Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

France and Russia in the 21st C. ?

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
Probably the most notorious was Bach-Zelewski who commanded the suppression of the Warsaw Uprising. Another was Skorzeny. But it’s not just in those units, but across German society as a whole.

Kaminsky probably wins that dubious badge.

I guess that, having collectively wrecked Europe's energy supply through green zealotry, France is hoping to get some of that nice Russian gas that keeps Germany afloat.

France led the 80's charge for alternative energy sources away from coal-fired power stations. One of the reasons for the French equivalent of the 'Rust belt', up in Northern France. - 'Parmi Les Chtis'

Probably more dependent on Nuclear energy than anywhere else in Yurp right now. The Greens loathe nuclear.

So far to my knowledge, France has only one tidal energy system - The Rance.
Unsighted on their take-up of wind power thus far.

( Interestingly The Economist tells me China has doubled its Nuclear energy output in the last five years....maybe they're also getting the message)

Last time I was in Germany ( 2009) I noticed wind farms were starting to proliferate. Denmark had offshore wind turbines in 1983.....
 
Last edited:
...............Let's not forget that this huge country has the same GDP as Spain and that apart from exploiting Western blunders and using Cyber attacks and Hybrid warfare on the fringes of the Russian empire, Putin is not in position to roll his armored divisions across the Fulda Gap like his predecessors were.

Very true. Currently there is no direct threat to France from Russia, just as there is no direct threat to the U.K. or the USA.

However, there is a constant indirect threat, as in the “Muscovite Mindset” (I have fully explained this in other threads) which guides the policy making of the Kremlin, there is the perception of an existential threat to its rule (which it conflates with an existential threat to Russia) from any country not under its control or influence.

Thus, it will continue to try to undermine and weaken, by any means possible, every country it perceives to be a potential threat. This effectively means all independent ones with the means to be a threat, including and especially neighbouring ones which demonstrate that a pluralistic political system is a viable alternative to Kremlin led autocracy.

How I see it, is that although not all French politicians recognise this threat or the seriousness of it; many, if not most, do. That notwithstanding, most also believe in engaging with Moscow, especially in foreign policy areas where they believe an immediate benefit outweighs a possible longer term downside. This coincides with a view that France is still a “Grande Puissance” and that it can still maintain a certain geopolitical independence of action.

It has been willing to “put its money where its mouth is” in this respect by maintaining its own independent nuclear deterrent, maintaining its own technological capability (particularly aerospace), subsidising far-flung territories and dependencies worldwide, maintaining influence in its former colonies, intervening militarily where required, supplying troops for UN missions, maintaining capable, experienced and well equipped armed forces and participating in joint political and military structures, alliances and missions where it believes it is necessary and in its interest. It is thus relatively well placed to maintain its permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

Having been practically almost completely sidelined by its leadership’s decision to acquiesce to Nazi Germany, in 1940; it has managed remarkably well to climb out of this abyss and re-establish itself as a world player.

Later edited to add: This, despite the setbacks it endured with regards to its policies in Indochina and Algeria where topically its enemies in both of these conflicts were materially and politically supported by Moscow and its proxies in France itself (the French Communist Party).
 
Last edited:
Very true. Currently there is no direct threat to France from Russia, just as there is no direct threat to the U.K. or the USA.

However, there is a constant indirect threat, as in the “Muscovite Mindset” (I have fully explained this in other threads) which guides the policy making of the Kremlin, there is the perception of an existential threat to its rule (which it conflates with an existential threat to Russia) from any country not under its control or influence.

Thus, it will continue to try to undermine and weaken, by any means possible, every country it perceives to be a potential threat. This effectively means all independent ones with the means to be a threat, including and especially neighbouring ones which demonstrate that a pluralistic political system is a viable alternative to Kremlin led autocracy.

How, I see it is that although not all French politicians recognise this threat or the seriousness of it; many, if not most, do. That notwithstanding, most also believe in engaging with Moscow, especially in foreign policy areas where they believe an immediate benefit outweighs a possible longer term downside. This coincides with a view that France is still a “Grande Puissance” and that it can still maintain a certain geopolitical independence of action.

It has been willing to “put its money where its mouth is” in this respect by maintaining its own independent nuclear deterrent, subsidising far-flung territories and dependencies worldwide, maintaining influence in its former colonies, intervening militarily where required, supplying troops for UN missions, maintaining capable, experienced and well equipped armed forces and participating in joint political and military structures, alliances and missions where it believes it is necessary and in its interest. It is thus relatively well placed to maintain its permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

Having been practically almost completely sidelined by its leadership’s decision to acquiesce to Nazi Germany, in 1940; it has managed remarkably well to climb out of this abyss and re-establish itself as a world player.

Wouldn't have said it better myself !
 
Wouldn't have said it better myself !
I’m not French, not even a Dual-National, but I have served under French Colours and I have a long-term and abiding interest in History and Geopolitics. Credit given where credit is due, uninfluenced by nationalist blinkers.
 
Kaminsky probably wins that dubious badge.
Although the surname denotes probable Polish origin, he was a Russian. His unit was guilty of some of the worst atrocities.
 
Last edited:

miner69er

Old-Salt
I think they are lining up the ducks to slap the Turkish. Macron being called a mental patient by Erdogan who is flexding his muscles in attempt to be thought of better than Attaturk.
Macron and Putin are not happy about Turkish expansion plans in Syria as well as helping their muslim bruvs out in nagorno-karabakh. Its building up and not looking healthy
 
I think they are lining up the ducks to slap the Turkish. Macron being called a mental patient by Erdogan who is flexding his muscles in attempt to be thought of better than Attaturk.
Macron and Putin are not happy about Turkish expansion plans in Syria as well as helping their muslim bruvs out in nagorno-karabakh. Its building up and not looking healthy

If Trump is ousted, putting Erdogan back in his box should be much easier. So far, the USA has basically given him a free rein in the name of containing Russian expansion.

The positive side to Turkey's antics has been a realignment of France and Italy's aims in the Med after years of sterile opposition.

 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
Every new US Administration offers France a chance to regain their former position, largely forfeited in 1991.

Trump is gone - he just hasn't grasped reality yet .

How's the Macron/Biden axis looking from a French perspective?
 
Every new US Administration offers France a chance to regain their former position, largely forfeited in 1991.

Trump is gone - he just hasn't grasped reality yet .

How's the Macron/Biden axis looking from a French perspective?
France has always seen itself as rather less obliged to follow the US line.

One has to remember that if senior US policy makers had their way in 1944, the Vichy government would have been recognised as the legitimate power in France. Now that would have made it far more of a US dependency.

De Gaulle had other ideas and was supported by Churchill.

The most accessible and readable account of this is in the book: "1945, The War That Never Ended" (also published as "Poisoned Peace, 1945, The War That Never Ended") by Gregor Dallas which includes full references and bibliography.

For the uninitiated, this book is a real eye-opener on several inter-related historical topics.
 
Last edited:

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
I'll take a look
 

Latest Threads

Top