Some 2,000 soldiers would be sent in the “initial stage” of the operation, Sergey Naryshkin said
France is preparing its forces for deployment to Ukraine, the head of Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) Sergey Naryshkin claimed in a statement on Tuesday. Paris allegedly seeks to send as many as 2,000 troops to Ukraine, he said.
French President Emmanuel Macron said last month that he “cannot exclude” the possibility of Western soldiers being sent to aid Kiev in its fight against Moscow, branding Russia an “adversary” while denying Paris was “waging war” against it.
In the statement on Tuesday, the SVR chief said the French Armed Forces had become “concerned” about the rising number of French [mercenary] nationals dying in Ukraine.
The casualty level has supposedly surpassed a “psychological threshold” and could trigger protests, the statement said, adding that Macron’s government was concealing this information and “delaying” the moment it would have to be revealed.
According to the spy chief, the French military is worried about the government’s plans to send the contingent to Ukraine, considering that such an operation would be difficult to conduct without Russia noticing.
The French soldiers would indeed become “a legitimate priority target for attacks by the Russian Armed Forces,” Naryshkin said.
The claims come as the chief of staff of the French Army, Gen. Pierre Schill, said in an interview on Tuesday that France is prepared to take part in the “toughest engagements” militarily, and is ready to face any international developments. He added that Paris could assemble a division of 20,000 troops within 30 days and an army of 60,000 by joining with divisions from other NATO allies.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has also claimed this week that Western mercenaries, including French nationals, are dying in Ukraine “in large numbers.” Commenting on a potential NATO deployment to Ukraine, the president also warned that this would be “one step shy of a full-scale World War III.”
(non-archived link: https://www.rt.com/news/594517-france-prepare-deploy-troops-ukraine/)
I tend to agree. Though I will also mention that the problem with using nuclear weapons is it's a bigger slap in the face to the west than non-nuclear. There would be a feeling among some of these deranged liberals that they're letting Russia get away with using nukes (whereas now the claim is they're letting them get away with nuclear blackmail so there kind of is no winning with these irrational people who seem high on their own supply of propaganda) and that it demands a response in kind or else Euro-liberals will forever live in the shadow of that and then more hand-wringing and pitiful weeping about how Europe is a garden and it's worth dying over.
I'm just concerned once you get to this point of troops there, that there are increasingly no off-ramps short of intelligence agencies or the military murdering their own leaders to stop them. Because the political leaders won't back down under normal circumstances. Once they've committed it's a matter of their pride, their next election, and in their mind national pride, liberal pride, rules based order pride. And backing down is seen as a humiliation, a capitulation. I admit things would change if Russia could suppress entirely or nearly entirely France's nuclear strike capability and say air-burst a nuclear weapon outside Paris to intentionally cause an EMP effect to bring down the power grid and electronics but not directly kill that many people. Something to really bring home the war to the people and politicians and terrify them of their lives without spilling tons of blood that needs avenging as it were. But I just don't know. This is getting scary.
The first part is what I was just thinking about as well. Avoiding a nuclear strike by using conventional strikes while striking nukes to really send the message, and if they can destroy enough of if it they can just say that MAD doesn't work between them anymore and ask for terms for peace, like France getting out of NATO or something like that.
But about the EMP that could be a good idea, specially considering the damage that could cause to the EU's economy if it destroys many factories and such. Althou I'm not sure how much damage it would do to nearby countries as I think the it needs to be blown up quite high up and has a big range but I might be mistaken.
Personally I would be surprised if any of this happens. The West's weapons, armor, style of fighting, psychology, and availability of willing and able recruits has already been exposed again and again as laughably bad. They have spent the last half century bullying vulnerable countries, occupying and fighting insurgencies, they are completely out of their element fighting a near-peer adversary. Their technology is overpriced, overengineered junk. They are running out of money and all of their industry and access to raw resources has been outsourced over the decades across the world, much of which supports Russia implicitly or explicitly. Like all fascists they are irrational, arrogant, narrow sighted, cowardly, and cultish. The cost for all these factors have been the terrible casualty rate inflicted not just on the Ukranian army but on all the mixed NATO mercenaries and NATO officials who have been training, arming, and supporting the Ukranians.
If the war drums rolled loud and an overwhelming coalition of NATO formed and resolutely plunged headfirst into war with Russia, the scenario would be much more contentious and unstable. However, if they are hindered by their own nominally war weary populaces, and can only give a few thousand at a time, treading softly because they are scared shitless of the consequences, they are doing nothing but weakening themselves at a rate that Russia can easily absorb.
I appreciate your optimism, but like an injured gazelle, the west is still dangerous.
More like an injured, rabid dog...yes, i agree. Especially in a more nuclear discussion.