- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
French President Emmanuel Macron met with parliamentary parties on Thursday. During the meeting Macron said he was open to the possibility of sending troops to Ukraine, as announced by, according to French newspaper L’Independant.
Fabien Roussel, a representative of the French Communist Party, said after the meeting that “Macron referenced a scenario that could lead to intervention [of French troops]: the advancement of the front towards Odesa or Kyiv.”
He noted that the French President showed parliamentarians maps of the possible directions of strikes by Russian troops in Ukraine.
Following the meeting, Jordan Bardella of the far-right National Rally party noted that “there are no restrictions and no red lines” in Macron’s approach.
You must log in or register to comment.
I am in conflict about that move. But Macron at least tries to irritate Putin with his own definition of a „red line“, like „if you push to Odessa or Kyiv we will send troops“ maybe this is just the way of talking to Putin now, Russia always threaten Europe of nuclear strikes, their propaganda shitty tv shows is full of bombing Great Britain and sink the whole island, bombing or conquering Berlin again blah blah. They won’t because they can’t because of NATO and even without the US, Russia is not capable to conquer whole Europe, yet. So I think it is a good move in terms of threatening Putin with nato troops in Ukraine, because this is the only language he understands. On the other hand France is kinda safe when it comes to a conventional war, at least for a long time. Of course Germany is scared because it is not that far away, it is literally just Poland between Germany and russia and the German military is by far not able to fight a war against a well trained army with endless human resources.
it is literally just Poland between Germany and russia
Poland has the most powerful military in Europe. If you think Russia’s been struggling in Ukraine, you haven’t seen anything yet. Since Poland joined the EU (and later, NATO) it’s become much more prosperous than it was under Soviet/Russian influence:
It’s been using that prosperity to spend on military.well, we had a good run, ww3 is gonna be the end of us
I very much doubt they are in even remotely the same league as France or the UK. The lack of nuclear weapons would be a hint, as would the inability to produce more than basic weapons systems on their own. Don’t get me wrong, they would be able to put up a fierce fight against Russia, but not on their own.
“please stop” never made a bully stop.
Personally I wouldn’t fear the Russian army. They’re only barely making incremental gains in Ukraine despite a massive advantage in numbers, artillery, and air power.
What I do fear is Putin getting scared of NATO calling his bluff and replying to Ukraine, before doing something insanely stupid with the 2000+ nukes in their national stockpile.
full of bombing Great Britain and sink the whole island,
Well if it was up to me I’d keep Ireland floating
Which is what they said…GB is England, Scotland & Wales.
You’re thinking of United Kingdom, which is short for United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Note that the island of Ireland is 2 countries and you can’t sink one without sinking the other…unless you saw it in 2 first…
You clearly haven’t seen the russian tv broadcast showing their plan to nuke the ocean and create a tsunami that covers the british isles - very bond villain
I would have gone with a giant satellite that shoots laser beams, but I guess that’s more of a North Korea thing
On the other hand France is kinda safe when it comes to a conventional war, at least for a long time. Of course Germany is scared because it is not that far away, it is literally just Poland between Germany and russia and the German military is by far not able to fight a war against a well trained army with endless human resources.
France has nukes, Germany doesn’t. Meaning france can say whatever they want, the nuke-threat is empty against other nuke countries.
If they really wanna play putin’s stupid game, NATO should amass 200.000 troops not in or next to Ukraine, but elsewhere. 50.000 more near scandinavian border, 50.000 more baltics & poland, 50.000 turkey-georgia, 25.000 moldova/romania and, because why not, 25.000 somewhere near bering strait/alaska. All-in, tanks, plane, carriers, stand by on every other accessible border to russia. See how russia really handles that permanent land overstretch in every direction.
I mean, NATO already does this. NATO countries have troops stationed in Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. It’s a mixture of forces from different NATO countries spread all across the Russian border.
This exists because none of those nations want to be invaded by Russia, so we keep troops stationed there to protect them from exactly what happened to Ukraine. If Putin wants to go into any of those countries he has to take on fully modernised western militaries to do it. And attacking any NATO member would also lead to a wide front invasion across the board, which the Russian military is not equipped to counter.
Germany has access to American nukes (nuclear sharing - they would be dropped by German pilots), which would be used if Russian tanks came even anywhere close to the border.
Russia’s been nuclear saber rattling so much it might as well be “China’s Final Warning”
If France wants to give their own saber a rattle and it makes Russia pause for some internal reflection for a moment, more power to them.
Good! I’m in!
Ah, so you joined the french army?
I’m on active duty in a NATO country, so sure, why not!
The real question is why did they not do it already?
Trying to solidify a stance of power in the EU due to the unreliability of American aid depending on whether a crackpot dictator or a rational, sane person wins the next election would be my guess.
French trrops would just surrender after 5 weeks, like they did last time.
The “last time” they were civilians, all their military having more or less been wiped out.
The last time French troops fought bravely and fiercely, allowing the British to escape.
and then they surrendered :)
Sort of a joke that they just decided to draw this gray line now, given that Russian troops have been advancing for months
so the French are one of the causes for a potential WW3? interesting.
I’d rather have WW3 where we all unite against a genocide rather than stand idly by and tut quietly at them. All diplomatic and non escalating methods have been exhausted already, wouldn’t you think?
Putin and Russia. Simples.
Russia: invades Ukraine
You: so the French are to blame for WW3
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/cia-ukraine-intelligence-russia-war.html
Ever heard of the cold war? West and Russia have been attacking each others for a century. Most countries in the world are ruled by corrupted mentally hill politicians competing each others for world domination
What cold war has to do with the objective fact that Russia invaded Ukraine?
Perhaps something with the objective fact that usa and the west have been operating military in ukraine for the past decade
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/cia-ukraine-intelligence-russia-war.html
Are you trying to blame USA for the objective fact that Russia invaded Ukraine? Lol.
Learn history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War
The west and russia have been attacking each others for a century, both blocks are rigged, USA and Russia are both ruled by corrupted murderer mentally hill politicians who crave for wealth and power
History is history, it studies the past. On the 24 of February Putin appeared on television, said that he was about to invade Ukraine, and then we saw Russian rockets hitting Ukrainian cities and tanks crossing the border between two countries. You need a lot of desire to ignore facts in order to blame USA or anyone else for what’s happening.
You keep typing “mentally hill,” is that how you say that term?
It has everything to do with it. Ukraine was part of the USSR. NATO was created to counter the USSR. After it broke up and NATO remained they started adding more to the alliance. The alliance crept closer and closer to Russia. If Ukraine joined NATO then that would be the greatest threat to Russia. They don’t trust the west.
The alliance didn’t creep closer, nations that were previously Soviet colonies flocked to it and used every trick in the book to be allowed into it as soon as possible. This is what national sovereignty looks like. All of this is Russia’s fault and they are to blame for it. They and their sycophants have no right to complain about it.
think outside of the box a little my guy - it’s been an open proxy war thus far, now the French want to kick things in to the 4th dimension by intervening directly.
your simple take is just that. simple.
If French wanted to do that, they would be in Ukraine by now. But no, Macron is talking about Odessa and Kyiv, i.e. about very unrealistic targets as of today.
There’s been reports of Odessa being attacked with some type of long range explosive.
If you’ve been paying attention to the fronts, those usually indicate that Russia is putting boots on the ground soon.
Russia needs to close Ukrainian access to the sea. They’re losing too many ships to the sea drones. They need to take Odessa to win.
It would be the biggest escalation in this war since the second invasion of 22.Russia has been using long range weapons for 2 years against targets all across Ukraine, including its Western border. So this is simply false:
those usually indicate that Russia is putting boots on the ground soon
But you would know that if you were:
paying attention to the fronts
But you clearly weren’t. Russia can’t do anything with Odessa, they spend months to take mere villages. And by take I mean destroy them.
Why the instant hostility? This isn’t reddit. Calm down
A sad backwards gas station’s economic interest was threatened. I understand that taking in economic, geopolitical and societal reasons into account is much more effort, but think outside of the Simple World of Conspiracy box.
Ukraine:
- One of the top grain supplier.
- One of the top xeon gas exporter. It is used in chip fabs.
- Was about to be one of the main natural gas suppliers. In 2012 large gas fields were discovered. Terrain with gas pockets overlaps all axis of initial attack.
- 2014 Ukraine overthrows soviets. Suddenly actual strides towards democracy.
- Wanted to join EU and NATO
russia was:.
- Top gas supplier to EU.
- Top coal supplier to EU.
- Crumbling economically already.
Now. Imagine what is the biggest threat to an authoritarian state
- that is already slowly collapsing
- Has decades long history of corruption, nomenclature - as in no free market
A country that is about to have better prospects of living and roaring GDP, and you dont have to learn another language to migrate! Ukraine. Nextdoors
And what is an Imperialistic Nazi cunt idea other than to start a war? It worked for centuries!
Ukraine, in 2014 was where Poland was in 1990.
Poland had THE SAME problems Ukraine has now. Because of russia, mind you.
Poland had a society that wanted change. Poland joined NATO. Joined EU. And 30 years later has a booming GDP and fastest transformation in Europe.
In 30 years from now, fossil fuels are to be NOT used. The main reason russia has ANY sway and and ANY GDP.
It seems so easy for you to pretend Ukraine’s woes are simply nobody else’s problem. I wonder how many apologists talked the same way about Crimea.
Conquering russia and make it to history books is probably one of the wet dream of any of these eu rulers vermin
No EU leader wants to have any piece of that shithole of a country.
How much RT does one have to watch to believe in such absurd nonsense?
just pick up any history book you like and look at what nations and their corrupted leaders have been doing until yesterday
Following the meeting, Jordan Bardella of the far-right National Rally party noted that “there are no restrictions and no red lines” in Macron’s approach.
I don’t know what this means, but it seems like a win for Ukraine, ofc it is just talk right now.
And it most likely will remain talk. Macron would help Ukraine more by helping to set up a robust military supply chain for Ukraine.
It’s a reference to russian speakers’ ‘red lines’ when foreign parties and Ukraine did something to cross them multiple times, but there was nothing in reaction. Ex-USSR folks started to call it brown lines for how they shit themselves with that rhetoric. I believe, even pro-war fanatics called them that at some point.
Seems sensible enough
send him instead to the front
They’re okay with war because it won’t be them holding the famas, it will be me or other french people.
Fuck them.
Quick reminder that we have a military. There won’t be a draft any time soon and if there is one, we would have other problems. So unless you are in the army (and if you are, you signed for it) you won’t have to “hold the FAMAS”
Putin wants to take over Europe. You’re okay with that?
And how do you imagine that?
Tales of Putin willing to take over Europe are straight up fearmongering. Most countries in Europe are part of NATO and subject to mutual defense clause. Ukraine is not, which us why it was possible to attack it in the first place (and which is why it desperately wants in).
Attacking any of the NATO countries is straight up suicidal.
Please do not let hysteria sift into your brain, for this is the very thing corrupt politicians use to do terrible things.
To be fair, Ukraine is part of a defense agreement too. A shame one of the signatories is the aggressor…
Any corrupted politician dream is to take over other countries, western politicians wet dream is to take over russia too.
Unlike corrupted politicians i do not support putin, i don’t have pictures shaking hands with him and laughing, i don’t have mutual friends with him, i don’t have a boat parked in the same dock next to his, i don’t have business associations with him and i didn’t sign weapons deals with russia a bunch of years ago like many EU countries did.
western politicians wet dream is to take over russia too.
Which ones? Please show evidence.
And you don’t have to like Putin to support him. All you have to do is do what you’re doing and be okay with him taking over Ukraine. To begin with.
I do not support putin, the ukrainian government or any other corrupted politician. If you do talk for yourself and not for others. I support freedom and justice, always and for everyone. You do not fight for freedom arming and empowering villains and dictatorships.
I support freedom and justice, always and for everyone.
Except in Ukraine since you aren’t interested in helping them be free.
Are you aware that since 2022 any male between 18 and 60 can’t leave the country and will be arrested if they try to do so? Are you aware that your own government is in business partnership with countries like china who also supply russia in the war?
No. But I don’t want to fight a war that’s not mine. Every single time when a war is starting there are people that suddenly get warlike AF wanting to kill every Russians. You just don’t know what you’re talking about, you feel like doing it because it feels good being the ‘savior’ but you’re just delusional
It sure will be yours when it gets to your doorstep.
He’s being very short-sighted, as if Ukraine was the final step to this war.
I don’t even know that there is a final step for Putin. Just endless conquest. Good thing he’s not very good at it so far.
Good, Russia will keep indirectly wearing out west countries resources while China prepare their whole army to take control of the wore out countries…
If French troops were sent into Ukraine and were then hit by Russia, would that then trigger NATO agreements?
Article 6 says:
"For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."
Aware this might be a situation where the spirit of the agreement ends up being more important than the legalese.
[an attack] on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force
The forces in question need to be attacked somewhere that the treaty protects, which Ukraine is not.
It would not. It’s a defensive treaty.
Ukraine isn’t a part of France or under the jurisdiction of France, so the attack wouldn’t be on France’s territory, and Ukraine isn’t a member of NATO itself.
Complete speculation but I’d bet that the UK government is so fickle that if France sent in troops then the UK would ‘have’ to send in its own, and by that point the US MiC would be complaining that the US hadn’t sent them in.
About the only thing the UK government has done right in the last few years, is getting help to Ukraine. I think the UK was even sending small weapons (shoulder fired rockets) in the first days of the full scale invasion, while most other nations were still waiting to see if Ukraine would buckle or not. And since then they were always early with other significant help: training programs, tanks, … They did well in this case I think.
UK would not let France fight a war without wanting a piece of the pie
Idk, reading it sounds like any attack on member troops would count
No.
Did you read it? Do you care to provide any actual insight into the conversation, or are you just a troll?
Read article 6. No. It doesn’t meet the requirements.
Article 5 is null because if France sends troops, Russia has the right to self defense.
Also article 5 doesn’t mean anyone has to send troops. It means they have to do what they are willing to do.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
I doubt the United States would enter th conflict just because France wants to get in a fight. We have other treaty obligations we have to protect.
Russia is in no position where it needs to “self defend”. Its troops won’t be attacked if its troops leave Ukraine. The right to self defense is what Ukraine is using right now.
NATO is a defensive alliance. It is specifically designed to prevent a repeat of WW1. Nor will it support military adventurism. For example, the US could invoke Article 5 after 9/11 because the US was attacked on its own territory. The US could not invoke Article 5 when its troops were attacked in Iraq or when it liberated Kuwait. The French cannot invoke Article 5 when it’s troops are attacked in the Magreb. There are also geographic boundaries. The British could not invoke Article 5 when the Falklands were attacked, even though it is British territory, because it is too far south. The French could not invoke Article 5 when it was attacked in Indochina because that was too far east.
Even when a NATO country is attacked on its own territory, it can’t have initiated hostilities. For example, Poland can’t attack Russian territory, thereby declaring war on Russia, and then invoke Article 5 and expect the rest of NATO to jump in. NATO is purely defensive and voluntary. It was designed mainly to prevent a Soviet invasion of the rest of Europe that wasn’t already behind the Iron Curtain, while also preventing any ally from drawing the rest into a war that could lead to nuclear annihilation. It cannot be “gamed” or misused to draw allies into a war.
No, it’s narrower than that. It only applies to attacks directly on Nato countries. It doesn’t even apply to all of a country’s territories, only within the geographic range specified in the treaty. So for instance didn’t apply to the Falkland War, despite a territory under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom coming under attack. It’s not just any time a country’s troops or interests are under attack. US troops have been attacked many times in Iraq, Syria, and other locations, and Article 5 wasn’t invoked. The only time it was ever invoked by any country was the US after 9/11, which was pretty clearly on US territory. If it applied how you say, it could be used by any country to draw all of the rest into an offensive war, which is clearly against the spirit and words of the article.
Finally someone with some friggin balls
Or at least talks the talk. No one has much faith in him to actually follow through though.
That could be called balls if he would take the rifle himself.
Otherwise, it’s political play - maybe a necessary one, but it has nothing to do with “balls”.
It 100% is a political play but you must remeber thats what the armed forces of france signed up for they signed up to fight on behalf of the political power. Not one single other western country has even mentioned sending troops regardless of if he is the one holding a rifle (i suspect many of said troops being sent wont be doing such things they will most likly be engineers to support the western equipment) that is a ballsy political move and it should not be disregarded.
Fair enough
It’s more like, having rts or 4x gamer skills
As much as I want to stick it to Putin, I’m fleeing to Ireland the moment something like this happens.
I don’t feel like being vaporized by a Soviet warhead.
I’m going to Kap Verde myself. Or Gambia. Uruguay maybe, or Honduras. Or Vietnam, or Kambodia. Or Madagascar, you can never go wrong with Madagascar. Or Nepal. Tanzania maybe.
Don’t fuck with the French.
People forget they were a super power for centuries.
Despite all the jokes, The French have won more wars than any other country in history. They were exhausted by the time 1940 rolled around
They were exhausted by the time 1940 rolled around
They were not worthy of the mantle of responsibility
They’re country is right in the middle of one of the areas of the world with the most wars of all time, and it stretches from coast to coast. That alone says a ton.
You make it sound like France was stuck in with everyone else when thar is infact untrue, everyone else was stuck in with France. After all I doubt a medieval country on the defensive would conquer from fucking Catalonia to fucking Ponnonia and Carinthia. And thats just the start I dont think I need to explain what Napoleon did.
I can’t make any sense of what you just said. Could you explain further?
I was making a “you arent stuck in here with me” joke about France and then proceeded to list off the greatest extent of the Frankish empire.
Lol okay I got you now. I totally missed it.
Yeah, once I reread it I realized it was slightly incomprehensible. I aint fixing it though cause I think its funny.
Still are 😎
I think once you have nukes you can send to anywhere on the planet at any time, you count as a superpower.
And they have the most FAFO nuke policy of any nuclear power. They told the world in the '70s “ok we have the nukes, they are pointed at all of you. If anyone anywhere uses these things, we launch at everyone.”
Where can I learn more?
Yep. Don’t fuck with the French.
And 2nd strike capacity !
Don’t fuck with the French.
But what if I … oh, you meant that as a figure of speech. Got it.
They surrendered to the Germans after putting up a brave fight for ** checks notes ** 5 weeks.
It was a good demonstration of the blitzkrieg tactic. Hitting hard and fast with aircraft, tanks and troop carriers without giving the enemy time to regroup or resupply. By the time the French knew what was happening it was too late to mobilize.
The tactic couldn’t be counted until the opposing side had enough firepower to stall it which would’ve taken too long and by that time defeat is a guarantee.
Soviets were given tanks, aircraft, factories, everything they needed to counter the Germans later in the war which halted their army and that’s when the blitzkrieg fell apart.
Blitzkrieg is effective but only when your moving faster than the enemy can regroup and counter
(jk, I love my French brothers)
Ai is truly amazing
If that’s AI it did a great job on the hands for once.
Better for sure but the knuckles don’t align with the digits
Also his left hand only has 3 fingers. Either that or the pinky has a similar texture to the ground. Hard to tell based on the lighting.
that’s because harvesting croissants uses really dangerous sharp tools to cut them off the stems and workers lose digits all the time. It’s why the French have great single payer healthcare.
Good eye, I didn’t notice that. Improvements are noticeable though as it used to be so much worse
It seems to be a non-issue for a while now
AI? I took this photo myself when I was in France during the croissant harvesting season!
Wait. Was this taken in the Croissante region? It’s just that they’re very particular about this, and I just want to make sure those are, in fact, croissant fields, and not sparkling crescent rolls.
Oh fuck.
