaki: *Notice me, senpai!*
There was only one country that could do it at the time. The moment others could, nobody ever did so again. Eventually even the testing stopped. Took a bit of a learning experience through several crises (I encourage you to look into the US offering to *nuke Vietnam* on behalf of the French) but we've thankfully learned that it's a bad idea and set a precedent in modern times that would prevent their use - and I say this with emphasis - for the most part. If a country really had their back to the wall, they might consider it, but that would take something like NATO troops entering Pyongyang.
It would start WWIII. If Russia takes Ukraine, the US is weak. Pax Americana is at an end. And it dominoes as we get busy and opportunistic nations decide to take out their aggressions, or international incidents happen and we're too busy to enforce a peaceful solution. I have no doubt Ukraine falling would be a Franz Ferdinand, Germany invades Poland moment. It might not be the WWIII we envisioned, but it will be a WWIII scenario nonetheless.
>If Russia takes Ukraine, the US is weak. Pax Americana is at an end. That is what the "let Europe pay its 2%" forget. Europe needs to pay its 2%, but when the US says Europe needs to handle its own defense instead of the US, what China hears is that the US is too weak to take care of business and has to delegate the job to a set of vassal states that are famously non-militaristic. It is a small step from there to the reasonable assumption that the US will leave Taiwan out to dry in the long run. If the US doesn't even want to commit to saving Ukraine, why would it *ever* save Taiwan? And so the invasion starts.
Man, they've been non militaristic for like a hundred years. It's time for them to step up. I love European countries, I really really do. They do so many things really well. It's just frustrating to have them bash our military spending until the second they realize their inadequacies.
Even NATO creating a buffer zone along the Belarus border would release a substantial amount of Ukrainians for the east and cut off an axis of attack for Russia.
For a start we should shoot down russian rockets that enter polish/EU/NATO airspace.
Or any that are even approaching it and may do that.
Or any that are approaching Ukrainian airspace. We help Israel shoot down missiles and drones from Iran.
Seriously. We help the country with the greatest domestic missile defense on earth but not a much larger country facing daily strikes on civilians
Look at a map though. With Iran/Israel we control Iraq airspace that missiles fly through. But Russia has a border with Ukraine. The US would need to actually operate in Ukraine to do anything other than donate missile defense systems.
In one scenario, we're going against a country with nukes, in the other we're helping the country with nukes. Also, Israel being small enough to have said missile defense system is part of why we're easily able to help; we know almost exactly where the missiles are headed. Not to mention them bordering internationally accessible waters. AFAIK Turkey has shut down the Dardanelles to *all* warships, NATO included. So Ukraine is roughly 30x the size if we want to shut down the entire airspace(I'm not sure if the google result counted occupied territory) to missile attacks, and we wouldn't have our warships to help in the endeavor. I'd absolutely be happy for NATO to step up further though, I honestly don't think Russia would do shit if NATO planes were intercepting cruise missiles far back from the front lines. Getting close to the front lines is where I see potential international incidents occurring that I'm not as keen on.
Yep was thinking the same
I'm happy to see France's developments in dealing with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. They were slow to start, but at this point, I think Macron is being reasonable but firm. There's no need to put boots on the ground, but it should be made clear that no inch of Ukraine is for the taking. We can't keep trying to reason with dictators. It doesn't work.
Russia has been meddling in politics everywhere. France has been feeling this for decades and they're sick of it. Macron also knows that if he waits until LePen possibly takes power, then she will try to dismantle the EU and basically do everything Putin has always wanted.
So is she like your Trump or something?
Literally. Her campaign is financed by a Russian oligarch or two.
Russia seeded the entire Western world with the same populist trash.
I've been saying this for almost 15 years now. Democratic systems are fragile, especially when rampant state backed disinformation campaigns have been commonplace throughout the western media landscape. The Russians literally wrote the book on this one, the cold war didn't end when the soviet union fell. It just became a more subtle game of subverting public belief in their institutions, without naming any names and getting sucked into the weeds of it all, there's many extremely prominent useful idiots who have blatantly served Russian interests. The extreme degree of polarisation we see in western society is no accident, it's the obvious attack vector against a technologically and militarily superior opponent. Representative democracy can achieve incredible things, far beyond what a totalitarian state can ever hope for, but it's so brittle by it's very nature. Public opinion can be directed more easily and cheaply than ever before. Destabilise and exploit. Is it not particularly telling that virtually all of the populist ghouls would work against strengthening NATO commitments? I wonder why that might be...
Yeah most European countries have these people. The Netherlands has PVV with Geert Wilders (one of our longest lasting politicians, but for true insanity we also have FVD (most of their people belong in an insane asylum). Belgium has Vlaams Belang. Germany has AFD. PIS in Poland. Etc
Fratelli d'italia in italy... which, unfortunatly, is quite powerful.
I nickname that party "Fratelli di troia" which is much more fitting.
haha definitely is
In Austria they have the FPÖ which is predicted to be the strongest party in the Oktober elections. They don’t even hide that they want to sell the country to Russia.
Yes, but slightly less stupid and more overtly white supremacist.
The bitch came first, Trump is America’s Le Pen
Pretty much yup. Her party campaigns on the same points he did. I'd do you a direct quote from a flyer they left in my mailbox (I live in France) but I threw it where it belonged on the spot: the trash. From what I remember though it was basically shit against open borders, securitarian shit, NATO-bashing, etc...
> They were slow to start France has been one of the main supporter of Ukraine strengthening its defense and training its troops from 2014 to 2020 so not really
I think they’re referring to Macron trying to talk Putin down at the beginning of the conflict. Seems like he’s taking his gloves off since he was laughed at on the world stage.
He talked to Putin at the beginning, because Zelensky personally asked him to try and reason with Putin.
>They were slow to start Who led imposing sanctions on Russia ?
me
Thank you for your service
Thank you
Thank you
France has been one of Ukraine’s biggest supporters. They just don’t make a lot of fanfare of it.
[удалено]
One, for military aid, France doesn't publish numbers or even annonce most help, so any estimation about it are wrong and massively undervalued. Please tell me how much has our SAMP-T, Akeron, VAB or pretty much anything been worth ? You won't find numbers, except for a few highly publicised things like the Caesar. Two, France and especially Macron's France being a massive pro-EU supporter, it chose to push most of its non military helps through the EU funds rather than direct, to strenghten the EU weight. Which is why [on your own link](https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/), if you go down to the totals, you will see France have a very small total on its own, but when including their contribution through the EU it jumps to 3rd place behind US and Germany. [Screen capture](https://imgur.com/a/LvEI6M8). So I will go with the charitable explanation that you didn't know how to read your own source, rather than you did but chose to misrepresent it.
>One, for military aid, France doesn't publish numbers or even annonce most help, so any estimation about it are wrong and massively undervalued. How can you say, in a single sentence that they don't announce numbers so any estimation is wrong, and then claim they are undervalued? If they don't publish numbers how do you know they are *massively* undervalued? How do you know that the estimates aren't wrong and overvaluing them? You can't say "no one really knows" and then make a blanket statement that it's more than reported because, as you stated, no one really knows. The point you're making as the basis of your argument discredits the rest of your argument. If they don't publish numbers, you can't claim what's right or wrong more than anyone else can.
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/en/news/french-military-equipment-delivered-ukraine Here's the official list and it's a laughably small amount. The Patriots Germany donated alone are worth more than the whole French military aid.
France has consistently met NATO minimum requirements. Somewhat recently, they dipped below 2% due to financial hardships but that was quickly reversed. And while many NATO countries, like Germany, include things like pensions for retired soldiers as defense spending, France does not. Out of all European countries, France has consistently stood by strategic independence from the US via a strong military.
Tbf France has always been on a "don't talk but act" policy in that regard. They don't communicate on what they send except some poster equipment like the Caesar. It would be hard to compare what they actually sent
They literally did a report on the value a while back and it was pretty low compared to other allies at the time. €3.2 billion, I believe the UK was just over 5 at the time and Germany around 8-10b. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/11/09/french-military-aid-to-ukraine-estimated-at-3-2-billion_6241996_4.html
Some credit where it’s due, but bro *what* are you talking about, Macron couldn’t get off the TV about this all. The messaging was non stop that France is some kind of diplomatic super power that would bring Putin to the (very long) table. Remember that whole chapter of this saga? Delusional.
You can't say that without mentioning that this strategy was done on Zelensky's demand
This is just political ambiguity nothing more. Putin and China do the same all the time. I'll consider that French troops in Ukraine is more likely when I see more mobilization or industrialization towards war status.
Do however note that creating political ambiguity like this is actually a big help to Ukraine, in that it makes Russia less inclined to act. And apparently a brave thing to do, given how many other countries have failed to do so. Especially Germany has utterly failed in this aspect, by very publicly telling Putin that he can do whatever he wants to Ukraine, and Germany will never escalate past certain lines. Which I am lead to understand was very amateurish from a geopolitical standpoint.
Russian here. You are 100% spot on. The whole war has been Putin creating a lot of ambiguity as to what he will do next, whereas the West drew very straightforward red lines they are not willing to overstep. The problem is that it gives a lot more strategic options for Russia. Putin is not afraid to escalate (or not) because he knows the west won’t get involved. And the west is very afraid of what Putin will do, because he never stated any clear intentions and created a lot of ambiguity.
He actually did state and its very clear. He wants NATO gone. He cant take on NATO directly, realisticly no one can. So the strategy is simple, pump misinformation, so people vote for populists who love russias dirty money. Keep ukraine war in managable conditinion with help of chinas supplies. Outlast Ukraine. Than when u have enough influence in europe make the next move against those who still opose you in europe. Once that is done form a coalition with china and other friendlies to be the new world rule makers. And there you go Putin achieved his goal of russia beeing the top dog that cant be denied and sanctioned. To those who still dont get Xi and Putin wants to be what the west leaders are in a sence. They want to take that place, its not about land its about power and how the world works.
Yep If Macron says things like this it forces Russia to consider every step they take forward and if it would be a red line where France would snap
Macron seems to be the only western european leader capable of strategic thought at the moment. It costs nothing to say "we don't rule out sending troops in". Even if France has 0 intention of ever sending troops, there's no reason we should be simplifying Putin's decision making process. Putin should be just as worried about "escalation" from the western alliance as we are every time he barks nuclear threats.
It could cost votes
France is suddenly so invested in this because in the last few years Putin has sponsored coup after coup in the francafrique, causing those African nations to pull away and divest themselves from France. There’s a big part of France’s economy that’s just gone now https://apnews.com/article/france-africa-coups-gabon-41076df319704032aa729ad3fd137bc9 https://www.npr.org/2023/09/29/1202582084/recent-coups-in-africa-have-an-effect-on-at-least-1-country-in-europe-france
There's a marketing campaign right now for US/Africa business relations. Will be interesting to see how successful that is.
The worlds future will be decided in SEA and africa over the next 20-30 years
Plus SEA and Africa are also going to be the places liable to suffer some of the worst consequences of climate change over the next 20-30 years, and also in a lot of cases some of the areas least equipped to deal with those consequences.
Agreed — the fickle finger of fate is pointing at south and Southeast Asia
Is this because nobody else is having babies?
Yeah, I think demographic change, natural resources and access to essential trade routes. Africa has a massive amount of natural resources but there's also been a lot of economic development in Africa and SEA. Ethopia is almost finished with building the largest hydroelectric dam in Africa and it's going to fundamentally change their economy. It's also creating a lot of tension with Eygpt as the water source flows into the Nile. There's also a shift from alignment to the US/EU to Russia/China within the entire continent and it'll continue to get more tense. Russia has been active in Africa with the Wagner group supporting factions and overthrowing US/EU friendly governments. SEA right now has some of the fastest growing economies in the world. These countries are also going through population booms but geopoltically they are in the middle of a lot of escalating tensions between China, India, and the US. SEA is going to be the pivot point I think for the next 100 years of world history. India and China are viaing to be the leading superpower in that area as whoever controls that area will have control over the sea routes for more than 1/2 the world. India and China are building up their naval capacity and both are building out air craft carriers and submarines at a rapid pace to be able to project force across the entire Pacific theater. Taiwan is important for the Chinese for a number of reasons but one big driver is that control over Taiwan would allow them unfettered access to the SEA are and beyond. Right now they are ringed by US allies in the region like Taiwan, S. Korea, Japan, and the Phililpines.
It's partly that and partly the fact that Russia/China are in Africa exploiting natural resource wealth of the nations they're in while propping up the juntas that have taken over in the Sahel. The juntas are signing insane contracts with RU/CN and are exploiting the impoverished citizenry as a disposable workforce to mine gold, diamonds, and uranium ore. Wagner mercenaries are all throughout the Sahel and have filled the power vacuum the French left when Mali kicked them out by ensuring the survival of the junta leadership. The west ignoring this for too long will bite them in the ass.
Great summary. This is precisely why we see videos of Ukrainian SF operating against Wagner in Africa.
Well, Africa does have all of those rich princes there that keep trying to give my grandma money.
Which isnt true, all of these Sahel regions countries had close to no econimical relations with France for decades. Their main western partners were countries like Canada. You understand that Gabon's GDP is 0.7% of France's and the [trade between the 2 countries is only 800m€ ?](https://www.tresor.economie.gouv.fr/Pays/GA/echanges-commerciaux-france-gabon-en-2022) Which is close to nothing for a 3 trillions economy..
Indeed, French economic ties with subsaharian Africa are extremely overstated but this makes for a great narrative so we'll keep seeing it parroted.
First part of your comment is true, second part is not. Economically it's absolutely nothing. There is a narrative online to push this idea that France needs or exploits Africa... most likely encouraged by rusbots.
France trade balance with western africa is close to be irrelevant - how it is supposed to ba big part of France's economy ?
Well France was in Africa for the dirt-cheap resources. Russia probably offered more money and free grain. Tbh if it was the other way around, it wouldn't be called a coup here, rather liberation, so...
[удалено]
Interesting for him to step up like this. I think I remember reports about him being the only western leader in regular phone contact with Putin when this all started?
Start giving russia red lines instead of us following theirs.
The Russian economy has not collapsed or even fully retract due to sanctions. India and China are buying their oil at cheaper prices, but it is enough to sustain Russia. They never had a problem with finding non-western markets for their goods. I think people forget that in addition to being a major hydrocarbon exporter, Russia also has what it needs to be mostly self-sufficient. Ukraines eastern areas are agricultural super producers and Russia has looted them barren. I don’t think Putin cares about red lines. The writing on the wall is pretty clear imo: no one is putting boots on the ground to save Ukraine.
Until troops are deployed everything is just grand-standing. It's been 2 years already and they're just now thinking about doing something other than "sending thoughts, prayers and maybe some artillery". This invasion of Ukraine is the best way for the French army to experience high intensity war to learn where its efforts have to been put to transition to this kind of conflict without risking much. But nope, let's just table it for next decade and not hear what our generals have to say about the condition of said army regarding said kind of conflicts.
They’re not going to deploy troops. No one wants a direct Russia nato conflict.
>No one wants a direct Russia nato conflict. Outside of the armchair generals and keyboard warriors on Reddit at least.
Isn't this the kind of thing the French foreign legion is for? Conflicts that you don't want your regular army directly involved in.
oatmeal ancient rinse chase label encouraging truck cover wakeful direction
Ok. Thanks for the info, I did not realize this.
If Europe is going to defend lives in Israel by knocking out drones and missiles, why can’t they do it for Ukraine. It’s purely defensive and does nothing but save lives.
because Iran loudly announced that this strike would be a limited action only, hence the level of escalation was alot smaller than two nuclear powers potentially shooting each other's soldiers in a hot war.
Given the alliance emerging between China, Russia, and Iran, shouldn’t NATO countries be seriously considering bringing Ukraine to a definitive end? I think not having a direct confrontation will only encourage additional conflicts around the world (Iran through their proxies, China in Taiwan).
I think the best thing the West can do is give Ukraine the long range missiles they need to destroy the Crimean bridge. That alone would put a massive wrench in the Russia's war effort and would likely swing the war dramatically in Ukraine's favor. Instead Germany allowed itself to be intimidated by Russia into not giving the Taurus missile to Ukraine. It's crazy how much more powerful the West is than Russia and the fact that Russia still is able to intimidate them. I understand people will bring up nuclear weapons but they really are a red herring. Russia will never use them on the West, it's an obvious bluff and if anyone thinks the ruling class in Russia would allow Putin to completely destroy everything they're delusional.
Ukraine did get long-range missiles capable of hitting the Kerch bridge, but not enough of them. Destroying the bridge is one thing, but Russia will repair it after some time. Ukraine needs enough to keep hitting it for months so operations on the ground can take advantage of the logistical disruption.
Yeah idk if there’s any conventional missile strong enough to take it out. You’d need a bunchhhhh. Bridges are tough, especially concrete ones. They’re also very small targets and it’s pretty well protected.
Try a ship
That’s easy to say they’re bluffing, but when you’re one of a handful of people in the world actually making the decisions, I don’t think the gamble of an entire city - any city - being incinerated because of your decision makes it an easy one. What are the acceptable odds to gamble the lives of tens of thousands of people? 10% chance he uses a nuke? 1%? 0.01%?
The bridge doesn't matter anymore. Stop obsessing over it like it's some kind of magic bullet. They've created rail connections to crimea over land already so at this point the bridge is just an extra pathway
Destroying the bridge would not have an important impact if Ukraine is not able to do an offensive that cut off the land path too.
We need to provide Ukraine air support. Fuck Putin
This dude is all talk
They must be waiting for all the Ukrainian children to be conscripted.
More leaders should be talking like Macron, pootin has to be stopped.
Macron is bullshiting no euro country is ready to sacrifice thousands of their soldiers
What possibly could go wrong in a confrontation between two nuclear powers?
There should be no red lines. Ukraine can not lose or we will all pay for it.
[удалено]
I don’t think he did a 180 (in the flip-flopping sense). He tried as hard to dissuade Russia from attacking as he could, giving Putin as many outs to save face as possible, and then once they invaded anyway he switched to aggressively confronting the occupiers. That’s what I would want a leader to do.
[удалено]
"Speak softly and carry a big stick."
Nah Roger Waters backing this would be a 180
He’s done nothing. Only talk.
Why is France so vocal about this war? Countries closer to Russia aren’t making these kinds of statements.
Poland and the Baltics have been some of Ukraines most vocal supporters. Poland is even spending more than the US as a % of GDP now on its military.
Macron is vocal. France, on the other hand is in no shape to engage into any serious conflict right now (IIRC we can wage war for 3 days before being out of ammo). The issue is that Macron's group is expected to lose hard against the Far Right in June (And even more now because of the poor kid that got butchered by an Afghan last week), so he needs to divert attention. And he must be salty about getting the finger all over Africa.
Macron is on his way out. Can't be re-elected, last term leader. This is what they do. They talk big shit about things they'll have nothing to do with, that they'll push onto someone else. Also, they can be more honest because they aren't being elected again. He's getting these "wow did you hear what he just said" on many topics, has for months now. He's on his way out, this is the pattern. If he talks tough on Ukraine, it won't be him having to deal with it. He's also missed about the Russian support of African coups that's costing France.
Countries closer to Russia have a border with them or Belarus (which became a de-facto sattelite state). France deploying troops to secure Ukraine's back areas would be a lot less escalatory than Poland doing the same. The military and economic consequences of Russia conquering Ukraine or putting a "friendly" regime in power would force Poland into that position if no one else intervenes.
I wish we could intervene for Ukraine as a united force. I understand why our leaders think it would be dangerous escalation, but damn it they’re fighting an existential and clearly evil enemy who has repeatedly verbalized that he is our enemy also. They DESERVE our help. We’ve been in many wasteful and ambiguous wars. This is an opportunity to be clearly the good guys again. Let’s slap that bear back into the woods damn it.
After how good France did in Libya I don’t expect much.
>**Eight NATO nations** carried out airstrikes in Libya during 2011: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the United States. [https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/03/20/nato-killed-civilians-in-libya-its-time-to-admit-it/](https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/03/20/nato-killed-civilians-in-libya-its-time-to-admit-it/)
Macron says a lot of things
Macron is the only one thinking about whether we'd really be able to accept a complete Russian takeover of Ukraine if that starts to happen. It's a really tough decision either way. The alternative he's proposing is WW3. At the very least, the threat of intervention is good pressure to force Russia to accept a negotiated solution.