Ukraine - Russia Conflict

These negotiations are different from what Boris interfered in. Boris convinced the Ukrainians to keep the war going right in the beginning. You've posted the link to negotiations that happened after his interference.
The war crimes in Bucha convinced the Ukrainians to keep fighting.

Claiming it was Boris Johnson is just Russian propaganda to attempt the depict the Ukrainians as agency-less puppets. Certainly Russia never considered the Ukrainians could have any agency of their own, people having agency is strictly forbidden by the Tsar and the Soviet both.

The reality, though, is that you can't make people fight if they don't want to fight. Afghanistan should be proof enough of that. The reason Ukraine fights is because it wants to fight, and the reason it wants to fight is because the Russians are barbaric invaders who want to genocide them.
What I'm saying is only the US can move NATO, not France.
Yeah but no. The point of NATO is that it's the aggressor that makes it move.

Again, do you really think that Poland and Finland will just sit on their thumb if the EU is attacked? Just because Washington is all "who cares, I'm on the other side of the ocean so I don't feel like doing anything"?
Don't believe that's gonna be the case. Or there wouldn't be a need for consensus.
There's absolutely no need for consensus. If a country decides that all it's going to do is send thoughts and prayers, this doesn't constrain the reactions of the others. You can easily find tons of NATO operations in recent history that did not have full consensus for them, e.g. NATO founding member Italy was opposed to the intervention in Libya.
Putin asked for full implementration of Minsk, something that was already negotiated by France, Germany and Ukraine and agreed upon.
Putin never respected Minsk, so that's nonsense. And the demands of Putin went far beyond that, he also wanted all the post 1989 members of NATO to be expelled from the alliance so that he could invade them safely. Total delusional madman. There was never going to be any way for peaceful coexistence with this power-mad dictator.
Minsk would have kept Russian forces out of Ukraine.
Nope, because Putin never respected Minsk and planned on never respecting Minsk and instead planning on invading Ukraine so that he would be better placed to invade Moldavia and the Baltics.
 
The war crimes in Bucha convinced the Ukrainians to keep fighting.

Claiming it was Boris Johnson is just Russian propaganda to attempt the depict the Ukrainians as agency-less puppets. Certainly Russia never considered the Ukrainians could have any agency of their own, people having agency is strictly forbidden by the Tsar and the Soviet both.

The reality, though, is that you can't make people fight if they don't want to fight. Afghanistan should be proof enough of that. The reason Ukraine fights is because it wants to fight, and the reason it wants to fight is because the Russians are barbaric invaders who want to genocide them.

Boris' interference came within a few days of the war. The Bucha story is after an entire month, after Russian forces withdrew from Kiev.

Yeah but no. The point of NATO is that it's the aggressor that makes it move.

Again, do you really think that Poland and Finland will just sit on their thumb if the EU is attacked? Just because Washington is all "who cares, I'm on the other side of the ocean so I don't feel like doing anything"?

All NATO countries can individually start sh!t with Russia, but they can't make the US move, especially if the other countries are the ones starting sh!t with Russia.

The US will simply weigh their options and decide to interfere only if the EU's in danger of annihilation. Which is the point of making the treaty sound like the US will not interfere at every single instance.

Hell, this in fact works in the US' favor, this is what they want, an assertive EU that can carry its own weight.


And Russia will also make sure they don't cross the red lines of countries that want to sit out.

There's absolutely no need for consensus. If a country decides that all it's going to do is send thoughts and prayers, this doesn't constrain the reactions of the others. You can easily find tons of NATO operations in recent history that did not have full consensus for them, e.g. NATO founding member Italy was opposed to the intervention in Libya.

Yes, individual countries can make their own decisions. Libya had nothing to do with Art 5.

Putin never respected Minsk, so that's nonsense. And the demands of Putin went far beyond that, he also wanted all the post 1989 members of NATO to be expelled from the alliance so that he could invade them safely. Total delusional madman. There was never going to be any way for peaceful coexistence with this power-mad dictator.

Nope, because Putin never respected Minsk and planned on never respecting Minsk and instead planning on invading Ukraine so that he would be better placed to invade Moldavia and the Baltics.

Sure, if that's how you wanna spin it. But the fact is you did agree to the agreement. And when you decided to backtrack, the invasion became the only choice. Russian actions were extremely logical in that sense. It was the West's mistake to believe a Russian red line was a bluff.

What was surprising about the war was not the invasion itself, that was obvious as per American announcement, even if France and Germany were taken by surprise. But it was Russia's lack of preparation and ineptitude in prosecuting the war that came as a surprise.
 
Boris' interference came within a few days of the war. The Bucha story is after an entire month, after Russian forces withdrew from Kiev.



All NATO countries can individually start sh!t with Russia, but they can't make the US move, especially if the other countries are the ones starting sh!t with Russia.

The US will simply weigh their options and decide to interfere only if the EU's in danger of annihilation. Which is the point of making the treaty sound like the US will not interfere at every single instance.

Hell, this in fact works in the US' favor, this is what they want, an assertive EU that can carry its own weight.


And Russia will also make sure they don't cross the red lines of countries that want to sit out.



Yes, individual countries can make their own decisions. Libya had nothing to do with Art 5.



Sure, if that's how you wanna spin it. But the fact is you did agree to the agreement. And when you decided to backtrack, the invasion became the only choice. Russian actions were extremely logical in that sense. It was the West's mistake to believe a Russian red line was a bluff.

What was surprising about the war was not the invasion itself, that was obvious as per American announcement, even if France and Germany were taken by surprise. But it was Russia's lack of preparation and ineptitude in prosecuting the war that came as a surprise.

Europe—but Not NATO—Should Send Troops to Ukraine

Since then, other European officials have joined the chorus; the Finnish defense minister and Polish foreign minister have both suggested that their countries’ forces could end up in Ukraine. These comments, combined with existing support for such measures in the Baltic states, show that there is a growing bloc of countries open to direct European intervention in the war.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMD
If Trump wins in the upcoming elections and/or the Republicans are able to hold onto the House and continue blocking aid to Ukraine, would you be in favor of direct French intervention in Ukraine?

If so, how would that look like to you? Would you like to see French troops on the ground to prevent the capture of cities like Kyiv or Odessa? Full scale participation in offenses with combined arms? Or perhaps limited to air support for Ukraine?

An accompanying question: how does the French public generally feel about increased aid and possible intervention in Ukraine? Macron seems to be in favor but he is also on his last term.. so he might just be bold because he has nothing to lose. Besides France, and eventually Poland, I don't see other European powers directly intervening in Ukraine at this point.

@Picdelamirand-oil ; @Amarante ; @Bon Plan ; @Herciv ; @halloweene
We are not in a war situation with russia. Nothing can justify french troops in Ukraine so far. The only case of a direct french intervention is if russia attacks a NATO country or France itself. Russia seems now strong enough to win in Ukraine but never to be as fool as to attack NATO.
 
For Ukraine it will be ... actually a really messed up position.

What will France do if French deaths start happening in the battle? Is france going to be willing to commit fully to this war? If not, they will have to pull back troops or suffer deaths for no good reason. If they pull back, suddenly Ukraine will find itself in a position where it has over committed and left critical borders unsafe.

The core question for france will always be this: Whats France's plan in this? Are they ready to fully commit to this conflict? Or are they planning to just stay on sidelines?
As said we are not in a war situation with russia.
On the other hand we always are in a weak situation regarding classical weapons : OK for low conflict, Not for global one. Some generals said a couple of months ago that our shells stockpile in a hard conflict is for about 2 weeks.... We definitively are not prepared for high intensity.
 

Aerial scouts of the "Steel Border" brigade destroyed the enemy's command and observation post​

 
We are not in a war situation with russia. Nothing can justify french troops in Ukraine so far. The only case of a direct french intervention is if russia attacks a NATO country or France itself. Russia seems now strong enough to win in Ukraine but never to be as fool as to attack NATO.

As said we are not in a war situation with russia.
On the other hand we always are in a weak situation regarding classical weapons : OK for low conflict, Not for global one. Some generals said a couple of months ago that our shells stockpile in a hard conflict is for about 2 weeks.... We definitively are not prepared for high intensity.

Here you go, @A Person. The voice of reason.

This applies to the US as well.
 
Here you go, @A Person. The voice of reason.

This applies to the US as well.
That's not at all the voice of reason.

Many intel services have already warned that Russia is planning to attack NATO in a few years. The way to avert that is to make sure Russia suffers a crippling defeat in Ukraine. That is the voice of reason.

You never gain long-term peace by just looking at your neighbor's house burn without reacting. "Sure, I could bring the firehose, but that house is ruined anyway, the fire won. I may as well just not bother and wait for my own house to catch on fire too."

Anyways, while Putin focuses on his obsession of murdering as many Ukrainians as he can, Russia is collapsing. Physically collapsing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMD
I am the God of hellfire, and I give you:


1713950950927.png


Fire at oil depot in Yartsevo of Smolensk region



1713951159924.png


Drone impact reported at industrial zone in Lipetsk

1713951225355.png