|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 14, 2024 23:11:14 GMT
What he said, isn't spot on at all. Claiming that he alone is in charge of National Security, are the words of warmongering dictator. When it comes to his country's security, first and foremost, France is a part of NATO and until that ends, he needs to shut the fuck up with all his unilateral posturing. If he's really that brave, then he can pull France out of NATO and then send troops onto the Ukrainian battlefields. Otherwise France will become a valid military target for Russia and Macron will have dragged all the other NATO countries into a war with Russia. And we all know how that ends. Mutually Assured Destruction, has, for 80 years, ensured that there hasn't been a World War III and now we've got some little jumped up prick, thinking he can dictate the West's military agenda ... well he's very much mistaken. What if every other member of NATO decided that they too were going to act independently as and when they saw fit? The alliance would completely collapse and the world would become a much more dangerous place to inhabit. Hopefully he will be removed, the sooner the better. I don’t think this goes against NATO at all. He’s standing up to idle threats from a weak nation. It’s what is needed. He is speaking as a leader of a European country which he has every right to do. There’s absolutely nothing contentious about what he has said. Russia won’t attack France, they can’t beat Ukraine nevermind France 🤣 NATO countries can act independently too (see Iraq).
If he unilaterally puts French troops onto the Ukrainian battlefields, then of course it does.
When you're a part of a military alliance, you act in accordance with the wishes and decisions of that alliance, or else you completely compromise it.
How would you feel if the next time he addresses the French public, he says something like, I dunno, er ...
"My fellow French citizens, I'm pleased to tell you today, that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia's activities once and for all. We begin bombing in five minutes."
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 14, 2024 23:15:07 GMT
I don’t think this goes against NATO at all. He’s standing up to idle threats from a weak nation. It’s what is needed. He is speaking as a leader of a European country which he has every right to do. There’s absolutely nothing contentious about what he has said. Russia won’t attack France, they can’t beat Ukraine nevermind France 🤣 NATO countries can act independently too (see Iraq). If he unilaterally puts French troops onto the Ukrainian battlefields, then of course it does. When you're a part of a military alliance, you act in accordance with the wishes and decisions of that alliance, or else you completely compromise it.
How would you feel if the next time he addresses the French public, he says something like, I dunno, er ... "My fellow French citizens, I'm pleased to tell you today, that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia's activities once and for all. We begin bombing in five minutes."
But he can do that. And that’s a very big stretch from what he’s actually said. You don’t have to act as part of the alliance. And even if that was the case France has a fractious relationship with NATO anyway and wasn’t a member for a long time. So it’s nothing new. Again see Iraq, that wasn’t a unilateral thing was it. It was us and the Americans. I’d hope we’d fucking join. What a silly question 🤣
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 14, 2024 23:17:27 GMT
Every word he has said hits the target.
The west has been weak and what for? For Putin to do whatever the fuck he wants anyway.
Appeasement doesn’t work.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 14, 2024 23:21:51 GMT
If he unilaterally puts French troops onto the Ukrainian battlefields, then of course it does. When you're a part of a military alliance, you act in accordance with the wishes and decisions of that alliance, or else you completely compromise it.
How would you feel if the next time he addresses the French public, he says something like, I dunno, er ... "My fellow French citizens, I'm pleased to tell you today, that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia's activities once and for all. We begin bombing in five minutes."
But he can do that. And that’s a very big stretch from what he’s actually said. You don’t have to act as part of the alliance. And even if that was the case France has a fractious relationship with NATO anyway and wasn’t a member for a long time. So it’s nothing new. Again see Iraq, that wasn’t a unilateral thing was it. It was us and the Americans. I’d hope we’d fucking join. What a silly question 🤣
Of course you have to act in accordance with the alliance that you are part of, especially if it means that that said alliance is going to have to protect your sorry arse, once the kitchen gets too hot for you.
Iraq is a complete straw man. Saddam didn't have the capacity to nuke every major city in Europe at the drop of a hat.
Of course you'd hope we'd join in, you've been itching for it for months, me? I'd like to see my grandchildren grow up.
Putin is a fuckin madman, put him in a corner, where he can't get out with any grace and he'll take us all down.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 14, 2024 23:24:55 GMT
Every word he has said hits the target. The west has been weak and what for? For Putin to do whatever the fuck he wants anyway. Do whatever the fuck he wants? Russia has advanced about 3km in five months and you want to start World War III?
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 14, 2024 23:27:09 GMT
Amazing video. Bad news that Ukraine now relies on their Bradleys for defence. Shows how low they are on shells, missiles and drones. :/ The russians have advanced about ~3 km in 5 months here. Videos show almost 700 lost russian tanks and armoured vehicles, versus ~70 for Ukraine in this part of the front. Bradley’s seem really bad ass? And favoured by the Ukranians alongside the Challenger 2s? Looks like they're mainly using tanks at longer range and Bradleys close up, so the most impressive videos are Bradleys. The crews seem to love both but they're in different brigades so I haven't seen an argument of whether they prefer one or the other! It's muddy right now and the NATO tanks are heavy so that's been a problem.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 14, 2024 23:29:29 GMT
Every word he has said hits the target. The west has been weak and what for? For Putin to do whatever the fuck he wants anyway. Do whatever the fuck he wants? Russia has advanced about 3km in five months and you want to start World War III? I don't know politics too well but I don't want WW3 and IMO that means defeating russia asap. The best way to do that would be for Macron to line up a load of funding to equip Ukraine to defeat russia. I've seen pretty convincing arguments he's doing a good job in dragging people out of the russian propaganda narrative where the west shouldn't do X or Y because it means WW3. By refusing to rule out actions it could affect Russia's planning. If we'd just equipped Ukraine in 2021 with half the budget we've spent so far, then the invasion either wouldn't have happened, or been defeated in 2022. Our pussyfooting around has brought war and made it worse. Like Finland and Sweden shouldn't join NATO etc.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 14, 2024 23:30:28 GMT
But he can do that. And that’s a very big stretch from what he’s actually said. You don’t have to act as part of the alliance. And even if that was the case France has a fractious relationship with NATO anyway and wasn’t a member for a long time. So it’s nothing new. Again see Iraq, that wasn’t a unilateral thing was it. It was us and the Americans. I’d hope we’d fucking join. What a silly question 🤣 Of course you have to act in accordance with the alliance that you are part of, especially if it means that that said alliance is going to have to protect your sorry arse, once the kitchen gets too hot for you. Iraq is a complete straw man. Saddam didn't have the capacity to nuke every major city in Europe at the drop of a hat. Of course you'd hope we'd join in, you've been itching for it for months, me? I'd like to see my grandchildren grow up. Putin is a fuckin madman, put him in a corner, where he can't get out with any grace and he'll take us all down.
You don’t. Iraq being the best example of that. You can act independently. See France in Mali. France would hammer Russia. Why are people actually taking them seriously? It’s not a straw man. It’s a conflict where some big NATO countries didnt join in/agree with what was going on. It wasn’t a NATO mission yet it still happened. Countries can act independently. He would be overthrown before anything would happen. They aren’t stupid and they know they couldn’t win a war against any single biggish nation in NATO. Sweden who just joined would have them on their own. Macron has pitched it wonderfully. Hopefully Scholz will take notice and give them Taurus missiles. And hopefully Macron himself will and send some Mirages. We could end this war pretty sharpish if we backed them properly. This Neville Chamberlain approach isn’t what is needed for Putin or Xi. Arm their enemies to the teeth and stand up to them. It’s the only language they understand. As has been shown.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 14, 2024 23:31:39 GMT
Every word he has said hits the target. The west has been weak and what for? For Putin to do whatever the fuck he wants anyway. Do whatever the fuck he wants? Russia has advanced about 3km in five months and you want to start World War III? Yes he has. And you’re being very dramatic over nothing to be quite Frank.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 14, 2024 23:34:07 GMT
Do whatever the fuck he wants? Russia has advanced about 3km in five months and you want to start World War III? I don't know politics too well but I don't want WW3 and IMO that means defeating russia asap. The best way to do that would be for Macron to line up a load of funding to equip Ukraine to defeat russia. I've seen pretty convincing arguments he's doing a good job in dragging people out of the russian propaganda narrative where the west shouldn't do X or Y because it means WW3. By refusing to rule out actions it could affect Russia's planning. If we'd just equipped Ukraine in 2021 with half the budget we've spent so far, then the invasion either wouldn't have happened, or been defeated in 2022. Our pussyfooting around has brought war and made it worse. Like Finland and Sweden shouldn't join NATO etc. Exactly. Russia mentions red lines. People then cry about them over here. The thing happens. Russia does nothing. Like Finland and Sweden as you say. We were promised that they were a red line and there’d be consequences. There wasn’t. It’s all pretty laughable but seemingly and strangely imo people still buy into it.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 14, 2024 23:38:21 GMT
Do whatever the fuck he wants? Russia has advanced about 3km in five months and you want to start World War III? I don't know politics too well but I don't want WW3 and IMO that means defeating russia asap. The best way to do that would be for Macron to line up a load of funding to equip Ukraine to defeat russia. I've seen pretty convincing arguments he's doing a good job in dragging people out of the russian propaganda narrative where the west shouldn't do X or Y because it means WW3. Like Finland and Sweden shouldn't join NATO etc.
Anybody who has suggested that Finland and Sweden joining NATO would lead to World War III are extremely misguided. I could believe that the Russians have suggested as much but not any serious commentator.
The point I'm making here, isn't specifically to do with any military strategy being right or wrong but rather, that if you are part of being a military alliance, then you have to respect that fact and not go off making military offences unilaterally, especially if that alliance is committed to having to protect you, as soon as you get into a conflict.
If NATO decides by committee, to put troops on the ground in Ukraine, then that is a completely different kettle of fish, to one nation, going of on it's todd.
I've got no issue with dramatically increasing the military funding to Ukraine but to be fair, that wasn't what we were discussing.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 14, 2024 23:40:08 GMT
I retweeted this the other day and it sums it up nicely.
Their threats are meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 14, 2024 23:42:14 GMT
I don't know politics too well but I don't want WW3 and IMO that means defeating russia asap. The best way to do that would be for Macron to line up a load of funding to equip Ukraine to defeat russia. I've seen pretty convincing arguments he's doing a good job in dragging people out of the russian propaganda narrative where the west shouldn't do X or Y because it means WW3. Like Finland and Sweden shouldn't join NATO etc. Anybody who has suggested that Finland and Sweden joining NATO would lead to World War III are extremely misguided. I could believe that the Russians have suggested as much but not any serious commentator. The point I'm making here, isn't specifically to do with any military strategy being right or wrong but rather, that if you are part of being a military alliance, then you have to respect that fact and not go off making military offences unilaterally, especially if that alliance is committed to having to protect you, as soon as you get into a conflict. If NATO decides by committee, to put troops on the ground in Ukraine, then that is a completely different kettle of fish, to one nation, going of on it's todd. I've got no issue with dramatically increasing the military funding to Ukraine but to be fair, that wasn't what we were discussing.
That’s not how it works though Paul. France can do whatever the fuck it wants. It is an independent military power and can act as such. Like any sovereign nation can. Of course how that ends is a different matter but you don’t have to get NATO or in their case EU approval.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 14, 2024 23:44:43 GMT
Of course you have to act in accordance with the alliance that you are part of, especially if it means that that said alliance is going to have to protect your sorry arse, once the kitchen gets too hot for you. Iraq is a complete straw man. Saddam didn't have the capacity to nuke every major city in Europe at the drop of a hat. Of course you'd hope we'd join in, you've been itching for it for months, me? I'd like to see my grandchildren grow up. Putin is a fuckin madman, put him in a corner, where he can't get out with any grace and he'll take us all down.
You don’t. Iraq being the best example of that. You can act independently. See France in Mali. France would hammer Russia. Why are people actually taking them seriously? It’s not a straw man. It’s a conflict where some big NATO countries didnt join in/agree with what was going on. It wasn’t a NATO mission yet it still happened. Countries can act independently. He would be overthrown before anything would happen. They aren’t stupid and they know they couldn’t win a war against any single biggish nation in NATO. Sweden who just joined would have them on their own. Macron has pitched it wonderfully. Hopefully Scholz will take notice and give them Taurus missiles. And hopefully Macron himself will and send some Mirages. We could end this war pretty sharpish if we backed them properly. This Neville Chamberlain approach isn’t what is needed for Putin or Xi. Arm their enemies to the teeth and stand up to them. It’s the only language they understand. As has been shown.
All of that becomes completely moot, once you factor in a) Russia's nuclear arsenal and b) you've got a fuckin madman with his finger on the button, if he doesn't have a dignified retreat available to him.
I've already said that I've got absolutely no issue with arming Ukraine much further but with respect, we were talking about Macron unilaterally sending French troops into battle.
And fuck me, what are you suggesting now about Xi, that we attack China?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 14, 2024 23:48:47 GMT
Anybody who has suggested that Finland and Sweden joining NATO would lead to World War III are extremely misguided. I could believe that the Russians have suggested as much but not any serious commentator. The point I'm making here, isn't specifically to do with any military strategy being right or wrong but rather, that if you are part of being a military alliance, then you have to respect that fact and not go off making military offences unilaterally, especially if that alliance is committed to having to protect you, as soon as you get into a conflict. If NATO decides by committee, to put troops on the ground in Ukraine, then that is a completely different kettle of fish, to one nation, going of on it's todd. I've got no issue with dramatically increasing the military funding to Ukraine but to be fair, that wasn't what we were discussing.
That’s not how it works though Paul. France can do whatever the fuck it wants. It is an independent military power and can act as such. Like any sovereign nation can. Of course how that ends is a different matter but you don’t have to get NATO or in their case EU approval.
It is how it works bayern.
If as a result of France's actions, Russia lops nuclear missiles at Paris, NATO is committed to protecting France.
If Macron wants to leave NATO and alleviate NATO of it's responsibility, then let him do it - he won't mind.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 14, 2024 23:50:45 GMT
You don’t. Iraq being the best example of that. You can act independently. See France in Mali. France would hammer Russia. Why are people actually taking them seriously? It’s not a straw man. It’s a conflict where some big NATO countries didnt join in/agree with what was going on. It wasn’t a NATO mission yet it still happened. Countries can act independently. He would be overthrown before anything would happen. They aren’t stupid and they know they couldn’t win a war against any single biggish nation in NATO. Sweden who just joined would have them on their own. Macron has pitched it wonderfully. Hopefully Scholz will take notice and give them Taurus missiles. And hopefully Macron himself will and send some Mirages. We could end this war pretty sharpish if we backed them properly. This Neville Chamberlain approach isn’t what is needed for Putin or Xi. Arm their enemies to the teeth and stand up to them. It’s the only language they understand. As has been shown. All of that becomes completely moot, once you factor in a) Russia's nuclear arsenal and b) you've got a fuckin madman with his finger on the button, if he doesn't have a dignified retreat available to him.
I've already said that I've got absolutely no issue with arming Ukraine much further but with respect, we were talking about Macron unilaterally sending French troops into battle. And fuck me, what are you suggesting now about Xi, that we attack China? And so do we and they know that and it scares them and him. Xi is like Putin. You have to threaten him. Being all nicey nice doesn’t work. France could invade Ukraine if it wanted to with no support from any other NATO country. I don’t get why that’s so difficult to understand? They are an independent nation and can use their military as they want. Like we can. But I think what he’s said is a million miles away from that. It’s just a threat.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 14, 2024 23:52:18 GMT
That’s not how it works though Paul. France can do whatever the fuck it wants. It is an independent military power and can act as such. Like any sovereign nation can. Of course how that ends is a different matter but you don’t have to get NATO or in their case EU approval. It is how it works bayern. If as a result of France's actions, Russia lops nuclear missiles at Paris, NATO is committed to protecting France. If Macron wants to leave NATO and alleviate NATO of it's responsibility, then let him do it - he won't mind.
It’s not though. It really isn’t. Why wouldn’t he? Like I said the French have a fractious relationship with NATO and have spent many years not in it.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 14, 2024 23:58:12 GMT
It is how it works bayern. If as a result of France's actions, Russia lops nuclear missiles at Paris, NATO is committed to protecting France. If Macron wants to leave NATO and alleviate NATO of it's responsibility, then let him do it - he won't mind.
It’s not though. It really isn’t. Why wouldn’t he? Like I said the French have a fractious relationship with NATO and have spent many years not in it.
You seriously think that NATO would have been okay with us going to defend the Falklands, if Buenos Aries had had the capability to nuke New York in retaliation?
And if you don't believe that Macron would independently send troops to Ukraine, then why do you think Putin will believe it?
It sounds like a pointless threat, from what you are saying.
And how exactly do you think we should 'threaten' China?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 15, 2024 0:03:40 GMT
It’s not though. It really isn’t. Why wouldn’t he? Like I said the French have a fractious relationship with NATO and have spent many years not in it. You seriously think that NATO would have been okay with us going to defend the Falklands, if Buenos Aries had had the capability to nuke New York in retaliation? And if you don't believe that Macron would independently send troops to Ukraine, then why do you think Putin will believe it? It sounds like a pointless threat, from what you are saying.
And how exactly do you think we should 'threaten' China?
Do you really think that if France did whatever it is you think they may do and that the UK and American govts didn’t agree with it that they’d intervene? Of course they wouldn’t. This is why it’s so fanciful and your reaction ott. It’s just part of a game of poker. And Macron is playing a good hand. We should threaten China by arming Taiwan to the teeth and carrying on winding them up like we do by sending aircraft carriers to the South China Sea to show them who’s boss.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 15, 2024 0:11:42 GMT
You seriously think that NATO would have been okay with us going to defend the Falklands, if Buenos Aries had had the capability to nuke New York in retaliation? And if you don't believe that Macron would independently send troops to Ukraine, then why do you think Putin will believe it? It sounds like a pointless threat, from what you are saying.
And how exactly do you think we should 'threaten' China?
Do you really think that if France did whatever it is you think they may do and that the UK and American govts didn’t agree with it that they’d intervene? Of course they wouldn’t. This is why it’s so fanciful and your reaction ott. It’s just part of a game of poker. And Macron is playing a good hand. We should threaten China by arming Taiwan to the teeth and carrying on winding them up like we do by sending aircraft carriers to the South China Sea to show them who’s boss.
If the US and UK governments believed that Macron's unilateral actions could start a nuclear war in Europe, of course they'd get involved.
How can you claim that Macron is playing a good hand of poker, when you've already said, that you yourself don't even believe his threats?
And what if China decided that as a result of our threats in the South China Sea, it was actually they who turned round and decided to show who was 'boss'?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 15, 2024 0:20:24 GMT
Do you really think that if France did whatever it is you think they may do and that the UK and American govts didn’t agree with it that they’d intervene? Of course they wouldn’t. This is why it’s so fanciful and your reaction ott. It’s just part of a game of poker. And Macron is playing a good hand. We should threaten China by arming Taiwan to the teeth and carrying on winding them up like we do by sending aircraft carriers to the South China Sea to show them who’s boss. If the US and UK governments believed that Macron's unilateral actions could start a nuclear war in Europe, of course they'd get involved. How can you claim that Macron is playing a good hand of poker, when you've already said, that you yourself don't even believe his threats? And what if China decided that as a result of our threats in the South China Sea, it was actually they who turned round and decided to show who was 'boss'?
They’d try to stop him first if that’s what they wanted and if they didn’t then it wouldn’t be the act of an individual. Because he’s acting strong. He needs to back it up with some planes. They won’t 🤣🤣 they are surrounded. You have to keep that pressure up. Japan is building aircraft carriers again. Australia is only getting stronger. India would take advantage. Christ even Vietnam have more against the Chinese than with them. China tries to bully them all. They should just accept that? Nah you fight back. We can’t keep appeasing dictators. It doesn’t work, why do you think it does?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 15, 2024 0:36:20 GMT
If the US and UK governments believed that Macron's unilateral actions could start a nuclear war in Europe, of course they'd get involved. How can you claim that Macron is playing a good hand of poker, when you've already said, that you yourself don't even believe his threats? And what if China decided that as a result of our threats in the South China Sea, it was actually they who turned round and decided to show who was 'boss'?
They’d try to stop him first if that’s what they wanted and if they didn’t then it wouldn’t be the act of an individual. Because he’s acting strong. He needs to back it up with some planes. They won’t 🤣🤣 they are surrounded. You have to keep that pressure up. Japan is building aircraft carriers again. Australia is only getting stronger. India would take advantage. Christ even Vietnam have more against the Chinese than with them. China tries to bully them all. They should just accept that? Nah you fight back. We can’t keep appeasing dictators. It doesn’t work, why do you think it does?
You're not answering the question, how is Macron acting strong, if you don't believe his threats?
You've completely missed the thrust of my argument, I've already said, that it's not about a specific military strategy but rather, it is about respecting being in a military alliance, especially if that alliance has pledged to protect you if you get attacked.
If you had said that you believe that Macron is worried about Trump winning in November, thus leaving Ukraine high and dry and as such, we (now) need to be prepared to form a new European military alliance, then I think your argument would have carried more credence but you didn't. It seems to me that you're just itching to blow shit up.
As for Macron sending some planes? Bring it on, if he's so determined that Putin must not win, then why has he been so pathetically short in matching the amount of weaponry that the UK and Germany have supplied to Ukraine?
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Mar 15, 2024 1:01:11 GMT
If people consider Russia to be an existential threat to Peace and Stability in Europe then Macron's words make perfect sense
Of course if people don't believe then the opposite is true
The opposite to what Macron said is that if Russia prevail in the conflict and overruns Ukraine then NATO will accept that as a fait accompli
What Macron said is that NOW NATO troops are not required in Ukraine but left open the ambiguity that if circumstances changed that position might change. Why wouldn't Macron keep all options open rather than declare Red Lines before he's required to do so. He further increased the ambiguity by saying if that eventuality arose France would not act alone.
In my mind Macrons speech were targeting three audiences a) Putin obviously b) fellow EU/NATO leaders to stiffen resolve to provide Ukraine with the Military Support it needs to expel Russia from Ukraine and c) a Political Statement against Russian supporting Le Pen in the upcoming EU Elections and by extention the 2027 Presidential Elections which of course Macron is ineligible to run.
I welcome his intervention
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 15, 2024 1:15:40 GMT
The opposite to what Macron said is that if Russia prevail in the conflict and overruns Ukraine then NATO will accept that as a fait accompli
Does there have to be an opposite, is there not a third option?
Russia has made little in the way of advances, why not maintain that position, rather than jump straight to 'Russia overrunning Ukraine'?
Most analysts seem to think that Russia isn't even capable of overrunning Ukraine as long as the current level of military aid is maintained.
Macron specifically said French troops not NATO troops.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2024 1:29:43 GMT
Macron the first leader since Boris to have some balls and say it how it is, I’m sick to death of leaders pussy footing around Putin. Putins army is weak, poorly and under equipped and would last about a week against NATO. It’s time countries leaders stopped being scared to speak up against him. Russia on its own, yes. I don’t think that China, Iran and North Korea would idly just sit back and let Western European nations + the U.S. destroy Russia though.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Mar 15, 2024 3:00:25 GMT
The opposite to what Macron said is that if Russia prevail in the conflict and overruns Ukraine then NATO will accept that as a fait accompli
Does there have to be an opposite, is there not a third option?
Russia has made little in the way of advances, why not maintain that position, rather than jump straight to 'Russia overrunning Ukraine'?
Most analysts seem to think that Russia isn't even capable of overrunning Ukraine as long as the current level of military aid is maintained.
Macron specifically said French troops not NATO troops.
The third option is what we have right now which is stalemate, it is convenient for US and some in Europe to weaken Russia but not to give Ukraine sufficient Military Equipment to make a decisive difference. In my view this is a risky tactic as the balance can very quickly alter as we have seen in US Senate wavering support. If anything Russia is making advances albeit modest but if it were able to punch through the Eastern defences there would be little to stop them "overrunning Ukraine" A crucial period is approaching in the next couple of months when the weather improves. Every report I read of what Macron said in February and again yesterday was "Western" Troops not "French" Toops, at least that's how he was quited in Le Monde www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2024/03/14/macron-says-russian-ukraine-victory-would-reduce-europe-s-credibility-to-zero_6619721_7.htmlMacron said that responsibility for prompting such a move (sending Western Troops to Ukraine) would lie with Moscow – "It wouldn't be us – and said France would not lead an offensive into Ukraine. But he also said, "Today, to have peace in Ukraine, we must not be weak." As I said originally his speech contained a lot of ambiguity which in my view is the correct approach
|
|
|
Post by scfcno1fan on Mar 15, 2024 6:40:31 GMT
I’d love to see a podcast/live debate between Paul Spencer and Bayern. Who wants to moderate?
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Mar 15, 2024 6:54:06 GMT
There does seem to be more Russian military dissent again with attacks on their own side in the name of freedom. As for Putin he does seem to rule by fear and he does threaten a lot and do nothing so at some point would someone call his bluff and is he really "mad" and are there enough "mad" men for him to survive if he decided to kill us all I don't think his support would standby while he nukes anyone just my opinion of course but he'd by shot before he got to kill half the world
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Mar 15, 2024 7:09:09 GMT
I’d love to see a podcast/live debate between Paul Spencer and Bayern. Who wants to moderate? Paul Spencer, Oggy, Wannabee & Bayern present "The Experts" - A series of live debate with audience interactivity in the form of a weekly vote to determine who wins the title of Most Supercilious this episode. Bought to you by Archewell Entertainment.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Mar 15, 2024 7:38:07 GMT
You don’t. Iraq being the best example of that. You can act independently. See France in Mali. France would hammer Russia. Why are people actually taking them seriously? It’s not a straw man. It’s a conflict where some big NATO countries didnt join in/agree with what was going on. It wasn’t a NATO mission yet it still happened. Countries can act independently. He would be overthrown before anything would happen. They aren’t stupid and they know they couldn’t win a war against any single biggish nation in NATO. Sweden who just joined would have them on their own. Macron has pitched it wonderfully. Hopefully Scholz will take notice and give them Taurus missiles. And hopefully Macron himself will and send some Mirages. We could end this war pretty sharpish if we backed them properly. This Neville Chamberlain approach isn’t what is needed for Putin or Xi. Arm their enemies to the teeth and stand up to them. It’s the only language they understand. As has been shown. All of that becomes completely moot, once you factor in a) Russia's nuclear arsenal and b) you've got a fuckin madman with his finger on the button, if he doesn't have a dignified retreat available to him.
I've already said that I've got absolutely no issue with arming Ukraine much further but with respect, we were talking about Macron unilaterally sending French troops into battle. And fuck me, what are you suggesting now about Xi, that we attack China? The only dignified exit putin should be given is that he won’t be strung up by a lamppost like Mussolini
|
|