776

Macron Ready to Send Troops to Ukraine if Russia Approaches Kyiv or Odesa (www.kyivpost.com)

submitted 8 months ago by Stamau123@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

271 comments fedilink hide all child comments

French President Emmanuel Macron met with parliamentary parties on Thursday. During the meeting Macron said he was open to the possibility of sending troops to Ukraine, as announced by, according to French newspaper L’Independant.

Fabien Roussel, a representative of the French Communist Party, said after the meeting that “Macron referenced a scenario that could lead to intervention [of French troops]: the advancement of the front towards Odesa or Kyiv.”

He noted that the French President showed parliamentarians maps of the possible directions of strikes by Russian troops in Ukraine.

Following the meeting, Jordan Bardella of the far-right National Rally party noted that “there are no restrictions and no red lines” in Macron’s approach.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] whenigrowup356@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago

If French troops were sent into Ukraine and were then hit by Russia, would that then trigger NATO agreements?

Article 6 says:

"For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."

Aware this might be a situation where the spirit of the agreement ends up being more important than the legalese.

[-] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 73 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

It would not. It's a defensive treaty.

Ukraine isn't a part of France or under the jurisdiction of France, so the attack wouldn't be on France's territory, and Ukraine isn't a member of NATO itself.

[-] Devorlon@lemmy.zip 20 points 8 months ago

Complete speculation but I'd bet that the UK government is so fickle that if France sent in troops then the UK would 'have' to send in its own, and by that point the US MiC would be complaining that the US hadn't sent them in.

[-] RunawayFixer@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

About the only thing the UK government has done right in the last few years, is getting help to Ukraine. I think the UK was even sending small weapons (shoulder fired rockets) in the first days of the full scale invasion, while most other nations were still waiting to see if Ukraine would buckle or not. And since then they were always early with other significant help: training programs, tanks, ... They did well in this case I think.

[-] soggy_kitty@sopuli.xyz 2 points 8 months ago

UK would not let France fight a war without wanting a piece of the pie

[+] Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world -15 points 8 months ago

Idk, reading it sounds like any attack on member troops would count

[-] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 17 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

No, it's narrower than that. It only applies to attacks directly on Nato countries. It doesn't even apply to all of a country's territories, only within the geographic range specified in the treaty. So for instance didn't apply to the Falkland War, despite a territory under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom coming under attack. It's not just any time a country's troops or interests are under attack. US troops have been attacked many times in Iraq, Syria, and other locations, and Article 5 wasn't invoked. The only time it was ever invoked by any country was the US after 9/11, which was pretty clearly on US territory. If it applied how you say, it could be used by any country to draw all of the rest into an offensive war, which is clearly against the spirit and words of the article.

[-] sailingbythelee@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

No.

[+] Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world -9 points 8 months ago

Did you read it? Do you care to provide any actual insight into the conversation, or are you just a troll?

[-] sailingbythelee@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

NATO is a defensive alliance. It is specifically designed to prevent a repeat of WW1. Nor will it support military adventurism. For example, the US could invoke Article 5 after 9/11 because the US was attacked on its own territory. The US could not invoke Article 5 when its troops were attacked in Iraq or when it liberated Kuwait. The French cannot invoke Article 5 when it's troops are attacked in the Magreb. There are also geographic boundaries. The British could not invoke Article 5 when the Falklands were attacked, even though it is British territory, because it is too far south. The French could not invoke Article 5 when it was attacked in Indochina because that was too far east.

Even when a NATO country is attacked on its own territory, it can't have initiated hostilities. For example, Poland can't attack Russian territory, thereby declaring war on Russia, and then invoke Article 5 and expect the rest of NATO to jump in. NATO is purely defensive and voluntary. It was designed mainly to prevent a Soviet invasion of the rest of Europe that wasn't already behind the Iron Curtain, while also preventing any ally from drawing the rest into a war that could lead to nuclear annihilation. It cannot be "gamed" or misused to draw allies into a war.

[-] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee -2 points 8 months ago

Read article 6. No. It doesn’t meet the requirements.

Article 5 is null because if France sends troops, Russia has the right to self defense.

Also article 5 doesn’t mean anyone has to send troops. It means they have to do what they are willing to do.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm

I doubt the United States would enter th conflict just because France wants to get in a fight. We have other treaty obligations we have to protect.

[-] Killing_Spark@feddit.de 3 points 8 months ago

Russia is in no position where it needs to "self defend". Its troops won't be attacked if its troops leave Ukraine. The right to self defense is what Ukraine is using right now.

[-] BearGun@ttrpg.network 6 points 8 months ago

[an attack] on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force

The forces in question need to be attacked somewhere that the treaty protects, which Ukraine is not.

this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2024

776 points (97.9% liked)

World News

39129 readers

886 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.