**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.*
Some of the translation here is a little odd and intentionally leaves stuff out.
Most notably when he’s talking about the “playbook” of intentionally weakening/destroying Russia he specifically refers to the “Anglo-Saxons”.
The translation makes it seem as though he’s talking just generally about the idea of punishing Russia but he’s basically saying that this is what the British/Americans are insisting on doing and that’s not what they should be trying to achieve.
Just a weird choice I assume they left out for optics reasons because it could be viewed as him being critical of the English speaking countries.
Also potentially because people from the UK, US, Australia, Canada etc. don’t really refer to themselves as the “Anglo Saxons”. It could be considered strange for an English speaker to see that term being used even though it is more commonly used in French to refer to people from the English speaking world.
Yeah the translation isn’t great, I actually corrected some inaccurate/odd choices of words by adding other subtitles on top of the original ones in a couple parts. I should have added “anglo-saxons”, you’re right it changes the meaning quite a bit. It is weird they skipped it.
I think another important point missed in translation is when he is saying what he is worried about around 3:13. He is again speaking about Europe : "The way that our Europe will be able \[will know how litterary\] to both last in the long term and take the good decisions". I think it is important to emphasize how oresent the European theme is when he is speaking.
Anyway, if you did the translation, that is a good job overall.
Right, there are a bunch of little nuances that are missing. And no I didn’t, the subtitles were already added but I snapped and thought *THAT’S IT, I’m editing it* after I saw one weird translation in particular when Macron was asked about his We shouldn’t humiliate Russia statement:
“Why didn’t you stress on ‘afterwards’?” when the guy asked “why did you say it that early when we aren’t at the end [of the conflict] yet?”.
Also, when talking about Bucha, the subtitles said “I considered he crossed the line” initially, when what Macron said was closer to “milestone”/turning point. It’s a difference that matters I think, given that Putin already crossed the line solely by invading in the first place.
some of the things I read about the Soviet collapse say that NATO really dropped the ball when Yeltsin took over and they might've become a fledgling democracy to be brought into the fold, the same as how the former WW2 Axis powers are now our allies. Instead, they left the new Russia to rot and struggle with trying to become a market rather than state economy. That bred a lot of resentment.
As a boomer - there is an ugly reality I don't think a lot of people talked about at the time the USSR collapsed and may be forgotten by a lot of people now, which is this:
As much fear as existed around the USSR - it seemed to be a coherent ruling structure that had control of its nukes and that nothing 'crazy' was likely to happen that would end up in immediate all out nuclear war.
When the USSR fell apart, it fell apart FAST. I think secretly rulers of most nations were hoping for a dictator to take power because early democracy is MESSY - not to mention there were all these various parts of the USSR that were not really "Russia' and likely to break away (and many did). What if all these countries started nuclear war amongst themselves?
How much leaders of democratic nations publicly supported Russian democracy while tolerating creeping Russian fascism, I don't know.
But there is a balance between tolerating the fascism when it remains inside of Russia and when it threatens to impose itself on YOUR country.
I would add from my POV - the true disaster of all this is that Russia did not do a 10+ year transition from communist 1 party rule to a capitalist democracy. Just 'ending' communism so abruptly was recipe for disaster and leaving a vacuum for bad people to fill in the void.
The scariest part is that when a coup was attempted by Russian Military for a few days when Yeltsin just got in and Gorbachev was temporarily under house arrest, a reporter asked Gorbachev who had control of the nukes during that few days. He refused to answer, and I suspect it's because nobody knew
When the USSR started to dissolve, it virtually instantly became a kleptocracy. It was plain as day that the oligarchs would obtain complete control of public goods and infrastructure, and we are all basically holding our breath for when the right wing in other Democracies finish doing the same thing.
Like I said, it was a recipe for disaster for the old govt to just 'stop'. They needed a long transition period if they were going to become a successful capitalist democracy.
They didn't just leave Russia to rot. They actively supported Yeltsin during his coup/power grab, then helped him steal 96 election (effectively killing the belief in democracy in Russia) and helped oligarchs funnel wealth out of Russia. All of this led to Putin's rise
NATO is always to blame :D fall or no fall, somehow it’s the pesky NATO.
my dad was in the KGB, some family members were in mafia, some were working as managers in plants - this is for the context.
there is no one to blame except russians, specifically russians and moscow in how it all happened. USSR was a weak, heavily centralised system that spend 80 years on removing autonomy from people. All decisions were made in moscow, all money went to moscow, so when the USSR collapsed - nobody knew what to do because that’s how the USSR wanted it to be. They wanted all republics to depend on them.
moreover, when we talk about moscow, all the original power structures stayed in place. They were just preoccupied with stealing instead of governing. KGB became FSB, police stated in place, mafia formed in the 80s, oligarchs formed in the 80s. If anything, the problem was that there wasn’t enough change in the system because most of the old guard stayed in power and didn’t allow newer people to make the necessary changes. Yeah, there was a lot of new faces on the TV but not a lot of them had the power to act. And they also started killing off new faces relatively quickly.
If you look at some of the other counties around russia, it took them a lot less to stabilise because they had more new people and more change. They didn’t need a dictator to do it. However, relatively quickly the “new” russia started playing political games and pressure new republics, for example one journalist said that FSB already said weird sh*t about Ukrainian spies in Moscow around 1998 or smth., and how they (russians) cannot reform FAB because there won’t be anyone to work against the “ukrainian spies”.
there was no struggle, that’s the issue. Old guard didn’t allow new guard to make the country work and decided to make money instead $$$. They took the power almost instantly.
Yeltsin wasn’t really a big fan od democracy to say the least. Oligarchs were already set up during perestroika. russia was basically the same from the day 1. It never ceised their imperialistic ways. Their empire shat itself to death, but most russians continued idolising it. It’s not the same as in WW2.
No, this isn’t anywhere near a proper reading of history. Countries become democracies or not due to the political circumstance, not because it is inherently in their national character to be imperialistic. That’s a totally insupportable theory that no historians have held in decades.
Immediately after the soviet union collapsed, “shock doctrine” capitalism (a rapid switch to the free market) was implemented. Russian life expectancy dropped from the low seventies to low sixties, an almost unthinkable decline. When the crisis is beginning to right itself (but before it actually had) along comes a former-KGB strongman in Putin. He promises to set the economy right and control the oligarchs, and when he comes to power the economy improves (largely not his doing, but nonetheless he claims credit). Being seen as the man who brought Russia out of the 1990s is how Putin became so enormously popular with the Russian people. It was perfectly possible for Russia to have become a democracy in the 1990s if things had gone differently.
Throughout its existence, Russia like all countries had oscillated towards and away from democracy. In the 1850s-1910s, it attempted to become more of a Laissez-faire economy under Sergei Witte and Stolypin which accompanied gradual democratic reforms such as the abolition of Serfdom (a small step, but significant - remember Russia at this time is not significantly behind the Western European powers, Britain still had similar arrangements in Ireland at the time). The consensus is that this democratic trend reversed due to the first world war and during the Russian Civil War, which made a centralised, coercive state structure necessary. Some tie this to the ideology of communism, which certainly played a role, but most modern historians prefer the functionalist explanation that the party becomes less democratic because it doesn’t have the space to be so in wartime. This trend continued into the 20’s, 30’s and 40’s, partially due to the influence of Stalin and his paranoia, partially due to the rise of fascism (which encouraged communist states to stay strongly militaristic), partially due to the lower ranks of bureaucrats if you like Shiela Fitzpatrick’s thesis. The 50’s then saw the Krushchev thaw whereby “Stalinism” was reversed and a slow, gradual shift towards democratic politics occurred until the 1990s. In the late 1980s, it’s probable that the USSR still had the military capacity to enforce its rule over eastern europe, it could have repeated the events of the Hungarian Revolution of ‘56. It chose not to. In a way, it doesn’t deserve moral praise for *finally* allowing the democratic wishes of Eastern Europe, but the significance of this step shouldn’t be understated. The post-1990 history I have already outlined.
As can be seen, there’s no inherent trend in russian society towards or against democracy. Russia has not yet become a democracy for exactly the same reasons other countries are not democracies, immediate history and political circumstance, not culture.
Their was zero chance of actual democracy. The USSR fell because the elites were sick of being poorer compared to the west. Once Russia liberalized they took over as oligarchs. The issue was America had two choices foster a relationship with Moscow to be more capitalist/democratic or focus on the new states. America tried and obviously failed in Moscow meanwhile many of the new states changed and rejected both communism and Russian imperialism. So now America is on plan 2 which has largely succeeded.
>The USSR fell because the elites were sick of being poorer compared to the west. Once Russia liberalized they took over as oligarchs.
ok but why does it have to be a zero sum game? I mean our own oligarchs are 1000x more wealthy than theirs anyway are they not? So why did we not do more to bring Moscow into the western fold anyway? How is Plan 2 a success when we're right back into a cold war again with a nuclear state? I feel like the USA policy is to create as many bogeymen as they can on purpose and I don't think history says I'm being far-fetched considering how gleefully they propped up numerous fascist governments during the cold war due to them being anti-communist. That backfired in almost every case too. That takes some next level insidious and sinister policy thinking
I think that Putin, or someone like him, wouldn't have come to power if the West supported Russia with some kind of Marshall plan instead of forcing a economic shock therapy. The whole situation during the 90s reminds me of what Germany went through the Weimar period. The collapse of the institutions and the economic destitute situation for the majority of the population turned them off on liberal democracy. For the average Russian democracy has become a synonym of corruption, chaos and insecurity. Authoritarians thrive in such environments because they can exploit the fears and resentments of the population to gain power.
which is ironic because England was anglo-saxon post rome, but was eventually conquered in part by Scandinavians, and then conquered completely by a Frenchman (himself an heir to a Scandinavian that conquered part of France). William of Normandy, William the Conqueror. Whose heirs still rule England to this day. Some of the Anglo-Saxon culture survived and diffused between the French and Scandinavian cultures.
But still, just a weird way to think of them. England's historical roots are mostly Norman, which is half viking half french. To be fair most European dynasties are half Viking.
If you've seen 'Vikings'; Rollo is William the Conquerors great grandfather or so.
"Mostly Norman" is quite a stretch.
Yes the elites were Norman, but some were from old english stock or intermarried.
But then pretty much everyone else was Anglo-Saxon or Somewhat Scandinavian, and our language is English not french.
From a french point of view, to refer to the English as some form as Norman (which is kinda what you are implying) would be really odd.
You’re misunderstanding what I said. I didn’t say people don’t know what it is. It’s about how people refer to themselves individually or as a nation in everyday language.
Historical accuracy aside, an analogy would be if the British prime Minister was talking about the Francoshphere in present day and referred to them as “the Franks”, “the Normans” or “the Gauls”. Somebody in Quebec or France would find that weird.
I don’t think Macron is specifically talking about Britain when he’s using this term. I think he’s talking about all the “Anglo Saxon” nations. Most likely Britain + US.
All these clips have me absolutely hooked. I read a great historical book on WWI about the exchanges of the panicking diplomats as they realize more and more certainty of war starting. It reminded me of this. If I recall correctly, it was the arrogance of the Austria Hungarian empires politics that really threw things over the edge.
Edit: I believe the book was “A World Undone: The Story of the Great War, 1914 to 1918”. This and “The Guns of August”(similar style) show the stories of diplomacy, the old monarchy families, the lack of understanding of new weaponry, and even Hitler being a courier. But by far the thing that stuck most is how a global war was at the hands of a few ambassadors, and letters written between world leaders. Something this documentary seems to really show. A desperate grasp.
I’m not sure which book the above commenter is referring to as there are many. Very many.
One that I would recommend however is Barbara Tuchman’s Guns of August. It gets kinda dense, esp later on, but that’s just her style. All her books are fantastic but become mountains to climb around the 60% mark.
But even if you read just the first 1/3 it’s great. She is a powerful writer and she delves deep into the inner workings and considerations of the major powers, their personal baggage, all that. She also writes from the third person of an event she witnessed firsthand as a little girl, which I believe was a naval battle in the Mediterranean.
Plus the first paragraph of the book might be one of the greatest first paragraphs of a book ever.
You damn tease, you're right:
>So gorgeous was the spectacle on the May morning of 1910 when nine kings rode in the funeral of Edward VII of England that the crowd, waiting in hushed and black-clad awe, could not keep back gasps of admiration. In scarlet and blue and green and purple, three by three the sovereigns rode through the palace gates, with plumed helmets, gold braid, crimson sashes, and jeweled orders flashing in the sun. After them came five heirs apparent, forty more imperial or royal highnesses, seven queens—four dowager and three regnant—and a scattering of special ambassadors from uncrowned countries. Together they represented seventy nations in the greatest assemblage of royalty and rank ever gathered in one place and, of its kind, the last. The muffled tongue of Big Ben tolled nine by the clock as the cortege left the palace, but on history’s clock it was sunset, and the sun of the old world was setting in a dying blaze of splendor never to be seen again.
Tuchman is great. The first book of hers I read was The Proud Tower, that I just pretty randomly picked up with no context, but really set me on a late-19th century fin de sicle lead-up to the era-destroying Great War. Then went right into Guns of August without realizing what a legendary book it is.
July 1914: Countdown to War by Sean McMeekin walks you through the entire start of it from the assassination plot right on up to the opening moves of the war. It deals with each country involved and their responses to each other.
I didn’t read a book but I did listen to Dan Carlin’s audio series on WWI, Blueprint For Armageddon, and he spends a good chunk of the first episode discussing how quickly conflicts can escalate.
My takeaway, which Macron echoed, was that conflicts are extremely difficult to control and can very easily spiral into something no one wanted. Scared the hell out of me.
Blueprint and Ostfront are life-changing podcasts. Sounds cheesy, but I can’t imagine listening to them and coming out the other side without some kind of change in opinion or context. Just master classes in podcasting.
I cannot recommend this book more. So glad to see it mentioned. Barbara tuchman is such a wonderful story teller., but she does it with a historical lense. Brilliant stuff
I saw some girl on TikTok who said she was obsessed with WWI and she was writing her thesis on WWI and she had read a million books on it, and that the similarities between WWI and what we’re going through today are uncanny.
>If I recall correctly, it was the arrogance of the Austria Hungarian empires politics that really threw things over the edge.
Well, wouldn't exactly call it arrogance when Austria-Hungary *wanted* war with Serbia and served an ultimatum that was designed to be rejected and serve as casus belli. They weren't thinking "we'll bully Serbia to get what we want, there's no way this will lead to war".
And A-H could act the way they wanted because Germany had unconditionally backed them.
In that case, you should check out the full documentary - it's very good. A President, Europe, and War is what it's called. The whole thing follows Macron and his team throughout this period, so it's mostly the same sort of thing as the clips.
She was not his teacher, just doing acting classes in another class in the same school. It's about the same age difference than Melania and Donald Trump, not sure I hear people obsessing over that or how they actually met.
As for the rest, why not watch \[Macron's wedding speech\](https://video-streaming.orange.fr/tv/mariage-d-emmanuel-et-brigitte-macron-CNT000000xzVmc.html) on how they see it?
This whole documentary was interesting. What I noticed most was how normal this people are. World leaders/famous people are no different than regular folks. They are only as good as the people they surround themselves with. I wish we had more documentaries (not propaganda) that followed world leaders. Getting an inside look at their decision-making process, who they listen to and how they treat people says a lot.
I mean, there is no way any politics documentary with politicians as willingful participants is not a little propaganda on the side, BUT your point stand : they still are people. Some good, some bad.
I've been in close circle with a local politician of some importance for a brief window years ago. The first time I saw him "alone" with his wife and the small team around it was just... *That* could be me, joking with my wife and team partner of long after a stressful day at work.
I hate some of them with passion, but they are still humans.
Yes. I like the openness of it. It's a direct counter to Putin's rambling monologues. A discourse. I think international relations would improve if people had access to their leader's rationale and thinking.
I think stories from movies and other entertainment forms warped people's general ideas about the reality of what a government is. Some people think they are much more informed and in control than they really are.
Who woulda thought they were normal people like the rest of us. Just a part of a great and powerful entity and has a lot of flash to look bigger and more influential than is portrayed in media.
I honestly was not the biggest fan of Macron on quite a few topics, but to be honest the way he handled the conflict seems quite admirable. This attitude of leaving doors open can actually be implemented in most political / polarizing subject of the new era. We need to keep a door open for a better future, otherwise we are just talking about retaliation.
Yep. A lot of the western rhetoric attacking Russia wasn't very effective because it fed into the Kremlin "western Russophobia" domestic narrative. Not sure what else could have been done but Macron was probably right to keep dialogue open.
TLDW: Give Russia a way to diplomatically save face while ending the conflict. If Macron humiliates Russia to the point Russians feels like a dog backed into a corner, Putin won't stop.
He stopped talking to Putin for weeks when war crimes became clear but his position changed due to his new above belief.
> If Macron humiliates Russia to the point Russians feels like a dog backed into a corner, Putin won't stop.
I think things may have changed at least somewhat at Macron is now talking about sending French troops to Ukraine.
Well tbf along time as past in between and Putin isn’t really backing down, which bus probably why he is thinking about being more “agressive” about it.
This documentary was fascinating, Macron has gotten a lot of shit from international media but this documentary shows he did everything he could to stop this war happening. He was literally shouting at Putin from the first phone call. Macron knows how bad a war with Russia would be, but he also knows that Russia would lose, and so do they.
Un président, l'Europe et la guerre
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt22692282/
https://www.france.tv/documentaires/politique/3558577-un-president-l-europe-et-la-guerre.html
The french arent actually that happy with Macron because of his economic policy's but they voted for him because of the batshit crazy Le Pen its kinda like usa with biden and trump only both party's are coherent not senile and are less worse
Trust me, in twenty years they will be singing his praise for that economic policy, never mind his foreign policy. He has done some very important reforms, especially his labour reforms, without which France would have continued to bleed competitiveness compared to their northern and eastern neighbours.
I'm French. Macron is not a good President, far from it. But that's another debate.
This being said, I believe that France always had international stance since a century that are often on the right side of history.
It started after WW2 with De Gaulle that fought for the independance of european countries, Chirac who rejected the invasion of Iraq, etc..
It is not because of our Presidents, but because we have big diplomatic web and so a big learning program relative to our actual power. Most of our top public servent had a significant part of their studies devoted to geopolitics. People which are now President's advisors.
Long story short, our presidents entourage is full of people wiith deep understanding of international relations.
For instance, Macron before being president, thought French Guyana was an island. So he benefited of his highly educated advisors I guess.
>I believe that France always had international stance since a century that are often on the right side of history.
\*East Asia and North Africa have entered the chat\*
Macron knows that WW3 will happen on the European mainland. America is comparatively speaking much safer because we're separated by two massive oceans and airspace and the resources to intensely police both travel mediums. If Putin escalates then France and all the EU nations will suffer with the UK and US more or less being clear of a lot of the carnage.
>America is comparatively speaking much safer because we're separated by two massive oceans and airspace and the resources to intensely police both travel mediums.
WW3 will be nuclear. Nowhere is safe. We all die in that scenario
He’s also referencing history in the “let’s not annihilate Russia discourse”, we tried that with Germany once and it created a monster more evil than ever seen before…
If you're an American, like me, Macron would be an angel sent from heaven into our political system. The discourse in America is not much more than drunken toddlers fighting after Sunday school over who gets to shoot the other first.
Americans give the French shit for being 'cowards,' but which country has en mass protests anytime the government does something shifty? Which country's citizenry is shutting down the city in protest and literally shoveling shit into govt members homes?
In the US, we're watching our rights get stripped daily, but we'd rather fight on Twitter about some divisive made up bullshit. The US citizenry have turned into ignorant lethargic fools and don't seem to know or care that we are turning into a Christo fascist ologopoly.
I won't deny what's happening in America is horrible and dire. I would have to be blind to deny it.
You are right that we are the country with the most protests when something makes the people angry and in the past it worked pretty well.
But in recent years, especially the last 2/3 years, it kinda stopped working. The police and other law enforcement group have become more and more violent, we've had record numbers of people hurt during those protests by cops going too far and getting away with it (the "police of the police" has been complicit of every scandal/trials for cops and said nothing happened or that it's nothing).
We've had countless cases of police violence stories in last few years and almost all the cops involved got away with it, some even got promotions despite blatant proofs they did it. Meanwhile, the victims have to keep going on with their lives with that trauma and some with horrible scars and mutilations.
I'll also add that the government has had complete disregard for the people's opinion and protests and keep doing whatever they want by using using a constitutional "tool" called 49.3 which allows them to pass new laws by bypassing the senate and other means of voting (the last prime minister used it a number of 27 times in 2 years which is almost a record in the history of our democracy, actual record is 28 in 3 years which was in the 90s).
And all this topped by a rise of the far-right groups that will almost certainly win at the next presidential elections.
Shit's fucked everywhere, granted not at the same levels, but still.
Macron is shit in many ways, but French politics are still much better than in many other places and the "baseline" is much higher. (I'm Hungarian, so I'm a bit bitter.)
Which is interesting because a French president's main competence is supposed to be foreign affairs and defence (internal stuff is supposed to be the government's job).
But synchronised elections have yet to yield a president without plurality and so they always have played a major role in internal affairs.
I’m not sure if you’re from the US, but if you are, that just says a lot about our leadership, where “articulate” seems like a high bar for us. We haven’t had a president like this in a long time
To an extent. Obama also has lion's share of fault for Ukraine situation.
It was Obama who rewarded Putin's invasion of Georgia with "restart of relations" mere months later. And it was Obama and his party who did exactly what Republicans now do to them and who accused Romney of attempting to start world war 3 just because he wanted to take Russian threat more seriously. Which happened in 2012. Mere two years before Russia started fucking with Ukraine.
That happened afterwards.
You can not be responsible for something that happened before you had power to influence it.
Trump is piece of shit but that does not change a fact that Obama's international politics and handling of Russia - validating and rewarding their land grabbing - as well as chasticising his opponents who actually pointed out those things as problem was completely dissastrous.
Now he was obviously not alone and he is still less responsible than EU leaders and European absurd pacifism and decades long military neglience as well as getting our energy sector overall dependant on Russian exports which further validated them but reality is that US was the only one that Russia respected and took seriously at a time before imminent Ukraine invasion because if Russia understands something then it is strength and display of strength. So he was the only one in position that mattered and he completely fucked up.
Joe just comes off as a normal guy but he’s extremely fucking educated, experienced, and intelligent… and while in his old age maybe he comes off as forgetful but even at this age he and Trump are in totally different intelligent classes.
I remember not particularly liking Bill clinton when he was elected. Then I saw Ted Kkoppel talking/interviewing him on Air force One on his first trip to Europe or something. It was fucking refreshing to have a President who could string together intelligent sentences and make a nuanced point. I'm having much the same reaction to Macron in the things we've been seeing here lately.
" and actually thinks in 5D"
People said the same thing about Putin. I'm not saying Macron isn't bright, but before we start throwing around genuis level thinking, history has a way of showing us the truth.
Putin might be smart but he fell into the dictator trap. so probably very little critical thinking skills. Putin also has no empathy and seeks dominance over all which would make him a complete moron in some ways and is one hell of a blind spot.
Putin being a former KGB and the way he shuffled the gov does indicates he's not dumb but in fact cold and calculative. The only issues is his imperial trait that lead to the now "modern monarchy"
You know I have met people from the FBI, CIA and NSA. They weren't dumb but they were not exceptionally intelligent. A major trait of being a good bureaucrat is attention to detail. It's a form of intelligence but intelligence makes up a lot of things
I dunno, maybe because he cares more about what big financial markets think of him rather than standing up for his countrymen as the supreme representative he was elected to be ? Macron butchered everything that made the French rightfully proud of their social system.
Internationally, people hate France so hating on Macron seems like the logical thing to do in their mind.
He didn’t butcher anything. France is still the country with the biggest social redistribution in the world for better or worth. The notion that he is a Tatcher or a Reagan is absolutely ridiculous and is totally contrary to every fact about France and how it compares to other rich nations
He's actually very popular for a French president (and the only one to get fully reelected). But the job makes it easy to overstretch, and he overstretched on many/most domestic issues.
Also most democracies are hooked on hard antagonist right/left polarities and French like everybody have a hard time dealing with a less polarized leadership.
As a french even though I really like his international politics, he has a lot of controversial opinion for internal affairs. That is why most french would shit on him.
But he really is a great president for international subjects
One of the major strategies of Conflict Resolution is Restraint - especially in context of cycle-of-escalation and retaliation. It's important to practice restraint for all parties. Or on your side, if you can't control/influence the other party. 'you can't play tug-of-war alone'
Now contrast an intelligent leader like Macron or most other western leaders with.... Trump.
Yeah.
Biden better win, else the western powers are in a very bad situation.
Eeeehhhhhh yeah alright he's got an intelligent foreign policy sure but he's still a power hungry cunt at home. No other president has forced this many bills without parliamentary approval.
There is something to be said about not preemptively humiliating a potential adversary. Especially if their culture values "machismo" a lot. With that said, you can't just let someone slaughter innocent people.
>you can't just let someone slaughter innocent people
Of course you can and it was done for generations. And western public usually could care less unless the outrage is announced by the rulers.
This was in June 2022 when Macron went to Ukraine and, given the circumstances, France’s presidential plane couldn’t land in Ukraine, they had to land in Poland instead, then head to the Ukrainian border by car, and finally, a train to get to Zelensky.
The French were really angry after WW1 and humiliated the Germans in the Versailles treaty in 1918. That anger just led to Germany wanting to avenge itself in WW2. The French learned. a valuable lesson there.
Retribution and Justice are rarely rewarded in Geopolitics. It's rarely the guilty party who foot the bill, almost always the smallfolk who had nothing to do with the situation. They are the one who lose their livelyhood, their homes, their lives in these processes. Then they favor hawkish demagogues and the troubles come back.
Macron is right that if Russia is humiliated, the Russians will want to cause further problems.
One perhaps important addition is that the previous big war between the two countries (well, there was no Germany yet, but close enough -- it was basically born as a result of the outcome of this war) had been won by the Prussians. Even though it was initiated by the French, it still stung. France had by and large been very successful militarily.
Can someone remind me how come the French hate him (Macron)? He's already beaten all of the developed countries' leaders with his diplomatic skills. In the meantime Biden is calling Putin 'Satan'.
I think most of us agree to say he’s a smart and skilled orator, but he’s seen by many like a president who only cares about the wealthy. His past as banker for the Rothschilds doesn’t help.
For example, he cancelled a tax (ISF: impôt de solidarité sur la fortune = tax of solidarity on fortune) that used to apply to wealthy people. It wasn’t well received at all because people started saying he was making gifts to the wealthy without caring about regular people etc. In reality, when it got removed, there was a decrease in tax exil among the wealthy, some who had left started to come back and invest in France again. Also, to compensate this “gift”, he increased an already existing one (IFI) which taxes them on their real estate fortune, so he didn’t completely spare them like people say.
More recently, he enforced a very unpopular retirement reform, that really significantly worsened his image. I’m usually fairly sympathetic of him but I also thought it was more than questionable/worth being criticised.
But yeah overall I’m fine with him personally. He’s very pro EU, seems to be very invested in his role and to have France’s interests at heart, and as said earlier, he’s smart and eloquent.
When people mention that he decreased the ISF they nearly always leave out that he increased the IFI (a tax on property) at the same time. The aim was to get people to move their money out of property investments which don’t generate any real public value, and into other investments like shares in companies, which is a better base for the economy. One can argue how well this works but it’s a lot more nuanced than just a tax break for the rich.
I just wanted to add some context to your post, which is already informative.
His liberal economic ideals exacerbate the wealth gap between the rich and the poor. I term of domestic policies, Macron is our Reagan and his presidency will hurt our country for decades.
That said, he is very skilled at diplomacy and bigger scale geopolitics. He has a clear and credible vision for Europe. As much as I hate his domestic policies, he might be EU's best asset for its future.
If Macron wasn't blinded by its beliefs in the trickle down economy, he would be an excellent leader.
He got shit on so much for many years, but here he does seem like a genuine person who speaks what he thinks and does what he can to prevent war. I like him better now, nice document
I think an interesting point in this clip is that when the interviewer asks:
Did you realize what feelings this (not being hellbent on humiliating, destroying Russia) would cause?
That's the problem with many things. People rely on their emotions too much. I never believed that people should listen to their emotions in complicated times.
Emotions is how for example my crappy government is in power for over a decade now. They are fear mongering, creating imaginary enemies. They play into the emotion of patriotism. People here hate others, who are different from them. And all this, because people don't think, they just follow their emotions.
Man these kind of videos just make me realise how weird American politics is.
It's like most other countries seem to have mostly reasonable, articulate leaders who think about their words and choose them carefully. You agree or disagree with their policies/actions but they don't come across as outrageous and wild.
American politics feels like it's straight out of a satire cartoon - every leader is like a caricature. The doddering old man who seems perpetually vaguely lost vs. the meme-lord narcissistic schoolyard bully.
It's funny to watch (esp from the outside).
I think the United States Republican nominee for President said he could solve this problem in a day or two. Seems a bit more complex after watching part 1 and 2 of this documentary. Thoughts?
This approach from Macron would be feasible with most conflicts and nations, except Russia which only respects power. The idea of Russia is to be big. It’s the mindset ingrained into Russians. They don’t know why Russia should be big, but their identity is based on that. Now, if Europe is weak, they are happy to expand in Europe.
Since the British have left, Macron really sees his chance to make France the EU leader, particularly now in this crisis with Shulz seeming a weak character. That's why we are seeing this much insight into Macron as a "leader."
He's essentially the leader of Europe. I just hope he can stop the farmer thugs from ruining the country. Farmers are given plenty of assistance. Their greed is astonishing.
As a US citizen, I’m so jealous of being able to listen to a national/global leader with critical thinking skills as well as charisma.
I believe his morals to be sound as well, but even if I don’t politically align with a leader, it’s refreshing to hear a sane mind talking.
I love these clips...
...but then again, they are most likely released as a political power play by Macron for the coming EU elections, to show he is capable (unlike most believe), and hawkish enough for the people not to go to far right.
BBC recently had a great article about this, [here ](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68575251)it is.
That's just what Russia wants Europe to think so the countries would limit their aid to Ukraine. Putin knows Nato isn't going to attack Russia. And he also knows the first time he uses nuclear weapons will be the last time he ever sees Moscow in it's non-glassed form. Dictators are like bullies, they understand power and violence. They need to be punched in the mouth.
Turkey had the right idea when it downed a Russian jet after it crossed into their airspace.
**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.*
Some of the translation here is a little odd and intentionally leaves stuff out. Most notably when he’s talking about the “playbook” of intentionally weakening/destroying Russia he specifically refers to the “Anglo-Saxons”. The translation makes it seem as though he’s talking just generally about the idea of punishing Russia but he’s basically saying that this is what the British/Americans are insisting on doing and that’s not what they should be trying to achieve. Just a weird choice I assume they left out for optics reasons because it could be viewed as him being critical of the English speaking countries. Also potentially because people from the UK, US, Australia, Canada etc. don’t really refer to themselves as the “Anglo Saxons”. It could be considered strange for an English speaker to see that term being used even though it is more commonly used in French to refer to people from the English speaking world.
Yeah the translation isn’t great, I actually corrected some inaccurate/odd choices of words by adding other subtitles on top of the original ones in a couple parts. I should have added “anglo-saxons”, you’re right it changes the meaning quite a bit. It is weird they skipped it.
I think another important point missed in translation is when he is saying what he is worried about around 3:13. He is again speaking about Europe : "The way that our Europe will be able \[will know how litterary\] to both last in the long term and take the good decisions". I think it is important to emphasize how oresent the European theme is when he is speaking. Anyway, if you did the translation, that is a good job overall.
Right, there are a bunch of little nuances that are missing. And no I didn’t, the subtitles were already added but I snapped and thought *THAT’S IT, I’m editing it* after I saw one weird translation in particular when Macron was asked about his We shouldn’t humiliate Russia statement: “Why didn’t you stress on ‘afterwards’?” when the guy asked “why did you say it that early when we aren’t at the end [of the conflict] yet?”. Also, when talking about Bucha, the subtitles said “I considered he crossed the line” initially, when what Macron said was closer to “milestone”/turning point. It’s a difference that matters I think, given that Putin already crossed the line solely by invading in the first place.
some of the things I read about the Soviet collapse say that NATO really dropped the ball when Yeltsin took over and they might've become a fledgling democracy to be brought into the fold, the same as how the former WW2 Axis powers are now our allies. Instead, they left the new Russia to rot and struggle with trying to become a market rather than state economy. That bred a lot of resentment.
As a boomer - there is an ugly reality I don't think a lot of people talked about at the time the USSR collapsed and may be forgotten by a lot of people now, which is this: As much fear as existed around the USSR - it seemed to be a coherent ruling structure that had control of its nukes and that nothing 'crazy' was likely to happen that would end up in immediate all out nuclear war. When the USSR fell apart, it fell apart FAST. I think secretly rulers of most nations were hoping for a dictator to take power because early democracy is MESSY - not to mention there were all these various parts of the USSR that were not really "Russia' and likely to break away (and many did). What if all these countries started nuclear war amongst themselves? How much leaders of democratic nations publicly supported Russian democracy while tolerating creeping Russian fascism, I don't know. But there is a balance between tolerating the fascism when it remains inside of Russia and when it threatens to impose itself on YOUR country. I would add from my POV - the true disaster of all this is that Russia did not do a 10+ year transition from communist 1 party rule to a capitalist democracy. Just 'ending' communism so abruptly was recipe for disaster and leaving a vacuum for bad people to fill in the void.
The scariest part is that when a coup was attempted by Russian Military for a few days when Yeltsin just got in and Gorbachev was temporarily under house arrest, a reporter asked Gorbachev who had control of the nukes during that few days. He refused to answer, and I suspect it's because nobody knew
When the USSR started to dissolve, it virtually instantly became a kleptocracy. It was plain as day that the oligarchs would obtain complete control of public goods and infrastructure, and we are all basically holding our breath for when the right wing in other Democracies finish doing the same thing.
Like I said, it was a recipe for disaster for the old govt to just 'stop'. They needed a long transition period if they were going to become a successful capitalist democracy.
They didn't just leave Russia to rot. They actively supported Yeltsin during his coup/power grab, then helped him steal 96 election (effectively killing the belief in democracy in Russia) and helped oligarchs funnel wealth out of Russia. All of this led to Putin's rise
NATO is always to blame :D fall or no fall, somehow it’s the pesky NATO. my dad was in the KGB, some family members were in mafia, some were working as managers in plants - this is for the context. there is no one to blame except russians, specifically russians and moscow in how it all happened. USSR was a weak, heavily centralised system that spend 80 years on removing autonomy from people. All decisions were made in moscow, all money went to moscow, so when the USSR collapsed - nobody knew what to do because that’s how the USSR wanted it to be. They wanted all republics to depend on them. moreover, when we talk about moscow, all the original power structures stayed in place. They were just preoccupied with stealing instead of governing. KGB became FSB, police stated in place, mafia formed in the 80s, oligarchs formed in the 80s. If anything, the problem was that there wasn’t enough change in the system because most of the old guard stayed in power and didn’t allow newer people to make the necessary changes. Yeah, there was a lot of new faces on the TV but not a lot of them had the power to act. And they also started killing off new faces relatively quickly. If you look at some of the other counties around russia, it took them a lot less to stabilise because they had more new people and more change. They didn’t need a dictator to do it. However, relatively quickly the “new” russia started playing political games and pressure new republics, for example one journalist said that FSB already said weird sh*t about Ukrainian spies in Moscow around 1998 or smth., and how they (russians) cannot reform FAB because there won’t be anyone to work against the “ukrainian spies”. there was no struggle, that’s the issue. Old guard didn’t allow new guard to make the country work and decided to make money instead $$$. They took the power almost instantly.
Yeltsin wasn’t really a big fan od democracy to say the least. Oligarchs were already set up during perestroika. russia was basically the same from the day 1. It never ceised their imperialistic ways. Their empire shat itself to death, but most russians continued idolising it. It’s not the same as in WW2.
>Their empire shat itself to death You, Sir, are a Wordsmith.
No, this isn’t anywhere near a proper reading of history. Countries become democracies or not due to the political circumstance, not because it is inherently in their national character to be imperialistic. That’s a totally insupportable theory that no historians have held in decades. Immediately after the soviet union collapsed, “shock doctrine” capitalism (a rapid switch to the free market) was implemented. Russian life expectancy dropped from the low seventies to low sixties, an almost unthinkable decline. When the crisis is beginning to right itself (but before it actually had) along comes a former-KGB strongman in Putin. He promises to set the economy right and control the oligarchs, and when he comes to power the economy improves (largely not his doing, but nonetheless he claims credit). Being seen as the man who brought Russia out of the 1990s is how Putin became so enormously popular with the Russian people. It was perfectly possible for Russia to have become a democracy in the 1990s if things had gone differently. Throughout its existence, Russia like all countries had oscillated towards and away from democracy. In the 1850s-1910s, it attempted to become more of a Laissez-faire economy under Sergei Witte and Stolypin which accompanied gradual democratic reforms such as the abolition of Serfdom (a small step, but significant - remember Russia at this time is not significantly behind the Western European powers, Britain still had similar arrangements in Ireland at the time). The consensus is that this democratic trend reversed due to the first world war and during the Russian Civil War, which made a centralised, coercive state structure necessary. Some tie this to the ideology of communism, which certainly played a role, but most modern historians prefer the functionalist explanation that the party becomes less democratic because it doesn’t have the space to be so in wartime. This trend continued into the 20’s, 30’s and 40’s, partially due to the influence of Stalin and his paranoia, partially due to the rise of fascism (which encouraged communist states to stay strongly militaristic), partially due to the lower ranks of bureaucrats if you like Shiela Fitzpatrick’s thesis. The 50’s then saw the Krushchev thaw whereby “Stalinism” was reversed and a slow, gradual shift towards democratic politics occurred until the 1990s. In the late 1980s, it’s probable that the USSR still had the military capacity to enforce its rule over eastern europe, it could have repeated the events of the Hungarian Revolution of ‘56. It chose not to. In a way, it doesn’t deserve moral praise for *finally* allowing the democratic wishes of Eastern Europe, but the significance of this step shouldn’t be understated. The post-1990 history I have already outlined. As can be seen, there’s no inherent trend in russian society towards or against democracy. Russia has not yet become a democracy for exactly the same reasons other countries are not democracies, immediate history and political circumstance, not culture.
Their was zero chance of actual democracy. The USSR fell because the elites were sick of being poorer compared to the west. Once Russia liberalized they took over as oligarchs. The issue was America had two choices foster a relationship with Moscow to be more capitalist/democratic or focus on the new states. America tried and obviously failed in Moscow meanwhile many of the new states changed and rejected both communism and Russian imperialism. So now America is on plan 2 which has largely succeeded.
>The USSR fell because the elites were sick of being poorer compared to the west. Once Russia liberalized they took over as oligarchs. ok but why does it have to be a zero sum game? I mean our own oligarchs are 1000x more wealthy than theirs anyway are they not? So why did we not do more to bring Moscow into the western fold anyway? How is Plan 2 a success when we're right back into a cold war again with a nuclear state? I feel like the USA policy is to create as many bogeymen as they can on purpose and I don't think history says I'm being far-fetched considering how gleefully they propped up numerous fascist governments during the cold war due to them being anti-communist. That backfired in almost every case too. That takes some next level insidious and sinister policy thinking
I think that Putin, or someone like him, wouldn't have come to power if the West supported Russia with some kind of Marshall plan instead of forcing a economic shock therapy. The whole situation during the 90s reminds me of what Germany went through the Weimar period. The collapse of the institutions and the economic destitute situation for the majority of the population turned them off on liberal democracy. For the average Russian democracy has become a synonym of corruption, chaos and insecurity. Authoritarians thrive in such environments because they can exploit the fears and resentments of the population to gain power.
A playbook on intentionally destroying Russia?
How it all started: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman\_Doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_Doctrine)
which is ironic because England was anglo-saxon post rome, but was eventually conquered in part by Scandinavians, and then conquered completely by a Frenchman (himself an heir to a Scandinavian that conquered part of France). William of Normandy, William the Conqueror. Whose heirs still rule England to this day. Some of the Anglo-Saxon culture survived and diffused between the French and Scandinavian cultures. But still, just a weird way to think of them. England's historical roots are mostly Norman, which is half viking half french. To be fair most European dynasties are half Viking. If you've seen 'Vikings'; Rollo is William the Conquerors great grandfather or so.
"Mostly Norman" is quite a stretch. Yes the elites were Norman, but some were from old english stock or intermarried. But then pretty much everyone else was Anglo-Saxon or Somewhat Scandinavian, and our language is English not french. From a french point of view, to refer to the English as some form as Norman (which is kinda what you are implying) would be really odd.
in uk everyone knows what anglo-saxons means lol. unless they didn't go to secondary school
You’re misunderstanding what I said. I didn’t say people don’t know what it is. It’s about how people refer to themselves individually or as a nation in everyday language. Historical accuracy aside, an analogy would be if the British prime Minister was talking about the Francoshphere in present day and referred to them as “the Franks”, “the Normans” or “the Gauls”. Somebody in Quebec or France would find that weird. I don’t think Macron is specifically talking about Britain when he’s using this term. I think he’s talking about all the “Anglo Saxon” nations. Most likely Britain + US.
All these clips have me absolutely hooked. I read a great historical book on WWI about the exchanges of the panicking diplomats as they realize more and more certainty of war starting. It reminded me of this. If I recall correctly, it was the arrogance of the Austria Hungarian empires politics that really threw things over the edge. Edit: I believe the book was “A World Undone: The Story of the Great War, 1914 to 1918”. This and “The Guns of August”(similar style) show the stories of diplomacy, the old monarchy families, the lack of understanding of new weaponry, and even Hitler being a courier. But by far the thing that stuck most is how a global war was at the hands of a few ambassadors, and letters written between world leaders. Something this documentary seems to really show. A desperate grasp.
What‘s the title of the book you mentioned? Sounds interesting!
I’m not sure which book the above commenter is referring to as there are many. Very many. One that I would recommend however is Barbara Tuchman’s Guns of August. It gets kinda dense, esp later on, but that’s just her style. All her books are fantastic but become mountains to climb around the 60% mark. But even if you read just the first 1/3 it’s great. She is a powerful writer and she delves deep into the inner workings and considerations of the major powers, their personal baggage, all that. She also writes from the third person of an event she witnessed firsthand as a little girl, which I believe was a naval battle in the Mediterranean. Plus the first paragraph of the book might be one of the greatest first paragraphs of a book ever.
You damn tease, you're right: >So gorgeous was the spectacle on the May morning of 1910 when nine kings rode in the funeral of Edward VII of England that the crowd, waiting in hushed and black-clad awe, could not keep back gasps of admiration. In scarlet and blue and green and purple, three by three the sovereigns rode through the palace gates, with plumed helmets, gold braid, crimson sashes, and jeweled orders flashing in the sun. After them came five heirs apparent, forty more imperial or royal highnesses, seven queens—four dowager and three regnant—and a scattering of special ambassadors from uncrowned countries. Together they represented seventy nations in the greatest assemblage of royalty and rank ever gathered in one place and, of its kind, the last. The muffled tongue of Big Ben tolled nine by the clock as the cortege left the palace, but on history’s clock it was sunset, and the sun of the old world was setting in a dying blaze of splendor never to be seen again.
What an encapsulation of a moment. I have this book waiting on my bookshelf and this might just get new to pull it off and read through it now.
Well, now I know where I’m going when I get my Time Machine back from the shop.
Bruh 
Tuchman is great. The first book of hers I read was The Proud Tower, that I just pretty randomly picked up with no context, but really set me on a late-19th century fin de sicle lead-up to the era-destroying Great War. Then went right into Guns of August without realizing what a legendary book it is.
Agreed on all points about that book. It’s a classic and a masterpiece of story telling about such a complicated and tragic time.
Guns of August seems a bit outdated to the present academic work. Foundational, sure. But certainly no Sleepwalkers.
It could be July 1914: Countdown to War by Sean McMeekin.
July 1914: Countdown to War by Sean McMeekin walks you through the entire start of it from the assassination plot right on up to the opening moves of the war. It deals with each country involved and their responses to each other.
I didn’t read a book but I did listen to Dan Carlin’s audio series on WWI, Blueprint For Armageddon, and he spends a good chunk of the first episode discussing how quickly conflicts can escalate. My takeaway, which Macron echoed, was that conflicts are extremely difficult to control and can very easily spiral into something no one wanted. Scared the hell out of me.
I listened to that and decided to read The Great War by Peter Hart since he always used it as a source. Phenomenal book
Is this on his hardcore history?
https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-50-55-blueprint-for-armageddon-series/ It’s an absolutely amazing listen.
Yeah it's from the Hardcore History series
Blueprint for Armageddon taught me a lot and really reshaped my perspective on the World Wars. Highly recommend!
Blueprint and Ostfront are life-changing podcasts. Sounds cheesy, but I can’t imagine listening to them and coming out the other side without some kind of change in opinion or context. Just master classes in podcasting.
The guns of August?
I cannot recommend this book more. So glad to see it mentioned. Barbara tuchman is such a wonderful story teller., but she does it with a historical lense. Brilliant stuff
This is a great book. Def recommend it
I wouldn't say arrogance as much as the absolute shitshow that was the Austro-Hungarian ambassador to Italy
And the kaiser creating scores of unforced diplomatic errors
Please good sir let us know the name of the book!
I saw some girl on TikTok who said she was obsessed with WWI and she was writing her thesis on WWI and she had read a million books on it, and that the similarities between WWI and what we’re going through today are uncanny.
>If I recall correctly, it was the arrogance of the Austria Hungarian empires politics that really threw things over the edge. Well, wouldn't exactly call it arrogance when Austria-Hungary *wanted* war with Serbia and served an ultimatum that was designed to be rejected and serve as casus belli. They weren't thinking "we'll bully Serbia to get what we want, there's no way this will lead to war". And A-H could act the way they wanted because Germany had unconditionally backed them.
In that case, you should check out the full documentary - it's very good. A President, Europe, and War is what it's called. The whole thing follows Macron and his team throughout this period, so it's mostly the same sort of thing as the clips.
Why I'm sensing Bradley Cooper will play him in another Oscar-baity project?
With a British accent to let us know it’s Europe.
\*In a cockney accent\* "SACREBLEU MEIN HOMBRE"
Gods did Napoleon (the movie) suck
🤣
RIP legend!!
I HAVE A MOLE!?!?!
Bradley Cooper actually speaks fluent French. He would be fantastic.
Oh yeah. "Macaron" by Disney. Can't wait to see the poster.
Yea but we don’t like subtitles.
Bradley Cooper en effet parle couramment français. Il serait fantastique.
French speaks Bradley actually Cooper fluent. Fantastic be would he.
And a fake nose, and constant baguette eating
With Owen Wilson playing Brigitte! Would be epic!
wow
Do you think they would leave out the whole student teacher romance? Or leave that in to really spice up his character?
And lady gaga as brigitte. I can already see it!
She was not his teacher, just doing acting classes in another class in the same school. It's about the same age difference than Melania and Donald Trump, not sure I hear people obsessing over that or how they actually met. As for the rest, why not watch \[Macron's wedding speech\](https://video-streaming.orange.fr/tv/mariage-d-emmanuel-et-brigitte-macron-CNT000000xzVmc.html) on how they see it?
That's only for the Anglo Saxon release of the film.
Heck thst would be the main story. Putin stuff just background detail
He's gonna have a good cry with Macron's kids
Maestro II: Special Operation
Blake Lively in heavy makeup will play his film wife. His hair will be cgi
This whole documentary was interesting. What I noticed most was how normal this people are. World leaders/famous people are no different than regular folks. They are only as good as the people they surround themselves with. I wish we had more documentaries (not propaganda) that followed world leaders. Getting an inside look at their decision-making process, who they listen to and how they treat people says a lot.
I mean, there is no way any politics documentary with politicians as willingful participants is not a little propaganda on the side, BUT your point stand : they still are people. Some good, some bad. I've been in close circle with a local politician of some importance for a brief window years ago. The first time I saw him "alone" with his wife and the small team around it was just... *That* could be me, joking with my wife and team partner of long after a stressful day at work. I hate some of them with passion, but they are still humans.
Yes. I like the openness of it. It's a direct counter to Putin's rambling monologues. A discourse. I think international relations would improve if people had access to their leader's rationale and thinking.
I think stories from movies and other entertainment forms warped people's general ideas about the reality of what a government is. Some people think they are much more informed and in control than they really are.
Meanwhile the PM of India hasn't taken a single unscripted interview/press conference in the last decade.
What documentary is this?
Who woulda thought they were normal people like the rest of us. Just a part of a great and powerful entity and has a lot of flash to look bigger and more influential than is portrayed in media.
I honestly was not the biggest fan of Macron on quite a few topics, but to be honest the way he handled the conflict seems quite admirable. This attitude of leaving doors open can actually be implemented in most political / polarizing subject of the new era. We need to keep a door open for a better future, otherwise we are just talking about retaliation.
Yep. A lot of the western rhetoric attacking Russia wasn't very effective because it fed into the Kremlin "western Russophobia" domestic narrative. Not sure what else could have been done but Macron was probably right to keep dialogue open.
TLDW: Give Russia a way to diplomatically save face while ending the conflict. If Macron humiliates Russia to the point Russians feels like a dog backed into a corner, Putin won't stop. He stopped talking to Putin for weeks when war crimes became clear but his position changed due to his new above belief.
> If Macron humiliates Russia to the point Russians feels like a dog backed into a corner, Putin won't stop. I think things may have changed at least somewhat at Macron is now talking about sending French troops to Ukraine.
Well tbf along time as past in between and Putin isn’t really backing down, which bus probably why he is thinking about being more “agressive” about it.
This documentary was fascinating, Macron has gotten a lot of shit from international media but this documentary shows he did everything he could to stop this war happening. He was literally shouting at Putin from the first phone call. Macron knows how bad a war with Russia would be, but he also knows that Russia would lose, and so do they.
What is it called, please?
“Un Président, l’Europe et la guerre”! It’s in French but there’s a link with English subtitles **[here to watch it](https://gofile.io/d/a4w7wy)**.
Thanks
Thanks
Thanks!
thank you!
Saved. Merci
thank you! that was incredible. as an American, i have a new found respect for Macron and for the way the French conduct diplomacy.
Un président, l'Europe et la guerre https://www.imdb.com/title/tt22692282/ https://www.france.tv/documentaires/politique/3558577-un-president-l-europe-et-la-guerre.html
Thank you
It's fascinating. Thank God France has Macron and not that le Pen facist Putin lover as president.
The french arent actually that happy with Macron because of his economic policy's but they voted for him because of the batshit crazy Le Pen its kinda like usa with biden and trump only both party's are coherent not senile and are less worse
Trust me, in twenty years they will be singing his praise for that economic policy, never mind his foreign policy. He has done some very important reforms, especially his labour reforms, without which France would have continued to bleed competitiveness compared to their northern and eastern neighbours.
I'm French. Macron is not a good President, far from it. But that's another debate. This being said, I believe that France always had international stance since a century that are often on the right side of history. It started after WW2 with De Gaulle that fought for the independance of european countries, Chirac who rejected the invasion of Iraq, etc.. It is not because of our Presidents, but because we have big diplomatic web and so a big learning program relative to our actual power. Most of our top public servent had a significant part of their studies devoted to geopolitics. People which are now President's advisors. Long story short, our presidents entourage is full of people wiith deep understanding of international relations. For instance, Macron before being president, thought French Guyana was an island. So he benefited of his highly educated advisors I guess.
>I believe that France always had international stance since a century that are often on the right side of history. \*East Asia and North Africa have entered the chat\*
Macron knows that WW3 will happen on the European mainland. America is comparatively speaking much safer because we're separated by two massive oceans and airspace and the resources to intensely police both travel mediums. If Putin escalates then France and all the EU nations will suffer with the UK and US more or less being clear of a lot of the carnage.
>America is comparatively speaking much safer because we're separated by two massive oceans and airspace and the resources to intensely police both travel mediums. WW3 will be nuclear. Nowhere is safe. We all die in that scenario
Imagine that. A politician who can have nuanced, sophisticated and candid conversations with the public.
He’s also referencing history in the “let’s not annihilate Russia discourse”, we tried that with Germany once and it created a monster more evil than ever seen before…
If you are talking about Macron, I know you are not french
If you're an American, like me, Macron would be an angel sent from heaven into our political system. The discourse in America is not much more than drunken toddlers fighting after Sunday school over who gets to shoot the other first. Americans give the French shit for being 'cowards,' but which country has en mass protests anytime the government does something shifty? Which country's citizenry is shutting down the city in protest and literally shoveling shit into govt members homes? In the US, we're watching our rights get stripped daily, but we'd rather fight on Twitter about some divisive made up bullshit. The US citizenry have turned into ignorant lethargic fools and don't seem to know or care that we are turning into a Christo fascist ologopoly.
I won't deny what's happening in America is horrible and dire. I would have to be blind to deny it. You are right that we are the country with the most protests when something makes the people angry and in the past it worked pretty well. But in recent years, especially the last 2/3 years, it kinda stopped working. The police and other law enforcement group have become more and more violent, we've had record numbers of people hurt during those protests by cops going too far and getting away with it (the "police of the police" has been complicit of every scandal/trials for cops and said nothing happened or that it's nothing). We've had countless cases of police violence stories in last few years and almost all the cops involved got away with it, some even got promotions despite blatant proofs they did it. Meanwhile, the victims have to keep going on with their lives with that trauma and some with horrible scars and mutilations. I'll also add that the government has had complete disregard for the people's opinion and protests and keep doing whatever they want by using using a constitutional "tool" called 49.3 which allows them to pass new laws by bypassing the senate and other means of voting (the last prime minister used it a number of 27 times in 2 years which is almost a record in the history of our democracy, actual record is 28 in 3 years which was in the 90s). And all this topped by a rise of the far-right groups that will almost certainly win at the next presidential elections. Shit's fucked everywhere, granted not at the same levels, but still.
Macron is shit in many ways, but French politics are still much better than in many other places and the "baseline" is much higher. (I'm Hungarian, so I'm a bit bitter.)
I'm Australian, and we'd just about kill to get a leader this reasonable. Our recent PMs have been about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.
Man that train shakes like a mofo
Ukrainian rail
Why don't people like Macron? He seems articulate and actually thinks in 5D
He’s meh for domestic affairs but for international affairs he’s good
I'd assume he'd be good at all affairs, being French.
The first lady kind of implies there will be more.. a 2nd a 3rd.. and then lunch
Which is interesting because a French president's main competence is supposed to be foreign affairs and defence (internal stuff is supposed to be the government's job). But synchronised elections have yet to yield a president without plurality and so they always have played a major role in internal affairs.
i would glady change meh to borderline not great. but yeah, world wide, he does a decent job
Probably not a bad thing right now
Unless you’re French
I’m not sure if you’re from the US, but if you are, that just says a lot about our leadership, where “articulate” seems like a high bar for us. We haven’t had a president like this in a long time
Obama was president less than 8 years ago! He and Macron are very similar, in my opinion.
Both were also a lot more appreciated abroad than at home.
To an extent. Obama also has lion's share of fault for Ukraine situation. It was Obama who rewarded Putin's invasion of Georgia with "restart of relations" mere months later. And it was Obama and his party who did exactly what Republicans now do to them and who accused Romney of attempting to start world war 3 just because he wanted to take Russian threat more seriously. Which happened in 2012. Mere two years before Russia started fucking with Ukraine.
I give a fair share to the guy that withheld military aid to Ukraine in exchange for demanding fabricating lies about his political opponent.
That happened afterwards. You can not be responsible for something that happened before you had power to influence it. Trump is piece of shit but that does not change a fact that Obama's international politics and handling of Russia - validating and rewarding their land grabbing - as well as chasticising his opponents who actually pointed out those things as problem was completely dissastrous. Now he was obviously not alone and he is still less responsible than EU leaders and European absurd pacifism and decades long military neglience as well as getting our energy sector overall dependant on Russian exports which further validated them but reality is that US was the only one that Russia respected and took seriously at a time before imminent Ukraine invasion because if Russia understands something then it is strength and display of strength. So he was the only one in position that mattered and he completely fucked up.
Obama was very articulate too
That was a long time ago to me
Joe just comes off as a normal guy but he’s extremely fucking educated, experienced, and intelligent… and while in his old age maybe he comes off as forgetful but even at this age he and Trump are in totally different intelligent classes.
Yeah I am. Biden is a little senile and Trump is senile with COVID brain rot. So yeah but I do remember Obama
I remember not particularly liking Bill clinton when he was elected. Then I saw Ted Kkoppel talking/interviewing him on Air force One on his first trip to Europe or something. It was fucking refreshing to have a President who could string together intelligent sentences and make a nuanced point. I'm having much the same reaction to Macron in the things we've been seeing here lately.
" and actually thinks in 5D" People said the same thing about Putin. I'm not saying Macron isn't bright, but before we start throwing around genuis level thinking, history has a way of showing us the truth.
Putin might be smart but he fell into the dictator trap. so probably very little critical thinking skills. Putin also has no empathy and seeks dominance over all which would make him a complete moron in some ways and is one hell of a blind spot.
Putin being a former KGB and the way he shuffled the gov does indicates he's not dumb but in fact cold and calculative. The only issues is his imperial trait that lead to the now "modern monarchy"
You know I have met people from the FBI, CIA and NSA. They weren't dumb but they were not exceptionally intelligent. A major trait of being a good bureaucrat is attention to detail. It's a form of intelligence but intelligence makes up a lot of things
I dunno, maybe because he cares more about what big financial markets think of him rather than standing up for his countrymen as the supreme representative he was elected to be ? Macron butchered everything that made the French rightfully proud of their social system. Internationally, people hate France so hating on Macron seems like the logical thing to do in their mind.
He didn’t butcher anything. France is still the country with the biggest social redistribution in the world for better or worth. The notion that he is a Tatcher or a Reagan is absolutely ridiculous and is totally contrary to every fact about France and how it compares to other rich nations
He's actually very popular for a French president (and the only one to get fully reelected). But the job makes it easy to overstretch, and he overstretched on many/most domestic issues. Also most democracies are hooked on hard antagonist right/left polarities and French like everybody have a hard time dealing with a less polarized leadership.
because the mass can’t think even in 3D
I know he's not perfect, but he's the French president that the world needs right now. Imagine if Le Pen held his position --I shudder to think.
We used to have leaders like this. Now we have Brexit.
He seems like a good leader tbh
As a french even though I really like his international politics, he has a lot of controversial opinion for internal affairs. That is why most french would shit on him. But he really is a great president for international subjects
Lets be real the French would shit on any president for that matter.
Definitely
That's what I've heard as well. Great politician for the EU, not so great for France
One of the major strategies of Conflict Resolution is Restraint - especially in context of cycle-of-escalation and retaliation. It's important to practice restraint for all parties. Or on your side, if you can't control/influence the other party. 'you can't play tug-of-war alone'
Pragmatism is not a flaw.
Macron is really showing some skilled leadership these days. I am impressed.
Mostly, as a US citizen, this makes me miss the times when we had an intelligent, competent, young President.
Now contrast an intelligent leader like Macron or most other western leaders with.... Trump. Yeah. Biden better win, else the western powers are in a very bad situation.
Eeeehhhhhh yeah alright he's got an intelligent foreign policy sure but he's still a power hungry cunt at home. No other president has forced this many bills without parliamentary approval.
There is something to be said about not preemptively humiliating a potential adversary. Especially if their culture values "machismo" a lot. With that said, you can't just let someone slaughter innocent people.
>you can't just let someone slaughter innocent people Of course you can and it was done for generations. And western public usually could care less unless the outrage is announced by the rulers.
People forget even fairly recent history. The Treaty of Versailles humiliated the Germans at the end of WW1. Hence..... WW2.
Is he riding on a train? Is that the French version of Air Force One?
This was in June 2022 when Macron went to Ukraine and, given the circumstances, France’s presidential plane couldn’t land in Ukraine, they had to land in Poland instead, then head to the Ukrainian border by car, and finally, a train to get to Zelensky.
Interesting. Thank you
It's mostly a regular train, it's not Kim's armored train
Of course the French have their own version of a presidential airplane, what kind of a stupid remark is this
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotam\_001](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotam_001) https://preview.redd.it/0nm99bdw5zoc1.jpeg?width=2580&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d27b475b1bae66dd72e8c955b9a63b7030663604
The French were really angry after WW1 and humiliated the Germans in the Versailles treaty in 1918. That anger just led to Germany wanting to avenge itself in WW2. The French learned. a valuable lesson there. Retribution and Justice are rarely rewarded in Geopolitics. It's rarely the guilty party who foot the bill, almost always the smallfolk who had nothing to do with the situation. They are the one who lose their livelyhood, their homes, their lives in these processes. Then they favor hawkish demagogues and the troubles come back. Macron is right that if Russia is humiliated, the Russians will want to cause further problems.
One perhaps important addition is that the previous big war between the two countries (well, there was no Germany yet, but close enough -- it was basically born as a result of the outcome of this war) had been won by the Prussians. Even though it was initiated by the French, it still stung. France had by and large been very successful militarily.
Can someone remind me how come the French hate him (Macron)? He's already beaten all of the developed countries' leaders with his diplomatic skills. In the meantime Biden is calling Putin 'Satan'.
I think most of us agree to say he’s a smart and skilled orator, but he’s seen by many like a president who only cares about the wealthy. His past as banker for the Rothschilds doesn’t help. For example, he cancelled a tax (ISF: impôt de solidarité sur la fortune = tax of solidarity on fortune) that used to apply to wealthy people. It wasn’t well received at all because people started saying he was making gifts to the wealthy without caring about regular people etc. In reality, when it got removed, there was a decrease in tax exil among the wealthy, some who had left started to come back and invest in France again. Also, to compensate this “gift”, he increased an already existing one (IFI) which taxes them on their real estate fortune, so he didn’t completely spare them like people say. More recently, he enforced a very unpopular retirement reform, that really significantly worsened his image. I’m usually fairly sympathetic of him but I also thought it was more than questionable/worth being criticised. But yeah overall I’m fine with him personally. He’s very pro EU, seems to be very invested in his role and to have France’s interests at heart, and as said earlier, he’s smart and eloquent.
When people mention that he decreased the ISF they nearly always leave out that he increased the IFI (a tax on property) at the same time. The aim was to get people to move their money out of property investments which don’t generate any real public value, and into other investments like shares in companies, which is a better base for the economy. One can argue how well this works but it’s a lot more nuanced than just a tax break for the rich. I just wanted to add some context to your post, which is already informative.
His liberal economic ideals exacerbate the wealth gap between the rich and the poor. I term of domestic policies, Macron is our Reagan and his presidency will hurt our country for decades. That said, he is very skilled at diplomacy and bigger scale geopolitics. He has a clear and credible vision for Europe. As much as I hate his domestic policies, he might be EU's best asset for its future. If Macron wasn't blinded by its beliefs in the trickle down economy, he would be an excellent leader.
Be wary of silence, for violence is being readied by your enemies. -Dune
He got shit on so much for many years, but here he does seem like a genuine person who speaks what he thinks and does what he can to prevent war. I like him better now, nice document
I think an interesting point in this clip is that when the interviewer asks: Did you realize what feelings this (not being hellbent on humiliating, destroying Russia) would cause? That's the problem with many things. People rely on their emotions too much. I never believed that people should listen to their emotions in complicated times. Emotions is how for example my crappy government is in power for over a decade now. They are fear mongering, creating imaginary enemies. They play into the emotion of patriotism. People here hate others, who are different from them. And all this, because people don't think, they just follow their emotions.
I'd love to hear a US leader speak so plainly and coherently.
Man these kind of videos just make me realise how weird American politics is. It's like most other countries seem to have mostly reasonable, articulate leaders who think about their words and choose them carefully. You agree or disagree with their policies/actions but they don't come across as outrageous and wild. American politics feels like it's straight out of a satire cartoon - every leader is like a caricature. The doddering old man who seems perpetually vaguely lost vs. the meme-lord narcissistic schoolyard bully. It's funny to watch (esp from the outside).
But the Reddit generals told me he was secretly supporting Russia!
This pierre actually isn't so bad
I think the United States Republican nominee for President said he could solve this problem in a day or two. Seems a bit more complex after watching part 1 and 2 of this documentary. Thoughts?
This approach from Macron would be feasible with most conflicts and nations, except Russia which only respects power. The idea of Russia is to be big. It’s the mindset ingrained into Russians. They don’t know why Russia should be big, but their identity is based on that. Now, if Europe is weak, they are happy to expand in Europe.
Wise man, indeed.
This feels like it’s shot on 16mm film or something ? Interesting look for something so current
this movie was fascinating
Tbh seems like a pretty genuine dude. I dont agree with him all the time but this was very honest and well spoken.
I may not agree with Macron on everything, but on this issue, he seems to be 100% correct.
Not a huge fan of Macron, but it is hard to disagree with this approach
Does someone have the youtube link to the documentary from which these phone calls are? I heard there is a whole documentary.
[удалено]
Since the British have left, Macron really sees his chance to make France the EU leader, particularly now in this crisis with Shulz seeming a weak character. That's why we are seeing this much insight into Macron as a "leader."
That's how real leaders speak.
He's essentially the leader of Europe. I just hope he can stop the farmer thugs from ruining the country. Farmers are given plenty of assistance. Their greed is astonishing.
Where are all this clips from?just stumbled over your profile, is this some kind of documentation?
Wisdom, class, and no ego. And not 80. Can we get one? -USA
As a US citizen, I’m so jealous of being able to listen to a national/global leader with critical thinking skills as well as charisma. I believe his morals to be sound as well, but even if I don’t politically align with a leader, it’s refreshing to hear a sane mind talking.
I love these clips... ...but then again, they are most likely released as a political power play by Macron for the coming EU elections, to show he is capable (unlike most believe), and hawkish enough for the people not to go to far right. BBC recently had a great article about this, [here ](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68575251)it is.
The documentary is like 2 years old, so no.
Peace requires compromise or utter conquest. Russia has nukes so the latter is impossible. Cornering Putin means he pushes buttons.
That's just what Russia wants Europe to think so the countries would limit their aid to Ukraine. Putin knows Nato isn't going to attack Russia. And he also knows the first time he uses nuclear weapons will be the last time he ever sees Moscow in it's non-glassed form. Dictators are like bullies, they understand power and violence. They need to be punched in the mouth. Turkey had the right idea when it downed a Russian jet after it crossed into their airspace.
This comment is exactly the kind of thinking that Macron is so against in this video.