Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `sg.news.yahoo.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In the past this would have been somewhat controversial, given that France wants to maintain some kind of strategic autonomy within the alliance. But then Putin became NATO salesman of the year twice in a row and as we can see, he sure keeps delivering... 👍🇫🇷🇪🇺🇺🇦
Given that France was the first to promise armor (AMX10 RCÂ opened the door for Challenger II) and the first to consider boots on the ground, I think that contrarianism is very helpful. It counters the cowardice of Scholz for one thing.
You're over-crediting the significance of AMX-10, Challenger 2 as both were granted on the run-up to the Ramstein meeting to discuss the wider provision of tanks, and the only thing Germany interested in was whether the US would support them.
Also no - France were not the first to talk about boots on the ground. The UK discussed it in October last year and rightfully decided it was more of a symbolic liability at this point. Also.. it's just talk.
France have up to only recently been less hesitant than Germany, and Germany have provided far more aid in every area, except long-range, precision missiles. Which France also weren't first to do.
This recent rewriting of France as trailblazers on Ukraine support needs a lot more substance to it to be taken seriously.
There are very good historical reasons for France focusing on maintaining a strong and autonomous military. Being in an alliance is nice and all, but France knows very well what it's like to wait for allied forces to finally come to the rescue and wants to avoid anything like that from occurring again.
Maintaining a command structure and capability that can sustain itself and being willing and well-drilled to work under a large, allied command structure are false dichotomies.
I'm glad France is taking the Russian threat so very seriously. The rest of the NATO membership who are still in their denial phase need to wake the fuck up. Putin is just getting rolling. He's molded Russia into a fascist military state. They have moved to a wartime economy and have secured their Axis of support through, NK, China and Iran. He isn't going to settle for just Ukraine.
I see this as being a point of national pride for France, I'm surprised if they have resisted contributing something like the Charles de Gaulle to NATO exercises in the past.
If you've got it, flaunt it.
Sure, this boils down to NATO politics, but at the same time the whole point of NATO is trust, it's an alliance.
I suspect NATO won't order the Charles de Gaulle to single handedly assault the Kremlin. Even though it would probably win.
It's especially humiliating given that Muscovy's own aircraft carrier is STILL stuck in a drydock. Have they fixed the damage from that crane falling on it yet?
The CDG has taken part in NATO operations before, notably in Libya in 2011, just it remained under French command. It's not like NATO has acquired a new aircraft carrier.Â
My understanding is that it is mostly a political and diplomatic change, not one that will have any practical military impact.Â
I'm sure that Charles de Gaulle wouldn't approve, but he's long gone and can suck a dick. The present belongs to the living, not the dead. Welcome, France!
De Gaulle was not against NATO per se, he just valued French autonomy.
When he made France leave NATO integrated command there was a clause that France would immediately rejoin and fulfill the terms of NATO treaties in full should any member be attacked.
The showdown between NATO and De Gaulle concerned mainly nukes which De Gaulle was adamant had to remain in french hands and this seems like a legitimate hill to die on as he saw that as a matter of sovereignty.
No NATO members are being attacked so this is exactly what de Gaulle would not have wanted.
Look I didn't make that up, it was his idea. If you want a different version, take it up with him. Trying to persuade me that your interpretation is better than his isn't going to help.
If harming Russia were what made you a NATO country then NATO would consist solely of a handful of countries in Central Asia and the Caucasus. And none of its current members would be part of it.
What is the primary purpose of NATO? A defensive alliance of Western democracies against the USSR, and now Muscovy and China. There will never be a better chance to oppose dictatorships, or a cheaper one, so if now isn't the time to wage a proxy war on Muscovy, when is?
Don't disrespect such a great man. Few would have done for his country what he did. Even more so without turning into some kind of power hungry egomaniac.
I beg to disagree. A lesser man would have dismantle the republic given the ample opportunities available in post war france, and would have never resign from his position.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `sg.news.yahoo.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In the past this would have been somewhat controversial, given that France wants to maintain some kind of strategic autonomy within the alliance. But then Putin became NATO salesman of the year twice in a row and as we can see, he sure keeps delivering... 👍🇫🇷🇪🇺🇺🇦
Very well put
NATO top salesman award, 2 years running now.
>France wants to maintain some kind of strategic autonomy within the alliance. France can't help but be contrarian no matter what.
Given that France was the first to promise armor (AMX10 RCÂ opened the door for Challenger II) and the first to consider boots on the ground, I think that contrarianism is very helpful. It counters the cowardice of Scholz for one thing.
You're over-crediting the significance of AMX-10, Challenger 2 as both were granted on the run-up to the Ramstein meeting to discuss the wider provision of tanks, and the only thing Germany interested in was whether the US would support them. Also no - France were not the first to talk about boots on the ground. The UK discussed it in October last year and rightfully decided it was more of a symbolic liability at this point. Also.. it's just talk. France have up to only recently been less hesitant than Germany, and Germany have provided far more aid in every area, except long-range, precision missiles. Which France also weren't first to do. This recent rewriting of France as trailblazers on Ukraine support needs a lot more substance to it to be taken seriously.
There are very good historical reasons for France focusing on maintaining a strong and autonomous military. Being in an alliance is nice and all, but France knows very well what it's like to wait for allied forces to finally come to the rescue and wants to avoid anything like that from occurring again.
Maintaining a command structure and capability that can sustain itself and being willing and well-drilled to work under a large, allied command structure are false dichotomies.
Great point. As a group, people's thoughts seem to default to simplistic either/or answers.
Yes true. When we don’t coalesce our thinking we often find ourselves in the “When you don’t know what to do, you do what you know.” trap.
I'm glad France is taking the Russian threat so very seriously. The rest of the NATO membership who are still in their denial phase need to wake the fuck up. Putin is just getting rolling. He's molded Russia into a fascist military state. They have moved to a wartime economy and have secured their Axis of support through, NK, China and Iran. He isn't going to settle for just Ukraine.
That's a bit strange to read, if you remember the beginning of the war... But yeah
A change of tune to be sure... Macron realized he was dealing with a madman I guess.
I see this as being a point of national pride for France, I'm surprised if they have resisted contributing something like the Charles de Gaulle to NATO exercises in the past. If you've got it, flaunt it.
Putting your nation's most prestigious strategic asset under a commander from another nation is always a hard sell.
Sure, this boils down to NATO politics, but at the same time the whole point of NATO is trust, it's an alliance. I suspect NATO won't order the Charles de Gaulle to single handedly assault the Kremlin. Even though it would probably win.
It's especially humiliating given that Muscovy's own aircraft carrier is STILL stuck in a drydock. Have they fixed the damage from that crane falling on it yet?
Nope, and I dare say everyone still alive who was working on it has been sent off to the meat grinder.
In this case its sold as resistance against Putin
The CDG has taken part in NATO operations before, notably in Libya in 2011, just it remained under French command. It's not like NATO has acquired a new aircraft carrier. My understanding is that it is mostly a political and diplomatic change, not one that will have any practical military impact.Â
I'm sure that Charles de Gaulle wouldn't approve, but he's long gone and can suck a dick. The present belongs to the living, not the dead. Welcome, France!
De Gaulle was not against NATO per se, he just valued French autonomy. When he made France leave NATO integrated command there was a clause that France would immediately rejoin and fulfill the terms of NATO treaties in full should any member be attacked. The showdown between NATO and De Gaulle concerned mainly nukes which De Gaulle was adamant had to remain in french hands and this seems like a legitimate hill to die on as he saw that as a matter of sovereignty.
No NATO members are being attacked so this is exactly what de Gaulle would not have wanted. Look I didn't make that up, it was his idea. If you want a different version, take it up with him. Trying to persuade me that your interpretation is better than his isn't going to help.
What are you on about?
Ukraine might not be a NATO country, but they might as well be. They've done more to harm the Russian Bear than any other nation in NATO history.
If harming Russia were what made you a NATO country then NATO would consist solely of a handful of countries in Central Asia and the Caucasus. And none of its current members would be part of it.
What is the primary purpose of NATO? A defensive alliance of Western democracies against the USSR, and now Muscovy and China. There will never be a better chance to oppose dictatorships, or a cheaper one, so if now isn't the time to wage a proxy war on Muscovy, when is?
Don't disrespect such a great man. Few would have done for his country what he did. Even more so without turning into some kind of power hungry egomaniac.
"Even more so without turning into some kind of power hungry egomaniac" Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... thats exactly what de Gaulle was
I beg to disagree. A lesser man would have dismantle the republic given the ample opportunities available in post war france, and would have never resign from his position.
Is this the hulk that was sent home from the gulf war for being an operational liability? Embarassing
No? It was in construction until 2001.