On television Macron said: " France has a nuclear doctrine "based on what are called the fundamental interests of the nation. And they are very clearly defined. And so, this is not at all what would be at issue if there were, for example, a nuclear ballistic attack in Ukraine or in the region," which would not call for a [French] nuclear response because "we have a framework for what concerns us," he said. "
Since this statement, I see many reactions of journalists or representatives of other countries, being very virulent on France as for example these two tweets.
Honestly I find these reactions very largely exaggerated, because France is trying to help Ukraine as well as possible by providing weapons, intelligence, etc.. Of course compared to the American aid it is not much but each country does according to its capacities.
Why did Macron's words provoke such a virulent reaction?
Really? The 1914-18 Europe battlefields are almost all in France. I've been to most of them.
The German army marched in, the French couldn't hold them and the rest of the allies went into France to liberate it.
Then when Hitler was moving in 1939 they just handed over him. The Royal Navy sank the entire French navy to prevent itbeing handed to Hitler.
Then, although there were "Free French" regulars in the Allies, most of the defence of and liberation of France was done by British and American forces.
The only two military conflicts on mainland Europe in a century and in both cases the French rolled over and played dead.
The more you write the more you confirm my first comment, I must say that you do it with so much good will, that such caricatural and unmitigated comments should be set as an example in all schools, of everything that should not be done 🤣
And again, just a guess, at 25 you've never spent time with anyone who actually fought in either World Wars, just read about it in books?
I had family on the beaches on D-Day in 1944. Family who fought in the Somme and Ypres campaigns who never met anyone French. Dutch, yes. Belgians too, but no French soldiers.
I didn't learn from books. I talked - or rather I listened - to the men who were there.
Maybe they weren't good teachers, but they were good Men who risked everything to liberate a country whose leaders just rolled over. Twice.
Yes I am French sir, it is a pity that you are so caricatural.
I have a lot of respect for the soldiers who died in France, my great-grandfather died in the Second World War, I have his war medallion. Believe me the French soldiers were not cowards as you think.
Of course I have read several historical works on the two world wars. Whether it is English, American, French historians etc..
I have an immense respect for the Anglo-Saxons, France was lucky to have allies in the two wars, and the English soldiers as American deserve indefinitely our respect.
But allow me to disagree with you, when you say that France did not fight in the two world wars.
I never said anything about the footsoldiers of the French army. They weren't the ones deciding to surrender.
I said the leaders rolled over twice. Not the population. The Resistance - made up nearly exclusively of civilians - were the force to be reckoned with.
I don't see the problem. Every country has policies on these things. As for France surrendering in ww2, the simple fact is they were out manoeuvred and the germans bypassed their defence line.
You people really need to learn the difference between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.
To date the only country which has used nuclear weapons is America, they used strategic nuclear weapons against Japan in WWII and they used tactical nuclear weapons against Iraq, they called them 'Bunker Busters' remember that term being thrown around?
Isn't it interesting now that 'the bad guys' are considering using 'bunker busters' that all of a sudden the media is making out that these weapons are not just nuclear weapons but strategic nuclear weapons to be fired against civilian targets.
@Jamie05rhs: And I‘m asking what you’re willing to do about it. It’s one thing if Russia uses a nuke on a NATO country and another if they use one in Ukraine.
@Jamie05rhs: Of course, the question is with what, and that’s what I’m asking. Would you use nukes on Russia in response? It’s a simple yes or no question. Goaded, who was asked that question, apparently didn’t want to answer it.
I thought it was a dumb question. Nobody wants nuclear weapons to be used.
I'm confident that the United States, at least under Biden, won't use nuclear weapons without another country using them first. I'm less convinced that Putin won't.
@goaded: Since you inserted yourself into this (I didn't invite you), how about answering what you think should be done if Putin did use nukes first? That makes a whole lot more sense than figuratively fellating some corrupt demented figurehead who certainly shouldn't be making any big decisions.
@goaded: How about answering the very simple question. What do you do if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine? Do you scold him, or something else? I’m not sure what’s left to sanction anymore.
Just to be clear, you're inviting an answer this time?
It's another silly question. Obviously something more than scolding, but I don't have the intelligence agencies and leaders of dozens of allies to advise me, so I don't know what would be best. Do you have a better answer? Do you think we should just let Putin take Ukraine? The US I remember at least pretended to stand up for democracies. The ones that chose capitalism, anyway. Ukraine would qualify.
@goaded: So you don't have an answer or a solution. It's not believable that you need classified information to answer this- you never hesitate to give your opinion on topics you know nothing about and other posting shows that you certainly have an opinion on this topic and could answer the question.
So, what exactly did you want me to say? I gave you an honest answer to a difficult question, secure in the knowledge that neither of us have thousands of people collecting and providing us with relevant information. I notice you didn't answer my questions: "Do you have a better answer? Do you think we should just let Putin take Ukraine?"
Nor did you refute my statements: "The US I remember at least pretended to stand up for democracies. The ones that chose capitalism, anyway. Ukraine would qualify."
For that matter, I responded to your original opinion with a question that you didn't answer: "How irresponsible would it be for Russia to use nukes in the first place?"
And, by the way, why can't the UK, France and Germany stand up for Ukraine, which is European issue and not a NATO member? Why must it always be the US? Because you don't want to risk your children's lives but are happy to risk US lives?
I notice you didn't answer my questions: "Do you have a better answer? Do you think we should just let Putin take Ukraine?"
Nor did you refute my statements: "The US I remember at least pretended to stand up for democracies. The ones that chose capitalism, anyway. Ukraine would qualify."
For that matter, I responded to your original opinion with a question that you didn't answer: "How irresponsible would it be for Russia to use nukes in the first place?"
@goaded: Stop bobbing and weaving. Ukraine is a corruptocracy and still the US has been willing to damage its own economic and financial interests to support it against Russia. But there are limits to that- and using nukes on Russia in retaliation for nuke use in Ukraine and therefore bringing Russian retaliation on the US is completely irresponsible. And what's left to sanction Russia, especially without damaging the international use of the dollar and euro?
You're willing to squander US lives but not those of Europeans.
You can easily infer my answer from what I said in the original post, so don't be deliberately obtuse.
That's hilarious. Demand I answer your question, while ignoring all mine. I'll respond to your lies about Ukraine when you've answered my questions.
"Do you have a better answer? Do you think we should just let Putin take Ukraine?"
What's wrong in my statements: "The US I remember at least pretended to stand up for democracies. The ones that chose capitalism, anyway. Ukraine would qualify."?
@goaded: You’re ever the propagandist. Go fight your own battles, European. No EUnuch like you is in any position to talk about “standing up for democracy” when you support the corrupt, totalitarian European Union apparatus.
And the truth about Ukraine is that it’s just as corrupt. You’re so ashamed of your warmongering that you don’t dare answer. Go fight your own battles if you want people to die in Ukraine. Send your own kids there.
I think you'll find the propagandist in this conversation is the one avoiding answering reasonable questions, chosing to make shit up instead.
So, once more: "Do you have a better answer? Do you think we should just let Putin take Ukraine?"
What's wrong in the statements: "The US I remember at least pretended to stand up for democracies. The ones that chose capitalism, anyway. Ukraine would qualify."
And my original question: "How irresponsible would it be for Russia to use nukes in the first place?"
@Jamie05rhs: your friend goaded asked a rhetorical question which we all know the answer to. And he still doesn't have an answer as to what he West should do about Russian use of nukes in Ukraine, should it occur. At that point, all the handwringing about Russia's bad behavior is a waste of time. But your friend goaded is a typical unreasonable leftist European, i. e., he has no answers. Propagandists like him never do.
Once again, goaded- Ukraine isn't really a democracy. Nor do you care about democracy. Whatever your real motivation is here, it's not protecting democracy, something you care nothing about.
@Jamie05rhs: as for your suggestion of using "better weapons" against Russia, other than lowering energy prices by pumping more fossil fuels, we don't have any. What's left to sanction? And you don't want to go from a proxy war to a direct shooting war with Russia, which has been my point from the beginning here, especially because US servicemembers and their families in Germany would be a likely target for Putin should the US be dumb enough to directly attack Russians in Ukraine or Russia.
My questions were not rhetorical, I'd like you to spell out exactly what you think the west should have done when Ukraine was invaded from three sides by their neighbour.
Ukraine is a democracy, and a lot less corrupt since 2014. You obviously know nothing about my motivations.
@Jamie05rhs: Yeah, and what do you think Russia will do if it's attacked by the US, not just Ukrainians? Not just turn the other cheek. That would be an act of war. Do you have any interest in being in a war with some dictatorship that has the world's largest nuclear arsenal?
And goaded, I know exactly how European leftists think. I have spent a lot of time around them, and come to think of it, I'm sure familiar with your approach to things.
You have a naive view of Ukraine. But the best thing we could have done would have been to work with the Saudis to pump more oil and of course not damage our own fossil fuels industries since low energy prices hurt Russia greatly. Sanctions would also have been part of the equation as well as arming Ukraine.
@Jamie05rhs; You can take a stand without being dumb and starting WWIII. There isn't going to be sympathy for the US if it's going to war over Ukraine.
@Avicenna You sound like the people telling us not to start WWII in the late 30s. "They're just Jews.". "He needs more space. Let him have it." "Not worth going to war over. It's not our problem."
"You have a naive view of Ukraine. But the best thing we could have done would have been to work with the Saudis to pump more oil and of course not damage our own fossil fuels industries since low energy prices hurt Russia greatly. Sanctions would also have been part of the equation as well as arming Ukraine."
Apparently you have a naive view of Saudi Arabia. Russia worked with them to get them to pump less oil. Biden's response seems to be to work with Venezuela to make up the difference. Before you say it, all three are dictatorships with terrible human rights records, but only two are working together against the US at the moment.
Other than that, sanctions on Russia and arming Ukraine is exactly what Biden is doing, so what's your problem?
@goaded: Biden is going much further than sanctions and providing weapons. Most of what’s been sent to Ukraine hasn’t been accounted for, a big problem in such a corrupt country. We shouldn’t be paying Ukrainian pensions and government salaries.
So you admit it’s necessary to work with dictatorships. And we do after all work with the EU and German dictatorships that you support. Biden obviously isn’t getting anything from Venezuela, a country that he still has sanctions on. And, unlike every other US President since Truman, Biden personally destroyed US-Saudi relations. That said, it would still be possible to work with them, just like we did in the 1980s when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan if we’d give the Saudis something in return.
It’s not realistic to expect two large energy producers to never cooperate on an issue of great economic importance to them. And Biden doesn’t need Saudi cooperation to stop handcuffing US energy production, a fact you studiously ignore, especially since Europe can use US natural gas right now.
To send all that money into the black hole that is corrupt Ukraine while ordinary people in the US suffer from high inflation is unjust. More energy production in the US kills three birds with one stone.
@goaded: Unlike you, when I lived in Germany for a very long time, I actually interacted with people and paid attention to what was going on there. You wouldn't know the difference between dictatorship and democracy. It's a softer dictatorship, but as those who protest against governmeht overreach find, they're enemies of the state. That is a hallmark of a dictatorship.
So who has accounted for it? Tell me, goaded, how much in military aid has been given to Ukraine and how much money overall? Can you give us a detailed breakdown of independently audited accounts?
People are just out of touch with the reality of war. They think of it as far from them and don't understand that they will face danger if Macron get too bold.
I can not, for the life of me, understand that the same folks that yelled at people in stores to wear masks last year to “save a grandma’s life” are rushing us into a nuclear war with Russia.
Oh, is that what you think I am? Because anyone who would use Putin's threats for political gain is a useful idiot. Are you using Putin, or is he using you?
You're putting party above country, and playing into Putin's hands. I know it's the latest Republican talking point, but you should be ashamed of yourself.
@goaded lmao. You’re a stupid ass. I’ve been against us getting involved from the start. Keeping billions of US tax dollars out of a corrupt country, and not getting a nuclear war started is exactly putting the country first. Once again, you leftists are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing.
@Jamie05rhs you’re a fool if you don’t think the US has led this proxy war and sent light years more money than any other country.
I know, you're all America First, just like during WW2. If you think Ukraine is more corrupt now than in 2013, or more corrupt than Russia, you're mad. Of course you're not going to stand behind your president, you prefer Putin.
No, when the majority of Ukranians noticed that their leaders were totally corrupt.
Once they'd had their revolution, they found how their president had been spending their money on himself.
"GREENE: But in the capital, Kiev, it couldn't be more clear that he's irrelevant. Government security forces left his mansion on the outskirts of the capital. And over the weekend, crowds of Ukrainians went to take a look.
MONTAGNE: The mansion turns out to have a zoo, a dining room in the shape of a galleon, even a golf course.
NPR's Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson reports on the spoils of four years in office.
SORAYA SARHADDI NELSON, BYLINE: Thousands of Ukrainians braved snowy weather and heavy traffic to catch a glimpse of the extravagance Viktor Yanukovych called home. There were so many visitors that most were forced to park their cars miles away from the estate. They walked through a sizeable community of mansions, which look a lot different than the bland Soviet-era apartments that dominate Kiev's suburban skyline.
The heavily guarded neighborhood was off limits to almost everyone for years. But when the president fled two days ago, police handed control of the property to armed protestors. Now, anyone is welcome to enter, not only the community, but the grounds of Yanukovych's beloved estate.
His compound is for many Ukrainians a glaring example of widespread theft and corruption here that helped spark this current revolution. Those who came eagerly snapped photos of the manicured grounds and towering home, which looks rather like a log cabin on steroids. There's a fake, Greek ruin nearby." www.npr.org/.../ukraine-presidents-estate-included-exotic-zoo
@Jamie05rhs We are absolutely the ones who have been interfering with Ukraine for the past 15+ years and are supplying most of the money being laundered through Ukraine.
@goaded You’re the type of guy who called the Canadian truckers ‘racist’ because you saw one Nazi flag still with its packaging creases, lol. How many masks do I have to wear to protect me from nuclear fallout?
By the way, this isn't the first time Putin threatened to use tactical nukes.
"A source close to Russian President Vladimir Putin told me that the Russians have warned Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan that Moscow is prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons if necessary to save their troops in the face of a Turkish-Saudi onslaught. Since Turkey is a member of NATO, any such conflict could quickly escalate into a full-scale nuclear confrontation." redice.tv/.../putin-prepared-to-use-tactical-nuclear-weapons-if-turkey-saudi-invade-syria
@goaded Imagine being you and supporting billionaires, tech companies, mainstream media, pharmaceutical companies, the deep state, and the military-industrial complex and thinking you’re a “liberal” lmao.
@goaded you did claim a grandma wanted to shoot her grand children, didn’t you? Or are you pretending you didn’t again. Like you lie about being German?
As you lie about me, you go back to the one time I missed the word "said" in "she said she would kill her own grandchildren" (which she literally said). Unlike you, I corrected myself within hours.
I've never lied about being German. You're lying about that.
You're also using Putin's threats to try to get people to vote for Republicans. Useful idiot that you are. Putin's threatened it before, and that was in a place that wouldn't result in radioactive fallout drifting into Russia.
@goaded someone said something about it and you replied incredulously "you think I'm from Germany, lol". Sorry if that's not verbatim, you bullshit so much it's hard to keep up.
You'd think someone who's going to freeze this winter and will get a direct hit of radiation first if a nuke is used in Ukraine wouldn't be such a warmonger, but here we are.
@Avicenna He was already fine with locking people out of society for not getting the clot shots. I guess the Nazi blood still runs deep in their veins.
Of course you can't come up with the actual quote. What was I responding to? Never mind, I expect it was something like @Avicenna's moronic "the Nazi blood still runs deep in their veins."
Regardless, see if you can wrap your mind around these three facts: I live in Germany. I'm not from Germany. I have never lied about that.
You, on the other hand, lie in almost every single conversation we have. And you seem to think that Putin is someone to be respected more than your own president. Party before country.
@Avicenna My apologies, it was @joeldalton who said it in response to you, 17 minutes ago.
Misattribution, not a lie.
" @Avicenna He was already fine with locking people out of society for not getting the clot shots. I guess the Nazi blood still runs deep in their veins. "
What complaining that you've baselessly accused me of lying when you're so obviously the one lying? You know what a normal person, one who's in control of their emotions and life generally would do? They'd apologise and move on. Not just lie some more.
No because there are other countries that support Ukraine and have not said what they would do in case of a nuclear attack.
If France was the only country that supported Ukraine, Macron's words could push Putin to launch a nuclear attack, but as there is not only France, Putin does not know how other nations will react, so he will not take this risk
Macron just said what everybody knows, no nation will retaliate with a nuclear attack, because the national interests of the different nuclear weapon nations are not threatened
@AngryCarl All of them? The only thing that saved brits was that they were an island. That they couldn't defend if french army didn't hold germans back while brits were running away, voluntarily abandoning and pushing away any french who wanted to come with them.
Superb Opinion