NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On May 14 2024 07:34 Mohdoo wrote: 1: If France goes full-ass in pushing Russia out of Ukraine, France will very likely succeed.
Do it. Don't wait, go in now. Whats the worst that can happen?
I don’t spend much time in this thread but my impression is that you tend to have perspectives on Russia vs West that paint a much worse picture of the west than what I usually see. My echo chamber is of course deeply sympathetic to the west and propaganda is a real thing. But the last few months have clearly indicated the pleasant picture being painted in my echo chamber was perhaps not entirely accurate.
If I understand this sarcasm correctly, you’re indicating France committing to actual boots on the front lines in Ukraine would still be insufficient and that Russia would still manage to eventually take Ukraine. If that’s what you’re saying, I am genuinely interested in hearing your reasoning because I am simply never exposed to perspectives like yours. Even though I see a lot of people say you’re wrong, it’s clear you have read a lot about the conflict and have a lot of knowledge. So since it seems like your views come from more than just tribalism, I would enjoy reading an elaboration on why France is inadequate. I genuinely thought this was well accepted even outside the west. But I’m always happy to learn why I am wrong. I’m beginning to feel like my echo chamber has been wrong for a while.
Do it. Don't wait, go in now. Whats the worst that can happen?
They could assume that they'd achieve victory in two daysweeks months and still be there two years later.
That would be pretty embarrassing, and would make any victory a completely Pyrrhic one.
I can't imagine that happening in this war though...
You know what we should do? We should ask the losing side how they feel about being on the wrong end of a pyrrhic victory and if it was all worth it in the end. Would they have rather lost a war after two days or two years?
But there will probably be some other thing to stand on a soapbox over for more upvotes during that same time... so why bother? Not like we'll even remember where Ukraine is on a map a year or two after it all over anyway. Not when we've got xy percieved injustice to aggressively respond to in the name of our own definition of yz higher values.
We can't let 'the villans' win can we?!?
I know you have been told this a hundred times but - what if Russia would just stop attacking its neighbor in a war of aggression? If you are so concerned about the fate of the victims you should be calling for the attacker to stop attacking. It really does not get simpler than that. But here you are glorifying the nation that is 100 % responsible for all the suffering and death that has happened and is still happening. Maybe think about that at some quiet moment.
I'm sure theres no context or pretext for anything happening in Ukraine. Everything can be easily digested into a sentence or two no need to think about anything. Good vs. Evil, black vs. white ect. Oh? Why did Israel kill thousands of children? Well have I got a 3500 word essay going through every single narrative going back to the times of Ancient Egypt for you!
Anyway, a source partly funded by the Ukrainian government posted this:
Translation: About the engineering and fortification preparation of Kharkiv Oblast
📷 These photos show the outskirts of Liptsi and a gift from Ukrainian taxpayers to the enemy. According to the fighters, these barriers have been idle since the summer of 2023.
🫤 Let's not draw conclusions, let them be made by the commission, which will consider the good faith of the contractors who built the defense structures and the responsible persons who were supposed to exercise control.
Well I'll be. One billion USD invested into three lines of defense of which 0 were actually built. These dragons teeth just dumped there last year and there's Ukrainian soldiers on social media posting about how they were forced to sign off on works that never happened
Nothing you said here prevents Russia from stopping the slaughter right now. It is one hundred percent in their power to do so. This has nothing to do with Israel or ancient Egypt but nice try at deflection. You can just stop. Why would you ever not?
The idea that France could just step into this war and just 'push Russia out' is ridiculous. French army isn't trained or equipped to fight in a large scale near-peer conflict, and there's no way French public would accept thousands of bodybags coming home from Ukraine, especially since it's looking more and more like Ukrainians themselves are souring on the fight.
They could definitely make a big difference, but end the war outright? Nonsense.
On May 14 2024 07:34 Mohdoo wrote: 1: If France goes full-ass in pushing Russia out of Ukraine, France will very likely succeed.
Do it. Don't wait, go in now. Whats the worst that can happen?
I don’t spend much time in this thread but my impression is that you tend to have perspectives on Russia vs West that paint a much worse picture of the west than what I usually see. My echo chamber is of course deeply sympathetic to the west and propaganda is a real thing. But the last few months have clearly indicated the pleasant picture being painted in my echo chamber was perhaps not entirely accurate.
If I understand this sarcasm correctly, you’re indicating France committing to actual boots on the front lines in Ukraine would still be insufficient and that Russia would still manage to eventually take Ukraine. If that’s what you’re saying, I am genuinely interested in hearing your reasoning because I am simply never exposed to perspectives like yours. Even though I see a lot of people say you’re wrong, it’s clear you have read a lot about the conflict and have a lot of knowledge. So since it seems like your views come from more than just tribalism, I would enjoy reading an elaboration on why France is inadequate. I genuinely thought this was well accepted even outside the west. But I’m always happy to learn why I am wrong. I’m beginning to feel like my echo chamber has been wrong for a while.
I've actually gone a bit into this around a month ago so here is a copy/paste on attritional warfare, its not super in depth or anything but I think its enough as a general overview:
Attritional warfare is based on massive industrial capacity to enable the replacement of losses, geographical and material depth to absorb losses and the ability of states to overcome the erosion of professionalism. These wars are won by economies.
A country needs the potential to massively expand its manpower through mass mobilization and that manpower needs a lot of weapons to equip that army. High end and complex to produce weaponry cannot be pushed out in time so you need a mix of high and low end mass production capabilities. Everything needs to be channeled into replacing losses at a high rate.
NATO armies are highly professional, built on years and years of training and peacetime education/experience. They are very skilled and can operate independently but it takes years and years to make one NCO. During attritional warfare and high casualty rates how quickly can these NCO be replaced? Who is going to replace them and how well can their doctrine be followed by less experienced recruits? Can the average civilian with three months training replace a NATO officer with 8 years of experience?
The cavalier attitude of ‘a quick and decisive war’ when up against countries that have the resources to put up a fight means that very quickly that professional army you have will be eroded away, after which you need mass mobilization of the civilian population to cover these losses and absorb the experience from the professionals before they all end up dead and you need to start training your army from square one.
What kind of mobilization infrastructure is in place in Western Europe where armies can be built and equipt at short notice? What about social cohesion? Are you really sure everyone is going to come together and hold hands once the power and water in Berlin is cut out with hypersonics within the first few days? Once upon a time Germany could build 95.000 aircraft (edit: and 50k tanks) during wartime while sending millions to the front, those days are long gone and not just because planes are more complicated now.
With all this in mind, lets look at France. Two centuries ago France could send 400.000 men to Crimea, keep them supplied against Russia and win. Like Germany, todays France is a far cry from what it once was in more ways than one.
Attritional warfare is a numbers game, and the numbers in Ukraine are enormous. You have Putin mentioning 650.000 deployed at the theater with who knows how many hundreds of thousands in the background, Zelensky and co. something like 800.000... and then you have the French:
Schill said that France could engage a division of 20,000 troops in a coalition within 30 days and could itself command an army of around 60,000 soldiers by joining other allied nations.
Lets think about what we are saying here, the Ukrainian army with hundreds of thousands of troops thats been fighting a war for years and has that experience starts collapsing, oh here comes little Napoleon-Macron with his 20k hes going to push Putin thats has a 20x larger army behind some of the most formidable fortified lines ever built out of Ukraine. Thats just... I mean how did we even get to the point where has to be explained?
How are they going to supply that army? How are they going to make up for the high losses? 2000 casualties and you are already at 10% attrition what are they going to do then? The French navy is better for sure than the Russian one, but they can't enter the Black Sea because of Turkye. The French airforce are sitting ducks if they use Ukrainian airstrips let alone the logistical nightmare of setting it all up undetected on the other side of Europe. Where are their tanks coming from?
How do they make up for losses before they reach the critical point where they don't have the professionalism to pass on? Start mobilizing the French public? How is that going to go down? Macron would end up at a guillotine.
If France really wanted to go to war with Russia it would have been already in war production mode massively expanding everything to do with the military and started conscription. The only thing French troops can do in Ukraine is get themselves stationed in Odessa or something and play a game of chicken with Putin 'he won't dare shoot/kill/capture French troops'. But thats only going to end in disaster.
On May 15 2024 01:51 Salazarz wrote: The idea that France could just step into this war and just 'push Russia out' is ridiculous. French army isn't trained or equipped to fight in a large scale near-peer conflict, and there's no way French public would accept thousands of bodybags coming home from Ukraine, especially since it's looking more and more like Ukrainians themselves are souring on the fight.
They could definitely make a big difference, but end the war outright? Nonsense.
I don’t want this to come across as argumentative because I assure you I have zero personal attachment to the discussion. But can you help me understand why? Like what are the specifics of why this is the case? I understand I’m basically asking you to teach me, so don’t worry if you just kinda don’t want to. But I’m just trying to be clear that I am asking people to provide me with information that adds more detail and context to why this is the case. But again, not like it’s anyone’s job to feed me this info. But for anyone who would like to, please feel free.
My impression is that France has an effective air force and that they would be able to make a huge contribution with that alone. But that’s why I’m saying I’m apparently missing a lot of info because it appears folks think I’m very wrong in that assessment.
On May 14 2024 07:34 Mohdoo wrote: 1: If France goes full-ass in pushing Russia out of Ukraine, France will very likely succeed.
Do it. Don't wait, go in now. Whats the worst that can happen?
I don’t spend much time in this thread but my impression is that you tend to have perspectives on Russia vs West that paint a much worse picture of the west than what I usually see. My echo chamber is of course deeply sympathetic to the west and propaganda is a real thing. But the last few months have clearly indicated the pleasant picture being painted in my echo chamber was perhaps not entirely accurate.
If I understand this sarcasm correctly, you’re indicating France committing to actual boots on the front lines in Ukraine would still be insufficient and that Russia would still manage to eventually take Ukraine. If that’s what you’re saying, I am genuinely interested in hearing your reasoning because I am simply never exposed to perspectives like yours. Even though I see a lot of people say you’re wrong, it’s clear you have read a lot about the conflict and have a lot of knowledge. So since it seems like your views come from more than just tribalism, I would enjoy reading an elaboration on why France is inadequate. I genuinely thought this was well accepted even outside the west. But I’m always happy to learn why I am wrong. I’m beginning to feel like my echo chamber has been wrong for a while.
He's from Serbia. Many of them are still butthurt that the West stopped their ethnic cleansing campaigns and gave them a good ass-kicking.
On May 15 2024 01:51 Salazarz wrote: The idea that France could just step into this war and just 'push Russia out' is ridiculous. French army isn't trained or equipped to fight in a large scale near-peer conflict, and there's no way French public would accept thousands of bodybags coming home from Ukraine, especially since it's looking more and more like Ukrainians themselves are souring on the fight.
They could definitely make a big difference, but end the war outright? Nonsense.
I don’t want this to come across as argumentative because I assure you I have zero personal attachment to the discussion. But can you help me understand why? Like what are the specifics of why this is the case? I understand I’m basically asking you to teach me, so don’t worry if you just kinda don’t want to. But I’m just trying to be clear that I am asking people to provide me with information that adds more detail and context to why this is the case. But again, not like it’s anyone’s job to feed me this info. But for anyone who would like to, please feel free.
My impression is that France has an effective air force and that they would be able to make a huge contribution with that alone. But that’s why I’m saying I’m apparently missing a lot of info because it appears folks think I’m very wrong in that assessment.
zeo is actually correct that if France wants to "win" the war by pushing out Russia they would have to mobilise their entire population. 20k troops won't gain back any ground. 50k troops won't do much either. What they can do is stop a rapid breakthrough. 20k troops with air and artillery support would absolutely stop a rapid Russian advance at this stage.
The only issue is where to park the planes really. That's the big difference, Ukraine would suddenly get an airforce. It would change back the balance and prolong the war for at least a year. If Ukraine can come up with more manpower (I imagine by conscription and quite likely deportations from Europe if there are actually European soldiers on the ground at that point) it would likely even prolong it by even longer. At that point, with more balanced abilities (IE Ukraine ground army + French airforce and specialist help) Russia could lose a war of attrition quite easily.
France is also a Big Dick country just like Russia and geography goes both ways. There is really not much Russia can do directly to France, and there's not that much they can escalate with conventionally in Ukraine either. But they could decide to nuke something inside Ukraine...
I think if France actually goes in a cease fire would come within weeks and then a negotiated peace quite soon after that.
Macron is just making himself look unpredictable to scare Russians a little. There's no reason to think the French (or any other European) government is seriously considering initiating direct confrontation with Russia outside of the EU's borders in the next year or two. I think serious discussion should end at that but this is a video game forum so there's nothing wrong with sharing our ignorant ideas and opinions.
On May 15 2024 01:51 Salazarz wrote: The idea that France could just step into this war and just 'push Russia out' is ridiculous. French army isn't trained or equipped to fight in a large scale near-peer conflict, and there's no way French public would accept thousands of bodybags coming home from Ukraine, especially since it's looking more and more like Ukrainians themselves are souring on the fight.
They could definitely make a big difference, but end the war outright? Nonsense.
I don’t want this to come across as argumentative because I assure you I have zero personal attachment to the discussion. But can you help me understand why? Like what are the specifics of why this is the case? I understand I’m basically asking you to teach me, so don’t worry if you just kinda don’t want to. But I’m just trying to be clear that I am asking people to provide me with information that adds more detail and context to why this is the case. But again, not like it’s anyone’s job to feed me this info. But for anyone who would like to, please feel free.
My impression is that France has an effective air force and that they would be able to make a huge contribution with that alone. But that’s why I’m saying I’m apparently missing a lot of info because it appears folks think I’m very wrong in that assessment.
France is capable of small scale and short term interventions against third world countries. Its army is not built for conventional wars with Russia or even Ukraine-sized countries. France could build an army like that relatively quickly, but that would still take years. It can't just randomly decide to participate in a conventional war on the opposite side of the continent.
There's also an issue with using planes above Ukraine. Russians still haven't achieved air superiority there despite having much stronger air force than Ukraine. It's very risky to fly planes above the country because both sides have access to lots of cheap anti-air. Trying to gain advantages over Ukraine with just French jets would be very costly and likely wouldn't change much.
I would assume most of the French people would also be against sending French soldiers to die for DanzigKyiv.
The French army won't be able to participate in full extent without suffering comparatively big losses, so few people in France would support it. At most I can imagine French specialists replacing Ukranian ones at places away from the frontline, to free a few thousands more soldiers for the trenches - but this would barely change anything, a drop in the ocean.
On May 15 2024 01:51 Salazarz wrote: The idea that France could just step into this war and just 'push Russia out' is ridiculous. French army isn't trained or equipped to fight in a large scale near-peer conflict, and there's no way French public would accept thousands of bodybags coming home from Ukraine, especially since it's looking more and more like Ukrainians themselves are souring on the fight.
They could definitely make a big difference, but end the war outright? Nonsense.
I don’t want this to come across as argumentative because I assure you I have zero personal attachment to the discussion. But can you help me understand why? Like what are the specifics of why this is the case? I understand I’m basically asking you to teach me, so don’t worry if you just kinda don’t want to. But I’m just trying to be clear that I am asking people to provide me with information that adds more detail and context to why this is the case. But again, not like it’s anyone’s job to feed me this info. But for anyone who would like to, please feel free.
My impression is that France has an effective air force and that they would be able to make a huge contribution with that alone. But that’s why I’m saying I’m apparently missing a lot of info because it appears folks think I’m very wrong in that assessment.
The long answer:
The short answer. They are built to project force against weaker opponents abroad. Thus they have an air force, navy and a "cheap" army. Ukraine requires an expensive army, no navy and more air force than France has if you want to use it for more than keeping Russian air force further back and the occasional missile strike.
To be honest the biggest impact France could likely do would be to blockade Russian trade in the Black Sea and Baltic Sea.
On May 15 2024 03:41 ZeroByte13 wrote: The French army won't be able to participate in full extent without suffering comparatively big losses, so few people in France would support it. At most I can imagine French specialists replacing Ukranian ones at places away from the frontline, to free a few thousands more soldiers for the trenches - but this would barely change anything, a drop in the ocean.
I think that unfortunately they can't even do that because of the language barrier. French are notorious for their dislike to learn English and I don't think many Ukrainian officers bother to learn French.
Personally my belief is that if French would like to contribute more it would be in everyone's best interest if they pushed the Russians back in Africa. Unfortunately this comes with a different bag of problems all of its own.
On May 15 2024 03:41 ZeroByte13 wrote: The French army won't be able to participate in full extent without suffering comparatively big losses, so few people in France would support it. At most I can imagine French specialists replacing Ukranian ones at places away from the frontline, to free a few thousands more soldiers for the trenches - but this would barely change anything, a drop in the ocean.
I think that unfortunately they can't even do that because of the language barrier. French are notorious for their dislike to learn English and I don't think many Ukrainian officers bother to learn French.
Personally my belief is that if French would like to contribute more it would be in everyone's best interest if they pushed the Russians back in Africa. Unfortunately this comes with a different bag of problems all of its own.
I didn't get that impression from the time I spent there. It was largely Parisians being annoyed if you just outright come at them with English, but if they knew it and you at least try to converse in French they'd switch to English depending on how good your French was. People in the provinces didn't care as much, but seemed like fewer knew English because they weren't drowning in tourism to the same degree.
I am pretty sure if your French infantry squat wants the rear to direct fire to save their asses from TOS-1 bombardement they will make a rare exception and put the request in another language than French. Just this one time.
Of course this is all complete fiction since France will not send frontline troops, no matter Macron's talk. Sendings equiment, training and advisors is what France is doing anyway and what has and will have the biggest impact.
On May 15 2024 22:47 Gorsameth wrote: The notion that NATO armies can't speak English with the level of cooperation and joint operations going on seems silly to me.
Ukraine is not part of NATO and their English might be bad. Such was the case for their pilots being trained for example. For vehicles a lot of labels had to be changed too.
On May 15 2024 22:47 Gorsameth wrote: The notion that NATO armies can't speak English with the level of cooperation and joint operations going on seems silly to me.
Ukraine is not part of NATO and their English might be bad. Such was the case for their pilots being trained for example. For vehicles a lot of labels had to be changed too.
That wasn't in question. The idea was that French wouldn't be able to communicate because they're bad in English.
That Ukrainians struggle with English is well established. The training we perform for their new recruits here in Norway is done through hand signals and translators. It is not efficient by any means, but we make it work.
On May 15 2024 22:47 Gorsameth wrote: The notion that NATO armies can't speak English with the level of cooperation and joint operations going on seems silly to me.
I don't even see a way France could participate without involvement of NATO. Involvement would mean Air Force which would need NATO bases closer to the boundary.
I also don't see a carrier going to the black sea ever happening.
One way that France could help would be by using foreign legion for commando operations but it seems not practical in the current situation of a totally mined land.
The usefulness of an intervention would have been in the first days of war, to project a high cost. Or during the counteroffensive.
Now, it's all about fortifying positions and letting the cost of offensive become too great.
EPT
