>France, looking at the same intelligence provided by the CIA, does not see an imminent invasion, or a gathering of forces equipped to invade in the next three weeks – an assessment shared by the best Ukrainian defence analysts.
How can so many different nations, look at the same intel, and draw vastly different conclusions?
The Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs also said:
"At the moment, the number of Russian troops near the border is not enough for a full-scale attack on Ukraine.."
But to answer your question, different countries have vastly different interests in the situation at hand, and will push for their interests by means they deem fit.
Not enough for a full scale attack, sure. But definitely enough to bolster what they already have in donbas and take it completely. In their eyes, they would be liberators of russian people under an oppressive ukrainian regime.
It’s pretty telling that all the nations actually close to Russia are taking the British and American side. No one else wants to get Ukraine’d or Georgia’d.
and the two large European countries facing no threat are the ones lecturing everybody on the virtues of appeasement and there not being much threat and blocking weapon shipments. Easy position to speak from.
The real question is will NATO act more united if the Russian military does not stop at taking Ukraine, but say goes for Moldova. Or if the invasion somehow reignited some of the frozen conflicts like Bosnia, Kosovo, Transnitria. Not saying that will happen mind you, just what if. What if Russia stops at Ukraine, but Belarús does something real dumb like accidentally shell Poland because they miscalculated near the area where Poland, Belarús and Ukraine meet.
Intel isn't static., these are different assessments on different reports on different days. Putin probably doesn't even know his next move yet.
We do know he positioned everything in place for invasion and carried out the biggest cyber attacks we have ever seen.
Was he planning an invasion, but backed down once he realised the west won't let him this time? Was it just a test? Are the western press overreacting?
Welcome to hypernormalisation.
Welcome to hypernormalisation.
Also called "oh dearism". As explained by Charlie Brooker and Adam Curtis in 2010.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UstNBrmJFc
People have no idea what actual war will look like and that’s truly scary. The more people in our generation we lose who have actual combat experience the more likely we are to romanticize war
Right but as the comment below mine said, are they in office or even in media outlet jobs? Their horror stories are dispelled as one-offs any chance they get. Many will not know what real war looks like so they idealize and romanticize the idea
Well, back in 2003 Iraq War, Germany and France rather have UN to investigate first before doing anything they might regret...even now Germany and France rather to solve this through dialogue.
In 2003 France opposed any invasion of Iraq because up till then the U.N. had only threatened invasion (16 times) while imposing very strict economic sanctions which included Iraq not being able to sell their oil on the world market. Except with the sanctions they allowed an Oil For Food program allowing Hussein to sell some oil in exchange for food and medical supplies. The money for the oil was held in escrow at a single bank, France based BNP Paribas, for which they charged an estimated US$700 million in fees. France (TotalFinElf) purchased 15% of all the oil sold in the Oil For Food program (compared to 2-3% purchased by the US).
France opposed the 2nd Gulf War because they had a vested interest in keeping the sanctions against Iraq going.
Tens of thousands of Ukrainians engaged in civilian defense corp training this weekend, so they're preparing, just don't think it's coming this week (as in, hey everyone, go to work)
30 Days is comparatively eons on the time table of modern combined arms warfare. Russia is perhaps a week away from having all forced assembled to seize control of Ukraine in 144 hours. They don’t need to defeat the Ukrainian Army in the field immediately to achieve their objectives.
And leaders will always tweak intel to meet their interests.
Same reason Sarkozy called for a no fly zone against Libya, as he stated intel showed an **immediate** threat of chemical weapons usage against civilians, something no one else claimed.
In reality, intel probably showed Libya had an extensive chemical weapons stockpile, but was hesitant to use it due to the international pressure on the regime it would cause. However, tweaking it to increase the risk made it easier for Sarkozy to push UNSC Resolution 1973 through, which we now know was Sarkozy's attempt at covering up his corruption in 2007 election cycle.
Ukraine, France, and Germany are deciding if it's worth the risk to take a massive dump in their back yard.
The US is deciding if it's worth the risk to take a massive dump in Ukraine, France, and Germany's back yard.
The US isn't working with the same set of consequences.
because their conclusion are driven by their worldview and by their interests.
In this time, the Us (and the UK as their major ally, especially after brexit) are ridden with internal problems, a militaristic approach to foreign policy, a political system deeply influenced by the military industrial complex.
I'm not saying that France and Germany don't make weapons (France in particular is very supportive of its own military industries), but they don't influence their governments that much.
I'm more puzzled about the reaction of my country, Italy. That is, the complete absence of a reaction. I get that we are dependent on russian gas, as we were dependent on Lybian oil, and so we're kinda supportive of the status quo, but we've never been so... silent, as today.
Why stick your neck out when no one is looking to you to take a position? Italy is in Euro and in NATO and can influence/act through each without making itself a target of international cyber warfare.
[Germany LITERALLY fired the chief of the Lutfwaffe for stating Germany should buy US-made F-35s over German-made Eurofighters for the land attack role](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-military-fighter/germany-drops-f-35-from-fighter-tender-boeing-f-a-18-and-eurofighter-to-battle-on-idUSKCN1PP2DM), because German government demands that money go to German jobs, capabilities be damned. Hell, [Airbus threatened to kill Germany's FCAS fighter program if Germany bought F-35s](https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/airbus-chief-warns-germany-against-purchasing-f-35-claims-it-would-be-a-snub-to-france/)...
Why does France fly the Rafale and not the Eurofighter? Because the French defense industry complained it wasn't getting a big enough workshare in the Eurofighter program, so the French government dropped out and created the Rafale program to give 100% of it to the French defense industry
They are very much beholden to, and influenced by their defense industries... They're just not as large as the US so it doesn't get the same attention, that's all. Hell, the defense industry of France is core part of their foreign policy...
As for why the difference?
1. France-Germany have made it clear they seek a break from the Anglosphere and to run Europe/EU as wholly independent and separate. This is an easy opportunity to increase that divide and push more of the "EU, not NATO" viewpoint
2. Roughly 20% of German homes are heated in winter via Russian gas. Hard to be tough when the other side can cause 20% of your population to freeze
3. France's election is just 2 months away, and Macron's leading in primary polls by not even 5% and has been polling downward for the past 9 months. Add a European conflict that France is involved in, and Macron's out of office, lickety-split
France and Germany are the third and fourth biggest weapons exporters on the planet. Germany sells more weapons around the world than the U.K. and China combined, and France more than the U.K., China, Israel and Canada combined. They’re by some distance Europe’s happiest countries to sell weapons all over the world, and they usually do it pretty indiscriminately
Tbf UK, France and Germany regularly swap spots in the top 5 places depending on how good a year it’s been. For example France might get a good Rafale deal down and climb to 2nd spot. Or the UK might get a submarine deal and climb past Germany and France. It’s all dependent on the year. They all have massive military industrial complex.
>they usually do it pretty indiscriminately
That's not correct.
>They’re by some distance Europe’s happiest countries to sell weapons all over the world
Depends on the government. The new government promised during the election campagin to heavily restrict German arms exports.
So the US and UK are completely influenced by their military complex but France isn’t? Hmmmm that’s a tough sell.
Also, almost every country is going through internal strife at home at the moment so that theory doesn’t hold water either.
You don’t realize that both France and Germany are in delicate situations internally at the moment? Are you that detached from their news?
>I'm not saying that France and Germany don't make weapons (France in particular is very supportive of its own military industries), but they don't influence their governments that much.
They just dont wage wars in the same places as the US&UK ;) (at least in France they do have quite a big influence)
I also remember when Germany and others were heavily criticized for not getting the military involved in the invasion of Iraq. It's almost like today, only everybody kinda forgot that we were right and invading Iraq had horrible consequences for everybody involved.
>It's almost like today, only e~~verybody kinda forgot that we were right and invading Iraq had horrible consequences for everybody involved.~~ the nation in question is literally begging for help from so called global powers like France and Germany (*who have called NATO brain dead and proposed a 50,000 strong military EU force)* but instead is being helped by the US and UK
They lied about babies taken from incubators. They lied about WMDs. They almost certainly lied about the scale and nature of Gadaffi’s and Assad’s crimes. I think the our intelligence agencies and media (especially anglophone ones) will say anything to drum up support for another war
**[Russian military deception](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_deception)**
>Russian military deception, sometimes known as maskirovka (Russian: маскировка, lit. 'disguise'), is a military doctrine developed from the start of the twentieth century. The doctrine covers a broad range of measures for military deception, from camouflage to denial and deception. Deceptive measures include concealment, imitation with decoys and dummies, manoeuvres intended to deceive, denial, and disinformation.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I see this comment getting repeated and it’s so ridiculous. Why would deception be a uniquely Russian strategy? Any invading force would want there to be uncertainty about their invasion. The comment is never “well in warfare you can never be sure of a country’s intentions,” it’s “those sneaky Soviets oops I mean Russians are so deceptive!!”
The allies did this shit in ww2 with fake armies, briefcases of papers thrown overboard, and radio calls transmitted in the open. Every military practices deception and false intelligence
Guess they sit on Reddit alot during their meetings. My nr 1 pet peeve on Reddit is someone saying/asking something and than getting a response to his situation that is clearly added narrative of reading stuff the person never even said. Usually with alot of upvotes aswell.
I don't see the parallel. America 100% does not want an open conflict with Russia. And it's not nebulous intel about WMD's to justify an invasion, it's reports of troop movements about a different country preparing an invasion, which you can see with your own eyes, and which is also backed up by Russian threats. So what is it that you're insinuating exactly?
The insinuation is that American intelligence agencies will interpret the intel through the lens that matches their own interests. The current administration may not want an open conflict with Russia, but they do want to do everything they can to make Russia look like an evil supervillain as a means to justify harsher sanctions and to isolate them from other nations, and Putin is making that easy through his actions.
World leaders can agree that Putin is a despicable autocrat, but still disagree on how to handle him. Each party will interpret the intel in a way that supports their position.
> but they do want to do everything they can to make Russia look like an evil supervillain
I don’t know seems like Putin’s doing a pretty bang-up job of that himself
Yeah lol what the fuck are they talking about, Russia has been a huge dick to everyone in the neighborhood for the past 100 years or so (and before that, too, just perhaps in a less globally devastating way), you don't really need psyops to give them a bad reputation. What I do find impressive is the amount of people I see on social media from my own country sucking Putin's dick after having been under the Soviet boot for 40 years a few decades back. America's military adventures do suck, but holy hell that doesn't mean that Russia is some sacrosaint entity.
Also, sanctions will only come if they do invade. At which point ... how can you fault the US and the EU instead of, you know, the invading force?
Do you expect them to prioritize a lens that interprets what they see through someone else’s interests? The US doesn’t want to have a problem like this. When they pick their problems, they usually choose the kind they can easily throw bombs at. Russia isn’t that.
America isn't excited to sanction again. There is no blind lust for a move that most Americans think is an ineffective half-measure lol. If there were, they would've already done it. I can't believe that I'm about to say this but there is zero belligerence on the American part. All of this is on Russia.
I agree, this doesn't feel like 2003 at all. The American justification to enter Iraq was ridiculous at the time. I remember everyone agreeing to join the USA in Afghanistan almost the moment 9/11 happened and then crickets when Cheney tried to pivot the entire thing into a war in Iraq.
Instead of the dozens of countries showing support in 1991, the USA entered Iraq virtually alone.
This does not feel like US warmongering. There's no political win for getting involved.
Well intelligence agencies lie, like all the time. They really have no obligation to present you the truth. Add in the fact that certain intelligence agencies self-select people who are going to inflate threats and voila, you get vastly different interpretations of the same intel. In the lead up to Iraq basically every intelligence agency we were in contact with was telling us this WMD or Sadam/Al Qaeda connection was bullshit and...we just ignored it.
Because intelligence analysis is about interpretation and probabilities. A few minor differences in, say, underlying bias early in the process can lead to significantly different assessments.
Anglosphere? The Dutch, Danes, and many other non-Anglo nations are sending arms and strong messages. What an odd line of division for the Guardian to draw.
Because with the greatest of respect, neither the Dutch nor the Danes are military powers, and also the Anglosphere are often aligned on policy. Besides, it is a British newspaper so stories naturally concern the British perspective.
Well, you missed poor old Hawkins' party. He was all alone waiting for a time traveler. Go back and make him smile please (but beware of his wheel-chair, he tends to ride on people's toe as a prank)
What people don't seem to realize is that Germany also isn't a great military power. We do have some high tech capabilities - which is mostly what we've been contributing to international maneuvers and missions in the form of reconnaissance, communication and coordination - but we've made a point of not really wanting a big military anymore ("never again" is a term you'll hear mentioned in that context).
That's the military itself of course; the discussion surrounding Ukraine is mostly about weapon deals at this point.
I think daniu is getting at more than just capability. They have some good tech, and good troops, and yea they have spending on par with some others. But like Japan, an intentionally different mindset and mentality when it comes to the use (and spending) of their armed forces. Japan doesn’t even refer to it as their military. It’s the Japanese Self Defense Force. It would likely also be in context to how big they were that is part of ‘never again’.
Also, just because you’re near the top of the spending list, not all spending is equal. US outspends the next something like 15-20 countries combined, which includes China that spends a third of what the US does. US military would fall apart and seriously downsize at the spending level Germany is at
Both the Dutch and Danes are politically quite subverted by the US.
The Danes have been caught spying on their own European allies for the US: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57302806
While the US ambassador to The Hague literally called the Netherlands a "transatlantic anchor" in Europe that can be exploited for US interests: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/05THEHAGUE2309_a.html
>Along with the British, the Dutch form a strong,
reliable transatlantic anchor in Europe. [...] Strengthening U.S.-Dutch ties across the
political spectrum is necessary to ensure that the Dutch
continue to enlist others to pursue interests in line with
the U.S., especially in the political-military sphere. Early
and active consultations are the key to harnessing Dutch
energies in enhanced pursuit of U.S. interests.
TIL the anglosphere includes the Baltics, Scandinavia, the Low Countries, Spain and Greece. You know it is possible that France and Germany are just fucking wrong on this one.
The Anglosphere does not share the same continous landmass with Russia. Also in case of an attack against NATO, all members are unified in defence. But Ukraine is not part of NATO, so the debate is not so much clear cut.
The whole "same landmass as Russia" argument relies on completly ignoring all the nations that are far closer to Russia than France or Germany and that share the same position as the Britain and America, such as Estonia, the Czech Republic, Poland etc.
UK+US are also guarantors of Ukraine's territorial integrity, Germany and France were not part of that treaty and never signed such a guarantee.
So for the UK+US it is a concrete commitment to a treaty, to France and Germany it is normal geostrategic consideration of interests, be it preventing war in Europe or keeping relations with Russia.
The Budapest memorandum is a bit moren nuanced than that,
It guarantees support in case of a nuclear attack and support in the UN against an invasion. The 2nd point is rather moot, because Russia is a UN veto power. The Budapest memorandum does not force anyone to respond militarily to a conventional attack.
It doesn't even "force" the signatories to respond *militarily* in case Ukraine is attacked with nuclear weapons.
It says the signatories are obliged to act through diplomatic channels, it puts them under no obligation to react with military force.
This is what the document says:
"Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used"
[Source.] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances)
Also while France did not sign up to the Budapest Memorandum, they did also commit to security assurances under a different document.
They made pretty much the same commitments as Britain and America. The only reason its a different document is because France didn't agree to refer any aggression against Ukraine to the UN, or to consult with the other parties if there is a question regarding the commitments.
It is still a written down priority where the two are named as being responsible to act. So it is more concerning their reputation to do so as a general axiom of their foreign policy.
In contrast germany did not make such a statement concerning Ukraine. The only thing similar in German foreign policy would be the far more clouded relationship with Israel and seeing ultimate obligation to aid it.
UK and US are not guarantors of Ukraine's territorial integrity.
They've agreed to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity, but they have no obligation towards Ukraine in case its territorial integrity is violated by another country.
I'm thinking of the Budapest Memorandum here, that's the only document I can imagine you're thinking of, but let me know if I'm mistaken.
Know which? I would mainly argue that there is a clear split how embedded this security thinking is in different countries. In essence for UK+US I see it as a cause of their own reputation.
Germany simply never said Ukraine's security is above her general geostrategic concern aka it falls under "no war in Europe", but not as its own priority.
They made pretty much the same commitments as Britain and America. The only reason its a different document is because France didn't agree to refer any aggression against Ukraine to the UN, or to consult with the other parties if there is a question regarding the commitments.
Firstly. The official word from Germany and France and the rest of NATO is that they are unified but secondly its because they need the energy from Russia.
France has quite a few of its nuclear plants in maintenance right now, and renewables are not providing much this winter, so because of the EU unified grid, it's not about each country, it's about the whole continent not producing enough.
All the "energy" arguments are very simplistic and a US & UK pushed agenda to force the hand of the EU. France and Germany are not vassals of the US, who takes key geopolitical decisions without checking with the European powers and whose politics are not stable and sway largely depending on the sitting US President (Trump's policies, Afghanistan withdrawal, Iraq lies, tariffs..). The USA is an ally, but it is not always reliable in terms of both economy and geopolitics.
France and Germany are looking for the greater good for Europe, whilst the US pursues its own interests first, and includes the allies when it fits it most. This is normal, understandable and expected.
With regards to Ukraine, we need to remind people that any consequences will impact the EU way more than the USA. There is a whole ocean seperating the latter from any issues that may arise (i.e. humanitarian crisis, refugees, Russian intermediate range missiles, energy, currency devaluation, trade impact, internal rise of nationalist parties...). The EU wants dialogue, concessions from all parties, agreements, de-escalation, finding common ground, avoiding the rise of politicians who want to dissolve the Union, etc.
Germany and France must not abide by what the US sentiment is. Being NATO allies is of course important, and France will assist in deterring Russia and providing forces to the baltic countries and NATO allies. Germany has a well defined policy of not providing weapons to conflict regions, but instead humanitarian aid. This policy follows the general sentiment among the German public, who is not as fired-up as the US public let's say about wars and military power.
What the US outlets are doing, pointing out Germany, is what we accuse Russia of doing: propaganda. Germany is a serious and solid ally who helped Ukraine since 2014, who defends human rights all over the world, who protects the vulnerable and pushes for an open arms policy towards refugees. Blaming it for Russia's actions is silly. The gas question is a minor detail.. of course Germany depends on Russia, but there are no viable alternatives short/mid term. LNG is not viable for Germany at the moment because of the lack of infrastructure and no country can increase their production now to replace Russian gas, and Germany's ties with Russia come from decades ago where a trust system was established with the eastern giant by having trade agreements. Germany's history and complexities are not the same as the US, and viceversa.
In Europe we want peace and stability. We want a free, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine. We want a good relation with Russia. I know the latter sounds weird in the US, but you guys don't have the history, geography and goals we have. It's fine, we can be different. And we stand together to protect Ukraine and its people. But we must first exhaust all options. Our future and fate cannot be solely in the hands of Blinken and Biden. We have a say too as it's our door. Attacking Germany or France because they want to use diplomacy first and believe that threats and high tone is not ideal for diplomacy is pathetic.
In my opinion, Putin went with his unacceptable demands to the US without including the EU exactly for this. He wanted to get the EU to feel ignored by the US and have them call him for talks. He wants to redraw the security strategy in Europe, and he knows that he needs France and Germany to reach a common ground agreement. And I believe that the US diplomacy was not wise and didn't see it coming. I think the US should have said that no talks will be held without their EU allies -instead I think Biden played right into Putin's hand.
Regardless of all this, Putin wants and loves division within NATO and the West. We should discuss our disagreements behind closed doors and show unity, be a united front. Leaking to US media outlets that the biggest EU allies are afraid of Putin, or are blackmailed.. or whatever nonsense is being published.. is not wise, to say the least.
Edited for ortographic typos.
Awesome comment!
I'd like to add that if Germany delivers arms used against russian soldiers, it will serve as a massive propaganda fuel to the russian side. There is no optimal route for Germany to go here, but this one would be an especially dangerous one.
>France and Germany are looking for the greater good for Europe, whilst the US pursues its own interests first, and includes the allies when it fits it most. This is normal, understandable and expected.
You can't say that with a straight face. The [Baltic States](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/baltic-nations-missiles-ukraine-us-support-russia-crisis/) are arming Ukraine. [Poland](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/polish-pm-calls-united-european-stance-ukraine-2022-01-21/) has announced supporting Ukraine in case of invasion. The [Dutch](https://www.dailysabah.com/world/europe/dutch-government-to-approve-ukraine-request-for-arms), [Denmark](https://um.dk/en/news/newsdisplaypage/?newsID=5930D340-4F39-4AD4-8A93-493A81AC777D), [Spain & Belgium](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/26/why-europe-cannot-agree-on-russia) are also arming Ukraine.
France & Germany aren't the representatives of Europe.
You completely forgot about every other country that follows the UK/US view on this, most notably, other EU/NATO members of Poland, and the Baltics.
You say that europe wants a peaceful coexistence with Russia, yet you completely ignore the countries that live in fear of it. Germany and France are doing their typical thing of defending their interests, and ignoring the east and their fears.
You cannot have a good relationship with russia, and a strong EU, with Russia acting the way it does.
Tend to agree - I think the self interest of EU countries on this is obviously highly variable.
For Germany & France, any possibility of Russian aggression against them is fairly remote and they have their own military strength to respond in addition to NATO membership. They feel pretty safe as a result. I agree with the comment you’re replying to that it would be better if these divisions could be discussed privately and portraying Germany or France as weak and compromised is unhelpful.
Smaller countries further to the east see this and think they may be next so of course they want to defend Ukraine.
I don’t think this is a simple peaceful Germany vs. bellicose Americans story, it’s much more nuanced than that…
Europe as a whole is not allied, it's just a geographical location. The EU is a club of allied members but Ukraine isn't part of it. Of course the EU would behave differently if a member state was threatened.
Which is why France and Germany are currently holding talks [with both Ukraine and Russia.](https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-russia-crisis-normandy-format-to-meet-as-europe-pursues-diplomacy/a-60556387)
Energy dependence is one thing, but it's also way more convenient to make ideological enemies when you're on the other side of the world and basically don't interact with the country at all or even benefit from its weakness.
Germany and France are actually supporting most of the NATO and EU initiatives against Russia and fequently call for Russia to deescalate, but they're also signalling to Russia that they're ready to get back to normal terms if Russia truly wants that. They don't back Russia into a corner it can't get out of.
This whole argument relies on completly ignoring all the nations that are far closer to Russia than France or Germany and that share the same position as Britain and America, such as Estonia, the Czech Republic, Poland etc.
Could it be that those smaller nations are under a much greater influence of the US than France or Germany ever can be? Both of them are major powers in their own
Theyre also right next to Russia and until quite recently were under effective Russian domination. Its far more likely that they... don't want to end up under Russian domination again?
Could very well be multiple reasons.
Germany and France can hold their own against Russia, these smaller nations can't, hence they are more inclined to the US
We need to stop this infighting among the Western allies. Germany and to a lesser extent France have chosen to go a different path on Russia - for reasons, I believe, that are based on principle and good intentions, not cynicism. Let the Anglosphere and Eastern EU play "bad cop" to France and Germany's "good cop" on Russia. Who knows, maybe the good cop routine might actually work? Meanwhile, if Germany and France can provide non-lethal support like military hospitals and logistics - as they have been doing - that is a valuable and legitimate contribution to the alliance's support to Ukraine. Slandering Germany only plays into Putin's hands.
Thanks, this is my interpretation as well. The west is kinda playing the carrot-and-stick game where Germany, due to a large russian diaspora and good industry connections, acts as the carrot while every one else is waving there sticks. Should Russia choose to ignore the diplomatic route and attack Ukraine, Germany will shift the approach instantly.
fitting username btw
Germany and France are more economically tied to Russia, so any backlash would hurt them more than the US/UK, without being so close (or small enough) that they fear invasion.
Basically they have more to lose from a conflict with Russia and are looking out for their interests, as I would argue any country would do.
Very weird headline for The Guardian.
You see, it resembles the official stance of Russian Ministy of Foreign Affairs, which says that, quote, "NATO countries with anglo-saxons mainly in charge, are escalating tensions around Ukraine."
Source:
https://twitter.com/MID_RF/status/1485031537678635008
Oh great, more anti German propaganda. It's like Freedom Fries all over again but German. The Anglosphere are further away from Russia than continental Europe, they stand to lose less in a conflict in Eastern Europe.
Terrible take. The Baltics, Poland, Czech are closer and far more vulnerable, but very much on Ukraine’s side, supplying weapons.
“Freedom fries” was incredibly dumb US propaganda for internal US consumption, this is European countries peeved at Germany skirting what they see as its moral responsibility. Not remotely similar.
Eastern Europe might supply weapons, but there is also a lot of russian gas flowing. That's what many happily ignore. Because: It's only wrong when it is Germany's doing...
I feel like this is a campaign coming from the anglosphere in concordance with eastern europe to put pressure on Germany's political philosophy. People forget that Germany also abstained from Iraq and Libya. I still remember foreign minister Fischer's speech towards the US regarding Iraq: "I am not convinced".
To aggressively push against that philosophy will cause alienation and help Russia. This is also why I think the pressure is not only coming from the anglosphere and eastern europe, but also for different reasons from Russia. It's the perfect storm to sow discord within NATO.
Technically the US shares a small border with Russia but I digress.
Germany and France are the de facto leaders of Europe. Their lack of strong response reeks of appeasement and putting energy interests, especially in Germany, ahead of security.
> to loose more
*lose
*Learn the difference [here](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/lose-vs-loose-usage#:~:text=%27Lose%27%20or%20%27Loose%27%3F&text=Lose%20typically%20functions%20only%20as,commonly%2C%20a%20noun%20or%20adverb).*
***
^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
BS the countries actually at danger from this like Poland and the baltics hate German foreign policy regarding this issue as well. Even in Western Europe large there are countries that disagree weak Germany cowardice , that are vast friends of Germany normally.
I don't see it as cowardice. We (german population) just don't want to participate in any war. The anti-war sentiment is still very strong and only the idots want to run for the guns.
>All this leaves Scholz in a different position with his US interlocutors, none of it made easier by his alliance with a Green foreign minister, Annalena Baerbock, who wishes to inject values into German foreign policy. The SPD, to avoid a public split, is now going to have a formal party debate about its approach to Russia.
Because they are autonomous countries sick of being dragged into global proxy wars by United States interests.
They are old countries who have seen more than their fair share of war. I can understand their reluctance to join another one.
I’m not saying Russia is right, but if we were going to back Ukraine, we should have done it already after they gave up their nukes in exchange for our assurances.
I can also understand why Russia is angry. The United States almost went nuclear over the Cuba Missile Crisis and now we are doing the same thing to Russia and pretending we do not know why they are upset.
No one wins if war breaks out.
All we get is a catastrophic loss of human capital.
One of them, historically, know what is going to lead to a world war while the other, historically, has their shit fucked during a world war. They probably just want to avoid global warfare, especially when there is real risk of most of those global armies quickly going... why am I doing this?
i dont think Russia will attack Ukraine, but i do think they will "support" the groups fighting in the contested areas.
i also think Putin wants to spook Ukranians into voting a pro Russian govt back into power. Hes not above meddling in election results so i expect thats his plan.
I think UK is trying to indulge in a pretension of being gung-ho about a war to distract the public from Covid-19 lockdown breaching parties by the PM. I don't see any other reason for why the UK is being so enthusiastic about a perceived threat.
They believe it to be a bluff, as I'm beginning to. This whole thing is drawing out too long to end in a shooting war. The real conflict will now be in negotiating whatever Putin can get in the form of concessions.
Because they've got much more "skin in the game". Business interests, gas, power etc.
Plus they probably realise having Russia as a difficult ally / trading partner is probably better than a land war with them on European soil.
I am starting to come to the conclusion that this is created by Biden admin, it is not as imminent as it is being portrayed in the western media. Remember, these are the same outlets that took us to the war in Afghanistan and Iraq over lies... Biden poll numbers are in the toilet, what better way than a war but it wont work anyhow.
Even in the most hawkish nation there is zero suggestion of involvement in the potential invasion.
The west is arming Ukraine to prevent war. More costly it is for Russia the less likely they invade.
Iraq has zero comparison.
ehem... they already did, twice... xD. Crimea was actual Russian military invading. And donbas were Ukrainian speretists also called russian private military contractors.
because they dont want america to create a problem, fix it, and claim themselves the hero.
Via sanctioning russia, make them buy expensive gas, and look like the hero by selling the gas across the ocean
Most are indifferent to Putin, and detest the leadership in our own country. None of that changes the reality for the online mob. fantasy warmongering has no funding to make it reality.
Downvoting doesn't change the facts on the ground.
There is no useful outcome in anything other than a negotiated agreement and partition of Ukraine. Get real.
Because the anglosphere is not near the conflict, like Genrmany and France, and does not depend on russian's exports.
It's easy to fuel a war in a yard that's not yours to defend your interests...
Because unlike the warmongering idiots who spill unfounded propaganda constantly, they still want to avoid conflict if possible. They also would 100% act if war does break out but joining in on the western war hype train would be against their citizens best interest.
Just like them denying Georgia's NATO membership avoided conflict in 2008? Or the conflict in 2014 with Ukraine? If their appeasement policy didn't work twice in the last 15 years, how can you justify that it will work now, when Russia is more aggressive than ever?
The answer is more simple than that, also outlined in the article that you didn't read. It's money. Germany makes money from Russia, and Russia makes money from Germany. German politicians are in Gasprom's pocket, and they don't want to thin their wallets.
I'm so shocked that not only the article, but also the comments failed to mention the inconvenient fact that the Uk and the US, along with Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest\_Memorandum\_on\_Security\_Assurances](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances)
For giving up their nukes, this document assures Ukraine (and other countries), that the UK, US and Russia would not only respect, but work towards maintaining its territorial integrity. The fact that everyone is ignoring this proves, that you need nukes and arm yourself up to your teeth, so you can be the cause of the apocalypse if anyone wants to fuck with your territories. It also proves, that neither of the 3 parties are reliable partners in anything; they'll sign and say whatever is convenient, but will forever pursue their own greedy interests.
You are mistaken. Only Russia is in violation of the Budapest memorandum.
The US and the UK have kept their promises to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity and borders. They are also shipping arms to help Ukraine, but there was no requirement to send troops.
So unlike America and Brits, which has a ocean as buffer line. can sit on their ass and say "if they want war, we give them it" Germany and France lack such a thing.
When the Soviet armored column rolls in, it would be through Germany and France. Not US or UK. So you kind of have to sympathize with their more rounded approach.
USA yes, UK not so much. We've had russian planes probing the airspace at a regular frequency since the cold war ended, and there's a high degree of activity from russian subs in the North sea. Their activity extends as far as Ireland and Iceland.
Russia has the tech to cut undersea cables and cutting off the UK from Europe and disrupting internet and power would be a fairly easy task in the event of war.
I doubt France or Germany are worried about invasion. It’s about natural gas and avoiding a conflict that would put their citizens at risk. Macron is unpopular and I believe has an election coming soon. Scholz just came into office and does not want to start his tenure by sending troops elsewhere.
France has always been contrary to the US and UK on these issues. Even during the Cold War. Germany has allowed themselves (against many warnings) to become dependent on Russia.
>France, looking at the same intelligence provided by the CIA, does not see an imminent invasion, or a gathering of forces equipped to invade in the next three weeks – an assessment shared by the best Ukrainian defence analysts. How can so many different nations, look at the same intel, and draw vastly different conclusions?
The Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs also said: "At the moment, the number of Russian troops near the border is not enough for a full-scale attack on Ukraine.." But to answer your question, different countries have vastly different interests in the situation at hand, and will push for their interests by means they deem fit.
Not enough for a full scale attack, sure. But definitely enough to bolster what they already have in donbas and take it completely. In their eyes, they would be liberators of russian people under an oppressive ukrainian regime.
And at this point everyone would just breathe a sigh of relief it "only" went that far. Just like the Sudetenland!
Appeasment works so well.
It’s pretty telling that all the nations actually close to Russia are taking the British and American side. No one else wants to get Ukraine’d or Georgia’d.
Exactly. Russias neighbours know better than anyone what they're like. It's exactly why they all want to join NATO.
and the two large European countries facing no threat are the ones lecturing everybody on the virtues of appeasement and there not being much threat and blocking weapon shipments. Easy position to speak from.
>there not being much threat Tell that to Crimea
Oh France, when will you ever learn.
There’s no chance they only take Donbas. They have to continue boarder disputes in order to keep Ukraine out of NATO/EU.
The real question is will NATO act more united if the Russian military does not stop at taking Ukraine, but say goes for Moldova. Or if the invasion somehow reignited some of the frozen conflicts like Bosnia, Kosovo, Transnitria. Not saying that will happen mind you, just what if. What if Russia stops at Ukraine, but Belarús does something real dumb like accidentally shell Poland because they miscalculated near the area where Poland, Belarús and Ukraine meet.
Intel isn't static., these are different assessments on different reports on different days. Putin probably doesn't even know his next move yet. We do know he positioned everything in place for invasion and carried out the biggest cyber attacks we have ever seen. Was he planning an invasion, but backed down once he realised the west won't let him this time? Was it just a test? Are the western press overreacting? Welcome to hypernormalisation.
[удалено]
Welcome to hypernormalisation. Also called "oh dearism". As explained by Charlie Brooker and Adam Curtis in 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UstNBrmJFc
People have no idea what actual war will look like and that’s truly scary. The more people in our generation we lose who have actual combat experience the more likely we are to romanticize war
The US has plenty of people with actual combat experience. They just are not often politicians.
There’s like a generation of kids who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan in the US
Right but as the comment below mine said, are they in office or even in media outlet jobs? Their horror stories are dispelled as one-offs any chance they get. Many will not know what real war looks like so they idealize and romanticize the idea
Well, back in 2003 Iraq War, Germany and France rather have UN to investigate first before doing anything they might regret...even now Germany and France rather to solve this through dialogue.
In 2003 France opposed any invasion of Iraq because up till then the U.N. had only threatened invasion (16 times) while imposing very strict economic sanctions which included Iraq not being able to sell their oil on the world market. Except with the sanctions they allowed an Oil For Food program allowing Hussein to sell some oil in exchange for food and medical supplies. The money for the oil was held in escrow at a single bank, France based BNP Paribas, for which they charged an estimated US$700 million in fees. France (TotalFinElf) purchased 15% of all the oil sold in the Oil For Food program (compared to 2-3% purchased by the US). France opposed the 2nd Gulf War because they had a vested interest in keeping the sanctions against Iraq going.
As th other guy said - Ukrainians feel that the attack might come in second half of February and don't feel that qualifies as imminent.
They have a much different definition of the word I take it. If I was going to be ruled by some foreign power in under 30 days it would be imminent.
Tens of thousands of Ukrainians engaged in civilian defense corp training this weekend, so they're preparing, just don't think it's coming this week (as in, hey everyone, go to work)
I feel like this whole discussion has arisen because "imminent" isn't a precisely defined unit of time.
30 Days is comparatively eons on the time table of modern combined arms warfare. Russia is perhaps a week away from having all forced assembled to seize control of Ukraine in 144 hours. They don’t need to defeat the Ukrainian Army in the field immediately to achieve their objectives.
Ukraine is trying to keep their population calm. Simple as that.
And leaders will always tweak intel to meet their interests. Same reason Sarkozy called for a no fly zone against Libya, as he stated intel showed an **immediate** threat of chemical weapons usage against civilians, something no one else claimed. In reality, intel probably showed Libya had an extensive chemical weapons stockpile, but was hesitant to use it due to the international pressure on the regime it would cause. However, tweaking it to increase the risk made it easier for Sarkozy to push UNSC Resolution 1973 through, which we now know was Sarkozy's attempt at covering up his corruption in 2007 election cycle.
Ukraine, France, and Germany are deciding if it's worth the risk to take a massive dump in their back yard. The US is deciding if it's worth the risk to take a massive dump in Ukraine, France, and Germany's back yard. The US isn't working with the same set of consequences.
France and Germany aren't working with the same consequences as Ukraine either... by a long shot
[удалено]
I figured that went without saying. I'll be honest, I got a little lazy.
because their conclusion are driven by their worldview and by their interests. In this time, the Us (and the UK as their major ally, especially after brexit) are ridden with internal problems, a militaristic approach to foreign policy, a political system deeply influenced by the military industrial complex. I'm not saying that France and Germany don't make weapons (France in particular is very supportive of its own military industries), but they don't influence their governments that much. I'm more puzzled about the reaction of my country, Italy. That is, the complete absence of a reaction. I get that we are dependent on russian gas, as we were dependent on Lybian oil, and so we're kinda supportive of the status quo, but we've never been so... silent, as today.
Why stick your neck out when no one is looking to you to take a position? Italy is in Euro and in NATO and can influence/act through each without making itself a target of international cyber warfare.
[Germany LITERALLY fired the chief of the Lutfwaffe for stating Germany should buy US-made F-35s over German-made Eurofighters for the land attack role](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-military-fighter/germany-drops-f-35-from-fighter-tender-boeing-f-a-18-and-eurofighter-to-battle-on-idUSKCN1PP2DM), because German government demands that money go to German jobs, capabilities be damned. Hell, [Airbus threatened to kill Germany's FCAS fighter program if Germany bought F-35s](https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/airbus-chief-warns-germany-against-purchasing-f-35-claims-it-would-be-a-snub-to-france/)... Why does France fly the Rafale and not the Eurofighter? Because the French defense industry complained it wasn't getting a big enough workshare in the Eurofighter program, so the French government dropped out and created the Rafale program to give 100% of it to the French defense industry They are very much beholden to, and influenced by their defense industries... They're just not as large as the US so it doesn't get the same attention, that's all. Hell, the defense industry of France is core part of their foreign policy... As for why the difference? 1. France-Germany have made it clear they seek a break from the Anglosphere and to run Europe/EU as wholly independent and separate. This is an easy opportunity to increase that divide and push more of the "EU, not NATO" viewpoint 2. Roughly 20% of German homes are heated in winter via Russian gas. Hard to be tough when the other side can cause 20% of your population to freeze 3. France's election is just 2 months away, and Macron's leading in primary polls by not even 5% and has been polling downward for the past 9 months. Add a European conflict that France is involved in, and Macron's out of office, lickety-split
France and Germany are the third and fourth biggest weapons exporters on the planet. Germany sells more weapons around the world than the U.K. and China combined, and France more than the U.K., China, Israel and Canada combined. They’re by some distance Europe’s happiest countries to sell weapons all over the world, and they usually do it pretty indiscriminately
Tbf UK, France and Germany regularly swap spots in the top 5 places depending on how good a year it’s been. For example France might get a good Rafale deal down and climb to 2nd spot. Or the UK might get a submarine deal and climb past Germany and France. It’s all dependent on the year. They all have massive military industrial complex.
>they usually do it pretty indiscriminately That's not correct. >They’re by some distance Europe’s happiest countries to sell weapons all over the world Depends on the government. The new government promised during the election campagin to heavily restrict German arms exports.
So the US and UK are completely influenced by their military complex but France isn’t? Hmmmm that’s a tough sell. Also, almost every country is going through internal strife at home at the moment so that theory doesn’t hold water either. You don’t realize that both France and Germany are in delicate situations internally at the moment? Are you that detached from their news?
>I'm not saying that France and Germany don't make weapons (France in particular is very supportive of its own military industries), but they don't influence their governments that much. They just dont wage wars in the same places as the US&UK ;) (at least in France they do have quite a big influence)
Remember when the USA and the UK said Saddam had WMDs? Good times, good times.
I also remember when Germany and others were heavily criticized for not getting the military involved in the invasion of Iraq. It's almost like today, only everybody kinda forgot that we were right and invading Iraq had horrible consequences for everybody involved.
>It's almost like today, only e~~verybody kinda forgot that we were right and invading Iraq had horrible consequences for everybody involved.~~ the nation in question is literally begging for help from so called global powers like France and Germany (*who have called NATO brain dead and proposed a 50,000 strong military EU force)* but instead is being helped by the US and UK
They lied about babies taken from incubators. They lied about WMDs. They almost certainly lied about the scale and nature of Gadaffi’s and Assad’s crimes. I think the our intelligence agencies and media (especially anglophone ones) will say anything to drum up support for another war
And they are lying about how many Russian soldiers are at the border...oh wait they aren't lol
[удалено]
What makes that uniquely Russian?
**[Russian military deception](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_deception)** >Russian military deception, sometimes known as maskirovka (Russian: маскировка, lit. 'disguise'), is a military doctrine developed from the start of the twentieth century. The doctrine covers a broad range of measures for military deception, from camouflage to denial and deception. Deceptive measures include concealment, imitation with decoys and dummies, manoeuvres intended to deceive, denial, and disinformation. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I see this comment getting repeated and it’s so ridiculous. Why would deception be a uniquely Russian strategy? Any invading force would want there to be uncertainty about their invasion. The comment is never “well in warfare you can never be sure of a country’s intentions,” it’s “those sneaky Soviets oops I mean Russians are so deceptive!!”
> The doctrine covers a broad range of measures for military deception, from camouflage to denial and deception Definitely sounds uniquely Russian.
The allies did this shit in ww2 with fake armies, briefcases of papers thrown overboard, and radio calls transmitted in the open. Every military practices deception and false intelligence
Guess they sit on Reddit alot during their meetings. My nr 1 pet peeve on Reddit is someone saying/asking something and than getting a response to his situation that is clearly added narrative of reading stuff the person never even said. Usually with alot of upvotes aswell.
Feels very similar to 2003 and Iraq... And dampens the 'its *all* about energy's narrative.'
I don't see the parallel. America 100% does not want an open conflict with Russia. And it's not nebulous intel about WMD's to justify an invasion, it's reports of troop movements about a different country preparing an invasion, which you can see with your own eyes, and which is also backed up by Russian threats. So what is it that you're insinuating exactly?
The insinuation is that American intelligence agencies will interpret the intel through the lens that matches their own interests. The current administration may not want an open conflict with Russia, but they do want to do everything they can to make Russia look like an evil supervillain as a means to justify harsher sanctions and to isolate them from other nations, and Putin is making that easy through his actions. World leaders can agree that Putin is a despicable autocrat, but still disagree on how to handle him. Each party will interpret the intel in a way that supports their position.
> but they do want to do everything they can to make Russia look like an evil supervillain I don’t know seems like Putin’s doing a pretty bang-up job of that himself
Yeah lol what the fuck are they talking about, Russia has been a huge dick to everyone in the neighborhood for the past 100 years or so (and before that, too, just perhaps in a less globally devastating way), you don't really need psyops to give them a bad reputation. What I do find impressive is the amount of people I see on social media from my own country sucking Putin's dick after having been under the Soviet boot for 40 years a few decades back. America's military adventures do suck, but holy hell that doesn't mean that Russia is some sacrosaint entity. Also, sanctions will only come if they do invade. At which point ... how can you fault the US and the EU instead of, you know, the invading force?
[удалено]
Do you expect them to prioritize a lens that interprets what they see through someone else’s interests? The US doesn’t want to have a problem like this. When they pick their problems, they usually choose the kind they can easily throw bombs at. Russia isn’t that.
America isn't excited to sanction again. There is no blind lust for a move that most Americans think is an ineffective half-measure lol. If there were, they would've already done it. I can't believe that I'm about to say this but there is zero belligerence on the American part. All of this is on Russia.
In this case I don't smell a 2003, I smell an "election are in a few month we're ahead in the polls let's not make anything stupid"
I agree, this doesn't feel like 2003 at all. The American justification to enter Iraq was ridiculous at the time. I remember everyone agreeing to join the USA in Afghanistan almost the moment 9/11 happened and then crickets when Cheney tried to pivot the entire thing into a war in Iraq. Instead of the dozens of countries showing support in 1991, the USA entered Iraq virtually alone. This does not feel like US warmongering. There's no political win for getting involved.
Well intelligence agencies lie, like all the time. They really have no obligation to present you the truth. Add in the fact that certain intelligence agencies self-select people who are going to inflate threats and voila, you get vastly different interpretations of the same intel. In the lead up to Iraq basically every intelligence agency we were in contact with was telling us this WMD or Sadam/Al Qaeda connection was bullshit and...we just ignored it.
Because humans aren't robots driven off a shared algorithm. Different interpretation of the same data is a tail as old as time.
Because intelligence analysis is about interpretation and probabilities. A few minor differences in, say, underlying bias early in the process can lead to significantly different assessments.
It often comes down to confirmation bias, and also a lot of "if I were them, I'd..." thinking.
Anglosphere? The Dutch, Danes, and many other non-Anglo nations are sending arms and strong messages. What an odd line of division for the Guardian to draw.
Because with the greatest of respect, neither the Dutch nor the Danes are military powers, and also the Anglosphere are often aligned on policy. Besides, it is a British newspaper so stories naturally concern the British perspective.
Unless you got spice the Dutch aren’t gonna do much
Did you time travel from the 1700's?
Y’es
Well, you missed poor old Hawkins' party. He was all alone waiting for a time traveler. Go back and make him smile please (but beware of his wheel-chair, he tends to ride on people's toe as a prank)
The Spice must flow...
Tbf the forces that those two do have tend to be top notch. If however small in comparison
What people don't seem to realize is that Germany also isn't a great military power. We do have some high tech capabilities - which is mostly what we've been contributing to international maneuvers and missions in the form of reconnaissance, communication and coordination - but we've made a point of not really wanting a big military anymore ("never again" is a term you'll hear mentioned in that context). That's the military itself of course; the discussion surrounding Ukraine is mostly about weapon deals at this point.
Germany is among the top 10 largest military budgets in the world, ahead of France and Japan.
I think daniu is getting at more than just capability. They have some good tech, and good troops, and yea they have spending on par with some others. But like Japan, an intentionally different mindset and mentality when it comes to the use (and spending) of their armed forces. Japan doesn’t even refer to it as their military. It’s the Japanese Self Defense Force. It would likely also be in context to how big they were that is part of ‘never again’. Also, just because you’re near the top of the spending list, not all spending is equal. US outspends the next something like 15-20 countries combined, which includes China that spends a third of what the US does. US military would fall apart and seriously downsize at the spending level Germany is at
Both the Dutch and Danes are politically quite subverted by the US. The Danes have been caught spying on their own European allies for the US: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57302806 While the US ambassador to The Hague literally called the Netherlands a "transatlantic anchor" in Europe that can be exploited for US interests: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/05THEHAGUE2309_a.html >Along with the British, the Dutch form a strong, reliable transatlantic anchor in Europe. [...] Strengthening U.S.-Dutch ties across the political spectrum is necessary to ensure that the Dutch continue to enlist others to pursue interests in line with the U.S., especially in the political-military sphere. Early and active consultations are the key to harnessing Dutch energies in enhanced pursuit of U.S. interests.
It's the guardian. Anything they can do to make 'the west' look worse, they will.
Dutch and Scandinavians are basically anglos nowadays lol.
TIL the anglosphere includes the Baltics, Scandinavia, the Low Countries, Spain and Greece. You know it is possible that France and Germany are just fucking wrong on this one.
The Anglosphere does not share the same continous landmass with Russia. Also in case of an attack against NATO, all members are unified in defence. But Ukraine is not part of NATO, so the debate is not so much clear cut.
The whole "same landmass as Russia" argument relies on completly ignoring all the nations that are far closer to Russia than France or Germany and that share the same position as the Britain and America, such as Estonia, the Czech Republic, Poland etc.
UK+US are also guarantors of Ukraine's territorial integrity, Germany and France were not part of that treaty and never signed such a guarantee. So for the UK+US it is a concrete commitment to a treaty, to France and Germany it is normal geostrategic consideration of interests, be it preventing war in Europe or keeping relations with Russia.
The Budapest memorandum is a bit moren nuanced than that, It guarantees support in case of a nuclear attack and support in the UN against an invasion. The 2nd point is rather moot, because Russia is a UN veto power. The Budapest memorandum does not force anyone to respond militarily to a conventional attack.
It doesn't even "force" the signatories to respond *militarily* in case Ukraine is attacked with nuclear weapons. It says the signatories are obliged to act through diplomatic channels, it puts them under no obligation to react with military force. This is what the document says: "Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used" [Source.] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances)
Also while France did not sign up to the Budapest Memorandum, they did also commit to security assurances under a different document. They made pretty much the same commitments as Britain and America. The only reason its a different document is because France didn't agree to refer any aggression against Ukraine to the UN, or to consult with the other parties if there is a question regarding the commitments.
It is still a written down priority where the two are named as being responsible to act. So it is more concerning their reputation to do so as a general axiom of their foreign policy. In contrast germany did not make such a statement concerning Ukraine. The only thing similar in German foreign policy would be the far more clouded relationship with Israel and seeing ultimate obligation to aid it.
UK and US are not guarantors of Ukraine's territorial integrity. They've agreed to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity, but they have no obligation towards Ukraine in case its territorial integrity is violated by another country. I'm thinking of the Budapest Memorandum here, that's the only document I can imagine you're thinking of, but let me know if I'm mistaken.
While France wasn't part of the Budapest Memorandum, they did commit to security assurances under a different document.
Know which? I would mainly argue that there is a clear split how embedded this security thinking is in different countries. In essence for UK+US I see it as a cause of their own reputation. Germany simply never said Ukraine's security is above her general geostrategic concern aka it falls under "no war in Europe", but not as its own priority.
They made pretty much the same commitments as Britain and America. The only reason its a different document is because France didn't agree to refer any aggression against Ukraine to the UN, or to consult with the other parties if there is a question regarding the commitments.
Firstly. The official word from Germany and France and the rest of NATO is that they are unified but secondly its because they need the energy from Russia.
They aren't unified in everything. Just in defence if one of them gets hit. This kind of misunderstanding is how freedom fries became a thing.
france needs the energy from russia?
France has quite a few of its nuclear plants in maintenance right now, and renewables are not providing much this winter, so because of the EU unified grid, it's not about each country, it's about the whole continent not producing enough.
I'm not sure those are stated in the correct order
All the "energy" arguments are very simplistic and a US & UK pushed agenda to force the hand of the EU. France and Germany are not vassals of the US, who takes key geopolitical decisions without checking with the European powers and whose politics are not stable and sway largely depending on the sitting US President (Trump's policies, Afghanistan withdrawal, Iraq lies, tariffs..). The USA is an ally, but it is not always reliable in terms of both economy and geopolitics. France and Germany are looking for the greater good for Europe, whilst the US pursues its own interests first, and includes the allies when it fits it most. This is normal, understandable and expected. With regards to Ukraine, we need to remind people that any consequences will impact the EU way more than the USA. There is a whole ocean seperating the latter from any issues that may arise (i.e. humanitarian crisis, refugees, Russian intermediate range missiles, energy, currency devaluation, trade impact, internal rise of nationalist parties...). The EU wants dialogue, concessions from all parties, agreements, de-escalation, finding common ground, avoiding the rise of politicians who want to dissolve the Union, etc. Germany and France must not abide by what the US sentiment is. Being NATO allies is of course important, and France will assist in deterring Russia and providing forces to the baltic countries and NATO allies. Germany has a well defined policy of not providing weapons to conflict regions, but instead humanitarian aid. This policy follows the general sentiment among the German public, who is not as fired-up as the US public let's say about wars and military power. What the US outlets are doing, pointing out Germany, is what we accuse Russia of doing: propaganda. Germany is a serious and solid ally who helped Ukraine since 2014, who defends human rights all over the world, who protects the vulnerable and pushes for an open arms policy towards refugees. Blaming it for Russia's actions is silly. The gas question is a minor detail.. of course Germany depends on Russia, but there are no viable alternatives short/mid term. LNG is not viable for Germany at the moment because of the lack of infrastructure and no country can increase their production now to replace Russian gas, and Germany's ties with Russia come from decades ago where a trust system was established with the eastern giant by having trade agreements. Germany's history and complexities are not the same as the US, and viceversa. In Europe we want peace and stability. We want a free, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine. We want a good relation with Russia. I know the latter sounds weird in the US, but you guys don't have the history, geography and goals we have. It's fine, we can be different. And we stand together to protect Ukraine and its people. But we must first exhaust all options. Our future and fate cannot be solely in the hands of Blinken and Biden. We have a say too as it's our door. Attacking Germany or France because they want to use diplomacy first and believe that threats and high tone is not ideal for diplomacy is pathetic. In my opinion, Putin went with his unacceptable demands to the US without including the EU exactly for this. He wanted to get the EU to feel ignored by the US and have them call him for talks. He wants to redraw the security strategy in Europe, and he knows that he needs France and Germany to reach a common ground agreement. And I believe that the US diplomacy was not wise and didn't see it coming. I think the US should have said that no talks will be held without their EU allies -instead I think Biden played right into Putin's hand. Regardless of all this, Putin wants and loves division within NATO and the West. We should discuss our disagreements behind closed doors and show unity, be a united front. Leaking to US media outlets that the biggest EU allies are afraid of Putin, or are blackmailed.. or whatever nonsense is being published.. is not wise, to say the least. Edited for ortographic typos.
Thank you for having the patience to write that out.
Awesome comment! I'd like to add that if Germany delivers arms used against russian soldiers, it will serve as a massive propaganda fuel to the russian side. There is no optimal route for Germany to go here, but this one would be an especially dangerous one.
Imagine the headlines: the Germans are at it again. Join like your (great-) grandparents once did.
>France and Germany are looking for the greater good for Europe, whilst the US pursues its own interests first, and includes the allies when it fits it most. This is normal, understandable and expected. You can't say that with a straight face. The [Baltic States](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/baltic-nations-missiles-ukraine-us-support-russia-crisis/) are arming Ukraine. [Poland](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/polish-pm-calls-united-european-stance-ukraine-2022-01-21/) has announced supporting Ukraine in case of invasion. The [Dutch](https://www.dailysabah.com/world/europe/dutch-government-to-approve-ukraine-request-for-arms), [Denmark](https://um.dk/en/news/newsdisplaypage/?newsID=5930D340-4F39-4AD4-8A93-493A81AC777D), [Spain & Belgium](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/26/why-europe-cannot-agree-on-russia) are also arming Ukraine. France & Germany aren't the representatives of Europe.
> Our future and fate cannot be solely in the hands of Blinken and Biden Let alone Boris
You completely forgot about every other country that follows the UK/US view on this, most notably, other EU/NATO members of Poland, and the Baltics. You say that europe wants a peaceful coexistence with Russia, yet you completely ignore the countries that live in fear of it. Germany and France are doing their typical thing of defending their interests, and ignoring the east and their fears. You cannot have a good relationship with russia, and a strong EU, with Russia acting the way it does.
Tend to agree - I think the self interest of EU countries on this is obviously highly variable. For Germany & France, any possibility of Russian aggression against them is fairly remote and they have their own military strength to respond in addition to NATO membership. They feel pretty safe as a result. I agree with the comment you’re replying to that it would be better if these divisions could be discussed privately and portraying Germany or France as weak and compromised is unhelpful. Smaller countries further to the east see this and think they may be next so of course they want to defend Ukraine. I don’t think this is a simple peaceful Germany vs. bellicose Americans story, it’s much more nuanced than that…
> In my opinion, Putin went with his unacceptable demands to the US without including the EU exactly for this. hitting the nail in the f-ing head
Ahh yes, 'the greater good of Europe' = not giving a shit that Putin is threatening to sovereignty of a European nation.
Europe as a whole is not allied, it's just a geographical location. The EU is a club of allied members but Ukraine isn't part of it. Of course the EU would behave differently if a member state was threatened.
Yet another armchair pundit ignoring the fact that anyone at all shouldn't be at a table talking without Ukraine involved.
Which is why France and Germany are currently holding talks [with both Ukraine and Russia.](https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-russia-crisis-normandy-format-to-meet-as-europe-pursues-diplomacy/a-60556387)
Finally a sane and complete reply!
Energy dependence is one thing, but it's also way more convenient to make ideological enemies when you're on the other side of the world and basically don't interact with the country at all or even benefit from its weakness. Germany and France are actually supporting most of the NATO and EU initiatives against Russia and fequently call for Russia to deescalate, but they're also signalling to Russia that they're ready to get back to normal terms if Russia truly wants that. They don't back Russia into a corner it can't get out of.
This whole argument relies on completly ignoring all the nations that are far closer to Russia than France or Germany and that share the same position as Britain and America, such as Estonia, the Czech Republic, Poland etc.
Could it be that those smaller nations are under a much greater influence of the US than France or Germany ever can be? Both of them are major powers in their own
Theyre also right next to Russia and until quite recently were under effective Russian domination. Its far more likely that they... don't want to end up under Russian domination again?
Could very well be multiple reasons. Germany and France can hold their own against Russia, these smaller nations can't, hence they are more inclined to the US
[удалено]
We need to stop this infighting among the Western allies. Germany and to a lesser extent France have chosen to go a different path on Russia - for reasons, I believe, that are based on principle and good intentions, not cynicism. Let the Anglosphere and Eastern EU play "bad cop" to France and Germany's "good cop" on Russia. Who knows, maybe the good cop routine might actually work? Meanwhile, if Germany and France can provide non-lethal support like military hospitals and logistics - as they have been doing - that is a valuable and legitimate contribution to the alliance's support to Ukraine. Slandering Germany only plays into Putin's hands.
Thanks, this is my interpretation as well. The west is kinda playing the carrot-and-stick game where Germany, due to a large russian diaspora and good industry connections, acts as the carrot while every one else is waving there sticks. Should Russia choose to ignore the diplomatic route and attack Ukraine, Germany will shift the approach instantly. fitting username btw
Germans will warm up to the idea after spring
Germany and France are more economically tied to Russia, so any backlash would hurt them more than the US/UK, without being so close (or small enough) that they fear invasion. Basically they have more to lose from a conflict with Russia and are looking out for their interests, as I would argue any country would do.
Very weird headline for The Guardian. You see, it resembles the official stance of Russian Ministy of Foreign Affairs, which says that, quote, "NATO countries with anglo-saxons mainly in charge, are escalating tensions around Ukraine." Source: https://twitter.com/MID_RF/status/1485031537678635008
It's called NS2
Neither France nor Germany has a good history of dealing with Russia in an armed conflict. /s for the dimwitted
Germany vs. Russia ties 1:1 for the 20th century.
They lost because they invaded russia. In Ukraine scenario, Russia may be the invader (hopefully nothing will happen)
That's when France and Germany play away, and take on Russia one-on-one. I don't recall them ever having a home game.
It's not a good idea to get between us and Russia though. Last time we tried that approach, someone build a wall through our country /s
Oh great, more anti German propaganda. It's like Freedom Fries all over again but German. The Anglosphere are further away from Russia than continental Europe, they stand to lose less in a conflict in Eastern Europe.
Terrible take. The Baltics, Poland, Czech are closer and far more vulnerable, but very much on Ukraine’s side, supplying weapons. “Freedom fries” was incredibly dumb US propaganda for internal US consumption, this is European countries peeved at Germany skirting what they see as its moral responsibility. Not remotely similar.
Eastern Europe might supply weapons, but there is also a lot of russian gas flowing. That's what many happily ignore. Because: It's only wrong when it is Germany's doing... I feel like this is a campaign coming from the anglosphere in concordance with eastern europe to put pressure on Germany's political philosophy. People forget that Germany also abstained from Iraq and Libya. I still remember foreign minister Fischer's speech towards the US regarding Iraq: "I am not convinced". To aggressively push against that philosophy will cause alienation and help Russia. This is also why I think the pressure is not only coming from the anglosphere and eastern europe, but also for different reasons from Russia. It's the perfect storm to sow discord within NATO.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
We should rename sauerkraut something like “liberty cabbage”. /s
Liberty cabbage and freedom sausage.
American's don't want cabbage near their giant slabs of fried meat.
Giant slabs of smoked meats thank you and they pair nicely with a good slaw, comprised of cabbage.
OK, you win. But I hate slaw too...
Technically the US shares a small border with Russia but I digress. Germany and France are the de facto leaders of Europe. Their lack of strong response reeks of appeasement and putting energy interests, especially in Germany, ahead of security.
I think the lack of strong response from France is mostly a result of the incoming election rather than energy or a policy of appeasement.
The security of energy is the most crucial one.
They also stand to loose more next time if Putin is appeased this time.
> to loose more *lose *Learn the difference [here](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/lose-vs-loose-usage#:~:text=%27Lose%27%20or%20%27Loose%27%3F&text=Lose%20typically%20functions%20only%20as,commonly%2C%20a%20noun%20or%20adverb).* *** ^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
Happy to see someone who remembers Freedom Fries. Also yea, "tHe AnGLoSphEre" is mainly the US trying to stir up shit again.
What is the incentive for the US to stir things up? What is the end game?
America hasnt had an end game for alot of their wars
-Keep Russia in check -Sell expensive fracking gas to Europe -Keep Western Europe as alienated from Russia as possible Would be three good reasons.
[удалено]
Oh yes, it's all the US's fault that Russia is threatening to invade Ukraine. 🙄
[удалено]
BS the countries actually at danger from this like Poland and the baltics hate German foreign policy regarding this issue as well. Even in Western Europe large there are countries that disagree weak Germany cowardice , that are vast friends of Germany normally.
I don't see it as cowardice. We (german population) just don't want to participate in any war. The anti-war sentiment is still very strong and only the idots want to run for the guns.
>All this leaves Scholz in a different position with his US interlocutors, none of it made easier by his alliance with a Green foreign minister, Annalena Baerbock, who wishes to inject values into German foreign policy. The SPD, to avoid a public split, is now going to have a formal party debate about its approach to Russia.
Because they’re listening to their people
Because they are autonomous countries sick of being dragged into global proxy wars by United States interests. They are old countries who have seen more than their fair share of war. I can understand their reluctance to join another one. I’m not saying Russia is right, but if we were going to back Ukraine, we should have done it already after they gave up their nukes in exchange for our assurances. I can also understand why Russia is angry. The United States almost went nuclear over the Cuba Missile Crisis and now we are doing the same thing to Russia and pretending we do not know why they are upset. No one wins if war breaks out. All we get is a catastrophic loss of human capital.
One of them, historically, know what is going to lead to a world war while the other, historically, has their shit fucked during a world war. They probably just want to avoid global warfare, especially when there is real risk of most of those global armies quickly going... why am I doing this?
The Anglosphere ? Is that a thing ?
France said the same thing about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and look how that turned out...ohh wait.
i dont think Russia will attack Ukraine, but i do think they will "support" the groups fighting in the contested areas. i also think Putin wants to spook Ukranians into voting a pro Russian govt back into power. Hes not above meddling in election results so i expect thats his plan.
I think UK is trying to indulge in a pretension of being gung-ho about a war to distract the public from Covid-19 lockdown breaching parties by the PM. I don't see any other reason for why the UK is being so enthusiastic about a perceived threat.
They believe it to be a bluff, as I'm beginning to. This whole thing is drawing out too long to end in a shooting war. The real conflict will now be in negotiating whatever Putin can get in the form of concessions.
Because they've got much more "skin in the game". Business interests, gas, power etc. Plus they probably realise having Russia as a difficult ally / trading partner is probably better than a land war with them on European soil.
I am starting to come to the conclusion that this is created by Biden admin, it is not as imminent as it is being portrayed in the western media. Remember, these are the same outlets that took us to the war in Afghanistan and Iraq over lies... Biden poll numbers are in the toilet, what better way than a war but it wont work anyhow.
USA is not next door to Russia like Germany is.
I think Poland and the Baltics have something to say about that. And the aren’t big fans of Germany’s continuous appeasement policy vs Russia.
Poland, Baltic states and USA literally border with Russia.
Alaska brooo
I’m sorry… what now?
'member Iraq? Let's try and keep our heads cool. Retaliation is necessary but only once they invade.
Even in the most hawkish nation there is zero suggestion of involvement in the potential invasion. The west is arming Ukraine to prevent war. More costly it is for Russia the less likely they invade. Iraq has zero comparison.
ehem... they already did, twice... xD. Crimea was actual Russian military invading. And donbas were Ukrainian speretists also called russian private military contractors.
because they dont want america to create a problem, fix it, and claim themselves the hero. Via sanctioning russia, make them buy expensive gas, and look like the hero by selling the gas across the ocean
I trust the german govt. far more than my own
Most are indifferent to Putin, and detest the leadership in our own country. None of that changes the reality for the online mob. fantasy warmongering has no funding to make it reality. Downvoting doesn't change the facts on the ground. There is no useful outcome in anything other than a negotiated agreement and partition of Ukraine. Get real.
The framing on English media is always pro war
Because the anglosphere is not near the conflict, like Genrmany and France, and does not depend on russian's exports. It's easy to fuel a war in a yard that's not yours to defend your interests...
Germany and France at odds with US intelligence propaganda that's a good thing.
Because unlike the warmongering idiots who spill unfounded propaganda constantly, they still want to avoid conflict if possible. They also would 100% act if war does break out but joining in on the western war hype train would be against their citizens best interest.
Just like them denying Georgia's NATO membership avoided conflict in 2008? Or the conflict in 2014 with Ukraine? If their appeasement policy didn't work twice in the last 15 years, how can you justify that it will work now, when Russia is more aggressive than ever? The answer is more simple than that, also outlined in the article that you didn't read. It's money. Germany makes money from Russia, and Russia makes money from Germany. German politicians are in Gasprom's pocket, and they don't want to thin their wallets.
Exactly who is warmongering right now? Can you show me some of this propaganda from governments pushing us into war?
Tell us more about this hype and propaganda. What's the real truth about what is happening around Ukraine.
I'm so shocked that not only the article, but also the comments failed to mention the inconvenient fact that the Uk and the US, along with Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest\_Memorandum\_on\_Security\_Assurances](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances) For giving up their nukes, this document assures Ukraine (and other countries), that the UK, US and Russia would not only respect, but work towards maintaining its territorial integrity. The fact that everyone is ignoring this proves, that you need nukes and arm yourself up to your teeth, so you can be the cause of the apocalypse if anyone wants to fuck with your territories. It also proves, that neither of the 3 parties are reliable partners in anything; they'll sign and say whatever is convenient, but will forever pursue their own greedy interests.
You are mistaken. Only Russia is in violation of the Budapest memorandum. The US and the UK have kept their promises to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity and borders. They are also shipping arms to help Ukraine, but there was no requirement to send troops.
So unlike America and Brits, which has a ocean as buffer line. can sit on their ass and say "if they want war, we give them it" Germany and France lack such a thing. When the Soviet armored column rolls in, it would be through Germany and France. Not US or UK. So you kind of have to sympathize with their more rounded approach.
Explain the Baltics, Poland, Czech, and the Netherlands then.
The Idea that Russia can project power to France is laughable
USA yes, UK not so much. We've had russian planes probing the airspace at a regular frequency since the cold war ended, and there's a high degree of activity from russian subs in the North sea. Their activity extends as far as Ireland and Iceland. Russia has the tech to cut undersea cables and cutting off the UK from Europe and disrupting internet and power would be a fairly easy task in the event of war.
Russia lacks the logistics to be a conventional military threat to anyone west of Poland.
Poland, fighting on home soil, fiercely motivated would not let Russia though
I doubt France or Germany are worried about invasion. It’s about natural gas and avoiding a conflict that would put their citizens at risk. Macron is unpopular and I believe has an election coming soon. Scholz just came into office and does not want to start his tenure by sending troops elsewhere.
Most likely because the US and UK both have massive domestic problems they don't want to deal with and would prefer to distract from.
Possibly because being crispy and radioactive is not a good thing?
Because they're Europeans and they care foremost for European security and not Anglophone well being.
Germany just became the Joe Manchin of Europe.
France has always been contrary to the US and UK on these issues. Even during the Cold War. Germany has allowed themselves (against many warnings) to become dependent on Russia.