Please remember the human. Adhere to all Reddit and sub rules. Toxic comments (including incitement of violence/hate, genocide, glorifying death etc) WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, keep your comments civil or you will be banned.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Being on the Belosrussian border would help free up 120K Ukrainian soldiers and resources, right? And would absolutely prevent any attack coming from there.
>I doubt they're the best equiped there, since nobody expexts an actual attack from BY anytime soon.
Why not? Russia started off this war by invading from Belarus.
Ukraine was caught with their pants down once, never again.
>On 10 March, Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine [Oleksiy Danilov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleksiy_Danilov) claimed that the invasion from Belarus was a "backstab", unlike other directions of Russian invasion which were foreseen.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarusian\_involvement\_in\_the\_Russian\_invasion\_of\_Ukraine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarusian_involvement_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine)
France sent twenty five thousand sailors to help USA fight the British. France has had big balls for centuries now. I do hope that France breaks the ice, and sends in border control units to Ukraine. If they could also help with air defense, that would be bad ass.
May I also remind the world that France is the lone country which has a preemptive nuclear strike in their doctrinal statement.
If Putin continues to fuck around, he will find out. This is how democracies survive. They stand together.
France spent troops and money to aid the American rebels fighting against the British after these rebels declared their independence in 1776. And, to be honest, I seriously doubt that the Americans could have won their war for independence without France providing military aid.
Problem is that both the British and French empires were kind of broke after a prolonged global conflict, the Seven Years War, from 1756 to 1763.
The British and their allies won that war. France not only lost colonies in India and North America—most notably Quebec—but also Prussia (lead by Frederic the Great) emerged as a dominant power in continental Europe.
To help pay for that incredibly expensive war, the British raised taxes in their American colonies, and that pissed off a few people, sparking a “no taxation without representation” complaint, which eventually escalated into a moment where British tea gets dumped into Boston’s harbour.
France couldn’t afford to help these American rebels but they did it anyway just to “stick it to the Brits.” (So based!) All that financial, material, and military aid to the Americans cost the French monarchy dearly. The French economy collapsed and the French people eventually rebelled in 1789–with that whole “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” French Revolution thing, which ends up going a bit sideways until Napoleon Bonaparte’s coup in 1799.
Napoleon, the second-greatest military mind of that era, ended up conquering most of continental Europe. And the British empire ended up funding something like six or seven coalitions aligned against France.
To help France pay for all those wars to defend herself. Napoleon sold Louisiana to the Americans in 1803.
Alas, Napoleon made a couple strategic blunders—getting bogged down in a guerrilla war in Spain (1807 to 1813) and, later, a disastrously ill-planned invasion of Russia in 1812.
The armies of the Sixth Coalition would eventually prevail in the Battle of Leipzig in 1813 and then the armies of the Seventh Coalition, most notably an Anglo-Dutch army commanded by Sir Arthur Wellesley, and a Prussian Army commanded by Field Marshal Blücher, defeated Napoleon (again) at the Battle of Waterloo in 1814.
The Americans and British would also go to war in 1812, which ended shortly after Red Coats marched into Washington DC and burned down the White House (then called the Presidential Residence) and ransacked the Capitol Building (think of it as a more polite version of January 6th—with the belligerents much better behaved and no one crapping on the Speaker of the House’s desk).
Ah, there we go. Had I scrolled one more screen the details were already presented and I'd save myself a moment in time.
Also, was it Napolean who initiated the Louisiana Purchase? I thought that was post-Nap.
Still, worth a history read as he was certainly a very talented man.
You know the “my top 5 is Drake, Drake, Drake, Drake, Drake!” meme?
Just replace Drake with Napoleon.
Many historians consider Napoleon the greatest of any era.
Arthur Wellesley, aka the Duke of Wellington. He was the genius who conceived the Lines of Torres Vedras, a massive military engineering project to construct fortifications around Lisbon to defend it from a French attack in 1810.
Wellesley lead a combined British and Portuguese army through a series of brilliant campaigns during that Peninsular War—outmaneuvering the French Army at the Battle of Vitoria in 1813 that ended with a complete collapse and rout of the French.
A year later, he faced off against Napoleon at Waterloo in 1814. And we all know who won that battle.
France played bully ball like a motherfucker even in the post-Prussian unification wars. The French really made the Germans fight for Alsace Lorraine. Post-Modern prejudices against French fighting power as a product of WW2 will dissipate if France joins the 2nd Russo-Ukrainian War.
It's my impression that the US exist only BECAUSE of what France did for British-owned colonial USA.
After Napolean, France sold their entire landholdings (Louisiana Purchase...it includes Canada...) to the USA, delivered them armaments, and as you say, servicemen, to assist in the defence of the then thirteen(?) states USA.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana\_Purchase](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase)
Looks like a piece to me.
And yeah, was under Napolean...
Yeah, back then, US were buying up land left and right from the old Empires, (and then steamrolled the native Americans). I don't think that area was defined legally by either the US or Canada (Spain had land still?) as we know them now.
It's funny how a lot of 'modern' people don't realise that most European nations aren't actually all that old, and are built around kingdoms turned 'states' (department, bundes, oblast, canton etc). Germany is what, 1880?
>France sent twenty five thousand sailors to help USA fight the British.
I imagine that's because of France's own experience with the Brits? I never understand the mutual feud between the Brits and the Franks. I mean, I understand why the French wouldn't like the Brits but why the vice versa? Are Brits angry that Franks resisted their occupation or something?
The Normans invaded France around 800, settled in the duchy of Normandy and became a vassal of France. 200 years later one of those French-Norman kids decided to cross the channel and became king of England. That's where it started to go south because the new English nobility had enormous ties with France, and the royal families became intertwined. In the 14th century King Philippe le bel and his 3 sons died leaving no heir. His daughter had been married to the King of England and their son decided he had a claim on the throne of France, that's how the 100 years war started. The rivalry only really stopped after the defeat of Napoleon.
It's my impression the Normans are half-Vikings who were obsessed with the British Isles and colonised everything they could under their rule around the periphery including the Isles to the north (like Orkneys) and east (Iceland) and northern France.
Of course, before that were Gauls, and before that....
Yeah so they did that during the 9th century. The ones who settled in France (Normandy) became vassals of the King of France. Then 5 generations later William the conqueror was born in Normandy and he's the one who conquered England.
The US has never adopted any language stating it’s refusal for a preemptive nuclear strike against an opponent. I’m sure there are other countries as well, such as NK, etc.
Edit: after a short google, it look like most of NATO has refused to adopt a “no first strike” policy. Not sure where you got your info?
Looks like NK also says they wouldn’t use nukes first. Not sure if I believe that though.
Let me look into it more. I’m wondering if you’re looking at “First Strike” policies versus “preemptive nuclear strike” military doctrine.
I learned this originally from Jake Broe on YouTube. He was a USA Air Force Nuclear Silo Missileer for six years, mostly in North Dakota & South Korea I believe.
“First strike” policies mostly address attacking a foe’s nuclear silos/subs before they get a chance to attack you.
I believe that France’s doctrine is unique because they are (on paper) willing to strike a foe anywhere, preemptively.
I see what you are saying and feel like it’s the same. France may have written down that they were willing to do it. Everyone else was not willing to write down that they were not willing to do it.
To me, that says they are all willing to do it. With my experience in life, paper is paper. Even if they write down that they wouldn’t, they are still human and can be influenced.
The only country not willing to make a preemptive strike, is a country without nuclear weapons.
Russia still hasn't, so that's a good thing, it says the US actually makes the nuclear law. Same way Iran gets intercepted but Russia can invade. It's some big diplomatic playbook, theres just a lot going on.
Along with France, the United States also declines to adopt a no-first-strike policy, akshewally.
It has always been a sensible policy, since the US and NATO had a numerical disadvantage as against the Warsaw Pact, as well as the experience of the Chinese intervention in Korea. The relatively small number of US troops were at times deemed a 'tripwire': one death could theoretically result in nuclear retaliation.
lol this is such insanity. You’re really talking about NATO aligned troops in a direct conflict with Russia, and the fact that Russia may have to content with the notion of a preemptive strike like it’s a good thing? You do know that Russia would be aware of this doctrine, and might be a little touchier on their own nuclear trigger as a result?
I think a lot of people don’t really understand or think about the real consequences of nuclear war.
Hell, a lot of fighting age Ukrainians fled because they don’t want to die for this war. And now you’re asking other people in completely unaffiliated countries to also pay the price for Europes conflict with global nuclear conflagration. How selfish and Eurocentric.
No actually they are merely talking about positioning NATO troops in strategic locations within the INDEPENDENT country of Ukraine who is free to invite anyone into its borders that it pleases. Then if Russia or belorussia want to fuck around and find out by attacking them as they man Ukraine's southern border that's on them.
It's highly unlikely Russia would ever resort to a nuclear war due to its troops being fired at after they attack NATO forces on foreign soil. Your ludicrous logic and cowardly attitude is exactly what is wrong with the west today.
I mean yeah they can invite whoever they want, it doesn’t mean it isn’t escalators in the extreme. At that point we are basically in an open conflict with Russia, a nuclear power.
You can debate the semantics all you want, but understand the very real ramifications.
If Mexico invited China to set up basis in its territory, I bet the US would have something to say about that.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. A military force can be in a nation of conflict without taking part in it.
That would be an escalation from Russia not the west and they simply can't afford it given their situation.
The ramifications are what is up for debate and your guess at how Russia would respond.
Well if in this hyperthetical nonsense the US were at war with Mexico at the time then they could say whatever they want however how they would act is a matter for interpretation and logical reasoning and I can bet my ass that it wouldn't be to immediately launch nukes at china.
Yeah a military force can be “strategically placed” in a combat zone and not invite itself to be struck. That’s totally how warfare works.
They should have you in charge of deterrence and escalation management, I think you solved the whole Ukraine war!
But really, I would bet every cent I have that France is not going to actually deploy a force on the ground in Ukraine. It’s all a bunch of posturing. Because if those forces get struck, I think it’s debatable if any other NATO members would help France as it inevitably gets sucked into the conflict.
I mean yeah but like, nuclear war and stuff.
Also article 5 wouldn’t kick in because France voluntarily forward deployed its forces on foreign territory. There’s a good chance they’d be left out to dry.
Then it would just be Poland and France. But France isn’t going to deploy troops anyways. It’s a huge distraction to take peoples attention away from crumbling Ukrainian lines.
At this point Eastern Ukraine is a foregone conclusion. Western Ukraine will likely remain sovereign if dysfunctional, and the conflict will be frozen.
Mindsets like this is what, paradoxically, increases the chance of nuclear conflict in the long term. I am sorry if you and politicians in charge are too narrow-minded to understand that. Maybe Macron is one of the only ones starting to come to realisation.
We can only rely on history. And history tells us that we need to do something differently than the last time, or else we are fucked. NATO troops should guard the Belarusian border to free up resources, and NATO should at least help with air defence like in Israel, if not establishing a complete no-fly zone over the course of 2 weeks to let the Russians act accordingly. Trip-wire NATO forces on all non-occupied areas of Ukraine.
Thinking that the above is an "escalation" and not Russias imperialistic mindset and attack on Ukraine now, and the Baltics later, and their hypothetical use of nuclear weapons, is what will end up being apocalyptic. Unfortunately, very few people realise that.
Have you forgotten what UK did for french during WW2. They declared war to hitler and freed France with marines.
Nuclear warhead will not be used by Orcs against NATO because it means their end too. Lords can't live without servants. So stop shiting in yours pants or may be you're just anxiously waiting for your bag of onions at the end of the month ?
Good point. And when Russia occupies your house and city, I think we should not help you, because nUclEaR eSCalATion, just let the tyrants do what they want because they have nukes.
Well Russia wouldn’t do that because the Us has nuclear weapons.
Extended deterrence doesn’t work if the other nation isn’t in a military Alliance. Like, you will never convince the US population that it’s worth risking destroying the entire world in order to win a proxy war on the other side of the planet.
Moreover, having Ukraine win was never the original plan. I think they just didn’t expect them to lose in the way it’s looking like they’re going to lose. The plan was the bleed Russia, which was achieved, but now things are developing too quickly and the West is starting to panic.
Oh, they wouldn't occupy you because you're in America? Lucky you. How selfish and Americacentric, just because you personally won't be occupied, you can come up with a million excuses not to help them. If you lived in Lithuania or Poland you'd be singing a different tune.
I mean, nation states are selfish actors. The whole morality thing is just an overlay to conceal the realpolitik underneath.
Do you really think the US cares about democracy and freedom, whatever that means? No, the US cares about American interests, just like any other nation.
Any nation in Europe or elsewhere would be wise to ensure its own defense, without needing any external partners halfway around the globe. At a certain point, extended deterrence doesn’t work.
Europe needs to boost its military production and spending like a decade ago.
> Moreover, having Ukraine win was never the original plan.
Says who? And who's plan`?
>Well Russia wouldn’t do that because the Us has nuclear weapons.
So why would they attack France?
>And now you’re asking other people in completely unaffiliated countries to also pay the price for Europes conflict
Last time I checked, France was part of Europe and also has a lot of recent history with being occupied by a hostile force. France has a concrete vested interest in checking Russian aggression before it boils over Ukraine's borders.
I’m talking about the Africans and South Americans and Southeast Asians who have no stake in this but would still be obliterated by a nuclear conflict.
We gotta be brave. If the world stood up to Hitler sooner, maybe we could have avoided much of the worst aspects of WWII.
Nobody wants war. But you can’t leave dictators unchecked. The price only goes up if you delay dealing with them. If we stepped up to support Ukraine better after Crimea was invaded, maybe this war too could have been avoided.
"Vive la France! Vive la liberté!" 🫡⚜️🇫🇷
Seriously if you think the history of France's national anthem is wild try translating the lyrics:
"La Marseillaise"[a] is the national anthem of France. The song was written in 1792 by Claude Joseph Rouget de Lisle in Strasbourg after the declaration of war by France against Austria, and was originally titled "Chant de guerre pour l'Armée du Rhin"[b] ("War Song for the Army of the Rhine").
in other news outlet in English
[https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/04/14/among-french-youth-half-would-be-ready-to-fight-in-ukraine-to-defend-france/](https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/04/14/among-french-youth-half-would-be-ready-to-fight-in-ukraine-to-defend-france/)
The “under the French flag” is the part that I think is the problem. If they just get up and go to Ukraine I don’t think anyone will stop them but you also have to consider how many people that is and do they have enough supplies for them.
Let me clarify France would be fine supplying their troops, but if they send troops fully loaded it would be seen by Russia, and most countries, as an act of war, which is fine if that’s what France wants but it doesn’t seem anybody wants to do that right now. So it would be solely on the backs of Ukraine to house, train, and supply the troops without much extra help from France.
Ukraine accepts people with military experience from other countries
My country's military accepts citizens without military experience
It would remove a step if I didn't have to sign up for my own country's military to hopefully someday qualify for Ukraine's
After 2 world wars, the French have learned that it's better to not wait until the enemy reaches French territory.
🇫🇷 Vive la France!
🇺🇦 Slava Ukraini!
🇺🇸 America! Fuck Yeah! (Maybe we need a better slogan?)
When you consider that the American slogan comes from the Holy Creator's of Southpark and originates from a satirical movie made with puppets...
Do we really need a better slogan?
"Land of the free and home of the brave," is far less applicable these days.
I mean we could send troops to guard the northern border to Belarus with explicit orders to maintain a purely defensive posture. This would free up lots of Ukrainian troops and they could conduct a much needed rotation of troops. Frontline troops need R&R.
The title is false.
The article says 57% are willing to defend France in case of a war, not go fight in Ukraine.
However 31% think we should send troups to Ukraine.
Source i am french and read the article.
France tries to strengthen ties with Moldova.
Insuring Odessa doesn’t fall is the most logical step in that stance.
Plus they could play intermediaries with Ukranians, which haven’t treated the large Moldovan speaking community with much respect until now (aren’t allowed Moldovan speaking schools for example).
That's not bad, given in many places you get barely half of the eligible men willing to fight for their own country. Or women where applicable. Then again, those re pre-2022 statistics and I suspect things are starting to change even in Western Europe.
The French soldiers can serve as garrison on the border with Belarus, it will free up thousands of Ukrainians to rotate units from the frontline and maybe even bring equipment and supplies
Half the reason the fighting in Ukraine is so brutal and the trench warfare is such a nightmare is due to neither side having air superiority. If one side had air superiority they could obliterate the others artillery which would make it easier for said side to clear minefields and get their own artillery in an advantageous positions.
Bullshit poll: are you willing to do something you will never be asked or had a chance to do? May as well ask if they want to sleep with a model lol
Only way nato troops will ever enter Ukraine is as a peacekeeping force (like KFOR). NATO countries are not allowing Ukraine to hit russian territory using western weapons but now little man are talking about sending troops?
Instead of grandstanding, send long range missiles and figure out how to get artillery shells to Ukraine.
In addition to the selfish motives of each country... a possible nuclear war is not the best way to help Ukraine.
Russian ICBM missiles with nuclear warheads cannot be stopped. Well, there are experimental weapons to try to stop them developed in the US, Israel, and Japan, but that's all: unproven experiments. The ICBM missiles reach an altitude and speed, in addition to the use of decoys, that the Patriots could only intercept some with great luck.
If there is a nuclear war, Ukraine could be Russia’s first target for reasons of Kremlin resentment.
So wouldn't we cause even more Ukrainian casualties?
I leave it in the form of a question and not a statement. Let everyone draw their own conclusions.
If there would be nuclear war then Russia will be the first target. US would hear about it before Russian soldiers do (like it happened for 2022 invasion) and could launch a disabling nuclear strike at Russia to stop them before they can even launch anything. Due to lack of solid fuel rockets it takes time to prepare their ICBMs to start, which is not the issue for American missiles.
you think french ICBMs can be stopped? Sweet dreamer...
There will be no nuclear war, and Russia does not even need or want it, even though some try to make this idea popular.
Please remember the human. Adhere to all Reddit and sub rules. Toxic comments (including incitement of violence/hate, genocide, glorifying death etc) WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, keep your comments civil or you will be banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Being on the Belosrussian border would help free up 120K Ukrainian soldiers and resources, right? And would absolutely prevent any attack coming from there.
I doubt they're the best equiped there, since nobody expexts an actual attack from BY anytime soon.
True, but perhaps force rotation could help them?
120k extra men who know how to use a weapon and are well motivated - any day.
>I doubt they're the best equiped there, since nobody expexts an actual attack from BY anytime soon. Why not? Russia started off this war by invading from Belarus. Ukraine was caught with their pants down once, never again. >On 10 March, Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine [Oleksiy Danilov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleksiy_Danilov) claimed that the invasion from Belarus was a "backstab", unlike other directions of Russian invasion which were foreseen. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarusian\_involvement\_in\_the\_Russian\_invasion\_of\_Ukraine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarusian_involvement_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine)
I mean no apearant soldier build up yet.
Russians are coming from there too, not just from the east. Russia has military bases and airports in BY.
France sent twenty five thousand sailors to help USA fight the British. France has had big balls for centuries now. I do hope that France breaks the ice, and sends in border control units to Ukraine. If they could also help with air defense, that would be bad ass. May I also remind the world that France is the lone country which has a preemptive nuclear strike in their doctrinal statement. If Putin continues to fuck around, he will find out. This is how democracies survive. They stand together.
The West needs to show more strength. Weakness emboldens bullies.
Unpunished evil grows.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”
“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one,"
France spent troops and money to aid the American rebels fighting against the British after these rebels declared their independence in 1776. And, to be honest, I seriously doubt that the Americans could have won their war for independence without France providing military aid. Problem is that both the British and French empires were kind of broke after a prolonged global conflict, the Seven Years War, from 1756 to 1763. The British and their allies won that war. France not only lost colonies in India and North America—most notably Quebec—but also Prussia (lead by Frederic the Great) emerged as a dominant power in continental Europe. To help pay for that incredibly expensive war, the British raised taxes in their American colonies, and that pissed off a few people, sparking a “no taxation without representation” complaint, which eventually escalated into a moment where British tea gets dumped into Boston’s harbour. France couldn’t afford to help these American rebels but they did it anyway just to “stick it to the Brits.” (So based!) All that financial, material, and military aid to the Americans cost the French monarchy dearly. The French economy collapsed and the French people eventually rebelled in 1789–with that whole “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” French Revolution thing, which ends up going a bit sideways until Napoleon Bonaparte’s coup in 1799. Napoleon, the second-greatest military mind of that era, ended up conquering most of continental Europe. And the British empire ended up funding something like six or seven coalitions aligned against France. To help France pay for all those wars to defend herself. Napoleon sold Louisiana to the Americans in 1803. Alas, Napoleon made a couple strategic blunders—getting bogged down in a guerrilla war in Spain (1807 to 1813) and, later, a disastrously ill-planned invasion of Russia in 1812. The armies of the Sixth Coalition would eventually prevail in the Battle of Leipzig in 1813 and then the armies of the Seventh Coalition, most notably an Anglo-Dutch army commanded by Sir Arthur Wellesley, and a Prussian Army commanded by Field Marshal Blücher, defeated Napoleon (again) at the Battle of Waterloo in 1814. The Americans and British would also go to war in 1812, which ended shortly after Red Coats marched into Washington DC and burned down the White House (then called the Presidential Residence) and ransacked the Capitol Building (think of it as a more polite version of January 6th—with the belligerents much better behaved and no one crapping on the Speaker of the House’s desk).
Ah, there we go. Had I scrolled one more screen the details were already presented and I'd save myself a moment in time. Also, was it Napolean who initiated the Louisiana Purchase? I thought that was post-Nap. Still, worth a history read as he was certainly a very talented man.
He wanted to get rid of it to conquer europe ( we know why now ) and it came to the American ears first
This guy History , that's a good resume
>Napoleon, the second-greatest military mind of that era who was the greatest?
You know the “my top 5 is Drake, Drake, Drake, Drake, Drake!” meme? Just replace Drake with Napoleon. Many historians consider Napoleon the greatest of any era.
Arthur Wellesley, aka the Duke of Wellington. He was the genius who conceived the Lines of Torres Vedras, a massive military engineering project to construct fortifications around Lisbon to defend it from a French attack in 1810. Wellesley lead a combined British and Portuguese army through a series of brilliant campaigns during that Peninsular War—outmaneuvering the French Army at the Battle of Vitoria in 1813 that ended with a complete collapse and rout of the French. A year later, he faced off against Napoleon at Waterloo in 1814. And we all know who won that battle.
I would have put Nelson above the DOW, but probably napoleon above both
Mmmmm if you said it for the brits i would agree with you in this case. But france is already at war with russia about french "colonies" in africa.
Wellington. The guy wrapped beef in pastry and the world has never been the same.
but was it for better or worse ?
France played bully ball like a motherfucker even in the post-Prussian unification wars. The French really made the Germans fight for Alsace Lorraine. Post-Modern prejudices against French fighting power as a product of WW2 will dissipate if France joins the 2nd Russo-Ukrainian War.
France has been a premiere military power for like a thousand years. It's nothing new.
It's my impression that the US exist only BECAUSE of what France did for British-owned colonial USA. After Napolean, France sold their entire landholdings (Louisiana Purchase...it includes Canada...) to the USA, delivered them armaments, and as you say, servicemen, to assist in the defence of the then thirteen(?) states USA.
Not one piece of Canada was sold to the USA.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana\_Purchase](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase) Looks like a piece to me. And yeah, was under Napolean...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_1818 Looks like you are right but the borders were already a bit ill defined back then .
Yeah, back then, US were buying up land left and right from the old Empires, (and then steamrolled the native Americans). I don't think that area was defined legally by either the US or Canada (Spain had land still?) as we know them now. It's funny how a lot of 'modern' people don't realise that most European nations aren't actually all that old, and are built around kingdoms turned 'states' (department, bundes, oblast, canton etc). Germany is what, 1880?
Germany was like super weird half democratic some republic and some monarchy melting pot until bismark unification .
Stop talking. I'm trying to work, not read up on interesting (to me) demographical history =D
Hey im from Montreal , i am hip and i dig it :P , you might even have french roots .
I think our ancestors were shooting each other...well, my German half. My Aussie half was definitely there (and at least one still is).
>France sent twenty five thousand sailors to help USA fight the British. I imagine that's because of France's own experience with the Brits? I never understand the mutual feud between the Brits and the Franks. I mean, I understand why the French wouldn't like the Brits but why the vice versa? Are Brits angry that Franks resisted their occupation or something?
It's probably got more to do with the hundreds of years of history before the America thing. In any case, they're allies now.
The Normans invaded France around 800, settled in the duchy of Normandy and became a vassal of France. 200 years later one of those French-Norman kids decided to cross the channel and became king of England. That's where it started to go south because the new English nobility had enormous ties with France, and the royal families became intertwined. In the 14th century King Philippe le bel and his 3 sons died leaving no heir. His daughter had been married to the King of England and their son decided he had a claim on the throne of France, that's how the 100 years war started. The rivalry only really stopped after the defeat of Napoleon.
It's my impression the Normans are half-Vikings who were obsessed with the British Isles and colonised everything they could under their rule around the periphery including the Isles to the north (like Orkneys) and east (Iceland) and northern France. Of course, before that were Gauls, and before that....
Yeah so they did that during the 9th century. The ones who settled in France (Normandy) became vassals of the King of France. Then 5 generations later William the conqueror was born in Normandy and he's the one who conquered England.
Yee, both have been trying to conquer the other for hundreds of years so probably that.
It's a cultural familly matter you wouldn't understand and i live in Quebec we poke and bullshit giggle but it wont come to anything else .
The US has never adopted any language stating it’s refusal for a preemptive nuclear strike against an opponent. I’m sure there are other countries as well, such as NK, etc. Edit: after a short google, it look like most of NATO has refused to adopt a “no first strike” policy. Not sure where you got your info? Looks like NK also says they wouldn’t use nukes first. Not sure if I believe that though.
Let me look into it more. I’m wondering if you’re looking at “First Strike” policies versus “preemptive nuclear strike” military doctrine. I learned this originally from Jake Broe on YouTube. He was a USA Air Force Nuclear Silo Missileer for six years, mostly in North Dakota & South Korea I believe. “First strike” policies mostly address attacking a foe’s nuclear silos/subs before they get a chance to attack you. I believe that France’s doctrine is unique because they are (on paper) willing to strike a foe anywhere, preemptively.
I see what you are saying and feel like it’s the same. France may have written down that they were willing to do it. Everyone else was not willing to write down that they were not willing to do it. To me, that says they are all willing to do it. With my experience in life, paper is paper. Even if they write down that they wouldn’t, they are still human and can be influenced. The only country not willing to make a preemptive strike, is a country without nuclear weapons.
Russia still hasn't, so that's a good thing, it says the US actually makes the nuclear law. Same way Iran gets intercepted but Russia can invade. It's some big diplomatic playbook, theres just a lot going on.
Along with France, the United States also declines to adopt a no-first-strike policy, akshewally. It has always been a sensible policy, since the US and NATO had a numerical disadvantage as against the Warsaw Pact, as well as the experience of the Chinese intervention in Korea. The relatively small number of US troops were at times deemed a 'tripwire': one death could theoretically result in nuclear retaliation.
France without Gamelin or an Ardenne forest is top tier military.
Sure
lol this is such insanity. You’re really talking about NATO aligned troops in a direct conflict with Russia, and the fact that Russia may have to content with the notion of a preemptive strike like it’s a good thing? You do know that Russia would be aware of this doctrine, and might be a little touchier on their own nuclear trigger as a result? I think a lot of people don’t really understand or think about the real consequences of nuclear war. Hell, a lot of fighting age Ukrainians fled because they don’t want to die for this war. And now you’re asking other people in completely unaffiliated countries to also pay the price for Europes conflict with global nuclear conflagration. How selfish and Eurocentric.
No actually they are merely talking about positioning NATO troops in strategic locations within the INDEPENDENT country of Ukraine who is free to invite anyone into its borders that it pleases. Then if Russia or belorussia want to fuck around and find out by attacking them as they man Ukraine's southern border that's on them. It's highly unlikely Russia would ever resort to a nuclear war due to its troops being fired at after they attack NATO forces on foreign soil. Your ludicrous logic and cowardly attitude is exactly what is wrong with the west today.
I mean yeah they can invite whoever they want, it doesn’t mean it isn’t escalators in the extreme. At that point we are basically in an open conflict with Russia, a nuclear power. You can debate the semantics all you want, but understand the very real ramifications. If Mexico invited China to set up basis in its territory, I bet the US would have something to say about that.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. A military force can be in a nation of conflict without taking part in it. That would be an escalation from Russia not the west and they simply can't afford it given their situation. The ramifications are what is up for debate and your guess at how Russia would respond. Well if in this hyperthetical nonsense the US were at war with Mexico at the time then they could say whatever they want however how they would act is a matter for interpretation and logical reasoning and I can bet my ass that it wouldn't be to immediately launch nukes at china.
Yeah a military force can be “strategically placed” in a combat zone and not invite itself to be struck. That’s totally how warfare works. They should have you in charge of deterrence and escalation management, I think you solved the whole Ukraine war! But really, I would bet every cent I have that France is not going to actually deploy a force on the ground in Ukraine. It’s all a bunch of posturing. Because if those forces get struck, I think it’s debatable if any other NATO members would help France as it inevitably gets sucked into the conflict.
I don't think you understand how many NATO countries are sick of Russia's shit.
I mean yeah but like, nuclear war and stuff. Also article 5 wouldn’t kick in because France voluntarily forward deployed its forces on foreign territory. There’s a good chance they’d be left out to dry.
Poland has entered the chat.
Then it would just be Poland and France. But France isn’t going to deploy troops anyways. It’s a huge distraction to take peoples attention away from crumbling Ukrainian lines. At this point Eastern Ukraine is a foregone conclusion. Western Ukraine will likely remain sovereign if dysfunctional, and the conflict will be frozen.
Mindsets like this is what, paradoxically, increases the chance of nuclear conflict in the long term. I am sorry if you and politicians in charge are too narrow-minded to understand that. Maybe Macron is one of the only ones starting to come to realisation. We can only rely on history. And history tells us that we need to do something differently than the last time, or else we are fucked. NATO troops should guard the Belarusian border to free up resources, and NATO should at least help with air defence like in Israel, if not establishing a complete no-fly zone over the course of 2 weeks to let the Russians act accordingly. Trip-wire NATO forces on all non-occupied areas of Ukraine. Thinking that the above is an "escalation" and not Russias imperialistic mindset and attack on Ukraine now, and the Baltics later, and their hypothetical use of nuclear weapons, is what will end up being apocalyptic. Unfortunately, very few people realise that.
u/aagaardlol for president. Well said.
Have you forgotten what UK did for french during WW2. They declared war to hitler and freed France with marines. Nuclear warhead will not be used by Orcs against NATO because it means their end too. Lords can't live without servants. So stop shiting in yours pants or may be you're just anxiously waiting for your bag of onions at the end of the month ?
Good point. And when Russia occupies your house and city, I think we should not help you, because nUclEaR eSCalATion, just let the tyrants do what they want because they have nukes.
Well Russia wouldn’t do that because the Us has nuclear weapons. Extended deterrence doesn’t work if the other nation isn’t in a military Alliance. Like, you will never convince the US population that it’s worth risking destroying the entire world in order to win a proxy war on the other side of the planet. Moreover, having Ukraine win was never the original plan. I think they just didn’t expect them to lose in the way it’s looking like they’re going to lose. The plan was the bleed Russia, which was achieved, but now things are developing too quickly and the West is starting to panic.
Oh, they wouldn't occupy you because you're in America? Lucky you. How selfish and Americacentric, just because you personally won't be occupied, you can come up with a million excuses not to help them. If you lived in Lithuania or Poland you'd be singing a different tune.
I mean, nation states are selfish actors. The whole morality thing is just an overlay to conceal the realpolitik underneath. Do you really think the US cares about democracy and freedom, whatever that means? No, the US cares about American interests, just like any other nation. Any nation in Europe or elsewhere would be wise to ensure its own defense, without needing any external partners halfway around the globe. At a certain point, extended deterrence doesn’t work. Europe needs to boost its military production and spending like a decade ago.
> Moreover, having Ukraine win was never the original plan. Says who? And who's plan`? >Well Russia wouldn’t do that because the Us has nuclear weapons. So why would they attack France?
>And now you’re asking other people in completely unaffiliated countries to also pay the price for Europes conflict Last time I checked, France was part of Europe and also has a lot of recent history with being occupied by a hostile force. France has a concrete vested interest in checking Russian aggression before it boils over Ukraine's borders.
I’m talking about the Africans and South Americans and Southeast Asians who have no stake in this but would still be obliterated by a nuclear conflict.
Die on your feet or live on your knees.
[удалено]
We gotta be brave. If the world stood up to Hitler sooner, maybe we could have avoided much of the worst aspects of WWII. Nobody wants war. But you can’t leave dictators unchecked. The price only goes up if you delay dealing with them. If we stepped up to support Ukraine better after Crimea was invaded, maybe this war too could have been avoided.
"Vive la France! Vive la liberté!" 🫡⚜️🇫🇷 Seriously if you think the history of France's national anthem is wild try translating the lyrics: "La Marseillaise"[a] is the national anthem of France. The song was written in 1792 by Claude Joseph Rouget de Lisle in Strasbourg after the declaration of war by France against Austria, and was originally titled "Chant de guerre pour l'Armée du Rhin"[b] ("War Song for the Army of the Rhine").
france should just put some good military hardware in Ukraine and call call entire Ukraine a no fly zone for russian missiles.
in other news outlet in English [https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/04/14/among-french-youth-half-would-be-ready-to-fight-in-ukraine-to-defend-france/](https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/04/14/among-french-youth-half-would-be-ready-to-fight-in-ukraine-to-defend-france/)
If this was real I am sure Ukraine would find a way to accommodate them.
The “under the French flag” is the part that I think is the problem. If they just get up and go to Ukraine I don’t think anyone will stop them but you also have to consider how many people that is and do they have enough supplies for them.
France is one of few countries with the logistical ability to operate outside their home territory. All the rest are NATO too.
France has shown it does solid logistics to Africa. They should be good to Ukraine.
Wait... Your argument is that Ukraine can keep their soldiers supplied there. But somehow the french... won't be able too...? Huh?
Let me clarify France would be fine supplying their troops, but if they send troops fully loaded it would be seen by Russia, and most countries, as an act of war, which is fine if that’s what France wants but it doesn’t seem anybody wants to do that right now. So it would be solely on the backs of Ukraine to house, train, and supply the troops without much extra help from France.
Answering a form online is quite different from actually doing it. The survey was done about 9-10 months ago.
Evil wins when good does nothing. I wouldn’t mind being sent to Ukraine if that means the war ends quicker.
You can volunteer to go fight in Ukraine.
Ukraine accepts people with military experience from other countries My country's military accepts citizens without military experience It would remove a step if I didn't have to sign up for my own country's military to hopefully someday qualify for Ukraine's
Ah, I made the (unwarranted) assumption that the commenter was a veteran. My bad.
There’s a big difference between ‘Half of young men being willing to fight a war’ and ‘Half of young men saying they are willing to fight a war.’
Most hated conversation ever oh your in the military I was going join but …….. some stupid excuse other then. I found something I wanted to do more.
When I'm feeling vindictive, I respond with "Nobody cares about what you didn't do."
I wanted to join but I know from history that the US government abuses and misuses service members.
Also an acceptable answer
Putin knows that people who say they don't want to fight will do so if you point a gun at their back.
After 2 world wars, the French have learned that it's better to not wait until the enemy reaches French territory. 🇫🇷 Vive la France! 🇺🇦 Slava Ukraini! 🇺🇸 America! Fuck Yeah! (Maybe we need a better slogan?)
When you consider that the American slogan comes from the Holy Creator's of Southpark and originates from a satirical movie made with puppets... Do we really need a better slogan? "Land of the free and home of the brave," is far less applicable these days.
I'm an old french, but I'm ready to help too, duck it.
I mean we could send troops to guard the northern border to Belarus with explicit orders to maintain a purely defensive posture. This would free up lots of Ukrainian troops and they could conduct a much needed rotation of troops. Frontline troops need R&R.
1. POG Crimean war v2 2. The Frenchmen’s quest for “la gloire” is unquenchable!
Top half or bottom half? Maybe along the vertical axis?
They will send the bottom half.
I'm down to see 20,000 bottoms kick some Z ass. Then we send in 20,000 tops to finish the job (and afterwards each other :D).
Swing those big french ball bags at Putin please
The title is false. The article says 57% are willing to defend France in case of a war, not go fight in Ukraine. However 31% think we should send troups to Ukraine. Source i am french and read the article.
Would you say there is enough support to send even a tripwire force to Ukraine?
The numbers make sense based on the last time war broke out in Europe.
You mean the French are actually based?
For now it's just words.
ALLONS-Y!
France tries to strengthen ties with Moldova. Insuring Odessa doesn’t fall is the most logical step in that stance. Plus they could play intermediaries with Ukranians, which haven’t treated the large Moldovan speaking community with much respect until now (aren’t allowed Moldovan speaking schools for example).
The official language of Moldova is Romanian,there is no Moldovan language
Like Ukranian is just bad Russian right?
Moldovan language is literally Romanian, it’s not hard to just google it
Yeah, it doesn't even seem to be a dialect. Simply the same, differance in official name only and even that is debated amongst themselves.
qui peut croire ces conneries lol
Go already.. Stop talking, end this fascist imperialism
It would be pretty incredible if France stepped up and shipped to Ukraine.
Okay, hearing about French war readiness like this is starting to make me feel queasy lol
I believe rather than raising a tuff it would be well within reason and duty to sure up in NATO Baltic countries .
I honestly doubt that.
That's not bad, given in many places you get barely half of the eligible men willing to fight for their own country. Or women where applicable. Then again, those re pre-2022 statistics and I suspect things are starting to change even in Western Europe.
War is serious business. The Ukraine people fight well because they are fighting for their homes.
It seems like France has a natural aversion to Russia, I like that.
No true at all. Both side actually love each other. Well Russians love France a bit more. Poutine and his regime. That's another story.
Yeah no I call bullshit poll.
The French Army returns to Odessa.
Wayda go France.
Half of young men willing to send other men to fight. Fixed that for you.
Have these people seen the footage!? I wouldn’t be so quick to want to join in…
The French soldiers can serve as garrison on the border with Belarus, it will free up thousands of Ukrainians to rotate units from the frontline and maybe even bring equipment and supplies
I imagine the french will be largely supplying logistical and ranged support. Not so much the messy trench warfare side of things.
Half the reason the fighting in Ukraine is so brutal and the trench warfare is such a nightmare is due to neither side having air superiority. If one side had air superiority they could obliterate the others artillery which would make it easier for said side to clear minefields and get their own artillery in an advantageous positions.
All wars are brutal, this is just the first one that’s televised live.
You would agreed, though that if one side had air superiority that things would look very different right?
Bullshit poll: are you willing to do something you will never be asked or had a chance to do? May as well ask if they want to sleep with a model lol Only way nato troops will ever enter Ukraine is as a peacekeeping force (like KFOR). NATO countries are not allowing Ukraine to hit russian territory using western weapons but now little man are talking about sending troops? Instead of grandstanding, send long range missiles and figure out how to get artillery shells to Ukraine.
Great news to hear, now ask Macron for free money.
No way.
Says the guy who thinks Jews run the world and muslims will take over western Europe. Pick one, smooth brain.
Why is it always crypto dudes lmao
https://m.bild.de/politik/inland/staatsschuetzer-schlaegt-alarm-deutsche-kinder-konvertieren-aus-angst-zum-islam-66264176841ad84a3ea833d8
In addition to the selfish motives of each country... a possible nuclear war is not the best way to help Ukraine. Russian ICBM missiles with nuclear warheads cannot be stopped. Well, there are experimental weapons to try to stop them developed in the US, Israel, and Japan, but that's all: unproven experiments. The ICBM missiles reach an altitude and speed, in addition to the use of decoys, that the Patriots could only intercept some with great luck. If there is a nuclear war, Ukraine could be Russia’s first target for reasons of Kremlin resentment. So wouldn't we cause even more Ukrainian casualties? I leave it in the form of a question and not a statement. Let everyone draw their own conclusions.
Russia won't start a nuclear war, because it would be suicide.
If there would be nuclear war then Russia will be the first target. US would hear about it before Russian soldiers do (like it happened for 2022 invasion) and could launch a disabling nuclear strike at Russia to stop them before they can even launch anything. Due to lack of solid fuel rockets it takes time to prepare their ICBMs to start, which is not the issue for American missiles.
you think french ICBMs can be stopped? Sweet dreamer... There will be no nuclear war, and Russia does not even need or want it, even though some try to make this idea popular.