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

[NuclearID]

Also…it is part of a way bigger speach.

Guerre en Ukraine: Macron affirme que l'envoi de troupes occidentales ne peut «être exclu», mais veut maintenir une «ambiguïté stratégique»

À l’issue de la conférence internationale de soutien réunissant 21 chefs d’État à l'Élysée, Emmanuel Macron a exprimé lundi soir sa «détermination» à soutenir l’Ukraine face à la Russie.

www.lefigaro.fr

"There is no consensus today to send troops to the ground in a formal, assumed and endorsed manner. But in dynamics, nothing should be excluded. We will do everything necessary so that Russia cannot win this war, "
…..
The Head of State did not wish to say more about France's position on this issue, referring to a "strategic ambiguity that I assume". But "I absolutely did not say that France was not in favor of it," he warned. "I will not lift the ambiguity of tonight's debates by giving names. I say that it was mentioned among the options, "he added.

Thanks for that tidbit. Was helpful in my personal anylisis of this news.

 

[Charmender]

Thanks for that tidbit.

U welcome.
Also….
Le président français a néanmoins rappelé que les alliés de l’Ukraine n’étaient « pas en guerre avec le peuple russe », mais qu’ils ne voulaient « simplement pas les laisser gagner en Ukraine ».

I think that the ambiguity thing plus the text above which literally says…we’re not at war with the Russian people…evidently proofs that this is just political blah blah blah.
It’s all to say…hey we may go to war with Russia, but we are not at war with the Russian people…to don’t let room to any potential fear of escalation.
Does not make any sense obviously.

 

[Erecon]

300k troops should be rdy by summer 2024 according to NATOs planning/buildup in 2022 ( if that timeline hasnt been corrupted or delayed )
Anders Fogh Rasmussen ( Former Danish Prime Minister and NATO secretary ) is just an American puppet - so when he opens his mouth its from the US

If NATO goes into Belarus freeing them from the dictatorship - what would Russias Response be? ( the Ukrainian troops guarding the borders, could be send to the East )

 

[NuclearID]

If NATO goes into Belarus freeing them from the dictatorship - what would Russias Response be? ( the Ukrainian troops guarding the borders, could be send to the East )

I'm sorry, excuse me? What? Where did this come from? I'm all for discussing hypotheticals so long as it's in the realm of reality or realistic scenarios in which could occur from ongoing geopolitical or military matters occuring on the world theater. Nothing anywhere would indicate this as even a remote possibility.

Only way NATO attacks Belarus is if Russia uses a nuclear bomb on Ukraine. Even then would only be a conventional response against Belarus in all likely hood as a proportional response without escalating to strategic assets while also to claim not directly attacking Russia.

 

[Erecon]

I'm sorry, excuse me? What? Where did this come from? I'm all for discussing hypotheticals so long as it's in the realm of reality or realistic scenarios in which could occur from ongoing geopolitical or military matters occuring on the world theater. Nothing anywhere would indicate this as even a remote possibility.

Only way NATO attacks Belarus is if Russia uses a nuclear bomb on Ukraine. Even then would only be a conventional response against Belarus in all likely hood as a proportional response without escalating to strategic assets while also to claim not directly attacking Russia.

Why wouldnt it be a realistic scenario if NATO really wants to stop Russia in Ukraine and get rid of Alexander Lukashenko? What I see is Belarus has given lots of its equipment to Russia, yes they recieved some Nukes ( maybe ) but they are properbly still under Kremlin control - And I dont think Putin would start Nuclear Armageddon if Belarus Falls. And NATO has done other strange things like Libya, Iraq, Former Yugoslavia where they bombed them.

 

[NuclearID]

Why wouldnt it be a realistic scenario if NATO really wants to stop Russia in Ukraine and get rid of Alexander Lukashenko?

No they wouldn't. The West has proven time and again their to scared of Putins tempertantrums and baseless threats.

What I see is Belarus has given lots of its equipment to Russia

Sure what of it? The Belarus economy, production capabilities, and military is a joke.

yes they recieved some Nukes ( maybe )

No. If I recall western intelligence and their satellite imagery has shown Russia has started building the facilities needed to house nuclear weapons. But Russia stationing nuclear weapons in Belarus is still a bit way aways.

but they are properbly still under Kremlin control -

Your right. Belarus is a Russian puppet no more or less Ukraine is for The West imo.

And NATO has done other strange things like Libya, Iraq, Former Yugoslavia where they bombed them.

Yea that was when NATO was still trying to find its purpose without an adversary the Soviet union. After the Soviet Union fell NATO focused on spreading democracy and killing terrorists headed by The US.

But things have changed now in recent years haven't they. NATO has a renewed vision and determination given Russian aggression in Europe. Putin the master strategist .

 

[Deleted account]

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?

It's not a question of "having invested too much". Regardless of investment - if the war starts going badly for Ukraine then the Western European NATO powers (or even the US for that matter) likely cannot prevent a "coalition of the willing" from coalescing around the idea of sending ground troops to UA. This is simply because for many European countries a putative Russian victory in Ukraine would pose an immediate and existential threat. So then the whole NATO bloc (or at least the major powers that make up its core) would need to decide whether to formally back such an initiative. Macron, being among the more assertive European leaders, could probably be convinced - seeing as how Russia has effectively destroyed the European security architecture, and pretty much everyone is expecting a US betrayal if/when Trump takes over.

This is why it's so critical that Ukraine doesn't lose: otherwise we're in for a domino effect that ends in WW3. I wish someone would tell Mike Johnson, but the man probably thinks he's safe across the ocean...

 

[Erecon]

No they wouldn't. The West has proven time and again their to scared of Putins tempertantrums and baseless threats.

Thats how democracies get their populations support - they need to work them by fear

Yea that was when NATO was still trying to find its purpose without an adversary the Soviet union. After the Soviet Union fell NATO focused on spreading democracy and killing terrorists headed by The US.

But things have changed now in recent years haven't they. NATO has a renewed vision and determination given Russian aggression in Europe.

Sure alot of Europian contries and USA have used their money on other things then their defence, ( Also Russia ) We hear every day from these so called experts that Russian Economy is not greater then 2 middle sized Europian ones. I think the odds are 22:1 in NATOs+Ukraine favour vs Russia+Iran+Belarus+North Korea ( 2023 stats ) and if its (GDP ppp ) its 9:1 in favour of NATO+Ukraine. ( taken from Anders Puck Nielsen

)
Roughly speaking it has not changed, NATO has always had eyes on those Russian Nukes.

 

[Erecon]

I would also add - there are several benefits

Take 1 of Putins Allies out - free belarus
It immediately would stop futher advance by Russia into Ukraine cause they would need to secure that gap with troops used in Ukraine ( maybe even pulling back in some areas )
It would give Putin a big political loss since he backed Alexander Lukashenko and perhaps more internal conflict in Russia

The Risk

The Joker - No one can guarentee No Nuke use. I dont think it would happen but thats my opinion.

 

[Deleted account]

I would also add - there are several benefits

Take 1 of Putins Allies out - free belarus
It immediately would stop futher advance by Russia into Ukraine cause they would need to secure that gap with troops used in Ukraine ( maybe even pulling back in some areas )
It would give Putin a big political loss since he backed Alexander Lukashenko and perhaps more internal conflict in Russia

The Risk

The Joker - No one can guarentee No Nuke use. I dont think it would happen but thats my opinion.

NATO (meaning in this case Poland, Lithuania and Latvia) is not going to react to Russian victories in Ukraine by attacking Belarus. It makes roughly as much sense as Putin reacting to Ukrainian victories by attacking Poland (as in: it's a really stupid thing to do and no wonder he hasn't done it (yet)).

What you might see at this stage is deployment of NATO troops in Ukraine. But not a ground invasion of Belarus.

 

[Snowfall]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/paris-conference-belie-doom-gloom-ukraine-elysee-says-2024-02-25/

“A White House official told Reuters that the United States had no plans to send troops to fight in Ukraine and that there were also no plans to send NATO troops to fight in Ukraine.”

 

[Deleted account]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/paris-conference-belie-doom-gloom-ukraine-elysee-says-2024-02-25/

“A White House official told Reuters that the United States had no plans to send troops to fight in Ukraine and that there were also no plans to send NATO troops to fight in Ukraine.”

The WH is being economical with the truth here. Yes, they would not officially be referred to as "NATO troops". However, they would be troops from NATO member states, dispatched under - as noted by Fico - bilateral agreements with Ukraine (so not within the framework of NATO).

Tomayto, tomahto.

 

[NuclearID]

NATO (meaning in this case Poland, Lithuania and Latvia) is not going to react to Russian victories in Ukraine by attacking Belarus.

Without a doubt.

 

[Charmender]

The WH is being economical with the truth here. Yes, they would not officially be referred to as "NATO troops". However, they would be troops from NATO member states, dispatched under - as noted by Fico - bilateral agreements with Ukraine (so not within the framework of NATO).

Tomayto, tomahto.

There would be nothing that could lead to a US military intervention.
That includes troops from other NATO countries.
These “coalition of the willing” countries are the ones that don’t even fart if the US does not allow them to do so…rightfully.
Poland, Lithuania and co., Romania, most of the Eastern Europe would have already joined Ukraine in the war if it wasn’t due to the opposition of the US since the risk of getting cascaded into the conflict would be enormous.
So much noise, as at the beginning of the war when a nuclear war was deemed t Be nearly imminent.
Macron did exactly what he needed to do to regain the lead in the EU military environment, since during the last months he became too passive towards the situation in Ukraine.
But that’s just loud noise with no realistically value added in respect to what it has been until to date.
Macron also knows that there’s 0% support about involving French troops in the country at the same time.

 

[Erecon]

NATO (meaning in this case Poland, Lithuania and Latvia) is not going to react to Russian victories in Ukraine by attacking Belarus. It makes roughly as much sense as Putin reacting to Ukrainian victories by attacking Poland (as in: it's a really stupid thing to do and no wonder he hasn't done it (yet)).

None of us knows for sure, but you are right it wouldnt be Lithuania and Latvia more likely to be English - American - Polish troops. My guess is the 82nd and 101st airborne with English and Polish Groundtroops and massive coalition air support.

What you might see at this stage is deployment of NATO troops in Ukraine. But not a ground invasion of Belarus.

To be effective in defence they need to be able to strike deep, so they would have capabilities to do so. I outlined the benefits

 

[Snowfall]

The WH is being economical with the truth here. Yes, they would not officially be referred to as "NATO troops". However, they would be troops from NATO member states, dispatched under - as noted by Fico - bilateral agreements with Ukraine (so not within the framework of NATO).

Tomayto, tomahto.

I’m not so sure about that, there’s no real way for a NATO country, that isn’t the France Germany or the U.K., to launch a military intervention especially one of this caliber without U.S. approval. They would also be effectively accepting that their nations would be vulnerable to retaliation without the ability to declare article 5. As for France, Macron is very risk averse and has effectively zero support for a war with Russia.

 

[Deleted account]

These “coalition of the willing” countries are the ones that don’t even fart if the US does not allow them to do so

You're wrong, and what you're saying is actually a major Russian propaganda point.

The myth that the US is capable of telling other countries what to do - their own interests be damned - is kind of cute given the rather widespread view that the US itself is just one election away from collapse. This whole idea would be far-fetched even if there was continuing trust in US leadership (which there isn't anymore - and you have your MAGA friends in congress to thank for that).

Poland would have already joined Ukraine in the war if it wasn’t due to the opposition of the US since the risk of getting cascaded into the conflict would be enormous.

And yet here we are. Gee, I wonder why...

 

[Erecon]

Another thing I didnt mention was the American Election - its in november right? A war would benefit Biden yes? ( Trumps argument making peace in 24 hours would fall apart )
Maybe it depends on the meeting today, it could be a preasure point to let the bill pass or else.

 

[Charmender]

The myth that the US is capable of telling other countries what to do - their own interests be damned - is kind of cute given the rather widespread view that the US itself is just one election away from collapse.

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.
Btw…You forgot to tell me that I am pro Putin.

 

[Deleted account]

Another thing I didnt mention was the American Election - its in november right? A war would benefit Biden yes? ( Trumps argument making peace in 24 hours would fall apart )

Please. Everyone, I mean literally everyone knows this "24-hour peace" is utter BS. Peskov himself (Putin's spokesman) went on the record a couple weeks ago saying "No, we have no understanding of how this can be done. We have not had any contacts on this."

This argument (if you can call it that) fell apart the moment the word salad came out of Trump's mouth. A war doesn't "benefit" Biden - or Trump for that matter. It doesn't benefit Putin either, though he's living in his own kind of cloud cuckoo land, so he probably doesn't realize that.