Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Duque de Bragança]

Yeah if Putinists or fellow travellers get elected in France or Germany then it's a dire time for Europe.

I wonder to what degree the current shitshow will affect their support.

Not sure Le Pen would choose the option of playing second fiddle to Putin if she and France can play first violin in Europe though. She is, after all, still french.
Melenchon is not an alternative since he's even worse.

Mélenchon is pro-Hamas (for vote-catching reasons as in grabbing the muslim vote in France) and pro-Putin. Selective anti-imperialist of the islamo-leftist persuasion.

[Grey Fox]

A tankie in 21st century parlance.

[Valmy]

Charles de Gaulle would absolutely betray Ukraine to get in Russia's good graces.

Probably not.  De Gaulle might have been similar to Trump in that he was an egotistical maniac, but he wasn't a complete idiot who would uncritically accept any lie fed to him.  While De Gaulle's extreme nationalism might make you wonder why he didn't side with Petain, his vision was of a world where France controlled (or at least was first amoung equals in) some sort of supernational structure, not one where France was dominated by a greater power, be that Germany, the Soviets, the United Kingdom or the United States.

Yes, that is De Gaulle, and if betraying Ukraine would help France and piss of the hated Anglo-Saxons he would do it in a heartbeat. 

 

If you want to believe this, cool. Dude is long dead. But this is a non-existant hypothetical. There currently exists no scenario where betraying Ukraine helps France, or the United States for that matter. I guess the question is would De Gaulle betray Ukraine for some incomprehensibly stupid reason, counter to the interests of France, like the United States is doing right now.

[Duque de Bragança]

A tankie in 21st century parlance.

Tout à fait !

[Jacob]

Caliss, les amis. Chuck c'était pas un paragon de la virtue trans-atlantique là. Vous réagissez comme si Raz viens d'insulter Obama.

I appreciate your French language posts   

It gives me an opportunity to use and potentially improve my not-very-good high school French.   

[Jacob]

Not sure Le Pen would choose the option of playing second fiddle to Putin if she and France can play first violin in Europe though. She is, after all, still french.

Terrible though Le Pen is, the notion that she would maintain French (and European) loyalties over following Putin's lead is slightly hopeful.

[Razgovory]

Charles de Gaulle would absolutely betray Ukraine to get in Russia's good graces.

Probably not.  De Gaulle might have been similar to Trump in that he was an egotistical maniac, but he wasn't a complete idiot who would uncritically accept any lie fed to him.  While De Gaulle's extreme nationalism might make you wonder why he didn't side with Petain, his vision was of a world where France controlled (or at least was first amoung equals in) some sort of supernational structure, not one where France was dominated by a greater power, be that Germany, the Soviets, the United Kingdom or the United States.

Yes, that is De Gaulle, and if betraying Ukraine would help France and piss of the hated Anglo-Saxons he would do it in a heartbeat. 

 

If you want to believe this, cool. Dude is long dead. But this is a non-existant hypothetical. There currently exists no scenario where betraying Ukraine helps France, or the United States for that matter. I guess the question is would De Gaulle betray Ukraine for some incomprehensibly stupid reason, counter to the interests of France, like the United States is doing right now.

He was pretty keen on putting the interests of France above the alliance.  Europe is dependent on Russian resources, they are already compromised.  It would not be out of character for anyone who puts their country above all others to cut a deal with Russia.

[Valmy]

He was pretty keen on putting the interests of France above the alliance.  Europe is dependent on Russian resources, they are already compromised.  It would not be out of character for anyone who puts their country above all others to cut a deal with Russia.

Yet we aren't and we betrayed Ukraine anyway.

At least this hypothetical DeGaulle would have had that going for him.

[Razgovory]

While I don't agree with Chipwich entirely, he does have a point.  It's galling that people who dislike us demand we do more to guard them.

"Hey, warmongering theocratic fascists, come back here!  You are suppose to be protecting us!"

[Duque de Bragança]

FLEXIBLE MEMBERSHIP
During Allied discussions, France traditionally adopted – and still does - a very thorough, analytical approach. While sometimes this approach goes against the tide, it often ensures that all aspects of an issue have been taken into consideration before a decision is reached – an approach very much engrained in its culture. Additionally, the spirit of Gaullism continued to permeate French strategic thinking throughout the Cold War. This did not exclude France from NATO military affairs. For instance, in August 1967, the Ailleret-Lemnitzer Accords were signed enabling the French Army to participate in a potential NATO military operation against the east while staying under national command. Later, in July 1974, the Valentin-Ferber Accords helped to bring France closer to NATO. They provided for a number of scenarios whereby the French Army could move forward towards the east, which meant maintaining the complete integrity of the NATO area. President Mitterrand is the president who started to lead France back into NATO's integrated military command structure in the late 1980s and 1990s, a trend that his successor President Jacques Chirac continued. In 1991, for instance, France approved the Alliance's Strategic Concept, something it had not done since it had left the integrated military structure in 1966.

While France reintegrated the military command structure in 2009, its position throughout the Cold War illustrated the flexibility of NATO membership: while the country maintained full nuclear autonomy, it continued to act in full solidarity with the other Allies and play a major political and military role within the Alliance.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_160672.htm

Following the support given by de Gaulle to the US during the Berlin and Cuba missiles crisis.
Not to mention France is far less dependent on Russian ressources than Central and Eastern Europe, namely thanks to nuclear power.

[Valmy]

While I don't agree with Chipwich entirely, he does have a point.  It's galling that people who dislike us demand we do more to guard them.

"Hey, warmongering theocratic fascists, come back here!  You are suppose to be protecting us!"

Plenty of those countries have made political sacrifices as well as lent us their soldiers in our operations to support us over the years.  I was concerned they seemed to be getting nothing but shit and abuse and paying a huge price for their willingness to help us. I would prefer countries be rewarded for helping us.

I guess I fail to remember the time these governments called us warmongering theocratic fascists.

Anyway you absolutely despise the one country who wanted Europe to protect itself and us to NOT protect them. There is just no fucking winning with you.

[Valmy]

Following the support given by de Gaulle to the US during the Berlin and Cuba missiles crisis.
Not to mention France is far less dependent on Russian ressources than Central and Eastern Europe, namely thanks to nuclear power.

That is not sufficient for Raz. Supporting the US in its time of need only draws scorn and hatred from him if you ever said anything mean about us. I guess.

[Sheilbh]

It depends how you're looking at it. I think Thatcher, Reagan, De Gaulle and basically any Western leader before, say, 2005 would have considered Ukraine fundamentally Russian or in Russia's sphere, like Kazakhstan.

I think Ukraine being perceived as unequivocally "Western" or suitable for EU Europe is a very recent - and understandable - development. In the 90s, France and Germany were reluctant to expand the EU to Poland. The definition and borderlands of Europe has shifted a lot in recent years.

Whether any of them would have having put considerable resources and prestige on the line supporting Ukraine is far more doubtful I think.

[mongers]

Caliss, les amis. Chuck c'était pas un paragon de la virtue trans-atlantique là. Vous réagissez comme si Raz viens d'insulter Obama.

I appreciate your French language posts   

It gives me an opportunity to use and potentially improve my not-very-good high school French.   

I welcome our possible future French speaking overlords.     

As long as he isn't named William.

[Valmy]

It depends how you're looking at it. I think Thatcher, Reagan, De Gaulle and basically any Western leader before, say, 2005 would have considered Ukraine fundamentally Russian or in Russia's sphere, like Kazakhstan.

I think Ukraine being perceived as unequivocally "Western" or suitable for EU Europe is a very recent - and understandable - development. In the 90s, France and Germany were reluctant to expand the EU to Poland. The definition and borderlands of Europe has shifted a lot in recent years.

Whether any of them would have having put considerable resources and prestige on the line supporting Ukraine is far more doubtful I think.

True. We are talking about a modern context. Ukraine declared itself part of Europe with their various colored revolutions.