Macron has made it clear that sending ground troops to Ukraine is not out of the question. Do you think this is serious?

[Julie4]

In my opinion, Macron is just being Macron, i. e. using shock phrases, but in practice, they don't do much good. This sentence follows a long series of shock phrases from Macron, as he did on the subject of NATO or strategic autonomy.

What's more, this sentence is rather ambiguous, because what kind of troops is he talking about? Troops that would train Ukrainian soldiers? Troops that would be placed near the Ukrainian border to dissuade Putin from going any further? Or troops to fight?

So for me these are just words, which isolate France because many European countries are opposed to it, and which show Putin the division that exists between Europeans, when we need to show that we are united in our support for Ukraine.

[nightdrot]

Well, as I only have your viewpoint to go on, it is difficult to come to any other conclusion than President Macron is jus engaging in bluster. That said, France remains a major power that plays a global role and it is not entirely unlikely that President Macron meant what he said.

After all, also recall that President Macron said what he said in the context of the leaders of Germany, and several eastern European states saying that they would NOT consider sending troops to Ukraine. This is a classic divide in Europe.

For Germany and the states of eastern Europe, they can - as they have in the past - cut deals with Russia. See also - most infamously - the German/Soviet pact that partitioned Poland in 1939 - setting the stage for World War II. France, by contrast, could not accept Russia penetrating that deeply into Europe and thus France enters WWII.

Obviously, this is NOT 1939, but France has critical strategic interests in keeping Russia away from central Europe. Plus, France has an interest in demonstrating to the United States that she is willing to intervene in Ukraine, thereby demonstrating to the USA that it must support Ukraine. (Keep in mind that there is a rising isolationist tide in the USA that sees to American interest in Ukraine.)

To be sure, France is not where it was in 1939. It remains a major power - with sophisticated armed forces and a nuclear arsenal. However, its' numbers are more limited as its' population is aging and therefore its' tax base is shrinking and therefore its' defense budget is more limited as is the pool of potential military recruits. So French intervention is less decisive than it would have been in 1914 or even 1939.

Still, France has strategic interests globally and especially in Europe - as well as an interest in demonstrating to the USA that it has strategic interests in Europe and NATO. So President Macron may have been playing a subtle game, and in the bargain was playing France's historic role as a great power.

[Julie4]

Well, since I asked this question, President Macron's words have been clarified by the Minister of the Armed Forces, who explained that he was talking about troops to help clear mines in Ukraine, train Ukrainian soldiers, etc. .

Moreover, the problem is that France has to be credible, and the reality of the French army is that, according to various French specialists, France couldn't hold an 80 km front for just one week, and some even explain that what Israel is capable of doing in Gaza, France would be incapable of doing. In other words, sending ground troops to fight the Russian bear doesn't seem credible.

However, as you said, it's in France's interest to keep the Russians as far away as possible.

Same Napoleon already dreamed of making the Ukraine a "barrier" state against Russia.

Napoleon wanted to turn it into an independent state, whose investiture he reserved for himself, and which would have included almost all the territories of the contempo- raine Soviet Ukraine:

This state," declared d'Hauterive, inspired by Talleyrand, "would constitute one of the strongest barriers to Russia's ambitious projects and its pre-tentions on the Black Sea and the Bosphorus... Rejected forever from the Black Sea, Russia would then be forced to abandon its ill-digested plans for conquest, invasion and usurpation of every kind. "

It's not just a question of politics. In Napoleon's plans, Ukraine becomes a supplier and a customer of France. It sells France its wheat, oil, leather and horses, and buys its manufactured goods and wines. And all our foreign ministers in the 18th century had dreamed of intensifying French trade in the Black Sea by seeking outlets in the Ukraine.

[nightdrot]

Well, as I mentioned above, France is not what it was - certainly not in the world wars, let alone what it was in Napoleonic times. Be that as it may, France is still a major power and if she needed an autonomous Ukraine in Napoleon's era, it stands to reason that she needs one even more now.

In any case, France should not underestimate itself. Ukraine is a far lesser power and it has managed to keep the Russians at bay. Suffice to say, if Ukraine can do that, France can do at least that much.

[nightdrot]

P. S. By the way, isn't this grand good fun? It is a moment of role reversal. You are talking France down and I am talking France up. What would our mothers say?

(Kidding - sort of.)

[Julie4]

Ah I noticed that sometimes you were more critical of the USA than of France

So I wonder if secretly, in your deeply American and Anglophile heart, if you haven't made a little secret place for France (🤣) this is a joke.

I hope you're well and hug your family for me. 😊

[RavVid]

I think you are right and I imagine Putin smiling in wry amusement. At both the level of an individual and of a country, grandiose statements have no one shaking in their boots and it diminishes rather than enhances.

But Julie is this coalition less than Macron's European Armed Forces fantasy, and more a shadow Nato acting without the dead weight of Hungary in the saddle bags. A coalition that Hungary has no veto in?

The comments about troops might be be more to shut down fears than anything.

Maybe I am over reading too hopefully. I would hope that Nato global partners South Korea, Japan an Australia are involved in such a coalition. It is hard to see Ukraine as not being about East Asian security almost as much as European security.

[Daniela1982]

Just what we need, another Vietnam, Afghanistan, and another useless war we can't afford.

[ZackBan]

No one goes to war on emotions.
The suffering of the Ukrainian people means nothing to men like Macron. If he decides to go to war it would be because there's a benefit.

So the question is: what benefits can be drawn from going to war with Russia?

[goaded]

You say "France couldn't hold an 80 km front for just one week", but Ukraine is holding a 1000km front, and has been for quite some time. In fact, now it's Russia trying to hold that front in the face of counter-attacks. If it's an existential question, people surprise you.

Of course today, as in the 1940's, it's Republicans in the US trying to avoid keeping down a tyrant. Then, as now, they call for "America First"!

[KostasKouvalis]

Macron is an idiot and is constantly contradicting himself. What benefit would France have from aiding Ukraine. Also, let's assume he does, Putin would theoretically have probable cause to attack NATO countries, and NATO would be obligated to step in to help each other, because Russia would be considered the aggressor, even thought it was Macron who provoked them. Not even Joe Biden is this stupid. But like you said, it's hard to take Macron seriously anymore, especially after he said, "Talking shit about Muslims is legal in France, chopping heads isn't," then basically gave the Paris Head Choppers a slap on the wrist. I think anyone who supports Ukraine and Zelensky is an idiot.

[Julie4]

No, anything that can push the Russians back into their steppes is good. Supporting Ukraine is a good thing. But sending troops is not, because our vital interests are not at stake.

[KostasKouvalis]

So basically, people only support Ukraine because they hate Russia. Do you genuinely believe Russia is a threat to NATO?

[Julie4]

No, I don't hate Russia. On some points it has a very beautiful culture.

However, anything it can do to distance itself from Russia is a good thing.

Napoleon already dreamed of making the Ukraine a "barrier" state against Russia.

Napoleon wanted to turn it into an independent state, whose investiture he reserved for himself, and which would have included almost all the territories of the contempo- raine Soviet Ukraine:

This state," declared d'Hauterive, inspired by Talleyrand, "would constitute one of the strongest barriers to Russia's ambitious projects and its pre-tentions on the Black Sea and the Bosphorus... Rejected forever from the Black Sea, Russia would then be forced to abandon its ill-digested plans for conquest, invasion and usurpation of every kind.

It's not just a question of politics. In Napoleon's plans, Ukraine becomes a supplier and a customer of France. It sells France its wheat, oil, leather and horses, and buys its manufactured goods and wines. And all our foreign ministers in the 18th century had dreamed of intensifying French trade in the Black Sea by seeking outlets in the Ukraine.

[KostasKouvalis]

Well Napoleon is dead, and history won't change. A French Ukraine is hard for me to imagine, but so is a French Chad and a French Vietnam. The world would certainly be a very different place for sure had Napoleon had his way.

I have a love-hate relationship with Russia as well. Like you, I find many aspects of Russian culture beautiful and interesting, but the mentality and attitude of the people doesn't align with mine. As for Putin, I lost respect for him after he told Russians to stop being mean to Muslims so they wouldn't bomb them, and he was saying all that shit about how he doesn't want NATO on his doorstep. I came to realize the "tough guy" persona was just an act, and in reality, Putin is an insecure coward with a massive ego.

I'm not particularly fond of either of them to be honest, and the U. S. owes nothing to Ukraine. The Bidens only have personal things to gain

[Julie4]

I quoted Napoleon to show you that France has always found the idea of keeping the Russians as far away from Europe as possible interesting.

And so, if we could inflict a defeat on Russia, or at least force it to settle for much less than it wanted in the first place, that wouldn't be bad at all.

But sending ground troops doesn't seem appropriate in terms of our vital interests.

[KostasKouvalis]

Then why don't they take some of Russia's territory? I'm serious. If they really care about Ukraine, and having Russia right next door to NATO, why doesn't NATO take Kaliningrad for instance? I wonder what the look on Putin's face would be, and how he would react to needing to fight on two fronts and now defend territory.

[Julie4]

The aim is not to attack Russia's sovereignty, but to prevent Russia from continuing to invade its neighbors.

[KostasKouvalis]

You don't think attacking THEIR soveirgnty would send a message?

[Julie4]

In what Interet? No! The aim is not to start an open war but to make Russia understand that it must stop these attacks.

[KostasKouvalis]

And what better way then showing them how it feels to have your territory invaded? Just for the record, I'm by no means pro-Ukraine, but I'm talking from a logical standpoint.

[Julie4]

No, because once again the objective is not to go to war with Russia.

[KostasKouvalis]

So basically they're just gonna let Russia keep doing whatever they want

[Julie4]

No, because even if it wins in Ukraine, it will be very weakened and in any case it will not be able to go much further because there is NATO.

[KostasKouvalis]

It's already weak. Exactly, so why not steal Kaliningrad from them?

[KostasKouvalis]

But not NATO, UKRAINE should invade it. Surprise attack. I don't expect them to make it far, but I just want to see the look on Putin's face. I just got an idea for a question

[Julie4]

Because the aim is not to invade Russian territory. NATO is a defensive alliance,

Because such an invasion could have nuclear risks, and in any case it would serve Russian propaganda, and what's more, Ukraine doesn't have the capacity to do it.

[KostasKouvalis]

It's funny, isn't it? The same people who claim to despise Putin are too scared to actually stand up to him, then act shocked when Putin does what Putin wants.

[Julie4]

If you feel like talking nonsense, you can, but that doesn't make it any smarter.

Putin doesn't do what he wants because he can't go any further than Ukraine anyway, secondly Putin doesn't threaten our direct interests, and finally everyone, including the Russians, wants to avoid a war between great powers that could end in nuclear war.

[KostasKouvalis]

Well, some of the anti-Russian propogandists will say otherwise, but you pretty much summed it up, and I don't disagree with you. So under THAT argument Macron is just talking out of his ass. And this goes back to my original point of, what does France have to gain from sending troops to Ukraine.

It's not nonsense at all. It's a legitimate question and you answered it perfectly.

[Julie4]

As I said, Macron's sentence is ambiguous.

[KostasKouvalis]

Yes, I agree

[KostasKouvalis]

Well there you go...
www.yahoo.com/.../...-nato-alliance-102317133.html

[DryGermanGuy]

That’s very weird, because usually France and Germany consult each other with major changes in policy. It’s almost like he went off his prepared script and improvised in a speech? 🤔

[Julie4]

To be perfectly honest, Macron made it clear that there was no consensus on the subject.

[DryGermanGuy]

Of course! I would think nobody - not even Poland or the Baltics - had that sort of escalation in mind.

[Drewtate]

What is Macron trying to distracted from domestically?

[Anonymous]

Macron has enough problems in his own country to deal with.

[Jennz6]

We don’t need this

[gorydetails]

The globalists want their war.

[DryGermanGuy]

Enough with the globalists fantasies, Joel.

[gorydetails]

@DryGermanGuy yeah, they only blatantly state their goals in print and on video. “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

[DJB72]

Give it time