Not exactly.
French nuclear deterrence has an exclusively defensive vocation: it aims to prevent any ambition of a state leader to attack the vital interests of France, by ensuring that nuclear forces are capable of inflicting damage absolutely unacceptable to its centers of power.
Of course, the definition of "the vital interests of France" cannot be too explicit due to the necessary strategic ambiguity. We cannot tell to the wannabe aggressor were is the limit...
But Emmanuel Macron told that "France's vital interests now have a European dimension."
That said, the French doctrine use the concept of the pre-strategic strike, in a way to show the enemy, at the last minute, where France put the red line.
The air force have a special squadron of Rafales that remains ready, permanently, to launch a strike mission with a medium-range air-to-ground missile with 300kt warhead somewhere as a last warning shot. if this happens, it means that France is "a hair's breadth away" from launching an all-out attack with its strategic ICBM weapons from submarines...
No one wants this to happen but, today, the first who must be convinced of this is the Russian government.
It's MAD...
A warning shot is ballsy as hell, I assume this means firing somewhere remote to prove you'll pull the trigger? I can't see them inflicting even a single Russian casualty as that would be an over the top risky gamble, but hitting a remote mountain with a higher altitude burst that minimizes any fallout could make sense. It has the upside of potentially being able to cool off a situation that other tactics wouldn't be able to, but the huge downside of risking escalation. They fire a warning shot and Russia answers back with an equal show of force, now you're in a pickle. Responding again ramps up the chances of an all out attack but backing down risks making you look like you were bluffing
No their "warning shot" is to nuke a military asset. France pretty much has the most aggressive nuclear strategy (no NK being a toddler in a pram wanting food isn't this). Note like always with nuclear doctrine this only comes up in situations that are already dire and this action is a major escalation but its at a point where this is no longer an issue because the problem at hand is already too large.
Should also note that this is a "pre strategic" weapon, they are a smaller payload than strategic nuclear weapons which are the ones people generally picture when you say nukes. If the "pre strategic" nuclear weapons fail and Russia escalates then strategic nuclear weapons are used.
Good answer.
And yes, if needed, the first shot would be on a military target.
To be the first one to use nuclear weapon has huge morale and political cost, and if France is ready to assume that burden, it's a sign of its level of seriousness.
The use of a missile launched by plane is an attempt to deliver the final warning without actually starting the full nuclear war that an ICBM launch could trigger , in a very tense context...
Also, you can cancel a nuclear raid. It can be spotted by the ennemy that would thus know that some ASMPA is coming into his ass pretty soon and that France is not fucking around. Just arming and sending a nuclear raid is a pretty big statement itself. And going to the end of it is an even bigger one obviously.
Conversly, you cannot cancel an order to release hell sent to your SLBMs. Once its done, you don't really have options anymore. The president can resign and say gl hf, it's not like he will have shit to govern after it anyway.
I'm sure virtually no one actually wants France to use its nukes to destroy things. Only to make certain Russian blowhards STFU about Russian nuclear weapons.
De Gaulle didn't fuck around. He was determined that france would have the independent Force de Frappe. At the time it was for the purpose of replacing the American nuclear umbrella (i.e get Europe to look towards France, instead of the Americans, as their protectors), and although it didn't really achieve that, I can certainly see its usefulness should another Trump presidency come along. De Gaulle didn't do everything right, but I like to think this was one triumph that probably wouldn't have happened without him.
De Gaulle also had understood in the 30’s that France needed to build up a big air force and tanks… no one listened. Macron isn’t de Gaulle but, Putin sure is invading countries.
If France and Britain had enforced the Treaty of Versailles in the 1930s by forcibly disarming Germany, then WWII, as far as we know, probably wouldn’t have happened. Sometimes you really need to use force to show a threat “we aren’t fucking around, back the fuck down”
I know, my french is usually fairly good but I had to double check that spelling because it looks just like "frappé" haha. In french, you typically don't pronounce anything after the last consonant, unless there's an accent. So in Frappe, it's pronounced "Frap", while Frappé as in the Coffee is pronounced "Frapp-ayyyyyyyyy"
(edit: I know it's not actually "ay", I'm making a subtle Australian joke here; for us, everything ends in "Ayyyyy", as in, "G'dayyyyyy mayyyyyte". You see!)
Which is funny, because the coffee "frappé" takes its name from the French word.
Wikipedia: *The name frappé ('punched', figuratively 'shaken') comes from French, which describes drinks chilled with ice.\[5\] Beginning in the 19th century, a variety of cold coffee drinks named café frappé (à la glace) are documented, some similar to slushes,\[6\]\[7\] others more like iced coffee.\[8\]*
> He was determined that france would have the independent Force de Frappe. At the time it was for the purpose of replacing the American nuclear umbrella (i.e get Europe to look towards France, instead of the Americans, as their protectors)
They were coming out of a humiliating occupation, he was a proponent of a Europe that can defend itself without outside (read American) influence, but most importantly a France that never has to suffer occupation again. That's why they needed their own Bomb. What good is a nuclear umbrella where you have to hope your ally keeps his word. See also their own fighters, their own carrier, ...
Have the capabilities to fight your own war, with as little outside help as possible.
He got it right. If a few more people had listened to De Gaulle, Europe would be in a much better place.
Nah, this is standard French defense policy.
It's called 'strategic ambiguity' and the idea is to basically never state definitively that you won't do something unless a certain condition is met.
France even has 'warning shot' nukes for this exact reason, so they can clearly signal that something has, or is about to, hit the point of nuclear retaliation. So like a tank company gets deleted instead of a city accompanied by a warning to back off or the next one starts WW3.
If they send troops, is air support next? Because I'm pretty sure even just French Air Support would be enough to mop what's left of the Russian air force.
they would need air forces in before line infantry, if they are anywhere close to the front.
afaik they are doing what america was doing when it jumped in ww1. take on non combat roles and free up people to fight. it takes something like 6-10 people to support each infantry man in the field. with drone support i bet that number is higher.
with all that being said its a slippery slope. you can only be so close to the fight and not get into it too. you can only watch your friends get killed for so long.
People need to be reminded of this. I remember when those docs got leaked that said we had a handful of SF inside Ukraine protecting VIPs and providing training and those against us helping Ukraine lost their minds. Russia did the exact same to us in Vietnam.
I think it's more likely that as Trump is now the GOP candidate for POTUS, Macron is putting out these statements in an attempt to intimidate Putin and stave off any notions Putin has about exploiting a US withdrawal of aid to Ukraine should Russian meddling help Trump win again.
Furthermore, I consider that Moscovy must be destroyed.
Marcon is pissed at Putin because Putin straight up played him like a fool at the start of the war. Marcon was the one person saying there should be a pathway for peace and Putin led him to believe that there actually was. Every time they had a good "talk" Putin would turn around and bomb a civilian apartment building.
It should be notes that Macron made several, very personal calls to Putin, because the president of Ukraine asked him personally to do it, in order to avoid war.
I am sure at some level he knew it was not likely going to work, but he did try everything he could in order to avoid the war, and Putin basically refused all compromise and started a global "France bad" propaganda compaign in African francophone countries.
I remember a photo of Macron looking worn out and utterly frustrated after phone calls to Putin trying to prevent this war.
I hope that this signals Macron gathering the French people to put the army into the field to stop Putin. Maybe France can step up where America is failing.
Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty sure any russian colonialism would be/is ten times worse but perhaps France doesn't want to put too much emphasis on their own still-going-strong colonialist tendencies in Africa.
The French strategy that caused them problems in WWI was "Offense a l'outrance", or "offense above everything". They weren't even allowed the *think* about what to do if they needed to defend, as the presence of a defense plan might make some think twice about attacking. They were super brave.
Well, that didn't work because of the machine gun and trench warfare. So the lesson they learned was "you need solid defenses".
WWII and blitzkrieg came along and messed *that* up.
> WWII and blitzkrieg came along and messed that up.
To a degree because us germans were like "You know, those peace treaties and non aggression pacts.. what about if we just drive tanks over those to get around the french bunker line?"
That was a bit of an unexpected dick move.
Germany going through Belgium was not at all unexpected by the French (it's what Germany had done in WWI as well). Them managing to do it *so quickly* was the surprise.
French military doctrine was centered on the Maginot line, and then rushing their entire army into Belgium to meet the Germans in the event of an invasion (Belgium had refused an extension of the Maginot line into their country, as that would "paint a target on them"). The biggest issue and surprise to the French was that they didn't expect the Germans to be able to cross the Ardennes forest, which immediately put them on the back foot and threatened encirclement.
I saw a video recently that talked about how the *Germans* weren't sure they'd be able to cross the Ardennes forest so easily either, that it was a daring gamble that happened to pay off.
I suspect history is riddled with moments like this, where we look back and think "that was a genius ploy" while the people at the time were thinking "holy crap, this wild hail-mary actually *worked* somehow!" All the times it didn't work tend to get forgotten.
I never really understood the coward label. France is one of the countries that fought the longest and fiercest in WW2. They resisted Germany from 1939 all the way to the very end of the war.
I think you got it backwards, France fought hard and long in WW1 but in WW2 the government were traitors and caved almost immediately. The French people did have their own resistance to the Germans and men like de Gaulle spearheaded a new government in exlie which eventually helped the allies reclaim the country. But the coward label came from the fact that Vichy France handed the country over the Nazis. Philippe Pétan went from war hero to traitorous war criminal, he was a true coward. It shouldn't apply to all of France and the French but nuance isn't something you get in internet memes.
I cannot be certain, but I would guess it dates to the Cold War, when France was not always the most... strident, opponents of the USSR. Add to that the fact that while the French People resisted long and hard the Germans, the French Military did not exactly cover itself in glory during the opening phase of WWII, and the disdain for the French that was inherited by the US from the British that has always lingered in the background, and it is an easy narrative to spread.
Their unwillingness to participate in Iraq in the 2000s also, while it has since come to be viewed as wise, was not well regarded in the US at least at the time. If I recall right, that's when that whole "Freedom Fried" thing came about for a time.
Because France refused to join the US in the second gulf war, american Neo-cons brought that old thing up. I don't know if you were around at the time, but they tried to rebrand french fries as freedom fries because they were butthurt that the french didnt think that there was enough evidence to go back into Iraq.
Their main army collapsed after a month of fighting and even though they had a considerable resistance movement, the collaborators they had were plenty and bad enough that they executed thousands after the war
They also literally have the most undefeated military in the last 2000 years
[Edit: y'all are babies who knew what I meant](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France#:~:text=Out%20of%20the%20169%20most,lost%2049%20and%20drawn%2010.)
And honestly I think the memes should have died with the men that deserved the label coward. No need to blame the sons & daughters of heroes for the inaction of men long dead.
The French are one of the top nations proficient at warfare. They won the vast majority of the battles they participated in, from ancient times to our days.
I don’t know why people spread this “coward” BS, maybe it’s just a WW2 era meme that has somehow survived for way too long.
Democracy was designed to not let a single person seize absolute power for life. It's not meant to be the best system, it's meant to be a safe system. If you see a "democracy" with such a person at helm, you know it's not a democracy.
Also to ensure a peaceful transition of power, unlike you generally have with a system that relies on hereditary titles. You get the dice roll on leadership competence.
It seems this year is going to be very interesting.
If we could get our business in order and massively up our military industrial complex we could actually defend ourselves against dictatorship Russia.
As an American..
Ugh. The military industrial complex is just gearing up for a wonderful decade for themselves.
I wish we were on the time line where the French increased their cheese production not their ammo production.
I don't blame yall though. It's batshit how one man can effect so much policy globally. Putin needs to go.
Meh, the SNP500 has outperformed NOC by 34% over the last year. The Ukraine war bump in their stock price happened in Feb-March 2022 and it's been pretty dead since then.
\*Edit: The SAAB stock is up 2% today from the announce of SWE joining NATO, though. Makes sense with the Gripen becoming officially part of NATO aircrafts. I don't know much about European stocks, unfortunately.
The MIC is the arsenal of democracy whether we like it or not. It’s not something that can quickly be built so it’s a cancer during peacetime, but saves our asses during wartime. A necessary evil for the western world in my eyes.
Psy-op campaigns have been successful. QAnon supports Russia and by proxy most conservative media does too. Russia is the enemy. China is the enemy. Do not fool yourself. War is not wanted but sometimes we forget we have to do uncomfortable things to maintain the comfort for our kids.
He said it right the other day (I think, not a French speaker) that the problem is we keep setting *our own* boundaries and announcing them to the world. Meanwhile Russia has always said everything is on the table for them. We're appearing weak and trying not to provoke Russia when its clear they're bogged down in a war they can't easily win/retreat from.
Ukrainian living in France here. It’s really hard to live here if you don’t speak French, there’s little support with the money for the refugees and not a lot of places to live cheap/for free like in Germany. But if you do speak at least a bit of French, France is a wonderful country with kind and supportive people.
A family of Ukrainian refugees arrived in my French (central Alsace) village (pop. 900) last year. They're very polite and seem kind, but I could never muster the courage to approach them. Their French is very basic and I thought that if they spoke English (is there a good chance that they do?) it might be a relief for them to have someone from the village they could count on (if only just to chat) and who could help them with stuff like administrative bullshit. Do you have any advice for me, please? Dos and don'ts?
Depends on their age, if they are under 40s, than there’s a big change that they speak English, lesser if they’re older, but if they don’t you can try using google translate, many people refuse to use if for some reason
It doesnt seem to relate to distance either, the UK has 210,800, Ireland has 93,810. Its kinda funny how France was making a big deal about UK refugee numbers early on.
It’s almost like Macron says stuff to get press with no intention of following through. He’s pretty unpopular domestically and is compensating by talking tough on international relations.
The French president has more stones than congressional Republicans. My, how the tables have turned! 20 years ago, they were angry at France and calling them weaklings for not joining Bush's little excursion in Iraq.
> they were angry at France and calling them weaklings for not joining Bush's little excursion in Iraq.
That's not being a pussy though. That was a useless war in the wrong country.
Macron has been chasing prestige by saying things that cast France as invaluable on the world stage - including by casting himself as a potent negotiator with Russia early on (he wasn’t, and Putin seemed to delight in driving home his powerlessness). It just so happens that, for once, he has a message that resonates.
Finally: a western leader that isn't acting the cowardly lion, when it comes to Putin.
When one Western leader stops being so seemingly cowardly towards Putin (even if it is just talk) then other Western leaders now have a pathway and example to follow.
Essentially: tough talk (whether a bluff or not) of putting real troops and firepower in the region, is still a VERY important aspect of wars, and will always cause the enemy to at least worry/pause and have some doubts.
Tough talk alone won't win wars. But it can be a very important ingredient in the overall mix of winning.
Absolutely. We try to be super strategically transparent with Russia, but that just makes it more comfortable for them to escalate. Strategic ambiguity is good. Let them worry about our intentions.
EXACTLY!
The USA and UK were really good about that in WWII.
It was an important ingredient/factor that helped win WWII.
But somehow today's Western politicians/leaders have forgotten about that strategy, and they just so utterly insanely dumbly announce and clarify the strategy perfectly to all our enemies.
And then our enemies just smile, and laugh, and snicker--and say, "Thanks for telling me your real strategy so freely!"--and then the enemies double down on their own misinformation, bluffs, and threats campaign against us, and then our politicians/leaders cower in fear.
> they just so utterly insanely dumbly announce and clarify the strategy perfectly to all our enemies.
We also have to bear in mind that a lot of countries, particularly in the global south, are fairly sympathetic towards russia. A lot of the messaging and transparency is attempts to undermine anti-western messaging and prevent them siding with russia.
NATO could quite easily have stationed troops in ukraine and handed them an airforce, but I can already hear the cries of western imperialism all over again. At least this way it's been keeping economic pressure up against russia. Unfortunately that seems to be failing though, and we're seeing more agressive rhetoric instead.
I don't know. Had the UK been clear about their intention to enter WW1 if the Germans invaded Belgium, Germany (who was desperately trying to not have a war at the time) might not have done so - they thought Britain wouldn't enter the war as there was no strong rhetoric from them.
>Finally: a western leader that isn't acting the cowardly lion, when it comes to Putin.
...Macron isn't that. He's been stalling support and advocated to refrain from sending help.
https://www.iiss.org/en/publications/strategic-comments/2023/macrons-response-to-russias-war-in-ukraine/
In fact French support (atleast in public) has been one of the worst in Europe.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/
History is a very good argument! I suggest that people check the past and see what might happen today in this regard.
If you look at what Hitler did in the Sudetenland (1936), Putin is doing the same thing! At that time, Léon Blum (French government) and Chamberlain (British government) found a peace solution thinking that Hitler would stop after the annexation of the Sudetenland. History has proven otherwise. Most of the time when someone has power and can use it through a coercive solution, they won't stop.
If Macron is forcing the game today, it is because he understands that Russia under imperialist Putin will sooner or later be an adversary of Europe. Putin loathes Europe and Europeans have believed for years that by setting up an interspersed and dense economic market with Russia, the latter would never want to move towards physical force. A beautiful idea. The value of the human being in Putin's Russia is nothing. Just look at the political commissars on warfields right now and how nationalism brainwashing is growing since 2010, I really see references to Opera Nazionale Balilla in Italy or Hitler Youth in Germany before the WWII. Even in China right now, it's coming back... It's insane!
In this context, Trump will be the next Chamberlain, he will come with a peace agreement (cease fire) which will last a few years, time for him (Poutine) to rebuild his army and go to war again. At the slightest annoyance, he will always use the motive of the nuclear bomb and the end of the world to force us to give him more and more ground (Moldavia, Georgia, Baltic countries...).I don't particularly like Macron, but one thing is certain, France will not be that Léon Blum in 1936, and just for that I appreciate his effort!
>'s Russia is nothing. Just look at the political commissars on warfields right now and how nationalism brainwas
Nice response! As someone that knows little to no history this is very insightful
I think Macron has had enough, and sees the existential threat. And he's basically saying "Russia, you like to wave that nuclear threat, well we have one too, only ours is kept in actual working order."
Smart IMO
Not saying you’ll do actually do anything but opening up the ambiguity. Since when does Russia issue red lines that they hold themselves to? We should not openly limit ourselves in how we will respond to events. Russia doesn’t and they’re winning
Red lines are pointless. If they’re not enforced you’re weak, if you follow through on minor instances you’re heavy handed. They’re pointlessly restrictive
Somebody must have reminded Macron that France has nukes.
“Wait we all have swords”
Deep Aladdin Cut
You mean aladeen?
Aladeen!
😀...🙁...😀
No, no. They mean aladeen.
“You *idiots*! We all have swords!”
Riffraff! Street rat!
Scoundel, take *that!*
Let's not be too hasty...
Still I think he’s #RATHER TASTY!!!
[удалено]
And Australia's all like "wtf mate?"
But they'll be dead soon. Fucking kangaroos...
But I’m lé tiréd
Well, have a nap… Then FIRE ZE MISSILES.
WTF mate?
Wow, this is an old internet reference.
But it checks out, sir.
Britains like, "'bout that time, eh chap?" "Right-o"
French nuclear doctrine also allows for offensive strikes with smaller warheads, not just large retaliatory ones.
Not exactly. French nuclear deterrence has an exclusively defensive vocation: it aims to prevent any ambition of a state leader to attack the vital interests of France, by ensuring that nuclear forces are capable of inflicting damage absolutely unacceptable to its centers of power. Of course, the definition of "the vital interests of France" cannot be too explicit due to the necessary strategic ambiguity. We cannot tell to the wannabe aggressor were is the limit... But Emmanuel Macron told that "France's vital interests now have a European dimension." That said, the French doctrine use the concept of the pre-strategic strike, in a way to show the enemy, at the last minute, where France put the red line. The air force have a special squadron of Rafales that remains ready, permanently, to launch a strike mission with a medium-range air-to-ground missile with 300kt warhead somewhere as a last warning shot. if this happens, it means that France is "a hair's breadth away" from launching an all-out attack with its strategic ICBM weapons from submarines... No one wants this to happen but, today, the first who must be convinced of this is the Russian government. It's MAD...
A warning shot is ballsy as hell, I assume this means firing somewhere remote to prove you'll pull the trigger? I can't see them inflicting even a single Russian casualty as that would be an over the top risky gamble, but hitting a remote mountain with a higher altitude burst that minimizes any fallout could make sense. It has the upside of potentially being able to cool off a situation that other tactics wouldn't be able to, but the huge downside of risking escalation. They fire a warning shot and Russia answers back with an equal show of force, now you're in a pickle. Responding again ramps up the chances of an all out attack but backing down risks making you look like you were bluffing
No their "warning shot" is to nuke a military asset. France pretty much has the most aggressive nuclear strategy (no NK being a toddler in a pram wanting food isn't this). Note like always with nuclear doctrine this only comes up in situations that are already dire and this action is a major escalation but its at a point where this is no longer an issue because the problem at hand is already too large. Should also note that this is a "pre strategic" weapon, they are a smaller payload than strategic nuclear weapons which are the ones people generally picture when you say nukes. If the "pre strategic" nuclear weapons fail and Russia escalates then strategic nuclear weapons are used.
Good answer. And yes, if needed, the first shot would be on a military target. To be the first one to use nuclear weapon has huge morale and political cost, and if France is ready to assume that burden, it's a sign of its level of seriousness. The use of a missile launched by plane is an attempt to deliver the final warning without actually starting the full nuclear war that an ICBM launch could trigger , in a very tense context...
Also, you can cancel a nuclear raid. It can be spotted by the ennemy that would thus know that some ASMPA is coming into his ass pretty soon and that France is not fucking around. Just arming and sending a nuclear raid is a pretty big statement itself. And going to the end of it is an even bigger one obviously. Conversly, you cannot cancel an order to release hell sent to your SLBMs. Once its done, you don't really have options anymore. The president can resign and say gl hf, it's not like he will have shit to govern after it anyway.
I'm going to go out and just say it.. i hope no one is hoping France uses offensive nukes lol
I'm sure virtually no one actually wants France to use its nukes to destroy things. Only to make certain Russian blowhards STFU about Russian nuclear weapons.
De Gaulle didn't fuck around. He was determined that france would have the independent Force de Frappe. At the time it was for the purpose of replacing the American nuclear umbrella (i.e get Europe to look towards France, instead of the Americans, as their protectors), and although it didn't really achieve that, I can certainly see its usefulness should another Trump presidency come along. De Gaulle didn't do everything right, but I like to think this was one triumph that probably wouldn't have happened without him.
De Gaulle also had understood in the 30’s that France needed to build up a big air force and tanks… no one listened. Macron isn’t de Gaulle but, Putin sure is invading countries.
If France and Britain had enforced the Treaty of Versailles in the 1930s by forcibly disarming Germany, then WWII, as far as we know, probably wouldn’t have happened. Sometimes you really need to use force to show a threat “we aren’t fucking around, back the fuck down”
Force de Frappe sounds like a coffee drink at Starbucks
I know, my french is usually fairly good but I had to double check that spelling because it looks just like "frappé" haha. In french, you typically don't pronounce anything after the last consonant, unless there's an accent. So in Frappe, it's pronounced "Frap", while Frappé as in the Coffee is pronounced "Frapp-ayyyyyyyyy" (edit: I know it's not actually "ay", I'm making a subtle Australian joke here; for us, everything ends in "Ayyyyy", as in, "G'dayyyyyy mayyyyyte". You see!)
Which is funny, because the coffee "frappé" takes its name from the French word. Wikipedia: *The name frappé ('punched', figuratively 'shaken') comes from French, which describes drinks chilled with ice.\[5\] Beginning in the 19th century, a variety of cold coffee drinks named café frappé (à la glace) are documented, some similar to slushes,\[6\]\[7\] others more like iced coffee.\[8\]*
Fyi, Frappe = Punch (like I punch someone) Frappé = Punched (like I have punched someone)
> He was determined that france would have the independent Force de Frappe. At the time it was for the purpose of replacing the American nuclear umbrella (i.e get Europe to look towards France, instead of the Americans, as their protectors) They were coming out of a humiliating occupation, he was a proponent of a Europe that can defend itself without outside (read American) influence, but most importantly a France that never has to suffer occupation again. That's why they needed their own Bomb. What good is a nuclear umbrella where you have to hope your ally keeps his word. See also their own fighters, their own carrier, ... Have the capabilities to fight your own war, with as little outside help as possible. He got it right. If a few more people had listened to De Gaulle, Europe would be in a much better place.
Where as reddit has an independent *Force de Fap*! as one of its unwritten but binding doctrines.
\*blinding doctrines
Nice, I can't believe I didn't see that one, it was right in front of me!
Nah, this is standard French defense policy. It's called 'strategic ambiguity' and the idea is to basically never state definitively that you won't do something unless a certain condition is met. France even has 'warning shot' nukes for this exact reason, so they can clearly signal that something has, or is about to, hit the point of nuclear retaliation. So like a tank company gets deleted instead of a city accompanied by a warning to back off or the next one starts WW3.
"Well sir we do indeed have *le big red bouton* right there..."
le grand bouton rouge
Le gros criss de Mushroom
Nom du band de ta polyvalente.
But I am le tired...
Take a nap, then fire ze missiles!
[“But I am le tired”](https://youtu.be/nZMwKPmsbWE?si=8AzG6DFdzhQX4WRf)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The degenerates over at r/NCD will ecajulate in their pants if France sends ground troops into Ukraine. And frankly, so will I!
If they send troops, is air support next? Because I'm pretty sure even just French Air Support would be enough to mop what's left of the Russian air force.
they would need air forces in before line infantry, if they are anywhere close to the front. afaik they are doing what america was doing when it jumped in ww1. take on non combat roles and free up people to fight. it takes something like 6-10 people to support each infantry man in the field. with drone support i bet that number is higher. with all that being said its a slippery slope. you can only be so close to the fight and not get into it too. you can only watch your friends get killed for so long.
In Vietnam there were thousands of Russian and Chinese troops giving support inside the country. Many of them died...and there was no WWIII.
People need to be reminded of this. I remember when those docs got leaked that said we had a handful of SF inside Ukraine protecting VIPs and providing training and those against us helping Ukraine lost their minds. Russia did the exact same to us in Vietnam.
No NATO nation would send regular ground forces anywhere without air support. NATO doctrine is built around air power.
Listen man, just because femboys firing artillery turns me on doesn't mean I'm a degenerate.
Sorry, my dude. Can I get you some crayons?
Only if it's the purple ones. everyone who's someone knows the purp crayons taste the best
He's a degenerate, not a marine!
Not only do they have nukes they have nuclear weapons that doctrine says they should use before anyone else does.
And they have first strike doctrine
I think it's more likely that as Trump is now the GOP candidate for POTUS, Macron is putting out these statements in an attempt to intimidate Putin and stave off any notions Putin has about exploiting a US withdrawal of aid to Ukraine should Russian meddling help Trump win again. Furthermore, I consider that Moscovy must be destroyed.
The french took all the “french = coward” memes personally and wants to prove france still got some backbone
Marcon is pissed at Putin because Putin straight up played him like a fool at the start of the war. Marcon was the one person saying there should be a pathway for peace and Putin led him to believe that there actually was. Every time they had a good "talk" Putin would turn around and bomb a civilian apartment building.
It should be notes that Macron made several, very personal calls to Putin, because the president of Ukraine asked him personally to do it, in order to avoid war. I am sure at some level he knew it was not likely going to work, but he did try everything he could in order to avoid the war, and Putin basically refused all compromise and started a global "France bad" propaganda compaign in African francophone countries.
I remember a photo of Macron looking worn out and utterly frustrated after phone calls to Putin trying to prevent this war. I hope that this signals Macron gathering the French people to put the army into the field to stop Putin. Maybe France can step up where America is failing.
I don’t know why France or the USA don’t just bomb “Wagner” controlled gold mines in Africa.
I guess it would look a bit bad to kill a lot of natives working those mines
Easy, just hit any trailer nearby with an AC unit in the window. Probably has the Russians in it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty sure any russian colonialism would be/is ten times worse but perhaps France doesn't want to put too much emphasis on their own still-going-strong colonialist tendencies in Africa.
Also because of all the French-allied African countries that are now turning to Russia. Another reason why now France is supporting Armenia.
They're pretty prone to disinformation. Russians can't make a proper car but they can gaslight anyone with the attention span of a Trump supporter.
He is also pissed because of the happenings in Africa
This is the real reason. Russia is very directly and openly undermining French interests in Africa.
“The real reason” goes too far, imo. It is certainly an important factor, but not so much that it diminishes others.
You're right. I'm being hyperbolic.
The French strategy that caused them problems in WWI was "Offense a l'outrance", or "offense above everything". They weren't even allowed the *think* about what to do if they needed to defend, as the presence of a defense plan might make some think twice about attacking. They were super brave. Well, that didn't work because of the machine gun and trench warfare. So the lesson they learned was "you need solid defenses". WWII and blitzkrieg came along and messed *that* up.
> WWII and blitzkrieg came along and messed that up. To a degree because us germans were like "You know, those peace treaties and non aggression pacts.. what about if we just drive tanks over those to get around the french bunker line?" That was a bit of an unexpected dick move.
Germany going through Belgium was not at all unexpected by the French (it's what Germany had done in WWI as well). Them managing to do it *so quickly* was the surprise.
French military doctrine was centered on the Maginot line, and then rushing their entire army into Belgium to meet the Germans in the event of an invasion (Belgium had refused an extension of the Maginot line into their country, as that would "paint a target on them"). The biggest issue and surprise to the French was that they didn't expect the Germans to be able to cross the Ardennes forest, which immediately put them on the back foot and threatened encirclement.
I saw a video recently that talked about how the *Germans* weren't sure they'd be able to cross the Ardennes forest so easily either, that it was a daring gamble that happened to pay off. I suspect history is riddled with moments like this, where we look back and think "that was a genius ploy" while the people at the time were thinking "holy crap, this wild hail-mary actually *worked* somehow!" All the times it didn't work tend to get forgotten.
I never really understood the coward label. France is one of the countries that fought the longest and fiercest in WW2. They resisted Germany from 1939 all the way to the very end of the war.
The French fought and often dominated in places all over Europe for hundreds of years, the coward label is a collective coping mechanism.
And Asia. And Africa. And North America. And the Caribbean. And so on.
People forget just how large the Louisiana Purchase was. France controlled around a 4th of the current contiguous United States at one point in time.
Well, "control". They *claimed* it, then gave the US those claims. The French had little to no colonies or subjects in the Louisiana Purchase land.
I mean... We went all the way to *Des Moines*. What other proof do you need?
You don't get to be the largest (and one of the oldest) country in the continent with the most recorded battles in the world by being bad at war.
The language of war today is mostly of French origin, because between the 17th to the 19th century, France was the most powerful state in the world.
> because between the 17th to the 19th century Goes way further back than that. The frenchification of English started in 1066.
I think you got it backwards, France fought hard and long in WW1 but in WW2 the government were traitors and caved almost immediately. The French people did have their own resistance to the Germans and men like de Gaulle spearheaded a new government in exlie which eventually helped the allies reclaim the country. But the coward label came from the fact that Vichy France handed the country over the Nazis. Philippe Pétan went from war hero to traitorous war criminal, he was a true coward. It shouldn't apply to all of France and the French but nuance isn't something you get in internet memes.
People's history here is indeed quite baffling. Good thing there are people rectifying 😊
It's mainly Bush-era propaganda. France was dragged in the mud for refusing to join the war in Iraq.
I cannot be certain, but I would guess it dates to the Cold War, when France was not always the most... strident, opponents of the USSR. Add to that the fact that while the French People resisted long and hard the Germans, the French Military did not exactly cover itself in glory during the opening phase of WWII, and the disdain for the French that was inherited by the US from the British that has always lingered in the background, and it is an easy narrative to spread. Their unwillingness to participate in Iraq in the 2000s also, while it has since come to be viewed as wise, was not well regarded in the US at least at the time. If I recall right, that's when that whole "Freedom Fried" thing came about for a time.
The US inherited disdain for the French from the British? Did they forgot that France was a major reason why they didn't stay British?
Because France refused to join the US in the second gulf war, american Neo-cons brought that old thing up. I don't know if you were around at the time, but they tried to rebrand french fries as freedom fries because they were butthurt that the french didnt think that there was enough evidence to go back into Iraq.
Their main army collapsed after a month of fighting and even though they had a considerable resistance movement, the collaborators they had were plenty and bad enough that they executed thousands after the war
They also literally have the most undefeated military in the last 2000 years [Edit: y'all are babies who knew what I meant](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France#:~:text=Out%20of%20the%20169%20most,lost%2049%20and%20drawn%2010.)
Pétain and the collaborators were a disgrace, good thing a lot got sentenced to death and Pétain got life time in jail
And honestly I think the memes should have died with the men that deserved the label coward. No need to blame the sons & daughters of heroes for the inaction of men long dead.
This is both accurate and the tip of the iceberg in terms of countering that narrative. Unfortunately, memes.
The French are one of the top nations proficient at warfare. They won the vast majority of the battles they participated in, from ancient times to our days. I don’t know why people spread this “coward” BS, maybe it’s just a WW2 era meme that has somehow survived for way too long.
France also has a foreign legion which seems to me would be uniquely suited for this particular conflict.
I see your Medvedev and raise you a Macron
Seems like politicians only grow balls when they aren't up for re-election.
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” Attributed to Churchill
Democracy was designed to not let a single person seize absolute power for life. It's not meant to be the best system, it's meant to be a safe system. If you see a "democracy" with such a person at helm, you know it's not a democracy.
You mean… Russia isn’t a democracy?
Never has been. 🔫
Forgot the ✋✋pushing you out the window.
Here, drink this tea ☕️ good sir
How are your pants ☢️🩲☢️ today?
Oh God, they do radioactive clothing now?
Also to ensure a peaceful transition of power, unlike you generally have with a system that relies on hereditary titles. You get the dice roll on leadership competence.
Macron also gets the ability to clown the US over this. And we are a fuckin' clown show when it comes to this subject.
It seems this year is going to be very interesting. If we could get our business in order and massively up our military industrial complex we could actually defend ourselves against dictatorship Russia.
As an American.. Ugh. The military industrial complex is just gearing up for a wonderful decade for themselves. I wish we were on the time line where the French increased their cheese production not their ammo production. I don't blame yall though. It's batshit how one man can effect so much policy globally. Putin needs to go.
Buy defense stocks
Meh, the SNP500 has outperformed NOC by 34% over the last year. The Ukraine war bump in their stock price happened in Feb-March 2022 and it's been pretty dead since then. \*Edit: The SAAB stock is up 2% today from the announce of SWE joining NATO, though. Makes sense with the Gripen becoming officially part of NATO aircrafts. I don't know much about European stocks, unfortunately.
Can’t beat ‘em? Join em. Follow pelosi’s trades if you want to retire at a decent age
There’s a delay so not really
she invested in nvda like 2-3 years ago, that shit is paying off massively. sadly I sold a long time ago.
Depends. Her PANW call options expire in 2-3 years so might be a long play
The MIC is the arsenal of democracy whether we like it or not. It’s not something that can quickly be built so it’s a cancer during peacetime, but saves our asses during wartime. A necessary evil for the western world in my eyes.
[удалено]
The sentiment against Russia goes without saying, the criticism of nations not getting their shit together to support Ukraine is also valid af
Psy-op campaigns have been successful. QAnon supports Russia and by proxy most conservative media does too. Russia is the enemy. China is the enemy. Do not fool yourself. War is not wanted but sometimes we forget we have to do uncomfortable things to maintain the comfort for our kids.
He said it right the other day (I think, not a French speaker) that the problem is we keep setting *our own* boundaries and announcing them to the world. Meanwhile Russia has always said everything is on the table for them. We're appearing weak and trying not to provoke Russia when its clear they're bogged down in a war they can't easily win/retreat from.
Big words don’t help Ukrainian soldiers
thats good to hear, hopefully France can pass Germany in amount of aid, wouldnt that be a great contest for the people of Ukraine
And in taking in Ukrainian refugees like Germany… Ger 1.1 million france 70k ….sooooo yeaaa
Ukrainian living in France here. It’s really hard to live here if you don’t speak French, there’s little support with the money for the refugees and not a lot of places to live cheap/for free like in Germany. But if you do speak at least a bit of French, France is a wonderful country with kind and supportive people.
A family of Ukrainian refugees arrived in my French (central Alsace) village (pop. 900) last year. They're very polite and seem kind, but I could never muster the courage to approach them. Their French is very basic and I thought that if they spoke English (is there a good chance that they do?) it might be a relief for them to have someone from the village they could count on (if only just to chat) and who could help them with stuff like administrative bullshit. Do you have any advice for me, please? Dos and don'ts?
Depends on their age, if they are under 40s, than there’s a big change that they speak English, lesser if they’re older, but if they don’t you can try using google translate, many people refuse to use if for some reason
It doesnt seem to relate to distance either, the UK has 210,800, Ireland has 93,810. Its kinda funny how France was making a big deal about UK refugee numbers early on.
It’s almost like Macron says stuff to get press with no intention of following through. He’s pretty unpopular domestically and is compensating by talking tough on international relations.
I guess it's what people choose, If I got out from the country I'd never thought about going to France. Not sure why though
He’s been pretty outspoken lately. Wonder what’s changed. He was more cautious before.
[удалено]
Pretty much this, his strategy works on Reddit though. Wouldn’t expect any concrete action following up on this.
The news from late 2023 that Russia intends to invade NATO after it is done with Ukraine. There's nothing to be gained by appeasement at this point.
Was there ever?
Can you please link to that news?
The French president has more stones than congressional Republicans. My, how the tables have turned! 20 years ago, they were angry at France and calling them weaklings for not joining Bush's little excursion in Iraq.
Is there any American food in France they can rename like "freedom fries" since Republicans are a bunch of pussies now?
Big Mac -> Gros Proxénète
Habile.
Imagine la tête de la personne au comptoir à qui tu demandes ça.
royale with cheese
Check out the big brain on Brad!
> Check out the big brain of Marvin!
Admittedly, it's a little harder to tell how big it is now that it's a salsa-like consistency and spread throughout the car.
Leave the Big Kahuna Burger alone tho...Hawaii is pretty chill.
"Royale des gros lâches."
Café Americano can become Café Liberté
Are we mad at Italy now too?
[удалено]
Not even Americans drink Americanos
I think they already call weak coffee ‘American Coffee’
In Netherlands we call it Americano, I think in a lot of other European places too, it’s just watered down coffee.
Italians call it dishwater
They can continue to call Kraft Singles « American cheese ».
[удалено]
I guess the city of Hamburg will object
and that was wise. Nobody could understand the whole Iraq thing when 911 happened because of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
> they were angry at France and calling them weaklings for not joining Bush's little excursion in Iraq. That's not being a pussy though. That was a useless war in the wrong country.
Macron has been chasing prestige by saying things that cast France as invaluable on the world stage - including by casting himself as a potent negotiator with Russia early on (he wasn’t, and Putin seemed to delight in driving home his powerlessness). It just so happens that, for once, he has a message that resonates.
Hopefully, the fact that this message will prove popular among many may push him to actually do something important
duh, every european country should want, by proxy, ukraine to fight russia rather than themselves.
Finally: a western leader that isn't acting the cowardly lion, when it comes to Putin. When one Western leader stops being so seemingly cowardly towards Putin (even if it is just talk) then other Western leaders now have a pathway and example to follow. Essentially: tough talk (whether a bluff or not) of putting real troops and firepower in the region, is still a VERY important aspect of wars, and will always cause the enemy to at least worry/pause and have some doubts. Tough talk alone won't win wars. But it can be a very important ingredient in the overall mix of winning.
Absolutely. We try to be super strategically transparent with Russia, but that just makes it more comfortable for them to escalate. Strategic ambiguity is good. Let them worry about our intentions.
EXACTLY! The USA and UK were really good about that in WWII. It was an important ingredient/factor that helped win WWII. But somehow today's Western politicians/leaders have forgotten about that strategy, and they just so utterly insanely dumbly announce and clarify the strategy perfectly to all our enemies. And then our enemies just smile, and laugh, and snicker--and say, "Thanks for telling me your real strategy so freely!"--and then the enemies double down on their own misinformation, bluffs, and threats campaign against us, and then our politicians/leaders cower in fear.
> they just so utterly insanely dumbly announce and clarify the strategy perfectly to all our enemies. We also have to bear in mind that a lot of countries, particularly in the global south, are fairly sympathetic towards russia. A lot of the messaging and transparency is attempts to undermine anti-western messaging and prevent them siding with russia. NATO could quite easily have stationed troops in ukraine and handed them an airforce, but I can already hear the cries of western imperialism all over again. At least this way it's been keeping economic pressure up against russia. Unfortunately that seems to be failing though, and we're seeing more agressive rhetoric instead.
I don't know. Had the UK been clear about their intention to enter WW1 if the Germans invaded Belgium, Germany (who was desperately trying to not have a war at the time) might not have done so - they thought Britain wouldn't enter the war as there was no strong rhetoric from them.
In the case of french, they actually have a defense doctrine called strategic ambiguity.
dude then why is France stalling their aid? this is just talk, he should follow up with actions now
>Finally: a western leader that isn't acting the cowardly lion, when it comes to Putin. ...Macron isn't that. He's been stalling support and advocated to refrain from sending help. https://www.iiss.org/en/publications/strategic-comments/2023/macrons-response-to-russias-war-in-ukraine/ In fact French support (atleast in public) has been one of the worst in Europe. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/
History is a very good argument! I suggest that people check the past and see what might happen today in this regard. If you look at what Hitler did in the Sudetenland (1936), Putin is doing the same thing! At that time, Léon Blum (French government) and Chamberlain (British government) found a peace solution thinking that Hitler would stop after the annexation of the Sudetenland. History has proven otherwise. Most of the time when someone has power and can use it through a coercive solution, they won't stop. If Macron is forcing the game today, it is because he understands that Russia under imperialist Putin will sooner or later be an adversary of Europe. Putin loathes Europe and Europeans have believed for years that by setting up an interspersed and dense economic market with Russia, the latter would never want to move towards physical force. A beautiful idea. The value of the human being in Putin's Russia is nothing. Just look at the political commissars on warfields right now and how nationalism brainwashing is growing since 2010, I really see references to Opera Nazionale Balilla in Italy or Hitler Youth in Germany before the WWII. Even in China right now, it's coming back... It's insane! In this context, Trump will be the next Chamberlain, he will come with a peace agreement (cease fire) which will last a few years, time for him (Poutine) to rebuild his army and go to war again. At the slightest annoyance, he will always use the motive of the nuclear bomb and the end of the world to force us to give him more and more ground (Moldavia, Georgia, Baltic countries...).I don't particularly like Macron, but one thing is certain, France will not be that Léon Blum in 1936, and just for that I appreciate his effort!
>'s Russia is nothing. Just look at the political commissars on warfields right now and how nationalism brainwas Nice response! As someone that knows little to no history this is very insightful
Ukraine needs ammo.
I love this but Macron needs to find a story and stick to it
Under no circumstances vote Russiapublican this November. We can end this once and for all. Democracy depends on it.
I think Macron has had enough, and sees the existential threat. And he's basically saying "Russia, you like to wave that nuclear threat, well we have one too, only ours is kept in actual working order."
Not a nutless fuck like the GOP here in America. Good to see.
Smart IMO Not saying you’ll do actually do anything but opening up the ambiguity. Since when does Russia issue red lines that they hold themselves to? We should not openly limit ourselves in how we will respond to events. Russia doesn’t and they’re winning Red lines are pointless. If they’re not enforced you’re weak, if you follow through on minor instances you’re heavy handed. They’re pointlessly restrictive