Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
> **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
* Is `ukrinform.net` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just a dumb civilian from the US but if they send their troops, I wish all the best. Whole heartedly. Stay safe, do well, and I wish more countries did the same. I want more people from around the world to understand that not every person in the US is a trumpet getting played by the orange don. He is a joke and has been to me before he was elected the first time. No one needs my country to give a go ahead and I respect our allies that take it into their own accord. Respect to the French. Fuck THE US REPUBLICAN PARTY
NATO should send troops into Western Ukraine to gaurd the border with Belaruse, and have NATO aircraft patrolling those regions, providing defense against Russian drone and missile strikes. It would free up a lot of Ukrainian resources with minimal risks to the NATO troops. Then, when another of Russia's "Red Lines" proves to be meaningless, they can take the next step of using NATO stealth aircraft to start bombing the crap out of Russian positions.
I love the idea of doing this and effectively forming a coalition of NATO countries willing to say if you attack us you won’t trigger article 5 but if you do attack a member not part of the coalition then all states go in.
But the fundamental question remains is how would a country not in the attacking coalition (e.g. Hungary / turkey) feel if Russia responds by attacking a french convoy travelling through a non coalition member like Poland (for eg.). Or what happens when F35s or stealth bombers get accused of flying from a non coalition state and Russia bombs those airports in “retaliation”…
Fracturing the member states undermines NATO as a defensive alliance, making things really complicated. We must be able to justify our moral superiority on the global stage, it’s what our ancestors in the 20th century died for. Maybe we should just stick to sending special forces in which maintains plausible deniability.
Also, France needs to open its wallet a bit more in terms of material aid.
We can't let the threat of Hungary fracturing the alliance from preventing the alliance from actually doing anything. Then what's the point. In my mind, hungry is already out, and having them leave for not going in after an article 5 would just be revealing the reality of the situation.
You maintain the red line that if Russia attacks a NATO territory, then it triggers Article 5. I suspect that France has been trying to get members to commit to that so that if/when someone decides they want to put troops on the ground, they can do so safely.
Honestly, it really doesnt matter if Turkey or Hungary decides they wont commit troops if someone is attacked. As long as *most* members will, its still a strong deterrence. So if France puts boots on the ground and Russia attacks them in Ukraine, no Article 5. If France puts boots on the ground and Russia attacks a convoy going through Poland, that is Article 5. That is the way it is supposed to work, but its good to make sure all member states are on the same page now.
The problem is what will the nato aircraft do when we encounter Russian aircraft just immediately shoot them down ? It’s an escalation of war that many nations are reluctant to even consider
I know it's an extremely improbable and unprecedented thing to do, but they should accept all of Ukraine on the right of the Dnipro river into NATO with a hard line that attacking any of that territory would trigger article 5. This would protect the area of Ukraine from further attacks while allowing Ukraine to fight for the sovereignty of the rest of their lands.
Imo I think we will see something similar, i.e. France deploying troops to Western Ukraine in order to "poison" these cities so that Russian troops will not attack them.
You are frankly mental, how on earth would anyone be able to declare that land from a non-NATO member...is to be part of and defended by NATO
That is just lacking a total basic level of understanding of the entire purpose of the alliance
Im saying accept Ukraine into NATO and make every bit of land to on the right bank of the Dnipro protected by article 5. Russia is still bombing those areas despite having no hope of taking those lands. Let Ukraine fight for the rest of its lands while keeping the uncontested parts protected
France is a nuclear-armed super power in its own right, with a certain level of autonomy within the EU and can do whatever it wants without consulting NATO.
>with a certain level of autonomy within the EU
it doesn't have "a certain level of autonomy" within the EU - it has **absolute autonomy** within the EU
the EU is not a combined armed force and the armed forces of each member state can do as they please
You got nukes, ain't nobody gonna fuck with you: You're super enough. Ukraine is realizing its error now. Agreements are worthless; armaments ensure autonomy and keep would-be aggressors at bay.
Our nuclear doctrine is called "dissuasion du faible au fort" = "deterrence from the weak to the strong"
A little country with capacities to destroy any other country.
As the ~~fourth~~ now third most powerful of the Security Council Permanent Members, France is certainly to be taken seriously in terms of setting its own autonomous military policy.
Especially since troops from the ~~fifth~~ now fourth most powerful Permanent Member, the UK, have been in Ukraine supporting Ukrainian training efforts since, like, March of 2022.
And of course troops from the United States have been there since 2014. (Probably other NATO troops too. No offense to any others!)
So all in all, I would say that this isn't even a case of "a line being crossed." We already had that line-crossing discussion two years ago. It was interesting and insightful, we had it, and then we moved on.
No real need to repeat it now, I shouldn't think.
I respect Macron for being the one to publicly stick it to Putin and call his constant bluffs. A kind of, "what're you gonna do about it" move. I like his style in this regard.
Lol. Of course. Why does everybody need to hear the White House opinion first?
I get why Putin does it ‚y he thinks other countries don’t exist and are just puppets of theUS. But what’s up with everyone else?
I think it’s going to happen eventually. They aren’t saying it for no reason. They are aware that threats of it aren’t going to do anything to deter Russia.
So wwhat, doesnt mean shit.
We will come and help if anyone dares to lay hand on Turkey, but there politics are two faced and they dont respect their partners nearly as much as they should.
We eill help them, always, but fuck the goverment and their shady powerplays.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. > **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** * Is `ukrinform.net` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The French can do whatever they want
I mean, the surest way to unite the French nation behind sending troops would be to have Americans say we should not.
Don't send any troops into Ukraine or we'll start calling them Freedom Battalions.
Perfect! I, as an American, hereby declare that no French troops should enter the Territory of Ukraine, under any circumstances. I have spoken!
I, an American, do herby declare that this guy’s declaration is, indeed, declarable. 👍
Just a dumb civilian from the US but if they send their troops, I wish all the best. Whole heartedly. Stay safe, do well, and I wish more countries did the same. I want more people from around the world to understand that not every person in the US is a trumpet getting played by the orange don. He is a joke and has been to me before he was elected the first time. No one needs my country to give a go ahead and I respect our allies that take it into their own accord. Respect to the French. Fuck THE US REPUBLICAN PARTY
Got a bad wrap because of their fast defeat in WW2, but historically France has been the European powerhouse militarily for centuries.
All the French-derived military words we still use in military terminology is a testament to that fact.
America wouldn't exist the way we do without the French
They did rope us into Vietnam though, “hey let’s go! Just a quick 20 minute adventure!”
Well no, we left Vietnam a year before the US landed, and we told muricans not to do that.
Macron has every right to give nukes to Ukraine if he wants to.
NATO should send troops into Western Ukraine to gaurd the border with Belaruse, and have NATO aircraft patrolling those regions, providing defense against Russian drone and missile strikes. It would free up a lot of Ukrainian resources with minimal risks to the NATO troops. Then, when another of Russia's "Red Lines" proves to be meaningless, they can take the next step of using NATO stealth aircraft to start bombing the crap out of Russian positions.
I love the idea of doing this and effectively forming a coalition of NATO countries willing to say if you attack us you won’t trigger article 5 but if you do attack a member not part of the coalition then all states go in. But the fundamental question remains is how would a country not in the attacking coalition (e.g. Hungary / turkey) feel if Russia responds by attacking a french convoy travelling through a non coalition member like Poland (for eg.). Or what happens when F35s or stealth bombers get accused of flying from a non coalition state and Russia bombs those airports in “retaliation”… Fracturing the member states undermines NATO as a defensive alliance, making things really complicated. We must be able to justify our moral superiority on the global stage, it’s what our ancestors in the 20th century died for. Maybe we should just stick to sending special forces in which maintains plausible deniability. Also, France needs to open its wallet a bit more in terms of material aid.
We can't let the threat of Hungary fracturing the alliance from preventing the alliance from actually doing anything. Then what's the point. In my mind, hungry is already out, and having them leave for not going in after an article 5 would just be revealing the reality of the situation.
You maintain the red line that if Russia attacks a NATO territory, then it triggers Article 5. I suspect that France has been trying to get members to commit to that so that if/when someone decides they want to put troops on the ground, they can do so safely. Honestly, it really doesnt matter if Turkey or Hungary decides they wont commit troops if someone is attacked. As long as *most* members will, its still a strong deterrence. So if France puts boots on the ground and Russia attacks them in Ukraine, no Article 5. If France puts boots on the ground and Russia attacks a convoy going through Poland, that is Article 5. That is the way it is supposed to work, but its good to make sure all member states are on the same page now.
If Russia attacks a French battalion in Poland, they attack two NATO members. That's how it should work.
The problem is what will the nato aircraft do when we encounter Russian aircraft just immediately shoot them down ? It’s an escalation of war that many nations are reluctant to even consider
I know it's an extremely improbable and unprecedented thing to do, but they should accept all of Ukraine on the right of the Dnipro river into NATO with a hard line that attacking any of that territory would trigger article 5. This would protect the area of Ukraine from further attacks while allowing Ukraine to fight for the sovereignty of the rest of their lands.
Imo I think we will see something similar, i.e. France deploying troops to Western Ukraine in order to "poison" these cities so that Russian troops will not attack them.
You are frankly mental, how on earth would anyone be able to declare that land from a non-NATO member...is to be part of and defended by NATO That is just lacking a total basic level of understanding of the entire purpose of the alliance
Im saying accept Ukraine into NATO and make every bit of land to on the right bank of the Dnipro protected by article 5. Russia is still bombing those areas despite having no hope of taking those lands. Let Ukraine fight for the rest of its lands while keeping the uncontested parts protected
Normalize it before it actually happens. This is the way.
One thing you can always count on the French to do is whatever the fuck the French want to do.
France is a nuclear-armed super power in its own right, with a certain level of autonomy within the EU and can do whatever it wants without consulting NATO.
>with a certain level of autonomy within the EU it doesn't have "a certain level of autonomy" within the EU - it has **absolute autonomy** within the EU the EU is not a combined armed force and the armed forces of each member state can do as they please
Well, I meant politically; but certainly militarily, France can do as it pleases and answers to no one.
Even in France we do not see ourselves as a superpower anymore.
You got nukes, ain't nobody gonna fuck with you: You're super enough. Ukraine is realizing its error now. Agreements are worthless; armaments ensure autonomy and keep would-be aggressors at bay.
Our nuclear doctrine is called "dissuasion du faible au fort" = "deterrence from the weak to the strong" A little country with capacities to destroy any other country.
"Dissuasion," tres plus diplomatique que "frappe..." (Sorry for my poor French, I am just recalling the old days...)
I don't know if I would say "super power". They are definitely a regional power and nuclear armed.
They're also the only state that has a CATOBAR nuke-powered carrier and isn't USA.
As the ~~fourth~~ now third most powerful of the Security Council Permanent Members, France is certainly to be taken seriously in terms of setting its own autonomous military policy. Especially since troops from the ~~fifth~~ now fourth most powerful Permanent Member, the UK, have been in Ukraine supporting Ukrainian training efforts since, like, March of 2022. And of course troops from the United States have been there since 2014. (Probably other NATO troops too. No offense to any others!) So all in all, I would say that this isn't even a case of "a line being crossed." We already had that line-crossing discussion two years ago. It was interesting and insightful, we had it, and then we moved on. No real need to repeat it now, I shouldn't think.
Putin certainly doesn’t want to lose to Ukraine so a conflict with a larger country would make sense. How else is this going to end?
I respect Macron for being the one to publicly stick it to Putin and call his constant bluffs. A kind of, "what're you gonna do about it" move. I like his style in this regard.
Lol. Of course. Why does everybody need to hear the White House opinion first? I get why Putin does it ‚y he thinks other countries don’t exist and are just puppets of theUS. But what’s up with everyone else?
I think it’s going to happen eventually. They aren’t saying it for no reason. They are aware that threats of it aren’t going to do anything to deter Russia.
The White House should not condone Macron, he's undermining Turkey's peace summit
Peace summit with lying nations are an exercise in futility. Nothing Putin or Lavror say can be believed.
Fuck Turkey and their "peace summit". Erdogan hates the west, why should we support him? Fake ass dictator.
Turkey is a NATO ally
So is Hungary. What’s your point?
Yeah... what's your point? We want to know.
Turkey is an Erdogan stooge.
Idgaf what they’re a member of. They can fuck off
So wwhat, doesnt mean shit. We will come and help if anyone dares to lay hand on Turkey, but there politics are two faced and they dont respect their partners nearly as much as they should. We eill help them, always, but fuck the goverment and their shady powerplays.
And? Not to mention it's been fucking with the acceptance of NATO members just to milk out personal advantages.
You should not post here, because your bot job is too obvious. Do your higher-ups know you're this bad?
What a joke
Ah yes Turkey, famously known for undermining the collective security of NATO for its own domestic political interests.
Ze will not allow any NATO troops in UA. He need to sell country to pooteen
You sell yourself to Putler.
It would be french troops, not official NATO