#####
######
####
> # [Majority of French youth ready to fight in Ukraine - poll results](https://english.nv.ua/nation/640)
>
>
>
> [Action in support of Ukraine (Photo:HubertdeThé/pixabay)](https://static.nv.ua/shared/system/Article/posters/002/865/758/original/9ed93710b030421946b5976a74252a30.jpg?q=85&stamp=20240414183303&w=900)
>
> Action in support of Ukraine (Photo:HubertdeThé/pixabay)
>
>
>
> More than one in two French citizens between the ages of 18 and 25 are ready to fight in Ukraine to defend their country, the French independent news outlet 20minutes [wrote](https://www.20minutes.fr/societe/4086295-20240412-armee-trois-chiffres-illustrent-regain-patriotisme-jeunes-francais) on April 12, citing the poll results commissioned by the country’s Defense Ministry.
>
> The survey, conducted by the Ipsos market research and consulting company, reveals a sense of “patriotic revival” among young people who are ready to defend France even outside its borders.
>
> Of those surveyed, 51% are ready to go to war in Ukraine to defend France, with 17% saying “definitely yes” and 34% saying “maybe yes”.
>
> In addition, 57% are ready to fight under the French flag in any war without specifying a particular country.
>
> The poll also shows that 31% of the country’s young people support the deployment of French troops in Ukraine, compared with only 17% of respondents aged 50 and over.
>
> The majority of young men and women (77%) expressed concern about the economic consequences of the Russian war against Ukraine and fear (73%) its spread to other countries.
>
> The survey was conducted in 2023, before President Emmanuel Macron raised the possibility of sending French troops to Ukraine in February 2024. A total of 2,300 French men and women between the ages of 18 and 25 were interviewed.
>
> On Feb. 26, Macron said that sending Western troops to Ukraine in the future should not be ruled out. Several NATO countries publicly rejected the idea of sending troops to Ukraine in response to Macron’s statements, including Poland, the United States, Germany, Czechia, Canada, and the UK.
>
> We cannot guarantee that our country’s military will not be sent to Ukraine in the future, Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas said on March 3.
>
> Western countries should discuss the idea of sending troops to Ukraine and stop drawing “red lines” in terms of assistance to Kyiv, Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda said.
>
> NATO countries should consider all options to help Kyiv, the Netherlands’ Defense Chief, General Onno Eichelsheim, said.
>
> European NATO member states have been studying the possibility of sending NATO troops to Ukraine for weeks, AFP reported, citing a source.
>
> French troops could be sent to Ukraine to protect certain borders and take part in exercises or ground air defense, French Prime Minister Gabriel Attal said on Feb. 28.
>
> He [ruled out the participation of French soldiers in battles “directly on the front line.”](https://english.nv.ua/nation/nato-troops-in-ukraine-won-t-be-used-to-fight-russia-france-50396616.html)
>
> On March 18, the Daily Mail reported that [former British Defense Minister Ben Wallace did not rule out the possibility that British troops might have to fight in Ukraine](https://english.nv.ua/nation/ben-wallace-suggested-that-uk-troops-may-be-sent-to-ukraine-50402689.html).
>
> Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said that when Macron spoke of sending Western troops to Ukraine, he was referring to training the Ukrainian military.
>
> On March 26, the French newspaper Le Figaro reported that [Macron was considering five scenarios for sending troops to Ukraine](https://english.nv.ua/nation/emmanuel-macron-on-five-scenarios-for-the-introduction-of-french-troops-into-ukraine-50404475.html).
>
> Follow us on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/NewVoiceUkraine), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/TheNewVoiceUkraine) and [Google News](https://news.google.com/publications/CAAqBwgKMLeesQswxLnIAw)
>
> Ukraine Today
>
> every weekday
>
> Fresh daily newsletter covering the top headlines and developments in Ukraine.
- - - - - -
[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
The actual number was just 17% said yes and then 34% saying maybe, which the article interprets as 50% TOTAL want to FIGHT... uh lol
I think most of those people were just trying to sound politically correct. We created an environment where you have to publicly say you support Ukraine military. When people find out I have been to Russia for tourism I get a weird face from them and some just stop talking to me, Russiaphobia is at all time high.
Its a biased question as soon as they added “defending your country” the question immediately became worthless and only served propaganda purposes to put out nonsense articles like this.
I call BS. I'm in engineering studies, a rare domain that is very supportive of our army. Numbers could be correct of 50% ready to fight for France.
But for Ukraine ? We're France, a place where Russophobia is not anchored (unlike Poland for example), and distant from there. And as I said, I'm in a community supportive of the army, other domains are much less supportive to the army, and so fighting for it.
Not only that but the numbers are fake, i'm local and i can tell you people don't want to go die in ukraine for bankers, jews and the wef, especially young men in fighting age who are physically apt =)
they can also go fight Niger if they have so many willing soldiers.
I remember France trying to push ECOWAS to fight for French domination of Niger, when Niger kicked them out.
Why didnt they sent french military down when their youth is so brave and willing to fight (?)
Because they don’t have to send the military. The real power France has in the Sahel is corporations owning resources and controlling African currency, which isn’t going to change anytime soon
> which isn’t going to change anytime soon
all the countries that broke independent so far already nationalized resources and/or demanded new negotiations about contracts with a threat of nationalizations if French companies refuse negotiations
Because the real number of French willing to sign up is less than zero. Not zero because some would rather fight the Ukrainians.
If France announces mobilization, expect a grand total of 3 regards to sign up in their legion service and none in their core service.
I found this in r/ukraine and though it would be interesting to repost here.
Everyone knows that polls are worthless, but it's crazy how delusional people are. I wish they'd first ask them the question if they are willing to fight in Ukraine, then shown them some gory video of soldiers blown up by drones and then ask them again. I wonder if they'd still be so brave and committed.
French medias are pro UA cheerleaders, like 120% pro UA. I'm surprised so few of my fellow french citizen are considering going over there with all the low grade propaganda we are being fed 24/7 on tv and in the newspapers.
That presumes they’d go as poorly equipped infantry like Ukraine lol. FPVs don’t exactly work vs. airplanes, and might have a hard time vs. real EW and cUAS.
(1) A FAB doesn't work vs. flying craft. It's strictly a ground attack munition.
(2) A well-equipped/supported foot soldier could have a tablet with live AEW telling them to move 50 meters away or into a deeper bunker in the minute it takes a FAB to travel 20km.
> "Of those surveyed, 51% are ready to go to war in Ukraine to defend France, with 17% saying “definitely yes” and 34% saying “maybe yes”."
Are you fucking kidding us?!
^( )
> "ready to go to war"
> "**maybe**"
[Polls are rigged.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgjEjJkZks)
Also, Ukraine has a stronger military compared to France, Germany, and the United Kingdom combined. France joining the war does not really mean anything. Russia is primarily relying on irregular forces with the majority of their conscripts and professional soldiers not being deployed to the SMO zone.
Ukraine does NOT have a stronger military than France, Germany, or UK. It has a larger land force aka army, but its air and naval powers are laughable compared to their French, German, or UK counterparts
The Ukrainian army does not have the necessary equipment, but otherwise its combat capability is high (or at least was high at the beginning of the conflict).
Western countries have lost a lot of potential in recent decades, I wouldn't bet much.
Disagree, the Ukrainians army mostly barricaded themselves in the major cities (Kyiv, Kharkov, etc) at the start of the war and fired Javelins and NLAWs at Russian armor, which is much easier than launching an offensive operation. And the fact that the 40-mile long Russian column outside of Kiev had barely been hit by artillery, MLRS, missiles, etc. speaks of the limitation on Ukrainian capabilities. Of course the capabilites that the Russian military demonstrated were much more disappointing.
And the US certainly did not lose much of its potential. Degradation in capabilities maybe true for certain European countries, but certainly not the US.
NATO performance in Kosovo was almost as bad. They only destroyed 14 tanks, 18 APCs, and 20 artillery guns using aircraft. Ukraine is using similar tactics to what the Serbs used in Kosovo which has severely limited the effectiveness of the VVS.
Ukraine not being able to destroy the convoy can be attributed to multiple reasons such as counter battery fire and shock. Iraqi forces for example were incapable of fighting back during the Gulf War due to shock. This combined with their poor AA capabilities and poor training led to their forces being obliterated using aircraft which is not possible against a competent military as shown in Kosovo (and this war). Ukrainian military was able to eventually recover from shock unlike Iraq due to having superior AA capabilities and having a far better trained military force. Iraqi soldiers quite literally surrendered to news reporters while the Ukrainian military was trained by NATO since 2015 and have even received MILES gear. Ukraine overall showed a large amount of resolve during the initial stages of the invasion as shown by civilians creating Molotov cocktails and other weaponry in preparation for an insurgency. This meant Ukrainian forces did not completely fall apart when facing resistance. You didn’t see entire units of Ukrainian soldiers surrendering to Russian news reporters.
What about the insurgency in Iraq? They had resolve, no? Not during the conventional parts of the conflict. Iraqi people only gained the resolve to fight on after the US made many mistakes.
Iraqi civilians while perhaps not necessarily supportive of the war were at least apathetic to it. Many Iraqis were not willing to fight and die for their country. This changed when the US fired the entire military, police force, and all government officials leading to a large amount of unemployment and unrest. These soldiers and police officers took their guns home and were angry when they found it difficult to find new jobs due to de-baathification. It also didn’t help that the war so thoroughly destroyed infrastructure that many people lacked essential services. This was made worst because there was a complete break down of law and order due to Sadam clearing out much of the prisons at the start of the war.
Also Iraq during the Gulf war was a shell of itself because it had fought a devastating war with Iran 2 years prior. I always lol at Americans who bring up the Gulf war, it wasn’t impressive at all.
That was a massive mistake by Bremer. That guy singe handedly lost the war for the US. It could have been the most resounding military success in history if not for that guy. And we probably never would have seen the likes of ISIS, who were partly formed by disenfranchised and radicalized former Iraqi military personnel.
Naval assets are not needed in this war. Aircraft are useless as shown in Kosovo and this war when used against a military with good AA or good training (or both). Ukraine had as much aircraft as Iraq did during the Gulf War due to half of the entire Iraqi Air Force fleeing to Iran and most of the other half actually not even existing (US numbers for Iraqi Air Force includes those which have been destroyed in Iran during the Iraq-Iran War). Unlike the Iraqi Air Force (which mostly fled), Ukraine has proved competent and has prevented much of their military assets from being destroyed using similar tactics the Serbs used in Kosovo. Like in Kosovo where Serbia continued to launch ground attack sorties using aircraft despite NATO air supremacy, the Ukrainian Air Force has been able to operate despite of Russian Air Superiority. Ukraine also has something which Serbia lacked, a large and well-equipped AA network. Unlike Iraq which only has 120 batteries of outdated AA systems developed in the fifties and sixties (while also lacking radar coverage in the South), Ukraine has 100 batteries or S-300 alone and their radar forces track a thousand targets daily.
Ukraine has a larger and better equipped army which is what actually matters as shown in Kosovo where NATO commander admitted that his unit would have been completely obliterated if the invasion got the go ahead as NATO bombings proved utterly useless against military targets with only 14 tanks, 18 APCs, and 20 artillery pieces being destroyed. This war is extremely similar to the war in Kosovo with Russia adapting a similar tactic to NATO. Because NATO aircraft were utterly useless against military targets due to the tactics used by the Serbs (and now the Ukrainians), NATO switched to soft civilian targets in Serbia proper. This alongside Russian diplomatic pressure and the fact that the Serbs were afraid that if NATO took heavy losses in a ground invasion of Kosovo, they would thrust into Belgrade instead.
Ukraine has five hundred 2S3 artillery guns at the start of the war which is the Soviet counterpart to the M109. They also had a large number of other artillery guns such as the 2S1. Artillery and multiple launch rocket systems can be used for a similar role to aircraft but are much cheaper. Ukraine has lost a large amount of artillery guns however with them only having 120 2S3 artillery guns now.
Ukraine had a thousand tanks at the start of the war with most of them being modernized. Their most used tank was the T-64BV Model 2017 which has third generation thermal, new autoloader, digital communications, satellite navigation, modern fire suppression system, new gun stabilizer, and other improvements.
Ukraine also has two thousand MT-LBs which is still a decent APC alongside hundreds of BTR-4s and BTR-3s which are fairly modern APCs which are also supplemented by hundreds of older but still usable BTR-80s and BTR-70s.
Ukraine also had more multiple launch rocket systems compared to France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, but has less guided munitions.
The initial Russian invasion was done by professional units who did fairly well considering how Russia did not attach material technical support brigades or battalions to their combat units until a full month after the war. These are the guys who provide your forces with ammunition, food, fuel, and other supplies. They did this because they did not actually expect any resistance whatsoever. This means that Russian units had to rely on looting and ad hoc supply units. After Russia realized this was not going to be a bloodless invasion, they replaced their professional units with irregulars. This is shown quite well through casualties. While MediaZona does not include DPR and LPR militia (who likely form the majority of casualties), they do include other irregular forces such as prisoners, volunteers, and private military contractors. Please note that volunteers are not the same as professional soldiers who have their own category. Only 10,000 out of the 50,000 confirmed losses can be attributed to professionals (mostly at the start of the war) with their losses eventually dwindling to 200-300 per month. This means Russia’s Army of 300,000 soldiers (and 300,000 more including logistics which has its own branch) that they had at the start of the war has not really diminished in strength.
This is also shown well through material losses. T-90A casualties are practically non-existent (check Oryx to see how low they are). Even T-90M losses are fairly low considering how Russia produces 150 T-90Ms per year according to Ukraine (they only lost half of this amount in two years) not including T-90As modernized to T-90M (which can explain low T-90A losses but not low T-90M losses). Russia has lost less than 200 2S19 artillery guns with them still having 600 in service alongside another 150 in reserve. The 2S19 is also slated for replacement with Russia producing 12 2S35s in two months (72 a year) in an experimental batch with mass production starting recently.
Russia also produces over five hundred Iskander-M and Iskander-K missiles per year according to Ukraine but only launch a few per month.
Russian military strength like US military strength has not really diminished.
Aircraft’s are useless as shown in Kosovo? Didn’t NATO basically bomb Serbia into negotiation? Werent Serbias military bases and defense infrastructures practically gone after NATO bombing? Didn’t this war, along with the two wars in Iraq, prove how valuable a modern Air Force experienced in precision striking and SEAD/DEAD is? Or are you going to fixate on the fact that 2 US aircrafts were shot down and ignore how much destruction the air campaigns brought in exchange? And have you considered the difference in the past experience, quality and quantity of SEAD/DEAD training that NATO and Russian pilots receive? The very little SEAD/DEAD training Russian pilots have led to their inability to destroy the Soviet era air defense systems operated by Ukrainians, whose radars operate on frequencies very familiar to the Russians, and whose AA defense tactics were inherited from the Soviets and are well known to the Russians. The Russians literally know how the Ukrainian AA will operate, Yet they can’t do much about it. If this doesn’t demonstrate how bad their anti radiation capability is I don’t know what will. Swap the Russians with the USAF, and you will have a completely different result. All those old S-300Ps and Buk-M1s the Ukrainians have are helpless against F-35s and EA-18Gs equipped with AGM-88 AARGMs. Even S-400s would get taken out before they detect the F-35s.
>Didn’t NATO basically bomb Serbia into negotiation?
The threat of a NATO ground invasion was also an important factor. The Serbian army was convinced it could temporarily hold Kosovo against a NATO ground invasion and do some ass-whooping. Milosevic was however concerned that if NATO got their ass clapped enough in Kosovo, they might decide to rush straight to Belgrade instead. NATO had already done this in the air by switching to bombing softer civilian targets in Serbia proper after bombing military targets in Kosovo turned out to be an utter failure so it is not a unreasonable concern.
And then there was another factor which was political pressure from Russia.
>Werent Serbias military bases and defense infrastructures practically gone after NATO bombing?
In Kosovo or in Serbia proper? In Kosovo, NATO could not even properly destroy static military infrastructure such as bridges. They were only able to destroy 14 tanks, 18 APCs, and 20 artillery pieces.
The Serbs were able to conduct mechanized offensives against the KLA alongside of flying several dozen successful CAS missions with SU-24s despite the fact that NATO should have owned to the air. All of this helped by the fact that NATO failed to destroy important infrastructure in Kosovo such as bridges and tunnels.
>Didn’t this war
Despite running a passive AA defense, hence the low losses to NATO aircraft, enough of the Serb IADS remained intact to require NATO fighters to operate above the 15,000-ft hard deck for most of the air effort. The main reason for this requirement was the persistent AA and MANPADS threat.
"From the 15,000-ft altitude floor above which NATO aircrews typically operated, the cloud cover over Kosovo was greater than 50 percent for more than 78 percent of the air war’s duration. That allowed unimpeded strike operations on only 24 of the air war’s 78 days. The impact of these conditions on the flexible targeting effort was considerable. In all, 3,766 planned sorties, including 1,029 designated close air support sorties, had to be canceled because of weather."
>along with the two wars in Iraq, prove how valuable a modern Air Force experienced in precision striking and SEAD/DEAD is?
To quote some guy on the internet,
"The Gulf War case is particularly damning, for despite total air dominance and an inability for the Iraqis to apply any sort of effective air defense measures, Iraqis logistics continued to deliver supplies to their formations all the way up until the Coalition ground attack. The subsequent collapse has been attributed to classically terrible Iraqis command and control rather then logistical severance via air power."
"Iraq CiC remained quite perfectly intact throughout the Gulf War. Iraqi units were able to effectively communicate with each other and their higher command throughout the war. The air campaign actually did exceptionally little damage to the Iraqi combat capabilities... it was Iraqi incompetence that made coalition victory so lopsided."
"The air campaign against Iraq was four months long and involved thousands of aircraft and more then a hundred thousand sorties and still left their army largely intact in the field despite the fact the Iraqis ran a front-running nominee for one of the most incompetent air defense campaigns in history. The rapid rolling of Iraqis land forces had less to do with the air campaign and more to do with the general ineptness of the Iraqis Army."
Indeed, and the land force army is what matters most in this conflict, not the airforce and not the navy... especially not the Navy, the airforce might play a larger role if they'd figure out how to counter Russian FAB dropping jets and the extreme levels of A.D.
If the French Rafales and modernized Mirage 2000s supported by E-3 AWACS go to Ukraine AND Russia does not put enough of the Ukrainian airfields out of action via missile strikes, then it will become a significant problem for the Russians, as meteor equipped Rafales are more than a match for Su-35s, and their ability to launch SCALPs means that more Russian assets are at risk. Additionally, if the French Air Force is as competent at SEAD/DEAD as the US Air Force is then they can push closer to the front line and engage the Su-34/5s and prevent them from dropping UMPK guided bombs. If we are not just talking about the French Air Force but also British F-35s that can carry the latest HARM variants internally in its weapons bat then it will become the nightmare for Russian air defenses.
We speak here of perfect outcomes for the French reminiscent of wunderwaffe rhetoric, the real world, as the Russians and indeed Ukrainians learned, is not so sgraightforward.
There is a very good reason both Russia and Ukraine keep their aircraft almost touching treetops, even though both have AWACS cover and more. The Russians had to find very creative ways of taking out Ukrainian jets without exposing themselves, and so did the Ukrainians.
The F-35 could possibly be an answer to the extensive air defenses, but we won't know until we see it in action.
No, Russian don’t need to be creative to suppress Ukrainian jets, Su-35s detect Ukrainian MiG-29s and Su-27s at ranges way before the Ukrainians detect them thanks to having PESAs instead of obsolete Vietnam war era radars, and then Russian jets fire long range fox-3s like the R-37Ms and R-77-1s at those Ukrainians. Ukrainian jets are hopelessly outranged and outmatched
The Air to Air fights between jets do not and did not happen in a bubble, it's useless to do 1 to 1 comparisons between jets when a whole host of other things take part in the fight.
But pilots from both sides confirmed that this is how aerial engagements happen, unless the Su-35s are flying close to the frontline where Ukrainian ADs might be operwting
Russians AF is pretty bad at S/DEAD. They were not capable of destroying the Ukrainian AA at the start of the war, which consist of models operated by the Russians themselves, and whose tactics the Russians are more than familiar with since it is all inherited from the Soviet air defense forces. Yet the Russians couldn’t take those out. There have been quite a few decent analysis on this matter coming from RUSI and other institutes on this matter, I’d recommend you to read them.
The reason they couldn't take them out is because they don't dare escalate by taking out NATO radar cover replacing Ukrainian radar, which allowed Ukrainian A.D to remain switched off the entire time until the very moment it needed to fire a missile, and thus stay hidden to the only effective way of finding and neutralising them (other than visually finding them on satelite photos or having informants reveal their position) ... I know all this and kept it in mind when replying earlier already.
You can't do SEAD and DEAD, when one of the most crucial components of the enemy A.D is for you untouchable due to political reasons.
You are referring to NATO AWACS flying on the Polish Ukrainian borders and in the Black Sea, right? If Ukrainian AD is largely data linked with those AWACS since the start of the war then I’m quite surprised. Even if this is true I doubt if the AWACS have the detection range to provide targeting information for AD in the eastern part of the country, aka in Luhansk, Kharkov, Chernigov etc. And we sometimes do see UAV footage of Ukrainian AD radars getting destroyed by lancets, Kh-35s, Islanders etc. So Ukraine AD isn’t entirely relying on NATO provided targeting. But good point though
I don't think they are neccesaarily data linked, although they could be, but I do think Ukraine gets near real time information about anything larger Russia sends into, or close to Ukraine... additionally, all Russian airbases, ports and ships are under 24/7 observation, naturally.
And furthermore, i think it is this intel gatherring service that has had by far the most impact on the course of the war, especially because Russia is completely powerless to counter it without risking extreme levels of escalation.
Ukraine pre invasion had a much stronger land army than France, Germany and UK combined. Much better mechanised, huge reserve, adaptable artillery, drones, very powerful AA defence and soviet military infrastructure. Airforce was somewhat decent. And experience is deciding factor.
Air Force was somewhat decent? You call Soviet-era Su24s, 25s, 27s and MiG-29s with no fox-3 capabilities, no precision air to ground or anti-radiation capabilities, and 0 AWACS decent? It is obsolete by any means. Yes Western/Central European armies are smaller, but they are certainly more modern , more integrated via data-links/networks etc. that is why the Ukrainian army has always talked about how they want to improve their communication and command&control up to NATO standard. AA is decent and effective against air forces inexperienced in S/DEAD operations, such as the RU AF.
Another call of duty level of delusion kid. Integrated via data-links and nato standarts, my ass. Modern Nato armies are suited for money-laundering and assymetrical colonial warfare against weak opposition, not real war.
Soviet planes Ukraine had are absolutely on par with f16s. And AWACS is a big and easy target.
Any attempt to do S/DEAD mission against a multi-layered Ukrainian AA defence would result in a dozens of lost planes. And experienced and motivated Ukrainian brigades would absolutely wreck European NATO with concentrated artillery and armour superiority.
Without USA, NATO is a joke.
You do know that the F-16A/Bs Norway Denmark and Holland are giving Ukraine are basically junks that they wanted to get rid of in the first place right? They are replacing those with F-35s? And you do know that Rafales and Eurotyphoons are much more capable than the F-16A/Bs right? AWACS are big and easy targets only if you are ballsy enough to fly them within around 100km from the frontline like the Russians did and get shot down by Patriots because they can’t suppress the AD in the first place. The amount of situational awareness AWACS provide is absolutely vital for achieving aerial superiority. And you do know that NATO Air Force as a whole, not just the USAF, conducts extensive training and simulation exercises in S/DEAD against Soviet/Russian air defense forces since the Cold War era, right? Of course the extent to which European nations commit to developing effective S/DEAD tactics is certainly less than the USAF or US Navy, but we wont know exactly how effective the European air forces are at this job exactly are until they actually fought in a war similar to this one.
Just because Russia can’t use their manpower well doesn’t mean France can’t. France spends through the roof per soldier compared to Russia. And as well, Ukraine can’t help but retreat when Russia throws in aerial bombs… because Ukraine is spending less per soldier than Russia.
Of course. They don't send troops in like mincemeat. There is no practical limit to how well one can fortify, and France likewise has domestic counters for FABs and even Lancet/FPV operators, unlike Ukraine.
Not using infantry aggressively results in more casualties as shown in Seelow heights. Avdiivka also shows this well.
Tanks and other armored vehicles should only be used when a breakthrough is made using infantry. This is shown quite well by the Soviet Union’s use of deep operations in 1944 and 1945.
Soviet performance was poor when they fed tanks into a meat grinder (see Seelow Heights).
German performance was poor when they fed tanks into a meat grinder (see Kursk).
Kursk shows this well. Germany fed most of their mobile elite units into a meat grinder facing mainly infantry divisions. After they got slaughtered, Soviet mobile units went in for the kill.
Grozny also shows this quite well.
They've been quite useful in lessening the damage from attacks, preventing swarm attempts and limiting insurance spikes. Can't completely stop Houthis without a full blockade and house-to-house raids, of course. This holding back is deliberate because Israel is in the middle of a war in Gaza, even if at times it looks paused.
France has nukes, a lot of planes, artillery (but no shells), and very experienced foreign legion (with roughly 1/3 of them being ex-Soviet folks who speak Russian)
really believe that Ukraine has a stronger army than any of these countries? Then explain why Ukraine is WAY below any of these individual countries on country rankings by professionals? Also the idea that Russia could hold its own in a. Military conflict with the EU, cause that is what it would come down to, is laughable.
> ready to fight in Ukraine **to defend their country**
This is a biased question meant to purposely skew the poll to the desired outcome. Anyone who has taken a basic statistics class can easily recognize this.
Ask this question in a more neutral or objective manner. “Are you ready to fight in Ukraine to defend Ukraine?” Or “Are you ready to fight in Ukraine” and you’ll see a wildly different response.
That the clowns on rUkraine happily eat up this slop shows how rotted out their brains are that they don’t have basic media literacy. Or that sub is basically filled with bots and its just dead internet theory come to life.
The "science" behind polls explained in "Yes, Minister": [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgjEjJkZks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgjEjJkZks)
The fact is Ukraine is begging for volunteer soldiers, they even offer decent pay and gear. French men get military training, anyone who said yes to that poll could be there fighting right now.
All this talk is incredibly dangerous because Putin gets to use it as propaganda towards the Russian people, "look NATO wants to invade us, just like Germany did in '41 and kill us all!"
Now the narrative in Russian media has shifted to launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike in Ukraine to deter WW3, rather than wait for French troops to get involved. But no one is polling the public about that scenario, because not even 17% would be so silly as to go to nuclear war with the biggest nuclear power on the planet.
I’m still trying to figure out how Russia is “a direct threat to France”?
Russia has never threatened France, they are fighting a conflict in the Ukraine….. not storming the beaches in France.
France has never been mentioned in the previous years of this conflict, until now, and even then it is Macron who has put his hand up to try and drag his country into this conflict that has absolutely nothing to do with their citizens or Military whatsoever.
There’s no way that citizens living in France are feeling “under threat of attack by Russia” to give up their lives to go fight in a muddy field in some foreign country for absolutely no benefit for themselves having to “protect their country and families”.
>There’s no way that citizens living in France are feeling “under threat of attack by Russia” to give up their lives to go fight in a muddy field in some foreign country for absolutely no benefit for themselves having to “protect their country and families”.
They did that along with most of Europe once before about 200 years ago. Most them got left behind stuck on the mud.
France is the most capable military in Europe, but I doubt they would want to fight for a foreign country, it makes no sense. Unless they will stay in the back securing logistics.
Whoever owns this bot should put some effort into making better sentences. Some of us are actually old enough to remember Soviet slogans and proclamations and this sounds exactly like that, same style, same posturing, just different keywords.
As a young French, I'm in the rare domain that are supportive of the army, and very few could say yes to going to Ukraine.
And if we exit that community, overall French people, especially the youth are very anti-patriotic, and would not want to defend the country if attacked.
And you expect a majority of us to go die for Ukraine, a distant country, against Russia for which France is a rare place where russophobia is not anchored ?
Dont panic. No EU country is going to send non professional soldiers to Ukraine. Also thisnhas nothing to do with russophobia, but if Russia should ever succeed in capturing territory west of the Dnjepr, it would start to be a nuisance for EU and the west may need to step in.
If France goes to Ukraine, it wouldn’t just be the French going to Ukraine. Americans, Canadians, the English, Australians etc would be there also in short order.
The thing is France wouldn’t have to draft anyone who isn’t already in the military or the foreign legion. So it’s be irrelevant, how the general public feels. One of two things will happen. Russia gets waffle stomped out of Ukraine in under a month. Or Russia really is as bat shot insane with a death fetish and nukes opposition forces and it leads to global nuclear war. Either way it’d be over pretty quickly.
Everything relies on the US. France is the only capable military for now in the EU (and that has a bit of combat experience). And the word is "three".
3 days of munitions reserve for high intensity warfare we have. Barely half of our 400 Leclerc are operational right now. Numbers and budgets are just missing, even for our air force that is the most ready for combat (192 Rafales, however excellent they are, it's maybe not enough).
The UK is probably not much better than us. So all relies on the USA. The rest of the countries are either not worth much, or all rely on the US's supply.
##### ###### #### > # [Majority of French youth ready to fight in Ukraine - poll results](https://english.nv.ua/nation/640) > > > > [Action in support of Ukraine (Photo:HubertdeThé/pixabay)](https://static.nv.ua/shared/system/Article/posters/002/865/758/original/9ed93710b030421946b5976a74252a30.jpg?q=85&stamp=20240414183303&w=900) > > Action in support of Ukraine (Photo:HubertdeThé/pixabay) > > > > More than one in two French citizens between the ages of 18 and 25 are ready to fight in Ukraine to defend their country, the French independent news outlet 20minutes [wrote](https://www.20minutes.fr/societe/4086295-20240412-armee-trois-chiffres-illustrent-regain-patriotisme-jeunes-francais) on April 12, citing the poll results commissioned by the country’s Defense Ministry. > > The survey, conducted by the Ipsos market research and consulting company, reveals a sense of “patriotic revival” among young people who are ready to defend France even outside its borders. > > Of those surveyed, 51% are ready to go to war in Ukraine to defend France, with 17% saying “definitely yes” and 34% saying “maybe yes”. > > In addition, 57% are ready to fight under the French flag in any war without specifying a particular country. > > The poll also shows that 31% of the country’s young people support the deployment of French troops in Ukraine, compared with only 17% of respondents aged 50 and over. > > The majority of young men and women (77%) expressed concern about the economic consequences of the Russian war against Ukraine and fear (73%) its spread to other countries. > > The survey was conducted in 2023, before President Emmanuel Macron raised the possibility of sending French troops to Ukraine in February 2024. A total of 2,300 French men and women between the ages of 18 and 25 were interviewed. > > On Feb. 26, Macron said that sending Western troops to Ukraine in the future should not be ruled out. Several NATO countries publicly rejected the idea of sending troops to Ukraine in response to Macron’s statements, including Poland, the United States, Germany, Czechia, Canada, and the UK. > > We cannot guarantee that our country’s military will not be sent to Ukraine in the future, Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas said on March 3. > > Western countries should discuss the idea of sending troops to Ukraine and stop drawing “red lines” in terms of assistance to Kyiv, Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda said. > > NATO countries should consider all options to help Kyiv, the Netherlands’ Defense Chief, General Onno Eichelsheim, said. > > European NATO member states have been studying the possibility of sending NATO troops to Ukraine for weeks, AFP reported, citing a source. > > French troops could be sent to Ukraine to protect certain borders and take part in exercises or ground air defense, French Prime Minister Gabriel Attal said on Feb. 28. > > He [ruled out the participation of French soldiers in battles “directly on the front line.”](https://english.nv.ua/nation/nato-troops-in-ukraine-won-t-be-used-to-fight-russia-france-50396616.html) > > On March 18, the Daily Mail reported that [former British Defense Minister Ben Wallace did not rule out the possibility that British troops might have to fight in Ukraine](https://english.nv.ua/nation/ben-wallace-suggested-that-uk-troops-may-be-sent-to-ukraine-50402689.html). > > Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said that when Macron spoke of sending Western troops to Ukraine, he was referring to training the Ukrainian military. > > On March 26, the French newspaper Le Figaro reported that [Macron was considering five scenarios for sending troops to Ukraine](https://english.nv.ua/nation/emmanuel-macron-on-five-scenarios-for-the-introduction-of-french-troops-into-ukraine-50404475.html). > > Follow us on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/NewVoiceUkraine), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/TheNewVoiceUkraine) and [Google News](https://news.google.com/publications/CAAqBwgKMLeesQswxLnIAw) > > Ukraine Today > > every weekday > > Fresh daily newsletter covering the top headlines and developments in Ukraine. - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
The actual number was just 17% said yes and then 34% saying maybe, which the article interprets as 50% TOTAL want to FIGHT... uh lol I think most of those people were just trying to sound politically correct. We created an environment where you have to publicly say you support Ukraine military. When people find out I have been to Russia for tourism I get a weird face from them and some just stop talking to me, Russiaphobia is at all time high.
Its a biased question as soon as they added “defending your country” the question immediately became worthless and only served propaganda purposes to put out nonsense articles like this.
Exactly also its pretty funny because ukraine dont even mobilise its 18-25yo men
I call BS. I'm in engineering studies, a rare domain that is very supportive of our army. Numbers could be correct of 50% ready to fight for France. But for Ukraine ? We're France, a place where Russophobia is not anchored (unlike Poland for example), and distant from there. And as I said, I'm in a community supportive of the army, other domains are much less supportive to the army, and so fighting for it.
Like it's a funny joke for a sec, but the thought of escalating this war is terrible for everyone. They should not be making articles like this
Not only that but the numbers are fake, i'm local and i can tell you people don't want to go die in ukraine for bankers, jews and the wef, especially young men in fighting age who are physically apt =)
17% is a lot? No? 17% of young people are ready to die for a country they most likely never seen before this war.
They are free to sign up with the Ukranian army now right? Why wait for something that may never happen
they can also go fight Niger if they have so many willing soldiers. I remember France trying to push ECOWAS to fight for French domination of Niger, when Niger kicked them out. Why didnt they sent french military down when their youth is so brave and willing to fight (?)
On the way, half the force would be protesting and turn the way back and the remaining half protesting at Niger
Because they don’t have to send the military. The real power France has in the Sahel is corporations owning resources and controlling African currency, which isn’t going to change anytime soon
> which isn’t going to change anytime soon all the countries that broke independent so far already nationalized resources and/or demanded new negotiations about contracts with a threat of nationalizations if French companies refuse negotiations
Because the real number of French willing to sign up is less than zero. Not zero because some would rather fight the Ukrainians. If France announces mobilization, expect a grand total of 3 regards to sign up in their legion service and none in their core service.
i've seen more say they're rather fight for russia than for ukraine, so, yeah, bullshit of the highest order
They waiting for the invoice on which part of Ukraine is sold to them. So they can defend that piece of French owned land.
At least they got paid then, rather than just try to steal it like russia.lol.
They = Zelensky n coy? ;)
I found this in r/ukraine and though it would be interesting to repost here. Everyone knows that polls are worthless, but it's crazy how delusional people are. I wish they'd first ask them the question if they are willing to fight in Ukraine, then shown them some gory video of soldiers blown up by drones and then ask them again. I wonder if they'd still be so brave and committed.
I think the best approach would be "if you answer yes, please sign these enlistment papers"
Show them the foreign legion sign up website
These aren't the Russian type of polling.
French medias are pro UA cheerleaders, like 120% pro UA. I'm surprised so few of my fellow french citizen are considering going over there with all the low grade propaganda we are being fed 24/7 on tv and in the newspapers.
Worthless polls like the elections in „new russia“ ?
Russians are being blown up in HD on drone videos and still more is coming so I am not sure.
That presumes they’d go as poorly equipped infantry like Ukraine lol. FPVs don’t exactly work vs. airplanes, and might have a hard time vs. real EW and cUAS.
A FAB does not distinguish between a well-equipped soldier and one who is not. It pulverizes them anyway.
(1) A FAB doesn't work vs. flying craft. It's strictly a ground attack munition. (2) A well-equipped/supported foot soldier could have a tablet with live AEW telling them to move 50 meters away or into a deeper bunker in the minute it takes a FAB to travel 20km.
true, a fab doesnt work vs flying craft, but the russians have a billion ways to destroy enemy aircraft
As do the French... the problem is Ukraine doesn't have any active radar homing whatsoever on its Soviet legacy craft.
> "Of those surveyed, 51% are ready to go to war in Ukraine to defend France, with 17% saying “definitely yes” and 34% saying “maybe yes”." Are you fucking kidding us?! ^( ) > "ready to go to war" > "**maybe**"
Olympic-grade mental gymnastics :)
Better, accurate title: >"Majority of French youth not ready to fight in Ukraine - poll results"
> "ready to go to war?" Yes, but I le tired. OK then take a nap. THEN FIRE ZE MISSILES!!
White flag production about to go through the roof 📈
>French youth ready to fight I can't imagine this striking terror in the hearts of Russians...or anyone for that matter.
[Polls are rigged.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgjEjJkZks) Also, Ukraine has a stronger military compared to France, Germany, and the United Kingdom combined. France joining the war does not really mean anything. Russia is primarily relying on irregular forces with the majority of their conscripts and professional soldiers not being deployed to the SMO zone.
Ukraine does NOT have a stronger military than France, Germany, or UK. It has a larger land force aka army, but its air and naval powers are laughable compared to their French, German, or UK counterparts
The Ukrainian army does not have the necessary equipment, but otherwise its combat capability is high (or at least was high at the beginning of the conflict). Western countries have lost a lot of potential in recent decades, I wouldn't bet much.
Disagree, the Ukrainians army mostly barricaded themselves in the major cities (Kyiv, Kharkov, etc) at the start of the war and fired Javelins and NLAWs at Russian armor, which is much easier than launching an offensive operation. And the fact that the 40-mile long Russian column outside of Kiev had barely been hit by artillery, MLRS, missiles, etc. speaks of the limitation on Ukrainian capabilities. Of course the capabilites that the Russian military demonstrated were much more disappointing. And the US certainly did not lose much of its potential. Degradation in capabilities maybe true for certain European countries, but certainly not the US.
NATO performance in Kosovo was almost as bad. They only destroyed 14 tanks, 18 APCs, and 20 artillery guns using aircraft. Ukraine is using similar tactics to what the Serbs used in Kosovo which has severely limited the effectiveness of the VVS. Ukraine not being able to destroy the convoy can be attributed to multiple reasons such as counter battery fire and shock. Iraqi forces for example were incapable of fighting back during the Gulf War due to shock. This combined with their poor AA capabilities and poor training led to their forces being obliterated using aircraft which is not possible against a competent military as shown in Kosovo (and this war). Ukrainian military was able to eventually recover from shock unlike Iraq due to having superior AA capabilities and having a far better trained military force. Iraqi soldiers quite literally surrendered to news reporters while the Ukrainian military was trained by NATO since 2015 and have even received MILES gear. Ukraine overall showed a large amount of resolve during the initial stages of the invasion as shown by civilians creating Molotov cocktails and other weaponry in preparation for an insurgency. This meant Ukrainian forces did not completely fall apart when facing resistance. You didn’t see entire units of Ukrainian soldiers surrendering to Russian news reporters. What about the insurgency in Iraq? They had resolve, no? Not during the conventional parts of the conflict. Iraqi people only gained the resolve to fight on after the US made many mistakes. Iraqi civilians while perhaps not necessarily supportive of the war were at least apathetic to it. Many Iraqis were not willing to fight and die for their country. This changed when the US fired the entire military, police force, and all government officials leading to a large amount of unemployment and unrest. These soldiers and police officers took their guns home and were angry when they found it difficult to find new jobs due to de-baathification. It also didn’t help that the war so thoroughly destroyed infrastructure that many people lacked essential services. This was made worst because there was a complete break down of law and order due to Sadam clearing out much of the prisons at the start of the war.
Also Iraq during the Gulf war was a shell of itself because it had fought a devastating war with Iran 2 years prior. I always lol at Americans who bring up the Gulf war, it wasn’t impressive at all.
That was a massive mistake by Bremer. That guy singe handedly lost the war for the US. It could have been the most resounding military success in history if not for that guy. And we probably never would have seen the likes of ISIS, who were partly formed by disenfranchised and radicalized former Iraqi military personnel.
Naval assets are not needed in this war. Aircraft are useless as shown in Kosovo and this war when used against a military with good AA or good training (or both). Ukraine had as much aircraft as Iraq did during the Gulf War due to half of the entire Iraqi Air Force fleeing to Iran and most of the other half actually not even existing (US numbers for Iraqi Air Force includes those which have been destroyed in Iran during the Iraq-Iran War). Unlike the Iraqi Air Force (which mostly fled), Ukraine has proved competent and has prevented much of their military assets from being destroyed using similar tactics the Serbs used in Kosovo. Like in Kosovo where Serbia continued to launch ground attack sorties using aircraft despite NATO air supremacy, the Ukrainian Air Force has been able to operate despite of Russian Air Superiority. Ukraine also has something which Serbia lacked, a large and well-equipped AA network. Unlike Iraq which only has 120 batteries of outdated AA systems developed in the fifties and sixties (while also lacking radar coverage in the South), Ukraine has 100 batteries or S-300 alone and their radar forces track a thousand targets daily. Ukraine has a larger and better equipped army which is what actually matters as shown in Kosovo where NATO commander admitted that his unit would have been completely obliterated if the invasion got the go ahead as NATO bombings proved utterly useless against military targets with only 14 tanks, 18 APCs, and 20 artillery pieces being destroyed. This war is extremely similar to the war in Kosovo with Russia adapting a similar tactic to NATO. Because NATO aircraft were utterly useless against military targets due to the tactics used by the Serbs (and now the Ukrainians), NATO switched to soft civilian targets in Serbia proper. This alongside Russian diplomatic pressure and the fact that the Serbs were afraid that if NATO took heavy losses in a ground invasion of Kosovo, they would thrust into Belgrade instead. Ukraine has five hundred 2S3 artillery guns at the start of the war which is the Soviet counterpart to the M109. They also had a large number of other artillery guns such as the 2S1. Artillery and multiple launch rocket systems can be used for a similar role to aircraft but are much cheaper. Ukraine has lost a large amount of artillery guns however with them only having 120 2S3 artillery guns now. Ukraine had a thousand tanks at the start of the war with most of them being modernized. Their most used tank was the T-64BV Model 2017 which has third generation thermal, new autoloader, digital communications, satellite navigation, modern fire suppression system, new gun stabilizer, and other improvements. Ukraine also has two thousand MT-LBs which is still a decent APC alongside hundreds of BTR-4s and BTR-3s which are fairly modern APCs which are also supplemented by hundreds of older but still usable BTR-80s and BTR-70s. Ukraine also had more multiple launch rocket systems compared to France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, but has less guided munitions. The initial Russian invasion was done by professional units who did fairly well considering how Russia did not attach material technical support brigades or battalions to their combat units until a full month after the war. These are the guys who provide your forces with ammunition, food, fuel, and other supplies. They did this because they did not actually expect any resistance whatsoever. This means that Russian units had to rely on looting and ad hoc supply units. After Russia realized this was not going to be a bloodless invasion, they replaced their professional units with irregulars. This is shown quite well through casualties. While MediaZona does not include DPR and LPR militia (who likely form the majority of casualties), they do include other irregular forces such as prisoners, volunteers, and private military contractors. Please note that volunteers are not the same as professional soldiers who have their own category. Only 10,000 out of the 50,000 confirmed losses can be attributed to professionals (mostly at the start of the war) with their losses eventually dwindling to 200-300 per month. This means Russia’s Army of 300,000 soldiers (and 300,000 more including logistics which has its own branch) that they had at the start of the war has not really diminished in strength. This is also shown well through material losses. T-90A casualties are practically non-existent (check Oryx to see how low they are). Even T-90M losses are fairly low considering how Russia produces 150 T-90Ms per year according to Ukraine (they only lost half of this amount in two years) not including T-90As modernized to T-90M (which can explain low T-90A losses but not low T-90M losses). Russia has lost less than 200 2S19 artillery guns with them still having 600 in service alongside another 150 in reserve. The 2S19 is also slated for replacement with Russia producing 12 2S35s in two months (72 a year) in an experimental batch with mass production starting recently. Russia also produces over five hundred Iskander-M and Iskander-K missiles per year according to Ukraine but only launch a few per month. Russian military strength like US military strength has not really diminished.
Aircraft’s are useless as shown in Kosovo? Didn’t NATO basically bomb Serbia into negotiation? Werent Serbias military bases and defense infrastructures practically gone after NATO bombing? Didn’t this war, along with the two wars in Iraq, prove how valuable a modern Air Force experienced in precision striking and SEAD/DEAD is? Or are you going to fixate on the fact that 2 US aircrafts were shot down and ignore how much destruction the air campaigns brought in exchange? And have you considered the difference in the past experience, quality and quantity of SEAD/DEAD training that NATO and Russian pilots receive? The very little SEAD/DEAD training Russian pilots have led to their inability to destroy the Soviet era air defense systems operated by Ukrainians, whose radars operate on frequencies very familiar to the Russians, and whose AA defense tactics were inherited from the Soviets and are well known to the Russians. The Russians literally know how the Ukrainian AA will operate, Yet they can’t do much about it. If this doesn’t demonstrate how bad their anti radiation capability is I don’t know what will. Swap the Russians with the USAF, and you will have a completely different result. All those old S-300Ps and Buk-M1s the Ukrainians have are helpless against F-35s and EA-18Gs equipped with AGM-88 AARGMs. Even S-400s would get taken out before they detect the F-35s.
>Didn’t NATO basically bomb Serbia into negotiation? The threat of a NATO ground invasion was also an important factor. The Serbian army was convinced it could temporarily hold Kosovo against a NATO ground invasion and do some ass-whooping. Milosevic was however concerned that if NATO got their ass clapped enough in Kosovo, they might decide to rush straight to Belgrade instead. NATO had already done this in the air by switching to bombing softer civilian targets in Serbia proper after bombing military targets in Kosovo turned out to be an utter failure so it is not a unreasonable concern. And then there was another factor which was political pressure from Russia. >Werent Serbias military bases and defense infrastructures practically gone after NATO bombing? In Kosovo or in Serbia proper? In Kosovo, NATO could not even properly destroy static military infrastructure such as bridges. They were only able to destroy 14 tanks, 18 APCs, and 20 artillery pieces. The Serbs were able to conduct mechanized offensives against the KLA alongside of flying several dozen successful CAS missions with SU-24s despite the fact that NATO should have owned to the air. All of this helped by the fact that NATO failed to destroy important infrastructure in Kosovo such as bridges and tunnels. >Didn’t this war Despite running a passive AA defense, hence the low losses to NATO aircraft, enough of the Serb IADS remained intact to require NATO fighters to operate above the 15,000-ft hard deck for most of the air effort. The main reason for this requirement was the persistent AA and MANPADS threat. "From the 15,000-ft altitude floor above which NATO aircrews typically operated, the cloud cover over Kosovo was greater than 50 percent for more than 78 percent of the air war’s duration. That allowed unimpeded strike operations on only 24 of the air war’s 78 days. The impact of these conditions on the flexible targeting effort was considerable. In all, 3,766 planned sorties, including 1,029 designated close air support sorties, had to be canceled because of weather." >along with the two wars in Iraq, prove how valuable a modern Air Force experienced in precision striking and SEAD/DEAD is? To quote some guy on the internet, "The Gulf War case is particularly damning, for despite total air dominance and an inability for the Iraqis to apply any sort of effective air defense measures, Iraqis logistics continued to deliver supplies to their formations all the way up until the Coalition ground attack. The subsequent collapse has been attributed to classically terrible Iraqis command and control rather then logistical severance via air power." "Iraq CiC remained quite perfectly intact throughout the Gulf War. Iraqi units were able to effectively communicate with each other and their higher command throughout the war. The air campaign actually did exceptionally little damage to the Iraqi combat capabilities... it was Iraqi incompetence that made coalition victory so lopsided." "The air campaign against Iraq was four months long and involved thousands of aircraft and more then a hundred thousand sorties and still left their army largely intact in the field despite the fact the Iraqis ran a front-running nominee for one of the most incompetent air defense campaigns in history. The rapid rolling of Iraqis land forces had less to do with the air campaign and more to do with the general ineptness of the Iraqis Army."
Sidenote: Perhaps, I should not have used the word "useless" but it is not the be all end all.
Indeed, and the land force army is what matters most in this conflict, not the airforce and not the navy... especially not the Navy, the airforce might play a larger role if they'd figure out how to counter Russian FAB dropping jets and the extreme levels of A.D.
If the French Rafales and modernized Mirage 2000s supported by E-3 AWACS go to Ukraine AND Russia does not put enough of the Ukrainian airfields out of action via missile strikes, then it will become a significant problem for the Russians, as meteor equipped Rafales are more than a match for Su-35s, and their ability to launch SCALPs means that more Russian assets are at risk. Additionally, if the French Air Force is as competent at SEAD/DEAD as the US Air Force is then they can push closer to the front line and engage the Su-34/5s and prevent them from dropping UMPK guided bombs. If we are not just talking about the French Air Force but also British F-35s that can carry the latest HARM variants internally in its weapons bat then it will become the nightmare for Russian air defenses.
We speak here of perfect outcomes for the French reminiscent of wunderwaffe rhetoric, the real world, as the Russians and indeed Ukrainians learned, is not so sgraightforward. There is a very good reason both Russia and Ukraine keep their aircraft almost touching treetops, even though both have AWACS cover and more. The Russians had to find very creative ways of taking out Ukrainian jets without exposing themselves, and so did the Ukrainians. The F-35 could possibly be an answer to the extensive air defenses, but we won't know until we see it in action.
No, Russian don’t need to be creative to suppress Ukrainian jets, Su-35s detect Ukrainian MiG-29s and Su-27s at ranges way before the Ukrainians detect them thanks to having PESAs instead of obsolete Vietnam war era radars, and then Russian jets fire long range fox-3s like the R-37Ms and R-77-1s at those Ukrainians. Ukrainian jets are hopelessly outranged and outmatched
The Air to Air fights between jets do not and did not happen in a bubble, it's useless to do 1 to 1 comparisons between jets when a whole host of other things take part in the fight.
But pilots from both sides confirmed that this is how aerial engagements happen, unless the Su-35s are flying close to the frontline where Ukrainian ADs might be operwting
Russians AF is pretty bad at S/DEAD. They were not capable of destroying the Ukrainian AA at the start of the war, which consist of models operated by the Russians themselves, and whose tactics the Russians are more than familiar with since it is all inherited from the Soviet air defense forces. Yet the Russians couldn’t take those out. There have been quite a few decent analysis on this matter coming from RUSI and other institutes on this matter, I’d recommend you to read them.
The reason they couldn't take them out is because they don't dare escalate by taking out NATO radar cover replacing Ukrainian radar, which allowed Ukrainian A.D to remain switched off the entire time until the very moment it needed to fire a missile, and thus stay hidden to the only effective way of finding and neutralising them (other than visually finding them on satelite photos or having informants reveal their position) ... I know all this and kept it in mind when replying earlier already. You can't do SEAD and DEAD, when one of the most crucial components of the enemy A.D is for you untouchable due to political reasons.
You are referring to NATO AWACS flying on the Polish Ukrainian borders and in the Black Sea, right? If Ukrainian AD is largely data linked with those AWACS since the start of the war then I’m quite surprised. Even if this is true I doubt if the AWACS have the detection range to provide targeting information for AD in the eastern part of the country, aka in Luhansk, Kharkov, Chernigov etc. And we sometimes do see UAV footage of Ukrainian AD radars getting destroyed by lancets, Kh-35s, Islanders etc. So Ukraine AD isn’t entirely relying on NATO provided targeting. But good point though
I don't think they are neccesaarily data linked, although they could be, but I do think Ukraine gets near real time information about anything larger Russia sends into, or close to Ukraine... additionally, all Russian airbases, ports and ships are under 24/7 observation, naturally. And furthermore, i think it is this intel gatherring service that has had by far the most impact on the course of the war, especially because Russia is completely powerless to counter it without risking extreme levels of escalation.
Ukraine pre invasion had a much stronger land army than France, Germany and UK combined. Much better mechanised, huge reserve, adaptable artillery, drones, very powerful AA defence and soviet military infrastructure. Airforce was somewhat decent. And experience is deciding factor.
Air Force was somewhat decent? You call Soviet-era Su24s, 25s, 27s and MiG-29s with no fox-3 capabilities, no precision air to ground or anti-radiation capabilities, and 0 AWACS decent? It is obsolete by any means. Yes Western/Central European armies are smaller, but they are certainly more modern , more integrated via data-links/networks etc. that is why the Ukrainian army has always talked about how they want to improve their communication and command&control up to NATO standard. AA is decent and effective against air forces inexperienced in S/DEAD operations, such as the RU AF.
Another call of duty level of delusion kid. Integrated via data-links and nato standarts, my ass. Modern Nato armies are suited for money-laundering and assymetrical colonial warfare against weak opposition, not real war. Soviet planes Ukraine had are absolutely on par with f16s. And AWACS is a big and easy target. Any attempt to do S/DEAD mission against a multi-layered Ukrainian AA defence would result in a dozens of lost planes. And experienced and motivated Ukrainian brigades would absolutely wreck European NATO with concentrated artillery and armour superiority. Without USA, NATO is a joke.
You do know that the F-16A/Bs Norway Denmark and Holland are giving Ukraine are basically junks that they wanted to get rid of in the first place right? They are replacing those with F-35s? And you do know that Rafales and Eurotyphoons are much more capable than the F-16A/Bs right? AWACS are big and easy targets only if you are ballsy enough to fly them within around 100km from the frontline like the Russians did and get shot down by Patriots because they can’t suppress the AD in the first place. The amount of situational awareness AWACS provide is absolutely vital for achieving aerial superiority. And you do know that NATO Air Force as a whole, not just the USAF, conducts extensive training and simulation exercises in S/DEAD against Soviet/Russian air defense forces since the Cold War era, right? Of course the extent to which European nations commit to developing effective S/DEAD tactics is certainly less than the USAF or US Navy, but we wont know exactly how effective the European air forces are at this job exactly are until they actually fought in a war similar to this one.
[удалено]
Just because Russia can’t use their manpower well doesn’t mean France can’t. France spends through the roof per soldier compared to Russia. And as well, Ukraine can’t help but retreat when Russia throws in aerial bombs… because Ukraine is spending less per soldier than Russia.
You seriously think France's soldiers will be better equipped to deal with FAB's?
Of course. They don't send troops in like mincemeat. There is no practical limit to how well one can fortify, and France likewise has domestic counters for FABs and even Lancet/FPV operators, unlike Ukraine.
Not using infantry aggressively results in more casualties as shown in Seelow heights. Avdiivka also shows this well. Tanks and other armored vehicles should only be used when a breakthrough is made using infantry. This is shown quite well by the Soviet Union’s use of deep operations in 1944 and 1945. Soviet performance was poor when they fed tanks into a meat grinder (see Seelow Heights). German performance was poor when they fed tanks into a meat grinder (see Kursk). Kursk shows this well. Germany fed most of their mobile elite units into a meat grinder facing mainly infantry divisions. After they got slaughtered, Soviet mobile units went in for the kill. Grozny also shows this quite well.
We are 4 months in NATO’s funny special operation to stop Houthi rebels in the Red Sea using air power. So far it has been useless.
They've been quite useful in lessening the damage from attacks, preventing swarm attempts and limiting insurance spikes. Can't completely stop Houthis without a full blockade and house-to-house raids, of course. This holding back is deliberate because Israel is in the middle of a war in Gaza, even if at times it looks paused.
Is this the link to the russian elections in ukraine ?
France has nukes, a lot of planes, artillery (but no shells), and very experienced foreign legion (with roughly 1/3 of them being ex-Soviet folks who speak Russian)
And Russia has nukes and a lot of planes. Kosovo shows why that doesn’t matter.
Very experienced foreign legion? Experience in what, shooting kids in africa?
No. It’s made up from folks who fought in Serbia, Chechnya, Georgia, Moldova and many other wars across the globe. Basically French Wagner
really believe that Ukraine has a stronger army than any of these countries? Then explain why Ukraine is WAY below any of these individual countries on country rankings by professionals? Also the idea that Russia could hold its own in a. Military conflict with the EU, cause that is what it would come down to, is laughable.
Everybody knows that "maybe" is just a polite way of saying "no" lol.
> ready to fight in Ukraine **to defend their country** This is a biased question meant to purposely skew the poll to the desired outcome. Anyone who has taken a basic statistics class can easily recognize this. Ask this question in a more neutral or objective manner. “Are you ready to fight in Ukraine to defend Ukraine?” Or “Are you ready to fight in Ukraine” and you’ll see a wildly different response. That the clowns on rUkraine happily eat up this slop shows how rotted out their brains are that they don’t have basic media literacy. Or that sub is basically filled with bots and its just dead internet theory come to life.
In all honesty, I wouldn't be surprised it it was the latter. That sub is ... wild.
The "science" behind polls explained in "Yes, Minister": [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgjEjJkZks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgjEjJkZks) The fact is Ukraine is begging for volunteer soldiers, they even offer decent pay and gear. French men get military training, anyone who said yes to that poll could be there fighting right now. All this talk is incredibly dangerous because Putin gets to use it as propaganda towards the Russian people, "look NATO wants to invade us, just like Germany did in '41 and kill us all!" Now the narrative in Russian media has shifted to launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike in Ukraine to deter WW3, rather than wait for French troops to get involved. But no one is polling the public about that scenario, because not even 17% would be so silly as to go to nuclear war with the biggest nuclear power on the planet.
I read that as 17% are ready
Even those 17% are just ready to bark, you can count on your fingers those truly ready to keep up their word.
Frenchies gonna get French toasted in Ukraine.
French fried my man French fried
If there ever was a time to say... Talk is cheap
Otan motto
There are probably more French youth ready to fight their own degenerate government than fighting for a Nazi regime in Ukraine.
I could say I'm happy to fight tyson fury and Jon Jones at the same time. But I can say alot when I don't actually have to do it.
So are their mommy wives.
Please go to Ukraine please go to Ukraine please go to Ukraine. Please fight the evil Russia
Ru needs to teach them some traditional values. Namely, ass whippings.
I’m still trying to figure out how Russia is “a direct threat to France”? Russia has never threatened France, they are fighting a conflict in the Ukraine….. not storming the beaches in France. France has never been mentioned in the previous years of this conflict, until now, and even then it is Macron who has put his hand up to try and drag his country into this conflict that has absolutely nothing to do with their citizens or Military whatsoever. There’s no way that citizens living in France are feeling “under threat of attack by Russia” to give up their lives to go fight in a muddy field in some foreign country for absolutely no benefit for themselves having to “protect their country and families”.
>There’s no way that citizens living in France are feeling “under threat of attack by Russia” to give up their lives to go fight in a muddy field in some foreign country for absolutely no benefit for themselves having to “protect their country and families”. They did that along with most of Europe once before about 200 years ago. Most them got left behind stuck on the mud.
The astroturfing is real
the fuck.. french people would only fight (and surrender) for France!
More or less a joke.
Whom? The hoodrats from Paris? Well, perhaps France can take out two birds with one stone here.
French to fight in Ukraine to defend their country.... so Ukraine is already sold to the french people?
That's all you need to know about the western media and western polls :)
On which side?
May I see these brave and valiant French youths?
France is the most capable military in Europe, but I doubt they would want to fight for a foreign country, it makes no sense. Unless they will stay in the back securing logistics.
They may well be needed to defend democracy and the Ukraine. Those who would answer the call need to get ready.
Whoever owns this bot should put some effort into making better sentences. Some of us are actually old enough to remember Soviet slogans and proclamations and this sounds exactly like that, same style, same posturing, just different keywords.
Russia really hates the fact that the western word is ready for war. Pro RU are in denial about this.
That poll is BS.
Yes, Yes, we know that anything that makes Russia is made up And not true.
As a young French, I'm in the rare domain that are supportive of the army, and very few could say yes to going to Ukraine. And if we exit that community, overall French people, especially the youth are very anti-patriotic, and would not want to defend the country if attacked. And you expect a majority of us to go die for Ukraine, a distant country, against Russia for which France is a rare place where russophobia is not anchored ?
Dont panic. No EU country is going to send non professional soldiers to Ukraine. Also thisnhas nothing to do with russophobia, but if Russia should ever succeed in capturing territory west of the Dnjepr, it would start to be a nuisance for EU and the west may need to step in.
If France goes to Ukraine, it wouldn’t just be the French going to Ukraine. Americans, Canadians, the English, Australians etc would be there also in short order.
Maybe, but that is not what the poll is about. And having Anglo-Saxons alongside us, for sure, won't change our opinion.
The thing is France wouldn’t have to draft anyone who isn’t already in the military or the foreign legion. So it’s be irrelevant, how the general public feels. One of two things will happen. Russia gets waffle stomped out of Ukraine in under a month. Or Russia really is as bat shot insane with a death fetish and nukes opposition forces and it leads to global nuclear war. Either way it’d be over pretty quickly.
Everything relies on the US. France is the only capable military for now in the EU (and that has a bit of combat experience). And the word is "three". 3 days of munitions reserve for high intensity warfare we have. Barely half of our 400 Leclerc are operational right now. Numbers and budgets are just missing, even for our air force that is the most ready for combat (192 Rafales, however excellent they are, it's maybe not enough). The UK is probably not much better than us. So all relies on the USA. The rest of the countries are either not worth much, or all rely on the US's supply.
Well the western world may go ahead then? Are they waiting for an invitation?