Looking back, one must come to the conclusion that Ukraine was intended as a trap for Russia and Russia took the bait.
Let's summarize:
Russia was invested in Minsk2. Yes, they supported the seperatists in Donbass, but the support was intended to hold off the Ukrainian army. Later, Merkel and Holland confirmed that Minsk2 was only signed to Gi e Ukraine time to build up an army.
Before the war, Russia reached out to NATO and asked for security guarantees, which were ignored.
When the war started, Russia had too few soldiers to occupy Ukraine. Instead, Russia thought they could scare Zelebsky and thus change the government in their favor.
A potential peace deal with Ukraine was sabotaged by Boris Johnson, as we found out.
I remember reading the head of the German secret service was trapped in Kiev when Russia moved in and had to escape by car. I'm sure he wasn't there on vacation.
Let's be honest. Ukraine was set up as a trap for Russia. The West hoped and intended Russia to step in. The West calculated that the sanctions would ruin its economy and thus initiate a loss of the war and a regime change in Moscow. None of this had happened.
Now, the West doesn't know how to get out and here we are.
In the meantime, Zelensky and the West have no problems to sacrifice 600-800k Ukrainian soldiers but somehow the Russians are the bad guys.
If this war proves anything, it is how decadent and hypocritical the West is.
Right on most of the essentials, but it seems yet a bit more complicated than that. I thought I had been following events in Ukraine closely for a long time, and had pretty much convinced myself that I had thought through and understood what I was seeing. However, I just finished Jacques Baud's recent book "The Russian Art of War: How the West Led Ukraine to Defeat", and can highly recommend it. Baud lays everything out quite well, and solidified my thinking on the subject, bringing up a lot of detail I hadn't quite yet managed to put together on my own.
"Shameful" is the only way I can characterize the way that the West has encouraged and enabled those few who constitute the worst elements in Ukrainian politics and society to sell out the rest of their nation, trading half a million ordinary Ukrainians in body bags for the skim on Western "aid" and a commission on asset sales to big Western financial interests.
Without trying to write my own book, one important thing going on is that Ukraine and the US have different goals for this war. Ukraine wanted this war because it thought it could defeat what it believed was a weak Russia and bring down its government, after which Ukraine would be allowed to join NATO. (Arestovich laid this out publicly back in 2019.) The US is (or WAS) not interested in ending this war, only in keeping it going indefinitely to weaken Russia (see the 2019 RAND report). Ukraine lost its original war-making potential a few months into the war, and ever since, has been totally dependent on the West. And now it is almost out of manpower.
Yet it no longer can back out. What do you think would happen if tomorrow morning the Ukrainian leadership class decided to sit down with the Russians and stop the pain? They would need to negotiate from the seat of their private jet while it was on the takeoff roll if they wanted to survive the experience.
I am aware of these facts. Interestingly enough, Arestovich did a 180degree turn, while living in exile.
Not long ago he pointed out that this war is the first war since WW2 where more soldier than civilians died and that Russia has been holding back, protecting Ukrainian civilians. None of the is being addressed in the West.
Russia took the bait? I think you misunderstand the situation. Russia understood quite well that it was being baited, but Russia had two choices of response: (1) acquiesce to Ukraine's application to join NATO and to Ukraine's drive to destroy the Donbas oblasts (Donetsk and Luhansk) which had declared independence, or (2) Defend the Donbas republics and prevent Ukraine's entry into NATO.
To choose Option (1) was unacceptable because it would allow the slaughter of Russian-speaking / Russian-culture people in Donbas and would permit placement of NATO missiles very close to Russia (similar to the Cuban missile crisis); to choose Option (2) was unattractive because it meant entering a proxy war with the US/NATO alliance (disguised as a conflict between Riussia and Ukraine, with Ukraine as the injured party).
It was, essentially, a bear trap for Russia with no good options, and Russia chose the less-worse option of invading Ukraine. In the process, the US assumed that its economic sanctions would cripple Russia and that Russia's military would be no match for the US-reinforced Ukraine military. Both assumptions proved wrong, but the US painted itself into a corner because it had no Plan B in case its initial efforts failed.
And now, as you said, here we are, and the US has no idea how to get out. So it's just pushing forward into the Deep Muddy.
And the rest of us can only hope that it does not all end in a thermonuclear inferno.
I agree with you. The bear trap was done effectively and at one point Russia had only bad choices to make. What could they have done differently? Go in right after Maidan 2014? I suppose the sanctions back then would have been more affective than they are now. Perhaps they could have waited for Ukraine to move into Donbass, so the world could see who's not compliant with Minsk2....In the end, it's all speculation.
It is speculation, as you say, but some observers believe Russia delayed action after 2014 in order to sanction-proof its economy and build up its military strength. I tend to agree with that.
i think the 2 wars are LINKED by design since inception. Can't have the later war in the mideast withOUT the first occupying Russian energy and attention. (at the cost of ~400K Ukrainian men but who counts that in the west !) Western thinking is that wars are free.
You're totally wrong. NATO is inexorably expanding East for decades. Their frank objective was regime change in Russia.
No sovereign nation is going to allow a hostile alliance to gather on their border. Period. Furthermore there was nonstop shelling on the eastern oblasts of the Russian speaking portions of Ukraine. Russia could no longer tolerate those attacks from flat out Nazi elements that had taken over Ukraine with US support.
The homicidal lunatics in the West thwarted every opportunity for peace including Minsk and they March 22 Istanbul agreements. Russia decided to act decisively and the Ukraine problem will be resolved for good not long from now. But the cost was a large loss of life and massive destruction of whole country.
However out of this inferno a new multipolar world order is emerging consisting of the BRICS + nations led by Russia and China. At least some good has come of this terrible tragedy.
I am inclined to agree with you. Kennedy did not fancy a nuclear Cuba in 62 but had to give up same the me in Turkey to resolve the dispute. Have you noticed since the war the obligatory use of the WW2 Stepan Bandera emblem everywhere in Ukraine & the continued admiration for him ? I find it very concerning & distasteful considering what they got up to even without Nazi prompting WW2 ! Just one example of thousands there the horrific LVOV/Lviv (gaza style) pogrom June 1941
Yes. I consider the Cuban missile crisis and the of Bay of Pigs invasion the year before as a sober reminder that events today in Ukraine are a replay of American neocon aggressors eager to provoke a confrontation with Russia.
Six months before his assassination Kennedy publicly proposed an end to the Cold War and fired the homicidal maniacs in the CIA engineering global conflicts, starting with Director Alan Dulles.
President Kennedy was gunned down in broad daylight in what mounted to a faction fight within the perennial Deep State bureaucracy.
Been seeing more and more of this absurd line of thinking floating around. This line of analysis makkes many mistakes but starts with one major flawed assumption - the US/NATO simply did not care enough about Russia to concoct such an risky and elaborate scheme.
I’m sure the Russians felt/feel important enough to warrant such dastardly plotting, but from the US perspective Russia was and remains a third rate, backwards country. DC was (and remains, correctly so!) much more concerned by Xi than by Putin. As John McCain said, Russia is a gas station with nukes.
The truth of course is that Russia had absolutely no need to start this war, but out of hubris initiated it thinking they could bully their neighbor into submission at minimal cost.
Now all these Russia apologists are forced to come up with increasingly far fetched conspiracies to justify this disaster.
Highly unconvincing but I guess there are plenty of folks who will fall for it.
The Russian economy is growing at about 3% a year. The German economy has not grown in about two years and has no prospects going forward.
Germany and most of the west have been exposed. Their post industrial windmill economies can't even produce weapons and ammo to fight the wars they start.
A New World order has emerged from the Ukraine tragedy and that's probably for the best.
Last available gdp by ppp for Russia was 27450 per capita, 53970 for Germany. Not sure what point you’re trying to make?
Regardless, these economic questions do not speak to the actual circumstances leading up to the war, ie, that Russia entered a war of choice out of a sense of misplaced imperial nostalgia and wounded pride. Russia wasn’t baited into this invasion, Putin wanted a war so he manufactured some reasons to start one. Not sure why these elaborate conspiracy theories are necessary.
Thanks, Stephen, for a major news-report. But I still am awaiting validation of your report on April 25th that "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." It was headlined "NATO is starting to deploy Troops in Ukraine and Russia is Racing to Win" but even today's from you isn't any sort of verification of "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." If that news-report from you was false, will you please update it with an explanation of why you had posted it? I had relied upon its veracity in order to headline about it (using yours as the source) "NATO TROOPS START POURING INTO UKRAINE" and am now awaiting your explanation.
Your report on April 25th that "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." seems to be entirely false. Your reply seems off-the-wall irrelevant to that fact, not at all responsive to it.
Completely agree, Eric. There was news weeks or even months ago about French legionaries in Slovansk and elsewhere in the East. This report may relate to old news, which would be as misleading as Bryen’s report from the 25th that you cite and which turned out to be false. Bryen is good on other topics but seems to be on shaky ground with these posts on NATO entry to Ukraine.
If French soldiers were in Slovansk they would have been hit by Iskanders already. There is a fresh report of a missile strike on the city today, but the target is the power plant. At this point I'm ready to dismiss this story as another case of Chinese whispers on the Internet.
Military Summary reported the strike today. Guy actually used the title "French Troops Were Hit In Sloviansk" for the video on the basis of *your article*. I mean, this is completely circular logic. That's the Internet for you.
My rule on everything I write is never to be on shaky ground, which is one reason why I am usually super-cautious about linking to any source. This was the first time ever that I linked to one that turned out to have been untrustworthy (when my "NATO TROOPS START POURING INTO UKRAINE" linked to Stephen's "NATO is starting to deploy Troops in Ukraine and Russia is Racing to Win"). I don't usually rely only on a writer's credentials; but, this time, I did, and I got burned by my repeating (relying upon) what now seems to have been a false story.
Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski of Poland, March 8th, 2024 (the 25th anniversary of Poland’s accession to NATO): "Soldiers from NATO countries are already in Ukraine, and I would like to thank the ambassadors of those countries that took such a risk,”
He did not name the countries that have sent troops to Ukraine.
What Sikorski said there was well known long before he said it, and it was very different from, and has very much less severe implications than does, Breyens's "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."
More and more we’re into pre WW1. Who is going to be assassination that becomes the trigger? Macron Biden the EU NATO all third rate fools. Not a single leader anywhere to be seen. Petulant children just like the nineteenth century European royalty whose military were there play toys.
Thanks PierreA for the explanation, I knew I haven’t been keeping that much up on my French reading and grammar for years, but I usually can extemporize most writings. This one I just didn’t get my head totally conked out bc of the incongruence LOL
That certainly seems to be the case. These cutout non-leaders have little no grasp on how anything works much less military dynamics…they are getting a lot of people killed which might just be the point.
Besides the fact that no evidence or source is provided for the claim that France has formally deployed troops in Ukraine, this paper suffers from several mistakes and imprecisions regarding the French Foreign Legion.
.
First, the Foreign Legion is definitely a part of Frances regular forces. It is under the very same status as any other unit of the French military, and thus, deploying the Légion is a matter of what operational know-how is necessary, and not a matter of lessening the meaningfulness of an alleged deployment nor seeking a lesser political risk. As it happens, the Légion has special know-how and experience directly related to sensitive deployments and to the desire to seek a meaningful effect with a limited number of people involved. This in itself would be far enough of an explanation to justify using the Légion in the alleged deployment in Ukraine.
.
Second, foreign légionnaires need to serve a minimum of 5 years before they can claim French citizenship, not 3 years as written in the paper.
.
Third, the Legion is definitely opened to French citizens, therefore it is wrong to write that besides officers, légionnaires are strictly foreigners. It is especially wrong to make this mistaken assertion in an attempt to imply that légionnaires would be considered as disposable and expendable canon fodder...
In fact, having French men serving in the Legion's ranks is an important fact for the institution, as it makes the integration of foreign recuits easier. And considering that the Légion counts among the French army's most highly capable units, its members are not particularly disposable. They are in fact quite valuable, and an asset not to be used lightly.
.
Fourth, it is a serious misunderstanding of the general perception of the French Foreign Legion among French citizens to assume that they would not care so much if légionnaires were to die in a foreign war. French people, for most of them, consider légionnaires to be their soldiers, children of the French Nation among all others, to be respected and honoured as any member of the French military. There is no form of under-consideration of a légionnaire's dedication and service whatsoever. This mistaken assumption reflects a pretty widespread fantasy among American armchair observers, who do not understand the place of the Légion in French military structures and in the larger representations of French citizens about their military.
.
So, as much as I usually consider Stephen's contributions to be useful because he tends to be well informed, in this case, I'd say the discourse is much too flawed to be valuable.
As a French citizen with some good knowledge of military affairs, I could imagine that such a deployment actually exists, and I could see a number of reason why it would exist. But without evidence, and based on the mistaken allegations made here, I'm seriously unconvinced.
Dear Pierre, I did not say that the French Foreign Legion was not part of the regular military in France, only that its soldiers are mostly not French. I did not say that there were no French citizens in the Legion. You exaggerate and misstate what I wrote. What I read claimed the time served before applying for citizenship was 3 years: I accept that it is, as you say, 5 years. The Legion has been used primarily abroad in expeditionary jobs where it does not use heavy equipment and does not fight classical ground wars. It is, therefore, in my view ill suited to the task in Ukraine. As for the political implications, ask the question in reverse: why didn't Macron send regular army troops? The answer is straightforward. Nonetheless, thank you for some of your observations.
"The Legion today is run by French officers but the rank and file are all foreigners." SO, you did say there were no French citizens in the ranks, only officiers. This is inaccurate.
.
Regarding the time to apply for French citizenship, I should explain further what it means: 5 years being the legal time to be continuously living in France for any foreigner to apply for citizenship, it means that the only advantage a légionnaire gets, is that he can apply after than time even if he spent time abroad during his service, which is some rather obvious accommodation to provide considering that if he spends time abroad it would be in the service of the French military. Then, due to his service, his application is almost always accepted, contrary to other foreigners who will have their cases examined as to make sure they fulfill a number of conditions.
.
" The Legion has been used primarily abroad in expeditionary jobs where it does not use heavy equipment and does not fight classical ground wars. "
This is inaccurate, again. The Legion has been fighting the wars that France has been fighting. When these where wars between near-peers, it meant high intensity wars. But those have not existed in French experience for decades. So the Legion fighting expeditionary wars is simply the Legion fighting the same wars as other units of the French military.
The French legion is composed of about a dozen regiments and units. Some are light infantry regiments, some are armoured infantry equipped with VAB and VBCI, some are paratroopers, at least one is a cavalry regiment which is currently engaged in replacing its AMX-10RC with the new generation Jaguar reconnaissance vehicles, and there are 2 "régiment du génie", or engineering regiments equipped among other things with means to remove destroyed MBTs out of the way, to do demining operations, or to construct bridges for river crossing.
So, while being dedicated to movement and frontline action, and lacking artillery or MBTs, the Legion is equipped with some heavy equipment that fits its missions.
.
"It is, therefore, in my view ill suited to the task in Ukraine."
Possibly. And this should make you question why there may be some of them in Ukraine. No indication from the French government leads to believing that it has prepared to send fighting troops to Ukraine. There is absolutely no form of official plan to deploy thae 1.500 men you're talking about. And from the informaton you give, it is quite possible that only 50 additional men were sent to complement the 100 who may already have been there.
This leads rather to the hypothesis, if in fact these troops are present, that they were sent as part of a weapons package necessitating specialists to operate whatever weapons were provided by France.
.
In other words, I do not see a reason to hypothesize that France has changed the nature of its involvement in any way. Specialists tied to operating systems donated in support of Ukraine have been there for 2 years, from a diversity of countries. This would thus be unrelated to Macron's statements about the hypothetical possibility of deploying larger contingents of troops. In fact, he's largely corrected his previous statements in recent weeks, explaining that while the hypothesis should stand basically as to not insult the future, there is strictly no plan to carry out such deployment for now.
.
"ask the question in reverse: why didn't Macron send regular army troops? "
He DID!! It just happens to be so that they come from a unit of the regular French army known as the Foreign Legion. And that's where you prove my point and you demonstrate further your confusion. The Foreign Legion IS, totally IS, always WAS, will ALWAYS be, regular army troops. It is your totally mistaken interpretation as to the legal and regulatory status of the French Foreign legion, and as to the political value YOU assign to it, that makes you consider it something "irregular".
I've given you all the info you need to correct those mistaken assumptions.
.
I will add one other point, which you should consider as being a possible explanation to the confusion. When Russia claimed to have killed a few dozen French soldiers in Kharkiv about 3 months ago, the French government explained that those where not French troops and where not in Ukraine under French orders. Instead, the French government acknowledged that given the presence of many Ukrainians in the French Foreign legion and given the friendship they have with French other foreign legionaries, many members of the Foreign legions applied for indefinite leave of absence so as to join Ukraine on their own volition. Their demands were accepted.
Which means that their may indeed by a number of légionnaires in Ukraine, while not implying any deployment from France. Those men would not be under French orders, would not be paid by France, and would thus not to be considered French deployment, even though they belong to the French Foreign Legion. This is a most plausible explanation.
You are correct in that I should have said that the non-officers are primarily foreign. The wars France has been fighting are all expeditionary. Mostly in Africa, but French troops were also sent to Afghanistan etc. These were not heavy deployments of land-army class.
It makes little difference how many French troops Macron sends to Ukraine, they will suffer the same fate as Ukrainian militants. This is pure lunacy. Macron should be brokering peace, not doubling down on a lost cause that continues to destroy Ukraine.
I told you this would happen. I wish I were wrong.
If any further proof were needed that Russian dithering was foolish, that the West has already invested so much into Ukraine that the would rather blow us all up than lose, well, here you are.
1. You provide no evidence of the FFL deployment in Ukraine
2. The 3rd REI purpose is to protect Guyana Ariane Launch site, is specialized in jungle warfare, and has no proper artillery. This is the least regiment you would send in Ukraine.
You wrote "What Russia will do in response is not certain.", which is true of the future, in general. Given the purposeful lies spread by govt., media, and individuals, even the "certain" past is not as widely as "certain" as it used to be.
OTOH, I recall that Russian official(s) said French troops deployed into the Ukraine theatre would become priority targets.
A number of analysts suggested the reason to make foreign military troops deployed to Ukraine priority targets was illustrated by the Red Line story about the camel:
The camel's nose sticking into the tent is sure indication that the rest of the camel in not far behind. If the camel's nose is not promptly dealt with, the tent will fill up with camels..
Given the repeated notice of troops to be deployed by Macron, It's logical to believe that Russia strategists have already decided how to respond to the camel's nose.
The ridiculous and squalid idea behind all of this, is that western countries including former east now EU ones, call the Department that oversees the various Armies: Ministry of Defense!
And is even worst that westerners eat and digest this bloody Propaganda, when in the last 80 years none of those countries had a reason to defend themselves.
About Macron, he's a puppet as Scholze is. The criminal axis US/UK/France that defended Israel during Iran retaliation it's a clear proof.
In France, we've been talking for almost 8 years now about the "Ministère des Armées", and not the "Ministère de la Défense". I should know, I work for them...
Does anyone remember Dien Bien Phu? I just had the same feeling reading this headline as I had on the night I read that Russia had moved over the border into Ukraine. The other point is that Ukraine might have got 100 Legionnaires, but Russia got another 50,000 volunteers because of that.
Please remember though, Russia can't afford to have too many casualties. Remember the drop in fertility rate in the 90s caused a demographic crisis. Each death worsens the Russian future. If the war gets out of hand and causes too many Russian casualties, that may have some severe consequences within Russia (potential regime change by hard liners included).
Your comments are always pretty insightful. This terrible crisis you mention was very real. In 1992, I got my first job in Moscow trying to sell advertising for an American outfit that wanted to publish trade journals. So I got a listing of company names and addresses and phone numbers and called and tried to set up a meeting to sell an ad or two. I was just a kid, but I got some meetings. One of them was with Mars, who makes snickers, mars bars, and even Chappi dog food. So the lady who met me asked me a few questions about the magazine and when I answered with some chirpy Americanism, she started crying. She told me that Chappi sales went up at the beginning of the month and asked me to guess why that would be. I didn't know, and she told me that pensioners got their money and then went and bought dog food, not for their dogs, but because it was the cheapest food they could find. Russians are tough, and can sacrifice. They might not have anything, but they know they will always have Russia. I would leave you with another thought. We thought, we were certain, that sanctions would bring Russia to its knees. Did we think that because we understood Russians, or because we know that such sanctions would bring US to OUR knees? I don't know much, but I am certain that our leaders are grossly overestimating our capabilities and have no understanding at all of the capabilities of the Russians.
I agree with you that (a) we don't understand Russia and (b) that we don't want to understand Russia. Beyond that the ideological approach from Washington and NATO is harsh and disturbing. I don't think they are capable of an objective analysis.
I agree with you. We don't understand the Russians. Nobody in the West wanted to believe that the Russians can stomach thousands of dead Russians to protect their vital interests.
David P Goldman quoted a poll a few years ago. Men in Europe were asked whether they would die for their country. 16% of Germans said yes, vs. 65% in Russia.
In addition to that, we in the West call the Russians paranoid, but I'd like to see us in their shoes, especially after Hitler killed 23 Million Soviets within 6 years... Lastly, why wouldn't the Russian be paranoid after the track record of NATO in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lybia.
Yes, I don't know exactly why, but I think of that list of countries, Libya holds special significance. Something happened there that hasn't come out yet, in my opinion. Seymour Hersh mentioned it twice, without specifying what it was exactly. I do know that promises were made by the US to Putin about Libya before Benghazi and were broken almost immediately. Whatever the details, after Libya, Russia no longer had any trust for the US, and started acting accordingly. I hope it comes out someday.
Well, NATO promised to implement a no fly zone but confirmed not to engage militarily, but that's exactly what they did, France and Britain in particular.
Not to mention that France’s 3rd Infantry Regiment is specialized in tropical warfare, like that doesn't make fucking sense to send them to Ukraine. Either Macron is dumb or someone who's reporting on that.
It was mentioned in a comment below that the West wanted to drag this out and ruin the Russian economy. Apparently, none of the Wests strategists ever studied the Russian method of war. They are the masters of attritional warfare. Their goal is to wear down an opponent and inflicting as much damage while protecting their own troops, which they know will also be depleted. Just not as much. A case in point is the Russian KA52 attack helicopter. Arguably as good as our Apache - Difference (?) The KA 52 has a compartment for a field maintenance tool kit/parts so that the pilots can do their own field maintenance. KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) is built in to all their gear.
RUSI just put out a paper saying in a Russian style Attritional war - Nato would lose.
My guess (a bit macabre, but Macron wants that I guess??): similarly as to when the first Western MBT were sent, a price will be put on their heads and they'll be trophy kills soon enough?
Looking back, one must come to the conclusion that Ukraine was intended as a trap for Russia and Russia took the bait.
Let's summarize:
Russia was invested in Minsk2. Yes, they supported the seperatists in Donbass, but the support was intended to hold off the Ukrainian army. Later, Merkel and Holland confirmed that Minsk2 was only signed to Gi e Ukraine time to build up an army.
Before the war, Russia reached out to NATO and asked for security guarantees, which were ignored.
When the war started, Russia had too few soldiers to occupy Ukraine. Instead, Russia thought they could scare Zelebsky and thus change the government in their favor.
A potential peace deal with Ukraine was sabotaged by Boris Johnson, as we found out.
I remember reading the head of the German secret service was trapped in Kiev when Russia moved in and had to escape by car. I'm sure he wasn't there on vacation.
Let's be honest. Ukraine was set up as a trap for Russia. The West hoped and intended Russia to step in. The West calculated that the sanctions would ruin its economy and thus initiate a loss of the war and a regime change in Moscow. None of this had happened.
Now, the West doesn't know how to get out and here we are.
In the meantime, Zelensky and the West have no problems to sacrifice 600-800k Ukrainian soldiers but somehow the Russians are the bad guys.
If this war proves anything, it is how decadent and hypocritical the West is.
Right on most of the essentials, but it seems yet a bit more complicated than that. I thought I had been following events in Ukraine closely for a long time, and had pretty much convinced myself that I had thought through and understood what I was seeing. However, I just finished Jacques Baud's recent book "The Russian Art of War: How the West Led Ukraine to Defeat", and can highly recommend it. Baud lays everything out quite well, and solidified my thinking on the subject, bringing up a lot of detail I hadn't quite yet managed to put together on my own.
"Shameful" is the only way I can characterize the way that the West has encouraged and enabled those few who constitute the worst elements in Ukrainian politics and society to sell out the rest of their nation, trading half a million ordinary Ukrainians in body bags for the skim on Western "aid" and a commission on asset sales to big Western financial interests.
Can you please elaborate on the "more complicated than that" ?
Without trying to write my own book, one important thing going on is that Ukraine and the US have different goals for this war. Ukraine wanted this war because it thought it could defeat what it believed was a weak Russia and bring down its government, after which Ukraine would be allowed to join NATO. (Arestovich laid this out publicly back in 2019.) The US is (or WAS) not interested in ending this war, only in keeping it going indefinitely to weaken Russia (see the 2019 RAND report). Ukraine lost its original war-making potential a few months into the war, and ever since, has been totally dependent on the West. And now it is almost out of manpower.
Yet it no longer can back out. What do you think would happen if tomorrow morning the Ukrainian leadership class decided to sit down with the Russians and stop the pain? They would need to negotiate from the seat of their private jet while it was on the takeoff roll if they wanted to survive the experience.
I am aware of these facts. Interestingly enough, Arestovich did a 180degree turn, while living in exile.
Not long ago he pointed out that this war is the first war since WW2 where more soldier than civilians died and that Russia has been holding back, protecting Ukrainian civilians. None of the is being addressed in the West.
Russia took the bait? I think you misunderstand the situation. Russia understood quite well that it was being baited, but Russia had two choices of response: (1) acquiesce to Ukraine's application to join NATO and to Ukraine's drive to destroy the Donbas oblasts (Donetsk and Luhansk) which had declared independence, or (2) Defend the Donbas republics and prevent Ukraine's entry into NATO.
To choose Option (1) was unacceptable because it would allow the slaughter of Russian-speaking / Russian-culture people in Donbas and would permit placement of NATO missiles very close to Russia (similar to the Cuban missile crisis); to choose Option (2) was unattractive because it meant entering a proxy war with the US/NATO alliance (disguised as a conflict between Riussia and Ukraine, with Ukraine as the injured party).
It was, essentially, a bear trap for Russia with no good options, and Russia chose the less-worse option of invading Ukraine. In the process, the US assumed that its economic sanctions would cripple Russia and that Russia's military would be no match for the US-reinforced Ukraine military. Both assumptions proved wrong, but the US painted itself into a corner because it had no Plan B in case its initial efforts failed.
And now, as you said, here we are, and the US has no idea how to get out. So it's just pushing forward into the Deep Muddy.
And the rest of us can only hope that it does not all end in a thermonuclear inferno.
I agree with you. The bear trap was done effectively and at one point Russia had only bad choices to make. What could they have done differently? Go in right after Maidan 2014? I suppose the sanctions back then would have been more affective than they are now. Perhaps they could have waited for Ukraine to move into Donbass, so the world could see who's not compliant with Minsk2....In the end, it's all speculation.
It is speculation, as you say, but some observers believe Russia delayed action after 2014 in order to sanction-proof its economy and build up its military strength. I tend to agree with that.
i think the 2 wars are LINKED by design since inception. Can't have the later war in the mideast withOUT the first occupying Russian energy and attention. (at the cost of ~400K Ukrainian men but who counts that in the west !) Western thinking is that wars are free.
You're totally wrong. NATO is inexorably expanding East for decades. Their frank objective was regime change in Russia.
No sovereign nation is going to allow a hostile alliance to gather on their border. Period. Furthermore there was nonstop shelling on the eastern oblasts of the Russian speaking portions of Ukraine. Russia could no longer tolerate those attacks from flat out Nazi elements that had taken over Ukraine with US support.
The homicidal lunatics in the West thwarted every opportunity for peace including Minsk and they March 22 Istanbul agreements. Russia decided to act decisively and the Ukraine problem will be resolved for good not long from now. But the cost was a large loss of life and massive destruction of whole country.
However out of this inferno a new multipolar world order is emerging consisting of the BRICS + nations led by Russia and China. At least some good has come of this terrible tragedy.
I am inclined to agree with you. Kennedy did not fancy a nuclear Cuba in 62 but had to give up same the me in Turkey to resolve the dispute. Have you noticed since the war the obligatory use of the WW2 Stepan Bandera emblem everywhere in Ukraine & the continued admiration for him ? I find it very concerning & distasteful considering what they got up to even without Nazi prompting WW2 ! Just one example of thousands there the horrific LVOV/Lviv (gaza style) pogrom June 1941
Yes. I consider the Cuban missile crisis and the of Bay of Pigs invasion the year before as a sober reminder that events today in Ukraine are a replay of American neocon aggressors eager to provoke a confrontation with Russia.
Six months before his assassination Kennedy publicly proposed an end to the Cold War and fired the homicidal maniacs in the CIA engineering global conflicts, starting with Director Alan Dulles.
President Kennedy was gunned down in broad daylight in what mounted to a faction fight within the perennial Deep State bureaucracy.
Been seeing more and more of this absurd line of thinking floating around. This line of analysis makkes many mistakes but starts with one major flawed assumption - the US/NATO simply did not care enough about Russia to concoct such an risky and elaborate scheme.
I’m sure the Russians felt/feel important enough to warrant such dastardly plotting, but from the US perspective Russia was and remains a third rate, backwards country. DC was (and remains, correctly so!) much more concerned by Xi than by Putin. As John McCain said, Russia is a gas station with nukes.
The truth of course is that Russia had absolutely no need to start this war, but out of hubris initiated it thinking they could bully their neighbor into submission at minimal cost.
Now all these Russia apologists are forced to come up with increasingly far fetched conspiracies to justify this disaster.
Highly unconvincing but I guess there are plenty of folks who will fall for it.
A gas station that destroyed two armies in Ukraine and whose economy grew bigger than Germany's, despite rigorous sanctions.
And since when do gas stations have space programs? lol
And even if you were right about Xi being the bigger evil, how stupid does the US administration have to be to push Russia into China's arms? lol.
GDP of Germany is >4 trillion USD
GDP of Russia is ~2 trillion USD
I’m sure the rest of your ‘facts’ are equally accurate
The Russian economy is growing at about 3% a year. The German economy has not grown in about two years and has no prospects going forward.
Germany and most of the west have been exposed. Their post industrial windmill economies can't even produce weapons and ammo to fight the wars they start.
A New World order has emerged from the Ukraine tragedy and that's probably for the best.
K sure
What about PPP, kid?
Last available gdp by ppp for Russia was 27450 per capita, 53970 for Germany. Not sure what point you’re trying to make?
Regardless, these economic questions do not speak to the actual circumstances leading up to the war, ie, that Russia entered a war of choice out of a sense of misplaced imperial nostalgia and wounded pride. Russia wasn’t baited into this invasion, Putin wanted a war so he manufactured some reasons to start one. Not sure why these elaborate conspiracy theories are necessary.
lol.
Thanks, Stephen, for a major news-report. But I still am awaiting validation of your report on April 25th that "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." It was headlined "NATO is starting to deploy Troops in Ukraine and Russia is Racing to Win" but even today's from you isn't any sort of verification of "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." If that news-report from you was false, will you please update it with an explanation of why you had posted it? I had relied upon its veracity in order to headline about it (using yours as the source) "NATO TROOPS START POURING INTO UKRAINE" and am now awaiting your explanation.
The Russian media are carrying the story. The only issue I see is whether the deployment happened now or a few weeks back.
Your report on April 25th that "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." seems to be entirely false. Your reply seems off-the-wall irrelevant to that fact, not at all responsive to it.
Completely agree, Eric. There was news weeks or even months ago about French legionaries in Slovansk and elsewhere in the East. This report may relate to old news, which would be as misleading as Bryen’s report from the 25th that you cite and which turned out to be false. Bryen is good on other topics but seems to be on shaky ground with these posts on NATO entry to Ukraine.
My report was not at all false. The body bags will tell the tale.
Hopefully, yours.
Uncalled for. Bad form.
If French soldiers were in Slovansk they would have been hit by Iskanders already. There is a fresh report of a missile strike on the city today, but the target is the power plant. At this point I'm ready to dismiss this story as another case of Chinese whispers on the Internet.
don't think it came from the Chinese
I will check on the power plant story
Military Summary reported the strike today. Guy actually used the title "French Troops Were Hit In Sloviansk" for the video on the basis of *your article*. I mean, this is completely circular logic. That's the Internet for you.
My rule on everything I write is never to be on shaky ground, which is one reason why I am usually super-cautious about linking to any source. This was the first time ever that I linked to one that turned out to have been untrustworthy (when my "NATO TROOPS START POURING INTO UKRAINE" linked to Stephen's "NATO is starting to deploy Troops in Ukraine and Russia is Racing to Win"). I don't usually rely only on a writer's credentials; but, this time, I did, and I got burned by my repeating (relying upon) what now seems to have been a false story.
I was 100% right on noth articles Nobody burned anybody.
It happened only in your head.
Could you post the source from the Russian media ?
I already did in a reply to another comment.
The only source in Russina Media is Sputnik, saying that the source is steven Bryen...
https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/la-france-a-t-elle-envoye-des-soldats-de-la-legion-etrangere-en-ukraine-20240506_7LS5PUMUPNHHJOUMMN4KEYEWJU/
Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski of Poland, March 8th, 2024 (the 25th anniversary of Poland’s accession to NATO): "Soldiers from NATO countries are already in Ukraine, and I would like to thank the ambassadors of those countries that took such a risk,”
He did not name the countries that have sent troops to Ukraine.
This was in The Kyiv Post March 11th.
What Sikorski said there was well known long before he said it, and it was very different from, and has very much less severe implications than does, Breyens's "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."
Macron keeps pushing the WW3 envelope. As he was probably instructed to do.
Doesn't matter. His orders count just the same.
More and more we’re into pre WW1. Who is going to be assassination that becomes the trigger? Macron Biden the EU NATO all third rate fools. Not a single leader anywhere to be seen. Petulant children just like the nineteenth century European royalty whose military were there play toys.
It doesn't matter whether Macron is a fool or not. His orders count just the same.
catchphrase: "Macron? Il 'est conne!"
You shouldn't attempt to make a French quote if you do not know French. Your sentence, while counting only 3 words, is ungrammatical...
same thing you'd tell Haiti, Ivory Coast, Quebec.....yes....French only for the French. Stuff it. Macron...il est conne.
Let me spell it out for you, you sufficient insufficient...
"Macron il est con", now that's grammatical.
"Ta femme, elle est conne", now that's grammatical too.
"Macron, il est conne", now that's ungrammatical.
.
Don't play clever if you aren't. In your best interest, really.
Thanks PierreA for the explanation, I knew I haven’t been keeping that much up on my French reading and grammar for years, but I usually can extemporize most writings. This one I just didn’t get my head totally conked out bc of the incongruence LOL
That certainly seems to be the case. These cutout non-leaders have little no grasp on how anything works much less military dynamics…they are getting a lot of people killed which might just be the point.
Besides the fact that no evidence or source is provided for the claim that France has formally deployed troops in Ukraine, this paper suffers from several mistakes and imprecisions regarding the French Foreign Legion.
.
First, the Foreign Legion is definitely a part of Frances regular forces. It is under the very same status as any other unit of the French military, and thus, deploying the Légion is a matter of what operational know-how is necessary, and not a matter of lessening the meaningfulness of an alleged deployment nor seeking a lesser political risk. As it happens, the Légion has special know-how and experience directly related to sensitive deployments and to the desire to seek a meaningful effect with a limited number of people involved. This in itself would be far enough of an explanation to justify using the Légion in the alleged deployment in Ukraine.
.
Second, foreign légionnaires need to serve a minimum of 5 years before they can claim French citizenship, not 3 years as written in the paper.
.
Third, the Legion is definitely opened to French citizens, therefore it is wrong to write that besides officers, légionnaires are strictly foreigners. It is especially wrong to make this mistaken assertion in an attempt to imply that légionnaires would be considered as disposable and expendable canon fodder...
In fact, having French men serving in the Legion's ranks is an important fact for the institution, as it makes the integration of foreign recuits easier. And considering that the Légion counts among the French army's most highly capable units, its members are not particularly disposable. They are in fact quite valuable, and an asset not to be used lightly.
.
Fourth, it is a serious misunderstanding of the general perception of the French Foreign Legion among French citizens to assume that they would not care so much if légionnaires were to die in a foreign war. French people, for most of them, consider légionnaires to be their soldiers, children of the French Nation among all others, to be respected and honoured as any member of the French military. There is no form of under-consideration of a légionnaire's dedication and service whatsoever. This mistaken assumption reflects a pretty widespread fantasy among American armchair observers, who do not understand the place of the Légion in French military structures and in the larger representations of French citizens about their military.
.
So, as much as I usually consider Stephen's contributions to be useful because he tends to be well informed, in this case, I'd say the discourse is much too flawed to be valuable.
As a French citizen with some good knowledge of military affairs, I could imagine that such a deployment actually exists, and I could see a number of reason why it would exist. But without evidence, and based on the mistaken allegations made here, I'm seriously unconvinced.
Dear Pierre, I did not say that the French Foreign Legion was not part of the regular military in France, only that its soldiers are mostly not French. I did not say that there were no French citizens in the Legion. You exaggerate and misstate what I wrote. What I read claimed the time served before applying for citizenship was 3 years: I accept that it is, as you say, 5 years. The Legion has been used primarily abroad in expeditionary jobs where it does not use heavy equipment and does not fight classical ground wars. It is, therefore, in my view ill suited to the task in Ukraine. As for the political implications, ask the question in reverse: why didn't Macron send regular army troops? The answer is straightforward. Nonetheless, thank you for some of your observations.
Stephen,
here's how you phrased things :
"The Legion today is run by French officers but the rank and file are all foreigners." SO, you did say there were no French citizens in the ranks, only officiers. This is inaccurate.
.
Regarding the time to apply for French citizenship, I should explain further what it means: 5 years being the legal time to be continuously living in France for any foreigner to apply for citizenship, it means that the only advantage a légionnaire gets, is that he can apply after than time even if he spent time abroad during his service, which is some rather obvious accommodation to provide considering that if he spends time abroad it would be in the service of the French military. Then, due to his service, his application is almost always accepted, contrary to other foreigners who will have their cases examined as to make sure they fulfill a number of conditions.
.
" The Legion has been used primarily abroad in expeditionary jobs where it does not use heavy equipment and does not fight classical ground wars. "
This is inaccurate, again. The Legion has been fighting the wars that France has been fighting. When these where wars between near-peers, it meant high intensity wars. But those have not existed in French experience for decades. So the Legion fighting expeditionary wars is simply the Legion fighting the same wars as other units of the French military.
The French legion is composed of about a dozen regiments and units. Some are light infantry regiments, some are armoured infantry equipped with VAB and VBCI, some are paratroopers, at least one is a cavalry regiment which is currently engaged in replacing its AMX-10RC with the new generation Jaguar reconnaissance vehicles, and there are 2 "régiment du génie", or engineering regiments equipped among other things with means to remove destroyed MBTs out of the way, to do demining operations, or to construct bridges for river crossing.
So, while being dedicated to movement and frontline action, and lacking artillery or MBTs, the Legion is equipped with some heavy equipment that fits its missions.
.
"It is, therefore, in my view ill suited to the task in Ukraine."
Possibly. And this should make you question why there may be some of them in Ukraine. No indication from the French government leads to believing that it has prepared to send fighting troops to Ukraine. There is absolutely no form of official plan to deploy thae 1.500 men you're talking about. And from the informaton you give, it is quite possible that only 50 additional men were sent to complement the 100 who may already have been there.
This leads rather to the hypothesis, if in fact these troops are present, that they were sent as part of a weapons package necessitating specialists to operate whatever weapons were provided by France.
.
In other words, I do not see a reason to hypothesize that France has changed the nature of its involvement in any way. Specialists tied to operating systems donated in support of Ukraine have been there for 2 years, from a diversity of countries. This would thus be unrelated to Macron's statements about the hypothetical possibility of deploying larger contingents of troops. In fact, he's largely corrected his previous statements in recent weeks, explaining that while the hypothesis should stand basically as to not insult the future, there is strictly no plan to carry out such deployment for now.
.
"ask the question in reverse: why didn't Macron send regular army troops? "
He DID!! It just happens to be so that they come from a unit of the regular French army known as the Foreign Legion. And that's where you prove my point and you demonstrate further your confusion. The Foreign Legion IS, totally IS, always WAS, will ALWAYS be, regular army troops. It is your totally mistaken interpretation as to the legal and regulatory status of the French Foreign legion, and as to the political value YOU assign to it, that makes you consider it something "irregular".
I've given you all the info you need to correct those mistaken assumptions.
.
I will add one other point, which you should consider as being a possible explanation to the confusion. When Russia claimed to have killed a few dozen French soldiers in Kharkiv about 3 months ago, the French government explained that those where not French troops and where not in Ukraine under French orders. Instead, the French government acknowledged that given the presence of many Ukrainians in the French Foreign legion and given the friendship they have with French other foreign legionaries, many members of the Foreign legions applied for indefinite leave of absence so as to join Ukraine on their own volition. Their demands were accepted.
Which means that their may indeed by a number of légionnaires in Ukraine, while not implying any deployment from France. Those men would not be under French orders, would not be paid by France, and would thus not to be considered French deployment, even though they belong to the French Foreign Legion. This is a most plausible explanation.
.
You are correct in that I should have said that the non-officers are primarily foreign. The wars France has been fighting are all expeditionary. Mostly in Africa, but French troops were also sent to Afghanistan etc. These were not heavy deployments of land-army class.
I'm not seeing any confirmation that France sent troops to Ukraine yet. Your link doesn't work.
watch the video
you have a fixed view
What Video?
And what view? All I said is I don't see any confirmation French Troops were sent.
What is your source? The first link is broken and this hasn’t been relayed by anyone else.
It makes little difference how many French troops Macron sends to Ukraine, they will suffer the same fate as Ukrainian militants. This is pure lunacy. Macron should be brokering peace, not doubling down on a lost cause that continues to destroy Ukraine.
I told you this would happen. I wish I were wrong.
If any further proof were needed that Russian dithering was foolish, that the West has already invested so much into Ukraine that the would rather blow us all up than lose, well, here you are.
1. You provide no evidence of the FFL deployment in Ukraine
2. The 3rd REI purpose is to protect Guyana Ariane Launch site, is specialized in jungle warfare, and has no proper artillery. This is the least regiment you would send in Ukraine.
Thanks for the confirmation and the details.
You wrote "What Russia will do in response is not certain.", which is true of the future, in general. Given the purposeful lies spread by govt., media, and individuals, even the "certain" past is not as widely as "certain" as it used to be.
OTOH, I recall that Russian official(s) said French troops deployed into the Ukraine theatre would become priority targets.
A number of analysts suggested the reason to make foreign military troops deployed to Ukraine priority targets was illustrated by the Red Line story about the camel:
The camel's nose sticking into the tent is sure indication that the rest of the camel in not far behind. If the camel's nose is not promptly dealt with, the tent will fill up with camels..
Given the repeated notice of troops to be deployed by Macron, It's logical to believe that Russia strategists have already decided how to respond to the camel's nose.
This is disinformation : French government never sent legion troops in Ukraine.
Please be precise…
The ridiculous and squalid idea behind all of this, is that western countries including former east now EU ones, call the Department that oversees the various Armies: Ministry of Defense!
And is even worst that westerners eat and digest this bloody Propaganda, when in the last 80 years none of those countries had a reason to defend themselves.
About Macron, he's a puppet as Scholze is. The criminal axis US/UK/France that defended Israel during Iran retaliation it's a clear proof.
Hmm... maybe check your information first...
.
In France, we've been talking for almost 8 years now about the "Ministère des Armées", and not the "Ministère de la Défense". I should know, I work for them...
Does anyone remember Dien Bien Phu? I just had the same feeling reading this headline as I had on the night I read that Russia had moved over the border into Ukraine. The other point is that Ukraine might have got 100 Legionnaires, but Russia got another 50,000 volunteers because of that.
Please remember though, Russia can't afford to have too many casualties. Remember the drop in fertility rate in the 90s caused a demographic crisis. Each death worsens the Russian future. If the war gets out of hand and causes too many Russian casualties, that may have some severe consequences within Russia (potential regime change by hard liners included).
Your comments are always pretty insightful. This terrible crisis you mention was very real. In 1992, I got my first job in Moscow trying to sell advertising for an American outfit that wanted to publish trade journals. So I got a listing of company names and addresses and phone numbers and called and tried to set up a meeting to sell an ad or two. I was just a kid, but I got some meetings. One of them was with Mars, who makes snickers, mars bars, and even Chappi dog food. So the lady who met me asked me a few questions about the magazine and when I answered with some chirpy Americanism, she started crying. She told me that Chappi sales went up at the beginning of the month and asked me to guess why that would be. I didn't know, and she told me that pensioners got their money and then went and bought dog food, not for their dogs, but because it was the cheapest food they could find. Russians are tough, and can sacrifice. They might not have anything, but they know they will always have Russia. I would leave you with another thought. We thought, we were certain, that sanctions would bring Russia to its knees. Did we think that because we understood Russians, or because we know that such sanctions would bring US to OUR knees? I don't know much, but I am certain that our leaders are grossly overestimating our capabilities and have no understanding at all of the capabilities of the Russians.
I agree with you that (a) we don't understand Russia and (b) that we don't want to understand Russia. Beyond that the ideological approach from Washington and NATO is harsh and disturbing. I don't think they are capable of an objective analysis.
I agree with you. We don't understand the Russians. Nobody in the West wanted to believe that the Russians can stomach thousands of dead Russians to protect their vital interests.
David P Goldman quoted a poll a few years ago. Men in Europe were asked whether they would die for their country. 16% of Germans said yes, vs. 65% in Russia.
In addition to that, we in the West call the Russians paranoid, but I'd like to see us in their shoes, especially after Hitler killed 23 Million Soviets within 6 years... Lastly, why wouldn't the Russian be paranoid after the track record of NATO in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lybia.
Yes, I don't know exactly why, but I think of that list of countries, Libya holds special significance. Something happened there that hasn't come out yet, in my opinion. Seymour Hersh mentioned it twice, without specifying what it was exactly. I do know that promises were made by the US to Putin about Libya before Benghazi and were broken almost immediately. Whatever the details, after Libya, Russia no longer had any trust for the US, and started acting accordingly. I hope it comes out someday.
Well, NATO promised to implement a no fly zone but confirmed not to engage militarily, but that's exactly what they did, France and Britain in particular.
Your reports are such blatant fake news that even your about page got cancelled at York Institute:
https://yorktowninstitute.org/fellows/stephen-bryen/
Not to mention that France’s 3rd Infantry Regiment is specialized in tropical warfare, like that doesn't make fucking sense to send them to Ukraine. Either Macron is dumb or someone who's reporting on that.
It was mentioned in a comment below that the West wanted to drag this out and ruin the Russian economy. Apparently, none of the Wests strategists ever studied the Russian method of war. They are the masters of attritional warfare. Their goal is to wear down an opponent and inflicting as much damage while protecting their own troops, which they know will also be depleted. Just not as much. A case in point is the Russian KA52 attack helicopter. Arguably as good as our Apache - Difference (?) The KA 52 has a compartment for a field maintenance tool kit/parts so that the pilots can do their own field maintenance. KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) is built in to all their gear.
RUSI just put out a paper saying in a Russian style Attritional war - Nato would lose.
My guess (a bit macabre, but Macron wants that I guess??): similarly as to when the first Western MBT were sent, a price will be put on their heads and they'll be trophy kills soon enough?
Perhaps. But if you think that this is the end of western escalation, then you are high.