all 41 comments

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Some highlights:

Macron apparently first floated the idea of sending French troops privately with French military officials in June 2023 when it became clear Ukraine's offensive was failing.

When he decided to announce it several things happened: his German and British allies weren't keen on it; the Americans were not prepared to assist; in an interview on the previous day Putin said any NATO troops entering Ukraine would be considered combatants and legitimate targets, whatever role they served there and that if the West has no red lines with Russia then Russia has no red lines with them.

I suspect yesterday there were all kinds of calls from Washington, probably the Pentagon, to France telling Macron to back off, if you go there by yourself you're on your own - these are guesses, but reasonable ones. So Macron had to change course, the idea of a presidential address had to be abandoned and we got this chaotic interview instead. That's my take on what happened. And after this I think it's far less likely that Western troops will enter Ukraine.

It's now clear that Russia is indeed getting approaches from the US to freeze the conflict, he all but confirmed it and he was scathing about it - "we're not going to freeze the conflict just because you're running out of ammunition." He also said straightforwardly that he didn't trust anybody in the West, and that the Western leaders proposing this freeze are actually more dangerous than the neocons who just want to continue the war because based on the past they're just trying to lure Russia into another Minsk 2 type trick that just buys time to rearm Ukraine and start the war all over again.

There was an interesting article today in The Economist, which is neocon central. It basically says Russia isn't the enemy, Putin is the enemy; so it's back to the old story about wanting regime change in Moscow.

They assume the oligarchs would be open to this, this is the assumption they've made for the last 10 years. Apparently back in 2014 when the first sanctions were suggested, Merkel was told by the BND, the German intelligence agency, that the oligarchs would tell Putin he either had to back down or they would arrange for him to go. Of course this didn't happen.

But even those who in the past were more sympathetic to good relations with the West are much less powerful now than they were; they've also been antagonized so they're much more likely to support Putin than 10 years ago.

Macron's statement about Trump - "I've been informed that he will not win in 2024" - this isn't delusional, it's sinister and it ought to be getting more attention than it is. France isn't part of the 5 Eyes but it is part of NATO and it does make you wonder what information he's getting from the US, I don't think even Macron would have said something like this unless he'd been given private assurances from someone.

An opinion poll in Le Monde that came out after Macron started making all these statements, with European Parliament elections coming, shows that Le Pen's party has increased its already substantial lead over Macron's party so all this talk about sending French troops to Ukraine has gone down very badly with the French public. Based on the reports we've seen from Marianne on the three studies done by the military on the Ukraine war, the French military look to be solidly opposed to the idea as well.

[–]sdl5 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think our little friend is janny material...

Mia for 8 months, returns to do the exact same denial of reality attacks- and abruptly access is severely nuked. Just like what happened 8 months ago 💁

[–]Maniak🥃😾 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (37 children)

Dickless chihuahua gets slapped down after nobody confuses him for a bulldog and goes back to his pink pillow, shitting himself the entire way.

What a pointless moron. Still has wet dreams about being emperor while not being capable of leading his own bowels.

When he's not simply passing down orders from his US masters, which apparently is what makes him feel important, the pointless void that he is goes on display for all to see.

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

French poodle confronting Russian bear.

Have to admit the little poodle is adorable with his Napoleon-style hat.

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (35 children)

You mean, Putin, the dickless chihuahua? Macron has been stating the obvious about NATO's unity in dealing with Russia. It's obviously very important that Macron and others remind Putin that NATO will destroy Russia's military, if necessary. The OP's post is pathetic, simiping for a dictator.

[–]3andfro 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

If wishes were horses, all men would ride.

You state the obvious when you talk about NATO unity against Russia, that's been clear for the past 2 decades and more and it's precisely the reason we're on the brink of WWIII - we made that, by turning what was supposed to be a military alliance for preserving peace into one that instigates instability and insecurity throughout the region beginning with the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Which is pretty ballsy when you think about it since we're an ocean away and won't be directly impacted by what happens in Europe's backyard.

But you're clearly delusional when you say NATO will destroy the Russian military - with what? They don't have the manpower or the materiel, as the French military studies revealed in the Marianne piece spell out. NATO could not accomplish this without the US, and the US has clearly said they will not put troops on the ground. Yes, this could change but the US military hasn't been able to meet its recruitment goals so it would require conscription in an election year. Which ain't gonna happen.

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (24 children)

Seems you're not familiar with NATO's capability and mission. Moreover, NATO countries will continue supporting Ukraine. It's easy to understand. And DO NOT change my words. I write, "NATO will destroy Russia's military, if necessary."

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

Well, do explain Mr. NATO Expert, exactly how "NATO will destroy Russia's military, if necessary". I'm not a military expert myself and can only assume - but correct me if I'm wrong! - that "capability" at a minimum entails manpower, weapons, ISR capabilities and logistics.

You seem to be privy to information I've not come across from credible sources (this rules out Western media) about the capacity for weapons production in the US and Europe and the number of combat troops of the NATO member states willing to go head-to-head with Russia. Recent statements indicate that this doesn't include the US, UK, Germany, Hungary or Slovakia and although the Polish Foreign Minister said yes, the Polish Prime Minister said absolutely not. The NATO member with the strongest military after the US is Turkey and I seriously doubt they'd contemplate going to war with Russia.

I await your further elucidation.

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (22 children)

You can easily search for that information, if it's not already obvious. There is an extensive cold war history to this. Read up. If you want weapons and personnel comparisons, see:

https://bestdiplomats.org/nato-vs-russia-military-comparison/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293174/nato-russia-military-comparison/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

Don't know anything about the first two, like who are the people who make it up, who funds them, etc. because that's relevant and what you would be pointing out if I was throwing Russian sources out here. As for Wikipedia - LOL. But all that aside, plopping down some links and saying "you can easily search for that information" is pretty lame; you don't seem able to articulate your argument in your own words, your previous talking points notwithstanding. So I gotta tell ya, I'm having a difficult time taking you at all seriously.

One of my primary sources for military analysis is Col. Douglas Macgregor, retired US Army and a military historian. Part 3 of his 3-part discussion with Michael Vlahos, who has taught at the Military War College since the 80s, has been summarized here and includes links to summaries to Part 1 and Part 2. These discussions are from a year or so ago so they don't address Macron's proposal, but they do address what Gen. Petreus was talking up at the time. What follows is a small taste of what's at the link:

Obviously, we're not thinking intelligently about it or we would not even consider something as utterly crazy as the "coalition of the willing" - unless the coalition is close to a million men and consists of a very different composition from the forces we have today.

In Part 2 they discuss the strategic failures of NATO. This part is especially relevant to the current discussion:

Americans need to understand that there is no command structure with all the assets (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance or C4ISR), that is European, it's all American. Anything that happens militarily in Europe is of necessity American, because if you take that backbone away, no one can replace it. US dominance was so great that European militaries began to slough off the things that made them credible as militaries.

He gives what many, including me, consider a clear-eyed assessment of current US military power and it's not a pretty picture. The danger is that those who want to use our military all over the world have this unrealistic vision locked into our military strength in the mid-20th century which has no bearing to today's reality. I can think of few things stupider than underestimating your enemy while overestimating yourself, but that seems to be what we're doing, with our European and other allies tagging along behind like the compliant vassals they are.

[–]sdl5 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Ammo:

Oleksandra Mamchii A faux diplomat with a degree, Ukr native, "youth activist", and basically a very young mouthpiece for the globalist crowd

Writes heavily for the site referenced, every single bit of it the CIA/NEOCON narrative.


Statista, claiming to be current stats*-

Key points: -From very early in 2023 -Much is estimated -NATO values include entire US military And -Key point is even then Russia was basically equal to all of NATO in ground forces and equipment.

Care to guess what has happened to much NATO equipment in the last year?

How about Ru production of mil?

Or Ru volunteer returning forces? Vs alllll of the West suffering mass cashing out and terrible recruiting figures while also strpngly pushing woke as mil priority and shoving out the trad pool of fighting forces.

I cannot imagine why we are laughing at this yahoo 💁😹💃💯🤦

*Survey time period 2023

Supplementary notes *Information taken from this SIPRI press release (as of January 2022). The values for the USA, France and the United Kingdom were added together for the information for NATO.

Status of all other information: beginning of 2023; Data retrieved on March 24, 2023.

The figures for NATO were calculated using the figures for the individual member states. Information may be partially estimated according to the source

Comparison of the military capabilities of NATO and Russia 2023 Published by Statista Research Department, Mar 30, 2023 As of 2023, NATO had approximately 3.36 million active military personnel compared with 1.33 million active military personnel in the Russian military. The collective military capabilities of the 30 countries that make up NATO outnumber Russia in terms of aircraft, at 20,633 to 4,182, and in naval power, with 2,151 military ships, to 598. Russia's ground combat vehicle capacity is more competitive, however, with 12,566 main battle tanks, to 12,408. The combined nuclear arsenal of the United States, United Kingdom, and France amounted to 5,943 nuclear warheads, compared with Russia's 5,977.

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

When I'm looking at military numbers I kind of expect to find they've been compiled by, you know, military analysts. The first source provided from our new friend clearly is not a military analyst and I can't tell who compiled the second bit of data because they're not identified.

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

while also strpngly pushing woke as mil priority and shoving out the trad pool of fighting forces.

This is the utterly insane part to me. Did no one realize this would be a bad idea while we're fighting a proxy war in Ukraine and lighting fires in multiple other places that boots on the ground may ultimately have to put out?

The people in charge have been sniffing their own effluvium for too long, it's addled their brains.

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

OK - thanks for the counter argument - but none of this explains how Russia would beat an adversary that has five times the military capacity. Other countries would have to help Russia, and for that to potentially happen, and those countries would have to forego their trade relationships with NATO countries. Not going to happen, over a relatively minor part of territory in Ukraine. Everyone expects Russia and NATO countries to play the long game, to string out the offensive timeline in Ukraine. Various military industrial complexes benefit from this, while China gets cheap food, and India gets cheap oil. Everyone, except the Ukrainians are getting a piece of the war machine pie. It makes no sense to escalate tensions. If Russia were to do that, they would be isolated and defeated, unless China and/or India stupidly helped Russia. The other problem is nuclear bomb and missile responses, which would be devastating for everyone involved, and incredibly stupid.

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

but none of this explains how Russia would beat an adversary that has five times the military capacity.

Because I think your premise is bunk. But we'll see who's right in the event such a head-on confrontation comes to pass.

those countries would have to forego their trade relationships with NATO countries. Not going to happen

I don't agree that Russia would have to rely on other countries, and I certainly disagree that in the event it were necessary other countries would not come to their aid. Russia has more friends throughout the world than the West does, they are benefiting now from relationships established during the Soviet era throughout the global south. And in case you hadn't noticed, many countries in the "Rest of the World" are lining up to join BRICS; and while it's true all its members - including Russia and China - haven't closed the door on trading with the West, they are also setting up a system where they can engage in trade according to each member's own national interests without having to tolerate Western bullies telling them what they can and cannot do.

It makes no sense to escalate tensions. If Russia were to do that

They're not planning to, but they've said they will achieve the objectives they set out at the beginning of the war. They've also said they will not attack NATO countries UNLESS those countries attack them first. As for nukes, I think the greatest danger is from the US where you have utter morons talking about "limited nuclear war" being an option.

The non-Western world is watching what the West has tried to do to Russia because they realize it can and in some cases has already been done to them - the seizing of Russia's reserves, the attempt to destroy the Russian economy with sanctions, the 2014 coup that led to a civil war on its borders.

Sanctions are considered economic warfare and a violation of international law but as everyone knows, the West routinely violates international law in favor of the more pliable "rules-based order" - as one pundit put it, we make the rules, you follow our orders. So no, I don't think Russia will be isolated; I think they'd get lots of support if they ended up taking on the dreaded beast of Western hegemony. Actually, they've already done this by drawing and defending clear lines in the sand about their own survival and security interests.

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

You can't argue with the numbers and with the development of NATO over the decades, and its purpose. Moreover, you seem to think Russia has 5x the power than it does.

[–]sdl5 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Your own source guts your argument-

Did you not actually read and note the sources and dates?

Even then Ru was at parity, perhaps better on the ground.

And THAT data was a year ago, long before Ru spooling up mil production OR the mass blowing up of NATO ground equipment.

And of course there is this key point: Since your premise includes ALL of US mil involved it thus forces a nuclear strike war. Which even the rabid neocons are hesitant to trigger

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Your own source guts your argument-

Nothing wrong with my sources. Nor can you prove that there's anything wrong with them.

Did you not actually read and note the sources and dates?

Not an issue, obviously.

Even then Ru was at parity, perhaps better on the ground.

LOL - in which fucking universe?

And THAT data was a year ago, long before Ru spooling up mil production OR the mass blowing up of NATO ground equipment.

Also ridiculous. All countries have had similar production and replacement schedules. Russia's also lost quite a bit in the Ukraine war.

And of course there is this key point: Since your premise includes ALL of US mil involved it thus forces a nuclear strike war. Which even the rabid neocons are hesitant to trigger

Not an issue. Perhaps re-read my statement. And if you want to discuss nuclear war, everyone knows all sides would lose, but Russia would be especially at a loss. No one wants that.

[–]sdl5 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Right, went to the trouble of logging in to deal with you:

You wouldn't know a dictator if they were running your country- and based on your writing style you are American.... so you clearly HAVE FAILED to recognize we are under dystopian dictatorship rule as I type. 😒

Oh and PS- Russia has been easily destroying the so called mighty NATO at will for TWO FUCKING YEARS. What, you don't know "we" have been in there all along? Ajd being kalibred into dust regularly along with all the equipment? Idiot

Meanwhile, the regular here you attacked is French and lives there. Clearly THEY have a much better grasp.of the sutiation.

You? You sound like a simp for the neocon psyop, and an easy zog mark. Or perhaps worse- you are an NPC lib cuck who is oblivious to the propagandized path they are trotting down rapidly and parroting online.

A REAL PATRIOT fights back against tyranny and involvement in foreign wars.

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

WOW - these comments are from so far up Putin's ass I'm not sure where to begin with a response. Russia will have to retreat from Ukraine. End of story. NATO will always help Ukraine remove the invading, rapist, Nazis.

[–]Maniak🥃😾 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

So you're saying that NATO will help Ukraine get rid of its military and government? Great, finally on the right side of history, good on them. Thanks for the breaking news.

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Do you think NATO countries are not helping, that they're not sending supplies?

[–]sdl5 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Oh pne of THOSE-

Reviewed you past denialist history here, and clearly you are deliberately completely blindered to the horrific history AND CURRENT REALITY of Ukraine.

AND OUR DIRECT INVOLVEMENT AND SUPPORT OF SAME FOR MANY MANY DECADES.

You can live in denial, you can proclaim NATO isn't the bad guys, you can believe Russia will be crushed.... Feel free to stay utterly deluded.

But don't think your idiotic rantings and wild eyed insistence in writing those things HERE will go unmocked and forcefully pushed back against.

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Why do you write in generalities? Be specific.

Russia invaded Ukraine.

Russia must leave.

[–]sdl5 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Parroting the neocon lines.

In short-

Gfy you lying loser.

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

So now you're at a loss for words? Pathetic.

[–]RandomCollection[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It looks like Macron is forced to acknowledge military realities.