French President Emmanuel Macron met with parliamentary parties on Thursday. During the meeting Macron said he was open to the possibility of sending troops to Ukraine, as announced by, according to French newspaper L’Independant.

Fabien Roussel, a representative of the French Communist Party, said after the meeting that “Macron referenced a scenario that could lead to intervention [of French troops]: the advancement of the front towards Odesa or Kyiv.”

He noted that the French President showed parliamentarians maps of the possible directions of strikes by Russian troops in Ukraine.

Following the meeting, Jordan Bardella of the far-right National Rally party noted that “there are no restrictions and no red lines” in Macron’s approach.

    • index@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      53
      ·
      8 months ago

      Someone with “balls” wouldn’t be sit drinking champagne in a suit and send thousand to die out of business. Politicians like this one are actually mentally hill people with mental problems addicted to money and wealth

      • jumjummy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Politicians like Putin? You know the source of all this is Putin himself. He is certainly mentally hill [sic]

        • index@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          They all are, anyone who shakes hand with putin or his friends with a genuine laugh on his face is scum too.

        • BigFig@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          115
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          8 months ago

          I see the two of you don’t understand how a military works then. You don’t join a military, and then bitch and complain if you are sent to fight, it’s literally what you signed up for. If in this specific situation you are not French, you should also probably just keep your mouth shut

          • ElCanut@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            24
            ·
            8 months ago

            Because France is part of NATO and the EU, getting to war with Russia doesn’t only means sending professional troops, but most likely total war where even civilians would be drafted

          • index@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            30
            ·
            8 months ago

            You don’t join a military, and then bitch and complain if you are sent to fight

            Look at yourself, you are talking like an human without soul. People are not robots or machines they join the military because perhaps they believe in justice and want to defend their own people from villains. There’s no justice in fighting a war for business, there’s no justice in fighting wars for corrupted politicians at the expenses of innocent people.

            We are all humans and everyone should be allowed and encouraged to talk not to keep his mouth shout.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              16
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              because perhaps they believe in justice and want to defend their own people from villains.

              So like Putin?

              • index@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                16
                ·
                8 months ago

                Politicians and rulers are bad actors and professional liars who use everything as a leverage to get more wealth and power. Stalin fought the nazi in WWII, was he a good human being? fuck no he was a dictator himself tripping on power.

                Politician who these days call for freedom on one hand while supporting a genocide in the other are scum, it’s not that hard to see.

            • force@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              44
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Finland, Switzerland, Austria, and Greece. These are the European countries with conscription. On paper, Norway and Sweden have conscription, but in all actuality there’s basically no way you get conscripted involuntarily.

                • Jumi@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  12
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  In that case your point either doesn’t make sense or was badly explained. Both are entirely your fault.

            • avater@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              28
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              and you don’t understand the difference between a career soldier and a conscript. Let me enlighten you:

              As a conscript you will be drafted only in a defense situation, an actual war in your own country. Simply spoken when the Russians are at your doorstep.

              A career soldier can send to missions either an official NATO one or one approved by your country’s commanding officer of your army.

              • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                34
                ·
                8 months ago

                As a conscript you will be drafted only in a defense situation, an actual war in your own country. Simply spoken when the Russians are at your doorstep.

                I’m sure all those drafted/conscripts who went to Vietnam totally felt like they were defending their country from imminent attack!

                • avater@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  26
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  you know that this is Europe here, right? But I see you don’t even care, do you?

            • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              8 months ago

              These are not the guys they’ll send out in a war. Unlike Russia, Western nations don’t need cannon fodder.

              • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                25
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                You are right, I forgot, the west would never do that!

                Thinking the wealthy class won’t send you to war has got to but one of the smoothest brain takes I’ve heard all year.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      8 months ago

      Despite all the jokes, The French have won more wars than any other country in history. They were exhausted by the time 1940 rolled around

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        They’re country is right in the middle of one of the areas of the world with the most wars of all time, and it stretches from coast to coast. That alone says a ton.

        • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          You make it sound like France was stuck in with everyone else when thar is infact untrue, everyone else was stuck in with France. After all I doubt a medieval country on the defensive would conquer from fucking Catalonia to fucking Ponnonia and Carinthia. And thats just the start I dont think I need to explain what Napoleon did.

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I can’t make any sense of what you just said. Could you explain further?

      • Olivia@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        They were exhausted by the time 1940 rolled around

        They were not worthy of the mantle of responsibility

        • Gabu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Neither is any current western Nation (maybe Poland and Finland excused)

    • aksdb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Don’t fuck with the French.

      But what if I … oh, you meant that as a figure of speech. Got it.

    • turkishdelight@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      They surrendered to the Germans after putting up a brave fight for ** checks notes ** 5 weeks.

      • Gabu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Meanwhile, 'murica: let’s make a lot of money by selling war machines to both sides :)

      • dylanTheDeveloper@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        It was a good demonstration of the blitzkrieg tactic. Hitting hard and fast with aircraft, tanks and troop carriers without giving the enemy time to regroup or resupply. By the time the French knew what was happening it was too late to mobilize.

        The tactic couldn’t be counted until the opposing side had enough firepower to stall it which would’ve taken too long and by that time defeat is a guarantee.

        Soviets were given tanks, aircraft, factories, everything they needed to counter the Germans later in the war which halted their army and that’s when the blitzkrieg fell apart.

        Blitzkrieg is effective but only when your moving faster than the enemy can regroup and counter

        • DdCno1@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Except that most German units were not motorized and highly reliant on horse-drawn carts. French tanks were more numerous, better armed and better armored - but they were used less effectively. France was fighting WW1 part deux, whereas Germany was using their inferior equipment more effectively. The entire thing was still a gamble and by no means the foregone conclusion at the start.

          • summerof69@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            26
            ·
            8 months ago

            AI? I took this photo myself when I was in France during the croissant harvesting season!

            • jaemo@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              8 months ago

              Wait. Was this taken in the Croissante region? It’s just that they’re very particular about this, and I just want to make sure those are, in fact, croissant fields, and not sparkling crescent rolls.

              • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                Also his left hand only has 3 fingers. Either that or the pinky has a similar texture to the ground. Hard to tell based on the lighting.

                • rustydomino@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  that’s because harvesting croissants uses really dangerous sharp tools to cut them off the stems and workers lose digits all the time. It’s why the French have great single payer healthcare.

            • WindyRebel@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              Maybe, but if you look at the man’s left hand then is he Jesus? What is that? A weird watch or a stake?

  • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    As much as I dislike Macron, I’ll just remember that he was one of the European leaders that was favoring finding a diplomatic solution the most during the earlier weeks of the war. He’s probably being more opportunistic than brave, honest or committed, but at least you can’t accuse him of being a bloodlusting warmonger.

      • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Of course. I don’t think Macron was in the wrong for trying, as long as Ukraine was being supplied at the same time.

    • el_bhm@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      With The Nazi Mafia state you have to posture, huff and puff like in the olden days of Imperialism. You know, the childish game inbred kings and bishops used to play.

      You know, the days that Poland, Germany, Great Britain, Spain, France (past European super powers), forgot. Because they came to the conclusion that Imperialism is over.

      But Nazi russia is gonna peddle nazi imperialism. If people are close to revolt, send young to slaughter. It will fizzle out.

    • index@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      8 months ago

      He’s probably being more opportunistic than brave, honest or committed, but at least you can’t accuse him of being a bloodlusting warmonger.

      He’s literally waging war right now. Were have you been in the past 10 years where he has beaten and repressed a million of his own people and passed all sort of authoritarians law?

      • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        His policies make him a selfish neoliberal cunt, which is also pretty bad, but not quite a bloodlusting warmonger.

    • Allero@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      8 months ago

      That could be called balls if he would take the rifle himself.

      Otherwise, it’s political play - maybe a necessary one, but it has nothing to do with “balls”.

      • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        It 100% is a political play but you must remeber thats what the armed forces of france signed up for they signed up to fight on behalf of the political power. Not one single other western country has even mentioned sending troops regardless of if he is the one holding a rifle (i suspect many of said troops being sent wont be doing such things they will most likly be engineers to support the western equipment) that is a ballsy political move and it should not be disregarded.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Or at least talks the talk. No one has much faith in him to actually follow through though.

      • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Hes broken the seal on saying it hopefully a slightly more anti russian country (caugh caugh poland) will step up and let the people rape and kill their way across russia as they have wanted to for almost 100 years.

  • Chocrates@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    Following the meeting, Jordan Bardella of the far-right National Rally party noted that “there are no restrictions and no red lines” in Macron’s approach.

    I don’t know what this means, but it seems like a win for Ukraine, ofc it is just talk right now.

    • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      8 months ago

      And it most likely will remain talk. Macron would help Ukraine more by helping to set up a robust military supply chain for Ukraine.

    • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s a reference to russian speakers’ ‘red lines’ when foreign parties and Ukraine did something to cross them multiple times, but there was nothing in reaction. Ex-USSR folks started to call it brown lines for how they shit themselves with that rhetoric. I believe, even pro-war fanatics called them that at some point.

    • BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yeah it really is. It’s apparently pissing off Germany in particular within the EU - versus it’s size and other nations, France has provided relatively little in aid compared to Germany, UK, US, and Macron initially undermined the joint front being put forward as you say. Now he is grandstanding and seemingly trying to “lead” while also seemingly advocating escalation.

      Everyone else is treading a fine line between confronting Putin and not escalating things further.

      For what it’s worth, I actually do think we should be doing more because Putin is a dangerous tyrant and appeasement over the past 20 years hasn’t worked. He invaded Georgia and now Ukraine twice, he interferes in global elections undermining democracy and he is an authoritarian dictator who wants to expand his influence further into his neighbours. But Macron is not a credible leader for that, and whatever happens needs to be co-ordinated and carefully actioned - where there is more sanctions, or targeted military support.

      Sadly the US, UK and Germany are also all led by weak leaders and for now there is no credible leader to galvanise western democracies to work better together. I don’t see any strong up and coming leaders in the forthcoming UK and US elections (barring a surprise in the US elections given the age of the candidates; and even then it’d likely be Kamala Harris or Nikki Haley, neither of whom seem likely to be much difference), Germany is unlikely to yield a leader in the near future. That does ironically leave the next French presidential election as the best opportunity for someone better to emerge, but I suspect it will degenerate into another “anyone but Le Pen” election.

      • PrimeMinisterKeyes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Russia’s hot engagements in Burkina Faso, Central Africa, Mali and Syria, the various degrees of meddling in e.g. Armenia, Moldova and Yemen, and the 20 years of general political “influencing” all across Africa and the Arab countries are often neglected. This is why parts of the Western public don’t understand the need to contain Russia. It’s a wannabe worldwide player, and it’s corrupt as hell. Allowed to have its way, it’ll turn every country into a vassal autocracy, Soviet-union style.

    • AMDIsOurLord@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Macron is highly inconsistent because dude pays a bunch of consulting companies, he’s basically their mouthpiece at this point. There is a political compass meme that shows just how much contradictory bullshit he has said.

      If the wind starts to smell like a Russian victory he’d throw himself under Russian balls

    • neidu2@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yup, but now that Putin managed to do so himself, Macron doesn’t need to avoid it anymore.

      “Besides, I think that Napoleon guy was on to something”

  • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    I hope this makes Putin’s stomach churn, as if his piss wasn’t frothy enough since the start of this war revealed some of his navy was missing before they even began.

      • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yeah the only Russian Aircraft Carrier was completely immobile, the person in charge of overseeing repairs was charged with embezzling 45 Million Rubles, and that’s only just the start of it. They were missing fuel, rations, winter clothes, you name it.

        • Spacehooks@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I keep reading stuff like this and Makes you really wonder how Russia was such a threat on paper and still fighting in Ukraine. Like what else is shotty or actively being embezzled right now.

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Oh, ok. He didn’t have what he was told on paper. It’s not so much that Navy personnel went AWOL, it’s more that the actual capabilities of the Navy were greatly exaggerated on paper?

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Not sure what they meant specifically, but maybe it was that some of their navy only existed in paper? I know that was the case for a lot of bits and pieces of their military in general but didn’t realize it might apply to entire ships (which need to be supplied and crewed and seem overly blatant for even Russian corruption, though would be a good “gig” if they could manage it… Up until the point those ships are needed for actual military action).

  • vojel@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    I am in conflict about that move. But Macron at least tries to irritate Putin with his own definition of a „red line“, like „if you push to Odessa or Kyiv we will send troops“ maybe this is just the way of talking to Putin now, Russia always threaten Europe of nuclear strikes, their propaganda shitty tv shows is full of bombing Great Britain and sink the whole island, bombing or conquering Berlin again blah blah. They won’t because they can’t because of NATO and even without the US, Russia is not capable to conquer whole Europe, yet. So I think it is a good move in terms of threatening Putin with nato troops in Ukraine, because this is the only language he understands. On the other hand France is kinda safe when it comes to a conventional war, at least for a long time. Of course Germany is scared because it is not that far away, it is literally just Poland between Germany and russia and the German military is by far not able to fight a war against a well trained army with endless human resources.

    • freebee@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      On the other hand France is kinda safe when it comes to a conventional war, at least for a long time. Of course Germany is scared because it is not that far away, it is literally just Poland between Germany and russia and the German military is by far not able to fight a war against a well trained army with endless human resources.

      France has nukes, Germany doesn’t. Meaning france can say whatever they want, the nuke-threat is empty against other nuke countries.

      If they really wanna play putin’s stupid game, NATO should amass 200.000 troops not in or next to Ukraine, but elsewhere. 50.000 more near scandinavian border, 50.000 more baltics & poland, 50.000 turkey-georgia, 25.000 moldova/romania and, because why not, 25.000 somewhere near bering strait/alaska. All-in, tanks, plane, carriers, stand by on every other accessible border to russia. See how russia really handles that permanent land overstretch in every direction.

      • DdCno1@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Germany has access to American nukes (nuclear sharing - they would be dropped by German pilots), which would be used if Russian tanks came even anywhere close to the border.

        • freebee@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          So it’s trump or Biden calling shots not scholz, big difference. And in most countries with US nukes: there is an American units base maintaining and safeguarding the weapons, it’s a big difference from France or UK and that reflects in politics.

      • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I mean, NATO already does this. NATO countries have troops stationed in Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. It’s a mixture of forces from different NATO countries spread all across the Russian border.

        This exists because none of those nations want to be invaded by Russia, so we keep troops stationed there to protect them from exactly what happened to Ukraine. If Putin wants to go into any of those countries he has to take on fully modernised western militaries to do it. And attacking any NATO member would also lead to a wide front invasion across the board, which the Russian military is not equipped to counter.

        • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          It’s also part of projecting US/NATO air superiority over china and russia. We need to protect forward bases to maintain that pressure.

    • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      it is literally just Poland between Germany and russia

      Poland has one of the most powerful militaries in Europe. If you think Russia’s been struggling in Ukraine, you haven’t seen anything yet. Since Poland joined the EU (and later, NATO) it’s become much more prosperous than it was under Soviet/Russian influence:

      It’s been using that prosperity to spend on military. It’s not the pushover from days of yore any more, and it’s in NATO

      • DdCno1@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        I very much doubt they are in even remotely the same league as France or the UK. The lack of nuclear weapons would be a hint, as would the inability to produce more than basic weapons systems on their own. Don’t get me wrong, they would be able to put up a fierce fight against Russia, but not on their own.

    • AMDIsOurLord@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      full of bombing Great Britain and sink the whole island,

      Well if it was up to me I’d keep Ireland floating

      • el_abuelo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        Which is what they said…GB is England, Scotland & Wales.

        You’re thinking of United Kingdom, which is short for United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

        Note that the island of Ireland is 2 countries and you can’t sink one without sinking the other…unless you saw it in 2 first…

      • scholar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        You clearly haven’t seen the russian tv broadcast showing their plan to nuke the ocean and create a tsunami that covers the british isles - very bond villain

    • merthyr1831@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Personally I wouldn’t fear the Russian army. They’re only barely making incremental gains in Ukraine despite a massive advantage in numbers, artillery, and air power.

      What I do fear is Putin getting scared of NATO calling his bluff and replying to Ukraine, before doing something insanely stupid with the 2000+ nukes in their national stockpile.

    • vinhill@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      There is one important difference when it comes to what rhetoric is suitable between France and Russia, I think. Russia has control over the narrative within it’s land, about the media and limits free speech. If Russia doesn’t follow up on it’s threads, there are no internal consequences and externally, Russia might lose some credibility but still say an unpredictable danger. I think France has a lot more to loose when not following up on their threads / red lines. In terms of diplomacy with other countries, internally with the government appearing weak to its citizens and towards Russia too.

  • whenigrowup356@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    If French troops were sent into Ukraine and were then hit by Russia, would that then trigger NATO agreements?

    Article 6 says:

    "For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

    on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."

    Aware this might be a situation where the spirit of the agreement ends up being more important than the legalese.

    • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      76
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      It would not. It’s a defensive treaty.

      Ukraine isn’t a part of France or under the jurisdiction of France, so the attack wouldn’t be on France’s territory, and Ukraine isn’t a member of NATO itself.

      • Devorlon@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        8 months ago

        Complete speculation but I’d bet that the UK government is so fickle that if France sent in troops then the UK would ‘have’ to send in its own, and by that point the US MiC would be complaining that the US hadn’t sent them in.

        • RunawayFixer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          About the only thing the UK government has done right in the last few years, is getting help to Ukraine. I think the UK was even sending small weapons (shoulder fired rockets) in the first days of the full scale invasion, while most other nations were still waiting to see if Ukraine would buckle or not. And since then they were always early with other significant help: training programs, tanks, … They did well in this case I think.

        • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          No, it’s narrower than that. It only applies to attacks directly on Nato countries. It doesn’t even apply to all of a country’s territories, only within the geographic range specified in the treaty. So for instance didn’t apply to the Falkland War, despite a territory under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom coming under attack. It’s not just any time a country’s troops or interests are under attack. US troops have been attacked many times in Iraq, Syria, and other locations, and Article 5 wasn’t invoked. The only time it was ever invoked by any country was the US after 9/11, which was pretty clearly on US territory. If it applied how you say, it could be used by any country to draw all of the rest into an offensive war, which is clearly against the spirit and words of the article.

          • Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            8 months ago

            Did you read it? Do you care to provide any actual insight into the conversation, or are you just a troll?

            • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              NATO is a defensive alliance. It is specifically designed to prevent a repeat of WW1. Nor will it support military adventurism. For example, the US could invoke Article 5 after 9/11 because the US was attacked on its own territory. The US could not invoke Article 5 when its troops were attacked in Iraq or when it liberated Kuwait. The French cannot invoke Article 5 when it’s troops are attacked in the Magreb. There are also geographic boundaries. The British could not invoke Article 5 when the Falklands were attacked, even though it is British territory, because it is too far south. The French could not invoke Article 5 when it was attacked in Indochina because that was too far east.

              Even when a NATO country is attacked on its own territory, it can’t have initiated hostilities. For example, Poland can’t attack Russian territory, thereby declaring war on Russia, and then invoke Article 5 and expect the rest of NATO to jump in. NATO is purely defensive and voluntary. It was designed mainly to prevent a Soviet invasion of the rest of Europe that wasn’t already behind the Iron Curtain, while also preventing any ally from drawing the rest into a war that could lead to nuclear annihilation. It cannot be “gamed” or misused to draw allies into a war.

            • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              8 months ago

              Read article 6. No. It doesn’t meet the requirements.

              Article 5 is null because if France sends troops, Russia has the right to self defense.

              Also article 5 doesn’t mean anyone has to send troops. It means they have to do what they are willing to do.

              https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm

              I doubt the United States would enter th conflict just because France wants to get in a fight. We have other treaty obligations we have to protect.

              • Killing_Spark@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                Russia is in no position where it needs to “self defend”. Its troops won’t be attacked if its troops leave Ukraine. The right to self defense is what Ukraine is using right now.

    • BearGun@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      [an attack] on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force

      The forces in question need to be attacked somewhere that the treaty protects, which Ukraine is not.

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Trying to solidify a stance of power in the EU due to the unreliability of American aid depending on whether a crackpot dictator or a rational, sane person wins the next election would be my guess.