French President Emmanuel Macron met with parliamentary parties on Thursday. During the meeting Macron said he was open to the possibility of sending troops to Ukraine, as announced by, according to French newspaper L’Independant.
Fabien Roussel, a representative of the French Communist Party, said after the meeting that “Macron referenced a scenario that could lead to intervention [of French troops]: the advancement of the front towards Odesa or Kyiv.”
He noted that the French President showed parliamentarians maps of the possible directions of strikes by Russian troops in Ukraine.
Following the meeting, Jordan Bardella of the far-right National Rally party noted that “there are no restrictions and no red lines” in Macron’s approach.
Finally someone with some fucking balls
Someone with “balls” wouldn’t be sit drinking champagne in a suit and send thousand to die out of business. Politicians like this one are actually mentally hill people with mental problems addicted to money and wealth
Politicians like Putin? You know the source of all this is Putin himself. He is certainly mentally hill [sic]
They all are, anyone who shakes hand with putin or his friends with a genuine laugh on his face is scum too.
You can take my place then.
Right. Macron’s not the one putting his head in front of the bullets
I see the two of you don’t understand how a military works then. You don’t join a military, and then bitch and complain if you are sent to fight, it’s literally what you signed up for. If in this specific situation you are not French, you should also probably just keep your mouth shut
deleted by creator
Because France is part of NATO and the EU, getting to war with Russia doesn’t only means sending professional troops, but most likely total war where even civilians would be drafted
You don’t join a military, and then bitch and complain if you are sent to fight
Look at yourself, you are talking like an human without soul. People are not robots or machines they join the military because perhaps they believe in justice and want to defend their own people from villains. There’s no justice in fighting a war for business, there’s no justice in fighting wars for corrupted politicians at the expenses of innocent people.
We are all humans and everyone should be allowed and encouraged to talk not to keep his mouth shout.
because perhaps they believe in justice and want to defend their own people from villains.
So like Putin?
Politicians and rulers are bad actors and professional liars who use everything as a leverage to get more wealth and power. Stalin fought the nazi in WWII, was he a good human being? fuck no he was a dictator himself tripping on power.
Politician who these days call for freedom on one hand while supporting a genocide in the other are scum, it’s not that hard to see.
Wait… are you actually trying to push Putin’s “Ukrainians are Nazis” narrative?
I see you don’t understand that many European citizens are conscripts.
Not French citizens.
Finland, Switzerland, Austria, and Greece. These are the European countries with conscription. On paper, Norway and Sweden have conscription, but in all actuality there’s basically no way you get conscripted involuntarily.
And Switzerland doesn’t really count, they don’t belong to the defense pacts
deleted by creator
They said European, so I assumed they meant anyone in the whole of Europe, other than Ukraine & Russia/Belarus. Although I guess I forgot Latvia and Estonia. I also didn’t say Turkey but they have conscription too.
Yes.
I see you were too lazy to look out up yourself. The only European armies with conscripts are Finnland, Switzerland, Austria, Greece, Turkey and of course Ukraine. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3AConscription_map_of_the_world.svg
I see you, and pretty much everyone else, missed the point entieely
In that case your point either doesn’t make sense or was badly explained. Both are entirely your fault.
and you don’t understand the difference between a career soldier and a conscript. Let me enlighten you:
As a conscript you will be drafted only in a defense situation, an actual war in your own country. Simply spoken when the Russians are at your doorstep.
A career soldier can send to missions either an official NATO one or one approved by your country’s commanding officer of your army.
As a conscript you will be drafted only in a defense situation, an actual war in your own country. Simply spoken when the Russians are at your doorstep.
I’m sure all those drafted/conscripts who went to Vietnam totally felt like they were defending their country from imminent attack!
you know that this is Europe here, right? But I see you don’t even care, do you?
These are not the guys they’ll send out in a war. Unlike Russia, Western nations don’t need cannon fodder.
You are right, I forgot, the west would never do that!
Thinking the wealthy class won’t send you to war has got to but one of the smoothest brain takes I’ve heard all year.
let me introduce you to the French public …
Politicians and rulers never do, they are playing chess with people
Russia’s been nuclear saber rattling so much it might as well be “China’s Final Warning”
If France wants to give their own saber a rattle and it makes Russia pause for some internal reflection for a moment, more power to them.
Don’t fuck with the French.
People forget they were a super power for centuries.
Despite all the jokes, The French have won more wars than any other country in history. They were exhausted by the time 1940 rolled around
They’re country is right in the middle of one of the areas of the world with the most wars of all time, and it stretches from coast to coast. That alone says a ton.
You make it sound like France was stuck in with everyone else when thar is infact untrue, everyone else was stuck in with France. After all I doubt a medieval country on the defensive would conquer from fucking Catalonia to fucking Ponnonia and Carinthia. And thats just the start I dont think I need to explain what Napoleon did.
I can’t make any sense of what you just said. Could you explain further?
I was making a “you arent stuck in here with me” joke about France and then proceeded to list off the greatest extent of the Frankish empire.
Lol okay I got you now. I totally missed it.
Yeah, once I reread it I realized it was slightly incomprehensible. I aint fixing it though cause I think its funny.
They were exhausted by the time 1940 rolled around
They were not worthy of the mantle of responsibility
Neither is any current western Nation (maybe Poland and Finland excused)
Don’t fuck with the French.
But what if I … oh, you meant that as a figure of speech. Got it.
Still are 😎
I think once you have nukes you can send to anywhere on the planet at any time, you count as a superpower.
And they have the most FAFO nuke policy of any nuclear power. They told the world in the '70s “ok we have the nukes, they are pointed at all of you. If anyone anywhere uses these things, we launch at everyone.”
Yep. Don’t fuck with the French.
Where can I learn more?
And 2nd strike capacity !
Second best Navy behind USA, innit?
deleted by creator
They surrendered to the Germans after putting up a brave fight for ** checks notes ** 5 weeks.
It was a good demonstration of the blitzkrieg tactic. Hitting hard and fast with aircraft, tanks and troop carriers without giving the enemy time to regroup or resupply. By the time the French knew what was happening it was too late to mobilize.
The tactic couldn’t be counted until the opposing side had enough firepower to stall it which would’ve taken too long and by that time defeat is a guarantee.
Soviets were given tanks, aircraft, factories, everything they needed to counter the Germans later in the war which halted their army and that’s when the blitzkrieg fell apart.
Blitzkrieg is effective but only when your moving faster than the enemy can regroup and counter
Meanwhile, 'murica: let’s make a lot of money by selling war machines to both sides :)
As much as I dislike Macron, I’ll just remember that he was one of the European leaders that was favoring finding a diplomatic solution the most during the earlier weeks of the war. He’s probably being more opportunistic than brave, honest or committed, but at least you can’t accuse him of being a bloodlusting warmonger.
Nothing wrong with diplomatic solution if it leads to a withdrawal of the aggressor.
Of course. I don’t think Macron was in the wrong for trying, as long as Ukraine was being supplied at the same time.
With The Nazi Mafia state you have to posture, huff and puff like in the olden days of Imperialism. You know, the childish game inbred kings and bishops used to play.
You know, the days that Poland, Germany, Great Britain, Spain, France (past European super powers), forgot. Because they came to the conclusion that Imperialism is over.
But Nazi russia is gonna peddle nazi imperialism. If people are close to revolt, send young to slaughter. It will fizzle out.
I quite remember it, Macron and other French diplomats were humiliated by Putin and gang.
He’s probably being more opportunistic than brave, honest or committed, but at least you can’t accuse him of being a bloodlusting warmonger.
He’s literally waging war right now. Were have you been in the past 10 years where he has beaten and repressed a million of his own people and passed all sort of authoritarians law?
His policies make him a selfish neoliberal cunt, which is also pretty bad, but not quite a bloodlusting warmonger.
Finally someone with some friggin balls
That could be called balls if he would take the rifle himself.
Otherwise, it’s political play - maybe a necessary one, but it has nothing to do with “balls”.
It’s more like, having rts or 4x gamer skills
It 100% is a political play but you must remeber thats what the armed forces of france signed up for they signed up to fight on behalf of the political power. Not one single other western country has even mentioned sending troops regardless of if he is the one holding a rifle (i suspect many of said troops being sent wont be doing such things they will most likly be engineers to support the western equipment) that is a ballsy political move and it should not be disregarded.
Fair enough
Or at least talks the talk. No one has much faith in him to actually follow through though.
Hes broken the seal on saying it hopefully a slightly more anti russian country (caugh caugh poland) will step up and let the people rape and kill their way across russia as they have wanted to for almost 100 years.
Following the meeting, Jordan Bardella of the far-right National Rally party noted that “there are no restrictions and no red lines” in Macron’s approach.
I don’t know what this means, but it seems like a win for Ukraine, ofc it is just talk right now.
And it most likely will remain talk. Macron would help Ukraine more by helping to set up a robust military supply chain for Ukraine.
It’s a reference to russian speakers’ ‘red lines’ when foreign parties and Ukraine did something to cross them multiple times, but there was nothing in reaction. Ex-USSR folks started to call it brown lines for how they shit themselves with that rhetoric. I believe, even pro-war fanatics called them that at some point.
This is a remarkable turn around of two years ago when Macron warned about not to humiliate Putin.
Yeah it really is. It’s apparently pissing off Germany in particular within the EU - versus it’s size and other nations, France has provided relatively little in aid compared to Germany, UK, US, and Macron initially undermined the joint front being put forward as you say. Now he is grandstanding and seemingly trying to “lead” while also seemingly advocating escalation.
Everyone else is treading a fine line between confronting Putin and not escalating things further.
For what it’s worth, I actually do think we should be doing more because Putin is a dangerous tyrant and appeasement over the past 20 years hasn’t worked. He invaded Georgia and now Ukraine twice, he interferes in global elections undermining democracy and he is an authoritarian dictator who wants to expand his influence further into his neighbours. But Macron is not a credible leader for that, and whatever happens needs to be co-ordinated and carefully actioned - where there is more sanctions, or targeted military support.
Sadly the US, UK and Germany are also all led by weak leaders and for now there is no credible leader to galvanise western democracies to work better together. I don’t see any strong up and coming leaders in the forthcoming UK and US elections (barring a surprise in the US elections given the age of the candidates; and even then it’d likely be Kamala Harris or Nikki Haley, neither of whom seem likely to be much difference), Germany is unlikely to yield a leader in the near future. That does ironically leave the next French presidential election as the best opportunity for someone better to emerge, but I suspect it will degenerate into another “anyone but Le Pen” election.
Russia’s hot engagements in Burkina Faso, Central Africa, Mali and Syria, the various degrees of meddling in e.g. Armenia, Moldova and Yemen, and the 20 years of general political “influencing” all across Africa and the Arab countries are often neglected. This is why parts of the Western public don’t understand the need to contain Russia. It’s a wannabe worldwide player, and it’s corrupt as hell. Allowed to have its way, it’ll turn every country into a vassal autocracy, Soviet-union style.
Macron is highly inconsistent because dude pays a bunch of consulting companies, he’s basically their mouthpiece at this point. There is a political compass meme that shows just how much contradictory bullshit he has said.
If the wind starts to smell like a Russian victory he’d throw himself under Russian balls
While I don’t know the full context of that remark, power in Russia and most of the rest of Asia places great emphasis in “saving face”. So if diplomacy is still a possibility to defuse a conflict with an Asian power, providing them an out where they are not humiliated is crucial. If an out is provided in which they are clearly in top but also have to face humiliation, it will not be taken.
I hope this makes Putin’s stomach churn, as if his piss wasn’t frothy enough since the start of this war revealed some of his navy was missing before they even began.
Part of his Navy went AWOL? I totally missed that what with “Russian Warship, Go Fuck Yourself.”
Yeah the only Russian Aircraft Carrier was completely immobile, the person in charge of overseeing repairs was charged with embezzling 45 Million Rubles, and that’s only just the start of it. They were missing fuel, rations, winter clothes, you name it.
I keep reading stuff like this and Makes you really wonder how Russia was such a threat on paper and still fighting in Ukraine. Like what else is shotty or actively being embezzled right now.
They might have cleaned house, they even killed Yevgeny Prigozhin.
Maybe, but it’s still a government run by thieves and murderers so it’s not terribly unlikely that theft is still occurring.
I’d say it’s a government run by the Mafia, but it’s more accurate to say the government is the Mafia.
Kleptocracy is a term I’ve heard tossed around before.
Oh, ok. He didn’t have what he was told on paper. It’s not so much that Navy personnel went AWOL, it’s more that the actual capabilities of the Navy were greatly exaggerated on paper?
Not sure what they meant specifically, but maybe it was that some of their navy only existed in paper? I know that was the case for a lot of bits and pieces of their military in general but didn’t realize it might apply to entire ships (which need to be supplied and crewed and seem overly blatant for even Russian corruption, though would be a good “gig” if they could manage it… Up until the point those ships are needed for actual military action).
That seems like more of a likely explanation than personnel going AWOL
I am in conflict about that move. But Macron at least tries to irritate Putin with his own definition of a „red line“, like „if you push to Odessa or Kyiv we will send troops“ maybe this is just the way of talking to Putin now, Russia always threaten Europe of nuclear strikes, their propaganda shitty tv shows is full of bombing Great Britain and sink the whole island, bombing or conquering Berlin again blah blah. They won’t because they can’t because of NATO and even without the US, Russia is not capable to conquer whole Europe, yet. So I think it is a good move in terms of threatening Putin with nato troops in Ukraine, because this is the only language he understands. On the other hand France is kinda safe when it comes to a conventional war, at least for a long time. Of course Germany is scared because it is not that far away, it is literally just Poland between Germany and russia and the German military is by far not able to fight a war against a well trained army with endless human resources.
On the other hand France is kinda safe when it comes to a conventional war, at least for a long time. Of course Germany is scared because it is not that far away, it is literally just Poland between Germany and russia and the German military is by far not able to fight a war against a well trained army with endless human resources.
France has nukes, Germany doesn’t. Meaning france can say whatever they want, the nuke-threat is empty against other nuke countries.
If they really wanna play putin’s stupid game, NATO should amass 200.000 troops not in or next to Ukraine, but elsewhere. 50.000 more near scandinavian border, 50.000 more baltics & poland, 50.000 turkey-georgia, 25.000 moldova/romania and, because why not, 25.000 somewhere near bering strait/alaska. All-in, tanks, plane, carriers, stand by on every other accessible border to russia. See how russia really handles that permanent land overstretch in every direction.
I mean, NATO already does this. NATO countries have troops stationed in Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. It’s a mixture of forces from different NATO countries spread all across the Russian border.
This exists because none of those nations want to be invaded by Russia, so we keep troops stationed there to protect them from exactly what happened to Ukraine. If Putin wants to go into any of those countries he has to take on fully modernised western militaries to do it. And attacking any NATO member would also lead to a wide front invasion across the board, which the Russian military is not equipped to counter.
It’s also part of projecting US/NATO air superiority over china and russia. We need to protect forward bases to maintain that pressure.
it is literally just Poland between Germany and russia
Poland has one of the most powerful militaries in Europe. If you think Russia’s been struggling in Ukraine, you haven’t seen anything yet. Since Poland joined the EU (and later, NATO) it’s become much more prosperous than it was under Soviet/Russian influence:
It’s been using that prosperity to spend on military. It’s not the pushover from days of yore any more, and it’s in NATOwell, we had a good run, ww3 is gonna be the end of us
full of bombing Great Britain and sink the whole island,
Well if it was up to me I’d keep Ireland floating
Which is what they said…GB is England, Scotland & Wales.
You’re thinking of United Kingdom, which is short for United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Note that the island of Ireland is 2 countries and you can’t sink one without sinking the other…unless you saw it in 2 first…
You clearly haven’t seen the russian tv broadcast showing their plan to nuke the ocean and create a tsunami that covers the british isles - very bond villain
I would have gone with a giant satellite that shoots laser beams, but I guess that’s more of a North Korea thing
They have their own version of FOX news
There is one important difference when it comes to what rhetoric is suitable between France and Russia, I think. Russia has control over the narrative within it’s land, about the media and limits free speech. If Russia doesn’t follow up on it’s threads, there are no internal consequences and externally, Russia might lose some credibility but still say an unpredictable danger. I think France has a lot more to loose when not following up on their threads / red lines. In terms of diplomacy with other countries, internally with the government appearing weak to its citizens and towards Russia too.
Personally I wouldn’t fear the Russian army. They’re only barely making incremental gains in Ukraine despite a massive advantage in numbers, artillery, and air power.
What I do fear is Putin getting scared of NATO calling his bluff and replying to Ukraine, before doing something insanely stupid with the 2000+ nukes in their national stockpile.
But we have 14K+ nukes, so jokes on him!
“please stop” never made a bully stop.
If French troops were sent into Ukraine and were then hit by Russia, would that then trigger NATO agreements?
Article 6 says:
"For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."
Aware this might be a situation where the spirit of the agreement ends up being more important than the legalese.
It would not. It’s a defensive treaty.
Ukraine isn’t a part of France or under the jurisdiction of France, so the attack wouldn’t be on France’s territory, and Ukraine isn’t a member of NATO itself.
Complete speculation but I’d bet that the UK government is so fickle that if France sent in troops then the UK would ‘have’ to send in its own, and by that point the US MiC would be complaining that the US hadn’t sent them in.
About the only thing the UK government has done right in the last few years, is getting help to Ukraine. I think the UK was even sending small weapons (shoulder fired rockets) in the first days of the full scale invasion, while most other nations were still waiting to see if Ukraine would buckle or not. And since then they were always early with other significant help: training programs, tanks, … They did well in this case I think.
UK would not let France fight a war without wanting a piece of the pie
Idk, reading it sounds like any attack on member troops would count
No, it’s narrower than that. It only applies to attacks directly on Nato countries. It doesn’t even apply to all of a country’s territories, only within the geographic range specified in the treaty. So for instance didn’t apply to the Falkland War, despite a territory under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom coming under attack. It’s not just any time a country’s troops or interests are under attack. US troops have been attacked many times in Iraq, Syria, and other locations, and Article 5 wasn’t invoked. The only time it was ever invoked by any country was the US after 9/11, which was pretty clearly on US territory. If it applied how you say, it could be used by any country to draw all of the rest into an offensive war, which is clearly against the spirit and words of the article.
No.
Did you read it? Do you care to provide any actual insight into the conversation, or are you just a troll?
NATO is a defensive alliance. It is specifically designed to prevent a repeat of WW1. Nor will it support military adventurism. For example, the US could invoke Article 5 after 9/11 because the US was attacked on its own territory. The US could not invoke Article 5 when its troops were attacked in Iraq or when it liberated Kuwait. The French cannot invoke Article 5 when it’s troops are attacked in the Magreb. There are also geographic boundaries. The British could not invoke Article 5 when the Falklands were attacked, even though it is British territory, because it is too far south. The French could not invoke Article 5 when it was attacked in Indochina because that was too far east.
Even when a NATO country is attacked on its own territory, it can’t have initiated hostilities. For example, Poland can’t attack Russian territory, thereby declaring war on Russia, and then invoke Article 5 and expect the rest of NATO to jump in. NATO is purely defensive and voluntary. It was designed mainly to prevent a Soviet invasion of the rest of Europe that wasn’t already behind the Iron Curtain, while also preventing any ally from drawing the rest into a war that could lead to nuclear annihilation. It cannot be “gamed” or misused to draw allies into a war.
Read article 6. No. It doesn’t meet the requirements.
Article 5 is null because if France sends troops, Russia has the right to self defense.
Also article 5 doesn’t mean anyone has to send troops. It means they have to do what they are willing to do.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
I doubt the United States would enter th conflict just because France wants to get in a fight. We have other treaty obligations we have to protect.
Russia is in no position where it needs to “self defend”. Its troops won’t be attacked if its troops leave Ukraine. The right to self defense is what Ukraine is using right now.
deleted by creator
[an attack] on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force
The forces in question need to be attacked somewhere that the treaty protects, which Ukraine is not.
Fuck Putin with the big stick.
Strike while the beast is weak.
The real question is why did they not do it already?
Trying to solidify a stance of power in the EU due to the unreliability of American aid depending on whether a crackpot dictator or a rational, sane person wins the next election would be my guess.
Probably FFR first.
Tell us why ?
Oh fuck.
Good! I’m in!
Ah, so you joined the french army?
I’m on active duty in a NATO country, so sure, why not!
Fair enough
