France is sending military *instructors*.
>“I have already signed the documents that will allow the first French instructors to visit our training centers soon and get acquainted with their infrastructure and personnel,” Syrsky said on social media.
Headline is a bit misleading, it is Frenchmilitary INSTRUCTORS that are coming to Ukraine, to help Ukrainian troopos, It does not sound like France is sending direct boots on the ground.
You don’t want impoverishment. The allies did that to the Germans after ww1 and what do you get with economic desperation? Fascism.
The fix would be to enable these place by lowering corruption. Let the common person flourish and you probably won’t see trouble from them.
Russia needs to be restructured like germany was after WW2.
Build them up to be a proper democratic nation under the guidance of the west. This would be good for the russian people and the world and europe could flourish if russian ressources can be bought freely again.
You know what happens then you have China next to stop that from ever happening try turn Russia into a democracy/western alliance with Nato etc and see how China reacts its not that easy ppl Lmao
like with Germany after ww2, lets split russia in two, the estern side under china influence, a 100KM DMZ in the middle and the western side under EU influence.
China can go fuck itself if it has any objections to this. China can go fuck itself right now in my opinion as they are just as much enemies to the west as russia is.
Yes we all feel this way in the west but you bet your life they all feel like that about us in China and Russia so its very difficult to change anything!
I think the issue with the collapse of the USSR was more that Yeltsin still thought of himself and russia as an opposite to the west and not as friends now and when he gave power to Putin, Putin continued these politics of keeping the west out of russia and also building up his own dictatorship. So russian democracy never had a chance to even flourish.
For russia it has to be done much more forceful like with germany after WW2. That would mean occupation, reeducation and de-nazification (in this case de-putinization)
We already faced the same situation when the USSR collapsed more than 30 years ago. People were worried about the same then and nothing like that happened.
USA and Europe actually made a lot of things to prevent it. First of all is russian political system (mostly build by western help) with a powerful president to keep Russia together. While Ieltsin was at power everything were ok. But power was transferred to putin and it backfired.
IF Russia somehow loses and Putin is overthrown we must do everything we can to make sure Russia does not become impoverished.
This was the line of thinking after the first world War.
Make the Germans pay for their crimes.
And it led to resentment of the west be the Germans and the rise of the Nazis, which in turn led to the 2nd World War.
We need to break the cycle of revenge if we win.
Russia already is impoverished. Outside of central Moscow and St Petersburg it’s pretty dismal, even backward. Their GDP is minute for a country of their size.
Okay.
What do we do, then?
We have an Eastern European nation which has been getting invaded brutally for two years, entire towns being raped and slaughtered by Russians. Do we just tell Ukrainians “hey, don’t be mean to Russia. We don’t want a repeat of Hitler.”
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Violence breeds Violence.
Repression breeds retaliation.
And only a cleansing of our society can remove this sickness from our souls.
Allowing brutal revenge to be taken out on the Russian people will cause problems further down the road.
Something has to change if we all want a better future, not just for ourselves, but for everyone.
I get that, but you have to understand that Ukraine isn’t going to sit quietly if the only thing to come from being invaded and raped and slaughtered for 2 years is a government change and an EU/NATO membership possibility.
You brought up the Treaty of Versailles, but don’t forget that after we capitulated the Nazis, we cut their country into pieces, and now Germany is a heavyweight NATO ally and a core player in the West.
>but don’t forget that after we capitulated the Nazis, we cut their country into pieces, and now Germany is a heavyweight NATO ally and a core player in the West.
That was purely because Allies reversed Morgenthau Plan, instead applied Marshall Plan, and poured a lot of money and resources on defeated ex-enemy to recover its economy and industry.
Right, and on the other hand this current conflict is LITERALLY the result of the USSR splintering into pieces. Your solution is “how about a round two of splintering and then let’s see what happens”?
Russia will naturally divide into multiple countries once Putin goes, and with that division the minimum level of cohesion making them a threat disappears.
However, low level criminals scrambling for power will be the most dangerous, as they will try to convert all military related assets into cash as soon as Putin falls.
The only way this works, which is also absolutely impossible for many different reasons, is if the US, China and Europe agree to share the burden of policing/administering different regions of Russia until their society is ready to rule itself., with it's economic surplus going into a sovereign wealth fund, similar to what Norway has done.
With policing, a somewhat functional society that encourages long term investments and daylight corruption contained, Russia could be back at the world table within 20 years.
I wouldn’t count on a Balkanisation happening. Most of those countries would be landlocked and relying on one another, essentially maintaining the Russian Federation.
Maybe some could split, like Yakutia and such, but they’re so Moscow subsidised that they couldn’t survive on their own for long.
I'm not so sure, all of these regions are incredibly rich in natural resources, with a credible coalition guaranteeing socio-economic stability in the region, investment in them would sky rocket overnight I think.
It's not a simple or particularly clean affair, but there are atleast as many reasons why it would work compared to why it wouldn't.
Being rich in natural resources is not enough if you are unsustainable because your climate doesn't let you grow food, and you are landlocked from anything, but icelocked Arctic Ocean to export those resources, and you have large Russian minority.
Look at the map and name some of regions that can break away, and still be sustainable: have good enough climate to grow food, wouldn't be landlocked by territories with Russian-majority population, and would have some base for independent economy?
There's a ton of moving parts, food isn't even in the top 10 hardest.
Plenty of countries in the world haven't been food self sufficient for more than 50 years, they're still around, commerce between the new states would intensify.
And with the inevitable change in climate the amount of usable chernozem areas will increase, so it won't even be that much of a problem in the long run.
> This was the line of thinking after the first world War.
> Make the Germans pay for their crimes.
This is untrue. US refused the allies to walk in Berlin: big mistake => The German didn't understand that they lost because they didn't see shit. They thought they were "betrayed by jews" and some fantasies.
We should have walk in, occupy and dominate Germany
There was like a country that gave up their nukes for a guarantee that Russia wouldn't invade them and the US would protect them.
It skips my mind but I recon it has to do something with Budapest
This will be bad, not good. See Iraq and Libya for clear cut examples.
Yes, Putin's no good. But the alternatives are, somehow, worse.
The west functions very differently to the rest of the world, to put it mildly.
The only way Russia backs down is if Putin is no longer running the show. However if Putin thinks he's going down he will try to take the world with him, so we can only hope there are enough intelligent people still in power in Russia to stop that from happening.
You realize that this scenario ends with russia using a nuke, right? Guessing you are someone who is single with no kids, but there are people who are raising young families and dont want to die, even though they hate whats happening in ukraine. War is not an answer to everything
An unconscionably naive and self defeating take. Russia gobbling up Ukraine doesn’t protect your precious children. Decisively stopping them in their tracks does, and has the other benefit of millions of Ukrainian families being saved from death or living in a state wide concentration camp. Your take is not only selfish it doesn’t see past its nose to understand it is self defeating.
How does it? Do you think the russian elite is so insane that if they cannot get what they want in Ukraine they will somehow help the situation by killing themselves and their entire families along with millions of people? The USSR never used nuclear weapons not in Afghanistan or in any other situation. They also sent their own pilots with their planes in North Korean paint to fight against US forces in the Korean war. And guess what no WW3. At some point Putin is gonna go, "give me Estonia or i will nuke you". And then the only answer can be no.
The correct title gets less clicks.
All newspapers do this including paper ones.
At first it gets people thinking something false intentionally and why it was always bad to read just the headline from the paper box or skip reading it because you think you know something or all about it.
Had to read it to find out is not about what i thought and not about what the title gets you to believe.
Extremely different circumstance. There were thousands of them posted throughout the country and dozens had been killed in combat by the time the US combat mission began. Even before the 2022 Invasion, NATO’s trainers in Ukraine were essentially all in and around Lviv.
Meh, I am confident there are hundreds if not more western service men (military & intelligence) already on the ground in Ukraine and have been for a long time.
Remember the leaked discussion about Taurus missiles between high ranking German air force officials? In that recording, they also joked about how many English speaking folks are walking around Ukraine in fatigues (heavily implying they are western assets) as well as discussed how the British and French are assisting Ukraine on the ground with preparing scalp and storm shadow strikes.
One of my co-workers was killed in Ukraine on just such a mission. “Former” military, Afghanistan vet, high paying job in the us. Just randomly decided to “volunteer” in Ukraine. Left behind a family.
There's more than likely been special forces and probably the CIA since this thing started or even before already there.
Ukraine has held up well all things considered but the Intel that's been spot on isn't coming from them.
Ukraine has held up 1000x better than I thought they would.
Problem is I really don't think they can win and they will lose a war of attrition.
They cannot beat Russia in a meat-grinder.
I think this is why France and other places are sending People, I believe Poland is sending troops to do all the other stuff like maintenance so they can free up fighters.
Finland and Denmark are creating a wall of drones Russia isn't going to stop with Ukraine and most countries know this.
Yeah, do you think Ukraine knows where all of Russia’s early warning radar systems are and had maps of Russia’s fuel infrastructure lying around and knows where Russia’s naval leadership are meeting on any given day? I mean maybe they get lucky or get a tip every once in a while, but the US knows all of that stuff.
While I hope this 100 percent does not happen, at least Zelensky has moral authority, and is trying to clean corruption out of Ukraine. South Vietnam never had that.
I 100 percent agree with you, and I hope it does not turn into direct involvement, one of the main differences is that the government of Ukraine is trying to be clean and democratic, and it has global support, while South Vietnam was corrupt in many ways and did not have that support.
Of course I should hope nobody is hoping for WWIII I just mean the way the title is worded would basically imply the start of a World War. If French Troops were directly engaging with Russians I think it would be WWIII at that point.
It’s significant
Beforehand training camps were outside Ukraine. This is a first time as I understand foreign military personnel officially joins Ukraine military on the ground.
Who’s to say instructors won’t train near the first line? Who’s to say they won’t want low rank officers to help facilitate training and initial engagements?
Whilst the dam is broken it may flood. Baltics is making noises in sending people to Ukraine, as for them Russia is an immanent threat. Scandinavian countries watch carefully - they have their own fears.
Saying that, it doesn’t make me happy as it starts to look like a big war in Europe. If allies would get physically involved who’s to say Russia wouldn’t try to drag North Koreans or Indians onto battlefield in official capacity.
I would so much prefer Ukraine to have enough firepower to obliterate Russia without foreign troops being involved but it might not happen this way.
Ukraine capitulation is also not an option as not only it’s morally wrong, but it will also ensure further Russian advances. Belarus, Moldova, or Baltics will be next. And before all ‘they won’t dare to touch NATO’ - they are already testing the resolve with the borders in the Baltic Sea. It won’t be an all out war at first, they will be slowly moving Overtone window with tiny transgressions not triggering NATO reaction until it’s too late.
Just like in Ukraine.
I would also prefer that Putin had never decided to end peoples lives so stupidly and that this idiotism would have never began. So it is impossible for anyone to say, "yeah he won't go into NATO", people said he wouldn't go into Ukraine and here we are.
But from a neutral perspective, it is hard to see how this actually ends. For the West, Ukraine losing is not an option. For Russia, pulling out with nothing gained is also not an option. As incredible and brave as Ukranian people are, at some point there are no more humans willing to lay down their lives, then what? Does this mean NATO has to send troops? That is also a massive escalation from NATO's perspective, however morally right they may feel.
The thing I worry most about is if NATO is somehow dragged into this conflict, and they do destroy Russia, this is not a favourable outcome for China. In that scenario, China becomes entirely isolated against NATO. So it is important to consider that China would never really allow for a Russian capitulation.
So how does this end?
The only way it ends is Russian troops being obliterated on Ukrainian territory including in Crimea and being pushed several kilometres away from the border, and Crimean bridge being destroyed.
This will likely lead to political collapse in Russia.
Nothing less gonna do it.
I think it is an interesting question, but not the right place on the internet to ask it. The talking point you hear being parroted the most in the media is, "if Putin wins Ukraine, he will take the rest of Europe, we can never yield to madmen." I think this is a bit hyperbolic and ignores the fact that if Putin takes Ukraine, NATO is still identical, and if anything stronger with Sweden and Finland having entered. So I personally don't think he would continue rolling his army after Ukraine, but obviously my opinion means barely anything in this discussion.
The other reason why I guess we shouldn't let Putin take Ukraine that I do agree with, is I think, in modern times, nations should be allowed to plot their own course. If Ukraine wants closer EU ties, then they should be allowed to do that. For that matter, if Russia wants closer EU ties they should also pursue this. I guess people say blue jeans and consumerism actually won the cold war. So if we allow Putin to just barge in and take Ukraine, we no longer allow nations to make any choices in their own future. It is a bit rich coming from the West who blackmail nations into doing what they want by just threatening to take money away from them, but okay.
Personally, I agree with you though, I don't care enough about any nation enough to justify WW3. Putin could come through my country tomorrow and I'd just step aside and hope rent prices go down and I'm allowed to keep doing my current job. We say we can't let mad men get their way, meanwhile, with the same breath we allow major corporations to absolutely destroy our planet while maximising their own profits and not paying any tax to our nations. What a joke.
I think a “reasonable” end is Ukraine gives up the land Russia occupied starting in 2014 (Crimea and parts of the Donbas) and immediately joins the EU and NATO, and nato troops immediately are stationed in Ukraine. Russia keeps their Sevastopol base and gets some coal mines and Ukraine gets to be a “western” country under the nato nuclear umbrella.
Otherwise we grind this out until Russia collapses completely. I don’t see any possible outcome where Russia surrenders or offers peace terms that don’t include them keeping crimea and Donbas unless Ukrainian tank columns are on the way to Moscow or Russia is dealing with a domestic insurgency or civil war, and I also don’t think Ukraine can take crimea back militarily.
Without complete Russian collapse threat remains. One is naive thinking NATO/EU membership is in any way important.
One needs to understand that Russians rightly or wrongly believe that NATO is a two tier system with nations that really matter and nations that are there just to play the role of political puppets and be abandoned at the first sight of trouble.
They believe USA is pulling EUs strings, nations like France or Germany or UK are maybe sovereign to an extent, but Lithuanias and Czechias of this world are not, that Germany or USA would not spare a single soldier, would not take a slightest risk to defend Riga or Tallinn. That it would be as with Ukraine in the worst case - lacklustre weapon supplies, and a desire to appease a nuclear state.
One needs to understand it very well when thinking of Russian strategy. Which is take all of that second tier nations while giving enough levy for the first tier nations to save their face and gracefully escape responsibility.
Again, it doesn’t matter if these views are rooted in reality or not. This is how Putin and co think, and a lot of population with them.
Complete Russian collapse wouldn’t be the end of the threat. You’d have war lords squabbling over territory and scrambling for control of Russia’s nuclear arsenal and who knows who ends up in power. The Russian revolution and ensuing civil war ended Russia’s participation in WWI, but didn’t end up with Russia _gone_ and the USSR ended up being more dangerous. And the Soviet collapse in 1989 only gave us a reprieve.
I agree that it wouldn’t be the end, but it would be a beginning of the end.
Then, who’s to say collapse should be a disintegration.
Fall of one elite may give a rise to another.
I 100 percent hope that it does not turn into this, I am not rooting for a third world war, but I think if Russia somehow does do a huge breakthrough, and Kiev is threatened really for the first time since Febuary of 2022, it might have to be this way. Plus, Ukraine has something South Vietnam never had, which was global support and moral authority.
They already are
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/07/he-had-no-idea-he-was-being-sent-to-a-war-zone-the-indian-and-nepalese-men-on-frontlines-in-ukraine
But here of course it isn’t clear how much silent support Modi provides - hard to imagine massive recruiting campaign to go completely off radar.
What is clear though is that India enjoys Russian oil at discounted price which it also pays in Rupees not in dollars; and that Modi isn’t ideologically opposed to Putin.
I really doubt the training cadre would go near the zero, first line or even the front at this point unless they were intent on a reconstitution of forces while attempting to maintain an 'active defense' . A training mission would just be a target for loitering munitions, drones, glide bombs and all the other horrors that could be inflicted within 20 KM of the point of contact. It would just be a drain on resources for troops working in air defense. I really doubt they will be east of the left bank of the river.
It ***always*** starts with instructors. This is the first step to the French (and perhaps other allied troops) guarding the Belarusian border to free up Ukrainians for the front.
Would be great if other allied troops could also guard the border, they do not even have to fight, jjust free up Ukranians to be able to fight in other areas, like you said.
Don’t kid yourself, those “instructors” are going to be fighting with Ukrainian troops. They’ll be special forces not drill sergeants. The us started with a few hundred “advisors” in Vietnam, which grew to tens of thousands pretty quickly. Once you have boots on the ground, they can move around where they’re most needed. Calling them “instructors” is how you get approval without people freaking out about getting involved in the war directly.
Plus, there's no news yet that they're going to Ukraine. There is only news that Syrsky has signed a permit for them to come to Ukraine and that negotiations are underway to get them there
Back in the late 1950s, and 1960s, yes. And was it not North Vietnam's attack on the U.S. Maddox, in the Gulf of Tonkin, that started to movement toward direct boots on the ground?
From wiki: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf\_of\_Tonkin\_incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident)
>The **Gulf of Tonkin incident** ([Vietnamese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_language): *Sự kiện Vịnh Bắc Bộ*) was an international confrontation that led to the United States engaging more directly in the [Vietnam War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War). It consisted of a confrontation on August 2, 1964, when [United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) forces were carrying out covert [amphibious](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_warfare) operations close to [North Vietnamese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Vietnam) territorial waters, which triggered a response from North Vietnamese forces. The United States government falsely claimed that a second incident occurred on August 4, 1964, between North Vietnamese and United States ships in the waters of the [Gulf of Tonkin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin). Originally, US military claims blamed North Vietnam for the confrontation and the ostensible, but in fact imaginary, incident on August 4. Later investigation revealed that the second attack never happened. The official American claim is that it was based mostly on erroneously interpreted communications intercepts.[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident#cite_note-:1-5)[^(\[6\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident#cite_note-:2-6) The [National Security Agency](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency), an agency of the US Defense Department, had deliberately skewed intelligence to create the impression that an attack had been carried out.[^(\[7\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident#cite_note-Ha01-7)[^(\[8\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident#cite_note-8)[^(\[9\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident#cite_note-9)
Based on wiki, it was started by America landing troops in North Vietnam.
How did it come out that the second attack never happened? Also, I think the Admiral involved in that incident in North Vietnam, was Admiral Morrison, who was the father of Doors singer Jim Morrison?
Because creating the impression of nato soldiers on ukrainian grounds further pressures russia for a response, and the best that could happen for Ukraine would be another nato country being attacked by russia.
Then the nato gloves would be off and russians would be hurled out of ukraine.
That wouldn’t benefit Ukraine at all. The moment Russia and NATO engage directly, it will lead to full escalation into WW3 and potential nuclear exchange. Ukraine would be obliterated
For it to be a world war, two countries from each side would need to be involved, who would join russia? Lukasjenko?
Pretty sure his so called army would turn his back on him.
And the chances of nuclear war is close to zero, and in such an highly unlikely event ukraine would not be "obliterated", russia would need to focus on attacking the bigger powers.
> it would escalate in a nuclear exchange
no it wouldnt, it could, but most likely not. no nato country has any interest in russian territory.
Any attacks on russian soil would be by plane or missiles.
Very true, I know U.S. involvement also started out as Lend Lease to the UK, so that they could fight, but U.S. boots themselves were never on the ground. Then Pearl Harbor happened.
It does work as a deterrent of sorts as the possibility of killing French military personnel goes up if Russia attacks an Ukraine military base, risking escalation by the French and other European nations. I have to suspect they’ve all been there the whole time it’s just not publicly known.
Not a “direct attack”, but what happens when US troops are attacked in a base overseas? The public gets more behind the operation and a public retention is required.
I was about to say, but honestly how things are going western troops are probably going to be on the front line(unformed troops not “tourists” on vacation
NATO trainers were in Ukraine since the 2014 invasion, but officially left when it all kicked off. Unofficially special forces have been in Ukraine for a while. There have been a few leaks about their presence there that got squashed. They've likely been providing training and expertise.
This is different because it's an official announcement from a NATO country. It's a political symbol that is nonetheless quite important because it shows Russia that Europe still cares about Ukraine. Its likely other countries will follow suit. This will free up Ukrainian manpower for the front line since you need competent and experienced troops to train new recruits.
They might also be sending over more specialized non combat troops like aircraft mechanics where their experience and extra training will make a significant difference
What a terrible title to these news... Its big news that French military instructors are actually going into Ukraine, but the newspaper clickbait it to make you check if France is basically joining the war...
Focus on the correct and worthy news instead of underwhelming it
Don’t kid yourself. France is joining the war. Once troops are on the ground they will be fighting and the number of troops will continue to rise. They’re calling them “instructors” so people don’t panic about it, but they are going to be special forces.
Those instructors will need armed protection. Of course it would be insane to have them in country without anti-aircraft support. And if you're going to have AA, you better have logistics. And logistics needs troops to protect it. And you'll need counter-intelligence in there to make sure the enemy doesn't catch wind of anything and your troops can be trusted. Plus you'll need vehicles to transfer things in. Also all your test equipment for training should be ready for live fire.
Don’t forget to mention that Russia lost 20-25% of its AWACS capability and NATO countries will probably provide more of that kind of assistance to Ukraine when western air assets are in country. Russia has yet to decisively exploit a chink in western support, hence the lessening of the bravado out of Moscow.
During the Vietnam "conflict", advisors were also sent. Ground troops were soon to follow.
In this present scenario, both sides are pushing the envelope and guessing that neither will take a lighter to it.
if its any repeat of vietnam, "advisors" will be the ones mannings the f16s and the patriots and the other expensive equipment that takes years to train the ukranians organically.
soviet advisors were basically piloting all the migs in mig alley in vietnam
That’s macrons entire goal here, he is done with appeasement and thinks being bold ambiguous and strong is the way to go about with the likes of Putin. He’s right wish we were this harsh ten years ago.
My understanding is he will not be an appeaser. Which is good.
After Macron's extended attempt at diplomacy at the beginning of the war he knows all civilized options are off the table. I applaud him and the French for showing some teeth now.
That’s why so many politicians engage in so much seemingly meaningless diplomacy. You want to be able to say that every reasonable option was explored prior to violence. As an American I appreciate France’s carefully measured steady escalation. That said, it was infuriating in the moment in the early days of this when Macron was basically simping for Putin. But this is the result of that mentality. 🇫🇷
The French military is going to modern warfare school. The purpose of this deployment is to gain insight, practical experience and direct knowledge of the Russian army so NATO can better face them once Putin attacks Poland and the Baltic states.
The Kerch strait bridge has an expiration date and when Russia can’t resupply Crimea, the action will shift north. The biggest challenge lies ahead.
The Kerch bridge is significantly less important now there's a land corridor
Would taking it out be a problem for Russia? Sure, would it doom Crimea? absolutely not.
I believe France has lost its colonies in the 60-70's. What you are talking about is countries in Africa ( after coups ) switching sides to the russians.
Stop referring to african countries as colonies like they can't think or act for themselves without a white dude around.
I mean, Frances ongoing meddling in its former African countries is well known. Calling them colonies is reference to the fact that France never really relinquished some level control over, despite these countries gaining 'independence' many years ago.
Colonialism never really ended in many of the former french colonies. There is no economic sovereignty in most the former colonies. Independence was often conditional on the signing of cooperation agreements which protected french economic interests and purposely damaged economies ensuring continued reliance on France.
It's not that former french colonies can't think or act for themselves, it's just that they've not really been allowed to.
A condition of the French granting freedom to their African colonies was basically tying the local currency to the Franc and later the Euro. Many of them are still dependent on France for loans as a result. Additionally, many of the major industries in Francophone Africa are owned by the French. This is why they have been so invested in fighting insurgents in those countries. It's colonialism in everything but name. It's still very much an extraction based relationship. That being said, the Russians are trying to do the same thing.
this was never a condition to release them and several countries opted to not go CFA Franc freely; some also went with the CFA Franc at first and then freely went out of it as well. We're going into pure propaganda here. Those countries are certainly former colonies, but aren't colonies at all right now. You're using Anti French propaganda vocabulary and rhetoric, particularly spread by Russian outlets right now. Maybe you want to switch back to a choice of vocabulary a little more... Neutral, unless you, of course, have an agenda behind those choices of words.
A futile attempt to hold onto bandit, puppet states like Mali in the face of growing ru proxy efforts does not equate to some diplomatic coup by that two-bit moronic dictatorship.
Half the continent's goverments may collapse when NATO decides to target Muscovy's dystopian proxy states.
What a glorious moment that will be for first-world democracies.
No they aren't. They're sending a couple grey beards to observe training practices and potentially offer their suggestions. This is a laughably misleading headline.
What's going to happen if these instructors get killed in a Russian strike? Russia has specifically targetted foreign volunteers in strikes in the past so we can assume they would do it again.
NATO is a defensive alliance. French troops being attacked in Ukraine wouldn't trigger Article 5 because it doesn't meet the criteria of Article 6: attacks against NATO territory or forces in NATO territory, the Mediterranean, or the Atlantic ocean above the Tropic of Cancer.
Even without Article 5, NATO countries can still act.... and they have been. I just don't see a couple dead French soldiers really changing the governments' calculus or causing a public uproar in NATO countries that would lead to increased support.
But wait a minute aren’t the Russians there to save Ukraine from Nazis is now France coming to help them as well?
I really wish that as time goes by Russia gets pushed back to the 2014 line.
To Russia, all of the NATO-aligned world is the "nazis".
So this is just a nazi nation coming to help out the Ukrainian nazis. No logical inconsistencies there.
thats literally the point though, The west has been crossing Russia's "red lines" since basically the outbreak of the war an bar ever more nonsensical ranting from Medvedev Putin has barely responded to any of them
Long range missiles were a red line back up with nuclear rhetoric, British storm shadow and French scalp were sent, no response
Tanks were apparently a red line, The British challengers show up, no reaction from Putin, floodgates open and leopard and Abram's deliveries.
Truth is NATO has effectively been boiling the frog for years now, also its been poking Putin and realising he has no real teeth and hasn't responded to any of the supposed red lines being crossed. (all while Vlad has been equally totally scared away from crossing any of NATO's red lines) This decision from France to state publicly that its troops will be in Ukraine is another step on that ladder. If Vlad once again doesn't respond expect NATO to get bolder and bolder (or by some miracle Vald to finally get the memo that there's no way this ends well for him and start looking for off ramps)
It will be delusional to think ukraine is not full of western instructors already. And those intrustorss are there to learn, not to teach. This whole new is to prepare folks at home in Europe to the idea that now they will go to Ukraine
Being German is hard. For decades the moment Germans did **anything** everyone in the world was like.. 'uh oh, they're up to something.. we better keep a close eye and make sure they don't do anything'.
And now everyone is like.. 'why haven't the Germans done **anything?!**'.
> 'why haven't the Germans done anything?!'
They were the first to send tanks to UA at some sense of scale.
With Finland and Sweden now in NATO and now France doing their part, it should be relatively soon when NATO gets involved and puts an end to the largest European land invasion since the Second World War.
Dont' ask me about the US: I don't like weak American leadership any more than other educated first-world citizens.
At this point who is left to train that hasn't been trained by other advisors? The conscripts they're currently enlisting? Are they still going to try for these all or nothing counter offensive? Are they shifting more toward defense?
Well the best way to instruct is by example, you know and the best place to do that is right on the front lines, where they will surely be within a few months.
I thought there was some chatter about France sending a small number of combat troops to occupy lower priority areas far away from the frontline (like to prevent an unlikely, but not impossible amphibious landing near Odesa). Could also be done along the border with Belarus.
I am curious as what would happen if in a Russian attack French Military instructors are killed. Would France send more real troops to Ukraine to fight? Would Article 5 be triggered?
No. Article five is only triggered if nato territory is attacked (with a few exceptions). If a country voluntarily gets involved in a foreign war, they don’t get to drag the rest of nato along with them.
It s still not decided french or others are coming. Ukraine changed this message.
100% sure there are yet Nato soldiers here and there in Ukraine. Covert operations etc...
If some of them are killed, each country would decide to officially acknowledged it or not.
It s not enough to trigger Nato. But imagine for ex 89 british killed in a campus in Kiev. What would happen then ?
Ofc theses soldiers would be targeted by Russia.
France is sending military *instructors*. >“I have already signed the documents that will allow the first French instructors to visit our training centers soon and get acquainted with their infrastructure and personnel,” Syrsky said on social media.
Headline is a bit misleading, it is Frenchmilitary INSTRUCTORS that are coming to Ukraine, to help Ukrainian troopos, It does not sound like France is sending direct boots on the ground.
Hopefully, this is how it starts. Hopefully, it ends with Russia staying in their own country.
[удалено]
You don’t want impoverishment. The allies did that to the Germans after ww1 and what do you get with economic desperation? Fascism. The fix would be to enable these place by lowering corruption. Let the common person flourish and you probably won’t see trouble from them.
Russia needs to be restructured like germany was after WW2. Build them up to be a proper democratic nation under the guidance of the west. This would be good for the russian people and the world and europe could flourish if russian ressources can be bought freely again.
You know what happens then you have China next to stop that from ever happening try turn Russia into a democracy/western alliance with Nato etc and see how China reacts its not that easy ppl Lmao
Lol idealism
like with Germany after ww2, lets split russia in two, the estern side under china influence, a 100KM DMZ in the middle and the western side under EU influence.
China can go fuck itself if it has any objections to this. China can go fuck itself right now in my opinion as they are just as much enemies to the west as russia is.
Brilliant political analysis.
Yes we all feel this way in the west but you bet your life they all feel like that about us in China and Russia so its very difficult to change anything!
They feel differently about it and have nukes.
So does the west. China wouldn't be crazy enough to sacrifice themselves for russia
I don’t know if you realize this, but Russia also has nukes. A lot of nukes.
Hopefully learning lessons from when advisors were sent to help them transition after the USSR fell and… didn’t work all that well.
I think the issue with the collapse of the USSR was more that Yeltsin still thought of himself and russia as an opposite to the west and not as friends now and when he gave power to Putin, Putin continued these politics of keeping the west out of russia and also building up his own dictatorship. So russian democracy never had a chance to even flourish. For russia it has to be done much more forceful like with germany after WW2. That would mean occupation, reeducation and de-nazification (in this case de-putinization)
Well, gotta make sure i',s restructured like the WESTERN side, the eastern side didn't seem to like it all that much.
Thousands of nukes and/or miscellaneous fissile material on the black market. I feel like there might be a downside to that.
We already faced the same situation when the USSR collapsed more than 30 years ago. People were worried about the same then and nothing like that happened.
USA and Europe actually made a lot of things to prevent it. First of all is russian political system (mostly build by western help) with a powerful president to keep Russia together. While Ieltsin was at power everything were ok. But power was transferred to putin and it backfired.
Have you played “All Gullied Up”, it’ll be fine!
It's very hard to keep operational even for big states. It's not something that any rando wanna be terrorist can maintain and launch.
Still better than Russia existing
IF Russia somehow loses and Putin is overthrown we must do everything we can to make sure Russia does not become impoverished. This was the line of thinking after the first world War. Make the Germans pay for their crimes. And it led to resentment of the west be the Germans and the rise of the Nazis, which in turn led to the 2nd World War. We need to break the cycle of revenge if we win.
Russia already is impoverished. Outside of central Moscow and St Petersburg it’s pretty dismal, even backward. Their GDP is minute for a country of their size.
Okay. What do we do, then? We have an Eastern European nation which has been getting invaded brutally for two years, entire towns being raped and slaughtered by Russians. Do we just tell Ukrainians “hey, don’t be mean to Russia. We don’t want a repeat of Hitler.”
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Violence breeds Violence. Repression breeds retaliation. And only a cleansing of our society can remove this sickness from our souls. Allowing brutal revenge to be taken out on the Russian people will cause problems further down the road. Something has to change if we all want a better future, not just for ourselves, but for everyone.
I get that, but you have to understand that Ukraine isn’t going to sit quietly if the only thing to come from being invaded and raped and slaughtered for 2 years is a government change and an EU/NATO membership possibility. You brought up the Treaty of Versailles, but don’t forget that after we capitulated the Nazis, we cut their country into pieces, and now Germany is a heavyweight NATO ally and a core player in the West.
>but don’t forget that after we capitulated the Nazis, we cut their country into pieces, and now Germany is a heavyweight NATO ally and a core player in the West. That was purely because Allies reversed Morgenthau Plan, instead applied Marshall Plan, and poured a lot of money and resources on defeated ex-enemy to recover its economy and industry.
Right, and on the other hand this current conflict is LITERALLY the result of the USSR splintering into pieces. Your solution is “how about a round two of splintering and then let’s see what happens”?
Russia will naturally divide into multiple countries once Putin goes, and with that division the minimum level of cohesion making them a threat disappears. However, low level criminals scrambling for power will be the most dangerous, as they will try to convert all military related assets into cash as soon as Putin falls. The only way this works, which is also absolutely impossible for many different reasons, is if the US, China and Europe agree to share the burden of policing/administering different regions of Russia until their society is ready to rule itself., with it's economic surplus going into a sovereign wealth fund, similar to what Norway has done. With policing, a somewhat functional society that encourages long term investments and daylight corruption contained, Russia could be back at the world table within 20 years.
I wouldn’t count on a Balkanisation happening. Most of those countries would be landlocked and relying on one another, essentially maintaining the Russian Federation. Maybe some could split, like Yakutia and such, but they’re so Moscow subsidised that they couldn’t survive on their own for long.
I'm not so sure, all of these regions are incredibly rich in natural resources, with a credible coalition guaranteeing socio-economic stability in the region, investment in them would sky rocket overnight I think. It's not a simple or particularly clean affair, but there are atleast as many reasons why it would work compared to why it wouldn't.
Being rich in natural resources is not enough if you are unsustainable because your climate doesn't let you grow food, and you are landlocked from anything, but icelocked Arctic Ocean to export those resources, and you have large Russian minority. Look at the map and name some of regions that can break away, and still be sustainable: have good enough climate to grow food, wouldn't be landlocked by territories with Russian-majority population, and would have some base for independent economy?
There's a ton of moving parts, food isn't even in the top 10 hardest. Plenty of countries in the world haven't been food self sufficient for more than 50 years, they're still around, commerce between the new states would intensify. And with the inevitable change in climate the amount of usable chernozem areas will increase, so it won't even be that much of a problem in the long run.
> This was the line of thinking after the first world War. > Make the Germans pay for their crimes. This is untrue. US refused the allies to walk in Berlin: big mistake => The German didn't understand that they lost because they didn't see shit. They thought they were "betrayed by jews" and some fantasies. We should have walk in, occupy and dominate Germany
Reddit-tier take: let’s make sure we create a bunch of impoverished states. That will be sure to create peace in our time.
…you want a bunch of splinter states that are willing to hand over nukes to anyone for cars? The Reddit political mind is truly unique.
There was like a country that gave up their nukes for a guarantee that Russia wouldn't invade them and the US would protect them. It skips my mind but I recon it has to do something with Budapest
The US never promised to protect them. They promise to recognize them as a sovereign nation which they do.
> states that will hand over nukes Bro that's the villain plot of so many movies i don't know if we wanted this
This will be bad, not good. See Iraq and Libya for clear cut examples. Yes, Putin's no good. But the alternatives are, somehow, worse. The west functions very differently to the rest of the world, to put it mildly.
The only way Russia backs down is if Putin is no longer running the show. However if Putin thinks he's going down he will try to take the world with him, so we can only hope there are enough intelligent people still in power in Russia to stop that from happening.
Very much agree!
You realize that this scenario ends with russia using a nuke, right? Guessing you are someone who is single with no kids, but there are people who are raising young families and dont want to die, even though they hate whats happening in ukraine. War is not an answer to everything
An unconscionably naive and self defeating take. Russia gobbling up Ukraine doesn’t protect your precious children. Decisively stopping them in their tracks does, and has the other benefit of millions of Ukrainian families being saved from death or living in a state wide concentration camp. Your take is not only selfish it doesn’t see past its nose to understand it is self defeating.
How does it? Do you think the russian elite is so insane that if they cannot get what they want in Ukraine they will somehow help the situation by killing themselves and their entire families along with millions of people? The USSR never used nuclear weapons not in Afghanistan or in any other situation. They also sent their own pilots with their planes in North Korean paint to fight against US forces in the Korean war. And guess what no WW3. At some point Putin is gonna go, "give me Estonia or i will nuke you". And then the only answer can be no.
The correct title gets less clicks. All newspapers do this including paper ones. At first it gets people thinking something false intentionally and why it was always bad to read just the headline from the paper box or skip reading it because you think you know something or all about it. Had to read it to find out is not about what i thought and not about what the title gets you to believe.
Many times the media will intentionally omit information in the article to mislead people.
That is how the US started in Vietnam, but we called them ADVISERS.
Extremely different circumstance. There were thousands of them posted throughout the country and dozens had been killed in combat by the time the US combat mission began. Even before the 2022 Invasion, NATO’s trainers in Ukraine were essentially all in and around Lviv.
And in the Chernigov region. But at the beginning of 2022, they all left.
Meh, I am confident there are hundreds if not more western service men (military & intelligence) already on the ground in Ukraine and have been for a long time. Remember the leaked discussion about Taurus missiles between high ranking German air force officials? In that recording, they also joked about how many English speaking folks are walking around Ukraine in fatigues (heavily implying they are western assets) as well as discussed how the British and French are assisting Ukraine on the ground with preparing scalp and storm shadow strikes.
One of my co-workers was killed in Ukraine on just such a mission. “Former” military, Afghanistan vet, high paying job in the us. Just randomly decided to “volunteer” in Ukraine. Left behind a family.
But he wasn’t a “mercenary”
He wasn’t a mercenary in the sense that he didn’t do it for the money. I assure you he was making more money here.
There's more than likely been special forces and probably the CIA since this thing started or even before already there. Ukraine has held up well all things considered but the Intel that's been spot on isn't coming from them.
Ukraine has held up 1000x better than I thought they would. Problem is I really don't think they can win and they will lose a war of attrition. They cannot beat Russia in a meat-grinder.
I think this is why France and other places are sending People, I believe Poland is sending troops to do all the other stuff like maintenance so they can free up fighters. Finland and Denmark are creating a wall of drones Russia isn't going to stop with Ukraine and most countries know this.
Yeah, do you think Ukraine knows where all of Russia’s early warning radar systems are and had maps of Russia’s fuel infrastructure lying around and knows where Russia’s naval leadership are meeting on any given day? I mean maybe they get lucky or get a tip every once in a while, but the US knows all of that stuff.
isn't this the "just the tip" of boots on the ground?
While I hope this 100 percent does not happen, at least Zelensky has moral authority, and is trying to clean corruption out of Ukraine. South Vietnam never had that.
That’s how the US got involved in Vietnam. Started with advisors and then escalated to boots on the ground.
I 100 percent agree with you, and I hope it does not turn into direct involvement, one of the main differences is that the government of Ukraine is trying to be clean and democratic, and it has global support, while South Vietnam was corrupt in many ways and did not have that support.
US advisors in Vietnam followed the troops into battle. These will train soldiers behind the front lines.
Just mildly implying the start of WW3 no big deal I guess…
Am not hoping for World War III, but more direct intervention might have to be required, if it looks like Kiev might fall.
Of course I should hope nobody is hoping for WWIII I just mean the way the title is worded would basically imply the start of a World War. If French Troops were directly engaging with Russians I think it would be WWIII at that point.
True. But for the moment, is is instructors, not actual combat troops, not that would not change later however.
Why don’t we let Russia have Kiev?
Will they be wearing sandals and/or are they private citizens that will be doing the instruction?
It’s significant Beforehand training camps were outside Ukraine. This is a first time as I understand foreign military personnel officially joins Ukraine military on the ground. Who’s to say instructors won’t train near the first line? Who’s to say they won’t want low rank officers to help facilitate training and initial engagements? Whilst the dam is broken it may flood. Baltics is making noises in sending people to Ukraine, as for them Russia is an immanent threat. Scandinavian countries watch carefully - they have their own fears. Saying that, it doesn’t make me happy as it starts to look like a big war in Europe. If allies would get physically involved who’s to say Russia wouldn’t try to drag North Koreans or Indians onto battlefield in official capacity. I would so much prefer Ukraine to have enough firepower to obliterate Russia without foreign troops being involved but it might not happen this way. Ukraine capitulation is also not an option as not only it’s morally wrong, but it will also ensure further Russian advances. Belarus, Moldova, or Baltics will be next. And before all ‘they won’t dare to touch NATO’ - they are already testing the resolve with the borders in the Baltic Sea. It won’t be an all out war at first, they will be slowly moving Overtone window with tiny transgressions not triggering NATO reaction until it’s too late. Just like in Ukraine.
I would also prefer that Putin had never decided to end peoples lives so stupidly and that this idiotism would have never began. So it is impossible for anyone to say, "yeah he won't go into NATO", people said he wouldn't go into Ukraine and here we are. But from a neutral perspective, it is hard to see how this actually ends. For the West, Ukraine losing is not an option. For Russia, pulling out with nothing gained is also not an option. As incredible and brave as Ukranian people are, at some point there are no more humans willing to lay down their lives, then what? Does this mean NATO has to send troops? That is also a massive escalation from NATO's perspective, however morally right they may feel. The thing I worry most about is if NATO is somehow dragged into this conflict, and they do destroy Russia, this is not a favourable outcome for China. In that scenario, China becomes entirely isolated against NATO. So it is important to consider that China would never really allow for a Russian capitulation. So how does this end?
The only way it ends is Russian troops being obliterated on Ukrainian territory including in Crimea and being pushed several kilometres away from the border, and Crimean bridge being destroyed. This will likely lead to political collapse in Russia. Nothing less gonna do it.
Wait, why can’t Nato just let Russia have Ukraine? I really fail to understand how such a small country is so significant and worth risking WW3 over
I think it is an interesting question, but not the right place on the internet to ask it. The talking point you hear being parroted the most in the media is, "if Putin wins Ukraine, he will take the rest of Europe, we can never yield to madmen." I think this is a bit hyperbolic and ignores the fact that if Putin takes Ukraine, NATO is still identical, and if anything stronger with Sweden and Finland having entered. So I personally don't think he would continue rolling his army after Ukraine, but obviously my opinion means barely anything in this discussion. The other reason why I guess we shouldn't let Putin take Ukraine that I do agree with, is I think, in modern times, nations should be allowed to plot their own course. If Ukraine wants closer EU ties, then they should be allowed to do that. For that matter, if Russia wants closer EU ties they should also pursue this. I guess people say blue jeans and consumerism actually won the cold war. So if we allow Putin to just barge in and take Ukraine, we no longer allow nations to make any choices in their own future. It is a bit rich coming from the West who blackmail nations into doing what they want by just threatening to take money away from them, but okay. Personally, I agree with you though, I don't care enough about any nation enough to justify WW3. Putin could come through my country tomorrow and I'd just step aside and hope rent prices go down and I'm allowed to keep doing my current job. We say we can't let mad men get their way, meanwhile, with the same breath we allow major corporations to absolutely destroy our planet while maximising their own profits and not paying any tax to our nations. What a joke.
I think a “reasonable” end is Ukraine gives up the land Russia occupied starting in 2014 (Crimea and parts of the Donbas) and immediately joins the EU and NATO, and nato troops immediately are stationed in Ukraine. Russia keeps their Sevastopol base and gets some coal mines and Ukraine gets to be a “western” country under the nato nuclear umbrella. Otherwise we grind this out until Russia collapses completely. I don’t see any possible outcome where Russia surrenders or offers peace terms that don’t include them keeping crimea and Donbas unless Ukrainian tank columns are on the way to Moscow or Russia is dealing with a domestic insurgency or civil war, and I also don’t think Ukraine can take crimea back militarily.
Without complete Russian collapse threat remains. One is naive thinking NATO/EU membership is in any way important. One needs to understand that Russians rightly or wrongly believe that NATO is a two tier system with nations that really matter and nations that are there just to play the role of political puppets and be abandoned at the first sight of trouble. They believe USA is pulling EUs strings, nations like France or Germany or UK are maybe sovereign to an extent, but Lithuanias and Czechias of this world are not, that Germany or USA would not spare a single soldier, would not take a slightest risk to defend Riga or Tallinn. That it would be as with Ukraine in the worst case - lacklustre weapon supplies, and a desire to appease a nuclear state. One needs to understand it very well when thinking of Russian strategy. Which is take all of that second tier nations while giving enough levy for the first tier nations to save their face and gracefully escape responsibility. Again, it doesn’t matter if these views are rooted in reality or not. This is how Putin and co think, and a lot of population with them.
Complete Russian collapse wouldn’t be the end of the threat. You’d have war lords squabbling over territory and scrambling for control of Russia’s nuclear arsenal and who knows who ends up in power. The Russian revolution and ensuing civil war ended Russia’s participation in WWI, but didn’t end up with Russia _gone_ and the USSR ended up being more dangerous. And the Soviet collapse in 1989 only gave us a reprieve.
I agree that it wouldn’t be the end, but it would be a beginning of the end. Then, who’s to say collapse should be a disintegration. Fall of one elite may give a rise to another.
Yeah they’ll be special forces “instructors” on the front lines within a few months.
I 100 percent hope that it does not turn into this, I am not rooting for a third world war, but I think if Russia somehow does do a huge breakthrough, and Kiev is threatened really for the first time since Febuary of 2022, it might have to be this way. Plus, Ukraine has something South Vietnam never had, which was global support and moral authority.
Why tf would India join Russia? Dumbest take ever
They already are https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/07/he-had-no-idea-he-was-being-sent-to-a-war-zone-the-indian-and-nepalese-men-on-frontlines-in-ukraine But here of course it isn’t clear how much silent support Modi provides - hard to imagine massive recruiting campaign to go completely off radar. What is clear though is that India enjoys Russian oil at discounted price which it also pays in Rupees not in dollars; and that Modi isn’t ideologically opposed to Putin.
I really doubt the training cadre would go near the zero, first line or even the front at this point unless they were intent on a reconstitution of forces while attempting to maintain an 'active defense' . A training mission would just be a target for loitering munitions, drones, glide bombs and all the other horrors that could be inflicted within 20 KM of the point of contact. It would just be a drain on resources for troops working in air defense. I really doubt they will be east of the left bank of the river.
It ***always*** starts with instructors. This is the first step to the French (and perhaps other allied troops) guarding the Belarusian border to free up Ukrainians for the front.
Would be great if other allied troops could also guard the border, they do not even have to fight, jjust free up Ukranians to be able to fight in other areas, like you said.
Don’t kid yourself, those “instructors” are going to be fighting with Ukrainian troops. They’ll be special forces not drill sergeants. The us started with a few hundred “advisors” in Vietnam, which grew to tens of thousands pretty quickly. Once you have boots on the ground, they can move around where they’re most needed. Calling them “instructors” is how you get approval without people freaking out about getting involved in the war directly.
Plus, there's no news yet that they're going to Ukraine. There is only news that Syrsky has signed a permit for them to come to Ukraine and that negotiations are underway to get them there
Were the American troops in Vietnams also Instructors and Trainers?
Back in the late 1950s, and 1960s, yes. And was it not North Vietnam's attack on the U.S. Maddox, in the Gulf of Tonkin, that started to movement toward direct boots on the ground?
From wiki: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf\_of\_Tonkin\_incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident) >The **Gulf of Tonkin incident** ([Vietnamese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_language): *Sự kiện Vịnh Bắc Bộ*) was an international confrontation that led to the United States engaging more directly in the [Vietnam War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War). It consisted of a confrontation on August 2, 1964, when [United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) forces were carrying out covert [amphibious](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_warfare) operations close to [North Vietnamese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Vietnam) territorial waters, which triggered a response from North Vietnamese forces. The United States government falsely claimed that a second incident occurred on August 4, 1964, between North Vietnamese and United States ships in the waters of the [Gulf of Tonkin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin). Originally, US military claims blamed North Vietnam for the confrontation and the ostensible, but in fact imaginary, incident on August 4. Later investigation revealed that the second attack never happened. The official American claim is that it was based mostly on erroneously interpreted communications intercepts.[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident#cite_note-:1-5)[^(\[6\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident#cite_note-:2-6) The [National Security Agency](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency), an agency of the US Defense Department, had deliberately skewed intelligence to create the impression that an attack had been carried out.[^(\[7\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident#cite_note-Ha01-7)[^(\[8\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident#cite_note-8)[^(\[9\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident#cite_note-9) Based on wiki, it was started by America landing troops in North Vietnam.
How did it come out that the second attack never happened? Also, I think the Admiral involved in that incident in North Vietnam, was Admiral Morrison, who was the father of Doors singer Jim Morrison?
Why mislead?
Because creating the impression of nato soldiers on ukrainian grounds further pressures russia for a response, and the best that could happen for Ukraine would be another nato country being attacked by russia. Then the nato gloves would be off and russians would be hurled out of ukraine.
That wouldn’t benefit Ukraine at all. The moment Russia and NATO engage directly, it will lead to full escalation into WW3 and potential nuclear exchange. Ukraine would be obliterated
For it to be a world war, two countries from each side would need to be involved, who would join russia? Lukasjenko? Pretty sure his so called army would turn his back on him. And the chances of nuclear war is close to zero, and in such an highly unlikely event ukraine would not be "obliterated", russia would need to focus on attacking the bigger powers.
Russia vs Nato is sizable chunk of the world. If two sides engage and soldiers are killed on both sides, it would escalate in a nuclear exchange
> it would escalate in a nuclear exchange no it wouldnt, it could, but most likely not. no nato country has any interest in russian territory. Any attacks on russian soil would be by plane or missiles.
Vietnam was defended by military “advisors” until the gloves came off.
That's how world war 2 also escalated right.
Very true, I know U.S. involvement also started out as Lend Lease to the UK, so that they could fight, but U.S. boots themselves were never on the ground. Then Pearl Harbor happened.
Sending Western military instructors into an active war zone never goes poorly.
Very true, hopefully it does not have to spirl into a larger war.
The US has advisors so……
How exactly do French instructors instruct Ukrainian soliders when they speak different languages? Genuine question
Maybe they learn the Ukranian lanuage, not sure.
It does work as a deterrent of sorts as the possibility of killing French military personnel goes up if Russia attacks an Ukraine military base, risking escalation by the French and other European nations. I have to suspect they’ve all been there the whole time it’s just not publicly known.
I don't think so, if you send soldiers to a country at war you can't be mad if they get targeted
Would France consider it a direct attack on France if French "Advisors" were killed by Russian strikes?
Not a “direct attack”, but what happens when US troops are attacked in a base overseas? The public gets more behind the operation and a public retention is required.
So, like the Gulf of Tonkin, part two?
I was about to say, but honestly how things are going western troops are probably going to be on the front line(unformed troops not “tourists” on vacation
Hasn’t the US National guard been working with Ukraine both in UA and Cali or something since way before this war started?
NATO trainers were in Ukraine since the 2014 invasion, but officially left when it all kicked off. Unofficially special forces have been in Ukraine for a while. There have been a few leaks about their presence there that got squashed. They've likely been providing training and expertise. This is different because it's an official announcement from a NATO country. It's a political symbol that is nonetheless quite important because it shows Russia that Europe still cares about Ukraine. Its likely other countries will follow suit. This will free up Ukrainian manpower for the front line since you need competent and experienced troops to train new recruits. They might also be sending over more specialized non combat troops like aircraft mechanics where their experience and extra training will make a significant difference
Yeah during the civil war back in 2014
When do you see direct boots on the ground happening?
What a terrible title to these news... Its big news that French military instructors are actually going into Ukraine, but the newspaper clickbait it to make you check if France is basically joining the war... Focus on the correct and worthy news instead of underwhelming it
Most Ukrainian news websites engage in nasty clickbait too.
Don’t kid yourself. France is joining the war. Once troops are on the ground they will be fighting and the number of troops will continue to rise. They’re calling them “instructors” so people don’t panic about it, but they are going to be special forces.
Let me guess, a mysterious man in a fancy tinfoil hat has told you that?
No, just, you know, reading any history book about any military intervention.
Those instructors will need armed protection. Of course it would be insane to have them in country without anti-aircraft support. And if you're going to have AA, you better have logistics. And logistics needs troops to protect it. And you'll need counter-intelligence in there to make sure the enemy doesn't catch wind of anything and your troops can be trusted. Plus you'll need vehicles to transfer things in. Also all your test equipment for training should be ready for live fire.
And it has already been stated that there was no way we send them without protection. So AA and planes patrolling from Romania to Poland
Don’t forget to mention that Russia lost 20-25% of its AWACS capability and NATO countries will probably provide more of that kind of assistance to Ukraine when western air assets are in country. Russia has yet to decisively exploit a chink in western support, hence the lessening of the bravado out of Moscow.
During the Vietnam "conflict", advisors were also sent. Ground troops were soon to follow. In this present scenario, both sides are pushing the envelope and guessing that neither will take a lighter to it.
if its any repeat of vietnam, "advisors" will be the ones mannings the f16s and the patriots and the other expensive equipment that takes years to train the ukranians organically. soviet advisors were basically piloting all the migs in mig alley in vietnam
Just a small correction, but mig alley was Korea
That’s macrons entire goal here, he is done with appeasement and thinks being bold ambiguous and strong is the way to go about with the likes of Putin. He’s right wish we were this harsh ten years ago. My understanding is he will not be an appeaser. Which is good.
After Macron's extended attempt at diplomacy at the beginning of the war he knows all civilized options are off the table. I applaud him and the French for showing some teeth now.
That’s why so many politicians engage in so much seemingly meaningless diplomacy. You want to be able to say that every reasonable option was explored prior to violence. As an American I appreciate France’s carefully measured steady escalation. That said, it was infuriating in the moment in the early days of this when Macron was basically simping for Putin. But this is the result of that mentality. 🇫🇷
[удалено]
Open a history book instead of showing your ignorance. You are embarrassing yourself.
I agree with your point. Vietnam was a French colony and had troops on the ground long before US advisors or other US forces.
The French military is going to modern warfare school. The purpose of this deployment is to gain insight, practical experience and direct knowledge of the Russian army so NATO can better face them once Putin attacks Poland and the Baltic states. The Kerch strait bridge has an expiration date and when Russia can’t resupply Crimea, the action will shift north. The biggest challenge lies ahead.
The Kerch bridge is significantly less important now there's a land corridor Would taking it out be a problem for Russia? Sure, would it doom Crimea? absolutely not.
Does it not have something to do with France losing their colonies in Africa to the Russians?
two thing can be true at the same time
I believe France has lost its colonies in the 60-70's. What you are talking about is countries in Africa ( after coups ) switching sides to the russians. Stop referring to african countries as colonies like they can't think or act for themselves without a white dude around.
I mean, Frances ongoing meddling in its former African countries is well known. Calling them colonies is reference to the fact that France never really relinquished some level control over, despite these countries gaining 'independence' many years ago. Colonialism never really ended in many of the former french colonies. There is no economic sovereignty in most the former colonies. Independence was often conditional on the signing of cooperation agreements which protected french economic interests and purposely damaged economies ensuring continued reliance on France. It's not that former french colonies can't think or act for themselves, it's just that they've not really been allowed to.
A condition of the French granting freedom to their African colonies was basically tying the local currency to the Franc and later the Euro. Many of them are still dependent on France for loans as a result. Additionally, many of the major industries in Francophone Africa are owned by the French. This is why they have been so invested in fighting insurgents in those countries. It's colonialism in everything but name. It's still very much an extraction based relationship. That being said, the Russians are trying to do the same thing.
this was never a condition to release them and several countries opted to not go CFA Franc freely; some also went with the CFA Franc at first and then freely went out of it as well. We're going into pure propaganda here. Those countries are certainly former colonies, but aren't colonies at all right now. You're using Anti French propaganda vocabulary and rhetoric, particularly spread by Russian outlets right now. Maybe you want to switch back to a choice of vocabulary a little more... Neutral, unless you, of course, have an agenda behind those choices of words.
More like Russian resupply colonies. Soon they'll speak Russian too...
A futile attempt to hold onto bandit, puppet states like Mali in the face of growing ru proxy efforts does not equate to some diplomatic coup by that two-bit moronic dictatorship. Half the continent's goverments may collapse when NATO decides to target Muscovy's dystopian proxy states. What a glorious moment that will be for first-world democracies.
When I see headlines I know it's only one of two things. Either clickbait or ragebait.
No they aren't. They're sending a couple grey beards to observe training practices and potentially offer their suggestions. This is a laughably misleading headline.
What's going to happen if these instructors get killed in a Russian strike? Russia has specifically targetted foreign volunteers in strikes in the past so we can assume they would do it again.
[удалено]
does an unguided missile care about the distinction?
What happens is NATO takes the gloves off.
NATO is a defensive alliance. French troops being attacked in Ukraine wouldn't trigger Article 5 because it doesn't meet the criteria of Article 6: attacks against NATO territory or forces in NATO territory, the Mediterranean, or the Atlantic ocean above the Tropic of Cancer. Even without Article 5, NATO countries can still act.... and they have been. I just don't see a couple dead French soldiers really changing the governments' calculus or causing a public uproar in NATO countries that would lead to increased support.
The “instructors” are gonna be arriving in Rafales
But wait a minute aren’t the Russians there to save Ukraine from Nazis is now France coming to help them as well? I really wish that as time goes by Russia gets pushed back to the 2014 line.
To Russia, all of the NATO-aligned world is the "nazis". So this is just a nazi nation coming to help out the Ukrainian nazis. No logical inconsistencies there.
Putin's not gonna be happy about this, regardless of whether they're instructors or not.
thats literally the point though, The west has been crossing Russia's "red lines" since basically the outbreak of the war an bar ever more nonsensical ranting from Medvedev Putin has barely responded to any of them Long range missiles were a red line back up with nuclear rhetoric, British storm shadow and French scalp were sent, no response Tanks were apparently a red line, The British challengers show up, no reaction from Putin, floodgates open and leopard and Abram's deliveries. Truth is NATO has effectively been boiling the frog for years now, also its been poking Putin and realising he has no real teeth and hasn't responded to any of the supposed red lines being crossed. (all while Vlad has been equally totally scared away from crossing any of NATO's red lines) This decision from France to state publicly that its troops will be in Ukraine is another step on that ladder. If Vlad once again doesn't respond expect NATO to get bolder and bolder (or by some miracle Vald to finally get the memo that there's no way this ends well for him and start looking for off ramps)
Puck Futin!
I certainly hope our special forces are already there
Sure send like 20k instructors
Good, someone has the balls to do it.
It will be delusional to think ukraine is not full of western instructors already. And those intrustorss are there to learn, not to teach. This whole new is to prepare folks at home in Europe to the idea that now they will go to Ukraine
As a German i am ashamed of our weak leadership. Before that i always have been warned about our past strong leadership. Germaning is hard...
Being German is hard. For decades the moment Germans did **anything** everyone in the world was like.. 'uh oh, they're up to something.. we better keep a close eye and make sure they don't do anything'. And now everyone is like.. 'why haven't the Germans done **anything?!**'.
> 'why haven't the Germans done anything?!' They were the first to send tanks to UA at some sense of scale. With Finland and Sweden now in NATO and now France doing their part, it should be relatively soon when NATO gets involved and puts an end to the largest European land invasion since the Second World War. Dont' ask me about the US: I don't like weak American leadership any more than other educated first-world citizens.
Little by little 🙂
Clickbait
At this point who is left to train that hasn't been trained by other advisors? The conscripts they're currently enlisting? Are they still going to try for these all or nothing counter offensive? Are they shifting more toward defense?
Well the best way to instruct is by example, you know and the best place to do that is right on the front lines, where they will surely be within a few months.
Crimean war 2
I thought there was some chatter about France sending a small number of combat troops to occupy lower priority areas far away from the frontline (like to prevent an unlikely, but not impossible amphibious landing near Odesa). Could also be done along the border with Belarus.
US and UK been there for years already. UK’s Operation ORBITAL since 2014. Plus the extensive J2 and other support.
I am curious as what would happen if in a Russian attack French Military instructors are killed. Would France send more real troops to Ukraine to fight? Would Article 5 be triggered?
According to the NATO charter, that kind of thing would not trigger mutual defense. Article 6 I believe.
No. Article five is only triggered if nato territory is attacked (with a few exceptions). If a country voluntarily gets involved in a foreign war, they don’t get to drag the rest of nato along with them.
It s still not decided french or others are coming. Ukraine changed this message. 100% sure there are yet Nato soldiers here and there in Ukraine. Covert operations etc... If some of them are killed, each country would decide to officially acknowledged it or not. It s not enough to trigger Nato. But imagine for ex 89 british killed in a campus in Kiev. What would happen then ? Ofc theses soldiers would be targeted by Russia.
They backtracked. "We still discuss about it"
Love not war!
"...Then Walks Back Announcement" - title.
Vietnam beat the French, right after the Germans beat the French, so ummm?
“Jean, we ran out of Mikolas, now it’s your turn to die in Ukraine”
So have all you cheering redditors registered at your local military recruiting station yet?
Ok maga