- Sep 16, 2012
- 57,903
- 51,455
- 3,605
Can the French tolerate being demoted to a second or third rate power. . . with a weak GDP and second rate life style, even perhaps, kicked out of the G8?
Will they risk going to global war first?
For context, some might want to view this thread first. . . and looking into the history of this conflict, which goes back before WWII. France, however, is working off of a national foreign policy, outside of NATO's interests.
www.usmessageboard.com
consortiumnews.com
U.S. President Joe Biden preparing to disembark Marine One, July 2021. (White House, Adam Schultz)
". . . This would be introducing combat troops of a NATO country into a theater of war, making them “lawful targets” under the Law of War.
Such units would apparently lack a NATO mandate. In Russia’s view, however, this may be a distinction without a difference. France appears to be betting – naively – that its membership in NATO would prevent Russia from attacking French troops. Rather, it is highly likely that Russia would attack any French/Baltic contingent in Ukraine and quickly destroy/degrade its combat viability.
In that case, French President Macron may calculate that, after Russian attacks on the troops of NATO members – NATO mandate or not – he could invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter and get the NATO alliance to intervene. Such intervention would likely take the form of aircraft operating from NATO nations – and perhaps include interdiction missions against tactical targets inside Russia.
On Precipice of Nuclear War?
Doctrinally, and by legal right, Russia’s response would be to launch retaliatory strikes also against targets in NATO countries. If NATO then attacks strategic targets inside Russia, at that point Russia’s nuclear doctrine takes over, and NATO decision-making centers would be hit with nuclear weapons.
We do not believe Russia will initiate a nuclear attack against the U.S., but rather would leave it up to the United States to decide if it wants to risk destruction by preparing to launch a nuclear strike on Russia. That said, Russian strategic forces have improved to the point that, in some areas – hypersonic missiles, for example – its capability surpasses that of the U.S. and NATO.
In other words, the Russian temptation to strike first may be a bit stronger than during past crises, and we are somewhat less confident that Russia would want to “go second”. Another disquieting factor is that the Russians are likely to believe that Macron’s folly has the tacit approval of some key U.S. and other Western officials, who seem desperate to find some way to alter the trajectory of the war in Ukraine – the more so, as elections draw near. . . . "
www.newsweek.com
". . . Schill said France could engage a division of 20,000 troops within 30 days to operate as part of an allied coalition. Paris, he added, would be able to command a force of around 60,000 soldiers made up of French and other allied troops. The French army comprises some 121,000 soldiers, with 24,000 reservists.
"If you want peace, prepare for war," the general wrote, quoting a well-known Latin adage. "The sources of crisis are multiplying and carry with them risks of spiraling or extending," the commander added, though he did not specifically refer to the ongoing invasion of Ukraine.
Russian officials have repeatedly criticized any hint of deeper NATO involvement in Ukraine. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said on Wednesday that Macron's "idea of potentially sending such a contingent," is "clearly perceived differently in different European capitals." He added: "We continue following this situation closely."
Foreign Intelligence Service head Sergey Naryshkin, meanwhile, claimed—without providing evidence—to have intelligence of a French plan to send 2,000 troops to Ukraine. . . "
But why? Why is France taking the lead on this. . . what is really behind all this, and what is the history on this?
From the Russian media and the Russian POV on this issue. Things are looking worrisome, TBH.
www.globalresearch.ca
Will they risk going to global war first?
For context, some might want to view this thread first. . . and looking into the history of this conflict, which goes back before WWII. France, however, is working off of a national foreign policy, outside of NATO's interests.
Opinion: Nato boots on the ground?
It is just my opinion. Fucking regime, take a look into your "basic law" and fuck off. And as long as you are terrorizing me with your low-life criminal Schweinevolk thugs, we will never be on friendly terms. One day I might take over and I will reheat the ovens and put an end to your thug army...
www.usmessageboard.com
VIPS MEMO: The French Road to Nuclear War
France could be leading the American people down a path toward a nuclear conflict decidedly not in the interests of the American people – or of humanity itself, VIPS warns President Joe Biden.
VIPS MEMO: The French Road to Nuclear War
France could be leading the American people down a path toward a nuclear conflict decidedly not in the interests of the American people – or of humanity itself, VIPS warns President Joe Biden. U.S. President Joe Biden preparing to disembark Marine One, July 2021. (White House, Adam Schultz)
consortiumnews.com
U.S. President Joe Biden preparing to disembark Marine One, July 2021. (White House, Adam Schultz)
". . . This would be introducing combat troops of a NATO country into a theater of war, making them “lawful targets” under the Law of War.
Such units would apparently lack a NATO mandate. In Russia’s view, however, this may be a distinction without a difference. France appears to be betting – naively – that its membership in NATO would prevent Russia from attacking French troops. Rather, it is highly likely that Russia would attack any French/Baltic contingent in Ukraine and quickly destroy/degrade its combat viability.
In that case, French President Macron may calculate that, after Russian attacks on the troops of NATO members – NATO mandate or not – he could invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter and get the NATO alliance to intervene. Such intervention would likely take the form of aircraft operating from NATO nations – and perhaps include interdiction missions against tactical targets inside Russia.
On Precipice of Nuclear War?
Doctrinally, and by legal right, Russia’s response would be to launch retaliatory strikes also against targets in NATO countries. If NATO then attacks strategic targets inside Russia, at that point Russia’s nuclear doctrine takes over, and NATO decision-making centers would be hit with nuclear weapons.
We do not believe Russia will initiate a nuclear attack against the U.S., but rather would leave it up to the United States to decide if it wants to risk destruction by preparing to launch a nuclear strike on Russia. That said, Russian strategic forces have improved to the point that, in some areas – hypersonic missiles, for example – its capability surpasses that of the U.S. and NATO.
In other words, the Russian temptation to strike first may be a bit stronger than during past crises, and we are somewhat less confident that Russia would want to “go second”. Another disquieting factor is that the Russians are likely to believe that Macron’s folly has the tacit approval of some key U.S. and other Western officials, who seem desperate to find some way to alter the trajectory of the war in Ukraine – the more so, as elections draw near. . . . "
NATO Ally Could Command 60,000 Strong Force in Ukraine: General
NATO ally could command 60,000 strong force in Ukraine: General
French President Emmanuel Macron has been advancing a debate on whether to send allied troops to the country.
www.newsweek.com
". . . Schill said France could engage a division of 20,000 troops within 30 days to operate as part of an allied coalition. Paris, he added, would be able to command a force of around 60,000 soldiers made up of French and other allied troops. The French army comprises some 121,000 soldiers, with 24,000 reservists.
"If you want peace, prepare for war," the general wrote, quoting a well-known Latin adage. "The sources of crisis are multiplying and carry with them risks of spiraling or extending," the commander added, though he did not specifically refer to the ongoing invasion of Ukraine.
Russian officials have repeatedly criticized any hint of deeper NATO involvement in Ukraine. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said on Wednesday that Macron's "idea of potentially sending such a contingent," is "clearly perceived differently in different European capitals." He added: "We continue following this situation closely."
Foreign Intelligence Service head Sergey Naryshkin, meanwhile, claimed—without providing evidence—to have intelligence of a French plan to send 2,000 troops to Ukraine. . . "
But why? Why is France taking the lead on this. . . what is really behind all this, and what is the history on this?
Why France is Actually Preparing for War With Russia
From the Russian media and the Russian POV on this issue. Things are looking worrisome, TBH.
FRANCE ENTERING WAR AGAINST RUSSIA
France Already Conducts Combat Training of Its Battalion Group Assigned for Ukraine
14 March 2024
France Already Conducts Combat Training of Its Battalion Group Assigned for Ukraine - Global Research
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version). To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here. Click the share button above to email/forward this...
www.globalresearch.ca
Last edited:
