"In fact, the only "objective" source is the occasional leak or analytical assessments done by professional organizations such as Rand Corporation." Um, just to be clear, you believe Rand Corp is objective?
Thanks for this paper, which may prove a good cause for discussion. Allow me to believe you wrote it in part to respond to my comments under the previous paper.
I'll first address the issue of your sources. Then in a follow-up comment I'll address other points you make.
.
So, let me start by pointing out issues with your sources:
1) the X source is inaccessible. Maybe because I'm not an X user, maybe because the post was removed. I wouldn't know. But there's nothing I can consult.
2) The Russian source is... well, a Russian source. And it provides no beginning of a trace of any evidence whatsoever. It's 100% unsupported claim.
3) the Facebook source is 100% a repeat of the Russian unsupported claim, with an added photo that does not seem to picture French soldiers, and whose location and date are unknown. Most probably a picture taken from the vastness of the interweb...
.
So, what we have here, is called an echo chamber. Some "information" appears out of the blue, it is unconfirmed and unsupported by anything solid, but it is repeated on various platforms, so as to appear like some people give it credibility. And maybe they do. But only based on their own personal feelings.
.
A word on the French source, Le Courrier des Stratèges. A funny source. The man who runs it sometimes provides interesting analyses, and I kind of like his anti-NATO stance. But as a matter of fact, he often makes wild claims that prove wrong in the end, and he does not ever get privileged information.
And what is his paper telling us? Well... nothing much really. It reads :
.
"Has Emmanuel Macron decided to have the elite of our amies destroyed - all that is left, in fact, of what was once a military tool of the prime order ? Have about a hundred men from the Foreign Legion arrived in Slaviansk a few days ago? Worse, have they been eliminated on the morning of Monday 15th April in a Russian strike? If the information were to be verified in the coming weeks, it would signify an unprecedented scandal. But maybe it is only an information fabricated by the Russian side, as part of psychological warfare, to warn decision-makers around a seemingly unpredictable Macron. In both cases, one understands that far from being an opportunity to become aware of our armed forces' weakening - down to a few elite regiments - the Ukraine War is taking French political power ever further down in the destruction of our military asset."
.
Do you see it, Stephen? Let me spell it out for everyone: your French source is merely quoting your Russian source that had no shred of evidence about anything, and he's doing so with big question marks so as to not place himself in a position where he could be sued under French law for spreading lies. He does not know whether French soldiers ever were in Slaviansk, and even less so whether they were killed there.
.
Stephen, let us please come to our senses: there is nothing to these claims. Nothing at all. It's not that I'm against any of it, really. I'm only trying to carry out some proper discourse analysis, and as a matter of fact: THERE IS NOTHING IN THOSE CLAIMS THAT EVEN REMOTELY SMELLS LIKE A VERIFIABLE FACT!!!
.
Furthermore, your entire discourse relies on a massive mistake you''re still making about the French Legion, despite my previous explanations. You assume that the French legion is a tool that could be deployed in Ukraine if France or her President wanted to carry out operations there without leading to war with Russia. As you wrote in your previous paper, and I feel here you are still following the same line, you believe the Foreign Legion to be some kind of a non-governmental paramilitary asset.... I'm familiar with the idea, I here sometimes prominent commenters from the US even compare the French Legion to Wagner...
.
But here's the thing, Stephen: the Foreign Legion is a regular unit of the French Army. If it were deployed in Ukraine, especially for combat missions, Russians would be perfectly legitimate to treat France as a direct part in this war... As with any other unit of the French military... You see, it is common for the US Army to hire non-US citizens, is it not? Well, in the French Army, that's strictly forbidden, except in the one unit called the Foreign Legion. But that is the only specificity of the Foreign Legion compared to the rest of the French military: it accepts foreigners... For the rest, it is entirely part of the French military's chain of command, which starts with the Head of State and goes down via the Joint Chief of Staff, the chiefs of staff of each of the three services, down to divisions, brigades, and regiments...
If the French Foreign Legion were in Ukraine, don't you think Russians would have so much more to gain from bringing evidence of it, than from killing them from afar with glide bombs?
I think you make a lot of not much about Macron's comments. Contrary to what you've interpreted, Macron has not said he wants to send troops to Ukraine. And there never was any statement from him or any other French official, whether civilian or military, indicating this would or needed to happen.
.
What Macron said, is that he wants to keep the possibility on the table. What's the point of saying this?
Seemingly, the point is to have the Russians consider that there is a risk of drawing direct involvment from EU powers with some serious military capability and with even nuclear weapons, if the Russians start acting like they can conquer the whole of Ukraine, or at least any meaningful part of Ukraine well beyond the territories that have been disputed so far. Macron did name Kiev and Odessa as being would-be targets that may cause French intervention.
So, whether one agrees or not, whether one understands or not, whether Macron is being clever or not... his only purpose is to create some uncertainty for the Russians, and to have them limit their strategic objectives.
.
What Macron never even hinted he could be interested in, is the idea of seeking direct confrontation with Russia to try and salvage a victory for Ukraine.
.
Now, Stephen, I'm not quite sure you understand the French setting from which Macron is trying to speak, and the European game at play in which he is trying to score points.
In France, Macron isn't worth much these days. His government is a minority government, and they're set to lose by a historically large margin for any ruling party at the forthcoming European election.
In this election, anti-war "far right" (in fact, simply what Americans would call conservatives) parties are set to become the largest block in the EU parliament, possibly gaining an absolute majority. This would be an EU-wide disavowal of all the pro-Ukraine policies that both the EU and Macron have advocated for 2 years. Behind this wave is a strong anti-US and anti-NATO feeling, fueled by the understanding that NATO, especially the US and the UK, chose war even when Ukraine tried to negotiate for peace (an effort which France had supported and had made possible, with Macron risking public humiliation to open a door for Zelensky...), and that the burden and costs of this war are being primarily shouldered by European nations that never wanted war in the first place.
That's one side of the European game.
.
The other side of the European game, is that apart from Germany, the soon-to-be-deceased would-be leader of the EU when it once had an economy (which the US made sure to destroy), EU countries are now understanding that after wrecking havoc in Europe, the US will end up doing what it always does when its foreign policies fail and cause havoc: it will f*ck off back where it came from, and it will hide behind the safety of two oceans, claiming to be a world power while others will have to deal with the consequences of the Empire's warmongering.
.
And make no mistake: this understanding of US desertion is shared by almost everyone, even some of the most pro-US European leaders and nations. Even by Germans, although their politicians have not yet walked the mourning curve.
So, in this context, what is Macron trying to achieve? He thinks there needs to be a force gathering European efforts to help solidify a coherent form of European defense by Europeans for Europeans. And he thinks (possibly with some good reasons) that France is simply the only country able to do that, since France has a capable army, albeit reduced in size, and is a nuclear power. France also has a defense industrial structure like no other in Europe. And France has decades of experience warning other EU countries to organise European defense without the US, which was often a cause for some of those countries targeting France.
.
So the point of Macron's saying that there might possibly be some imaginable form of French deployment in Ukraine if things come to that... is not to actually deploy French troops, nor to be at war with Russia, nor to have French soldiers killed in Ukraine. The point is to convince Europeans that they're not alone once the US gets out of Europe, and that if they have will, they can protect themselves, with France at the forefront of the effort. There is really no other purpose.
.
Macron has nothing left to hope for in domestic politics. He can only salvage some form of legacy if he can help the EU survive and become a strategic power able to insure its own safety. Without getting into details, all progress done in the EU around collective defense in the last decade can be traced to French-born initiatives (OCCAr, EU Defense Investment Fund, Fast Reaction Force, etc;). So Macron is trying to reach a really meaningful result in this perspective. Nothing more.
.
Now, one word about Western weapons and the possibility of Western operators tied to those weapons. You write:
"In addition, specialists to operate modern western weapons, aka air defenses or rocket launchers, are in Ukraine from NATO countries. Are they mercenaries or contractors? Is there any difference?"
Stephen, you're being narrow-minded now. There are other possibilities beside these two. The most obvious one being the classic "advisor" mission. These skilled operators are members of Western forces, but they are tied to donated weapons systems and restrict their role to operating such systems. We know US operators were killed more than a year ago in strikes against Patriot systems. Likely, other countries lost men in the same way.
But does it matter? I argue that it doesn't really matter.
Simply because such "advisors" have been involved in major wars for a very long time, and it never led to escalation unless their own country chose to escalate with full deployment. US advisors were in Korea or Vietnam long before the US chose direct involvement. But the US loves direct involvement much too much, it's a bad example. On the contrary, French or Soviet "advisors" were often deployed alongside African armies at war, without direct involvement ever occurring.
In short, the advisors do not cause direct involvement, but direct involvement may follow advisors if the home country is bent on such policy. Why did the US do it? Because it always thought it was fundamentally safe from consequences, being hidden behind two oceans, etc.
.
But France cannot think this about Ukraine. No one could be safe from consequences. As long as operators are tied to weapons donations, Russians will accept this fact, will feel free to strike them, and will expect Western countries not to cry out when this happens. But once every one settles on these terms, there can be no escalation.
.
I suggested to you in our last exchange a plausible way in which France may favour supporting Ukraine with trained soldiers while not leading to any official involvement, and while not using mercenaries. You should consider this option, it is quite sensible and in line with official French positioning: members of the French legion receive indefinite leave of absence, and then engage in Ukrainian forces with a Ukrainian wage and under Ukrainian orders. Thus, every one is within the boundaries of no-escalation.
Your detailed commentary is appreciated Pierre. In the end this may all be kabuki theater. Key players in the west may simply be equivalent frustrated chimps wildly gesticulating and making lots of noise but completely irrelevant to events on the ground.
And yes it's hard to see how Biden survives this fiasco in Ukraine and how NATO continues as a tool of US imperial rule.
I think that what "PierreA" is instead saying (while trying to be tactful about it) is that Stephen Bryen says some things that are false and then, when challenged for the documentation, refuses to admit that they had been errors (which are forgivable); so, turns those errors into outright lies (which are not). If I misunderstand "PierreA," I hope that he or she will reply to my reader-comment here, and to explain exactly what he (or she) was aiming to communicate.
I think they Stephen Bryen is generally insightful and reliable within information he publishes. However he has a tendency to lose his mind when he talks about the Middle East has a number of commentators often do. However recent column seemed more restrained and down the middle, more factual than partisan. If he keeps that track record going then I'll become a subscriber.
- 3rd REI is a JUNGLE WARFARE regiment. Based in Guyane. Tasks are
- protecting the Kourou space Center
- fighting against illegal gold mining (Operatoon Harpie)
- running the Jungle Training center
What do you think a jungle warfare specialized unit would do in Ukraine?
The 3rd REI is very seldom deployed outside Guyane . Was deployed in Haiti and then in Metropolitan France during he ant-covid support operation
There is a facebook page of the regiment. You can see there celebrated Camerone on May 2...
All in all, Stephen Bryen wrote a big pile of bullshit, and really chose poorly the "brigade" he claims was deployed in Eastern Ukraine. Could not have made a poorer choice as the 3rd REI id dedicated to the Americas zone and above all Guyane, and is not suited for operations or even training in Eastern Europe
I do not think the author guessed by himself 3°REI is deployed in Ukraine. This is russian propaganda since 12 april 2024 and Stephen just gobbed it without checking the source's reliability. That's a bias - when you find "info" that goes in your way of thinking you are less susceptible to check it. That's the way fake news are spread...
The origin of fakes of the FFL preparing to be deployed in UKR is the briefing by Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova in Moscow, April 3, 2024: https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1942366/
Yeah OK OK. Here's a narration about how this whole thing played out apparently starting with Stephen Bryen's article. I think these are significant developments which culminated in a major effort by the British and French to walk back a very aggressive and dangerous path they were treading.
Thanks, Stephen. As I've mentioned before, I found you through The Asia Times when it seemed as though all the US MSM and official sources on the war smelled of BS (e.g. - videos of troops on the "battlefield" having spotless uniforms, the Ghost of Kiev, the Seven Sailors, etc.) As you've clearly stated here the Fog of War makes it hard to discern what is accurate and wihat is not; however, your consistently high accuracy of predictions on battles, leadership changes, etc. is among the best. Please keep up the great work.
Thanks, Stephen, for finally providing this information. I am now satisfied on this matter. If your April 25th “NATO is starting to deploy Troops in Ukraine and Russia is Racing to Win” had indicated what your sources were -- which it should have done -- then I would not have raised the question. Bare allegations that are not linked to (or otherwise making the evidence behind them easily accessible to the reader) are not to be trusted.
I take that back, and I here explain why:
I notice that all three of the sources that you link to concern French Foreign Legion forces being in Ukraine. Your original allegation was "NATO is starting to deploy combat troops to Ukraine. They are in uniform and mostly are concentrated in the western part of the country, although in some cases they are close to the actual fighting in the east. Soldiers from Poland, France, the UK, Finland and other NATO members are arriving in larger numbers. These troops are not mercenaries. They wear the flag of their country on their shirts." So: your shocking allegation there is entirely unsupported by the links that you now are providing. Consequently, I now retract my saying "I am now satisfied on this matter." Now that I see what your 'evidence' for that allegation was, I am, finally, certain that that allegation by you had no empirical support when you published it. At the time when you asserted it, that allegation went way beyond any empirical evidence that you were aware of.
Once again I agree, Eric. Foreign mercenaries and even French legionnaires have long been known to be operating in Ukraine, but not as overtly deployed combat troops acting on behalf of their nations of origin, which was the implication of the prior Weapons and Strategy post (actually it was stated explicitly in the post you cite). The breaking news would be if Macron had actually forward-deployed French troops, which we now know could not have occurred because Macron is still citing the hypothetical conditions that would cause him to send troops in the future. I expect that if/when Nato countries start sending troops overtly that this column will not be the first place such grave news will be reported. The implications of that deployment would be monumental and will be picked up even by mainstream media by that point as part of their propaganda fest for WWIII.
I agree with your assessment. If it were to occur that, as Stephen falsely alleged on April 25th, "Soldiers from Poland, France, the UK, Finland and other NATO members are arriving in larger numbers. These troops are not mercenaries. They wear the flag of their country on their shirts.", then, as you say, "that deployment would be monumental and will be picked up even by mainstream media by that point as part of their propaganda fest for WWIII." This is the reason why I expect that not to happen. I do not expect even the world's most dangerous regime, the one in Washington DC, to prefer a WW3 to a loss of its war against Russia in the battlefields of Ukraine. Consequently, if and when Russia wins that war by getting a surrender of the stooge-leader of the U.S. regime's Ukrainian colony, I am not expecting the U.S. regime to respond by a direct military invasion of Russia -- not by its NATO colonies, nor directly by its own forces. I expect that that Ukrainian surrender would be effectively the end of the American empire. If that occurs, then the next great question will be whether the U.N. will be reformed to become what FDR had planned and intended it to be. Because, if that won't happen, then the danger of there possibly being another World War will continue to remain. However, in any case, the countries outside the U.S. empire will need to create collectively their own versions of America's World Bank, IMF, and the other Bretton Woods international organizations. But it still would be best if that were to be done by an FDR-type of reformed U.N., instead of by merely a segment of the world's nations (which would stamp permanency into that bifurcation of the world into the American empire versus the world). Only under some type of reformed U.N. umbrella will world peace (and a world under international laws instead of under the U.S. regime's "international rules") be able to become finally institutionalized.
3Rei haven’t left French Guiana since 1973 and have no intention to either. The propaganda being perpetuated about the FFL in Ukraine is laughable at best
FYI there is no 3rd brigade of the FFL. "it is well known" - really?
Also, could you please repair your now-broken link for "have been deployed in support of the Ukrainian 54th Independent Mechanized Brigade in Slavyansk." in your 05.03 post.
Extensive commentary today by Alexander Mercourius on Stephen's recent comments about the French Foreign Legion and US advisors joining the fighting in Ukraine.
Alexander reports that the Russians through the spokesman Peskov announce they will officially investigate these claims even as Putin himself claims intensified war gaming with tactical nuclear weapons.
Alexander Mercourius speculates that materials may have been leaked to Stephen as a trial balloon to judge their reception by the Russians. Apparently the Kremlin takes these such allegations pretty seriously.
The fog of war doesn't prevent us from conducting basic smell test. The story never made any sense. France has invested the least into the conflict so far. Why would the French all of a sudden be rushing to the barricades? To defend an American-dominant world order? To protect the legacy of wild-hair British dude? The only logical explanation for Macron's uncharacteristic bellicosity is that Elysee Palace realizes Ukraine is on its last leg and negotiation will start soon. Talks of dispatching troops to Ukraine is just a mean to win them a more prominent seat at the table. The French know perfectly well that involvement of US troops is a non-starter on an election year and the Poles will never do anything without American involvement.
While you are smelling around, you fail to note Macron's threats and his drumbeat for intervention. Do you think he is just hopping up and down for exercise?
Was Vladimir Putin hopping up and down prior to Russia's intervention in Syria? As I recall, all the highly-paid analysts in Washington were saying how it was totally unexpected.
Much of the French Foreign Legion just got kicked out of Africa and were replaced by Russian foreign legion equivalents. Not very noteworthy in much of the western press but a big deal in France. Suddenly Macron has a new mission (possibly, sort of, depends on what you mean) for his international special ops forces. His sagging popularity has nothing to do with it of course.
3rd REI was not in Africa, it is tasked to protect the Space Center in Guyane. It had an exercice there until april10. But the author claims it arrived in Eastern Ukraine on April 11.
The third REI of the Foreign legion is an elite jungle fighting unit. The jungles that they operate in are in South America. France's space port is the object of their attention which is located adjacent to jungle in South America. That is their role and has been for years. They actually train other militaries in jungle fighting because of their expertise.
Of all the units available in the French Foreign Legion, the third REI would seem to be the least likely to be sent any where in Eastern Europe to assist local forces in doing what ever it is that the local forces might be doing. For sure, right now there are no militaries in Eastern Europe spending even one minute thinking about getting a little bit better at jungle fighting.
The *Thirteenth* demi-brigade of the French Foreign Legion is in Africa but as far as I know they are still Djibouti. It is possible that some units of the thirteenth brigade were dispatched to Eastern Europe where their desert fighting expertise might be somewhat transferrable in summer conditions there. It is too tiresome to get a real breakdown of which units are where in the French Foreign Legion because it built to be highly mobile. But I doubt the famous third REI is anywhere but in or near a jungle.
These troops will be sent to Moldova when the situation in Transdnistria heats up later this summer. That's the real target, I believe. France is reaching for the consolatory prize. It's not going on some suicide mission in the Donbas. It's worth noting that France is among the three European countries (alongside Hungary and Slovakia) to have officials present at Putin's inauguration ceremony today.
You don't have to be 100% perfect, the reason I read everything you write is I choose to read authors who write in what I think is good faith. That is pretty much it. War is hard to cover.
Stephen, thank you for the update here. I think anyone who expects perfect results every time is being kind of precious. I greatly appreciate your perspective and experience.
"The second point is that it is now well known that the Third Brigade of the French Foreign Legion is being trained to intervene in France." I assume here you mean Ukraine...
It is above all well know from anyone with a basic knowledge of the foreign Legion, that the 3rd REI (not a Brigade) is based in Guyane, almost never leaves the area (only deployed in Haiti and in Metropolitan France for Covid support)
It had an exercice in Guyane from April 4 to april 10 , but Stephen claims they arrived in Eastern Ukraine on april 11. Bullshit
One of the most interesting elements of this conflict has been figuring out which "independent" voice, or telegram channel, or youtube channel, are actually cutouts of Russia, Ukraine, USA, UK, etc.
For example, Seymour Hersh is a vehicle through which dissenting factions from the American national security state communicate their perspective. I suspect both Mearsheimer and Sachs are as well (though Sach less so as he might be a true believer). I believe The Duran has some institutional support as otherwise they'd get deleted. Telegram is a really difficult nut to crack. I don't envy the situation of a professional trying to sift though all the noise in an attempt to find actual honest information from the different states.
Perhaps a good article in the future would be a consideration of the primary communication channels and your perspective on how tightly linked they are to the different warring states.
My perception is that on the "pro-Ru" side there are a lot of deeply passionate and very smart Americans (entirely white, straight, Christian, American men with military or similar backgrounds) who simply hate the national security state and do not have links to Russia. But perhaps I am being naive. On the UKR side, the NAFO thing is clearly astroturf from the top with legions of true believers below. Macgregor, Davis, Larry Johnson, McGovern etc., should have been aggressively purged and destroyed (as was Ritter) long ago but haven't been, which makes me suspicious.
Well apparently Stephen stirred up an international hornets nest with his reports, valid or not, about French Foreign Legion troops in Ukraine.
Here's a rather dramatic summary of events that followed.... One way or another I think the French and British are starting to walk back some very dangerous talk as a result of these events. Judge for yourself:
"In fact, the only "objective" source is the occasional leak or analytical assessments done by professional organizations such as Rand Corporation." Um, just to be clear, you believe Rand Corp is objective?
Rand is objective compared to the others. They are usually hired by DOD, CIA or other agencies to assess problems.
Hi there, Stephen,
Thanks for this paper, which may prove a good cause for discussion. Allow me to believe you wrote it in part to respond to my comments under the previous paper.
I'll first address the issue of your sources. Then in a follow-up comment I'll address other points you make.
.
So, let me start by pointing out issues with your sources:
1) the X source is inaccessible. Maybe because I'm not an X user, maybe because the post was removed. I wouldn't know. But there's nothing I can consult.
2) The Russian source is... well, a Russian source. And it provides no beginning of a trace of any evidence whatsoever. It's 100% unsupported claim.
3) the Facebook source is 100% a repeat of the Russian unsupported claim, with an added photo that does not seem to picture French soldiers, and whose location and date are unknown. Most probably a picture taken from the vastness of the interweb...
.
So, what we have here, is called an echo chamber. Some "information" appears out of the blue, it is unconfirmed and unsupported by anything solid, but it is repeated on various platforms, so as to appear like some people give it credibility. And maybe they do. But only based on their own personal feelings.
.
A word on the French source, Le Courrier des Stratèges. A funny source. The man who runs it sometimes provides interesting analyses, and I kind of like his anti-NATO stance. But as a matter of fact, he often makes wild claims that prove wrong in the end, and he does not ever get privileged information.
And what is his paper telling us? Well... nothing much really. It reads :
.
"Has Emmanuel Macron decided to have the elite of our amies destroyed - all that is left, in fact, of what was once a military tool of the prime order ? Have about a hundred men from the Foreign Legion arrived in Slaviansk a few days ago? Worse, have they been eliminated on the morning of Monday 15th April in a Russian strike? If the information were to be verified in the coming weeks, it would signify an unprecedented scandal. But maybe it is only an information fabricated by the Russian side, as part of psychological warfare, to warn decision-makers around a seemingly unpredictable Macron. In both cases, one understands that far from being an opportunity to become aware of our armed forces' weakening - down to a few elite regiments - the Ukraine War is taking French political power ever further down in the destruction of our military asset."
.
Do you see it, Stephen? Let me spell it out for everyone: your French source is merely quoting your Russian source that had no shred of evidence about anything, and he's doing so with big question marks so as to not place himself in a position where he could be sued under French law for spreading lies. He does not know whether French soldiers ever were in Slaviansk, and even less so whether they were killed there.
.
Stephen, let us please come to our senses: there is nothing to these claims. Nothing at all. It's not that I'm against any of it, really. I'm only trying to carry out some proper discourse analysis, and as a matter of fact: THERE IS NOTHING IN THOSE CLAIMS THAT EVEN REMOTELY SMELLS LIKE A VERIFIABLE FACT!!!
.
Furthermore, your entire discourse relies on a massive mistake you''re still making about the French Legion, despite my previous explanations. You assume that the French legion is a tool that could be deployed in Ukraine if France or her President wanted to carry out operations there without leading to war with Russia. As you wrote in your previous paper, and I feel here you are still following the same line, you believe the Foreign Legion to be some kind of a non-governmental paramilitary asset.... I'm familiar with the idea, I here sometimes prominent commenters from the US even compare the French Legion to Wagner...
.
But here's the thing, Stephen: the Foreign Legion is a regular unit of the French Army. If it were deployed in Ukraine, especially for combat missions, Russians would be perfectly legitimate to treat France as a direct part in this war... As with any other unit of the French military... You see, it is common for the US Army to hire non-US citizens, is it not? Well, in the French Army, that's strictly forbidden, except in the one unit called the Foreign Legion. But that is the only specificity of the Foreign Legion compared to the rest of the French military: it accepts foreigners... For the rest, it is entirely part of the French military's chain of command, which starts with the Head of State and goes down via the Joint Chief of Staff, the chiefs of staff of each of the three services, down to divisions, brigades, and regiments...
If the French Foreign Legion were in Ukraine, don't you think Russians would have so much more to gain from bringing evidence of it, than from killing them from afar with glide bombs?
Here's the follow up, as promised.
.
I think you make a lot of not much about Macron's comments. Contrary to what you've interpreted, Macron has not said he wants to send troops to Ukraine. And there never was any statement from him or any other French official, whether civilian or military, indicating this would or needed to happen.
.
What Macron said, is that he wants to keep the possibility on the table. What's the point of saying this?
Seemingly, the point is to have the Russians consider that there is a risk of drawing direct involvment from EU powers with some serious military capability and with even nuclear weapons, if the Russians start acting like they can conquer the whole of Ukraine, or at least any meaningful part of Ukraine well beyond the territories that have been disputed so far. Macron did name Kiev and Odessa as being would-be targets that may cause French intervention.
So, whether one agrees or not, whether one understands or not, whether Macron is being clever or not... his only purpose is to create some uncertainty for the Russians, and to have them limit their strategic objectives.
.
What Macron never even hinted he could be interested in, is the idea of seeking direct confrontation with Russia to try and salvage a victory for Ukraine.
.
Now, Stephen, I'm not quite sure you understand the French setting from which Macron is trying to speak, and the European game at play in which he is trying to score points.
In France, Macron isn't worth much these days. His government is a minority government, and they're set to lose by a historically large margin for any ruling party at the forthcoming European election.
In this election, anti-war "far right" (in fact, simply what Americans would call conservatives) parties are set to become the largest block in the EU parliament, possibly gaining an absolute majority. This would be an EU-wide disavowal of all the pro-Ukraine policies that both the EU and Macron have advocated for 2 years. Behind this wave is a strong anti-US and anti-NATO feeling, fueled by the understanding that NATO, especially the US and the UK, chose war even when Ukraine tried to negotiate for peace (an effort which France had supported and had made possible, with Macron risking public humiliation to open a door for Zelensky...), and that the burden and costs of this war are being primarily shouldered by European nations that never wanted war in the first place.
That's one side of the European game.
.
The other side of the European game, is that apart from Germany, the soon-to-be-deceased would-be leader of the EU when it once had an economy (which the US made sure to destroy), EU countries are now understanding that after wrecking havoc in Europe, the US will end up doing what it always does when its foreign policies fail and cause havoc: it will f*ck off back where it came from, and it will hide behind the safety of two oceans, claiming to be a world power while others will have to deal with the consequences of the Empire's warmongering.
.
And make no mistake: this understanding of US desertion is shared by almost everyone, even some of the most pro-US European leaders and nations. Even by Germans, although their politicians have not yet walked the mourning curve.
So, in this context, what is Macron trying to achieve? He thinks there needs to be a force gathering European efforts to help solidify a coherent form of European defense by Europeans for Europeans. And he thinks (possibly with some good reasons) that France is simply the only country able to do that, since France has a capable army, albeit reduced in size, and is a nuclear power. France also has a defense industrial structure like no other in Europe. And France has decades of experience warning other EU countries to organise European defense without the US, which was often a cause for some of those countries targeting France.
.
So the point of Macron's saying that there might possibly be some imaginable form of French deployment in Ukraine if things come to that... is not to actually deploy French troops, nor to be at war with Russia, nor to have French soldiers killed in Ukraine. The point is to convince Europeans that they're not alone once the US gets out of Europe, and that if they have will, they can protect themselves, with France at the forefront of the effort. There is really no other purpose.
.
Macron has nothing left to hope for in domestic politics. He can only salvage some form of legacy if he can help the EU survive and become a strategic power able to insure its own safety. Without getting into details, all progress done in the EU around collective defense in the last decade can be traced to French-born initiatives (OCCAr, EU Defense Investment Fund, Fast Reaction Force, etc;). So Macron is trying to reach a really meaningful result in this perspective. Nothing more.
.
Now, one word about Western weapons and the possibility of Western operators tied to those weapons. You write:
"In addition, specialists to operate modern western weapons, aka air defenses or rocket launchers, are in Ukraine from NATO countries. Are they mercenaries or contractors? Is there any difference?"
Stephen, you're being narrow-minded now. There are other possibilities beside these two. The most obvious one being the classic "advisor" mission. These skilled operators are members of Western forces, but they are tied to donated weapons systems and restrict their role to operating such systems. We know US operators were killed more than a year ago in strikes against Patriot systems. Likely, other countries lost men in the same way.
But does it matter? I argue that it doesn't really matter.
Simply because such "advisors" have been involved in major wars for a very long time, and it never led to escalation unless their own country chose to escalate with full deployment. US advisors were in Korea or Vietnam long before the US chose direct involvement. But the US loves direct involvement much too much, it's a bad example. On the contrary, French or Soviet "advisors" were often deployed alongside African armies at war, without direct involvement ever occurring.
In short, the advisors do not cause direct involvement, but direct involvement may follow advisors if the home country is bent on such policy. Why did the US do it? Because it always thought it was fundamentally safe from consequences, being hidden behind two oceans, etc.
.
But France cannot think this about Ukraine. No one could be safe from consequences. As long as operators are tied to weapons donations, Russians will accept this fact, will feel free to strike them, and will expect Western countries not to cry out when this happens. But once every one settles on these terms, there can be no escalation.
.
I suggested to you in our last exchange a plausible way in which France may favour supporting Ukraine with trained soldiers while not leading to any official involvement, and while not using mercenaries. You should consider this option, it is quite sensible and in line with official French positioning: members of the French legion receive indefinite leave of absence, and then engage in Ukrainian forces with a Ukrainian wage and under Ukrainian orders. Thus, every one is within the boundaries of no-escalation.
Your detailed commentary is appreciated Pierre. In the end this may all be kabuki theater. Key players in the west may simply be equivalent frustrated chimps wildly gesticulating and making lots of noise but completely irrelevant to events on the ground.
And yes it's hard to see how Biden survives this fiasco in Ukraine and how NATO continues as a tool of US imperial rule.
I think that what "PierreA" is instead saying (while trying to be tactful about it) is that Stephen Bryen says some things that are false and then, when challenged for the documentation, refuses to admit that they had been errors (which are forgivable); so, turns those errors into outright lies (which are not). If I misunderstand "PierreA," I hope that he or she will reply to my reader-comment here, and to explain exactly what he (or she) was aiming to communicate.
I think they Stephen Bryen is generally insightful and reliable within information he publishes. However he has a tendency to lose his mind when he talks about the Middle East has a number of commentators often do. However recent column seemed more restrained and down the middle, more factual than partisan. If he keeps that track record going then I'll become a subscriber.
Stephen Bryen writes that the 3rd Brigade from the FFL is deployed in Eastern Ukraine (he added, on april 11)
well:
- there is no 3rd Brigade in the FFL. There is the 3rd REI (Regiment)
- from April 4 to April 10, most of the fighting companies or that regiment were involved in an exercice. Public information here : http://foreignlegion.info/2024/04/16/3-rei-2024-exercise-desperado/
- 3rd REI is a JUNGLE WARFARE regiment. Based in Guyane. Tasks are
- protecting the Kourou space Center
- fighting against illegal gold mining (Operatoon Harpie)
- running the Jungle Training center
What do you think a jungle warfare specialized unit would do in Ukraine?
The 3rd REI is very seldom deployed outside Guyane . Was deployed in Haiti and then in Metropolitan France during he ant-covid support operation
There is a facebook page of the regiment. You can see there celebrated Camerone on May 2...
All in all, Stephen Bryen wrote a big pile of bullshit, and really chose poorly the "brigade" he claims was deployed in Eastern Ukraine. Could not have made a poorer choice as the 3rd REI id dedicated to the Americas zone and above all Guyane, and is not suited for operations or even training in Eastern Europe
I do not think the author guessed by himself 3°REI is deployed in Ukraine. This is russian propaganda since 12 april 2024 and Stephen just gobbed it without checking the source's reliability. That's a bias - when you find "info" that goes in your way of thinking you are less susceptible to check it. That's the way fake news are spread...
The origin of fakes of the FFL preparing to be deployed in UKR is the briefing by Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova in Moscow, April 3, 2024: https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1942366/
The fake at the origin of other fakes of FFL troops deployed in Sloviansk is the second link Stephen shared as his source: https://en.topwar.ru/240367-rossijskie-resursy-pervoe-podrazdelenie-francuzskogo-inostrannogo-legiona-perebrosheno-v-slavjansk.html
from here: https://vk.com/militarychronicles?w=wall-219928383_29475
On fake news: https://counteringdisinformation.substack.com/p/useful-idiots-and-fellow-travelers
Yeah OK OK. Here's a narration about how this whole thing played out apparently starting with Stephen Bryen's article. I think these are significant developments which culminated in a major effort by the British and French to walk back a very aggressive and dangerous path they were treading.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IsWwJlHZck
Thanks, Stephen. As I've mentioned before, I found you through The Asia Times when it seemed as though all the US MSM and official sources on the war smelled of BS (e.g. - videos of troops on the "battlefield" having spotless uniforms, the Ghost of Kiev, the Seven Sailors, etc.) As you've clearly stated here the Fog of War makes it hard to discern what is accurate and wihat is not; however, your consistently high accuracy of predictions on battles, leadership changes, etc. is among the best. Please keep up the great work.
Dear Mick,
Your comment is truly appreciated.
Steve Bryen
Ditto.
3rd REI is in Kourou.
Really appreciate you taking time to explain your methodology and the methodological difficulties.
Thanks, Stephen, for finally providing this information. I am now satisfied on this matter. If your April 25th “NATO is starting to deploy Troops in Ukraine and Russia is Racing to Win” had indicated what your sources were -- which it should have done -- then I would not have raised the question. Bare allegations that are not linked to (or otherwise making the evidence behind them easily accessible to the reader) are not to be trusted.
I take that back, and I here explain why:
I notice that all three of the sources that you link to concern French Foreign Legion forces being in Ukraine. Your original allegation was "NATO is starting to deploy combat troops to Ukraine. They are in uniform and mostly are concentrated in the western part of the country, although in some cases they are close to the actual fighting in the east. Soldiers from Poland, France, the UK, Finland and other NATO members are arriving in larger numbers. These troops are not mercenaries. They wear the flag of their country on their shirts." So: your shocking allegation there is entirely unsupported by the links that you now are providing. Consequently, I now retract my saying "I am now satisfied on this matter." Now that I see what your 'evidence' for that allegation was, I am, finally, certain that that allegation by you had no empirical support when you published it. At the time when you asserted it, that allegation went way beyond any empirical evidence that you were aware of.
I just now added to that comment a reversal of my opinion, and an explanation of why.
Once again I agree, Eric. Foreign mercenaries and even French legionnaires have long been known to be operating in Ukraine, but not as overtly deployed combat troops acting on behalf of their nations of origin, which was the implication of the prior Weapons and Strategy post (actually it was stated explicitly in the post you cite). The breaking news would be if Macron had actually forward-deployed French troops, which we now know could not have occurred because Macron is still citing the hypothetical conditions that would cause him to send troops in the future. I expect that if/when Nato countries start sending troops overtly that this column will not be the first place such grave news will be reported. The implications of that deployment would be monumental and will be picked up even by mainstream media by that point as part of their propaganda fest for WWIII.
I agree with your assessment. If it were to occur that, as Stephen falsely alleged on April 25th, "Soldiers from Poland, France, the UK, Finland and other NATO members are arriving in larger numbers. These troops are not mercenaries. They wear the flag of their country on their shirts.", then, as you say, "that deployment would be monumental and will be picked up even by mainstream media by that point as part of their propaganda fest for WWIII." This is the reason why I expect that not to happen. I do not expect even the world's most dangerous regime, the one in Washington DC, to prefer a WW3 to a loss of its war against Russia in the battlefields of Ukraine. Consequently, if and when Russia wins that war by getting a surrender of the stooge-leader of the U.S. regime's Ukrainian colony, I am not expecting the U.S. regime to respond by a direct military invasion of Russia -- not by its NATO colonies, nor directly by its own forces. I expect that that Ukrainian surrender would be effectively the end of the American empire. If that occurs, then the next great question will be whether the U.N. will be reformed to become what FDR had planned and intended it to be. Because, if that won't happen, then the danger of there possibly being another World War will continue to remain. However, in any case, the countries outside the U.S. empire will need to create collectively their own versions of America's World Bank, IMF, and the other Bretton Woods international organizations. But it still would be best if that were to be done by an FDR-type of reformed U.N., instead of by merely a segment of the world's nations (which would stamp permanency into that bifurcation of the world into the American empire versus the world). Only under some type of reformed U.N. umbrella will world peace (and a world under international laws instead of under the U.S. regime's "international rules") be able to become finally institutionalized.
3rd REI, which sphen Claims arrived in Eastern Ukraine on april 11, had an exercice in Guyane from April 4 to april 10.
3Rei haven’t left French Guiana since 1973 and have no intention to either. The propaganda being perpetuated about the FFL in Ukraine is laughable at best
Well, to be honest 3°REI (at least one company) was deployed outside of French Guyana in 2004 for a quick Opération Carbet in Haiti.
But yes, 3°REI deployed as arty-specialists in UKR is laughable at best.
You, dear Sir, are quoting a fake news-website (https://lecourrierdesstrateges.fr/) who quotes fake news-sites (https://southfront.press, https://avia-pro.fr).
FYI there is no 3rd brigade of the FFL. "it is well known" - really?
Also, could you please repair your now-broken link for "have been deployed in support of the Ukrainian 54th Independent Mechanized Brigade in Slavyansk." in your 05.03 post.
The Facebook post you are quoting is from a channel, I quote "Intro:
a gaming platform used for comedy and opinions out of spontaneous dialogue .. Pubg Mobile by Tencent Public Enemy Clan channel !".
Are you serious?
Between russian, openly pro-russian and PUBG gamer sources, just, wow.
Extensive commentary today by Alexander Mercourius on Stephen's recent comments about the French Foreign Legion and US advisors joining the fighting in Ukraine.
https://beta.locals.com/_/feed?post=5601069
Alexander reports that the Russians through the spokesman Peskov announce they will officially investigate these claims even as Putin himself claims intensified war gaming with tactical nuclear weapons.
Alexander Mercourius speculates that materials may have been leaked to Stephen as a trial balloon to judge their reception by the Russians. Apparently the Kremlin takes these such allegations pretty seriously.
Stephen's a player.
Stephen's a flute player. The 3rd REI which he claims arrived in Eastern Ukraine on april 11, had an exercice in Guyane from April 4 to april 10....
Look there are multiple parts of the 3rd brigade. No flute playing here. Give me a break.
Look, there is no 3rd brigade. It is a regiment, and you do not know shit about its components or where they are.
The fog of war doesn't prevent us from conducting basic smell test. The story never made any sense. France has invested the least into the conflict so far. Why would the French all of a sudden be rushing to the barricades? To defend an American-dominant world order? To protect the legacy of wild-hair British dude? The only logical explanation for Macron's uncharacteristic bellicosity is that Elysee Palace realizes Ukraine is on its last leg and negotiation will start soon. Talks of dispatching troops to Ukraine is just a mean to win them a more prominent seat at the table. The French know perfectly well that involvement of US troops is a non-starter on an election year and the Poles will never do anything without American involvement.
While you are smelling around, you fail to note Macron's threats and his drumbeat for intervention. Do you think he is just hopping up and down for exercise?
Was Vladimir Putin hopping up and down prior to Russia's intervention in Syria? As I recall, all the highly-paid analysts in Washington were saying how it was totally unexpected.
Macron is no Putin; like comparing a garbage collector to a scientist!
Much of the French Foreign Legion just got kicked out of Africa and were replaced by Russian foreign legion equivalents. Not very noteworthy in much of the western press but a big deal in France. Suddenly Macron has a new mission (possibly, sort of, depends on what you mean) for his international special ops forces. His sagging popularity has nothing to do with it of course.
3rd REI was not in Africa, it is tasked to protect the Space Center in Guyane. It had an exercice there until april10. But the author claims it arrived in Eastern Ukraine on April 11.
Bullshit
The third REI of the Foreign legion is an elite jungle fighting unit. The jungles that they operate in are in South America. France's space port is the object of their attention which is located adjacent to jungle in South America. That is their role and has been for years. They actually train other militaries in jungle fighting because of their expertise.
Of all the units available in the French Foreign Legion, the third REI would seem to be the least likely to be sent any where in Eastern Europe to assist local forces in doing what ever it is that the local forces might be doing. For sure, right now there are no militaries in Eastern Europe spending even one minute thinking about getting a little bit better at jungle fighting.
The *Thirteenth* demi-brigade of the French Foreign Legion is in Africa but as far as I know they are still Djibouti. It is possible that some units of the thirteenth brigade were dispatched to Eastern Europe where their desert fighting expertise might be somewhat transferrable in summer conditions there. It is too tiresome to get a real breakdown of which units are where in the French Foreign Legion because it built to be highly mobile. But I doubt the famous third REI is anywhere but in or near a jungle.
Totally agree on the 3rd REI.
As for the 13°DBLE it did quit Djibouti in 2011 and install in mainland France in 2016 after a transit in the UAE.
These troops will be sent to Moldova when the situation in Transdnistria heats up later this summer. That's the real target, I believe. France is reaching for the consolatory prize. It's not going on some suicide mission in the Donbas. It's worth noting that France is among the three European countries (alongside Hungary and Slovakia) to have officials present at Putin's inauguration ceremony today.
You don't have to be 100% perfect, the reason I read everything you write is I choose to read authors who write in what I think is good faith. That is pretty much it. War is hard to cover.
Stephen, thank you for the update here. I think anyone who expects perfect results every time is being kind of precious. I greatly appreciate your perspective and experience.
"The second point is that it is now well known that the Third Brigade of the French Foreign Legion is being trained to intervene in France." I assume here you mean Ukraine...
I will fix that!!!
It is above all well know from anyone with a basic knowledge of the foreign Legion, that the 3rd REI (not a Brigade) is based in Guyane, almost never leaves the area (only deployed in Haiti and in Metropolitan France for Covid support)
It had an exercice in Guyane from April 4 to april 10 , but Stephen claims they arrived in Eastern Ukraine on april 11. Bullshit
Your source is a tweet by Sputnik?
Seriously? That was it? No corroboration, no independent verification, no nothing?
Seems like you got duped.
there is an entire TASS article that covers the Mil bloggers reporting it. Have a nice day.
Why would it be any more credible if there was a TASS article uncritically repeating the exact same blogs
One of the most interesting elements of this conflict has been figuring out which "independent" voice, or telegram channel, or youtube channel, are actually cutouts of Russia, Ukraine, USA, UK, etc.
For example, Seymour Hersh is a vehicle through which dissenting factions from the American national security state communicate their perspective. I suspect both Mearsheimer and Sachs are as well (though Sach less so as he might be a true believer). I believe The Duran has some institutional support as otherwise they'd get deleted. Telegram is a really difficult nut to crack. I don't envy the situation of a professional trying to sift though all the noise in an attempt to find actual honest information from the different states.
I think your point is well taken. At the end of the day you must fall back on your training and experience and your nose, whichever comes first.
Perhaps a good article in the future would be a consideration of the primary communication channels and your perspective on how tightly linked they are to the different warring states.
My perception is that on the "pro-Ru" side there are a lot of deeply passionate and very smart Americans (entirely white, straight, Christian, American men with military or similar backgrounds) who simply hate the national security state and do not have links to Russia. But perhaps I am being naive. On the UKR side, the NAFO thing is clearly astroturf from the top with legions of true believers below. Macgregor, Davis, Larry Johnson, McGovern etc., should have been aggressively purged and destroyed (as was Ritter) long ago but haven't been, which makes me suspicious.
Someone else would have to write it.
Yes yes duly noted.
Well apparently Stephen stirred up an international hornets nest with his reports, valid or not, about French Foreign Legion troops in Ukraine.
Here's a rather dramatic summary of events that followed.... One way or another I think the French and British are starting to walk back some very dangerous talk as a result of these events. Judge for yourself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kza3NgoS4b4