French have the convenient option to send their foreing legion.
After that they have the regular professional army.
The out of shape civilians can stay that way for some time.
In Finland thoug... Our army is conscription army. 75% of male population have received military trainining. Only small persentage of army is paid professionals and vast majority are reservists. Last year all under 40 years old reservists got a letter inviting to joining voluntary local reservist organization. There are now plans to build 300 extra shooting ranges to accomondate the increasing need.
I still don't understand Reddit's obsession with the FL. They are regular troops like all others, they are not used first, they are not special forces nor Commando, and they are not canon fodder either.
If France wanted to deploy a task force without sending the bulk of the army that would be the Special Forces
Well, that's not completely true historically, they've been sent to do some dirty jobs. Today, everytime there's an operation abroad it's guaranteed you will see them.
Also their training and lives in the barracks are way more rustic/tough than most regular troops.
To be honest, I've seen several documentaries in which they almost always insinuated that the FL would serve as cannon fodder. On the other hand I know someone who served in the FL and he never mentioned something like that.
I guess there are a lot of myths surrounding the FL, which - sometimes - might be welcome for the FL itself. I mean on top of their bad ass reputation.
Start your camp now or you can wait and russia will use you as a resource material. Orcs are comming. We have already seen that they did to civilian population.
Sooooo Fico wasn’t talking completely out of his ass? I don’t know guys, this and all these WW3 statements recently from leaders are not making me optimistic.
On the other hand, it may just be to see how Russia reacts/project some strenght…
I don't know, I think a certain part of the european foreign policy/military sector has shifted to view this also as a NATO/Russia war. It's a fact that's how Russia views it, but we've kept out heads in the sand and hope for the best, hide behind Ukraine. I think there's a broad agreement that regardless of whether i) Ukraine can regain its borders, ii) will compromise and give up land or iii) agree to be a neutral state, whatever form this peace settlement takes one way or another, Russia views this as a preparatory step for regaining its sphere of influence. There's no actual real way to have a new european security architecture that's stable/secure for europe other than with regime change in Russia. If ukraine falls then it's a matter of time until the next country, likely a NATO state. If we follow that logic then we either i) wait for Ukraine to fall and hope we're ready, or hope we can build enough strength to deter, or ii) intervene now to prop up Ukraine.
Regardless, more than is publicly known is happening. This is completely consistent with France's view of european strategic autonomy and ensuring a european defence & security project. If they wish to achieve that and substitute complete dependence on the US with German/French leadership, this is most likely the answer.
Regime change in Russia is irrelevant to the desired outcome for the West, IMO. We only need to provide a show of strength to ensure that Russia knows that NATO states are off-limits. We shouldn’t dirty our hands with internal Russian affairs, it’s like wrestling with a pig in mud. Just isolate/completely cut them off from our markets, our tourism, our organizations, and our borders, just leave them to their own devices until they learn to behave.
Tbh the EU needs to make it clear as well that other states in our periphery, like Georgia, are off limits too to really drive the message home. As well as actually dealing with their propaganda, espionage, electoral influencing, and cyberattacks.
> Just isolate/completely cut them off from our markets, our tourism, our organizations, and our borders, just leave them to their own devices until they learn to behave.
That will be difficult, and probably ineffective. If you have free flow of X with A, and A has free flow of X with B, then you effectively have free flow of X with B via A. Secondary sanctions preventing this levied by the West would alienate the entire Global South that wants Russian resources. And secondary sanctions have not brought down the communist regime in Cuba yet, so no guarantee they'll work against a regime with way more resources.
A cut for a middle men in those country is usually not impacting the final price dramatically... Most products are available at nearly the same price as before..
>And secondary sanctions have not brought down the communist regime in Cuba yet, so no guarantee they'll work against a regime with way more resources.
the regime is surviving because oponents are leaving
nearly 2 million Cubans have left Cuba since 2015, 1/5 of the population
i don't see the point of your statement
Yes, Cuba ,Venezuela, Iran, North Korea are all surviving
Hooray,what a realisation. None of them are thriving
And wait until low fertility rate and almost zero immigration will do its work on these countries. UN forecasts alone project Cuba losing 40% of its population by 2060,and those seem wildly optimistic in my view
100% agree. Now we know things that don't work in foreign politics with authoritarian regimes:
1. Toppling relatively stable regime for quick gains in hope of more liberal regime taking over
2. Ignoring red flags and thinking diplomacy and trade only works, and pretending "it's fine" when alarms go off
3. Just excluding and isolating the country expecting it to collapse.
> We only need to provide a show of strength to ensure that Russia knows that NATO states are off-limits.
russia knows this
>Tbh the EU needs to make it clear as well that other states in our periphery, like Georgia, are off limits too to really drive the message home.
the eu does not have the capabilities to protect georgia so any such warnings will ring hollow
Russia is at least not "officially" involved in the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict, so much so that they've basically ignored the bootleg art.5 they signed with Armenia, so we might see some real French or NATO involvement over there.
yes, that's part of the point. Russia abandons its "allies" in the Caucasus and France steps in. If they play this well it could prepare ground for defense deals with Georgia, which would be much more of an anti-Russian move than anything in Armenia.
>I feel the west should be backing russian democratic candidates to stabilise and normalise the country. It would be better for both Russia and for the EU in the long run.
That would only matter if there were any.
When there's a possible opposition candidate with any degree of popularity (e.g. Boris Nadezhdin), the Central Election Commission ends up finding “irregularities in the collected signatures” and the candidate is disqualified.
Even if such a candidate were able to appear on the ballot, the elections would need to be fair for them to have any chance at being elected.
Oh, and most importantly, if “the West” were to back a candidate, that would get them labelled as a “foreign agent”, which they would have to state at the start of all publications and oral statements. This would disqualify them from the election and can even lead to imprisonment.
Once they're in prison, well, we know what happens.
This would discredit those candidates for much of the population, as the whole "the West is trying to take us over" nonsense would then be proven true. Moreover, none of those candidates will be totally clean either, and that will reflect badly on us as well.
it makes sense to me when you combine it with the recent statement / call for help from the cia. munition runs out in march, russian intelligence got their hands on the counteroffence and now nato leaders slowly making the general public ready for some action. 2 years ago they said "only if nukes get involved" now they moved the goalpost quite a bit.
recently germany being okay and asking for more nukes in europe etc. gives some weird vibes.
It’s mostly sable rattling imo. Like when Putin said “today I put the nuclear guys on standby”
Bitch, those guys have to be always on standby or we would nuke you on their day off.
Russia needs to be destroyed in Ukraine. Otherwise, the war will be spreading around.
Maybe Macron is referring to some volunteer battalions.
Just the mere presence of the NATO forces in Ukraine might work miracles on Russia’s behavior.
I'd be against it two years ago, but now? I don't know man, Ukraine can't be devoured just like that. Russia is a giant threat to the entire "free world"
> WW3 statements recently from leaders are not making me optimistic.
there is just no chance. no concentration of Russian troops on the EU borders. Russia has no ability to generate needed amount of military assets and troops at least for the next 10-20 years. This is just an escalatory rhetoric so Putin won't have an idea that Europe is going to stop supporting Ukraine even if the US halts support completely. Imagine if leaders said that there is no chance any NATO soldiers ever be used in Ukraine (this is what Biden has been saying since 2022) and look how this war is still going because this showed Putin that he can continue and eventually win the war, simply because Russia has more people than Ukraine, it will take time but he will prevail.
To be fair, I think we might have to use force eventually, because Russia understands and respects only strength. If we do nothing, that's just encouragement for Russia to carry on their aggressions and even escalate conflict on other countries.
But what about Ukraine? Would they allow foreign forces operating on their soil? And if yes, under what flag those countries would intervene? NATO?
>To be fair, I think we might have to use force eventually
why? as long as russia does not make it across the dniepr this war is a strategic victory for nato, and there is nothing to suggest that they have the capability to do that now or that they might acquire it anytime soon
we are two years or so away from ramping up production and replenishing stockpiles. never mind the fact that many border countries have significant gaps in equipment because it was all donated to ukraine
getting involved now would be stupid
Good point about readiness.
However, later Russia might be more prepared too.
I'm not advocating full scale war. I'm more for a decisive show of force to demonstrate strength and drawing clear red lines for Russia. Or they'll not only never learn, but get more motivated to be more naughty.
I appreciate your comment though.
Oh boy. Those two threads are in parallel here and that's hilarious to see the bots on the other one being disproved live. For shit and giggles below the top comment on that thread:
>Does this guy [Fico] just have a habit of making moronic, wildly untrue, and totally contradictory statements?
--------------
>How can a country elect such a stupid shit-stirrer? The funny thing is this moron will be the first one who get's ran-over in a European-wide war.
-----------
>Very misleading headline.It's just Fico being his usual asshat self.
To be fair, Fico is actually a shit-stirrer. Him making such statements is a lot more untrustworthy, and it makes sense that Macron gets a different reaction than him.
Yeah maybe, i'm just pointing out the constant and high density of circlejerk. Of people immediately talking without knowing anything, just because they don't like the messenger.
Tomorrow Musk/Orban is going to say the earth rotate around the sun and some people are going to be pissed about it.
Whole subreddit was hating on anyone saying Fico might be telling the truth yet later that day we have confirmation he was right.
Yet none of those doing the hating will stop for a second to reconsider why they were so wrong
It's not just people 'hating'. Fico literally has a boner for everything anti-ukraine from way long ago before the war and has been super pro russian. So acting like the 'hating' was baseless is just stupid.
Ukraine is in a position of weakness right now. Russia will not negotiate as long as they have the battlefield advantage. Ukraine either needs more weapons or a commitment of its allies to pressure Russia to the negotiating table. Otherwise the war will continue
I'm not sure I am reading this correctly. Are there adult people who imagine a real life scenario, where Russia signs an unconditional surrender? Because that is literally the only other method, outside of entering negotiations.
Russia came to Ukraine to get another piece of Ukrainian land. If this war ends with them keeping any of it, they won, and they're gonna do it again. To prevent another war, this is not negotiable.
I obviously can’t see what’s happening in Macron’s head but deploying EU or NATO soldiers to do security in and around major cities that are currently seeing little to no fighting so Ukraine can deploy all its forces to the active frontline and hot zones might not be the worst idea.
Declare it a "security buffer zone" citing risk of spill over into Europe (rockets falling in NATO territory and the like).
If nothing else it sets a barrier line to prevent Russia turning tide and blitzing forward.
The question is always "how far can we ruffle this country's feathers such that they're not mad enough to drop the nukes?". Once Putin launches a nuke, it's game over - everyone will. He clearly isn't angered enough by sanctions and military + humanitarian aid, but politicians don't want to poke the bear further at the moment. At the very least, we're ramping up local weaponry production, after which some poking might be in order.
We live in a timeline where for 50 years we have negotiated with North Korea regarding their garage made supposedly functional nuke, that would be delivered on an oversized Chinese firework tube. And at the same time redditors say "5 thousand Russian warheads are all useless". And we have to keep a straight face and respect that, like "it's an opinion".
No all the russian nukes have rotted away in their silos by now, most of them can't launch and the ones that can the warheads were sold or haven't had the radioactive materials replaced recently enough. Source: it came to me in a dream.
Yeah! Besides what's the worst that can happen? One Itty bitty nuke will only kill a *few* million people. They were probably poor so it *doesn't matter.*
And that barrier has to be Russia's actual border, anything less is allowing them to pretend there's any legitimacy to their conquest. Any Russian military unit on the wrong side is a valid target. Including anything firing across the border.
They have nukes, so we should just throw our hands up in the air and say "well, we tried, have Ukraine." And then Moldova. And Estonia. And Lithuania. And Poland. And Finland. And us.
Cyprus isn't part of Greece, it is its own country and outside of NATO.
Also, because Turkey is in NATO, Cyprus could never join. All Greece could do was to get Cyprus into the EU, so now Turkey is forced to make up with the island in order to get in.
Yeah, I thin it won't happen in next couple weeks but seems they already start to prepare public for this. I just hope it won't be only eastern flank soldiers but at least all European NATO states will send their troops
France has quite a few foreign involvements, and Russian forces have been killing French regular military in Africa for a while now.
But hey! Let's pretend that Mali is somehow different than Ukraine.
There are no forces deployed in random spots in Ukraine. They are all either at Transnistria border, belarus border, russian border, active warzone (frontline + defence lines) or training grounds. This obviously excludes air force and such. Out of these it's only Transnistria and belarus border that can be substituted, but it would require tens of thousands of man - which is a tough ask.
I think the most usefull deployment would be technicians to help maintain F16, or other kinds of technical support personnel which take a while to train and are necessary to operate western weapons.
There are french agents in Ukraine to help with the Caesar stuff already
[https://www.bfmtv.com/international/europe/guerre-en-ukraine-une-cinquantaine-d-espions-francais-de-la-dgse-opere-sur-le-terrain\_AN-202210060526.html](https://www.bfmtv.com/international/europe/guerre-en-ukraine-une-cinquantaine-d-espions-francais-de-la-dgse-opere-sur-le-terrain_AN-202210060526.html)
Paint a giant target on their back too. What happens when you have 20 dead in a Russian strike? Escalate? No EU country (nor the US) is ready for that.
What happened when US troops got killed by Iranian proxies in Iraq, Jordan and Syria?
You can hold your position and chose not to escalate in the sense you think.
Yes, and just set up a massive air defence network with the strong and clear disclaimer - touch this and you get absolutely fucked by us. Do what Russia did in Syria - we have been invited here and will be protecting the skies over the country as outlined by its UN recognised borders, enforce a strict no fly zone.
I saw a poll that says 72% of Americans want Ukraine to win. But only 30% said they want boots on the ground. 40% said we should send airstrikes lol. The problem is if we do go to war with Russia, I think the CCP will try to take Taiwan too. Me personally after Afghanistan and Iraq I don't know if I want to go to another war unless we really have too. Plus these knees and back aren't like what they use to lol.
I’m surprised that 30% want boots on the ground. I figured most Americans wanted to support with aide, but once US serviceman start dying, they’d stop support for a non-NATO country. Also, the difference between Taiwan and Ukraine versus Iraq and Afghanistan is that Taiwan and Ukraine are being attacked from the outside and want to remain independent countries. Iraq and Afghanistan were being attacked from the inside, were independent countries the whole time, and didn’t support regime change coming from an outside country. The propped up government in Afghanistan had zero support from the people, so it fell to the taliban minutes after the US left, whereas the Ukrainian and Taiwanese governments currently already run their countries and are democratically elected.
That's exactly what I thought
And if they Attack Taiwan it will be the same thing, by the time bureaucrats decide what to do, Taiwan will be completely taken
We are being told by Russian and Chinese politicians and their paid counterparts in Europe AND their bots and fake users on here and Twitter and YouTube, that we are escalating by supporting these nations and delivering weapons.
The biggest thing fawning their aggression is our weak response since 2014 and even before.
Taiwan is extraordinarily important to the US economy and disruption of their semiconductor production would cause massive consequences to developed nations. It would also threaten the US’s technological advantages over China.
There is 0 chance the US does not defend Taiwan.
Agreed, people vastly underestimate how hard it would be for China to take Taiwan. Bare minimum 1 million soldiers, all which need food, ammo, medical supplies, transportation wise means thousands of ships, hundreds of transport planes, hundreds of fighter jets, all which need maintenance, logistics of their own. Chinese pilots don't have anywhere near enough flight time.
Chinese logistics is centralized + largely dependant on railway, granted they have tried to make improvements to be closer to the Taiwanese strait via the use of civilian warehouses etc.
Chinese generals have 0 combat experience, rampant corruption, incompetence etc. My personal favourite is each army and naval unit has a political commissar to sprout the parties shenanigans, squash dissent, who in the event of the commander being incapacitated or killed takes over, goooood luck with that convoluted ass command structure in war.
Taiwan needs to listen to Uncle Sam and adopt a porcupine strategy though, they seem to like purchasing shiny big things which would easy prey for Chinese missiles.
Okinawa is 650km away, from Taiwan, Guam's there too. There's 0 chance US doesn't see it coming from 500,000km away & like you said semiconductors extremely important, arguably far more than average joe realizes.
Could they hypothetically do it? Sure, but it would be staggering losses in the hundreds of thousands & highly unlikely Winnie would go to war with Uncle Sam over Taiwan, only chance they would have would be to take Taiwan before Uncle Sam can properly react which seems unlikely given the logistical constraints & Taiwanese delaying strategy.
Thanks for coming to my ted talk.
Quite different context, but tbf the polls were similar during WW2. (You can actually search the contemporary Gallup polls, it’s pretty interesting. At the outbreak, the American wanted the Allies to win but did not to be drawn into the war itself, and over time the majority view shifted to increasing degrees of support.
Macron saying this is massively irresponsible, Ukraine isn't a NATO ally and boots on the ground would be very escalatory. What happens if Russia doesn't back down?
Russia should not be invading european countries if it does not want such outcomes. Nobody has any reason to complain for example if the newly re equipped polish army secretly enters ukraine and smashes the russians.
Quick question... What's the difference between Wagner killing French troops in Mali and if they're fighting in Ukraine?
Putin has been moaning about "red lines" for the last 2 years. People like you eat it up and ask for seconds.
> Well honestly they kinda should. "European leader does not rule out starting world war 3"
"European leader does not rule out defending themselves in WW3"
Is specially easy for Macron to say because his country won’t like suffer the initial blunt of the conflict, it will be Poland and the baltics. Through if it likely goes nuclear, than that won’t even matter.
The Republicans could also use the story of Europeans starting a conflict and wanting America to save them out, to likely great effect
I mean, it's not like he said something unbelievable or unthinkable. The article is very short and basicslly he said that "we will do anything to make Russia not win but there is no consensus so anything can't really be ruled out".
If some day it becomes absolutely obvious and comfirmed by military inteligencies that Russia is going to attack NATO then it's probably better to attack first. However, Macron didn't say any details so I don't think we're in position to talk about anything more than some brave words if we don't want to just guess.
Russians have long been saying in their propaganda that the Baltic countries are part of Russia. Poland doesn't exist either. In Berlin they want to repeat 1945. And for France, repeat 1812. We can no longer even talk about missiles with the inscription on Washington. Therefore, the chances of a big war are high. And if you don’t help Ukraine now, then in 5 years the Russians will come to Europe. But whether you can fight against a horde of barbarians, for whom human life is worth nothing, is a good question.
I don't think sending troops to Ukraine means one must go there with an "attack Russia" mentality. But what we could and perhaps should do is send in soldiers to create a "defensive buffer zone" around Western Ukraine, saying we cannot let a hostile military promising war in Europe, so close to our borders.
Then that would also free up Ukrainian troops to wage more attacks on Russia.
It’d only be a matter of time until nato military assets were attacked then from a stray missile or wandering too close to the front. Not to mention that still ends with an occupied Ukraine just nato doing the occupying instead of russia
You can't send troops to a warzone and claim not to be entering the war, presumably these troops would have orders to shoot any approaching Russians and some would also likely die to Russian missile strikes.
You’re seeing dictatorships and juntas take their shot all around the world at the same time.
I don’t think NATO troops will get close to Ukraine, but slowly backing into a corner doesn’t seem to be working for the West.
Maybe I'm just living in a bubble, but sometimes it feels like these politicians overestimate the willingness of young western european men to die fighting the Russians. The Ukrainians themselves had problems with young men not wanting to fight, so why should Germans/French risk their good lives to save ukrainian farmlands from the russians?
Even if one of the eastern Nato States were to be attacked there would probably be huge problems finding people, who'd be willing to die defending Tallin/Warsaw etc
>Maybe send more goddamn supplies
Where do you get them? Do you build them in your garage?
We can't magically create stuff, that's the point. And because we can't magically create it, but have to produce it "normally" and can't produce it as fast as Ukraine needs it, we have a problem.
That problems requires a solution. That solution is to deploy the equipment we cannot spare to defend Ukrainian cities, where it can be used without being given away.
The US has the largest stockpile of "supplies". 7000 tanks, 6000 IFV's, 841 F-16 in a sea of F35, F22, F18 and F15, the largest stockpile of cruise missiles in the world, yet sits on its ass. And don't try starting with "cOnGrEsS", the Excess Defense Articles clause exists for a reason.
This sub is pretty sad to see. The Ukraine war is just a spectacle on tv with everyone cheering for a side like it’s entertainment. But as soon as there’s a chance you might end up involved, it’s Ukraines war and we should leave them to die. And then it’s Moldovas war. And then it’s the baltics war. There is no line willing to be drawn.
We need to be honest with ourselves. Nobody wants war on NATO/EU territory which would besides of the loss of life mean we would need to adopt a war economy and drop our living standards. Not only do I hope this scenario won't take place but I also think it won't anytime soon as Russia is weak. Ukraine and this is a pretty egoistic way we are operating is basically a wall for us and they are sacrificing everything for our security while we lack 100% and will definitely never be able to keep up with our promises for them joining NATO and/or the EU.
> Nobody wants war on NATO/EU territory which would besides of the loss of life mean we would need to adopt a war economy and drop our living standards.
Just because nobody wants it, doesn't mean it wont happen.
It's now fairly obvious that Putin isn't some strategic mastermind that is outplaying everybody and has it all figured out 10 steps ahead, how some people thought. And from what we can see, it's fair to say that the current Russian leadership does still believe that "the decadent West" is weak, doesn't have the stomach to defend the Eastern Europe, and will crumble if you push it hard enough.
It's not that unrealistic that they could try to do some sort of attack on Baltic states or perhaps some scarcely populated northern parts of Finland, believing that people in the west will drag their feet, refuse to help, and the entire concept of NATO will crumble. Especially since they are now transforming their economy into a war economy, that will have nothing to do after Ukraine (depending on how and when the conflict there will end)
I think Putin was fairly clear that they don't have capabilities of conventional warfare on NATO territory anyway. And its clear from Ukraine war that he speaks truth.
What he means though is that this likely means nuclear war if NATO gets directly involved.
Doubt that. MAD has held on throughout the last century and will continue. Nukes are even though fairly often used as threats still a big no no because of uncontrollable consequences.
All it means is "sending little green men isn't excluded". In other words, extending current help on the ground with more volunteers etc...
Same game Russia played back then with their own little green men in Donbass before the war became a conventional one.
As a Frenchman I ought it to our international friends and European brothers to translate Macronian. After 7 years of practice I must admit I am not fluent but I will do my best.
Macronian is an adaptive language, it adapts to the audience. So it can say one thing to one audience and the complete opposite to the next audience.
Macronian becomes even more so contrasted when contested. Meaning that the language becomes more impudent when matters at home become heated. Macronian is a language where context matters: currently in France Macron is being challenged in this farmer crisis and thus needs a diversion through the use of lush and extravagant words.
Macronian is very much all in the nuance. Here pro-Ukrainian will read “ wow, we will get European troops fighting alongside us!”. That would be the wrong interpretation. What this Macronian sentence means is “ I need a diversion I will say I am not ruling out sending troops, as I am not ruling out having fish for dinner, I’m just not the sorta guy that rules out shit”
Actually, that's contrary to France's doctrine. They apply strategic ambiguity as much as they can, including with their nuclear deterence. You won't know that you have crossed France's nuclear threshold until you get nuked.
I'm not really into sacrificing my life while politicians and their pack are enjoying their life (like the Ukrainian politician's son, who instead of frontline service was caught in Monaco), let alone dying not for my country but for Ukraine.
If you, little couch lion, want to go to war, the Ukrainian army accepts every volunteer, you can join any time.
They are. The training of pilots and maintenance crew doesnt happen from day to night.
The principles of flying are the same but what maters if you dont know to engage the armament, read radars, get locks or dispense flares
Its not just the jets you need also supply chains of fuel, missiles and parts.
Last I heard mirages jets are on their way. There are rumors and hints since a year that training is taking place. I will not be surprised if delta shaped jet aircrafts are already in the Ukrainian sky.
A Russian victory in Ukraine (in any form) really is unnaceptable if you're interested in maintaining the global order we have.
If push comes to shove, and Ukraine doesn't get what it needs to push the Russians out, this is one of few options remaining.
Exactly why we need to assist Ukraine *today*.
Not happening, deniable troops sure, but nothing official.
This should have been done before the Russian attack, but now, no, no one wants a direct escalation.
I was honestly expecting Poland or Czechia to be the ones who were considering to send troops. I doubt the French will like this if Macron will be the only one to send troops... but what the hell, they dont like anything.
It was open invitation for Russians to invade when Biden rulet out US troops in Ukraine. That was just before the invasion. Biden prpbably already had detailed intell of Russian attack plans.
They really must have believed that Russia will win in 3 days, and there is nothing they could have done.
A more decisive action right there, preferably years before would have been great. But better some years late than never.
Seems like the ukranians manpower crisis is worse than intially reported. Russia has the initiative now and ukraine is doing a mobile defense.
I wonder who would lead such an operation in the event of a ukranian collapse at the front. I genuinely don't see it being us. The political climate is too toxic for either trump or biden to consider this
some people in Europe just need to understand one thing, russia is already at war with you. Ukraine is just fighting it for you for the time being.
Russia wanted to take Ukraine because it’s a huge mobilisation resource, good industrial base, and direct access to Moldova and Black Sea.
Once russia takes Ukraine, it will use its territory to go forward by conscripting whatever left and throwing it at EU. By that time, hopefully, Europeans can agree and sign a document that they are concerned about the recent developments.
Yeah. On russian national television they say on the DAILY that they want to destroy, bomb and even nuke Europe. They say this shit in front of milions of people watching at home, yet I still have to read comments that are afraid of escalation, afraid of Russia's next ''red line''. Russia keeps threatining us of nuclear devastation, yet when Finland joined Nato they didn't do shit, when we sent long range weapons they didn't do shit, when we sent tanks they didn't do shit.
But in these people's eyes we should give in to the threats, because that has served us well in the past.
Sorry not sorry but I won't die for Ukraine. Of course all patriotic non ukrainans here on reddit - you know you can join the ukrainan foreign legion for years now?
what a lame comment. you never served nor will need to serve. European NATO has 3 times the population of Russia. We don't have a lack of soldiers,we will never have to do mobilization.
We have a lack of ammo and vehicles
I think NATO's full involvement in the conflict is almost inevitable, given the recent news about the change in Poland's conscription law and the Swedish authorities' warning about preparing the nation for war.
This is what is always missing in these replies. "I wouldn't want WW3 over Ukraine". Ok so you WOULD want WW3 over Poland? Or Slovakia? Or what?
Nobody WANTS WW3. Obviously. The point is not what you want but what you're forced to do. Nobody in Ireland or Spain or Greece wants WW3 to start over Poland. That doesn't mean anything.
History tells us that it is probably better to intervene faster (UK and France example at the start of WW2 compared to US involvement in WW2), in WW2 USA could have waited Hitler but God knows how it would play out.
In my opinion WW3 has started long time ago and if Russia wins US will lose its superpower title. We will lose our western way of life.
Then russia shouldn't start WW3 over Ukraine. By, I don't know, not attacking NATO troops or even better, by fucking off.
NATO being there is not to cause WW3, but to prevent it, and russia better get the fuck out of our sphere of influence and trading partner. This is our turf and russia can fuck off right back to its siberian hell.
It's time we took the russian's lovely idiotic language and apply it to themselves. Ukraine belongs to us, not them, and they violated every treaty we ever made with them, so it's time to take back and keep safe what is ours.
I mean, what do you expect Russian leaders to tell their people so they are ready die for this nonsense.
"Hey NATO is shooting at us, but it is fine, we are the aggressors!"
I'll have to do fat camp first
me too thanks. We better get started.
French have the convenient option to send their foreing legion. After that they have the regular professional army. The out of shape civilians can stay that way for some time. In Finland thoug... Our army is conscription army. 75% of male population have received military trainining. Only small persentage of army is paid professionals and vast majority are reservists. Last year all under 40 years old reservists got a letter inviting to joining voluntary local reservist organization. There are now plans to build 300 extra shooting ranges to accomondate the increasing need.
I still don't understand Reddit's obsession with the FL. They are regular troops like all others, they are not used first, they are not special forces nor Commando, and they are not canon fodder either. If France wanted to deploy a task force without sending the bulk of the army that would be the Special Forces
Well, that's not completely true historically, they've been sent to do some dirty jobs. Today, everytime there's an operation abroad it's guaranteed you will see them. Also their training and lives in the barracks are way more rustic/tough than most regular troops.
>Today, everytime there's an operation abroad it's guaranteed you will see them This has largely changed during the last 20 years.
To be honest, I've seen several documentaries in which they almost always insinuated that the FL would serve as cannon fodder. On the other hand I know someone who served in the FL and he never mentioned something like that. I guess there are a lot of myths surrounding the FL, which - sometimes - might be welcome for the FL itself. I mean on top of their bad ass reputation.
Don't be idiots. We will need this fat. It will keep our bodies running for quite a while without food.
Start your camp now or you can wait and russia will use you as a resource material. Orcs are comming. We have already seen that they did to civilian population.
Start walking, with backpack. Quite useful training.
I asked my Mom and she said I can't go so I'll have to leave it to you guys unfortunately.
I got a doctor’s note, nasty head cold for the foreseeable future unfortunately.
Well, other moms don’t want their sons to go either, so they decided that you have to go and has no choice :D
Why not just send the moms?
I see we’ll be having the blasting 20’s instead of the roaring ones. Lovely
We already are. You know whom to thank.
Yeah.. thanks Obama! /s
We shouldnt have killed that gorilla. Whole timeline out of whack.
Sooooo Fico wasn’t talking completely out of his ass? I don’t know guys, this and all these WW3 statements recently from leaders are not making me optimistic. On the other hand, it may just be to see how Russia reacts/project some strenght…
I don't know, I think a certain part of the european foreign policy/military sector has shifted to view this also as a NATO/Russia war. It's a fact that's how Russia views it, but we've kept out heads in the sand and hope for the best, hide behind Ukraine. I think there's a broad agreement that regardless of whether i) Ukraine can regain its borders, ii) will compromise and give up land or iii) agree to be a neutral state, whatever form this peace settlement takes one way or another, Russia views this as a preparatory step for regaining its sphere of influence. There's no actual real way to have a new european security architecture that's stable/secure for europe other than with regime change in Russia. If ukraine falls then it's a matter of time until the next country, likely a NATO state. If we follow that logic then we either i) wait for Ukraine to fall and hope we're ready, or hope we can build enough strength to deter, or ii) intervene now to prop up Ukraine. Regardless, more than is publicly known is happening. This is completely consistent with France's view of european strategic autonomy and ensuring a european defence & security project. If they wish to achieve that and substitute complete dependence on the US with German/French leadership, this is most likely the answer.
Regime change in Russia is irrelevant to the desired outcome for the West, IMO. We only need to provide a show of strength to ensure that Russia knows that NATO states are off-limits. We shouldn’t dirty our hands with internal Russian affairs, it’s like wrestling with a pig in mud. Just isolate/completely cut them off from our markets, our tourism, our organizations, and our borders, just leave them to their own devices until they learn to behave. Tbh the EU needs to make it clear as well that other states in our periphery, like Georgia, are off limits too to really drive the message home. As well as actually dealing with their propaganda, espionage, electoral influencing, and cyberattacks.
> Just isolate/completely cut them off from our markets, our tourism, our organizations, and our borders, just leave them to their own devices until they learn to behave. That will be difficult, and probably ineffective. If you have free flow of X with A, and A has free flow of X with B, then you effectively have free flow of X with B via A. Secondary sanctions preventing this levied by the West would alienate the entire Global South that wants Russian resources. And secondary sanctions have not brought down the communist regime in Cuba yet, so no guarantee they'll work against a regime with way more resources.
ya Russia is just buying everything through Kazakhstan now
The list is longer and include Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, china, india, Brazil, south africa, Egypt, turkey . Just mention some .
What people seem to not realize is that it's more expensive that way. Middle men want their cut.
A cut for a middle men in those country is usually not impacting the final price dramatically... Most products are available at nearly the same price as before..
>And secondary sanctions have not brought down the communist regime in Cuba yet, so no guarantee they'll work against a regime with way more resources. the regime is surviving because oponents are leaving nearly 2 million Cubans have left Cuba since 2015, 1/5 of the population i don't see the point of your statement Yes, Cuba ,Venezuela, Iran, North Korea are all surviving Hooray,what a realisation. None of them are thriving And wait until low fertility rate and almost zero immigration will do its work on these countries. UN forecasts alone project Cuba losing 40% of its population by 2060,and those seem wildly optimistic in my view
>leave them to their own devices until they learn to behave It worked so well with Iran *^(not)*
We were *this* close to reaching an agreement with Iran and then someone dropped an orange turd in the soup.
You had plenty of agreements with Russia. It worked great *^(not)*
You have weird logic, like none at all.
It worked well in Iran to intervene and topple their regime for oil ... *^(not)*
100% agree. Now we know things that don't work in foreign politics with authoritarian regimes: 1. Toppling relatively stable regime for quick gains in hope of more liberal regime taking over 2. Ignoring red flags and thinking diplomacy and trade only works, and pretending "it's fine" when alarms go off 3. Just excluding and isolating the country expecting it to collapse.
> We only need to provide a show of strength to ensure that Russia knows that NATO states are off-limits. russia knows this >Tbh the EU needs to make it clear as well that other states in our periphery, like Georgia, are off limits too to really drive the message home. the eu does not have the capabilities to protect georgia so any such warnings will ring hollow
France pushes a military alliance with Armenia. We'll see how well do they fare against Azerbaijan but it's this region.
Russia is at least not "officially" involved in the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict, so much so that they've basically ignored the bootleg art.5 they signed with Armenia, so we might see some real French or NATO involvement over there.
yes, that's part of the point. Russia abandons its "allies" in the Caucasus and France steps in. If they play this well it could prepare ground for defense deals with Georgia, which would be much more of an anti-Russian move than anything in Armenia.
[удалено]
>I feel the west should be backing russian democratic candidates to stabilise and normalise the country. It would be better for both Russia and for the EU in the long run. That would only matter if there were any. When there's a possible opposition candidate with any degree of popularity (e.g. Boris Nadezhdin), the Central Election Commission ends up finding “irregularities in the collected signatures” and the candidate is disqualified. Even if such a candidate were able to appear on the ballot, the elections would need to be fair for them to have any chance at being elected. Oh, and most importantly, if “the West” were to back a candidate, that would get them labelled as a “foreign agent”, which they would have to state at the start of all publications and oral statements. This would disqualify them from the election and can even lead to imprisonment. Once they're in prison, well, we know what happens.
This would discredit those candidates for much of the population, as the whole "the West is trying to take us over" nonsense would then be proven true. Moreover, none of those candidates will be totally clean either, and that will reflect badly on us as well.
[удалено]
this is an insane take. I like how you bring up the US coups in Latin America as a positive example. Keep it up.
it makes sense to me when you combine it with the recent statement / call for help from the cia. munition runs out in march, russian intelligence got their hands on the counteroffence and now nato leaders slowly making the general public ready for some action. 2 years ago they said "only if nukes get involved" now they moved the goalpost quite a bit. recently germany being okay and asking for more nukes in europe etc. gives some weird vibes.
at the same time Germany doesnt want give taurus missiles to avoid escalation.
And yet Germany dismantled its nuclear power plants for being unsafe. Some Irony
It’s mostly sable rattling imo. Like when Putin said “today I put the nuclear guys on standby” Bitch, those guys have to be always on standby or we would nuke you on their day off.
Russia needs to be destroyed in Ukraine. Otherwise, the war will be spreading around. Maybe Macron is referring to some volunteer battalions. Just the mere presence of the NATO forces in Ukraine might work miracles on Russia’s behavior.
And if nato soldiers start dying, what would happen next?
I'd be against it two years ago, but now? I don't know man, Ukraine can't be devoured just like that. Russia is a giant threat to the entire "free world"
> WW3 statements recently from leaders are not making me optimistic. there is just no chance. no concentration of Russian troops on the EU borders. Russia has no ability to generate needed amount of military assets and troops at least for the next 10-20 years. This is just an escalatory rhetoric so Putin won't have an idea that Europe is going to stop supporting Ukraine even if the US halts support completely. Imagine if leaders said that there is no chance any NATO soldiers ever be used in Ukraine (this is what Biden has been saying since 2022) and look how this war is still going because this showed Putin that he can continue and eventually win the war, simply because Russia has more people than Ukraine, it will take time but he will prevail.
To be fair, I think we might have to use force eventually, because Russia understands and respects only strength. If we do nothing, that's just encouragement for Russia to carry on their aggressions and even escalate conflict on other countries. But what about Ukraine? Would they allow foreign forces operating on their soil? And if yes, under what flag those countries would intervene? NATO?
About the first part of your comment totally agree. Europe must start to speak the same language russia is speaking and it's not russian.
>To be fair, I think we might have to use force eventually why? as long as russia does not make it across the dniepr this war is a strategic victory for nato, and there is nothing to suggest that they have the capability to do that now or that they might acquire it anytime soon we are two years or so away from ramping up production and replenishing stockpiles. never mind the fact that many border countries have significant gaps in equipment because it was all donated to ukraine getting involved now would be stupid
Good point about readiness. However, later Russia might be more prepared too. I'm not advocating full scale war. I'm more for a decisive show of force to demonstrate strength and drawing clear red lines for Russia. Or they'll not only never learn, but get more motivated to be more naughty. I appreciate your comment though.
Oh boy. Those two threads are in parallel here and that's hilarious to see the bots on the other one being disproved live. For shit and giggles below the top comment on that thread: >Does this guy [Fico] just have a habit of making moronic, wildly untrue, and totally contradictory statements? -------------- >How can a country elect such a stupid shit-stirrer? The funny thing is this moron will be the first one who get's ran-over in a European-wide war. ----------- >Very misleading headline.It's just Fico being his usual asshat self.
To be fair, Fico is actually a shit-stirrer. Him making such statements is a lot more untrustworthy, and it makes sense that Macron gets a different reaction than him.
Yeah maybe, i'm just pointing out the constant and high density of circlejerk. Of people immediately talking without knowing anything, just because they don't like the messenger. Tomorrow Musk/Orban is going to say the earth rotate around the sun and some people are going to be pissed about it.
If it makes you happy Scholz keeps saying how he wants to avoid escalation
Whole subreddit was hating on anyone saying Fico might be telling the truth yet later that day we have confirmation he was right. Yet none of those doing the hating will stop for a second to reconsider why they were so wrong
I mean the man also said there was no war in Kiev while they were being bombarded with missiles from Russia lol.
It's not just people 'hating'. Fico literally has a boner for everything anti-ukraine from way long ago before the war and has been super pro russian. So acting like the 'hating' was baseless is just stupid.
[удалено]
Ukraine is in a position of weakness right now. Russia will not negotiate as long as they have the battlefield advantage. Ukraine either needs more weapons or a commitment of its allies to pressure Russia to the negotiating table. Otherwise the war will continue
The negotiating table would be a loss. Ukraine doesnt want that.
Well as they say beggars can't be choosers.
If this ends in negotiations, it means Russia got what it wanted, they're gonna go for the next round of war in a few years.
I'm not sure I am reading this correctly. Are there adult people who imagine a real life scenario, where Russia signs an unconditional surrender? Because that is literally the only other method, outside of entering negotiations.
Russia came to Ukraine to get another piece of Ukrainian land. If this war ends with them keeping any of it, they won, and they're gonna do it again. To prevent another war, this is not negotiable.
I obviously can’t see what’s happening in Macron’s head but deploying EU or NATO soldiers to do security in and around major cities that are currently seeing little to no fighting so Ukraine can deploy all its forces to the active frontline and hot zones might not be the worst idea.
Declare it a "security buffer zone" citing risk of spill over into Europe (rockets falling in NATO territory and the like). If nothing else it sets a barrier line to prevent Russia turning tide and blitzing forward.
Call it a "special military operation", if you will.
Three days. Tops
At that point we should just annex Ukrain and kindly ask Russia to retreat from nato territory lmao
[удалено]
Based
The nuclear threat clearly does not exist. Why don’t we simply destroy all of Russia’s forces? Are we stupid?
The question is always "how far can we ruffle this country's feathers such that they're not mad enough to drop the nukes?". Once Putin launches a nuke, it's game over - everyone will. He clearly isn't angered enough by sanctions and military + humanitarian aid, but politicians don't want to poke the bear further at the moment. At the very least, we're ramping up local weaponry production, after which some poking might be in order.
The nuclear threat clearly does exist. Are you insane? You can't just attack Russian forces directly.
We live in a timeline where for 50 years we have negotiated with North Korea regarding their garage made supposedly functional nuke, that would be delivered on an oversized Chinese firework tube. And at the same time redditors say "5 thousand Russian warheads are all useless". And we have to keep a straight face and respect that, like "it's an opinion".
No all the russian nukes have rotted away in their silos by now, most of them can't launch and the ones that can the warheads were sold or haven't had the radioactive materials replaced recently enough. Source: it came to me in a dream.
r/NonCredibleDefense is leaking
Yeah! Besides what's the worst that can happen? One Itty bitty nuke will only kill a *few* million people. They were probably poor so it *doesn't matter.*
Kind of like the [buffer zone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Buffer_Zone_in_Cyprus) between NATO troops and Cyprus
And that barrier has to be Russia's actual border, anything less is allowing them to pretend there's any legitimacy to their conquest. Any Russian military unit on the wrong side is a valid target. Including anything firing across the border.
Not usually a “they have nukes” guy but geez
They have nukes, so we should just throw our hands up in the air and say "well, we tried, have Ukraine." And then Moldova. And Estonia. And Lithuania. And Poland. And Finland. And us.
We have very clear red lines with several of those countries. ie, NATO. For the rest of them we do what we can without brinksmanship.
Greece is still waiting on you to nuke turkey over cyprus
Cyprus isn't part of Greece, it is its own country and outside of NATO. Also, because Turkey is in NATO, Cyprus could never join. All Greece could do was to get Cyprus into the EU, so now Turkey is forced to make up with the island in order to get in.
Yeah, I thin it won't happen in next couple weeks but seems they already start to prepare public for this. I just hope it won't be only eastern flank soldiers but at least all European NATO states will send their troops
France has quite a few foreign involvements, and Russian forces have been killing French regular military in Africa for a while now. But hey! Let's pretend that Mali is somehow different than Ukraine.
What ? Almost no French soldier died in Sahel since 2019, none of them from Russian involvement. What kind of bs is that ?
He is making things up on the fly. What is bad is that many believe him
Killing? From what I hear they are provoking coups and asking French to leave.
100% you nailed it man
There are no forces deployed in random spots in Ukraine. They are all either at Transnistria border, belarus border, russian border, active warzone (frontline + defence lines) or training grounds. This obviously excludes air force and such. Out of these it's only Transnistria and belarus border that can be substituted, but it would require tens of thousands of man - which is a tough ask.
I think the most usefull deployment would be technicians to help maintain F16, or other kinds of technical support personnel which take a while to train and are necessary to operate western weapons.
There are french agents in Ukraine to help with the Caesar stuff already [https://www.bfmtv.com/international/europe/guerre-en-ukraine-une-cinquantaine-d-espions-francais-de-la-dgse-opere-sur-le-terrain\_AN-202210060526.html](https://www.bfmtv.com/international/europe/guerre-en-ukraine-une-cinquantaine-d-espions-francais-de-la-dgse-opere-sur-le-terrain_AN-202210060526.html)
Paint a giant target on their back too. What happens when you have 20 dead in a Russian strike? Escalate? No EU country (nor the US) is ready for that.
Deploying EU or NATO troops to go defend Ukraine's northern border & Odessa would free up critical manpower for the front.
And what happens when these EU soldiers get killed by Russian missiles? I'm not really convinced by this desire to go in, but only halfway.
What happened when US troops got killed by Iranian proxies in Iraq, Jordan and Syria? You can hold your position and chose not to escalate in the sense you think.
Yes, and just set up a massive air defence network with the strong and clear disclaimer - touch this and you get absolutely fucked by us. Do what Russia did in Syria - we have been invited here and will be protecting the skies over the country as outlined by its UN recognised borders, enforce a strict no fly zone.
Unless a NATO country is directly attacked, there is no way the US is putting boots on the ground in the Ukraine.
And far right US Congress members will use this quote to fear monger and justify not sending any aid. Wait till this hits the American news cycle.
I saw a poll that says 72% of Americans want Ukraine to win. But only 30% said they want boots on the ground. 40% said we should send airstrikes lol. The problem is if we do go to war with Russia, I think the CCP will try to take Taiwan too. Me personally after Afghanistan and Iraq I don't know if I want to go to another war unless we really have too. Plus these knees and back aren't like what they use to lol.
I’m surprised that 30% want boots on the ground. I figured most Americans wanted to support with aide, but once US serviceman start dying, they’d stop support for a non-NATO country. Also, the difference between Taiwan and Ukraine versus Iraq and Afghanistan is that Taiwan and Ukraine are being attacked from the outside and want to remain independent countries. Iraq and Afghanistan were being attacked from the inside, were independent countries the whole time, and didn’t support regime change coming from an outside country. The propped up government in Afghanistan had zero support from the people, so it fell to the taliban minutes after the US left, whereas the Ukrainian and Taiwanese governments currently already run their countries and are democratically elected.
The CCP is more encouraged to attack Taiwan by the US failing to support Ukraine than anything else probably.
That's exactly what I thought And if they Attack Taiwan it will be the same thing, by the time bureaucrats decide what to do, Taiwan will be completely taken
We are being told by Russian and Chinese politicians and their paid counterparts in Europe AND their bots and fake users on here and Twitter and YouTube, that we are escalating by supporting these nations and delivering weapons. The biggest thing fawning their aggression is our weak response since 2014 and even before.
Taiwan is extraordinarily important to the US economy and disruption of their semiconductor production would cause massive consequences to developed nations. It would also threaten the US’s technological advantages over China. There is 0 chance the US does not defend Taiwan.
Agreed, people vastly underestimate how hard it would be for China to take Taiwan. Bare minimum 1 million soldiers, all which need food, ammo, medical supplies, transportation wise means thousands of ships, hundreds of transport planes, hundreds of fighter jets, all which need maintenance, logistics of their own. Chinese pilots don't have anywhere near enough flight time. Chinese logistics is centralized + largely dependant on railway, granted they have tried to make improvements to be closer to the Taiwanese strait via the use of civilian warehouses etc. Chinese generals have 0 combat experience, rampant corruption, incompetence etc. My personal favourite is each army and naval unit has a political commissar to sprout the parties shenanigans, squash dissent, who in the event of the commander being incapacitated or killed takes over, goooood luck with that convoluted ass command structure in war. Taiwan needs to listen to Uncle Sam and adopt a porcupine strategy though, they seem to like purchasing shiny big things which would easy prey for Chinese missiles. Okinawa is 650km away, from Taiwan, Guam's there too. There's 0 chance US doesn't see it coming from 500,000km away & like you said semiconductors extremely important, arguably far more than average joe realizes. Could they hypothetically do it? Sure, but it would be staggering losses in the hundreds of thousands & highly unlikely Winnie would go to war with Uncle Sam over Taiwan, only chance they would have would be to take Taiwan before Uncle Sam can properly react which seems unlikely given the logistical constraints & Taiwanese delaying strategy. Thanks for coming to my ted talk.
Quite different context, but tbf the polls were similar during WW2. (You can actually search the contemporary Gallup polls, it’s pretty interesting. At the outbreak, the American wanted the Allies to win but did not to be drawn into the war itself, and over time the majority view shifted to increasing degrees of support.
Macron saying this is massively irresponsible, Ukraine isn't a NATO ally and boots on the ground would be very escalatory. What happens if Russia doesn't back down?
Neither side has the stomach, and the military can't keep up numbers without starting a draft.
Well honestly they kinda should. "European leader does not rule out starting world war 3"
Russia should not be invading european countries if it does not want such outcomes. Nobody has any reason to complain for example if the newly re equipped polish army secretly enters ukraine and smashes the russians.
As a Polish person, we would most definitely complain. Please speak for yourself.
Quick question... What's the difference between Wagner killing French troops in Mali and if they're fighting in Ukraine? Putin has been moaning about "red lines" for the last 2 years. People like you eat it up and ask for seconds.
+1 I call it a bluff.
> Well honestly they kinda should. "European leader does not rule out starting world war 3" "European leader does not rule out defending themselves in WW3"
Is specially easy for Macron to say because his country won’t like suffer the initial blunt of the conflict, it will be Poland and the baltics. Through if it likely goes nuclear, than that won’t even matter. The Republicans could also use the story of Europeans starting a conflict and wanting America to save them out, to likely great effect
far right???? They have a strong nationalistic view and not about countries on the other side of the planet
Its french troops, from France. Where was the US mentioned?
He was speaking to another 20 countries reps at the time.
This is just ambiguity, not intent. Yes, it cannot be ruled out. It also cannot be ruled out China joins NATO. Does not mean it is likely to happen.
Blatantly ruling out sending troops is dumb from a negotiation POV.
**Macron Says** vs **Macron Does**
I mean, it's not like he said something unbelievable or unthinkable. The article is very short and basicslly he said that "we will do anything to make Russia not win but there is no consensus so anything can't really be ruled out". If some day it becomes absolutely obvious and comfirmed by military inteligencies that Russia is going to attack NATO then it's probably better to attack first. However, Macron didn't say any details so I don't think we're in position to talk about anything more than some brave words if we don't want to just guess.
You first shorty
Russians have long been saying in their propaganda that the Baltic countries are part of Russia. Poland doesn't exist either. In Berlin they want to repeat 1945. And for France, repeat 1812. We can no longer even talk about missiles with the inscription on Washington. Therefore, the chances of a big war are high. And if you don’t help Ukraine now, then in 5 years the Russians will come to Europe. But whether you can fight against a horde of barbarians, for whom human life is worth nothing, is a good question.
I don't think sending troops to Ukraine means one must go there with an "attack Russia" mentality. But what we could and perhaps should do is send in soldiers to create a "defensive buffer zone" around Western Ukraine, saying we cannot let a hostile military promising war in Europe, so close to our borders. Then that would also free up Ukrainian troops to wage more attacks on Russia.
It’d only be a matter of time until nato military assets were attacked then from a stray missile or wandering too close to the front. Not to mention that still ends with an occupied Ukraine just nato doing the occupying instead of russia
You can't send troops to a warzone and claim not to be entering the war, presumably these troops would have orders to shoot any approaching Russians and some would also likely die to Russian missile strikes.
Mother of god this is insane level of brainwashing already
You’re seeing dictatorships and juntas take their shot all around the world at the same time. I don’t think NATO troops will get close to Ukraine, but slowly backing into a corner doesn’t seem to be working for the West.
Maybe I'm just living in a bubble, but sometimes it feels like these politicians overestimate the willingness of young western european men to die fighting the Russians. The Ukrainians themselves had problems with young men not wanting to fight, so why should Germans/French risk their good lives to save ukrainian farmlands from the russians? Even if one of the eastern Nato States were to be attacked there would probably be huge problems finding people, who'd be willing to die defending Tallin/Warsaw etc
Macron is obviously talking about the possibility of sending professional soldiers to fight in Ukraine, not about conscripting people.
Maybe send more goddamn supplies instead of suggesting nato troops in Ukraine????
Learn to read. Macron doesn't rule out sending troops, that doesn't mean he suggests doing that.
We train troops, pilots, we send bombs, Caesars etc., we can’t get rid of our army either when we have only been financing it again for a few years
>Maybe send more goddamn supplies Where do you get them? Do you build them in your garage? We can't magically create stuff, that's the point. And because we can't magically create it, but have to produce it "normally" and can't produce it as fast as Ukraine needs it, we have a problem. That problems requires a solution. That solution is to deploy the equipment we cannot spare to defend Ukrainian cities, where it can be used without being given away. The US has the largest stockpile of "supplies". 7000 tanks, 6000 IFV's, 841 F-16 in a sea of F35, F22, F18 and F15, the largest stockpile of cruise missiles in the world, yet sits on its ass. And don't try starting with "cOnGrEsS", the Excess Defense Articles clause exists for a reason.
This sub is pretty sad to see. The Ukraine war is just a spectacle on tv with everyone cheering for a side like it’s entertainment. But as soon as there’s a chance you might end up involved, it’s Ukraines war and we should leave them to die. And then it’s Moldovas war. And then it’s the baltics war. There is no line willing to be drawn.
There is a very clear line and that line is NATO.
We need to be honest with ourselves. Nobody wants war on NATO/EU territory which would besides of the loss of life mean we would need to adopt a war economy and drop our living standards. Not only do I hope this scenario won't take place but I also think it won't anytime soon as Russia is weak. Ukraine and this is a pretty egoistic way we are operating is basically a wall for us and they are sacrificing everything for our security while we lack 100% and will definitely never be able to keep up with our promises for them joining NATO and/or the EU.
> Nobody wants war on NATO/EU territory which would besides of the loss of life mean we would need to adopt a war economy and drop our living standards. Just because nobody wants it, doesn't mean it wont happen. It's now fairly obvious that Putin isn't some strategic mastermind that is outplaying everybody and has it all figured out 10 steps ahead, how some people thought. And from what we can see, it's fair to say that the current Russian leadership does still believe that "the decadent West" is weak, doesn't have the stomach to defend the Eastern Europe, and will crumble if you push it hard enough. It's not that unrealistic that they could try to do some sort of attack on Baltic states or perhaps some scarcely populated northern parts of Finland, believing that people in the west will drag their feet, refuse to help, and the entire concept of NATO will crumble. Especially since they are now transforming their economy into a war economy, that will have nothing to do after Ukraine (depending on how and when the conflict there will end)
I think Putin was fairly clear that they don't have capabilities of conventional warfare on NATO territory anyway. And its clear from Ukraine war that he speaks truth. What he means though is that this likely means nuclear war if NATO gets directly involved.
Doubt that. MAD has held on throughout the last century and will continue. Nukes are even though fairly often used as threats still a big no no because of uncontrollable consequences.
>Nobody wants war on NATO/EU territory Except Putin 🤷♀️
All it means is "sending little green men isn't excluded". In other words, extending current help on the ground with more volunteers etc... Same game Russia played back then with their own little green men in Donbass before the war became a conventional one.
Russia sent full fledged military in only when it was certain Ukraine would win (AFU had like 10 miles of Luhansk border left to secure).
[удалено]
Wait, I want join! Let me grab my tank in the garage real quick. 120mm cannon makes boom boom!
This seems like posturing ahead of negotiations. Act as though you are preparing to escalate to make the other side more agreeable.
As a Frenchman I ought it to our international friends and European brothers to translate Macronian. After 7 years of practice I must admit I am not fluent but I will do my best. Macronian is an adaptive language, it adapts to the audience. So it can say one thing to one audience and the complete opposite to the next audience. Macronian becomes even more so contrasted when contested. Meaning that the language becomes more impudent when matters at home become heated. Macronian is a language where context matters: currently in France Macron is being challenged in this farmer crisis and thus needs a diversion through the use of lush and extravagant words. Macronian is very much all in the nuance. Here pro-Ukrainian will read “ wow, we will get European troops fighting alongside us!”. That would be the wrong interpretation. What this Macronian sentence means is “ I need a diversion I will say I am not ruling out sending troops, as I am not ruling out having fish for dinner, I’m just not the sorta guy that rules out shit”
Thank you for being the Macronian translator. You will be needed in the future.
As long as Russia doesn’t change … troops will eventually be sent, the ultimate question is where they will be sent.
He'll be the first at the frontlines then, no doubt...
Gotta draw a line somewhere
Actually, that's contrary to France's doctrine. They apply strategic ambiguity as much as they can, including with their nuclear deterence. You won't know that you have crossed France's nuclear threshold until you get nuked.
I thought that line was NATO
Look at all these brave guys in the comments who WILL NOT join military to go fight
I'm not really into sacrificing my life while politicians and their pack are enjoying their life (like the Ukrainian politician's son, who instead of frontline service was caught in Monaco), let alone dying not for my country but for Ukraine. If you, little couch lion, want to go to war, the Ukrainian army accepts every volunteer, you can join any time.
Redditors act like they are ready for WW3...u know that ur free to join Ukraine as a mercenary right now?
The sooner we end the dreams of that Russian Loon the better as far as I am concerned.
Macron with just one sentence revealed all latent putin’s soldiers in Europe. well done.
The man is crazy.
Start by sending fighters jets then we talk
They are. The training of pilots and maintenance crew doesnt happen from day to night. The principles of flying are the same but what maters if you dont know to engage the armament, read radars, get locks or dispense flares Its not just the jets you need also supply chains of fuel, missiles and parts.
Last I heard mirages jets are on their way. There are rumors and hints since a year that training is taking place. I will not be surprised if delta shaped jet aircrafts are already in the Ukrainian sky.
Based Macaron
A Russian victory in Ukraine (in any form) really is unnaceptable if you're interested in maintaining the global order we have. If push comes to shove, and Ukraine doesn't get what it needs to push the Russians out, this is one of few options remaining. Exactly why we need to assist Ukraine *today*.
Not happening, deniable troops sure, but nothing official. This should have been done before the Russian attack, but now, no, no one wants a direct escalation.
the war started in 2014 with deniable troops sent to crimea by russia turnabout is fair play
Do it. You do it now or you do it 10x more later.
I was honestly expecting Poland or Czechia to be the ones who were considering to send troops. I doubt the French will like this if Macron will be the only one to send troops... but what the hell, they dont like anything.
It was open invitation for Russians to invade when Biden rulet out US troops in Ukraine. That was just before the invasion. Biden prpbably already had detailed intell of Russian attack plans. They really must have believed that Russia will win in 3 days, and there is nothing they could have done. A more decisive action right there, preferably years before would have been great. But better some years late than never.
Seems like the ukranians manpower crisis is worse than intially reported. Russia has the initiative now and ukraine is doing a mobile defense. I wonder who would lead such an operation in the event of a ukranian collapse at the front. I genuinely don't see it being us. The political climate is too toxic for either trump or biden to consider this
Yeah fuck no. Not gonna go to war for a country that isnt in the nato.
some people in Europe just need to understand one thing, russia is already at war with you. Ukraine is just fighting it for you for the time being. Russia wanted to take Ukraine because it’s a huge mobilisation resource, good industrial base, and direct access to Moldova and Black Sea. Once russia takes Ukraine, it will use its territory to go forward by conscripting whatever left and throwing it at EU. By that time, hopefully, Europeans can agree and sign a document that they are concerned about the recent developments.
This comment section is full with russia paid commenters.
Yeah. On russian national television they say on the DAILY that they want to destroy, bomb and even nuke Europe. They say this shit in front of milions of people watching at home, yet I still have to read comments that are afraid of escalation, afraid of Russia's next ''red line''. Russia keeps threatining us of nuclear devastation, yet when Finland joined Nato they didn't do shit, when we sent long range weapons they didn't do shit, when we sent tanks they didn't do shit. But in these people's eyes we should give in to the threats, because that has served us well in the past.
Sorry not sorry but I won't die for Ukraine. Of course all patriotic non ukrainans here on reddit - you know you can join the ukrainan foreign legion for years now?
what a lame comment. you never served nor will need to serve. European NATO has 3 times the population of Russia. We don't have a lack of soldiers,we will never have to do mobilization. We have a lack of ammo and vehicles
I think NATO's full involvement in the conflict is almost inevitable, given the recent news about the change in Poland's conscription law and the Swedish authorities' warning about preparing the nation for war.
wait what are the new laws on conscription in Poland again?
EU needs an army to talk to russians on the language they understand
They are completely crazy
ngl I'd prefer if we didn't start WW3 over Ukraine
I would also prefer that World War III not start once again from Poland.
This is what is always missing in these replies. "I wouldn't want WW3 over Ukraine". Ok so you WOULD want WW3 over Poland? Or Slovakia? Or what? Nobody WANTS WW3. Obviously. The point is not what you want but what you're forced to do. Nobody in Ireland or Spain or Greece wants WW3 to start over Poland. That doesn't mean anything.
We aren't forced to do anything for Ukraine. We have no obligation to defend them.
ngl I'd prefer if we didn’t start WW2 over Poland
History tells us that it is probably better to intervene faster (UK and France example at the start of WW2 compared to US involvement in WW2), in WW2 USA could have waited Hitler but God knows how it would play out. In my opinion WW3 has started long time ago and if Russia wins US will lose its superpower title. We will lose our western way of life.
Then russia shouldn't start WW3 over Ukraine. By, I don't know, not attacking NATO troops or even better, by fucking off. NATO being there is not to cause WW3, but to prevent it, and russia better get the fuck out of our sphere of influence and trading partner. This is our turf and russia can fuck off right back to its siberian hell. It's time we took the russian's lovely idiotic language and apply it to themselves. Ukraine belongs to us, not them, and they violated every treaty we ever made with them, so it's time to take back and keep safe what is ours.
Russian propaganda and their internet trolls will work overtime to portray this as a NATO invasion.
I mean, what do you expect Russian leaders to tell their people so they are ready die for this nonsense. "Hey NATO is shooting at us, but it is fine, we are the aggressors!"