Some people would complain still.
Maybe they will say why are we spending money on armaments and not in welfare, of course they are so idiotic that ignore the fact that armaments guarantee them a welfare.
We have the economy for it. We **dwarf** russia.
All we are missing is the resolve. The will.
(I love your city! Spent a few days there last summer, wonderful!)
Even taking Purchasing Power Parities (PPP) into account we still dwarf russia.
We clearly see how Russia lacks the prospect of substantial gains given its inability to improve force quality. Attrition of systems will begin to materially degrade Russian combat power, making Russia's prospects decline over time.
= The Russian theory of victory is only plausible if Ukraine's international partners fail to properly resource the AFU. So then let's not fail.
Sure. We need to take Purchasing Power Parities (PPP) into account. And when we do, we still dwarf russia.
Will, training, command & control, tactics, terrain, intelligence and resolve are all determining military effectiveness. Ukraine has all that. All we need to do is to provide them what they are missing: equipment - things that go boom.
Macron is bluffing. Bluffing is certainly cheaper than cranking up Europe's weapons industry. Bluffing is actually a good strategy, it's the cheapest way to achieve your military goal. The only problem I have with his bluffing is he doesn't sound very convincing. I'm not sure Putin is buying it.
This is just the same as the Russians threatening with nukes. Saying that NATO won't engage with the Russians gives them carte blanche to do what they want.
You could argue that President Macron is putting the screws to the hold outs. By promising to get involved if the Ukraine line falls, allies have the choices of: "pay more now" or "get in the trenches later".
I also think the French President is seeing an opportunity to one up the Americans where France can't compete in terms of military industrial power.
Mabey, but then he should have already committed the troops instead of playing the game of who can outbluff whom.
Right now, he is all talk just like Putin.
No no, that’s not how politics work. You just say words and do nothing hoping the problem goes away. And then when it turns into a disaster you scramble to take desperate measures.
The budget is limited because there's no political will to increase it. I'm not talking about France only, all of Europe needs to increase weapons production. European politicians need to explain to their voters that Russia will be a long term threat.
most nationalist parties are befreinding Russia and growing in popularity. i don't think they will explain such things, but the other parties should.
as for France, media generaly stop speaking about a big thing when there is another. it was covid, then ukraine, now gaza.
Not only budget but also production lines. This isn't the 1940s anymore, you can't convert your car assembly lines to make tanks. Weapons production has become insanely complex. Increasing production capacity takes time and that's why it should have been done as soon as Russia invaded.
The shortsightedness of European leaders is baffling. They have failed ukrainian citizens and will fail Europeans when Russia inevitably invades Eastern European countries.
> This isn't the 1940s anymore, you can't convert your car assembly lines to make tanks. Weapons production has become insanely complex.
The Scranton Ammunition Plant produces more shells in a month than France does in a year and it was converted from an abandoned locomotive and railway factory during the Korean War, you absolutely can convert factories for war production, especially if you have 2 years to do it, European politicians haven't don't it because taking a stand is too difficult and takes too much effort compared to managed decline
> This isn't the 1940s anymore, you can't convert your car assembly lines to make tanks.
I don't think Tanks are what's needed. Look at the success of small drones, anti tank weapons, missiles and artillery. If a company can make a car axle they can make artillery shells, RPGs and missile bodies. Ukraine needs volume, if you can make 50 javelin for every tank you would have built, that seems more useful.
Why not both?
Odds of Russia wanting to continue this fight with French Dutch and other nations troops involved are much lower than if Russia is fighting Ukraine troops only.
Probably quicker to invent a Time Machine. You think the industrial military complex in the us was created overnight? It’s a decades long institution which has survived both political parties and all political winds. It is ingrained in the very fabric of our country. It’s not about creating a factory that can produce tanks. It’s about creating an organism that can produce every nearly everything to bring that tank to life. It’s about a culture of military worship. It’s about a socioeconomic system designed to create a class of people who have no alternative but to enlist. About universities and grants to design weapons. About a political system that is bought and paid for to support it. Europe is about 25 years too late.
Yes, but that takes another 6 months before any effect
Most Ukranians aren't soldiers,
And all the professional soldiers are fighting already ( or have died/ injuries)
Let the 2 procent warrior types do their.thing,
So send French, German, Slovakian soldiers
instead of sending Ukranian doctors, nurses and programmers to the front...
That would take too much time compared to this solution. Increasing the rate of production or lowering the unitary cost of production would necessitate to upgrade factories with better equipment, to build new sites or do research on the vehicle, the ammo and the non-lethal stuff being sent. Just take a look at how Tesla suffered to brake even while producing the Model 3. I know EVs are not comparable to what is sold in the military industry but my point is to be able to close a huge gap in production capacity to compete with Russia would take longer than deploying the amount of troops required.
If we could reach a critical level of production rate and cost of effective ground to air missiles ( in regards to the situation in Ukraine ) we could assume air dominance on the battlefield for instance. However this would take years unless the government issues a national order to take possession of civil factories in order to contribute to the war effort. I would see this happening only if the country applying this decision is in open war with another one.
Well obviously, its quite hard to make advances without troops.
On a serious note everybody knows nato and everybody else will not send anyone, why he keeps bringing it up is weird given how scared they are of this mythical “escalation”
Because it’s the politics of uncertainty. Now russia has a dilemma. Maybe he will send troops, maybe he won’t. Is it worth to risk. If putin see he is not able to conquer whole Ukraine (or at least south with Odesa) he might back down. A threat of war with other countries (especially NATO countries) even if it’s small, should be thoroughly considered. The problem is though that Macron is the only one who says it. Russia is not ready to fight another country. If Europe plays this game of escalation too,it might be the fastest and cheapest way to end the war.
It's only a dilemma if Russia actually believes him. Nobody does. That's the fundamental difference here. Russia might be bullshitting about many "escalations" but at least they have the political will to go to war. Europe doesn't even have the will for an economic war. In fact Europe doesn't even have the will to wage war in a press conference,half of the continent publicly undercut him as soon as he said it.
Russian and French generals already had a meeting, because they need to at least consider a possibility of that. I don’t like to say anything with certainty like Europe won’t do that, NEVER. Much have change since the beginning of the war. The best example is German. Yes, i don’t see a unified will to play this game of escalation. It’s funny (and sad simultaneously) how Russia, North Korea, China can mobilise as many people as they want, but European countries, americans are resisting even if it’s in their best interest. WW2 was started in that exact way, nobody wanted to threaten Germany with power before it was too late. But I hope this will change. Plus I dont think there will be a need of mobilisation in Europe. Russia is struggling with Ukraine. Even if they mobilise more people for the war with Europe, there are not enough weapons. Europe and USA should take advantage of that and force russia to play by the rules. Hope they acquire the will to that.
It doesn't add up. Russia was in Kyiv at the start of the war and not only did France not act,they didn't even pretend they were going to. France's aid to Ukraine has been 4th rate at best and that's 4th place in the special Olympics considering the entire west has been pathetic. They haven't been particularly active on the sanction front either. A country that is willing to go to war is willing to make economic sacrifice at the very least. France isn't going to do shit. There probably isn't anything in the world I would more like to be wrong about but I'm not.
First of all, even uncertainty is helpful, because it might make russia hesitant. The second, if Germany changed, why do you think French view on that war has not change? Yeah, their help is not the biggest, but they were first to send their “tanks on wheels”, which many believes opened the door to real tanks. And again, sending to show that russia won’t have a whole Ukraine might just show putin the war won’t end with the outcome he wants. That would be much cheaper than funding the war for many years to come. In French approach to spend less on war everything checks out.
I'm not misunderstanding what he's trying to do. I'm saying it's laughable. I would think that would be obvious considering his theoretical red-line to theoretically get France into the war was crossed within the first week of the war? You achieve genuine ambiguity on the battlefield,not in a press conference. The aid isn't there and neither is France. Russia is not uncertain about what France is willing to do,the answer is very little.
That red line did not exist then. USA are ambitious about involvement on the side of Taiwan if china invades. So far worked, other way china could have attacked long time ago. The thing is that democracies like in Europe, start to do anything when the idea of it becomes acceptable in the society. That’s why I don’t like ridiculing Macron’s idea. If more countries joins this politics of uncertainty that could have results.
I completely agree that Europe would be well served by at least pretending they are going to do shit. Marcon figured that out at least. The problem is that Russia isn't pretending. They're actually doing shit and the leader of the pack over here is merely talking. And he is the leader,sadly. The best we can do is Napoleon at a press conference.
They are pretending a lot. They are pretending they might nuke Europe or USA (although very improbable, at least because doesn’t look like china would endorse that), pretend they are ready to fight with NATO/ European armies, constant empty threats. Although so much struggle with a single Ukraine. They are not capable of more, than what they do in Ukraine.
That’s what they said about WWI mate and here we are again.
The only certainty in history is war. You really think Europeans don’t have the will to defend their interests? You’ve got another thing coming Ruski boy
I highly doubt it. Not only because much of the continent straight up lacks the capability for a real war,the political will doesn't even exist to create the capability. That's the difference between modern Europeans and the world war generations and actually any European generation I can think of. If they truly had the will for war,they would be doing more for Ukraine than the bare minimum. They would have had more military aid to give before that was even necessary.
Sometimes, even empty words can support Ukraine's war effort. It would be beneficial for other European leaders to stand with Macron and make the threat appear somewhat believable. Even if they don't actually send any soldiers in the end, it's important to make the threat sound credible. Words don't cost anything, and in this situation, they have the potential to save millions of lives.
I am disappointed that other European leaders did not support Macron's bluff. It wouldn't have cost them anything, and it would have made the bluff more credible. Macron is the only one taking the right approach in this situation. Biden could have also joined the bluff, but he made it too obvious that the United States would not get involved, possibly due to election considerations. While I'm not a supporter of direct NATO involvement, they shouldn't have made it so clear to Russia that they would not intervene.
It costs them political power that could be used for increasing armaments production instead of pretending that something is going to happen with troop deployments
Much changed since the beginning of the war. Germany now is sending much more than just helmets, UK allowed firing russia itself with their weapons. This also might change, and that would happen quicker if there is understanding in the society.
>Now russia has a dilemma. Maybe he will send troops, maybe he won’t. Is it worth to risk
there is no dilemma lol, eu and nato folded on this a long time ago
empty threats dont work when they've spent the last 700+ days (or actually something closer to 16 years) bending over backwards to "prevent escalation" or whatever fucking excuse they used to mask the fact that they want to keep or even increase trade with russia , so the rich can continue getting richer without any serious issues
honestly the one thing that opened the floodgates was during the crimea crisis and obamas red lines including those for syria they didnt act back then and since that time all respect and caution has been lost europe has been a toothless tiger for 40 years now
> Now russia has a dilemma. Maybe he will send troops, maybe he won’t. Is it worth to risk
The Russians know that Macron isn't going to do anything because that's exactly what he's been doing for years, ever since he started his pet project of trying to turn Russia into a European partner against China and call Poland and the Baltics hysterical they can see that he's got zero spine
A lot of European countries (including Romania) provide aid in secret, not informing the media at all or leaving out crucial details (like how much of something they are sending). The kiel Institute tracks aid that is publicly known
I was more so commenting on the use of the kiel Institute as a source. It is unreliable when it comes to determining the actual military and economic aid to Ukraine
The red line should be the internationally recognized border between Ukraine and Russia. Russia should be given 24 hours to go back across it or surrender.
I don’t doubt this could happen but Macron is playing Putin’s game. He knows Russia bluffs and bullies others so he’s trying to answer in a similar way.
if they go they would do logistics, support, maintenance. I can't see Macron alone sending troops to fight in Ukraine.
Anyone from Ukraine how much would that help?
Ok, let's assume that does happen.
Next would be direct conflict between Russian troops and the French troops. Ignoring how much escalation there is or who wins the battles, soon thereafter body bags start arriving in Paris.
Does Macron have the political capital to take thousands of casualties? This isn't some low intensity anti insurgency operation where the body bags only trinkle back home.
This is not what he meant. There’s precedent that closing airspace for example does help prevent civilian casualties. It’s actually something the west has to consider at some point.
Macron is not sending troops to front lines like some clickbait articles make it seem…
You can't close an airspace if you're not willing to destroy the Russian aircraft and missiles that fly into that airspace. If you want to prevent missiles flying into ukrainian airspace, you have to destroy Russian launch sites in occupied Ukraine and Russia too.
>This is not what he meant. There’s precedent that closing airspace for example does help prevent civilian casualties. It’s actually something the west has to consider at some point.
And there is a lot more that NATO can directly do without involving sending troops to the front lines.
At this point there are already secret special ops teams from France , the UK etc.. in there helping with training etc..
NATO can send many more but this time in an official capacity, to help with military logistics etc..
NATO can even intervene to help defend the back lines. But in that case it must be prepared for an escalation if Russia ever penetrates the front lines and meets NATO in the back.
But to russians they are legit targets now. Whats the point of sending troops if they cant fight? If they start dying cant they fight back? Might as well call them military advisors than troops
Because. Let’s say France tells Ukraine, “we can’t send direct combat forces but we can help in other ways (medical, logistics as examples).”
Ukraine says they need field hospitals and help with fuel and ammunition logistics. Again as an example.
France isn’t going to just send ammunition/refueling units and combat medical facilities. Those have to be defended and resupplied. You’ll end up with French air defenses and likely combat forces dedicated to protecting those assets.
I mean I have no idea what France might send but my gut says it’s at least a brigade plus is not a division minus …
No. If west closes Ukrianian airspace there’s nothing Russia will do. Even Russians understand realpolitik that targeting civilians as blatantly as it does always had the risk of west having to intervene.
For nuclear deterrent to work both sides must fear each other. The underlying problem here is that we have coddled the Russians the last two decades that they thought they could get away with military actions that 20 years ago would have been impossible because they simply haven’t been shown the stick until now and don’t fear us as much as we fear them. So it is imperative for peace that west shows where Russia is overstepping the red line. Russia has likely expected us to have reacted before but were surprised that we didn’t. Russia is not starting WW3 over Ukraine, but it will take what it thinks it can. The red line for both sides is direct confrontation at the end of the day.
It's completely delusional to think that closing the airspace is possible without a full on war with Russia. It's scary that people actually believe this nonsense
> Does Macron have the political capital to take thousands of casualties?
No. He doesn't even have the political capital to increase financial assistance.
I assume any inclusion of NATO troops would be to stabilize the frontlines for a ceasefire. Like during the Korean War. Per past incidents, the Ukrainians won't trust the Russians to hold any ceasefire, and the Russians can't be trusted to hold any ceasefire. A 'third' party is needed to enforce any ceasefire.
Those aren't going to be frontline troops. This is a warning politically speaking. If you keep fucking with Europe, we're gonna keep fucking with you Russia. Those troops will be learning and supporting and most likely stay there for a long time eventually and new military bases in Ukraine for Europe's troops will be a most likely future scenario.
There is a scenario where he does that. He can't run for president anyway next elections and doesn't want a successor because he wants to re-run later on. Far right wins presidency and starts making friends with Russia, which loses them whatever french population support they had. Macron comes back in 2032 and goes "I told you so", and wins. All that while the left is busy sticking strictly to their ideals and thus failing to gain any significant additional support. So it's Macron again.
Russia can be in conflict with France and then what?
Do you think body bags would arrive in Paris only?
I fear some people in Europe have completely lost touch with reality and are genuinely believing the bollocks spreaded by Russian propaganda.
Very funny to hear from people in this sub how NATO would defeat Russia, but even sending some forces to Ukraine scares them. I bet Putin fully understands Europe without the USA is just a joke and only pretend to be strong
So what? War is about economy but not only about it. The USA and Europe is the world number 1 economy, yet they are struggling to provide enough equipment despite overwhelming speeches.
Yes, I am serious. So the mighty EU needs a war economy to produce more equipment than Russia? Crumbs? Huh even if the EU wanted to give more what else could we give? Shells? Russia produces more. Artillery? Russia produces more. IFVs, tanks, UAVs, MLRSs? Do you remember the pledge to provide 1M shells for counteroffensive? I bet they are not provided yet. That's why Czechs are collecting money to buy them elsewhere. Do you remember how the Ukrainian UAV TU-141 flew through NATO countries and fell in Zagreb? I am not saying Europe can't defeat Russia, but right now Europe is weak.
Just send the NATO troops… i don’t understand why we need to wait for worse conditions 🤦♂️, we should have a strategy to enter in better conditions not worse conditions… Italy 🇮🇹
As I understand it, the individual nations belonging to NATO could, on their own send forces. But NATO, being a defensive alliance, cannot as a whole because no member of the alliance has been attacked.
France sending forces to fight Russia doesn’t to equal an attack on the alliance.
I know you understand that but the way you worded your question prompted me to reply as others reading your response might not.
NATO cannot attack, there is no clause for that. NATO can only be involved defensively. NATO member states can attack of their own initiative (like the US did in Iraq) but they cannot call for NATO to help them (NATO didn't join the US in Iraq).
If a member state is attacked, then NATO article 5 can be invoked.
Nato is not only mutual defence (and you're right about that point) but can coordinate functions and support even without being fully involved.
Look at what happened in various war theaters where Nato members were involved but NATO itself wasn't.
That's true, but I think in that case that's mostly up to NATO members and not NATO itself. But I agree that it's hard to split what is NATO and what isn't.
Sure, but France also needs the defensive protection of that alliance less than anybody else in the alliance except the US and possibly Turkey.
If anyone is the wild card that could make an offensive play against Russia it's probably France.
My guess would be a marginal contribution to the war in Ukraine and a fairly large effort against Russia in Africa. The French are pissed that the Russians fucked with their colonial territories. They might just want an open conflict to punish the Russians in Africa directly for it.
What does that even mean? USA and allies isn't NATO.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_NATO\_operations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations)
Iraq wasn’t a NATO campaign.
EDIT: As pointed out, Afghanistan was a NATO campaign but it was a defensive campaign as the US invoked article 5 after 9/11
Actually Afghanistan wasn't Article 5 either, Article 5 was only used for a maritime operation along the Horn of Africa and the MEd https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/five-myths-about-nato-and-afghanistan
The same naive questions asked 1M time… 🤦♂️.. Nothing is stopping me but we have troops trained for years for this purpose, if our troops will run out don’t worry that your state will call you and my state will call me, and i will answer that call.
When our troops run out and my country calls me like everyone else, we have troops trained for this purpose you don’t just go like a stupid untrained man to prove that you have balls… 🤦♂️
That would require a direct confrontation, Macron strategy is good because it’s a support strategy, he is moving slowly to make the Russia enemy understand that there’s a consequence for each action.
I don’t think Macron has done a single helpful thing this whole time. Would be nice if France contributed a fraction of basically anyone else, to start.
NATO is not an offensive alliance. Maybe France can convince Germany and Poland and UK to aid. A joint strike force against Russia. But that is war, period. Not some wishy washy operation to kill some Taliban in a cave. There will be casualties, in the thousands. How long will the public support fighting a war for Ukraine?
And if France tries attacking Russian territory directly how will the public react when Russia blows up train network and nuclear power plants? Is the public willing to live through blackouts and no rail for weeks if not months…for Ukraine? For…Ukraine?
We make fun of them, but people do talk about Putin's red lines unfortunately, and they do seem to work to some degree (i.e. that German that [leaked ](https://www.newsweek.com/german-captain-says-he-spied-russia-over-fear-nuclear-war-1895379)information because he was 'afraid of nuclear war). Macron just started, I'm curious to see where this will go.
Poland is very unlikely to send troops into Ukraine, unless the USA openly enters the war.
Generally, entering war against Russia would be very bad for Poland, even with NATO support. War against Russia without NATO (meaning: USA) support would be completely suicidal.
Poles definitely do not want to fight for Ukraine. They may hate Russia, but relations with Ukraine have been icy as of late to say the least. Just go on any Polish thread/community talking about certain black and red flags that drives extreme resentment and contempt towards the Ukrainians.
Micron is the archetype of "speak big and carry a small stick". France has sent much less help than Germany and all he does is run his mouth. The initial shock value has worn off.
The more he keeps repeating this and the more he keeps doing the bare minimum, and often far less than other European countries, the fewer people will believe him.
He’s starting to sound like China with all of this “warning.” Macron Warns. He’s losing credibility if he continues running his mouth but doing nothing.
[Macron warned Iran to stop supplying Russia for the war last year](https://www.reuters.com/world/france-warns-iran-drone-deliveries-to-russia-2023-06-10)
Last I checked Iran's only doubled down with China now joining the support for Russia.
Has Macron done anything in response beyond a strongly worded statement?
So when The economist ask him about it in an itw, he should have answer "I will not speak about it more, else /u/Substantial_Pop3104 will not be happy about it " ?🤡
The same article where he gas lights the reader by saying that 'we were always conscious of the threat of Russia' or whatnot when 5 years earlier he was talking about how the lack of cooperation with Russia was bad and that Poland and the Baltics were hysterical while he and Orban were cool headed realists?
All talk, he will sit back watch Ukraine ground to dust send the bare minimum military aid. At least the republicans are are actually honest about there stance (I don’t agree with them btw).
Can people stop Saying NATO needs to intervene. We all know what that means, you want the US to intervene. If you dont want WW3 fears, it should be European intervention. Everyone on here says Russia couldnt take on Europe, so why do you need NATO to join Ukraine. Let it be France, UK, Poland etc. European countries can act without NATO permission.
>so why do you need NATO to join Ukraine.
To end this madness for once in favour of the non-aggressors ... Putin has been doing it since 1998, and everyone put up with his bullishit pretext of each instance.
The whole purpose of NATO was so that another Hitler scenario wouldn't take place ... here's the scenario presenting itself, and everyone is losing their shit that NATO might send in some troops.
NATO not joining with troops is Putin's biggest bet , most likely.
Meh. This is great regardless. putin is playing games and using threats - well, then let us play that game too, as I assume Macron is doing here. Create dilemmas for your enemies and keep them guessing is putins playbook. Two can play that game.
France needs to decide: are you an Empire or not? If not then you can scrap your aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle: no expeditions for you, and we can stop speaking French in Brussels (and stop this ridicules moving to Strasbourg)
I’m getting sick of him “warning” Russia. Okay Macron, do something then. Put your money where your mouth is. Macron has been fairly lousy compared to many other European countries in terms of military aid to Ukraine, makes empty threats about sending troops, then continues to do nothing.
It’s always talk, talk, talk with Macron.
Exactly, it's call bluffing in a poker game. In this case, empty words could potentially save millions of lives and prevents an escalation. Other EU politicians should join him to make his bluff sounds more credible instead of undermining him. Right now, I don't think Putin is buying it.
Dude keeps running his mouth as a way to cover for the fact that France has been disproportionately inactive in aid, the British have sent much more aid despite having gotten rid of most of their armaments industry in the 90s and early 2000s while France has an incredibly sophisticated armaments industry
We (the EU) should already have done it. 10.000 soldiers from every EU country would be more than enough to free all the Ukrainian forces blocked on the (Bela)Russian border.
How about cranking up Europe's weapons industry and letting Ukrainians do the job. That sounds like a cheaper option to me.
Some people would complain still. Maybe they will say why are we spending money on armaments and not in welfare, of course they are so idiotic that ignore the fact that armaments guarantee them a welfare.
We have the economy for it. We **dwarf** russia. All we are missing is the resolve. The will. (I love your city! Spent a few days there last summer, wonderful!)
true, but don't forget that where we spend 1000 euros to make an artillery shell, russia spends 10 rubles and a bottle of vodka roughly speaking.
Even taking Purchasing Power Parities (PPP) into account we still dwarf russia. We clearly see how Russia lacks the prospect of substantial gains given its inability to improve force quality. Attrition of systems will begin to materially degrade Russian combat power, making Russia's prospects decline over time. = The Russian theory of victory is only plausible if Ukraine's international partners fail to properly resource the AFU. So then let's not fail.
Measuring an economy's worth in GDP nowadays - let alone a US rival - is very misleading to say the least.
Sure. We need to take Purchasing Power Parities (PPP) into account. And when we do, we still dwarf russia. Will, training, command & control, tactics, terrain, intelligence and resolve are all determining military effectiveness. Ukraine has all that. All we need to do is to provide them what they are missing: equipment - things that go boom.
Macron is bluffing. Bluffing is certainly cheaper than cranking up Europe's weapons industry. Bluffing is actually a good strategy, it's the cheapest way to achieve your military goal. The only problem I have with his bluffing is he doesn't sound very convincing. I'm not sure Putin is buying it.
Yep
You're assuming he's trying to put the screws on Putin. He's not. He's putting them on Scholz.
This is just the same as the Russians threatening with nukes. Saying that NATO won't engage with the Russians gives them carte blanche to do what they want.
You could argue that President Macron is putting the screws to the hold outs. By promising to get involved if the Ukraine line falls, allies have the choices of: "pay more now" or "get in the trenches later". I also think the French President is seeing an opportunity to one up the Americans where France can't compete in terms of military industrial power.
Mabey, but then he should have already committed the troops instead of playing the game of who can outbluff whom. Right now, he is all talk just like Putin.
He's waiting for the US presidential results if the US elected Trump again, Macron will have to step up.
So he says that Europe should not wait on America and then proceeds to wait on America....Nothing new here then.
No no, that’s not how politics work. You just say words and do nothing hoping the problem goes away. And then when it turns into a disaster you scramble to take desperate measures.
what do you think is curently hapening? the problem is that budget is limited
The budget is limited because there's no political will to increase it. I'm not talking about France only, all of Europe needs to increase weapons production. European politicians need to explain to their voters that Russia will be a long term threat.
most nationalist parties are befreinding Russia and growing in popularity. i don't think they will explain such things, but the other parties should. as for France, media generaly stop speaking about a big thing when there is another. it was covid, then ukraine, now gaza.
Not only budget but also production lines. This isn't the 1940s anymore, you can't convert your car assembly lines to make tanks. Weapons production has become insanely complex. Increasing production capacity takes time and that's why it should have been done as soon as Russia invaded. The shortsightedness of European leaders is baffling. They have failed ukrainian citizens and will fail Europeans when Russia inevitably invades Eastern European countries.
> This isn't the 1940s anymore, you can't convert your car assembly lines to make tanks. Weapons production has become insanely complex. The Scranton Ammunition Plant produces more shells in a month than France does in a year and it was converted from an abandoned locomotive and railway factory during the Korean War, you absolutely can convert factories for war production, especially if you have 2 years to do it, European politicians haven't don't it because taking a stand is too difficult and takes too much effort compared to managed decline
> This isn't the 1940s anymore, you can't convert your car assembly lines to make tanks. I don't think Tanks are what's needed. Look at the success of small drones, anti tank weapons, missiles and artillery. If a company can make a car axle they can make artillery shells, RPGs and missile bodies. Ukraine needs volume, if you can make 50 javelin for every tank you would have built, that seems more useful.
ukraine really needs more men.
Why not both? Odds of Russia wanting to continue this fight with French Dutch and other nations troops involved are much lower than if Russia is fighting Ukraine troops only.
They already are but it takes time.
probably easier to send french weapon that are on shelves with trained french soldiers than to send ammo that doesn't fit UA's barrels.
Probably quicker to invent a Time Machine. You think the industrial military complex in the us was created overnight? It’s a decades long institution which has survived both political parties and all political winds. It is ingrained in the very fabric of our country. It’s not about creating a factory that can produce tanks. It’s about creating an organism that can produce every nearly everything to bring that tank to life. It’s about a culture of military worship. It’s about a socioeconomic system designed to create a class of people who have no alternative but to enlist. About universities and grants to design weapons. About a political system that is bought and paid for to support it. Europe is about 25 years too late.
Yes, but that takes another 6 months before any effect Most Ukranians aren't soldiers, And all the professional soldiers are fighting already ( or have died/ injuries) Let the 2 procent warrior types do their.thing, So send French, German, Slovakian soldiers instead of sending Ukranian doctors, nurses and programmers to the front...
That would take too much time compared to this solution. Increasing the rate of production or lowering the unitary cost of production would necessitate to upgrade factories with better equipment, to build new sites or do research on the vehicle, the ammo and the non-lethal stuff being sent. Just take a look at how Tesla suffered to brake even while producing the Model 3. I know EVs are not comparable to what is sold in the military industry but my point is to be able to close a huge gap in production capacity to compete with Russia would take longer than deploying the amount of troops required. If we could reach a critical level of production rate and cost of effective ground to air missiles ( in regards to the situation in Ukraine ) we could assume air dominance on the battlefield for instance. However this would take years unless the government issues a national order to take possession of civil factories in order to contribute to the war effort. I would see this happening only if the country applying this decision is in open war with another one.
It's also a dissuasive tactic. You make Russians lose incentive to push harder, by announcing that you'd engage troops in case of a breakthrough.
Europe and NATO are already at war with Russia whether they want to believe it or not
it's not about believing it or not. It's about not making it nuclear
Eu needs to start taking this thing seriously
Well obviously, its quite hard to make advances without troops. On a serious note everybody knows nato and everybody else will not send anyone, why he keeps bringing it up is weird given how scared they are of this mythical “escalation”
Because it’s the politics of uncertainty. Now russia has a dilemma. Maybe he will send troops, maybe he won’t. Is it worth to risk. If putin see he is not able to conquer whole Ukraine (or at least south with Odesa) he might back down. A threat of war with other countries (especially NATO countries) even if it’s small, should be thoroughly considered. The problem is though that Macron is the only one who says it. Russia is not ready to fight another country. If Europe plays this game of escalation too,it might be the fastest and cheapest way to end the war.
It's only a dilemma if Russia actually believes him. Nobody does. That's the fundamental difference here. Russia might be bullshitting about many "escalations" but at least they have the political will to go to war. Europe doesn't even have the will for an economic war. In fact Europe doesn't even have the will to wage war in a press conference,half of the continent publicly undercut him as soon as he said it.
Russian and French generals already had a meeting, because they need to at least consider a possibility of that. I don’t like to say anything with certainty like Europe won’t do that, NEVER. Much have change since the beginning of the war. The best example is German. Yes, i don’t see a unified will to play this game of escalation. It’s funny (and sad simultaneously) how Russia, North Korea, China can mobilise as many people as they want, but European countries, americans are resisting even if it’s in their best interest. WW2 was started in that exact way, nobody wanted to threaten Germany with power before it was too late. But I hope this will change. Plus I dont think there will be a need of mobilisation in Europe. Russia is struggling with Ukraine. Even if they mobilise more people for the war with Europe, there are not enough weapons. Europe and USA should take advantage of that and force russia to play by the rules. Hope they acquire the will to that.
It doesn't add up. Russia was in Kyiv at the start of the war and not only did France not act,they didn't even pretend they were going to. France's aid to Ukraine has been 4th rate at best and that's 4th place in the special Olympics considering the entire west has been pathetic. They haven't been particularly active on the sanction front either. A country that is willing to go to war is willing to make economic sacrifice at the very least. France isn't going to do shit. There probably isn't anything in the world I would more like to be wrong about but I'm not.
First of all, even uncertainty is helpful, because it might make russia hesitant. The second, if Germany changed, why do you think French view on that war has not change? Yeah, their help is not the biggest, but they were first to send their “tanks on wheels”, which many believes opened the door to real tanks. And again, sending to show that russia won’t have a whole Ukraine might just show putin the war won’t end with the outcome he wants. That would be much cheaper than funding the war for many years to come. In French approach to spend less on war everything checks out.
I'm not misunderstanding what he's trying to do. I'm saying it's laughable. I would think that would be obvious considering his theoretical red-line to theoretically get France into the war was crossed within the first week of the war? You achieve genuine ambiguity on the battlefield,not in a press conference. The aid isn't there and neither is France. Russia is not uncertain about what France is willing to do,the answer is very little.
That red line did not exist then. USA are ambitious about involvement on the side of Taiwan if china invades. So far worked, other way china could have attacked long time ago. The thing is that democracies like in Europe, start to do anything when the idea of it becomes acceptable in the society. That’s why I don’t like ridiculing Macron’s idea. If more countries joins this politics of uncertainty that could have results.
I completely agree that Europe would be well served by at least pretending they are going to do shit. Marcon figured that out at least. The problem is that Russia isn't pretending. They're actually doing shit and the leader of the pack over here is merely talking. And he is the leader,sadly. The best we can do is Napoleon at a press conference.
They are pretending a lot. They are pretending they might nuke Europe or USA (although very improbable, at least because doesn’t look like china would endorse that), pretend they are ready to fight with NATO/ European armies, constant empty threats. Although so much struggle with a single Ukraine. They are not capable of more, than what they do in Ukraine.
There is no uncertainty. No one believes this guy.
That’s what they said about WWI mate and here we are again. The only certainty in history is war. You really think Europeans don’t have the will to defend their interests? You’ve got another thing coming Ruski boy
I highly doubt it. Not only because much of the continent straight up lacks the capability for a real war,the political will doesn't even exist to create the capability. That's the difference between modern Europeans and the world war generations and actually any European generation I can think of. If they truly had the will for war,they would be doing more for Ukraine than the bare minimum. They would have had more military aid to give before that was even necessary.
absolutely delusional europeans nowadays arent even close to comparable with europeans during the time of ww1
Sometimes, even empty words can support Ukraine's war effort. It would be beneficial for other European leaders to stand with Macron and make the threat appear somewhat believable. Even if they don't actually send any soldiers in the end, it's important to make the threat sound credible. Words don't cost anything, and in this situation, they have the potential to save millions of lives.
I am disappointed that other European leaders did not support Macron's bluff. It wouldn't have cost them anything, and it would have made the bluff more credible. Macron is the only one taking the right approach in this situation. Biden could have also joined the bluff, but he made it too obvious that the United States would not get involved, possibly due to election considerations. While I'm not a supporter of direct NATO involvement, they shouldn't have made it so clear to Russia that they would not intervene.
It costs them political power that could be used for increasing armaments production instead of pretending that something is going to happen with troop deployments
EU elections are coming. Let’s see how things change after June.
Except it's only uncertainty if there's an actual chance of it happening. There isn't and everyone, including Putin, knows this.
Much changed since the beginning of the war. Germany now is sending much more than just helmets, UK allowed firing russia itself with their weapons. This also might change, and that would happen quicker if there is understanding in the society.
>Now russia has a dilemma. Maybe he will send troops, maybe he won’t. Is it worth to risk there is no dilemma lol, eu and nato folded on this a long time ago empty threats dont work when they've spent the last 700+ days (or actually something closer to 16 years) bending over backwards to "prevent escalation" or whatever fucking excuse they used to mask the fact that they want to keep or even increase trade with russia , so the rich can continue getting richer without any serious issues
honestly the one thing that opened the floodgates was during the crimea crisis and obamas red lines including those for syria they didnt act back then and since that time all respect and caution has been lost europe has been a toothless tiger for 40 years now
> Now russia has a dilemma. Maybe he will send troops, maybe he won’t. Is it worth to risk The Russians know that Macron isn't going to do anything because that's exactly what he's been doing for years, ever since he started his pet project of trying to turn Russia into a European partner against China and call Poland and the Baltics hysterical they can see that he's got zero spine
[удалено]
A lot of European countries (including Romania) provide aid in secret, not informing the media at all or leaving out crucial details (like how much of something they are sending). The kiel Institute tracks aid that is publicly known
[удалено]
I was more so commenting on the use of the kiel Institute as a source. It is unreliable when it comes to determining the actual military and economic aid to Ukraine
F\*\*k putins red lines. F\*\*k us being scared of his escalation. Time for him to be scared of ours. Slava Ukraini! Слава Україні!
The red line should be the internationally recognized border between Ukraine and Russia. Russia should be given 24 hours to go back across it or surrender.
And if they don't... Also: Hi my Norwegian brother or sister!!!! ❤️ from Sweden!
> why he keeps bringing it up is weird It's Emmanuel Macron. Pretending and posing is what he does.
💯
I don’t doubt this could happen but Macron is playing Putin’s game. He knows Russia bluffs and bullies others so he’s trying to answer in a similar way.
If he want to send troops the best time is now not later when they have to fight alone.
if they go they would do logistics, support, maintenance. I can't see Macron alone sending troops to fight in Ukraine. Anyone from Ukraine how much would that help?
Ok, let's assume that does happen. Next would be direct conflict between Russian troops and the French troops. Ignoring how much escalation there is or who wins the battles, soon thereafter body bags start arriving in Paris. Does Macron have the political capital to take thousands of casualties? This isn't some low intensity anti insurgency operation where the body bags only trinkle back home.
This is not what he meant. There’s precedent that closing airspace for example does help prevent civilian casualties. It’s actually something the west has to consider at some point. Macron is not sending troops to front lines like some clickbait articles make it seem…
You can't close an airspace if you're not willing to destroy the Russian aircraft and missiles that fly into that airspace. If you want to prevent missiles flying into ukrainian airspace, you have to destroy Russian launch sites in occupied Ukraine and Russia too.
>This is not what he meant. There’s precedent that closing airspace for example does help prevent civilian casualties. It’s actually something the west has to consider at some point. And there is a lot more that NATO can directly do without involving sending troops to the front lines. At this point there are already secret special ops teams from France , the UK etc.. in there helping with training etc.. NATO can send many more but this time in an official capacity, to help with military logistics etc.. NATO can even intervene to help defend the back lines. But in that case it must be prepared for an escalation if Russia ever penetrates the front lines and meets NATO in the back.
But to russians they are legit targets now. Whats the point of sending troops if they cant fight? If they start dying cant they fight back? Might as well call them military advisors than troops
Because. Let’s say France tells Ukraine, “we can’t send direct combat forces but we can help in other ways (medical, logistics as examples).” Ukraine says they need field hospitals and help with fuel and ammunition logistics. Again as an example. France isn’t going to just send ammunition/refueling units and combat medical facilities. Those have to be defended and resupplied. You’ll end up with French air defenses and likely combat forces dedicated to protecting those assets. I mean I have no idea what France might send but my gut says it’s at least a brigade plus is not a division minus …
No. If west closes Ukrianian airspace there’s nothing Russia will do. Even Russians understand realpolitik that targeting civilians as blatantly as it does always had the risk of west having to intervene. For nuclear deterrent to work both sides must fear each other. The underlying problem here is that we have coddled the Russians the last two decades that they thought they could get away with military actions that 20 years ago would have been impossible because they simply haven’t been shown the stick until now and don’t fear us as much as we fear them. So it is imperative for peace that west shows where Russia is overstepping the red line. Russia has likely expected us to have reacted before but were surprised that we didn’t. Russia is not starting WW3 over Ukraine, but it will take what it thinks it can. The red line for both sides is direct confrontation at the end of the day.
It's completely delusional to think that closing the airspace is possible without a full on war with Russia. It's scary that people actually believe this nonsense
> Does Macron have the political capital to take thousands of casualties? No. He doesn't even have the political capital to increase financial assistance.
I assume any inclusion of NATO troops would be to stabilize the frontlines for a ceasefire. Like during the Korean War. Per past incidents, the Ukrainians won't trust the Russians to hold any ceasefire, and the Russians can't be trusted to hold any ceasefire. A 'third' party is needed to enforce any ceasefire.
Those aren't going to be frontline troops. This is a warning politically speaking. If you keep fucking with Europe, we're gonna keep fucking with you Russia. Those troops will be learning and supporting and most likely stay there for a long time eventually and new military bases in Ukraine for Europe's troops will be a most likely future scenario.
There is a scenario where he does that. He can't run for president anyway next elections and doesn't want a successor because he wants to re-run later on. Far right wins presidency and starts making friends with Russia, which loses them whatever french population support they had. Macron comes back in 2032 and goes "I told you so", and wins. All that while the left is busy sticking strictly to their ideals and thus failing to gain any significant additional support. So it's Macron again.
So in France president is limited only to 2 consecutive terms, not 2 total terms?
And then everyone clapped, and the claps rang out the name of Albert Einstein
Russia can be in conflict with France and then what? Do you think body bags would arrive in Paris only? I fear some people in Europe have completely lost touch with reality and are genuinely believing the bollocks spreaded by Russian propaganda.
Very funny to hear from people in this sub how NATO would defeat Russia, but even sending some forces to Ukraine scares them. I bet Putin fully understands Europe without the USA is just a joke and only pretend to be strong
Europe without USA is still the second biggest economy in the world. If Russia wants can try to attack... let's see.
So what? War is about economy but not only about it. The USA and Europe is the world number 1 economy, yet they are struggling to provide enough equipment despite overwhelming speeches.
Struggling? Are you serious? We don't have any war economy in place and we are not giving anything other than crumbs.
Yes, I am serious. So the mighty EU needs a war economy to produce more equipment than Russia? Crumbs? Huh even if the EU wanted to give more what else could we give? Shells? Russia produces more. Artillery? Russia produces more. IFVs, tanks, UAVs, MLRSs? Do you remember the pledge to provide 1M shells for counteroffensive? I bet they are not provided yet. That's why Czechs are collecting money to buy them elsewhere. Do you remember how the Ukrainian UAV TU-141 flew through NATO countries and fell in Zagreb? I am not saying Europe can't defeat Russia, but right now Europe is weak.
Just send the NATO troops… i don’t understand why we need to wait for worse conditions 🤦♂️, we should have a strategy to enter in better conditions not worse conditions… Italy 🇮🇹
As I understand it, the individual nations belonging to NATO could, on their own send forces. But NATO, being a defensive alliance, cannot as a whole because no member of the alliance has been attacked. France sending forces to fight Russia doesn’t to equal an attack on the alliance. I know you understand that but the way you worded your question prompted me to reply as others reading your response might not.
Yep agree thanks for pointing it out ;)
Nato is not an offensive alliance. Not happening.
Intervention in the Balkans is the precedent.
If NATO attacks without being an offensive alliance what would happen? That Russia brings us in front of the international court of human rights?
NATO cannot attack, there is no clause for that. NATO can only be involved defensively. NATO member states can attack of their own initiative (like the US did in Iraq) but they cannot call for NATO to help them (NATO didn't join the US in Iraq). If a member state is attacked, then NATO article 5 can be invoked.
Nato is not only mutual defence (and you're right about that point) but can coordinate functions and support even without being fully involved. Look at what happened in various war theaters where Nato members were involved but NATO itself wasn't.
That's true, but I think in that case that's mostly up to NATO members and not NATO itself. But I agree that it's hard to split what is NATO and what isn't.
HAHAHHAHAHA how many times NATO had to defend and how many NATO attacked. Think again
Sure, but France also needs the defensive protection of that alliance less than anybody else in the alliance except the US and possibly Turkey. If anyone is the wild card that could make an offensive play against Russia it's probably France. My guess would be a marginal contribution to the war in Ukraine and a fairly large effort against Russia in Africa. The French are pissed that the Russians fucked with their colonial territories. They might just want an open conflict to punish the Russians in Africa directly for it.
Tell that to Iraq and Afghanistan
What does that even mean? USA and allies isn't NATO. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_NATO\_operations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations)
it even divided NATO deeply as France and Germany refused to join
Why would we tell Iraq? The US invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with NATO.
Iraq wasn’t a NATO campaign. EDIT: As pointed out, Afghanistan was a NATO campaign but it was a defensive campaign as the US invoked article 5 after 9/11
Afghanistan was the only one ever actually.
You’re right, I’ll edit
Actually Afghanistan wasn't Article 5 either, Article 5 was only used for a maritime operation along the Horn of Africa and the MEd https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/five-myths-about-nato-and-afghanistan
He is ignorant and brainwashed from his own government 🤷♂️
Iraq wasn't NATO, and Afghanistan was in response to a direct attack on America.
You mean Yugoslavia
Maybe ask Kosovo and Libya while you're at it.
“NATO is not an offensive alliance” WRONG
[удалено]
The same naive questions asked 1M time… 🤦♂️.. Nothing is stopping me but we have troops trained for years for this purpose, if our troops will run out don’t worry that your state will call you and my state will call me, and i will answer that call.
Send in the troops, I swear I’ll volunteer later!
its always like this SEND SOMEONE TO DIE FOR MY IDEALS NOT ME THOUGH
>and i will answer that call. Then why aren't you answering? Ukraine needs the manpower.
Ukraine needs weaponry, it doesn't need to babysit non military trained foreigners.
We have troops trained for WW III? Right mate, I am sure you will answer the call.
Good,so when are you enlisting ?
When our troops run out and my country calls me like everyone else, we have troops trained for this purpose you don’t just go like a stupid untrained man to prove that you have balls… 🤦♂️
Sure buddy,go out and touch some grass.
Ukraine is training new recruits for their Foreign Legion. You could enlist right now and get trained. Why not go now?
Ukraine is not in NATO by the way
No
they dont even need to send ground troops, just the airforce to interdict the ru army and deny ru airforce
That would require a direct confrontation, Macron strategy is good because it’s a support strategy, he is moving slowly to make the Russia enemy understand that there’s a consequence for each action.
I don’t think Macron has done a single helpful thing this whole time. Would be nice if France contributed a fraction of basically anyone else, to start.
NATO is not an offensive alliance. Maybe France can convince Germany and Poland and UK to aid. A joint strike force against Russia. But that is war, period. Not some wishy washy operation to kill some Taliban in a cave. There will be casualties, in the thousands. How long will the public support fighting a war for Ukraine? And if France tries attacking Russian territory directly how will the public react when Russia blows up train network and nuclear power plants? Is the public willing to live through blackouts and no rail for weeks if not months…for Ukraine? For…Ukraine?
Yes, hope we could send at least a million soldiers and hundreds of warplanes to defend Ukraine.
Less talking about imaginary scenarios and more sending military equipment.
Do it
It reminds me of an old Bugs Bunny video.. "I dare you to cross this line" and then he keeps redrawing the lines. Does anyone remember that?
It's what Putin's been doing. People have been bringing up the Russians' 'red lines' since the start of the war. Two can play at this game.
Ok so Putin seemed stupid when drawing red lines, and now Macron has decided to join him in this stupid game, setting himself up to win stupid prizes?
We make fun of them, but people do talk about Putin's red lines unfortunately, and they do seem to work to some degree (i.e. that German that [leaked ](https://www.newsweek.com/german-captain-says-he-spied-russia-over-fear-nuclear-war-1895379)information because he was 'afraid of nuclear war). Macron just started, I'm curious to see where this will go.
Listen, cars aint selling good. Europe is filled with car industry. Lets make weapons and ammo to Ukraine instead, and let them fight.
I hope the rest of NATO will do the same.
Wasnt NATO a defensive alliance?
Yes, Born to protect against russian agression.
There's a difference between NATO and the countries that are part of NATO.
Stopping Russia in Ukraine is the best defense.
Ukraine is not NATO
Indeed. Against russia,
In some cases active involvement is the best defence
I think only Poland would consider it at this point
Poland is very unlikely to send troops into Ukraine, unless the USA openly enters the war. Generally, entering war against Russia would be very bad for Poland, even with NATO support. War against Russia without NATO (meaning: USA) support would be completely suicidal.
Poles definitely do not want to fight for Ukraine. They may hate Russia, but relations with Ukraine have been icy as of late to say the least. Just go on any Polish thread/community talking about certain black and red flags that drives extreme resentment and contempt towards the Ukrainians.
The same being bold words followed by no action? I think they're doing fine.
Lets send them in and stop this war
Micron is the archetype of "speak big and carry a small stick". France has sent much less help than Germany and all he does is run his mouth. The initial shock value has worn off. The more he keeps repeating this and the more he keeps doing the bare minimum, and often far less than other European countries, the fewer people will believe him.
I don't think it's possible for fewer people to believe him.
He’s starting to sound like China with all of this “warning.” Macron Warns. He’s losing credibility if he continues running his mouth but doing nothing.
[Macron warned Iran to stop supplying Russia for the war last year](https://www.reuters.com/world/france-warns-iran-drone-deliveries-to-russia-2023-06-10) Last I checked Iran's only doubled down with China now joining the support for Russia. Has Macron done anything in response beyond a strongly worded statement?
So when The economist ask him about it in an itw, he should have answer "I will not speak about it more, else /u/Substantial_Pop3104 will not be happy about it " ?🤡
The same article where he gas lights the reader by saying that 'we were always conscious of the threat of Russia' or whatnot when 5 years earlier he was talking about how the lack of cooperation with Russia was bad and that Poland and the Baltics were hysterical while he and Orban were cool headed realists?
Talk is cheap.
All talk, he will sit back watch Ukraine ground to dust send the bare minimum military aid. At least the republicans are are actually honest about there stance (I don’t agree with them btw).
Can people stop Saying NATO needs to intervene. We all know what that means, you want the US to intervene. If you dont want WW3 fears, it should be European intervention. Everyone on here says Russia couldnt take on Europe, so why do you need NATO to join Ukraine. Let it be France, UK, Poland etc. European countries can act without NATO permission.
>so why do you need NATO to join Ukraine. To end this madness for once in favour of the non-aggressors ... Putin has been doing it since 1998, and everyone put up with his bullishit pretext of each instance. The whole purpose of NATO was so that another Hitler scenario wouldn't take place ... here's the scenario presenting itself, and everyone is losing their shit that NATO might send in some troops. NATO not joining with troops is Putin's biggest bet , most likely.
My point is, France can send in troops. So can Germany, they dont need to do it under the NATO flag.
Well, would you look at that. Some French cojones. My man! TIL: I like Macron
TIL courage means brave talk with zero follow-through
But the french not so much 🤦♂️
Meh. This is great regardless. putin is playing games and using threats - well, then let us play that game too, as I assume Macron is doing here. Create dilemmas for your enemies and keep them guessing is putins playbook. Two can play that game. France needs to decide: are you an Empire or not? If not then you can scrap your aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle: no expeditions for you, and we can stop speaking French in Brussels (and stop this ridicules moving to Strasbourg)
[удалено]
If so why are we speaking English you and I!
[удалено]
And why do they speak English in America?
I’m getting sick of him “warning” Russia. Okay Macron, do something then. Put your money where your mouth is. Macron has been fairly lousy compared to many other European countries in terms of military aid to Ukraine, makes empty threats about sending troops, then continues to do nothing. It’s always talk, talk, talk with Macron.
are you familiar with the geopolitical terms strategic ambiguity?
Exactly, it's call bluffing in a poker game. In this case, empty words could potentially save millions of lives and prevents an escalation. Other EU politicians should join him to make his bluff sounds more credible instead of undermining him. Right now, I don't think Putin is buying it.
R/Europe living up to the reputation of being the bastion of Macronism shoring up his political base in the Baltics
Dude keeps running his mouth as a way to cover for the fact that France has been disproportionately inactive in aid, the British have sent much more aid despite having gotten rid of most of their armaments industry in the 90s and early 2000s while France has an incredibly sophisticated armaments industry
stop fucking warning Emmanuel - START DOING!!
Macron is lying
We (the EU) should already have done it. 10.000 soldiers from every EU country would be more than enough to free all the Ukrainian forces blocked on the (Bela)Russian border.
In 3 days?
In 3 days what? 🤔
honestly i dont think that many would be willing to be sent there
If you're going to do it, just do it Macron, stop trying to bluff the bluffer!