France's Political Stance on the Russian/Ukrainian Conflict?

[calmissile]

With France and Germany deciding they would be the arbitrators for the Russian/Ukraine conflict, I am curious to learn more about the background of the French in general.  Admittedly, not knowing a lot about European history (other than WWII) I have been puzzled about how Hollande and Merkle became the ones to decide Ukraine's fate.

Here is an interesting article that got me thinking....

 http://opedspace.com/2015/03/05/hollandes-nato-statement-puts-europe-at-risk/

From what I understand, the Germans are still somewhat ashamed of the atrocities committed in WWII by Hitler and prefer to stay at home and not become involved in any military conflicts.  If true, this is understandable.  There is also the trade issue where Germany has a lot of trade with Russia and could influence it's policies about applying sanctions against them.  By the same token, doesn't the German public fear the new cold war policies of Putin and his aggressive actions to invade other nations?  Does Germany have a military adequate to win a conflict with Russia (without NATO).  What are your thoughts?

The French are a puzzle to me.  Other than wanting to sell the two warships to Russia, what are the benefits to France to abandon Ukraine to keep the Russian's happy?  For much of my life, I have heard jokes about the French surrendering before the enemy got to their doors.  I never bothered to research what these jokes are based on, but Americans have told them over a long period of time.  What's the background on these jokes?  The article above indicates the French do not want NATO to allow new members into the organization.  Isn't that a little selfish?  Is it typical of the French?

From the reading of the forum over the past couple of years, I am wondering if one of the NATO members were attacked, would the balance of the members actually participate in the collective military defense or would some of them send MRE's and blankets?  As I loosely understand it, the idea of NATO is to provide a collective military response to any member under threat.  It also presumably allows each member state to participate with a much smaller capital outlay than it would have if it were to build a full military itself.  How well is this idea going to work if the member states have the option of responding to their own liking?  It appears that the individual member states are not even contributing the required funds for their collective defense.  If Putin invades the Balkins or any other NATO member, would NATO respond with overwhelming force?

From my observations recently, the UN has become next to useless like any large organization.  When a 'bad guy' has veto power over anything that would deter bad behavior, there seems to be little power to control or influence conflicts.  Some Americans have been proposing we pull out of the UN since it is very expensive with the USA paying much of the bill.  Your thoughts?

Lastly, how many think that talking or idle threats are going to deter Putin from carrying out whatever agenda he has for additional aggression in Europe?

Edit....
Another interesting link about the same topic.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/08/us-eu-defence-juncker-idUSKBN0M40KL20150308?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

[southernX]

DOUG ,

 i think there is some basis for the lack of french backbone historically ,
but essentially none of the current leaders across the globe are strong  where it matters compared to putin


SX

[calmissile]

DOUG ,

 i think there is some basis for the lack of french backbone historically ,
but essentially none of the current leaders across the globe are strong  where it matters compared to putin


SX

Which is why he probably sees it as a historic opportunity to gobble up more countries while the world leaders are weak?

[SANDRO43]

For much of my life, I have heard jokes about the French surrendering before the enemy got to their doors. I never bothered to research what these jokes are based on, but Americans have told them over a long period of time.

I don't recall them surrendering BEFORE before having enemies at their doors, but they were defeated - and surrendered/made peace - several times during the past two centuries:

- Under Napoleon I: twice, in 1813 to the Prussians/Austrians/Swedes/Russians and in 1814 to the British/Prussians.
- Under Napoleon III: in 1870 to the Prussians in Paris.
- Under their Third Republic in 1940 to the Germans.
- Under their Fourth Republic in 1954 to the Viet Minh after Dien Bien Phu.

So their recent military record is not particularly shining - almost as bad as ours .

[southernX]

HOLLANDE ,is a hard one to pin down , his rhetoric  or that of his govs has often been  contrary on how to deal with russia and putin ,

they may be postulating between the domestic audience and their wider obligations /role in regards to ukraine

but you certainly dont feel hollande is any hawke

SX

[Gator]

France is explained by the spirit of the phrase they coined, C'est la vie, compounded by resentment on many levels (war, recognition of the French language, American success in business, music, films, etc.).   I like France, yet I am glad the USA is not saddled by its social values such as employment rights. 

There is an old joke about the difference between heaven and hell using several European countries to contrast the two.  For example, in heaven the Swiss are the administrators and in hell the lovers.  In heaven the French are the cooks, and in hell the mechanics.   

I met a couple of French businessmen in business settings.  They are clever and not lazy.   

Rather than single out France, one needs to consider the whole of the EU and recognize that Hollande's position seems congruent with Merkel's position and probably the majority of the EU members.  They  believe diplomacy together with the benefits of international trade will compel Russia to participate as a positive player in globalization rather than an outlaw who would be isolated.   

Ukraine, and thereby EU and Russia,  are now in a stalemate.  One can not say with certainty that Russia will continue or discontinue its nationalistic expansion.  Give the EU credit for not relaxing its sanctions against Russia at a time when the sanctions contribute to the weakening of the already weak EU economy.   Wait and see. 

You asked about NATO.  NATO has deployed when diplomatic missions have failed, to include the Balkans, Afghanistan and Somalia.  These were operations against a smaller, undergunned force with no air power.  The results were nothing to give one confidence in NATO.   Further, unlike these small-scale operations, Russia would be a formidable foe. 

In my opinion there is no guarantee that NATO would ever stand up to Russia if it invaded the old Soviet satellite states (e. g., the Baltics).  I say this because if NATO ever wanted to demonstrate its resolve, now would be the time for it to do more in Ukraine to include arming and training UA military.  Instead, the response by NATO has been limited to rhetoric critical of Russia, i. e., failed diplomacy. 

An interesting point, a CNN panel made the point today that Russia is a society in steep decline.  One panelist commented that declining societies are dangerous, and he used the start of WW I by Austria-Hungary.  The panel was less optimistic than Merkel and Hollande.     


http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/03/07/exp-gps-0308-panel-russia.cnn

My personal opinion is Ukraine is an EU issue.  Let the EU take the lead rather than the USA.  The EU has the most to lose as well as to gain.     Even if the Minsk II  stalemate holds, I question if Ukraine can reform its economy.  If not, Russia would win without more military confrontation. 

Hopefully the conflict remains in a stalemate whereby the political threads at RWD will diminish. 

[BillyB]

Does Germany have a military adequate to win a conflict with Russia (without NATO).  What are your thoughts?

With NATO, Germany will never be alone but to answer your question, absolutely not. Russia by far has more planes, tanks, ships, subs, resources and manpower. That is not including their nuclear arsenal.

I am wondering if one of the NATO members were attacked, would the balance of the members actually participate in the collective military defense or would some of them send MRE's and blankets?  As I loosely understand it, the idea of NATO is to provide a collective military response to any member under threat.  It also presumably allows each member state to participate with a much smaller capital outlay than it would have if it were to build a full military itself.  How well is this idea going to work if the member states have the option of responding to their own liking?  It appears that the individual member states are not even contributing the required funds for their collective defense.  If Putin invades the Balkins or any other NATO member, would NATO respond with overwhelming force?

According to Article 5 in the link below, the member states of NATO are allowed to participate with action each deems necessary. Greece, under their new leadership, is very friendly with Russia. They don't approve of the sanctions and in the event Russia invades a NATO member nation, I don't see Greece helping out much. When NATO bombed Libya, our then Secretary of Defense criticized our fellow NATO members for not pulling their load in costs and supplying our pilots with the bombs they need. Everybody wants to drink beer at the party but nobody wants to buy the booze. I don't have much faith in NATO to be unified when sh!t really hits the fan.


If Putin wants to test NATO, he'll start with supporting minority groups that are pro Russia to try to overthrow the government in the Baltics. Before NATO thinks about using force to rescue anybody, they will talk. Putin already tested NATO in Ukraine by mobilizing large forces back and forth on the border. Nobody at NATO was willing to spend the money to do the same and didn't want to make Putin angry as if he wasn't already. This thing can drag on for years hurting everybody's economies. A scrooge pays double in the end.


http://www.nato.int/terrorism/five.htm

[fathertime]

According to Article 5 in the link below, the member states of NATO are allowed to participate with action each deems necessary. Greece, under their new leadership, is very friendly with Russia. They don't approve of the sanctions and in the event Russia invades a NATO member nation, I don't see Greece helping out much. When NATO bombed Libya, our then Secretary of Defense criticized our fellow NATO members for not pulling their load in costs and supplying our pilots with the bombs they need. Everybody wants to drink beer at the party but nobody wants to buy the booze. I don't have much faith in NATO to be unified when sh!t really hits the fan.

 

I think if a NATO nation is attacked, NATO will respond and do whatever they have to do.  I don't believe for a moment Russia is going to make it come to that. 


Ukraine is not a NATO member, so obviously NATO isn't obligated to act.  I don't see why people read this as weakness.  If non member states are always defended by NATO then there would be little incentive to actually be a member of NATO.  NATO doesn't need to overreach, that could be a reason for nations to pull out from it. 


Fathertime!     

[lordtiberius]

Putin operated in East and West Germany at the end and after the Cold War.  He made contacts with the German business community to manage KGB and later FSB assets.  Many of those contacts still influence Russo-German relations.  The two countries also hate Poland. 

Estonian traitor Hermann Simm spied for the FSB but he also spied Germany whose interests  have been aligned with Russia for decades.  Russia is Germany's 3rd largest trading partner.  Germans on the whole love Americans but are too pacifistic to be counted on as a reliable ally.

Hollands is a weak leader but France is still a very influential country.  She has an independent foreign policy with expeditionary deployments to Africa and Afghanistan.  France has historically been Russia's ally.  I served with the French in Egypt.  They comported themselves well and were not anti-American though at the time Franco-American relations are that great.

France has a large Muslim population.  There is evidence that the Charlie Hebedo attacks may have had FSB support.  Part of Putin's destabilization of Europe includes radicalizing native Muslims in Europe to distract Europe from Russia while at the same time financing right wing radicals like Marine Le Pen and Nigel Farange.

Its a lot of five dimensional chess and maskirovka but follow the money.  Many of it leads to criminal syndicates in Spain where Putin and cronies have dachas and many foreign fighters from Novorossiya originate from.

[southernX]

France has a large Muslim population.  There is evidence that the Charlie Hebedo attacks may have had FSB support.  Part of Putin's destabilization of Europe includes radicalizing native Muslims in Europe to distract Europe from Russia while at the same time financing right wing radicals like Marine Le Pen and Nigel Farange.

LT
agree ,
it also helps build strong support with the voting public for those utra nationals /right wing political parties such as le pen or farange represent  if the blame can be laid onto muslims, or other ''foreign agents within  a country or the EU

fear collectivly captured over time works  even on the average good citizen to support imoral ideals

SX

[lordtiberius]

Thank you.  It is always good to get feedback from your ideas sans insults.

France and Germany enjoy a close Post-War closeness in foreign policy matters especially in n reinforcing a European polity where they dominate.  They have achieved that objective but where France has stagnated, Germany has become this debt slave state.  Germany uses austerity to ice out competition for its goods while at the same time controlling the governments of EU members.  Germany is playing a dangerous game.  In a lot of ways along with Italy is the spokesman for Putin.

[Brasscasing]

Does Germany have a military adequate to win a conflict with Russia (without NATO).  What are your thoughts?

Alone? Probably not. The disparity in technology and training aside, the Germans no longer have the numbers. They're armed forces are equivalent in size (and GDP spending) to that of the Canadians.

They'd still be effective in a defensive capacity but they're no longer geared for offensive operations.

Having posted that, I've been reading up on Germany for some time as Germany, as part of NATO, would (be expected to) be front and center in any eastern European conflict. Germany itself would be the main staging area (as they were during the cold war era) for countries such as the US, Canada, Australia, UK, etc. in the event of war.

In light of Merkel's stance in supporting Russia, Poland would be plan 'B'. I also think (but not sure) that France would ultimately go 'all in' with the US and NATO if open war did break out and could also be used as a staging area albeit further from the action, so to speak.

Here's a recent article outlining what Germany's been up to with their tanks. You'll note that the German pacifist trend is reversing at least below Merkel's office...

Ukraine Crisis Spurs Calls in Germany to Reverse Years of Trimming Army

..."Berlin stops junking tanks, other equipment as it rethinks focus on smaller army'"...

..." ROCKENSUSSRA, Germany— Peter Koch has profited from German pacifism for two decades: his company on the outskirts of this Thuringian village dismantles army tanks.

But as the Ukraine crisis endures, Mr. Koch worries that business may run dry. For the first time in years, Germany wants to stop shrinking its army."...

..."Plenty has been scrapped already: Over the years, for instance, Germany has whittled its Cold War arsenal of 2,125 Leopard 2 battle tanks to close to a goal of 225."...

..."Today, though, a chorus of leading German politicians is saying the Ukraine conflict calls for boosting military spending—until recently, a political taboo. Germany’s defense minister announced in late February that the armed forces would stop junking good equipment to improve military readiness. More than 40 tanks that had been slated to be decommissioned will soon form a new armored battalion in northern Germany."...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-crisis-spurs-calls-in-germany-to-reverse-years-of-trimming-army-1425862066

Brass

[Hammer2722]

I don't recall them surrendering BEFORE before having enemies at their doors, but they were defeated - and surrendered/made peace - several times during the past two centuries:

- Under Napoleon I: twice, in 1813 to the Prussians/Austrians/Swedes/Russians and in 1814 to the British/Prussians.
- Under Napoleon III: in 1870 to the Prussians in Paris.
- Under their Third Republic in 1940 to the Germans.
- Under their Fourth Republic in 1954 to the Viet Minh after Dien Bien Phu.

So their recent military record is not particularly shining - almost as bad as ours .

Actually, the years were 1814 and 1815. The last battle being Waterloo June, 1815 

[lordtiberius]

Brass, until NATO permanently deploys 5,000 armored troops to the Baltic's and 10,000 to Poland this is Putin footsie and the Mongoloid will ass kick every time.

[Muzh]

Putin operated in East and West Germany at the end and after the Cold War.  He made contacts with the German business community to manage KGB and later FSB assets. Many of those contacts still influence Russo-German relations.  The two countries also hate Poland. 

How in the world do you know that?


Please post some facts backing that up.

[lordtiberius]

Read a book.

[Muzh]

I thought so.

[fathertime]

Thank you.  It is always good to get feedback from your ideas sans insults.

France and Germany enjoy a close Post-War closeness in foreign policy matters especially in n reinforcing a European polity where they dominate.  They have achieved that objective but where France has stagnated, Germany has become this debt slave state.  Germany uses austerity to ice out competition for its goods while at the same time controlling the governments of EU members.  Germany is playing a dangerous game.  In a lot of ways along with Italy is the spokesman for Putin.

Sounds like you are putting Germany and Italy among 'the bad guys'.


Fathertime!   

[Brasscasing]

Brass, until NATO permanently deploys 5,000 armored troops to the Baltic's and 10,000 to Poland this is Putin footsie and the Mongoloid will ass kick every time.

Anything of that nature won't even be entertained for at least another two years. Let's hope there still are free Baltic countries by that time.

Brass

[SANDRO43]

Actually, the years were 1814 and 1815. The last battle being Waterloo June, 1815 

You're right, my memory is not as good as it was - after 200 years .

[Larry1]

I don't recall them surrendering BEFORE before having enemies at their doors, but they were defeated - and surrendered/made peace - several times during the past two centuries:

- Under Napoleon I: twice, in 1813 to the Prussians/Austrians/Swedes/Russians and in 1814 to the British/Prussians.
- Under Napoleon III: in 1870 to the Prussians in Paris.
- Under their Third Republic in 1940 to the Germans.
- Under their Fourth Republic in 1954 to the Viet Minh after Dien Bien Phu.

So their recent military record is not particularly shining - almost as bad as ours .

Actually, the years were 1814 and 1815. The last battle being Waterloo June, 1815 

Some would add the loss of Algeria under DeGaulle, and the defeat of the French in the war on Mexico in the 1860s.

[lordtiberius]

Sounds like you are putting Germany and Italy among 'the bad guys'.


Fathertime!

Those are your words not mine.  I served with the Italians in Egypt and Iraq.

[lordtiberius]

Some would add the loss of Algeria under DeGaulle, and the defeat of the French in the war on Mexico in the 1860s.

Agree brother Larry.  What about the US & the second Iraq War?

[Brasscasing]

Hmm, maybe I spoke too soon...

3,000 US troops head to Eastern Europe for exercises

..."Army Col. Steve Warren told reporters that about 750 U.S. military tanks, helicopters, and other vehicles and equipment arrived in Riga, Latvia, on Monday, as part of the deployment. Much of the heavy equipment is expected to stay in the region, as the U.S. continues to rotate troops in and out of the Baltics.'...

ap.org

That's a lot of fire power for an Infantry Brigade to be hauling around.

Brass

[lordtiberius]

Little more than a trip wire on TDY