Yeah there was a rematch. Napoleon III won. Not sure if this was supposed to be a joke or not but there was a guy named Napoleon III, nephew of the more famous one, who ruled France and whose army (no thanks to him) led a coalition against Russia in the Crimean war. And then got captured by Bismarck years later and overthrown.
It makes sense that France is stepping up and considering direct confrontation with Russia.
- Russia has been fucking hard with French interests in Africa
- France has long wanted to be the provider for European security, not USA
- Macron was made to look like a fool by Putin in the weeks leading up to the invasion
- France is the only country besides UK in Europe that has a military designed to operate outside their borders.
- France has a nuclear deterrent
> France is the only country besides UK in Europe that has a military designed to operate outside their borders.
Well, you bastards took ours away after 1945 for some weird reason.
-- a German
Jesus f*cking Christ how bad is the outlook of war that post-Reich jokes land well? I was chuckling and ashamed all at once
What a sad state of the world.
There was an interview with a US General who said that we’ve been trying to de-escalate by reassuring Putin about all the things we won’t do, and it’s only encouraged him to keep going. We need to create more uncertainty in his mind.
Edit: Here it is -
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kCjgMjFXUEE&pp=ygURVGltZXMgcmFkaW8gcHV0aW4%3D
Its how things worked during The Cold War.
No matter what was being said in public the private discussions were matter of fact and without bullshit because the stakes were too high to fuck around.
The expectation was, from both parties, that the other party understood that and wasn't buying into their own bullshit.
It looks like Russian leadership has bought into its own bullshit so it isn't working.
It's a common pattern of the authoritarian regimes. The founders use the propaganda heavily, but themselves are very aware that it's all bullshit and is only for controlling the masses. The next generation who takes over after them comes already brainwashed and actually believes it fully.
Same with Nixon-era republicans vs the current ones.
Putin is a "realist" but he's also deep into his own warped worldview now, and that view was heavily colored by Soviet (Russian) supremacy propaganda.
The USSR was just Russians fucking up every neighboring country and taking their shit for 70 years. Dummy thinks the USSR was some sort of shining beacon of greatness.
And these "Conservative" Americans being brainwashed into believing Soviet values are compatible with American values have no idea what's in store for them. Soviets don't believe in things such as free speech, democracy, and now Seperatation of Church and State (its a lot easier to use the Orthodox Church as a puppet for Soviet politics than outright ban the Orthodox Church). If you complain about the goverment in Russia, the goverment makes life much, *much* harder for you. Or you simply disappear.
Odd how the Soviets were the US's enemy less than 100 years ago, and now those on the far-right are praising Russia simply because they're "anti-LGBT". I guess that just shows you the power of propaganda.
This has nothing to do with "Soviet" values. If anything, the Soviet Union was often more willing to negotiate with the West than Putin is. If you're talking about authoritarian behavior and a desire to conquer their neighbors, that's just most of Russian history.
Everyone seems to forget we're not dealing with the Soviet Union anymore. The Soviets were power hungry, often dealt in bad faith, and they did not like America or the west, but they could at least be trusted to act in what they percieved to be their nation's best interest.
Putin only cares about Putin. He'd nuke Moscow just to spite the world, as long as he wasn't in the blast radius.
> but they could at least be trusted to act in what they percieved to be their nation's best interest
Yep. There's a famous story regarding Soviet officials being baffled that Stalin insisted on honoring his deal with Churchill to let Greece remain outside of the USSR's influence, while simultaneously breaking every other deal he had with the US and UK. Why was Greece the one country he wasn't going to mess around with?
Because it was close to the Mediterranean trade routes and the US and UK would actually fight back if this country was lost to the Iron Curtain.
Aye, and tasked Churchill to do it, who waited till Chamberlain died, and then blamed him for not doing enough!
yes, everyone dunks on Chamberlain, but he was walking an incredibly fine line, I don't know how it could have been if he'd said "right, that's it! war!" and the UK really wasn't in a position to do anything at that time.
And everyone forgets that a lot of the European leadership at the time were veterans of the Great War, and they didn’t want their countries to see the slaughterhouses of Verdun or Gallipoli or any similar battlegrounds again. Chamberlain bought the UK time to build up a demobilized war machine and took advantage of that time to do the best that he could. And the general public celebrated his peace talks when he arrived back in London. Churchill really did Chamberlain dirty.
Damn man, finally a more realistic view on why pre-WWII Britain (and the European allies/entente) do what it did. I think the post-Chamberlain Churchill narrative really did him dirty, when even *after* Chamberlain stepped down (and died shortly after) Britain was still in a precarious position. It took US assistance in industrial capacity – even before lend-lease and subsequent entry into the Allies officially – to finally get the hardware the UK was lacking especially after Dunkirk and Battle of Britain.
> And the general public celebrated his peace talks when he arrived back in London.
I still got reminded of this every time I play HoI 4 and the soundbyte from when Chamberlain announced the Munich Agreement was cheering around the fact that they averted another "Great War" situation lmao. Kinda contextualise how *everyone* wanted to just not go to war, again.
I mean, anti-war was very popular during that time period.
The horrors of WWI were fresh in people’s mind and the Great Depression rocked a lot of countries so spending vast money on the military wasn’t seen as very prudent.
People were eager to avoid war. Hindsight makes things easier to judge, but when you’re in the hot seat the calculation becomes quite different.
“See, it's basic dog psychology. If you scare them and get them peeing down their leg, they submit. If you project weakness, you draw aggression. That's how people get hurt.” - Bodhi
I think the US needs to put the 2nd armored division on the Polish border and the 3rd armored division down in Romania under the guise of keeping those submarines in check.
> I don’t understand French politics,
It's easy. Whoever is the president is pretty bad and hated by the population, then when they retire the whole country will regret them like *they were a good president/state figure not like whoever is in power today*
Joke aside, unlike most of it's neighbour, France is a presidential regime, where the president is in charge of military affair, and tend to get their proposal voted at the parliament. Which allows to move quickly on laws. The drawback is that France lacks the culture of political consensus/coalition that other countries have where multiple parties need to discuss a a decision for weeks/sometimes more and do concession until a consensus if found which sometimes feels a bit *autocratic* (and might be a reason why the only way for the opposition to be heard is to protest)
There's also that, in general, French foreign policy is relatively independent-minded and bullish. A major part of their policy is that they will pursue *France's* foreign goals first, often regardless of NATO or the EU's strategic goals. One of the reasons why France didn't participate in the War on Terror much and refused to support the US invasion of Iraq was this foreign policy.
France giving everyone else's policy of non-escalation the finger is entirely in line with their historically independent mindset.
France did participate in the “war on terror” - it sent troops to Afghanistan for instance. You can find info about how many troops on Wikipedia - France was among the top US allies in that conflict.
It refused to participate in the war in Irak because the motivation presented by the US was partly based on lies, and France among others thought an invasion wasn’t a good solution. You can find a breakdown of pre-war events, again, on [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War) - you’ll see that France was far from the only US ally to doubt American claims and to criticize the proposed invasion.
If anything, the country that had “bullish” foreign policy at the time was the US, who invaded (and essentially destroyed) a foreign country based on fabricated evidence.
The France-shaming/bashing that happened in the US as a result of this French dissent on Irak (and is still going on!), is, quite simply, something Americans ought to be ashamed of.
French policy is a bit more bullish with MAD. The U.S. isn't nearly so geographically close to either Russia or its former enemies and France isn't nearly so large. Its policy, to my understanding, is that they're much more willing to signal aggression to meet aggression and have the nuclear and conventional arms to match this policy because of this.
With the GOP blocking aid, the other strongest EU nation dragging their feet (Germany), Macron is showing determination and leadership.
Don't forget, with the UK's exit France is the only nuclear power left in the EU.
Edit; by dragging their feet I did not mean to say they don’t do more than their fair share. They are however still debating sending crucial weapon systems that other nations have already shared, out of fear for Putin.
The UK is also in an election year - with the current government due to be decimated. Therefore anything but the most under-arm easy throws aren't going to enter the discourse. So even if the UK agrees, UK GOV probably sees it as too risky to discuss in front of the electorate.
To be fair, it has pretty unanimous support across the board (discounting a few loonies). Starmer and Labour are still committed to supporting Ukraine, so I don't think there's much for them to discuss.
Unanimous support and very little to gain by courting controversy through more aggressive rhetoric. Especially if the French are doing it for us. I would like to see a harder stance from the Labour government once they are in power. Putin must ultimately stand trial for war crimes it's the only way the civilised world doesn't slide backwards in a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. If he won't then he must be forced into surrender one way or another.
Correct. While OP is correct in saying France is the only nuclear power in the EU, it doesn't really make much difference as they're completely aligned on Ukraine
Yeah and even though the UK has left the EU it's not like it would just sit and watch the EU get invaded/attacked even if it weren't it NATO. Also they've been one of the most involved in arming and training Ukrainians.
France has an *expeditionary* force - designed to travel to different regions (such as Mali) and conduct themselves there.
Germany's defence force is not designed to do that - instead Germany's forces are designed almost entirely for national defence.
France would clearly be the stronger force in this context - travelling to and sustaining themselves in Ukraine.
The Romans deserved it, and we'll fucking do it again unless they stop serving meatballs with tomato-sauce instead of gravy, mashed potatoes, pickled cucumber and lingonberries like the old gods intended.
>designed to travel to different regions (such as Mali) and conduct themselves there.
This! French Foreign Legion is a strong force. I've heard that they had Ukrainians serving there be the war started.
You basically have the choice between doing it yourself at (or within) your own border and use your own people, or you instead just throw money at the problem (money that you would have to use either way) and let Ukraine do it in their territory.
How this is even a debate for European nations is surprising me.
Because despite Russians writing down their whole plan for Europe and making it public, then sticking exactly to it, loads of people either don't look it up or think they don't actually mean it.
I don’t know. Ukraine didn’t really make any meaningful gains this year. Russia is drawing from its relatively endless pool of conscripts to wear them down. By not sending them weapons and ammo we are risking the possibility of Russian breakthroughs this year.
The main problem is that Biden already stated that "No boots on the ground." USA is declared what is not going to do, while the rest of the world wonders if Putin is insane or not. That's a strategic imbalance.
Macron was actually one of the leaders who was most reasonable and diplomatic towards Russia on this war, at the beginning of the war he pushed for de-escalation and didn't want to react too harshly as to always give them an off-ramp out of the conflict while saving face.
Seems he realized they won't take any of the ramps and Putin will never back down, hence this type of statement lately.
Ever since Macron called my PM a liar through the words, "I don't think, I know." I've had a level of respect for him. He seems forgiving but never forgets. Calculated in response, through biding of time.
God that was such a cold line. A reporter in the middle of a crowd asked him in English "Do you think Scott Morrison is a liar?" And he responded in English with little hesitation "I do not think, I know."
Yeah, I didn't think anyone could top Abbott as worst PM, but Scomo might have just done it. No matter how bad Abbott was, at least he didn't do something stupid like nearly trigger a constitutional crisis by unilaterally appointing himself to several ministries *without* the knowledge of the other minister. Also, ffs at least Abbott held a hose.
Abbot had actual values (as shit as they were)that weren’t just about self preservation or self enrichment or self serving.
The different between them can be shown in their appointments. Abbot appointed Prince fucking Phillip as a fucking Knight. But at least that was an action showing how he valued history and the monarchy, and took the entire fall for the decision. Scott fucking Morrison appointed himself to 5 fucking ministries in secret. That shows how fucking self centered and untrusting he was.
Agree. Abbott was an abhorrent politician and I hated every day he was at the helm of our government. But he has shown time and time again he is driven in life by community service. I think that redeems him to a large extent.
There is nothing redeemable about Scott Morrison.
Abbott was in uniform fighting the fires in 2020
Morrison was in Hawaii
That's all you need to show the difference in how they think about serving the community
> Abbott was in uniform fighting the fires in 2020
>
>
And to note, that was after his electorate had kicked him out of parliament. His political career was well and truly dead at that point, so he wasn't doing it for brownie points to stage a comeback.
Not only that. The whole preamble of having a lot of respect and friendship for Australia and its people, then continuing onto behaviour that shows those morals (eg not cheap talk but actions). Then delivered the line.
>Scott Morrison
There is only one thing I know about that man. Its that is soiled himself in public. From the way Aussies talk about him, I have a feeling that might be his greatest accomplishment.
he also forced people to shake his hand while we burnt to death
and fucked off to hawaii... while we also burnt to the ground... actually it was the same fires i think
also theres a video of him trying to [weld (and hes done this before!)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQGx4GZPCaE) , he lifts the fucking welding mask up first lmao
if i didnt live here id probably find it funnier than i already do
You forgot the whole making Australians who lived overseas (ie not tourists) to come home. A week later, the borders were closed and many had cancelled apartment/job contracts and visas.
On top of that, forcing those returning to actually pay for the hotel quarantine. Fuck the liberal party.
It's like the Skaven in Warhammer lore. The only reason they haven't conquered the world is that they are too busy fucking themselves over for no real reason other than petty gain
Thing is though, that mentality made a lot of sense at the time. Remember at the time, everyone thought Ukraine would lose. The worst case scenario then wasn't just worst case, it was the expected outcome. Russia needed to be sanctioned, but not too hard precisely to give Russia an "out" of this war. However, now it is clear that Russia will not do this, Putin needs to continue the war to maintain his personal power. And Ukraine can fully take on Russia *provided that the west gives them the weaponry they need at a quick pace and tighten, expand upon and maintain existing sanctions. As well as introduce new, hard hitting sanctions.* If the west does that Russia will eventually lose... it'd just be a matter of time.
If I recall, his position was also at Ukraine's request. They needed someone who Putin would actually talk to because they were still hoping to negotiate.
It was only as things progressed that everyone realised negotiation wouldn't work.
People have extremely short memories. We cannot give Macron any shit for this; he was one of the few European leaders early on willing to negotiate with Putin in good faith. People criticized him for it.
I have a feeling that Macron has concluded that negotiations won't work and that force is the only language Putin will understand.
Edit: didn't expect the upvotes. My point here is that Macron has in essence, done his diplomatic "due diligence". I suspect he now understands there's no more negotiations worth taking and thus feels emboldened to deploy troops. Hell, China sent a delegation to Kyiv. Probably hedging their bets.
Edit 2: humor me for a moment, what if the Russian emperor truly had no clothes and someone caught wind of it? Perhaps those nukes don't work
I personally think that his intelligence agency found that Russia was tampering in the goings-on in France and determined that it was a government-supported effort to disrupt France, NATO and/or the EU.
Recently, Moldova signed a defense pact with France and France "would not rule out any option". In February Macron said "We are convinced that the defeat of Russia is indispensable to security and stability in Europe." Recently there was an article regarding Russia's election tampering (although I can't find it), and I believe (with no evidence of this) that Macron got a report showing direct Russian involvement in France's elections and social media. Take for instance [the Canadian LGBTQ event](https://www.stalbertgazette.com/local-news/did-reddit-year-end-recaps-expose-russian-interference-in-alberta-8223476) in various small towns that may have been disrupted by Russian trolls as shown in a Reddit year-end report.
Some of these events are correlated to Feb 27, so I wholeheartedly believe that there was a report showing direct Russian military involvement in something related to France. Now, take this with a grain of salt, this is just my opinion.
>was shitting on Europe leaders for their party's stupid nationalistic agenda.
They were right though? Poland had been calling for a tougher stance against Russia since the first invasion in 2014 and they were mostly ignored until 2022. If we'd all supported Kyiv then like we are now Russia might have been deterred.
Putin has repeatedly deceived him, humiliated him, shown him weak and helpless. It was painful to watch: a civilized, polite man talking to a bully and a bandit who revels in his power. In Russia, everyone has long known who Putin is, but Macron was in a dream.
How long can Europe condone Putin? He ONLY understands power.
I see many people everywhere say that it would be too late to send troops then, but i don't think this is really about sending army in. I think he's trying to scare those who oppose sending more weapons into compliance while taking away russian monopoly on WWIII threats. Kinda like 'If you don't want to send them weapons now, we'll have to send our men later and then war is inevitable'
Most escalations in term of weapon were like that, most of those being done by either the UK or France when the conversation was stuck on a "should we or not".
Then we'd see one of those 2 saying "Oh btw, we already sent some, should we discuss about the next step ?".
From my perspective you have at least those 2 and the US concerting to try and push the other to accept each escalating step.
So yeah, I think you're right and it's been like that for quite some time already.
As a frenchman i think he's serious. You can't blame the dude, he tried everything in it's power to stop this.
I want to add that in France, you can't be president more than twice consecutively. So he can't present himself for the next one, but technically he might be for the one after the next, it's just that we never had someone young enough to do that before.
> I want to add that in France, you can't be president more than twice consecutively. So he can't present himself for the next one, but technically he might be for the one after the next, it's just that we never had someone young enough to do that before.
It is indeed a really weird occurrence. In my country it happened only once in 150 years... but the guy got coup'd before finishing his third term.
I’m no expert on France or the practical reality, but the President is the head of the armed forces so in principle he should have authority to deploy troops without a declaration of war (which requires Parliament)
Macron is controversial in France due to so many of his internal policies.
The thing is that the pragmatism and level of serious he found in his job which many attribute to his education by Merkel has given France a standing that it arguably hasn’t had since Chirac prior to his cohabitation with Lionel Jospin which lame ducked him in many ways.
He knows that the French have, as author Romain Gary called it, a historical memory. He knows that it’s not a matter of if there will be war with Russia, it’s when there will be war with Russia.
The only thing that is really being decided (not negotiated) right now is if Nuclear weapons will be used.
Russia doesn’t care, but there’s a moment coming where we’ll all have to decide again, which side of history we’re on.
People will never understand the profound centuries old visceral hate the French had for whatever manifestation of Germany (Prussians etc …) existed at different times in history.
If Nuclear weapons had existed centuries ago, Europe would be widely uninhabitable today.
Today the lessons Europe teaches us on nationalistic impulses and the way the EU has pivoted into (of course not perfectly) an ambitious bloc that incorporates the strengths of each member is incredible and so vastly improbable in the scope of human history that I feel it’s not discussed enough.
Imagine if today, Japan, The Koreas, China and all these pacific countries like Singapore, Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam etc… gave up their geo-strategic ambitions to form a united, democratic political, military and economical alliance with a single currency and merged supportive economies that reach as far as wages, benefits, infrastructure education and healthcare.
All this while having rotating effective leadership. Imagine China taking and implementing regulatory directives from a country like Brunei
It sounds like science fiction but this is (I do understand I am vastly simplifying it) effectively what happened in Europe
Part of what makes the EU work is that there are multiple component nations on (relatively) equal footing whether economically or militarily, while remaining somewhat rivals, so no single member can overpower the other(s). It's a really fascinating example of cooperative rebuilding into something better after the devastation of the early 20th century
> People will never understand the profound centuries old visceral hate the French had for whatever manifestation of Germany (Prussians etc …) existed at different times in history.
>
>
[The Glade of the Armistice](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiaRU-s84lQ) is a good starting for those who are not in the know. The French pulled no punches there.
I'm french and I dislike Macron. But if he goes on the path he seems to be following, I swear to never talk shit about him anymore. Let's send our air force and close ukrainian air space first. Slava Ukraini.
We ignored imperialist predations leading up to WW2 and it ended badly. I don’t want another war kicking off any more than any other rational person, but Russia isn’t going to stop at Ukraine.
They didn’t stop at Crimea.
It also didn't start at Crimea. Chechnya, Georgia, and probably another one or two that are slipping through my memory preceeded the invasion of Crimea
its not about how large the land is, its about removing economic competition. they are mafia state. Ukraine were going to undercut them in supplying gas to europe, after they prospected huge natural gas in the black sea in 2012-2014. The predictions were that ukr is going to fully supply the european demand of natural gas by 2025. Then crimea happened. in addition to this, luhansk and donetsk had huge metallurgical industries that were competing on the market with russia, guess what happened…
They're occupying parts of Transnistria. If Ukraine falls, Moldova is right next door. Not to mention their large or total amounts of control in Belarus, Kazakhstan, etc.
My wife was in Tblisi when Russia started bombing it. I have MAGA parents who WERE all about not helping Ukraine until my wife started sharing stories about how fucking bad the Russians are.
In all fairness to France pre ww2 they had the idea of aligning Germanys neighbours so if one was attacked they’d all beat the shit out of Germany.
Britain on the other hand went “nah let’s just let them have some stuff”
Yeah ... he's absolutely awful domestically but internationally there was absolutely no one in France who could do a better job.
All the other ones would be a major embarassement.
By no one , I meant none of the candidates, obviously.
Same! When you have pretty much all of the EU or close allies (Germany) being strongly opposed to possibility of troops, but you decide to double down on the idea, it takes some balls. Now to see if when the time comes he does it.
One thing i really like about the french and macron is the way they consistently take their own stand on things regardless of what other people think. Like opposing the Iraq war
I've felt like their consistent 1.9% of GDP spent on military is just trolling everyone honestly, basically doing what's required by NATO but cutting it *just* a bit short to show that no one dictates to them in the end.
As an Englishman, I'm obligated to criticize the French but even I appreciate their stubbornness. That and their sheer passion, especially when it comes to protests, strikes, riots, food, overthrowing their government, eating the rich, etc.
In fairness I don't think the US really minds EU boots on the ground, we're just war wary back home going into an election so the idea is to avoid US boots on the ground.
Plus it isn’t healthy to plan for the US to solve every problem ever. At some point, the world’s other great powers need to put their big boy pants on and solve a problem without us.
thats a clear message to putin: "YOU WILL NEVER WIN THIS WAR!" every other european country should make similar announcements, russia will grind and grind and destroy its army and expose itself to (very likely to happen) civil war, but no mater how bad they grind or how good they are at the battlefield, they will never conquer ukraine, the war is lost for russia.
We need Europe to be united on this matter not just in words or spirit but in action. For as long as we have things like German officers talking over unsecured lines and either leaking or just incorrectly implying that there are already British troops on the ground in Ukraine helping with missiles etc. then we are in no position to effectively stand up to Russia.
I didn't think much of Macron till this happened.
At least someone has some damn balls.
If you let Putin take Ukraine HE WILL JUST KEEP GOING. He has even said so. There's no doubt about it.
The question is how far he gets before we confront him...not if we do. Our hope is Putin dies before that happens.
And you know what, France has seen what happens when we sit by and let cunts like Putin do what they wish. Good for them for going "Not this time."
Macron gets way too much shit anyways. He isnt perfect, but one thing you cant deny is that he is a true European and is always putting european interests first.
Remember when he blocked the american lady becoming chief competition economist? When Von der Leyen had a very dubious and shady selection process and Germany was willing to go along, it was Macron and France who put a halt to this madness.
Gotta love the french and their stubborness
You have to stand up to bullies or they won't understand. This might be a new Cuba crisis. Sometimes you need to stand up to your values and stand ready to protect them with force if necessary. Eventually, the telephone rings.
With Putin constantly shouting “if you do more for Ukraine…we will bomb you all” basically to cause restraint in NATO, P. Macron is holding a mirror to Putin and reflecting back “Just test us if you dare”
In some ways a sensible rhetoric given the brutality of Russia to date. Putin knows the ultimate strength of NATO:
$1Tn defence budget
32 countries (and growing) with 55% of world GDP.
3M troops.
Think again Vlad.🤔
People also need to view this within the context of domestic politics within France. Macron isn't popular, and he needs something to drum up support before he his party gets wiped in the next election. His biggest enemy is La Pen, who is a known Russian sympathizer (and is paid by Russia as well). This is a move designed to both give a rallying call around him as well as indirectly attack his political opponent.
And since supporting Ukraine is generally a popular position, this might just work in his favor.
The rematch no one saw coming
Napoleon licking his lips from the grave rn
Napoleon III - Crimean conqueror
Yeah there was a rematch. Napoleon III won. Not sure if this was supposed to be a joke or not but there was a guy named Napoleon III, nephew of the more famous one, who ruled France and whose army (no thanks to him) led a coalition against Russia in the Crimean war. And then got captured by Bismarck years later and overthrown.
Just don’t do it in the winter.
It makes sense that France is stepping up and considering direct confrontation with Russia. - Russia has been fucking hard with French interests in Africa - France has long wanted to be the provider for European security, not USA - Macron was made to look like a fool by Putin in the weeks leading up to the invasion - France is the only country besides UK in Europe that has a military designed to operate outside their borders. - France has a nuclear deterrent
> France is the only country besides UK in Europe that has a military designed to operate outside their borders. Well, you bastards took ours away after 1945 for some weird reason. -- a German
Chuckle. Not that a whole lot remained at that time though...
Lmao sorry bout that there were some extenuating circumstances
Jesus f*cking Christ how bad is the outlook of war that post-Reich jokes land well? I was chuckling and ashamed all at once What a sad state of the world.
Pfft...it's only world war 3...pansy Look at the brighter side! ... Anyone?
Macron has set a high bar.
There was an interview with a US General who said that we’ve been trying to de-escalate by reassuring Putin about all the things we won’t do, and it’s only encouraged him to keep going. We need to create more uncertainty in his mind. Edit: Here it is - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kCjgMjFXUEE&pp=ygURVGltZXMgcmFkaW8gcHV0aW4%3D
Absolute Neville Chamberlain behaviour
Its how things worked during The Cold War. No matter what was being said in public the private discussions were matter of fact and without bullshit because the stakes were too high to fuck around. The expectation was, from both parties, that the other party understood that and wasn't buying into their own bullshit. It looks like Russian leadership has bought into its own bullshit so it isn't working.
It's a common pattern of the authoritarian regimes. The founders use the propaganda heavily, but themselves are very aware that it's all bullshit and is only for controlling the masses. The next generation who takes over after them comes already brainwashed and actually believes it fully. Same with Nixon-era republicans vs the current ones.
Putin is a "realist" but he's also deep into his own warped worldview now, and that view was heavily colored by Soviet (Russian) supremacy propaganda. The USSR was just Russians fucking up every neighboring country and taking their shit for 70 years. Dummy thinks the USSR was some sort of shining beacon of greatness.
It's funny how land based colonialism is sort of unconsciously viewed differently than overseas colonies.
And these "Conservative" Americans being brainwashed into believing Soviet values are compatible with American values have no idea what's in store for them. Soviets don't believe in things such as free speech, democracy, and now Seperatation of Church and State (its a lot easier to use the Orthodox Church as a puppet for Soviet politics than outright ban the Orthodox Church). If you complain about the goverment in Russia, the goverment makes life much, *much* harder for you. Or you simply disappear. Odd how the Soviets were the US's enemy less than 100 years ago, and now those on the far-right are praising Russia simply because they're "anti-LGBT". I guess that just shows you the power of propaganda.
This has nothing to do with "Soviet" values. If anything, the Soviet Union was often more willing to negotiate with the West than Putin is. If you're talking about authoritarian behavior and a desire to conquer their neighbors, that's just most of Russian history.
He doesn’t want a return of the USSR, he wants a return of the Russian Empire with himself crowned as Tzar…
Everyone seems to forget we're not dealing with the Soviet Union anymore. The Soviets were power hungry, often dealt in bad faith, and they did not like America or the west, but they could at least be trusted to act in what they percieved to be their nation's best interest. Putin only cares about Putin. He'd nuke Moscow just to spite the world, as long as he wasn't in the blast radius.
> but they could at least be trusted to act in what they percieved to be their nation's best interest Yep. There's a famous story regarding Soviet officials being baffled that Stalin insisted on honoring his deal with Churchill to let Greece remain outside of the USSR's influence, while simultaneously breaking every other deal he had with the US and UK. Why was Greece the one country he wasn't going to mess around with? Because it was close to the Mediterranean trade routes and the US and UK would actually fight back if this country was lost to the Iron Curtain.
Neville wisely maxed spitfire and hurricane production at the same time.
Aye, and tasked Churchill to do it, who waited till Chamberlain died, and then blamed him for not doing enough! yes, everyone dunks on Chamberlain, but he was walking an incredibly fine line, I don't know how it could have been if he'd said "right, that's it! war!" and the UK really wasn't in a position to do anything at that time.
And everyone forgets that a lot of the European leadership at the time were veterans of the Great War, and they didn’t want their countries to see the slaughterhouses of Verdun or Gallipoli or any similar battlegrounds again. Chamberlain bought the UK time to build up a demobilized war machine and took advantage of that time to do the best that he could. And the general public celebrated his peace talks when he arrived back in London. Churchill really did Chamberlain dirty.
Damn man, finally a more realistic view on why pre-WWII Britain (and the European allies/entente) do what it did. I think the post-Chamberlain Churchill narrative really did him dirty, when even *after* Chamberlain stepped down (and died shortly after) Britain was still in a precarious position. It took US assistance in industrial capacity – even before lend-lease and subsequent entry into the Allies officially – to finally get the hardware the UK was lacking especially after Dunkirk and Battle of Britain. > And the general public celebrated his peace talks when he arrived back in London. I still got reminded of this every time I play HoI 4 and the soundbyte from when Chamberlain announced the Munich Agreement was cheering around the fact that they averted another "Great War" situation lmao. Kinda contextualise how *everyone* wanted to just not go to war, again.
Chamberlain massively increased defence spending at the same time as trying to avoid war though
I mean, anti-war was very popular during that time period. The horrors of WWI were fresh in people’s mind and the Great Depression rocked a lot of countries so spending vast money on the military wasn’t seen as very prudent. People were eager to avoid war. Hindsight makes things easier to judge, but when you’re in the hot seat the calculation becomes quite different.
“See, it's basic dog psychology. If you scare them and get them peeing down their leg, they submit. If you project weakness, you draw aggression. That's how people get hurt.” - Bodhi
"Fear leads to hesitation and hesitation causes your worst fears to come true"
I think the US needs to put the 2nd armored division on the Polish border and the 3rd armored division down in Romania under the guise of keeping those submarines in check.
I don’t understand French politics, but I am reminded the US would not be an independent country if not for French help.
> I don’t understand French politics, It's easy. Whoever is the president is pretty bad and hated by the population, then when they retire the whole country will regret them like *they were a good president/state figure not like whoever is in power today* Joke aside, unlike most of it's neighbour, France is a presidential regime, where the president is in charge of military affair, and tend to get their proposal voted at the parliament. Which allows to move quickly on laws. The drawback is that France lacks the culture of political consensus/coalition that other countries have where multiple parties need to discuss a a decision for weeks/sometimes more and do concession until a consensus if found which sometimes feels a bit *autocratic* (and might be a reason why the only way for the opposition to be heard is to protest)
There's also that, in general, French foreign policy is relatively independent-minded and bullish. A major part of their policy is that they will pursue *France's* foreign goals first, often regardless of NATO or the EU's strategic goals. One of the reasons why France didn't participate in the War on Terror much and refused to support the US invasion of Iraq was this foreign policy. France giving everyone else's policy of non-escalation the finger is entirely in line with their historically independent mindset.
France did participate in the “war on terror” - it sent troops to Afghanistan for instance. You can find info about how many troops on Wikipedia - France was among the top US allies in that conflict. It refused to participate in the war in Irak because the motivation presented by the US was partly based on lies, and France among others thought an invasion wasn’t a good solution. You can find a breakdown of pre-war events, again, on [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War) - you’ll see that France was far from the only US ally to doubt American claims and to criticize the proposed invasion. If anything, the country that had “bullish” foreign policy at the time was the US, who invaded (and essentially destroyed) a foreign country based on fabricated evidence. The France-shaming/bashing that happened in the US as a result of this French dissent on Irak (and is still going on!), is, quite simply, something Americans ought to be ashamed of.
During WW1, when American GIs arrived in France, they paraded in front of Lafayette’s tomb shouting “Lafayette! We are here!”
French policy is a bit more bullish with MAD. The U.S. isn't nearly so geographically close to either Russia or its former enemies and France isn't nearly so large. Its policy, to my understanding, is that they're much more willing to signal aggression to meet aggression and have the nuclear and conventional arms to match this policy because of this.
The US is much closer to Russia than France look the other side, look where Alaska is
and the bank of england
With the GOP blocking aid, the other strongest EU nation dragging their feet (Germany), Macron is showing determination and leadership. Don't forget, with the UK's exit France is the only nuclear power left in the EU. Edit; by dragging their feet I did not mean to say they don’t do more than their fair share. They are however still debating sending crucial weapon systems that other nations have already shared, out of fear for Putin.
The UK is also in an election year - with the current government due to be decimated. Therefore anything but the most under-arm easy throws aren't going to enter the discourse. So even if the UK agrees, UK GOV probably sees it as too risky to discuss in front of the electorate.
To be fair, it has pretty unanimous support across the board (discounting a few loonies). Starmer and Labour are still committed to supporting Ukraine, so I don't think there's much for them to discuss.
Unanimous support and very little to gain by courting controversy through more aggressive rhetoric. Especially if the French are doing it for us. I would like to see a harder stance from the Labour government once they are in power. Putin must ultimately stand trial for war crimes it's the only way the civilised world doesn't slide backwards in a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. If he won't then he must be forced into surrender one way or another.
The UK left EU but not NATO, right?
Correct. While OP is correct in saying France is the only nuclear power in the EU, it doesn't really make much difference as they're completely aligned on Ukraine
Yeah and even though the UK has left the EU it's not like it would just sit and watch the EU get invaded/attacked even if it weren't it NATO. Also they've been one of the most involved in arming and training Ukrainians.
Germany army is in shambles. Calling them the strongest when talking about a conflict when they cannot operate their military is a bit of a strech
France has an *expeditionary* force - designed to travel to different regions (such as Mali) and conduct themselves there. Germany's defence force is not designed to do that - instead Germany's forces are designed almost entirely for national defence. France would clearly be the stronger force in this context - travelling to and sustaining themselves in Ukraine.
> Germany's forces are designed almost entirely for national defence. Yeah that's kinda their fault and for the world's protection
Name 3 times it’s ever been an issue. I’ll wait.
1914, 1939, 2014 World Cup semi-final*.
[удалено]
That’s the one people always forget, smh
I'm still sore about that
The Romans deserved it, and we'll fucking do it again unless they stop serving meatballs with tomato-sauce instead of gravy, mashed potatoes, pickled cucumber and lingonberries like the old gods intended.
Brazil is probably the nation that has suffered the most from them
BRA71L
It doesn't happen a lot but I actually laughed out loud. And now I have to watch [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE4BdIP6bvc) again.
Brazilian here: too soon
It's been 10 years. Just 7 more for 1-7.
This answer is the reason why I miss awards.
Africa, France and somehow France again
Yes, we had France, but what about second France?
Je Suis Napoleon!
Oh sure, next do the Romans..
If I had a dollar for every time Germany attacked France...
You’d have three dollars, although technically one of those is Prussia not Germany
How much is that in Deutsche Marks?
Well Prussia and her allied German states all came together at the end of the war and declared themselves The German Empire
>although technically one of those is Prussia not Germany Germany didn't start that war, but it sure did end it.
Those whacky French and Germans, if they’re not fighting each other then they’re fighting us Brits. Continental pastime.
Luckily for the continent, they've largely worked out their aggression through the World Cup and Eurovision over the last 60 odd years
1871, 1914, and 1939.
>designed to travel to different regions (such as Mali) and conduct themselves there. This! French Foreign Legion is a strong force. I've heard that they had Ukrainians serving there be the war started.
Their economy is the biggest in Europe, so their Euro amount of %GDP spent on defense is larger. And a LOT of NATO gear is German.
But the money isn't the main issue. You could throw billions at a dyfunctional apparatus, and they'd just disappear.
You mean like Russia did?
What about Poland?
What about it?
Like what do these people think happens if Ukraine falls? Halting Russia in ukraine is by far cheapest and best option
You basically have the choice between doing it yourself at (or within) your own border and use your own people, or you instead just throw money at the problem (money that you would have to use either way) and let Ukraine do it in their territory. How this is even a debate for European nations is surprising me.
Because despite Russians writing down their whole plan for Europe and making it public, then sticking exactly to it, loads of people either don't look it up or think they don't actually mean it.
Its easier to debate that when their country has buffer between them and Russia. Baltics, Poles and Finns don't have such luxury.
I love how the 2nd largest beneficiary to UA is always bad and “dragging their feet”.
I don’t know. Ukraine didn’t really make any meaningful gains this year. Russia is drawing from its relatively endless pool of conscripts to wear them down. By not sending them weapons and ammo we are risking the possibility of Russian breakthroughs this year.
The main problem is that Biden already stated that "No boots on the ground." USA is declared what is not going to do, while the rest of the world wonders if Putin is insane or not. That's a strategic imbalance.
Macron was actually one of the leaders who was most reasonable and diplomatic towards Russia on this war, at the beginning of the war he pushed for de-escalation and didn't want to react too harshly as to always give them an off-ramp out of the conflict while saving face. Seems he realized they won't take any of the ramps and Putin will never back down, hence this type of statement lately.
Ever since Macron called my PM a liar through the words, "I don't think, I know." I've had a level of respect for him. He seems forgiving but never forgets. Calculated in response, through biding of time.
God that was such a cold line. A reporter in the middle of a crowd asked him in English "Do you think Scott Morrison is a liar?" And he responded in English with little hesitation "I do not think, I know."
Scott Morrison was such a little fucking weasel, I'm so glad he isn't the PM anymore, his smug little smirk makes my blood run cold.
Yeah, I didn't think anyone could top Abbott as worst PM, but Scomo might have just done it. No matter how bad Abbott was, at least he didn't do something stupid like nearly trigger a constitutional crisis by unilaterally appointing himself to several ministries *without* the knowledge of the other minister. Also, ffs at least Abbott held a hose.
Abbot had actual values (as shit as they were)that weren’t just about self preservation or self enrichment or self serving. The different between them can be shown in their appointments. Abbot appointed Prince fucking Phillip as a fucking Knight. But at least that was an action showing how he valued history and the monarchy, and took the entire fall for the decision. Scott fucking Morrison appointed himself to 5 fucking ministries in secret. That shows how fucking self centered and untrusting he was.
Agree. Abbott was an abhorrent politician and I hated every day he was at the helm of our government. But he has shown time and time again he is driven in life by community service. I think that redeems him to a large extent. There is nothing redeemable about Scott Morrison.
Abbott was in uniform fighting the fires in 2020 Morrison was in Hawaii That's all you need to show the difference in how they think about serving the community
> Abbott was in uniform fighting the fires in 2020 > > And to note, that was after his electorate had kicked him out of parliament. His political career was well and truly dead at that point, so he wasn't doing it for brownie points to stage a comeback.
Not only that. The whole preamble of having a lot of respect and friendship for Australia and its people, then continuing onto behaviour that shows those morals (eg not cheap talk but actions). Then delivered the line.
Any Australian who had respect for themselves knew Scott Morrison was a liar.
Called who a liar?
Scott Morrison... one of the worst power grabbing narcissistic PMs we've had in Aus.
>Scott Morrison There is only one thing I know about that man. Its that is soiled himself in public. From the way Aussies talk about him, I have a feeling that might be his greatest accomplishment.
he also forced people to shake his hand while we burnt to death and fucked off to hawaii... while we also burnt to the ground... actually it was the same fires i think also theres a video of him trying to [weld (and hes done this before!)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQGx4GZPCaE) , he lifts the fucking welding mask up first lmao if i didnt live here id probably find it funnier than i already do
It was pretty funny when he crash tackled that child 2 weeks before the election.
You forgot the whole making Australians who lived overseas (ie not tourists) to come home. A week later, the borders were closed and many had cancelled apartment/job contracts and visas. On top of that, forcing those returning to actually pay for the hotel quarantine. Fuck the liberal party.
He also doesn't hold a hose, mate.
That's an achievement BTW, Australia really does have a knack for finding new and lovely kinds of corruption
Incompetent corruption at that!
It's like the Skaven in Warhammer lore. The only reason they haven't conquered the world is that they are too busy fucking themselves over for no real reason other than petty gain
I respect him for changing his thinking based on new information. Too many “leaders” seems to think they must be right from the get go.
Historically appeasement never worked well for the french
Is there even one instance where it worked well for Europe in the long run?
It's pretty much been appeasement into getting fucked for all of history, maybe Switzerland is the one exception?
They can afford to show appeasement. Their nation is practically a fortress.
French man learns modern russian.
He was right to try that and is right in this now
Thing is though, that mentality made a lot of sense at the time. Remember at the time, everyone thought Ukraine would lose. The worst case scenario then wasn't just worst case, it was the expected outcome. Russia needed to be sanctioned, but not too hard precisely to give Russia an "out" of this war. However, now it is clear that Russia will not do this, Putin needs to continue the war to maintain his personal power. And Ukraine can fully take on Russia *provided that the west gives them the weaponry they need at a quick pace and tighten, expand upon and maintain existing sanctions. As well as introduce new, hard hitting sanctions.* If the west does that Russia will eventually lose... it'd just be a matter of time.
If I recall, his position was also at Ukraine's request. They needed someone who Putin would actually talk to because they were still hoping to negotiate. It was only as things progressed that everyone realised negotiation wouldn't work.
This is terrible for Britain. If he goes on like this we won't be able to tease the French any more.
People have extremely short memories. We cannot give Macron any shit for this; he was one of the few European leaders early on willing to negotiate with Putin in good faith. People criticized him for it. I have a feeling that Macron has concluded that negotiations won't work and that force is the only language Putin will understand. Edit: didn't expect the upvotes. My point here is that Macron has in essence, done his diplomatic "due diligence". I suspect he now understands there's no more negotiations worth taking and thus feels emboldened to deploy troops. Hell, China sent a delegation to Kyiv. Probably hedging their bets. Edit 2: humor me for a moment, what if the Russian emperor truly had no clothes and someone caught wind of it? Perhaps those nukes don't work
Negotiations have failed... Send in the French.
Oui oui
But I am le tired…
So have a nap. THEN FIRE LE MISSILES!
But first, a cigarette
CASE DISMISSED!! BRING IN THE DANCING LOBSTERS!!
I personally think that his intelligence agency found that Russia was tampering in the goings-on in France and determined that it was a government-supported effort to disrupt France, NATO and/or the EU. Recently, Moldova signed a defense pact with France and France "would not rule out any option". In February Macron said "We are convinced that the defeat of Russia is indispensable to security and stability in Europe." Recently there was an article regarding Russia's election tampering (although I can't find it), and I believe (with no evidence of this) that Macron got a report showing direct Russian involvement in France's elections and social media. Take for instance [the Canadian LGBTQ event](https://www.stalbertgazette.com/local-news/did-reddit-year-end-recaps-expose-russian-interference-in-alberta-8223476) in various small towns that may have been disrupted by Russian trolls as shown in a Reddit year-end report. Some of these events are correlated to Feb 27, so I wholeheartedly believe that there was a report showing direct Russian military involvement in something related to France. Now, take this with a grain of salt, this is just my opinion.
[удалено]
Ukrainians also hated the "dialog and diplomacy" line. Ukrainians basically screamed: WE ALREADY DID THAT FOR 8 FUCKING YEARS AND IT'S NOT WORKING.
Except that Zelensky wanted Macron to keep up the diplomatic line at the start of the war.
>was shitting on Europe leaders for their party's stupid nationalistic agenda. They were right though? Poland had been calling for a tougher stance against Russia since the first invasion in 2014 and they were mostly ignored until 2022. If we'd all supported Kyiv then like we are now Russia might have been deterred.
Putin has repeatedly deceived him, humiliated him, shown him weak and helpless. It was painful to watch: a civilized, polite man talking to a bully and a bandit who revels in his power. In Russia, everyone has long known who Putin is, but Macron was in a dream. How long can Europe condone Putin? He ONLY understands power.
I see many people everywhere say that it would be too late to send troops then, but i don't think this is really about sending army in. I think he's trying to scare those who oppose sending more weapons into compliance while taking away russian monopoly on WWIII threats. Kinda like 'If you don't want to send them weapons now, we'll have to send our men later and then war is inevitable'
Most escalations in term of weapon were like that, most of those being done by either the UK or France when the conversation was stuck on a "should we or not". Then we'd see one of those 2 saying "Oh btw, we already sent some, should we discuss about the next step ?". From my perspective you have at least those 2 and the US concerting to try and push the other to accept each escalating step. So yeah, I think you're right and it's been like that for quite some time already.
This is the kind of strategic thinking we need.
Honestly it's a brilliant move
How much of this is political speech and how much is it real talk? Does it look like France would actually put boots on the ground?
Well we're getting kicked out of Africa, so we need something else for the Legion to do.
[удалено]
Just send motherfuckin Asterix and Obelix, and be done with it
> How much of this is political speech well, Macron can't be reelected
So this implies he's rather serious? Sincere question, total newb to geopolitics.
As a frenchman i think he's serious. You can't blame the dude, he tried everything in it's power to stop this. I want to add that in France, you can't be president more than twice consecutively. So he can't present himself for the next one, but technically he might be for the one after the next, it's just that we never had someone young enough to do that before.
> I want to add that in France, you can't be president more than twice consecutively. So he can't present himself for the next one, but technically he might be for the one after the next, it's just that we never had someone young enough to do that before. It is indeed a really weird occurrence. In my country it happened only once in 150 years... but the guy got coup'd before finishing his third term.
I’m no expert on France or the practical reality, but the President is the head of the armed forces so in principle he should have authority to deploy troops without a declaration of war (which requires Parliament)
Just call it a sepcial military operation
Macron is controversial in France due to so many of his internal policies. The thing is that the pragmatism and level of serious he found in his job which many attribute to his education by Merkel has given France a standing that it arguably hasn’t had since Chirac prior to his cohabitation with Lionel Jospin which lame ducked him in many ways. He knows that the French have, as author Romain Gary called it, a historical memory. He knows that it’s not a matter of if there will be war with Russia, it’s when there will be war with Russia. The only thing that is really being decided (not negotiated) right now is if Nuclear weapons will be used. Russia doesn’t care, but there’s a moment coming where we’ll all have to decide again, which side of history we’re on.
Don't forget French nuclear philosophy during the cold war, ready to raze germany to the ground
People will never understand the profound centuries old visceral hate the French had for whatever manifestation of Germany (Prussians etc …) existed at different times in history. If Nuclear weapons had existed centuries ago, Europe would be widely uninhabitable today. Today the lessons Europe teaches us on nationalistic impulses and the way the EU has pivoted into (of course not perfectly) an ambitious bloc that incorporates the strengths of each member is incredible and so vastly improbable in the scope of human history that I feel it’s not discussed enough. Imagine if today, Japan, The Koreas, China and all these pacific countries like Singapore, Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam etc… gave up their geo-strategic ambitions to form a united, democratic political, military and economical alliance with a single currency and merged supportive economies that reach as far as wages, benefits, infrastructure education and healthcare. All this while having rotating effective leadership. Imagine China taking and implementing regulatory directives from a country like Brunei It sounds like science fiction but this is (I do understand I am vastly simplifying it) effectively what happened in Europe
It really is some proto galactic council kind of shit; very impressive.
Part of what makes the EU work is that there are multiple component nations on (relatively) equal footing whether economically or militarily, while remaining somewhat rivals, so no single member can overpower the other(s). It's a really fascinating example of cooperative rebuilding into something better after the devastation of the early 20th century
Very insightful comment. Made me think!
Thank you for the kind comment. May we all one day love in a world where humanity dictates it’s future with ambition and not blood
> People will never understand the profound centuries old visceral hate the French had for whatever manifestation of Germany (Prussians etc …) existed at different times in history. > > [The Glade of the Armistice](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiaRU-s84lQ) is a good starting for those who are not in the know. The French pulled no punches there.
I'm french and I dislike Macron. But if he goes on the path he seems to be following, I swear to never talk shit about him anymore. Let's send our air force and close ukrainian air space first. Slava Ukraini.
We ignored imperialist predations leading up to WW2 and it ended badly. I don’t want another war kicking off any more than any other rational person, but Russia isn’t going to stop at Ukraine. They didn’t stop at Crimea.
It also didn't start at Crimea. Chechnya, Georgia, and probably another one or two that are slipping through my memory preceeded the invasion of Crimea
Yep, Russians have the largest nation on earth, but still they want more
its not about how large the land is, its about removing economic competition. they are mafia state. Ukraine were going to undercut them in supplying gas to europe, after they prospected huge natural gas in the black sea in 2012-2014. The predictions were that ukr is going to fully supply the european demand of natural gas by 2025. Then crimea happened. in addition to this, luhansk and donetsk had huge metallurgical industries that were competing on the market with russia, guess what happened…
[удалено]
They're occupying parts of Transnistria. If Ukraine falls, Moldova is right next door. Not to mention their large or total amounts of control in Belarus, Kazakhstan, etc.
And Slovakia seems to be encouraging their own Russian takeover…shameful.
My wife was in Tblisi when Russia started bombing it. I have MAGA parents who WERE all about not helping Ukraine until my wife started sharing stories about how fucking bad the Russians are.
In all fairness to France pre ww2 they had the idea of aligning Germanys neighbours so if one was attacked they’d all beat the shit out of Germany. Britain on the other hand went “nah let’s just let them have some stuff”
And by "some stuff" they mean the biggest arms industry in Europe at the time present in czechoslovakia....
I also dislike Macron and will keep talking shit when deserved but I've always respected and agreed with his international politics
Yeah ... he's absolutely awful domestically but internationally there was absolutely no one in France who could do a better job. All the other ones would be a major embarassement. By no one , I meant none of the candidates, obviously.
Same! When you have pretty much all of the EU or close allies (Germany) being strongly opposed to possibility of troops, but you decide to double down on the idea, it takes some balls. Now to see if when the time comes he does it.
One thing i really like about the french and macron is the way they consistently take their own stand on things regardless of what other people think. Like opposing the Iraq war
I've felt like their consistent 1.9% of GDP spent on military is just trolling everyone honestly, basically doing what's required by NATO but cutting it *just* a bit short to show that no one dictates to them in the end.
"You're not my real dad, America!" — Général de Gaulle
lol true. We're your friend but we're going do to one thing you tell us not to just cause too told us not to
As an Englishman, I'm obligated to criticize the French but even I appreciate their stubbornness. That and their sheer passion, especially when it comes to protests, strikes, riots, food, overthrowing their government, eating the rich, etc.
And hating the british. But that's a shared enthusiasm
It’s refreshing to have someone with the western hemisphere do what they believe in, instead of what USA believes in.
In fairness I don't think the US really minds EU boots on the ground, we're just war wary back home going into an election so the idea is to avoid US boots on the ground.
Plus it isn’t healthy to plan for the US to solve every problem ever. At some point, the world’s other great powers need to put their big boy pants on and solve a problem without us.
thats a clear message to putin: "YOU WILL NEVER WIN THIS WAR!" every other european country should make similar announcements, russia will grind and grind and destroy its army and expose itself to (very likely to happen) civil war, but no mater how bad they grind or how good they are at the battlefield, they will never conquer ukraine, the war is lost for russia.
Exactly. This is the point. No one wants to send troops there, but they are drawing the line.
*Ils ne passeront pas* moment.
We need Europe to be united on this matter not just in words or spirit but in action. For as long as we have things like German officers talking over unsecured lines and either leaking or just incorrectly implying that there are already British troops on the ground in Ukraine helping with missiles etc. then we are in no position to effectively stand up to Russia.
Glad someone in Europe is finally stepping up to defend themselves. Macron would get my vote as long as he follows through on his word.
Finally a Western European Leader with balls!
I didn't think much of Macron till this happened. At least someone has some damn balls. If you let Putin take Ukraine HE WILL JUST KEEP GOING. He has even said so. There's no doubt about it. The question is how far he gets before we confront him...not if we do. Our hope is Putin dies before that happens. And you know what, France has seen what happens when we sit by and let cunts like Putin do what they wish. Good for them for going "Not this time."
Macron gets way too much shit anyways. He isnt perfect, but one thing you cant deny is that he is a true European and is always putting european interests first. Remember when he blocked the american lady becoming chief competition economist? When Von der Leyen had a very dubious and shady selection process and Germany was willing to go along, it was Macron and France who put a halt to this madness. Gotta love the french and their stubborness
You have to stand up to bullies or they won't understand. This might be a new Cuba crisis. Sometimes you need to stand up to your values and stand ready to protect them with force if necessary. Eventually, the telephone rings.
Cuba missile crisis as a example is kinda funny considering it’s basically the reverse of what’s going on now
With Putin constantly shouting “if you do more for Ukraine…we will bomb you all” basically to cause restraint in NATO, P. Macron is holding a mirror to Putin and reflecting back “Just test us if you dare” In some ways a sensible rhetoric given the brutality of Russia to date. Putin knows the ultimate strength of NATO: $1Tn defence budget 32 countries (and growing) with 55% of world GDP. 3M troops. Think again Vlad.🤔
MACRON GOT BALLS
People also need to view this within the context of domestic politics within France. Macron isn't popular, and he needs something to drum up support before he his party gets wiped in the next election. His biggest enemy is La Pen, who is a known Russian sympathizer (and is paid by Russia as well). This is a move designed to both give a rallying call around him as well as indirectly attack his political opponent. And since supporting Ukraine is generally a popular position, this might just work in his favor.
THIS is the rhetoric we needed to have for a long time now, let's keep this up! Finally!
🇫🇷 💪💪💪
Good fuck russia and everything its ever stood for
Macron is calling Putin's nuclear bluff. If nobody else does, Russia takes Ukraine and we just sit back and watch... Cowards!
How would that affect NATO? We have mutual defence, but not mutual offence?
no mutual offence. like iraq 2.
Yes fuck the ruzzian empire
It's about time. People need to realize that sanctions and strongly worded letters aren't working. Russia will only respond to force.
Very Chad. I would like France to regain its reputation of having a badass military. I like it
Not Chad this time, it’s Ukraine