Yeah, if you repeat enough times that you're willing to send troops it becomes a matter of your own legitimacy. Whether you really wanted to actually do it in the first place, now you have to.
Which is the real danger of these statements by Macron. You're creating a red line for yourself and hoping the other side blinks first.
My new cope theory is that Macron is talking about sending troops to increase Ukrainian morale.
The Ukrainian army needs manpower but there's a lot of internal resistance to lowering the age of conscription and Zelensky dares not openly press the issue. Companies don't want to lose their younger workforce and people aren't feeling good about Ukraine's performance on the front right now. They need something to point to so they can make the population more amenable to conscription.
They can't achieve success on the front right now so Macron steps in and offers a (seemingly) strong commitment that they are willing to go all-in. Then the regime in Kiev can push through new waves of conscription. The French announce they are standing back and standing by now that the manpower issue has been resolved.
I don't know, I think the French would, out of all the European states, understand that it is not a good idea to send forces into Ukraine. I feel similar about the idea of France sending troops to how I felt before Russia invaded: I thought they wouldn't do it because it wasn't a smart idea. So I could definitely be wrong.
It is true that the European elite is loyal to the US, but more importantly they are completely dependent on the US. At the same time the Europeans are enthusiastic participants when it comes to Ukraine, moreso than the US.
The US has always held the position that the aim of military aid is to strengthen Ukraine's position at the eventual negotiation table. But the Europeans for a long time believed the goal to be a total retreat by the Russians.
Because of those fantasies, the Europeans have jumped in head first. Now the mood has soured and the Europeans are starting to realised that they have wagered the stability of their entire system on the outcome of this war. Hence those comments Macron has been making.
I hope that all this talk of sending troops to Ukraine is part of a process of Europe accepting the reality that they played themselves. Hopefully the Americans can reign their dogs in before they do anything stupid.
When it comes to Europe and Ukraine, I think it really comes down to moral indignation. They think Russia invading Ukraine is a unique moral crime. Ukraine should win because they are the good guys. Any sense of reality is almost entirely overruled by this moral indignation.
A lot of people in Europe can't even fathom that the West has any responsibility for this war. It must be Russian propaganda because the West is free and democratic and Russia is evil.
Even the people in my country that are at least sometimes better in realistically understanding this war seem to be dumbfounded by the idea that regular people show a greater willingness to protest the genocide in Palestine and not against Russia.
I truly feel it doesn't go much deeper than moral indignation for Europe. They can't conceive the possibility that anything they are doing for Ukraine could ultimately end up hurting Europe more than Russia. It is heresy to suggest that maybe if they went about sanctions a bit smarter, they could've probably helped Ukraine more.
Yes, the Russians are making gains currently. But did the fall of Kherson and Kharkiv result in the Ukrainians kicking out the Russians?
It is still a war of attrition that Russia is currently 'winning'. Just because they broke through defensive strongholds and are pushing through more open fields now, doesn't mean a tipping point has been reached in terms of attrition.
I think people need to keep in mind that there are elections happening all over Europe this year. Which means a lot of posturing. The Russians will be saying the war will be wrapped up any day now. We are to believe that France, which has contributed relatively little in Ukraine, now is considering sending troops? I'm not buying it (until I do).
Tbh, I think all this talk of Poland and Hungary taking over parts of Ukraine is at this point absolutely silly. The only people talking about it are Russian propagandists.
Besides, unless the frontline starts collapsing a lot more and a lot quicker the Russians are years away from taking Odessa.
China has gone woke, now they will go broke. The Chinese economy is going to collapse from this.
A lot of these settlements have either contracters or the IDF directly providing security. So the idea that Hamas could have broken out of Gaza and just found all the soldiers neatly in their bases seems unbelievable. The IDF is an occupying force, not a European military where it's just some dudes with their thumbs up their asses in a barracks near some nature reserve.
Ultimately we can't know how Hamas leadership told their soldiers to behave. But they do have a clear incentives not to condone the killing of civilians: they want to capture hostages and use them as leverage. They need to create the expectation that these hostages are treated fairly and can be returned safely so that it is entirely up to Israel whether it wants those civilians to die.
Tragically, civilians always die in wars. Both sides always propagandise this to claim that it is the other side that is just killing civilians as policy. The facts however, are abundantly clear when it comes to the question of which side shows the greater disregard for civilian casualties.
You're telling me that a constitution is not, by definition, an ideological document?
I don't understand how you can live in this world where you recognise that the parties and people that make up the state apparatus are ideological but the state itself is not. There's no magical step where the functioning of these explicitly ideological people somehow becomes non-ideoligical. Believing otherwise is itself an ideological position, namely a liberal one.
Just because different lib parties have disagreements doesn't mean they aren't liberal. Almost without exception they 'recognise Isreal's right to defend itself'. They all implicitly, if not explicitly, support a settler-colonial apartheid state. And what would be more fitting than liberals supporting such a state? When it was liberal thinkers like Locke who's theory served to justify the British settler-colonial project in the Americas.
Countries that say they are liberal democracies can't figure out whether they are liberals or not?
When it's the US/West doing something there's all this room for 'nuance' but when it is Bad Country it's suddenly clear-cut good vs evil.
Yeah, I do agree. The EU commitment to defense is stronger than article 5 it is often said.
Besides, we know what side Sweden and Finland were on long before they joined NATO. Russia saying they don't have a problem with Ukraine joining the EU is imo something they say to attempt to drive a wedge between the EU and US.
After all, Russia's concern over the differences in tariffs between them and the EU and them and Ukraine was an important driving factor for this conflict.
Besides, everybody, including the Russians, knows Ukraine was never even close to joining NATO.