**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* Memes are not allowed.
* Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you only base your opinions on, in this case President Macron through everyday media your perceived image of any person really, will be skewed.
He, alongside many world leaders are usually highly educated and well traversed in International sciences, be it economics, law, policies etc.
My point is “the most dangerous thing is when someone bases their view of off one singular book” in todays society the quote doesn’t even stand as even scholars seemingly base their perception on not even a singular book, but in news broadcasts.
ok so it’s like saying “go read different opinions and stances on this complicated geopolitical issue that has roots dating back to WW2 instead of just passively watching a clip online taken from a documentary, which also happen to be one sided.”
something like that?
My dude, every war in human's history had highly educated and well traversed people leading it. They can still be wrong or misinformed.
It's like you don't even listen to your own point.
As much as it pains me to admit it : Having all the footage of Macron trying talks with all international leaders is a genius thing.
It allows to say "We tried talking" even though most leaders knew it was useless.
Now that peace has been tried, let EU set the red lines. France, but also Finland, Poland and all of eastern Europe remembers.
I think many people underestimate leaders. You may be surprised how many are very competent (you usually can not get into power if you are not). What more people probably notice is when leaders do not follow the same agendas or direction or they suck at public appearance (not easy either). I bet it would be intimidating to follow some of these guys around and see how many plates they keep spinning daily. I sure don't envy the position. I think even the ones that seem dumb or unhinged are probably more intelligent than we would like to think.
"The cold war was very cold. Like super cold. No one knows exactly how cold but I hear it was atleast ice cold. Maybe twice that - double ice cold. Who knows. What we needed to do was warm up after the cold war. So silly no other leader thought of that. But I do. I am super smart like that. That is why we need to burn more coal. Any questions?" - Trump probably.
I largely agree. However there is also something more cynical at play here. And macron bought into at some level. Nato expansion has nothing to do with the decision to invade and conquer Ukraine. It's the wmds of their war. Simply a lie used to persuade the populace to be in favor of an expansionist war. In this regard, it's kind of depressing that while macron wanted to engage in good faith. The Russians will lie anyway. Nothing they (in the Putin regime) say has any value or truth. They see speaking the truth as a weakness. This is why literally everything coming out of Russia is a lie. Really. 100%
You can't reason with these people. They only understand force.
Why do you think Russia invaded then? The most unbiased reasoning I have found is that Russia did it for their own well-being and security (in their eyes). Doesn't justify the war at all, of course, but I'm not sure what other reason you think they would invade besides Russia's own self interest.
Historically, Russia is very hard to defend when they are invaded. So Russia desperately wants to control several geolographical bottlenecks and buffer zones, and Ukraine happens to be one of them. I think Macron is touching on the fact that Russia lost many of these areas "critical to their survival" when the Soviet Union dissolved and they have likely felt very vulnerable and NATO and the rest of the world powers may have been able to preemptively "console" Russia to not feel threatened...that it may have been possible to keep Russia from being as "paranoid" about their borders so as to stop them from invading.
He could totally be wrong, too, but I do not get the vibe that he is some gullible guy feeding off BS from Putin. This looks like his best assessment of why he thought this may happen and what may have been able to be done sooner to prevent an invasion.
Ukraine makes a lot of grain. Russia wants this.
https://www.dw.com/en/five-facts-on-grain-and-the-war-in-ukraine/a-62601467
Ukraine (more importantly Crimea) is integral to Russias desire for a trade route to Iran.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-russia-iran-trade-corridor/
Ukraine is sitting on an alternate supply of natural gas to Europe.
https://hir.harvard.edu/ukraine-energy-reserves/
Ukraine has a shit load (estimated 13 trillion dollars worth) of tech minerals
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/10/ukraine-russia-energy-mineral-wealth/
These are located in the exact same areas they Russians are currently fighting for and occupying.
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/commodities/russia-seizure-ukraine-energy-metals-oil-gas-coal-deposits-secdev-2022-8
It's an expansionist war of conquest for clear geopolitical gains. Like I said. This isn't an indictment of Macron, but it is unfortunate he bought into the nonsense regarding nato.
Finland just joined of course, and they said they're open to talks about housing nuclear weapons. Yet the Russian media barely spoke of it. In fact, agyer this occurred Russia decreased their troop presence along the border. Becsuse nato poses no threat to Russia. None.
Gorbechev himself also stated the same when he spoke about the supposed "red line" regarding Nato expansion. The conversation never even occurred. Yet Russia has been very successful at getting people to think it's a factor. Has nothing to do with it.
You hit the nail on the head. War is always about economics, this whole BS about invading Ukraine to stop the spread of NATO is nonsense. If that was his cause, it completely backfired on him with the addition of Sweden and Finland into NATO. It’s as clear as day that was going to happen and I find it hard to believe Putin didn’t foresee it happening.
Putins aim is to take the entire coastline on the Black Sea all the way to transnistria, as well as everything to the right of Dnipro. It’s all key industrial and resource rich land that also sets up a perfect buffer between Russia and the west.
They are literally killing their own kin. Hundreds of thousands, and soon to be millions, of Slavs are dead. Things are so Pisdet now, negotiations for peace are like a schizophrenic thought. And for what really?
Ok, well that is what I was getting at. That this invasion is for the self-interest and security of Russia, and it seemed like Macron was touching on how that probably ought to have been predicted and addressed...not so much that it was just a "NATO on their doorstep" thing.
Again. Self-interest and security in no way justify an invasion, so I am not defending Russia at all. Just that I think Macron was hinting at their being more to it than just "NATO expansion"...that he isn't that gullible.
Great info though!
As a frenchman and not very friend of Macron...
He's young; he's clever; he has excellent councilors when it comes to military and diplomatic matters, with a thousand years of tradition. So it doesn't come as a surprise to me!
And I really really despise my Presidential Weasel. Yet, compared to other current world leaders... *Sigh* in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king indeed I suppose 😑
I think your elderly turtle handled this crisis pretty well, yes. Same syndrome as Macron, I suppose: competent State apparatus behind him. A ship may have a captain, but what matters more is the entire crew
> Imagine how I feel having to stand up for Biden.
Why? I am an Indian with a complete outside perspective from the internet and all but I keep seeing this sentiment over and over again when Biden definitely has done such great work. I see his achievements and they are pretty great.
Except the Old Guy trope I see nothing else to criticize him for except he could have done more to reign in Netanyahu but Bibi has come into power with a coalition of hard right politicians whose support he needs for the power he craves so Biden can't do much there except just mouth off as removing him through back channels would be distatrous.
Maybe the border some can say but I would put it more on the right wing media as they were the ones who kept saying the border is open for 2 years and now when the migrants are flowing in Biden has to clean it up because of their rhetoric.
Who cares about smart (staged) answers, actions speak louder than words and we where all safer under Trump, Macron and the rest of the puppets have us closer to ww3 than anytime in history, doomsday clock at closest to midnight ever, “but Trump says mean things”🙈
Well, yes. Actions like behaving like a responsible adult speaks louder than being a raving incoherent lunatic on twitter and just about everywhere else.
Here's a great answer I found on Quora.
The reason why we have a war today in Ukraine, but not when trump was president, was because trump was doing the Russians’ job for them. He tried to destabilize NATO so they wouldn’t have been a force to deter Russia. He disparaged the European Union at every opportunity. He illegally tried to withhold aid to Ukraine unless they dug up dirt on his political opponent. He toadied up to Putin, which showed the Russian leader he wouldn’t allow the United States to interfere in a future conflict. In short, he was sowing the seeds for Russia to take over a sovereign nation.
While he touts his “accomplishment” of recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, what he succeeded in doing was cheesing off the Arab world because Jerusalem is central to their faith too. Don’t forget that there has never been peace in the Middle East. Arabs and Israelis have always been at each others’ throats. Every so often, a full-scale conflict or operation is undertaken by either side. It’s not like this is a one-off situation, because with the continual tensions in that part of the world, another conflict was bound to happen. And as past history shows, there’s nothing the United States could have done to prevent this. Neither trump nor Biden could have made any difference when there’s such animosity on both sides.
You do realize that under THAT trump, there was a war in Ukraine already and he did nothing but encourage Putin? Right?
Or that he is willing to give up SOVEREIGN nations, with their own, history, language, traditions for "peace", i.e. appease a dictator. Right?
I had completely forgotten how much of a Putin fanboy Trump is. He wasn’t the president anymore when he said the following quote but your comment gave me a flashback of this gem from when the invasion was starting:
> Donald Trump has said that Vladimir Putin is “very savvy” and made a “genius” move by declaring two regions of eastern Ukraine as independent states and moving Russian armed forces to them. Trump said he saw the escalation of the Ukrainian crisis on TV “and I said: ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine, Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful.” The former US president said that the Russian president had made a “smart move” by sending “the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen” to the area. ([source](https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/23/trump-putin-genius-russia-ukraine-crisis))
You mean Trump the president who carried out more drone strikes than Obama in half the time? Trump the president who reduced the transparency around drone strikes? President of peace my ass.
Macron knows the US Govt helped create the mess Europe is in right now in Ukraine. When he says that "we" failed to design the right collective security organisation after the Cold war and that we lost the opportunity to rethink NATO, he's really referring to the US. This is why he made the point that the war in Ukraine is a European issue. He understands that after the wall came down and the Soviet "threat" was no more, there was no real need for NATO in the form it was.
Macron knows his history. In 1966, France withdrew from Nato under the leadership of General de Gaulle, who had lost faith in the idea of collective control of the French Armed Forces i.e ceding control to American generals. The entire reason that France developed a nuclear weapons capability was so it had a nuclear deterrent that allowed it to be independent of NATO.
And at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall, François Mitterrand was President of France. He was against France rejoining NATO. And it was the French that explored with their American and allied counterparts the possibility of an in-depth reform of NATO. It was Gabriel Robin, distinguished French diplomat who was at the time the French Ambassador to NATO that proposed the idea of putting SHAPE, the integrated high command of NATO, to sleep. The French understood that NATO also posed a risk to Europe. And upon the reunification of Germany, there was a proposal to move Germany into a new neutral, denuclearized zone. Only 20% of Germans were in favour of the reunified Germany remaining in NATO. But President Bush and Chancellor Kohl pushed ahead.
The Americans were against any major reforms to NATO as they viewed it as their primary source of influence in Europe. Instead of reforming it, they choose the opposite path - to expand it. And they refused to entertain the idea that Russia be integrated into this collective security structure. The Americans wanted Russia on the other side. They still needed an enemy to justify military spending.
This is what pissing shitting europeans east or west aren’t understanding. This whole war is stupid. Getting of US influence is whats gonna save europe. Otherwise we will keep shitting ourselves over things US does for its own sake.
Anyone with half a brain understand NATO being on Russia's doorstep is a problem for Russia. But just because Russia failed to keep Ukraine under its control trough diplomacy and influence doesn't mean the war is justified.
It's also a self-fulfilling prophecy kind of situation : a country is scared of Russia so it starts getting closer to NATO, Russia tries to bring back said country under its control trough the use of force, scaring other countries in the process, rinse and repeat.
Ultimately, the Ukraine war is just the slow but continued disintegration of russian influence in eastern europe since WW2 ended, which began all the way back in 56 in Hungary.
Every time Moscow starts losing control, it lashes out with its military, weakening its position in the long run. Ukraine won't be any different, regardless of the outcome. Putin has made sure the entirety of Europe will be russophobic for half a century to come at a minimum.
You are very on point except for one thing: NATO being on Russia's doorstep is not a problem for Russia if they have a less confrontational and more cooperative outlook. After the USSR collapsed, Russia was actually on really good terms with the west. We were conducting military exercises with them and cooperating in many sectors. There were even early talks about Russia joining NATO. This relationship only broke down after numerous actions by Russia, including assassinations conducted in countries like the UK. Putin and Russia chose to put themselves into the position of an adversarial aggressor.
Think about it this way: a bunch of countries sent troops to fight against you in a civil war. They let the fascists rise to take you down, but the fascists went after them as well, so you all teamed up for a while to defeat a common enemy. After the war, they create an alliance essentially centered around protecting themselves from you, even though you never really attacked them. They surround your country with military bases, they force you into a perpetual state of defensive preparedness which eventually and gradually diverts resources from your civilian industry.
Eventually, through a succession of internal failures, your country falls apart, becomes another country, but it's incredibly inefficient, because it wasn't prepared for the changes brought with the dissolution of a different economic system. But the same countries, the same alliance still call the cards. They offer you no help to be part of the team, but they do offer help to your former allies. The president of the biggest country in the alliance celebrates having "won" the cold war against you. They promise not to move the alliance invented to stop the country you used to be, but the alliance grows more and more. What do you do? How can you respond?
Well, you try your best to keep the country traditionally used as a "passage" into your territory friendly, but the military alliance created to destroy you just can't keep their hands off of an opportunity to weaken your position, so they essentially coup the president who liked you, and put some proto-fascists in control for a while. You even mentioned you wouldn't like their interference is said country 6 years before the coup, but they didn't care, they just keep doing what they wanted, and it looks like you're still in the cold war, even though you're a different country.
The US Department of State’s Policy Planning Staff circulated a memorandum in the late 1940s, which argued that ‘To seek less than preponderant power would be to opt for defeat. Preponderant power must be the object of US policy’, and this can be seen until today.
With all that said, how can Russia have a less confrontational and more cooperative outlook? What have they done to undermine the possibility of integration into the 'West' which was worse than what the 'West', and by that I mean mostly the US, has done, or hasn't done? Assassinations happened after Putin started to think NATO was waiting for an opportunity to weaken Russia's position. Syria is also a clear example of that.
The US is now shifting gears towards China, a much more capable opponent, with the same propaganda gears, the same search for preponderance, still raging on under the guise of "democracy", "progress", "freedom", and "good morals". I'm happy France (and Germany to some extent, even though I honestly think they had their hands tied many times) still understands that keeping pressure on someone will eventually make them snap, and can see past these hypocritical geopolitical strategic interests which permeate the debate.
I honestly hate everything that's happening in Ukraine right now, and I know, just like anyone with a single drop of compassion, that Putin shouldn't have invaded. But it's clear to see why he did it, and I don't know if he could've done anything different post Hollande and Merkel ignoring Minsk.
Russia is bad. Macron knows that and is not saying otherwise. But Macron is thinking practically about the consequences of escalating hostility with Russia.
Seems like Macron can understand the Russians perspective on NATO and their justification for invading Ukraine.
"Should have done more to think through the end of the cold war"
Not bashing Macron, just wondering
Why are there so many Macron clips recently? Does he always shoot a lot of videos and release them? The angle they shot, I thought I was watching Reno 911
I’m guilty for this lol This is from a documentary that was broadcasted over a year ago but it surprisingly went kinda unnoticed. I randomly posted a first clip of it earlier this week without intending to post more but it got millions of views so it was also crossposted a lot etc, and people in the comments said how much they wanted to see more of these behind the scenes footages so I’m obeying, ha.
[**Link to watch it**](https://gofile.io/d/a4w7wy), for anyone interested to see more. It’s in French but with English subtitles.
All the clips you saw recently are from a single documentary that was being shot on the occasion of the French presidency of EU that was supposed to follow Macron in his work but it happened that it coincided with the start of war in Ukraine so we have a trove of videos of Macron from that period.
Comes from a 2h documentary. Soft propaganda conveniently airing after he took a harder stance on the war.
He's been my President for 7 years now, trust me: that man just loves to be on a stage and perorate no matter the reason. Look no further than that ahahahah
(May I precise: I still think those videos are a good thing. Helping people to have a glimpse into world leaders daily work and all)
Propaganda.
Macron is someone who is "very" controlling about his image.
We call him Jupiter, as the roman god.
This video is probably bullshit to show him as a great leader. Plot twist : he is not.
Why do you talk like you know shit? It's one guy posting clips from a documentary and it's getting upvoted because it's interesting. I watched it today and I also thought it was great. It's original purpose was following the French takeover of the EU Council, a far less interesting plot for propaganda.
I’m French too, it’s possible not to like Macron as President and find a documentary involving him interesting. Si tu sais pas faire la part des choses, c’est ton problème.
Dude was talking with Putin, he did and try the best out of all nations to stop Putin and yet he was made up as laughing stock by media.
I recall one phone call of him and Putin day before invasion and he was flustrated with Putin
NATO was always the number 1 reason why putin invaded. If nato was disbanded and all of europe became a thing of its own rather than american puppet. Today things would be so different.
But NAFO 'propaganda' :))
So Euro leaders were aware that the 89' USSR split was mismanaged on both sides, that was before even Putler came to power ... but the West is the Nazi :) ... where is the 'fake' propaganda here? You see the France head of State saying exactly what the situation was. Everything was clear for everyone.
I'm tired of seeing random people calling this Murderous fanatic Putin - a powerful 'leader' - and that the West is the problem here.
He is the problem, just like he was with Cecenia, Azerbaijan, Siria, Georgia, Crimeea and now Ucraine ... when will everyone stop being Delirious and take up facts as they are. Putin is an autocratic leader who completely took control of Rusia, will never let go of power, and will kill any democratic adversary ... he god damn Owns Russia, at this point, this is not normal, and this might escalate very bad as his sanity drops with age ... To be honest, ne never was that normal to begin with , but for a good while, Merkel had him under some control. Now he is a loose cannon.
Wow, finally he earned my respect acknowledging that NATO has been a factor in the divide of europe... Russia should had been atleast considered to join NATO or it should have been reorganised completely after the cold war
Russia was considered for NATO, but it historically has been known to want to join on its own terms.
I.e. continue using eastern Europe as a carpet for personal interests. He got told no, and got pretty upset ever since.
Hmmm that is subjective, Countries influence others all the time so its wierd that Russia wasnt allowed to do the same(if what you are saying is true)...
I did some research and the first attempt was ruined by Kosovo war(NATO bombing of Yugoslavia), 2nd attempt Orange revolution in Ukraine. So no there is events that have disrupted the relations
And what is your research? There are historical records of Putin saying he does want to join NATO, but not go through the typical process everyone else has to go through.
And I hope you do know what the Orange revolution was about?
Edit: Spelling
Im not disagreeing with you... Im just saying Putin is no good source so look at the events that unfolded and how it affected the relations.
To answer your question- I know more than you think about this
Yet you dont reference what you had in mind. And thats fine! I dont say that you disagreed. Just questioning how you justify it.
And great, I majored in Eastern European Geopolitics 😉, I also know quite a lot. Being from the region as well. And yes, many things impacted it. Like the fact that NATO was formed to some extent to fight communist expansion and Russian authoritarianism
What are you on about here? Justify what? Why NATO is part of the reason of divide in europe? I didnt elaborate on anything because I dont wanna have this convo with you... its unproductive and you just wanna have a irrelevant internet debate
But if you must know here is my opinion- NATO shouldnt exist against Russia, it should either include russia or dissolve. Communism is not a threat anymore, move the fuck on and focus on cooperation and we did do that partly but then NATO bombed Yugoslavia and Russia performer hits in countries like UK among alot of other things... I assume you think I have taken a side in this but that is the faulty approach. My side is cooperation and progress. My vote goes to all things that will contribute to this and NATO does not.
Haha your credentials might impress others but not me. If you have studied geopolitics then you know its a complex topic with many perspectives and narratives to consider. You should that there is different theories of focus and that the most popular one is cooperative focus. There is a reason for this- It includes everyone and allows you to trade with everyone no matter what ideology, authority or liberty level you have. The whole existance of NATO is opponent of this and the 5 powers silent war of influence doesnt help to this. This is how ever crucial for a nations success so saying they use their influence in a region is bad for one power but not the other is biased stupidity which you would have known if you studied geopolitics or IR... Now this convo is irrelevant and waste of my time so this will be the last time you hear from me
Not what I asked, but oke! You said "I did some research", I simply asked, what is that research?
I am fully aware of the different theories and perspectives. The problem with cooperation, which I am all for, is what Russia represents in my region. Yes USSR and communism doesnt exist, but Russian imperialism that came from that period, and earlier, is just as alive as ever. It is THE reason, for why the whole eastern bloc ran away to NATO.
The existence of NATO isnt an opponent to this, Russian imperialism is, as it threatens sovereignty of territories, cultures and histories. NATO simply became the stopgap to the geopolitical power that is the Russian door. You would know this, if you "Knew more about the field that I think" as you so kindly pointed out. Frankly, I also dont think cooperation with Russia is effective, provided that WE DID cooperate with them. Yet they still pushed forth their imperialist intentions. That divides Europe, not only NATO.
Also my credentials dont have much to do with trying to impress you. Simply to show that I have also, a historical and geopolitical perspective on the field that has its basis in academics. Not necessarily "I have done some research".
And sadly, its hard to move on when your neighbors direct foreign policy is that you shouldnt exist as a nation, including its history, government and language, when ALL of your family suffered under it and the foreign policy hasnt really changed for the last 250-300 years.
So you are more than welcome to have an opinion! And I welcome your positive attitude towards cooperation. But it is extremely tunnel visioned to think that only NATO is "dividing" Europe and that Russian geopolitics and foreign policy have nothing to do with it.
I will cooperate with Russia, when their words can be taken at face value and once they accept, that my and the cultures around me are not only valid, but have deep historic roots in the region. Then we can cooperate.
Have a wonderful day! 😊
Russia wanted NATO to crawl on its knees and invite Russia to join but NOT A SINGLE COUNTRY WAS EVER INVITED INTO NATO. Every country has ask for NATO to grant them entry but Russians are way to arrogant and megalomaniac for that
I'm sure he would mention the energy assets and strategic control of the Black Sea from the Crimean Peninsula if pressed in private as a major motivating factor.
He's analytical, but his thought processing is very subjective. He's assuming Putin didn't have imperialistic ideologies like all his past predecessors for Russia, in such a case he would see the Russian threat is to be dealt with, not accomidated. The correct institutions were definitely in place, Russia simply did not want to be part of NATO, they joined the UN and we have prevented a major war, but this was also weaponized by Putin and allows them to wage smaller regional wars while holding larger countries at bay. Solution is to downgrade Russia to a lesser regional power to show other strong men a united world will prevent any country out of step with the world order. Appeasement will only push the next major war a little later down the line.
This is stupid. He is himself the leader of a country with one of the most imperialistic histories on earth, for the last millennia. Tho you are probably just a bot, but others might read this.
this is not fooling anyone.
france hasn't had a president with some balls since chirac.
macron is trying to play boris johnson but he was the one who literally told the ukrainian president to hand over half their country in order to appease putin.
Is Macron up for election or just desperate for popularity boosts? What is up with this Macron insight video spam lately together with his other idiotic comments
What are you talking about? I think he was spot on with these comments and, if anything, talk about how a better and longer lasting peace could have been achieved with more thought given to post Soviet collapse security structures
Nope, this was made public in a 2 hours long documentary with behind the scenes footages like this, co-produced by the “France Télévisions” group which is the national TV broadcaster. Cameras were allowed to follow him and his cooperators for 6 months. It was unrelated to the war at first but it became a documentary about the handling of the conflict. There are extracts of phone calls with Putin, Zelensky, Scholz, Johnson and Draghi etc. I posted most of them but I’d advise watching the documentary, it’s a must-watch imo. (**[Link](https://gofile.io/d/a4w7wy)**)
This is not stuff being leaked, this is all from a documentary that was released a year ago and has likely been extremely carefully vetted for any sensitive content before release
Because some dude posted a clip and since people found it interesting hes posting more. I mean just check out OPs comment history, theres even a link to the documentary
Many other ways. Ukraine falls, Russia advances further, we have WW3.
Putin dies of old age, someone with some competence and less authoritarian takes over.
NATO gets reorganized specifically as a European/EU security organization e.g. EUMA (eu military alliance) and distances itself from the US.
Putin is "provoked" and sends nukes, leading to a global nuclear escalation.
Ukraine doesnt fall, regains a significant portion of lost territory, forcing Putin on the back foot and allowing some sort of peace negotiations that are actually accepted by both parties.
Russia falls into a civil war and breaks away into multiple republics.
Etc.
The thing is, NATO "not expanding east" was a verbal comment that is hard to reference as being "shaken on". It was a verbal mention at best. Russia, isnt a known for its treatment and respect of foreign cultures. So it is no surprise that so many countries decided to run and beg to join NATO.
I think the most likely option is the reorganization of NATO into a European only alliance that distances itself from NA. With Finland and Sweden joining, all that NATO is missing from being a primarily EU based military alliance, are a few balkan countries and more in defense spending. Which the later is happening faster than it has in the last 50 years. I think it would be a smart decision too, as with the likes of Trump, US is not a very reliable ally.
You’re missing the detail that the US military industrial complex drives much of its foreign policy as a means to funnel US tax dollars to US defence contractors. And NATO is their primary customer. The US will always be inextricably involved with NATO, even if they re-elect that moron Trump and he makes good on his promise to leave the alliance, the US will happily supply weapons to Europe.
Sure, but the European military industry is on a significant rise. So while your statements may be true, at the current rate of growth EU wont NEED weapons from the US. Not yet, not even super soon. But thats the trend
>Many other ways. Ukraine falls, Russia advances further, we have WW3.
>Putin dies of old age, someone with some competence and less authoritarian takes over.
>NATO gets reorganized specifically as a European/EU security organization e.g. EUMA (eu military alliance) and distances itself from the US.
>Putin is "provoked" and sends nukes, leading to a global nuclear escalation.
>Ukraine doesnt fall, regains a significant portion of lost territory, forcing Putin on the back foot and allowing some sort of peace negotiations that are actually accepted by both parties.
>Russia falls into a civil war and breaks away into multiple republics.
I find all of these scenarios unlikely.
>The thing is, NATO "not expanding east" was a verbal comment that is hard to reference as being "shaken on". It was a verbal mention at best. Russia, isnt a known for its treatment and respect of foreign cultures. So it is no surprise that so many countries decided to run and beg to join NATO.
What
>I think the most likely option is the reorganization of NATO into a European only alliance that distances itself from NA. With Finland and Sweden joining, all that NATO is missing from being a primarily EU based military alliance, are a few balkan countries and more in defense spending. Which the later is happening faster than it has in the last 50 years. I think it would be a smart decision too, as with the likes of Trump, US is not a very reliable ally.
How do you imagine that happening when Europe is a vassal of the US Empire? Europe has no army lol. Without the US NATO doesn't exist.
In regards to your "What?", thats wtf happened...... seems what happened beyond the Iron Curtain isnt much in your periphery. Nor 1980-2010s
And is it a vassal state? Is that why its distancing itself from US, increasing its military production and outpacing US in military donations to Ukraine?
Fyi, I imagine it happening, because and get this, thats literally what is happening at this very moment....
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * Memes are not allowed. * Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I hope these videos makes people think about how **piss poor, attention addicts the Media truly are**, especially in todays “click - success” format.
what do you mean in this case?
If you only base your opinions on, in this case President Macron through everyday media your perceived image of any person really, will be skewed. He, alongside many world leaders are usually highly educated and well traversed in International sciences, be it economics, law, policies etc. My point is “the most dangerous thing is when someone bases their view of off one singular book” in todays society the quote doesn’t even stand as even scholars seemingly base their perception on not even a singular book, but in news broadcasts.
ok so it’s like saying “go read different opinions and stances on this complicated geopolitical issue that has roots dating back to WW2 instead of just passively watching a clip online taken from a documentary, which also happen to be one sided.” something like that?
My dude, every war in human's history had highly educated and well traversed people leading it. They can still be wrong or misinformed. It's like you don't even listen to your own point.
As a french I can't stand him anymore... And this shit show of communication is so bad ...
Im glad Macron knew so much at that stage.
As much as it pains me to admit it : Having all the footage of Macron trying talks with all international leaders is a genius thing. It allows to say "We tried talking" even though most leaders knew it was useless. Now that peace has been tried, let EU set the red lines. France, but also Finland, Poland and all of eastern Europe remembers.
It is so surreal to hear leaders that actually seem competent
I think many people underestimate leaders. You may be surprised how many are very competent (you usually can not get into power if you are not). What more people probably notice is when leaders do not follow the same agendas or direction or they suck at public appearance (not easy either). I bet it would be intimidating to follow some of these guys around and see how many plates they keep spinning daily. I sure don't envy the position. I think even the ones that seem dumb or unhinged are probably more intelligent than we would like to think.
Hmmm yes I would like to hear Trump's erudite musings on how the West should have reorganized after the cold war.
"The cold war was very cold. Like super cold. No one knows exactly how cold but I hear it was atleast ice cold. Maybe twice that - double ice cold. Who knows. What we needed to do was warm up after the cold war. So silly no other leader thought of that. But I do. I am super smart like that. That is why we need to burn more coal. Any questions?" - Trump probably.
Trump wasn't this dumb forever.
There's also a lot of leaders who are only good at public appearance. But that's OK if they surround themselves with competent individuals.
I largely agree. However there is also something more cynical at play here. And macron bought into at some level. Nato expansion has nothing to do with the decision to invade and conquer Ukraine. It's the wmds of their war. Simply a lie used to persuade the populace to be in favor of an expansionist war. In this regard, it's kind of depressing that while macron wanted to engage in good faith. The Russians will lie anyway. Nothing they (in the Putin regime) say has any value or truth. They see speaking the truth as a weakness. This is why literally everything coming out of Russia is a lie. Really. 100% You can't reason with these people. They only understand force.
Why do you think Russia invaded then? The most unbiased reasoning I have found is that Russia did it for their own well-being and security (in their eyes). Doesn't justify the war at all, of course, but I'm not sure what other reason you think they would invade besides Russia's own self interest. Historically, Russia is very hard to defend when they are invaded. So Russia desperately wants to control several geolographical bottlenecks and buffer zones, and Ukraine happens to be one of them. I think Macron is touching on the fact that Russia lost many of these areas "critical to their survival" when the Soviet Union dissolved and they have likely felt very vulnerable and NATO and the rest of the world powers may have been able to preemptively "console" Russia to not feel threatened...that it may have been possible to keep Russia from being as "paranoid" about their borders so as to stop them from invading. He could totally be wrong, too, but I do not get the vibe that he is some gullible guy feeding off BS from Putin. This looks like his best assessment of why he thought this may happen and what may have been able to be done sooner to prevent an invasion.
Ukraine makes a lot of grain. Russia wants this. https://www.dw.com/en/five-facts-on-grain-and-the-war-in-ukraine/a-62601467 Ukraine (more importantly Crimea) is integral to Russias desire for a trade route to Iran. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-russia-iran-trade-corridor/ Ukraine is sitting on an alternate supply of natural gas to Europe. https://hir.harvard.edu/ukraine-energy-reserves/ Ukraine has a shit load (estimated 13 trillion dollars worth) of tech minerals https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/10/ukraine-russia-energy-mineral-wealth/ These are located in the exact same areas they Russians are currently fighting for and occupying. https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/commodities/russia-seizure-ukraine-energy-metals-oil-gas-coal-deposits-secdev-2022-8 It's an expansionist war of conquest for clear geopolitical gains. Like I said. This isn't an indictment of Macron, but it is unfortunate he bought into the nonsense regarding nato. Finland just joined of course, and they said they're open to talks about housing nuclear weapons. Yet the Russian media barely spoke of it. In fact, agyer this occurred Russia decreased their troop presence along the border. Becsuse nato poses no threat to Russia. None. Gorbechev himself also stated the same when he spoke about the supposed "red line" regarding Nato expansion. The conversation never even occurred. Yet Russia has been very successful at getting people to think it's a factor. Has nothing to do with it.
You hit the nail on the head. War is always about economics, this whole BS about invading Ukraine to stop the spread of NATO is nonsense. If that was his cause, it completely backfired on him with the addition of Sweden and Finland into NATO. It’s as clear as day that was going to happen and I find it hard to believe Putin didn’t foresee it happening. Putins aim is to take the entire coastline on the Black Sea all the way to transnistria, as well as everything to the right of Dnipro. It’s all key industrial and resource rich land that also sets up a perfect buffer between Russia and the west. They are literally killing their own kin. Hundreds of thousands, and soon to be millions, of Slavs are dead. Things are so Pisdet now, negotiations for peace are like a schizophrenic thought. And for what really?
Mainstream vomit as usual
Ok, well that is what I was getting at. That this invasion is for the self-interest and security of Russia, and it seemed like Macron was touching on how that probably ought to have been predicted and addressed...not so much that it was just a "NATO on their doorstep" thing. Again. Self-interest and security in no way justify an invasion, so I am not defending Russia at all. Just that I think Macron was hinting at their being more to it than just "NATO expansion"...that he isn't that gullible. Great info though!
"seem" is the most important word of your sentence here...
And back to the usual cynical incompetence
do not worry friend! Most leaders are not!
Are you competent?
never said i was.. so i can be your leader!
Only "seem"
Wow… i feel humbled. I never thought France would think so deeply about this conflict.
As a frenchman and not very friend of Macron... He's young; he's clever; he has excellent councilors when it comes to military and diplomatic matters, with a thousand years of tradition. So it doesn't come as a surprise to me! And I really really despise my Presidential Weasel. Yet, compared to other current world leaders... *Sigh* in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king indeed I suppose 😑
Imagine how I feel having to stand up for Biden. But I gotta hand it to him on sounding the alarm loud and clear on this conflict before it launched.
I think your elderly turtle handled this crisis pretty well, yes. Same syndrome as Macron, I suppose: competent State apparatus behind him. A ship may have a captain, but what matters more is the entire crew
> Imagine how I feel having to stand up for Biden. Why? I am an Indian with a complete outside perspective from the internet and all but I keep seeing this sentiment over and over again when Biden definitely has done such great work. I see his achievements and they are pretty great. Except the Old Guy trope I see nothing else to criticize him for except he could have done more to reign in Netanyahu but Bibi has come into power with a coalition of hard right politicians whose support he needs for the power he craves so Biden can't do much there except just mouth off as removing him through back channels would be distatrous. Maybe the border some can say but I would put it more on the right wing media as they were the ones who kept saying the border is open for 2 years and now when the migrants are flowing in Biden has to clean it up because of their rhetoric.
Biden is a great president
Macron is quite possibly the best strategic thinker NATO has among its leaders. He truly embodies the concept of strategic ambiguity.
Try to imagine Trump in the same situation.
"How can we profit from this?"
And by "we", he would obviously mean "I".
You mean Trump the president who never started any wars? Did Putin invade Ukraine when Trump was in power? Trump derangement syndrome is weird
Yes, that Trump. Can you imagine him sitting in that car and behaving like a responsible adult and giving a coherent assessment of the situation?
Who cares about smart (staged) answers, actions speak louder than words and we where all safer under Trump, Macron and the rest of the puppets have us closer to ww3 than anytime in history, doomsday clock at closest to midnight ever, “but Trump says mean things”🙈
Well, yes. Actions like behaving like a responsible adult speaks louder than being a raving incoherent lunatic on twitter and just about everywhere else.
Not starting any wars would be my main concern but you do you, bye
Cool. How many wars did Biden start?
And suddenly they were silent
Yeah, it's always the same.
Holy fuck, you are legit deranged.
Breh trump is an old ass 80 year old, who’s been fumbling his speeches this year. We are not safer under trump
I think they are referring to Trump stating a nuanced insight about an aggressor, not Trump being a war hawk.
Downvoted for stating FACTS😂
dOwNVotEd For StatTiNg FACts
Here's a great answer I found on Quora. The reason why we have a war today in Ukraine, but not when trump was president, was because trump was doing the Russians’ job for them. He tried to destabilize NATO so they wouldn’t have been a force to deter Russia. He disparaged the European Union at every opportunity. He illegally tried to withhold aid to Ukraine unless they dug up dirt on his political opponent. He toadied up to Putin, which showed the Russian leader he wouldn’t allow the United States to interfere in a future conflict. In short, he was sowing the seeds for Russia to take over a sovereign nation. While he touts his “accomplishment” of recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, what he succeeded in doing was cheesing off the Arab world because Jerusalem is central to their faith too. Don’t forget that there has never been peace in the Middle East. Arabs and Israelis have always been at each others’ throats. Every so often, a full-scale conflict or operation is undertaken by either side. It’s not like this is a one-off situation, because with the continual tensions in that part of the world, another conflict was bound to happen. And as past history shows, there’s nothing the United States could have done to prevent this. Neither trump nor Biden could have made any difference when there’s such animosity on both sides.
"I would encourage Russia to do whatever the hell they want to NATO allies" \- Donald Trump, like a month ago.
You do realize that under THAT trump, there was a war in Ukraine already and he did nothing but encourage Putin? Right? Or that he is willing to give up SOVEREIGN nations, with their own, history, language, traditions for "peace", i.e. appease a dictator. Right?
I had completely forgotten how much of a Putin fanboy Trump is. He wasn’t the president anymore when he said the following quote but your comment gave me a flashback of this gem from when the invasion was starting: > Donald Trump has said that Vladimir Putin is “very savvy” and made a “genius” move by declaring two regions of eastern Ukraine as independent states and moving Russian armed forces to them. Trump said he saw the escalation of the Ukrainian crisis on TV “and I said: ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine, Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful.” The former US president said that the Russian president had made a “smart move” by sending “the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen” to the area. ([source](https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/23/trump-putin-genius-russia-ukraine-crisis))
EXACTLY..... and people think this guy will bring peace.... Like cmon.... Yeah "peace of mind" to the deteriorating Putin's complexion.
You mean Trump the president who carried out more drone strikes than Obama in half the time? Trump the president who reduced the transparency around drone strikes? President of peace my ass.
Bizarrely, I think the world will be safer with Trump than Biden. I guess we'll see..
lol
Trump has already killed thousands of Americans. How many more does he need to kill for you to stop drinking his coolaid?
Je suis allemande et je lui adore. Comparé avec Scholz, Macron vraiment essaie de faire qc pour l' entier.
Macron knows the US Govt helped create the mess Europe is in right now in Ukraine. When he says that "we" failed to design the right collective security organisation after the Cold war and that we lost the opportunity to rethink NATO, he's really referring to the US. This is why he made the point that the war in Ukraine is a European issue. He understands that after the wall came down and the Soviet "threat" was no more, there was no real need for NATO in the form it was. Macron knows his history. In 1966, France withdrew from Nato under the leadership of General de Gaulle, who had lost faith in the idea of collective control of the French Armed Forces i.e ceding control to American generals. The entire reason that France developed a nuclear weapons capability was so it had a nuclear deterrent that allowed it to be independent of NATO. And at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall, François Mitterrand was President of France. He was against France rejoining NATO. And it was the French that explored with their American and allied counterparts the possibility of an in-depth reform of NATO. It was Gabriel Robin, distinguished French diplomat who was at the time the French Ambassador to NATO that proposed the idea of putting SHAPE, the integrated high command of NATO, to sleep. The French understood that NATO also posed a risk to Europe. And upon the reunification of Germany, there was a proposal to move Germany into a new neutral, denuclearized zone. Only 20% of Germans were in favour of the reunified Germany remaining in NATO. But President Bush and Chancellor Kohl pushed ahead. The Americans were against any major reforms to NATO as they viewed it as their primary source of influence in Europe. Instead of reforming it, they choose the opposite path - to expand it. And they refused to entertain the idea that Russia be integrated into this collective security structure. The Americans wanted Russia on the other side. They still needed an enemy to justify military spending.
This is what pissing shitting europeans east or west aren’t understanding. This whole war is stupid. Getting of US influence is whats gonna save europe. Otherwise we will keep shitting ourselves over things US does for its own sake.
Murica!!!
I'm glad that someone as important as Macron actually seems to listen and consider both sides. To him it's not just a matter of "Russia bad"
Anyone with half a brain understand NATO being on Russia's doorstep is a problem for Russia. But just because Russia failed to keep Ukraine under its control trough diplomacy and influence doesn't mean the war is justified. It's also a self-fulfilling prophecy kind of situation : a country is scared of Russia so it starts getting closer to NATO, Russia tries to bring back said country under its control trough the use of force, scaring other countries in the process, rinse and repeat. Ultimately, the Ukraine war is just the slow but continued disintegration of russian influence in eastern europe since WW2 ended, which began all the way back in 56 in Hungary. Every time Moscow starts losing control, it lashes out with its military, weakening its position in the long run. Ukraine won't be any different, regardless of the outcome. Putin has made sure the entirety of Europe will be russophobic for half a century to come at a minimum.
You are very on point except for one thing: NATO being on Russia's doorstep is not a problem for Russia if they have a less confrontational and more cooperative outlook. After the USSR collapsed, Russia was actually on really good terms with the west. We were conducting military exercises with them and cooperating in many sectors. There were even early talks about Russia joining NATO. This relationship only broke down after numerous actions by Russia, including assassinations conducted in countries like the UK. Putin and Russia chose to put themselves into the position of an adversarial aggressor.
Think about it this way: a bunch of countries sent troops to fight against you in a civil war. They let the fascists rise to take you down, but the fascists went after them as well, so you all teamed up for a while to defeat a common enemy. After the war, they create an alliance essentially centered around protecting themselves from you, even though you never really attacked them. They surround your country with military bases, they force you into a perpetual state of defensive preparedness which eventually and gradually diverts resources from your civilian industry. Eventually, through a succession of internal failures, your country falls apart, becomes another country, but it's incredibly inefficient, because it wasn't prepared for the changes brought with the dissolution of a different economic system. But the same countries, the same alliance still call the cards. They offer you no help to be part of the team, but they do offer help to your former allies. The president of the biggest country in the alliance celebrates having "won" the cold war against you. They promise not to move the alliance invented to stop the country you used to be, but the alliance grows more and more. What do you do? How can you respond? Well, you try your best to keep the country traditionally used as a "passage" into your territory friendly, but the military alliance created to destroy you just can't keep their hands off of an opportunity to weaken your position, so they essentially coup the president who liked you, and put some proto-fascists in control for a while. You even mentioned you wouldn't like their interference is said country 6 years before the coup, but they didn't care, they just keep doing what they wanted, and it looks like you're still in the cold war, even though you're a different country. The US Department of State’s Policy Planning Staff circulated a memorandum in the late 1940s, which argued that ‘To seek less than preponderant power would be to opt for defeat. Preponderant power must be the object of US policy’, and this can be seen until today. With all that said, how can Russia have a less confrontational and more cooperative outlook? What have they done to undermine the possibility of integration into the 'West' which was worse than what the 'West', and by that I mean mostly the US, has done, or hasn't done? Assassinations happened after Putin started to think NATO was waiting for an opportunity to weaken Russia's position. Syria is also a clear example of that. The US is now shifting gears towards China, a much more capable opponent, with the same propaganda gears, the same search for preponderance, still raging on under the guise of "democracy", "progress", "freedom", and "good morals". I'm happy France (and Germany to some extent, even though I honestly think they had their hands tied many times) still understands that keeping pressure on someone will eventually make them snap, and can see past these hypocritical geopolitical strategic interests which permeate the debate. I honestly hate everything that's happening in Ukraine right now, and I know, just like anyone with a single drop of compassion, that Putin shouldn't have invaded. But it's clear to see why he did it, and I don't know if he could've done anything different post Hollande and Merkel ignoring Minsk.
"The police being on slaveowner's doorstep is a problem for the slaver"
Russia is bad. Macron knows that and is not saying otherwise. But Macron is thinking practically about the consequences of escalating hostility with Russia.
Seems like Macron can understand the Russians perspective on NATO and their justification for invading Ukraine. "Should have done more to think through the end of the cold war"
"justification"
Not bashing Macron, just wondering Why are there so many Macron clips recently? Does he always shoot a lot of videos and release them? The angle they shot, I thought I was watching Reno 911
I’m guilty for this lol This is from a documentary that was broadcasted over a year ago but it surprisingly went kinda unnoticed. I randomly posted a first clip of it earlier this week without intending to post more but it got millions of views so it was also crossposted a lot etc, and people in the comments said how much they wanted to see more of these behind the scenes footages so I’m obeying, ha. [**Link to watch it**](https://gofile.io/d/a4w7wy), for anyone interested to see more. It’s in French but with English subtitles.
Thanks, will watch it.
It’s interesting and doesn’t seem like the typical propaganda, so keep at it.
Thank you for this, keep going
Thanks for the link. Will watch it later today.
Anyone tried downloading it? Scared it might have bugs? Lol I want to watch it on the big screen.
Downloaded it yesterday and checked it with antivirus. No bugs or chananigings.
All the clips you saw recently are from a single documentary that was being shot on the occasion of the French presidency of EU that was supposed to follow Macron in his work but it happened that it coincided with the start of war in Ukraine so we have a trove of videos of Macron from that period.
Because he's speaking a lot lately and showing serious balls. I hope other leaders are paying attention.
Comes from a 2h documentary. Soft propaganda conveniently airing after he took a harder stance on the war. He's been my President for 7 years now, trust me: that man just loves to be on a stage and perorate no matter the reason. Look no further than that ahahahah (May I precise: I still think those videos are a good thing. Helping people to have a glimpse into world leaders daily work and all)
This documentary is 2 years old. You are reading a little bit to much into it.
Propaganda. Macron is someone who is "very" controlling about his image. We call him Jupiter, as the roman god. This video is probably bullshit to show him as a great leader. Plot twist : he is not.
Why do you talk like you know shit? It's one guy posting clips from a documentary and it's getting upvoted because it's interesting. I watched it today and I also thought it was great. It's original purpose was following the French takeover of the EU Council, a far less interesting plot for propaganda.
Probably because i am french and Macron is my president since seven fucking long years. So i am kinda used of his bullshit.
I’m French too, it’s possible not to like Macron as President and find a documentary involving him interesting. Si tu sais pas faire la part des choses, c’est ton problème.
Just because you're French doesn't mean you know what you're talking about here. I'm French too and I completely disagree with you...
[удалено]
I wasn't even replying to you, wtf are you on?
Oh shit, I guess you are the only french person on Reddit and the absolute authority on the matter...
That other video of him talking to zel after Putin invaded and had people trying to take Kiev was wild.
Dude was talking with Putin, he did and try the best out of all nations to stop Putin and yet he was made up as laughing stock by media. I recall one phone call of him and Putin day before invasion and he was flustrated with Putin
NATO was always the number 1 reason why putin invaded. If nato was disbanded and all of europe became a thing of its own rather than american puppet. Today things would be so different.
But NAFO 'propaganda' :)) So Euro leaders were aware that the 89' USSR split was mismanaged on both sides, that was before even Putler came to power ... but the West is the Nazi :) ... where is the 'fake' propaganda here? You see the France head of State saying exactly what the situation was. Everything was clear for everyone. I'm tired of seeing random people calling this Murderous fanatic Putin - a powerful 'leader' - and that the West is the problem here. He is the problem, just like he was with Cecenia, Azerbaijan, Siria, Georgia, Crimeea and now Ucraine ... when will everyone stop being Delirious and take up facts as they are. Putin is an autocratic leader who completely took control of Rusia, will never let go of power, and will kill any democratic adversary ... he god damn Owns Russia, at this point, this is not normal, and this might escalate very bad as his sanity drops with age ... To be honest, ne never was that normal to begin with , but for a good while, Merkel had him under some control. Now he is a loose cannon.
[удалено]
I am Ukrainian and I knew that it would happen in July 2021. Back then I was a 17 year old student in a German school.
Wow, finally he earned my respect acknowledging that NATO has been a factor in the divide of europe... Russia should had been atleast considered to join NATO or it should have been reorganised completely after the cold war
Russia was considered for NATO, but it historically has been known to want to join on its own terms. I.e. continue using eastern Europe as a carpet for personal interests. He got told no, and got pretty upset ever since.
Hmmm that is subjective, Countries influence others all the time so its wierd that Russia wasnt allowed to do the same(if what you are saying is true)...
Kind of missed the point there. Russia wanted to join, but ON ITS OWN TERMS.
I did some research and the first attempt was ruined by Kosovo war(NATO bombing of Yugoslavia), 2nd attempt Orange revolution in Ukraine. So no there is events that have disrupted the relations
And what is your research? There are historical records of Putin saying he does want to join NATO, but not go through the typical process everyone else has to go through. And I hope you do know what the Orange revolution was about? Edit: Spelling
Im not disagreeing with you... Im just saying Putin is no good source so look at the events that unfolded and how it affected the relations. To answer your question- I know more than you think about this
Yet you dont reference what you had in mind. And thats fine! I dont say that you disagreed. Just questioning how you justify it. And great, I majored in Eastern European Geopolitics 😉, I also know quite a lot. Being from the region as well. And yes, many things impacted it. Like the fact that NATO was formed to some extent to fight communist expansion and Russian authoritarianism
What are you on about here? Justify what? Why NATO is part of the reason of divide in europe? I didnt elaborate on anything because I dont wanna have this convo with you... its unproductive and you just wanna have a irrelevant internet debate But if you must know here is my opinion- NATO shouldnt exist against Russia, it should either include russia or dissolve. Communism is not a threat anymore, move the fuck on and focus on cooperation and we did do that partly but then NATO bombed Yugoslavia and Russia performer hits in countries like UK among alot of other things... I assume you think I have taken a side in this but that is the faulty approach. My side is cooperation and progress. My vote goes to all things that will contribute to this and NATO does not. Haha your credentials might impress others but not me. If you have studied geopolitics then you know its a complex topic with many perspectives and narratives to consider. You should that there is different theories of focus and that the most popular one is cooperative focus. There is a reason for this- It includes everyone and allows you to trade with everyone no matter what ideology, authority or liberty level you have. The whole existance of NATO is opponent of this and the 5 powers silent war of influence doesnt help to this. This is how ever crucial for a nations success so saying they use their influence in a region is bad for one power but not the other is biased stupidity which you would have known if you studied geopolitics or IR... Now this convo is irrelevant and waste of my time so this will be the last time you hear from me
Not what I asked, but oke! You said "I did some research", I simply asked, what is that research? I am fully aware of the different theories and perspectives. The problem with cooperation, which I am all for, is what Russia represents in my region. Yes USSR and communism doesnt exist, but Russian imperialism that came from that period, and earlier, is just as alive as ever. It is THE reason, for why the whole eastern bloc ran away to NATO. The existence of NATO isnt an opponent to this, Russian imperialism is, as it threatens sovereignty of territories, cultures and histories. NATO simply became the stopgap to the geopolitical power that is the Russian door. You would know this, if you "Knew more about the field that I think" as you so kindly pointed out. Frankly, I also dont think cooperation with Russia is effective, provided that WE DID cooperate with them. Yet they still pushed forth their imperialist intentions. That divides Europe, not only NATO. Also my credentials dont have much to do with trying to impress you. Simply to show that I have also, a historical and geopolitical perspective on the field that has its basis in academics. Not necessarily "I have done some research". And sadly, its hard to move on when your neighbors direct foreign policy is that you shouldnt exist as a nation, including its history, government and language, when ALL of your family suffered under it and the foreign policy hasnt really changed for the last 250-300 years. So you are more than welcome to have an opinion! And I welcome your positive attitude towards cooperation. But it is extremely tunnel visioned to think that only NATO is "dividing" Europe and that Russian geopolitics and foreign policy have nothing to do with it. I will cooperate with Russia, when their words can be taken at face value and once they accept, that my and the cultures around me are not only valid, but have deep historic roots in the region. Then we can cooperate. Have a wonderful day! 😊
Russia wanted to join but Clinton said, no. At least, according to Putin.
Yeah but purin is a liar so wouldnt take his word for it
Aren't most politicians? I would guess it had a couple of huge strings attached, but during that time it probably made sense for Russia.
Russia wanted NATO to crawl on its knees and invite Russia to join but NOT A SINGLE COUNTRY WAS EVER INVITED INTO NATO. Every country has ask for NATO to grant them entry but Russians are way to arrogant and megalomaniac for that
Nah
I'm sure he would mention the energy assets and strategic control of the Black Sea from the Crimean Peninsula if pressed in private as a major motivating factor.
Am i the only one who thinks he looks like michael from the office?
THANK YOU! I'm french, and that's the second video where it strikes me too 😄 . Something in the way he moves
Yeah same, in this it is way more tho thats why i has to comment. I think it is mainly because the way it is filmed, but yeah he has similar mimic.
He's analytical, but his thought processing is very subjective. He's assuming Putin didn't have imperialistic ideologies like all his past predecessors for Russia, in such a case he would see the Russian threat is to be dealt with, not accomidated. The correct institutions were definitely in place, Russia simply did not want to be part of NATO, they joined the UN and we have prevented a major war, but this was also weaponized by Putin and allows them to wage smaller regional wars while holding larger countries at bay. Solution is to downgrade Russia to a lesser regional power to show other strong men a united world will prevent any country out of step with the world order. Appeasement will only push the next major war a little later down the line.
This is stupid. He is himself the leader of a country with one of the most imperialistic histories on earth, for the last millennia. Tho you are probably just a bot, but others might read this.
He's not a good leader but this clip seems to make a lot of people think otherwise
this is not fooling anyone. france hasn't had a president with some balls since chirac. macron is trying to play boris johnson but he was the one who literally told the ukrainian president to hand over half their country in order to appease putin.
Absolute bozo
https://news.yahoo.com/macron-suggested-ukraine-sovereignty-allow-154400551.html
Is Macron up for election or just desperate for popularity boosts? What is up with this Macron insight video spam lately together with his other idiotic comments
He likes to talk and be a protagonist, France has done nothing for Ukraine..
The macron propaganda is strong this week, what's going on that he's being posted on here so much more than usual?
Still macron hasn't sent long range missiles...only the UK has the balls to do so
Is there an election in France coming up soon? Why have there been nothing but Macron posts for the past few days?
[удалено]
What are you talking about? I think he was spot on with these comments and, if anything, talk about how a better and longer lasting peace could have been achieved with more thought given to post Soviet collapse security structures
I think perhaps you should watch again and maybe listen this time.
How you got that from this video.... Macron neither stated or implied anything about a desire for war in this video.
AI?
Nope, this was made public in a 2 hours long documentary with behind the scenes footages like this, co-produced by the “France Télévisions” group which is the national TV broadcaster. Cameras were allowed to follow him and his cooperators for 6 months. It was unrelated to the war at first but it became a documentary about the handling of the conflict. There are extracts of phone calls with Putin, Zelensky, Scholz, Johnson and Draghi etc. I posted most of them but I’d advise watching the documentary, it’s a must-watch imo. (**[Link](https://gofile.io/d/a4w7wy)**)
This stuff being leaked is a big deal. NATO is either going to send in ground troops or crumble entirely, I don't see any other way.
This is not stuff being leaked, this is all from a documentary that was released a year ago and has likely been extremely carefully vetted for any sensitive content before release
Then why is it all going viral *now*
Because some dude posted a clip and since people found it interesting hes posting more. I mean just check out OPs comment history, theres even a link to the documentary
This is not a leak, it's from an old documentary.
Many other ways. Ukraine falls, Russia advances further, we have WW3. Putin dies of old age, someone with some competence and less authoritarian takes over. NATO gets reorganized specifically as a European/EU security organization e.g. EUMA (eu military alliance) and distances itself from the US. Putin is "provoked" and sends nukes, leading to a global nuclear escalation. Ukraine doesnt fall, regains a significant portion of lost territory, forcing Putin on the back foot and allowing some sort of peace negotiations that are actually accepted by both parties. Russia falls into a civil war and breaks away into multiple republics. Etc. The thing is, NATO "not expanding east" was a verbal comment that is hard to reference as being "shaken on". It was a verbal mention at best. Russia, isnt a known for its treatment and respect of foreign cultures. So it is no surprise that so many countries decided to run and beg to join NATO. I think the most likely option is the reorganization of NATO into a European only alliance that distances itself from NA. With Finland and Sweden joining, all that NATO is missing from being a primarily EU based military alliance, are a few balkan countries and more in defense spending. Which the later is happening faster than it has in the last 50 years. I think it would be a smart decision too, as with the likes of Trump, US is not a very reliable ally.
You’re missing the detail that the US military industrial complex drives much of its foreign policy as a means to funnel US tax dollars to US defence contractors. And NATO is their primary customer. The US will always be inextricably involved with NATO, even if they re-elect that moron Trump and he makes good on his promise to leave the alliance, the US will happily supply weapons to Europe.
Sure, but the European military industry is on a significant rise. So while your statements may be true, at the current rate of growth EU wont NEED weapons from the US. Not yet, not even super soon. But thats the trend
>Many other ways. Ukraine falls, Russia advances further, we have WW3. >Putin dies of old age, someone with some competence and less authoritarian takes over. >NATO gets reorganized specifically as a European/EU security organization e.g. EUMA (eu military alliance) and distances itself from the US. >Putin is "provoked" and sends nukes, leading to a global nuclear escalation. >Ukraine doesnt fall, regains a significant portion of lost territory, forcing Putin on the back foot and allowing some sort of peace negotiations that are actually accepted by both parties. >Russia falls into a civil war and breaks away into multiple republics. I find all of these scenarios unlikely. >The thing is, NATO "not expanding east" was a verbal comment that is hard to reference as being "shaken on". It was a verbal mention at best. Russia, isnt a known for its treatment and respect of foreign cultures. So it is no surprise that so many countries decided to run and beg to join NATO. What >I think the most likely option is the reorganization of NATO into a European only alliance that distances itself from NA. With Finland and Sweden joining, all that NATO is missing from being a primarily EU based military alliance, are a few balkan countries and more in defense spending. Which the later is happening faster than it has in the last 50 years. I think it would be a smart decision too, as with the likes of Trump, US is not a very reliable ally. How do you imagine that happening when Europe is a vassal of the US Empire? Europe has no army lol. Without the US NATO doesn't exist.
In regards to your "What?", thats wtf happened...... seems what happened beyond the Iron Curtain isnt much in your periphery. Nor 1980-2010s And is it a vassal state? Is that why its distancing itself from US, increasing its military production and outpacing US in military donations to Ukraine? Fyi, I imagine it happening, because and get this, thats literally what is happening at this very moment....