• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

French President: Sending Western Troops On The Ground In Ukraine Is Not Ruled Out

Charmender said:
You might have missed literally the latest 70 years of story then. Not to mention the latest 2 years where the US has literally led any single decision when it came to the Russian war.
But I mean I am not expecting anything else from someone who replies to me with “you have your MAGA friends…”.
Like if I am American or by any means support Trump.
Congrats for your great analysis capabilities.
Click to expand...
My apologies if you're not a US citizen. "Your MAGA friends" was, however, a generic remark (akin to "your usual suspects"). I did not mean to imply they're your personal friends.
 
Erecon said:
Maybe it depends on the meeting today, it could be a preasure point to let the bill pass or else.
Click to expand...
As to this, I would propose that a more logical explanation is that it is a consequence of the bill not passing.

I expect further and more severe consequences down the line. The US is simply not in a position to tell the world to FO - at least not unless it wants to see WW3 happen. You cannot tear down a load-bearing wall and not expect the whole house to collapse. 💁‍♂️
 
Charmender said:
How a war would benefit a US president which is also a presidential candidate in a capitalist world exactly?
Click to expand...
Usally Americans backs their president going to war. But ofc the Congress needs to vote on it, not an expert on how the procedure would be. ( if both houses needs to agree ) Well USA capitalist world is to have markets for their products and free nations are markets for the USA where they can put their brands, and Americanize Nations.
 
Socom7 said:
As to this, I would propose that a more logical explanation is that it is a consequence of the bill not passing.

I expect further and more severe consequences down the line. The US is simply not in a position to tell the world to FO - at least not unless it wants to see WW3 happen. You cannot tear down a load-bearing wall and not expect the whole house to collapse. 💁‍♂️
Click to expand...
I am sorry my English isnt that good but you got the meaning. ( and I am brainstorming with the knowlegde I have and trying to put sense/logic to what I would do if I where in their shoes to end this conflict )
 
Anyway guys again…Macron is a specialist in keeping the feet in multiple places at once.
When it comes to the EU politicians declaration you have to put a lot of context on them because there’s a ton of moving parts and different interests, it’s not like in the US where you have a country, a president and two parties.
I am not surprised at all given the situation after all the years I have been involved in the EU politics and diplomacy.
If he loses credibility internationally by being passive in the Ukrainian thing he will lose approval, because French people believe they are the leaders in Europe (and militarily they’re indeed).
If he gets too much militarily involved he will lose approval in favor of Melenchon who is mostly supported due to his stance over Ukraine.

That’s why at the same time in less than 1 day he said:
1) The summit is not meant to discuss about military involvement in Ukraine. Netherlands PM Mark Rutte helped him here further denying that there was no intention to escalate the situation as the Slovakian (Putin’s friend) PM tried to say.
2) We cannot rule out boots on the Ukrainian ground BUT there’s no consensus. Again nothing new here because especially if you think about things which can potentially happen. Nothing is impossible in this world.
3) We are not at war with the Russians, which doesn’t need any explanation. It just contradicts what he said.

Added bonus, during this summit countries on the Russian to do list resulted to be: Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and the US.
Respectively: the most neutral country of EU together with Austria and Ireland, the biggest and closest nuclear power in Europe, a close friend in the end, another even closer friend, pacific US twin, biggest nuclear power of the world.

All of this does not make any sense, this is all intended to put pressure in the US regarding the Ukraine funding bill, as EU has reached capacity and there will never be consensus in emitting common debt to help Ukraine further, to regain prestige without jeopardizing his party at the next elections, to try to regain the interest of the normal people about Ukraine which again, as a French/Italian I can tell you is less than zero.
 
Erecon said:
Usally Americans backs their president going to war. But ofc the Congress needs to vote on it, not an expert on how the procedure would be. ( if both houses needs to agree ) Well USA capitalist world is to have markets for their products and free nations are markets for the USA where they can put their brands, and Americanize Nations.
Click to expand...
World has changed since the WW2 and is lead by the economical interest.
Not by the amor patriae.
Recent conflicts into which the US has been involved cannot be used for comparison.
 
DarkNoon said:
Related???

https://twitter.com/x/status/1762245908547170406
Click to expand...
I forgot to reply to this.
Unrelated, the news was already released 24 hours before the French summit.

www.bloomberg.com

Biden, Congressional Leaders to Meet at White House on Tuesday

President Joe Biden will meet with top congressional leaders including House Speaker Mike Johnson at the White House on Tuesday in a bid to unlock billions of dollars in emergency aid to allies including Ukraine and avert a US government shutdown.
www.bloomberg.com www.bloomberg.com
 
Charmender said:
World has changed since the WW2 and is lead by the economical interest.
Not by the amor patriae.
Click to expand...
I'm with Mearsheimer here: the notion that economic interests somehow override revisionist instincts is as widespread as it is patently false.

Unless I missed something and Russia is still pumping cheap gas to Germany while the USA and China are a happy couple, united by their massive trade volume... 🦄

Seriously though: when it comes to foreign policy, security trumps greed every time.
 
Charmender said:
World has changed since the WW2 and is lead by the economical interest.
Not by the amor patriae.
Recent conflicts into which the US has been involved cannot be used for comparison.
Click to expand...
Most wars are like that, ww2 just catapulted the US into super power position. ( they where smart and thats why we see so many other contries nowadays just waiting for the same opotunity ) and ofc the wars after ww2 can also be used for comparison - we can ofc discuss if the Americans could have done it different with a plan - maybe they alrdy saw that those cultures couldnt be Americanized yet.
 
DarkNoon said:
I have had some serious doubts and still do about western direct intervention.

BUT in the back of my mind I always wondered if we've invested too much in the war in Ukraine to back out. Even if it means direct intervention if they start to lose.

Thoughts @anyone?
Click to expand...

In fact, it is exactly how you say. It should be pointed out that you have never been on the side of who thought that "maybe it would be better to not investe so much over Ukraine and find compromises with Russia". It was a "pro-russian" position. But now, any retreat will be catastrophic for the West reputation. After having left tens of thousands Ukrainans die, to leave Ukraine alone - now - because WE (not they) have the "war fatigue" and we have "finished" the money, will be considered from the world for what it would be: cowardice. Now the situation is likely irreversible: if Ukraine is losing, sooner or later NATO will have to decide.
 
Last edited:
DarkNoon said:
I have had some serious doubts and still do about western direct intervention.

BUT in the back of my mind I always wondered if we've invested too much in the war in Ukraine to back out. Even if it means direct intervention if they start to lose.

Thoughts @anyone?
Click to expand...
No, we have not invested too much to back out. I am completely against direct intervention and there is nothing that obligates us. We may have invested a lot but if Ukraine loses its not the end of the world.

I support Ukraine, I hope they win. But I don't think western soldiers should die, I don't think we should risk direct confrontation with Russia which seriously increases the risk of WMDs being used. I'd say ground troop intervention by the west probally will make Russia do anything to turn the tides back on their side (they are on Russias side right now, unfortunately. As it stands Russia will probally outlast Ukraine in attrition unless the west seriously increases weapons and financial aid)

It actually makes me sick that the west would put our troops, even our civilians at risk for Ukraine. Putin isn't gonna go further than Ukraine and Moldova, I know that's the talking point, but it's become clear that Russia can't even attempt to take on NATO, and Russia knows it too. Political interference works better on the west.

I don't talk here much because I have views on many things that this forum will heavily disagree with now, they have changed a lot from back when Russia invaded Ukraine, a lot of my views even unrelated have.

It's just not worth our soldiers and civilians for a country that is going to be in a dog shit position with a dog shit quality of life for many years no matter who wins. We aren't helping anyone by sending our troops.
 
The Kremlin took a while to react, but Peskov's statement is now out, and it goes as follows:

In this case, we need to talk not about probability, but about inevitability [of a direct armed conflict between Russia and NATO]. That’s how we will evaluate. And these countries should evaluate in the same way and be aware of it. And ask the question whether this corresponds to their interests, and most importantly to the interests of their citizens. Source

There is also a statement from Donald Tusk, prime minister of Poland, which is notable since Poland is clearly part of the coalition:

Poland does not intend to sent its troops into Ukraine. We have a consensus in this matter [he's likely referring to the words of Petr Fiala, prime minister of Czechia, who previously stated that no Czech troops would be going into Ukraine]. However (...) if all other EU countries provided as much aid to Ukraine as Poland and Czechia, then perhaps there would be no need to discuss other forms of support. Source
 
bartok said:
In fact, it is exactly how you say. It should be pointed out that you have never been on the side of who thought that "maybe it would be better to not investe so much over Ukraine and find compromises with Russia". It was a "pro-russian" position. But now, any retreat will be catastrophic for the West reputation. After having left tens of thousands Ukrainans die, to leave Ukraine alone - now - because WE (not they) have the "war fatigue" and we have "finished" the money, will be considered from the world for what it would be: cowardice. Now the situation is likely irreversible: if Ukraine is losing, sooner or later NATO will have to decide.
Click to expand...
This line of reasoning is seemingly based on the assumption that Ukrainians are mindless drones and if only the West had struck some sort of "deal" with Russia they would gladly accept their fate and go gently into that good night without causing any fuss. This is, of course, false, and will lead you to the wrong conclusions. I will also suggest that Ukrainians have a far better understanding of what Russia is, what it wants, and how it operates than the faraway westerners who were - and somehow still are - pining for a peace deal, Munich 1938 style, in the vain hope that things will just go "back to normal" (at least for them).

The West tried very hard to find compromises with Russia. There was much on offer - including "finlandization" of Ukraine - and a great deal of negotiations in the lead-up to the conflict. It came to naught because Russia was not interested in a compromise. It simply wanted war. Putin had been laying the groundwork for a full-scale ground invasion of Ukraine at least since 2014, and possibly even earlier than that. TBH, after two years of this carnage the words "we should have found a compromise with Russia" kinda sound like "the Jews should have found a compromise with Hitler" - at least in my ears. 🙁
 
Last edited:
intel-bank said:
Putin isn't gonna go further than Ukraine and Moldova
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's a hard "no". Putin wants at least half of Europe, and possibly all of it - if he can have it. Remember his "compromise solution" tabled just before the invasion? It involved a withdrawal of NATO forces from all countries admitted after 1989 (essentially restoring the cold war status quo). Russia has never budged in the slightest on these demands, despite its setbacks in Ukraine.

It absolutely amazes me how people can still think this modern-day Hitler will inexplicably just stop at annexing Austria and Czechoslovakia. To be honest, this view reeks of a figleaf effort to mask what is essentially cowardice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom