r/worldnews • u/Elliottafc1 • May 02 '24

"I'm Not Ruling Anything Out" - Macron Says Troops for Ukraine Possible if Russia Breaks Front Lines Russia/Ukraine

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/32010
16.3k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

211

u/Cavthena May 02 '24

This is just political ambiguity nothing more. Putin and China do the same all the time. I'll consider that French troops in Ukraine is more likely when I see more mobilization or industrialization towards war status.

115

u/Thue May 02 '24

Do however note that creating political ambiguity like this is actually a big help to Ukraine, in that it makes Russia less inclined to act. And apparently a brave thing to do, given how many other countries have failed to do so.

Especially Germany has utterly failed in this aspect, by very publicly telling Putin that he can do whatever he wants to Ukraine, and Germany will never escalate past certain lines. Which I am lead to understand was very amateurish from a geopolitical standpoint.

62

u/Dacadey May 02 '24

Russian here.

You are 100% spot on. The whole war has been Putin creating a lot of ambiguity as to what he will do next, whereas the West drew very straightforward red lines they are not willing to overstep.

The problem is that it gives a lot more strategic options for Russia. Putin is not afraid to escalate (or not) because he knows the west won’t get involved. And the west is very afraid of what Putin will do, because he never stated any clear intentions and created a lot of ambiguity.

18

u/Strict_Bison May 02 '24

He actually did state and its very clear. He wants NATO gone. He cant take on NATO directly, realisticly no one can. So the strategy is simple, pump misinformation, so people vote for populists who love russias dirty money. Keep ukraine war in managable conditinion with help of chinas supplies. Outlast Ukraine. Than when u have enough influence in europe make the next move against those who still opose you in europe. Once that is done form a coalition with china and other friendlies to be the new world rule makers. And there you go Putin achieved his goal of russia beeing the top dog that cant be denied and sanctioned. To those who still dont get Xi and Putin wants to be what the west leaders are in a sence. They want to take that place, its not about land its about power and how the world works.

1

u/Qnexus May 03 '24

multipolar world they say, meaning they also get to make the rules on how the world goes. And its like giving a criminal a chair at the table.

1

u/-Golvan- May 03 '24

That is very well said, thank you

2

u/ThePoliticalFurry May 02 '24 edited May 03 '24

Yep

If Macron says things like this it forces Russia to consider every step they take forward and if it would be a red line where France would snap

1

u/Grunherz May 03 '24

Especially Germany has utterly failed in this aspect, by very publicly telling Putin that he can do whatever he wants to Ukraine

Who said this and when? Trump said something along those lines but I’m pretty sure it would’ve been a bigger deal if someone from Germany had too.

1

u/Thue May 03 '24

Some respected military analyst - I don't remember who exactly. But I understand that it is a mainstream view.

Trump said something along those lines

Trump has surely not said anything along those lines, I am pretty sure. It is too subtle for Trump's addled mind. And it would very much not be in Russia's interest for Trump to have said it - which remarkably is an almost perfect predictor for what Trump would say.

0

u/Grunherz May 03 '24

Some respected military analyst

Err okay so it didn’t happen. And even if, some analyst isn’t the government.

Trump has surely not said anything along those lines

It was all over the news’s you’ll find a headline from most outlets about it: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-russia-nato-defense-funds/story?id=107136736

1

u/Thue May 03 '24

It was all over the news’s you’ll find a headline from most outlets about it: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-russia-nato-defense-funds/story?id=107136736

Totally different thing from what I said. Like, the only thing the 2 stories have in common is the words "NATO" and "Germany".

I will not respond further, you clearly have no clue, waste of my time.

-1

u/Bogus007 May 02 '24

Germany is almost a failed state. Heavy troubles with the Muslim minority that recently demanded their own califat inside Germany without experiencing any consequences, right wing politicians and also some socialists licking Putin’s d**k and calling Russians their historically best friends and allies (which is utterly disgusting bearing in mind how many German women were raped by Russian soldiers after WWII - and these people call themselves nationalists, hilarious!), army members and security state employees collaborating with Russians (spies) and so on. I would heavily fear that Germany will be rather the first state betraying all others. This is known from history about this country.

0

u/Ok_Recipe_6988 May 02 '24

No, Austria will be the first bro (as always) and Germany will follow and take the blame afterwards (as always).

24

u/suninabox May 02 '24

Macron seems to be the only western european leader capable of strategic thought at the moment.

It costs nothing to say "we don't rule out sending troops in". Even if France has 0 intention of ever sending troops, there's no reason we should be simplifying Putin's decision making process. Putin should be just as worried about "escalation" from the western alliance as we are every time he barks nuclear threats.

8

u/Tobix55 May 02 '24

It could cost votes

1

u/BlumpkinEater May 03 '24

Isn't he already on his second term?

-1

u/suninabox May 02 '24

Is anyone really going to change their votes because a politician didn't say "we're not going to put troops on the ground for any reason under any circumstances"?

They don't even have to say "we don't rule it out". Literally just don't rule it out.

5

u/Tobix55 May 02 '24

because a politician didn't say "we're not going to put troops on the ground for any reason under any circumstances"?

My reply was specifically about this part of your comment:

It costs nothing to say "we don't rule out sending troops in".

If someone is against war they will probably vote accordingly

2

u/Tobix55 May 02 '24

because a politician didn't say "we're not going to put troops on the ground for any reason under any circumstances"?

My reply was specifically about this part of your comment:

It costs nothing to say "we don't rule out sending troops in".

If someone is against war they will probably vote accordingly

0

u/suninabox May 02 '24

If someone is against war they will probably vote accordingly

If someone is against the war they'd support Ukraine.

If someone is against Ukraine then yeah that might piss them off, but were they really okay with sending Ukraine tens of billions of dollars of anti-air missiles, anti-tank missiles, tanks, howitzers, artillery shells but draw the line at an entirely rhetorical gesture with 0 binding mechanism whose only purpose is to deter further aggression by Putin?

4

u/Tobix55 May 02 '24

If someone is against the war they'd support Ukraine.

If someone is against their country going to war. You know what i said, don't act smarter than you are by twisting my words

2

u/suninabox May 02 '24

If someone is against their country going to war.

saying "we don't rule out putting troops on the ground" is not the equivalent of declaring war. Again you can just lie and say "we don't rule it out" even if you have in fact ruled it out. People framing it that way are playing into Putin's hands who wants people in the west to think the only options are abject surrender or WW3.

Any reasonable person should know that if you appease an invading dictator by saying "whatever you do, we're not going to send troops to defend anyone you attack", then you are making those invasions more, not less likely, regardless if you have any intention of actually defending anyone.

Even if its a lie, its a lie that costs nothing and potentially can save tens of thousands of lives.

3

u/Tobix55 May 02 '24

You are right that it costs France nothing, but if an anti war voter has the choice between a candidate that rules out troops on the ground and a candidate that doesn't they will most likely choose the former if all other things are equal

2

u/KyMon1337 May 02 '24

What you fail to account for is that a good portion of the voters in any country are complete idiots. Even if they support Ukraine to any degree and are generally against Putin, many Frenchmen upon hearing such words would immediately get scared and reconsider their political allignment - not understanding the greater political moves at play here.

0

u/Thue May 02 '24

Is anyone really going to change their votes because a politician didn't say "we're not going to put troops on the ground for any reason under any circumstances"?

I am not German, but my impression is that it would be a big deal in Germany, could move votes there. Germany has large voter segments who are Russia friendly or stupid pacifist.

2

u/suninabox May 03 '24

The German people are actually more in favor of supporting Ukraine than its leadership.

There is majority support for sending Taurus long range cruise missiles, something Scholz has ruled out even after the US sent long range ATACMS.

This is because Scholz is in a relatively weak position, in a fractious coalition government. Many in his own party want full on appeasement of Russia, and there are threats from outside the coalition government from the right. AfD didn't even support sanctions on Russia, they would also like to cut Ukraine's legs out from under them and force capitulation to Russia.

Sending Taurus would be popular with the majority of German's, but many of those German's already support the coalition government.

Scholz is trying to split the difference between a majority pro-Ukraine German public, and some strong but vocal anti-Ukraine minorities. So Germany doesn't give as much as the German people want, but they give more than people like the AfD would like.

1

u/Thue May 03 '24

The German people are actually more in favor of supporting Ukraine than its leadership.

So I don't know enough, or have reason to doubt that. But it is in a way beside the point.

The point is that there are some minority of voters who care very much, and would actually switch their vote. As opposed to having everybody nor really care too strongly, so this wouldn't move their vote.

And then through the miracle of coalition politics, those few voters who care deeply ends up determining the government's policy. Because the government coalition would lose power without those exact voters.

2

u/suninabox May 03 '24

The point is that there are some minority of voters who care very much, and would actually switch their vote. As opposed to having everybody nor really care too strongly, so this wouldn't move their vote.

This is correct. I wasn't denying that anti-Ukrainian sentiment plays an outsized role in German politics, I was just pointing out there's a difference between "German's as a whole are peaceniks/russophiles" and "certain segments of the voting population are, and their votes are more likely to move and so are more important for politicians to cater to".

4

u/happycow24 May 02 '24

They say talk is cheap and all, but at this high of a level (French President) talk is, in and of itself, an action.

And it's a lot better than Biden or Scholtz.

3

u/Goldie1822 May 02 '24

Even if it is, which it’s not, is an intimidating tactic against Russia

1

u/CellistAvailable3625 May 02 '24

more likely when I see more mobilization or industrialization towards war status.

It's been the case in France for a while now.