As America exits the Ukraine War, it seeks leadership from Paris, London and Berlin. Facing the spectre of defeat, these three capitals are forming a drama triangle, trying to manage shame and blame.
Very thought provoking article. Enjoyed reading it.
It also just kind of dawned on me that considering that the NS pipelines are not going to be restored, all Russia would have to do is bomb the German LNG receiving ports (2 or 3 I think). That would set Germany back a decade or two.
Yes, and it's worth considering that should Russia find itself in a limited shooting war with France, or Britain, or Germany--or all three. It's first actions might well be to de-energize them with conventional strikes while chewing on whatever they shove in the bear's mouth. Russian logistics suffer greatly once they're forced to pass over to the narrower Western rail guages, so it will prefer to simply not do so.
I'm well versed in WW1, and in particular the Battle of Verdun. I visited the town and outlying areas a couple years ago. I'm also very aware of what happened in May of 1940 having visited Sedan several times. The reality is that despite French bravery, the "surrender monkey" slur exists and as you say, enrages the French. Which is why I suggest that it may be one of the psychological drives pushing Macron to his heroic pose.
Macron has no real commitment to the French nation. He's not a classic politician, but a former banker (Rothschild) brought to power by an interest group taking advantage of the fear of the extreme right.
The French don't try to justify this reputation. It's impossible, it's now part of the pop culture of the Anglosphere and they can only treat it with raging contempt.
Greta article as always! How far do you think Macron would be willing to go? Do you actually think he would intervene to prevent the taking of Odessa? I have serious doubts about that, especially with all of the recent backtracking by the French military. At this point, I think they’ve accepted a rump Ukraine.
I can think of four levels on intent in Macron's statements.
1. Purely rhetorical, to boost France's image or to help him in the electoral realm, which frankly doesn't make much sense.
2. Macron hopes to trigger a "tripwire effect" by sacrificing a few forward positioned French soldiers as the Russians march on Odessa hoping for a snap reversal of French, European and or American public opinion on sending troops to Ukraine.
3. Macron will send limited fighting forces to, for example, help protect Odessa from any potential (and suicidal!) Russian attempt at an amphibious landing near the city.
4. Macron truly intends to stop Russian forces marching on BOTH Odessa and Kiev. If this were his intention, Macron would already need to be feeding say a thousand troops a day into Ukraine to train them in trench warfare, etc. How Macron intends to supply his troops is anyone's guess. Presumably the Black Sea is closed to him. Accomplishing these tasks would require upwards of 300,000 French troops. Russian troops realistically will not reach the point where they can march on both Odessa and Kiev for another six to eighteen months. So Macron doesn't have much time to prepare if he really is serious about this option.
In other words you agree with me that Macron is engaged in the first scenario of the four that I describe above. There's a reason I put that one first...
But you yourself seem to be saying that he is psoing for the elections and that this move is NOT helping him in the polls and only helps the opposition. Threatening to send people's sons to Ukraine is not likely to be a super popular position. Perhaps Macron calculates that posing as a hero will produce more votes than take away. It is very possible then that he is indeed doing the first scenario and at the same time is making an electoral mistake in doing so.
1) The French army, 35 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, is only capable of holding an 80 km front for 2 weeks.
2) It has become specialized in overseas operations, using fast, light, airborne equipment against irregular troops.
3) No one believes that Macron would be so inept as to put it up against Russian troops battle-hardened to this type of warfare over the past 2 years.
5) Logically, the extreme right must make a breakthrough in the elections, but it's a matter of portraying himself as a commander-in-chief and presenting them as Russian-friendly traitors.
Thank you. So in your opinion, a realistic scenario (as you mentioned above) is that the Dnieper River becomes the de-facto dividing line between “East and West”? Do you think the Kremlin could accept that as a natural barrier?
No, I don't think that the Dnieper is a good boundary and certainly not for the East and West dividing line. Russia has been signalling that they are willing the hand Galicia (Western Ukraine) to the West. Russia will want to control in one fashion or another the rest of Ukraine. Ideally for Russia Ukraine would become a subservient state like Belarus. For Ukraine to be a coherent economic entity they need both sides of the Dnieper. Once Ukraine unambiguously bends the knee to Russia, then what areas are labelled Russian and what areas Ukrainian are not of great importance. Think of Japan after the US occupation, its independence was conditioned on its need to stay obedient to the US--and US troops stayed to ensure this submission. Ukraine will end up in a similar relationship with Russia. Galicia may be the only exception. Here Russia may allow Poland, Hungary and Romania to take back their historical lands.
Very thought provoking article. Enjoyed reading it.
It also just kind of dawned on me that considering that the NS pipelines are not going to be restored, all Russia would have to do is bomb the German LNG receiving ports (2 or 3 I think). That would set Germany back a decade or two.
Yes, and it's worth considering that should Russia find itself in a limited shooting war with France, or Britain, or Germany--or all three. It's first actions might well be to de-energize them with conventional strikes while chewing on whatever they shove in the bear's mouth. Russian logistics suffer greatly once they're forced to pass over to the narrower Western rail guages, so it will prefer to simply not do so.
"the shameful “surrender monkey” epitaph"
If you want to know why it enrages the French:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/qsrjf7cp1agnqw7teedbw/von-kuchler-2023.JPG?rlkey=n1di7qlqpejxn9rpy6so22zsp&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/34u21bpqqyokhhydwis05/hitler-demo-bla.JPG?rlkey=x864lwxfqi0q0r93zxdd2mn5a&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/g7b8plaq4081zjd4q8lgc/FRANCE-LIBRE-1942-1945.png?rlkey=514yvn6igrptgj8f92qqgfuad&dl=0
I'm well versed in WW1, and in particular the Battle of Verdun. I visited the town and outlying areas a couple years ago. I'm also very aware of what happened in May of 1940 having visited Sedan several times. The reality is that despite French bravery, the "surrender monkey" slur exists and as you say, enrages the French. Which is why I suggest that it may be one of the psychological drives pushing Macron to his heroic pose.
Macron has no real commitment to the French nation. He's not a classic politician, but a former banker (Rothschild) brought to power by an interest group taking advantage of the fear of the extreme right.
The French don't try to justify this reputation. It's impossible, it's now part of the pop culture of the Anglosphere and they can only treat it with raging contempt.
The origin of this fame: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zxnu275q0tfgflu19incu/mc-farlan-dunkirk.png?rlkey=vsppbcxl8zhgodxdhmrsjpohn&dl=0
Greta article as always! How far do you think Macron would be willing to go? Do you actually think he would intervene to prevent the taking of Odessa? I have serious doubts about that, especially with all of the recent backtracking by the French military. At this point, I think they’ve accepted a rump Ukraine.
Thanks.
I can think of four levels on intent in Macron's statements.
1. Purely rhetorical, to boost France's image or to help him in the electoral realm, which frankly doesn't make much sense.
2. Macron hopes to trigger a "tripwire effect" by sacrificing a few forward positioned French soldiers as the Russians march on Odessa hoping for a snap reversal of French, European and or American public opinion on sending troops to Ukraine.
3. Macron will send limited fighting forces to, for example, help protect Odessa from any potential (and suicidal!) Russian attempt at an amphibious landing near the city.
4. Macron truly intends to stop Russian forces marching on BOTH Odessa and Kiev. If this were his intention, Macron would already need to be feeding say a thousand troops a day into Ukraine to train them in trench warfare, etc. How Macron intends to supply his troops is anyone's guess. Presumably the Black Sea is closed to him. Accomplishing these tasks would require upwards of 300,000 French troops. Russian troops realistically will not reach the point where they can march on both Odessa and Kiev for another six to eighteen months. So Macron doesn't have much time to prepare if he really is serious about this option.
Sorry, but it's impossible to be further from the truth.
Macron had just suffered several humiliations on the French domestic political scene.
He has classically diverted public attention by playing the commander in chief in foreign policy.
His declarations were mainly caused by domestic political problems.
he knows that public opinion and other Europeans won't support him. He's just blowing hot air.
The June elections are going to be a disaster for him, but the press isn't talking about it any more.
In other words you agree with me that Macron is engaged in the first scenario of the four that I describe above. There's a reason I put that one first...
"which frankly doesn't make much sense."
You put this hypothesis first, only to discard it...
But you yourself seem to be saying that he is psoing for the elections and that this move is NOT helping him in the polls and only helps the opposition. Threatening to send people's sons to Ukraine is not likely to be a super popular position. Perhaps Macron calculates that posing as a hero will produce more votes than take away. It is very possible then that he is indeed doing the first scenario and at the same time is making an electoral mistake in doing so.
1) The French army, 35 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, is only capable of holding an 80 km front for 2 weeks.
2) It has become specialized in overseas operations, using fast, light, airborne equipment against irregular troops.
3) No one believes that Macron would be so inept as to put it up against Russian troops battle-hardened to this type of warfare over the past 2 years.
5) Logically, the extreme right must make a breakthrough in the elections, but it's a matter of portraying himself as a commander-in-chief and presenting them as Russian-friendly traitors.
Thank you. So in your opinion, a realistic scenario (as you mentioned above) is that the Dnieper River becomes the de-facto dividing line between “East and West”? Do you think the Kremlin could accept that as a natural barrier?
No, I don't think that the Dnieper is a good boundary and certainly not for the East and West dividing line. Russia has been signalling that they are willing the hand Galicia (Western Ukraine) to the West. Russia will want to control in one fashion or another the rest of Ukraine. Ideally for Russia Ukraine would become a subservient state like Belarus. For Ukraine to be a coherent economic entity they need both sides of the Dnieper. Once Ukraine unambiguously bends the knee to Russia, then what areas are labelled Russian and what areas Ukrainian are not of great importance. Think of Japan after the US occupation, its independence was conditioned on its need to stay obedient to the US--and US troops stayed to ensure this submission. Ukraine will end up in a similar relationship with Russia. Galicia may be the only exception. Here Russia may allow Poland, Hungary and Romania to take back their historical lands.