- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
PARIS, Feb 26 (Reuters) - France’s President Emmanuel Macron said on Monday there was no consensus on sending troops to Ukraine, but the subject could not be ruled out.
“There is no consensus at this stage… to send troops on the ground,” Macron said after hosting some 20 countries allied to Ukraine.
“Nothing should be excluded. We will do everything that we must so that Russia does not win.”
Saved you a click.
Yes, that’s it. That’s the entire “article”. A total of 4 sentences. What exactly was the point of writing such a short article?Edit: pulled my head out of my ass.
What exactly was the point of writing such a short article?
-
Reuters is first and foremost a wire service
-
This statement is more important than most anything else Reuters will publish today.
In conclusion, pull your head out of your ass.
Noted. If this is what people expect (and/or want) from Reuters, then it’s none of my business how much they put in a single article. Have a nice day.
@malijaffri Really, though. Reuters is and has always been a tiny bite of news wire service - - meaning that what they do is limited to snippets of pertinent information that could be easily transmitted over a telegraph wire in old timey days.
They’ve stuck to that style since forever. The idea is to get the base of the story out quickly and succinctly, and honestly, how much more do you really require, here? It’s a pretty straightforward quote, with no written plans in place, but… Newsworthy.
That’s what Reuters does.
Yo, but seriously. If you like having your head in your ass, you should do it. Empower yourself and don’t let anyone yuck your yum.
It can lead to quite severe back pain though, so it’s something you do in your youth and then you have to stop.
For real, we’re not here to kinkshame
-
deleted by creator
NATO is a defensive alliance. If France went to Ukraine, other members wouldn’t have to follow, only if it spills back into NATO territory and the corresponding member state requests aid.
It’s the same thing as when not many nations followed the Yanks on their Middle Eastern adventures.
only if it spills back into NATO territory and the corresponding member state requests aid.
Which without a shadow of a doubt would happen. That’s what I’m getting at
It’s the same thing as when not many nations followed the Yanks on their Middle Eastern adventures.
You mean NONE of the times?
Which without a shadow of a doubt would happen. That’s what I’m getting at
Not necessarily. Russians attacking Poland in response to a limited French deployment would cross an actual red line, that would force every NATO nation, even Hungary, even the US, to intervene directly.
It would turn the logic of the war around, with Russia being the country being struck from places they can’t retaliate at.
You mean NONE of the times?
I mean they are not obligated to. Look at Yemen. Do you see Finnish and Polish forces there? If NATO was involved, you would.
What I’m alluding to is the fact that if one member of NATO goes to war, every other member has to.
Very interesting “fact”. Did it appear to you in a dream?
Because that won’t escalate things at all…
If all Russia has to do to get people to back off is cry “escalation!” Then might as well just surrender to them now.
Russia could deescalate quite easily…
I’d imagine any path to end Russia’s attacks can be construed as escalation
Russian Agent
I swear these people just want war. How do you think Putin’s going to react to that? France and Germany have been pushing too hard for my liking to beef up weapons manufacturing. It’s as if someone told them war=profits and rebuilding afterwards=profits and a nice way to get rid of an entire generation of problems.
Maybe someone should thell them the current generation isn’t ready to mindlessly throw their lives away for these aholes. Or you know do your effing job and be a diplomat?
Russia can end this in a day by withdrawing their aggressive seizure of sovereign Ukrainian territory.
Giving away your money and weapons for free is not a very good way to make money imo
Russian agent
They want profits, if that involves war, so be it.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Another war in Europe would wreck the place, like the last two times it happened, it would cost hundreds of billions to repair and rebuild. No one is making money out of this.
No troops without negotiations has to be the stance. Putin and Zelenski at a table
Just so you don’t further embarrass yourself you should know that Russia is not interested in negotiation.
The addition of more troops would undoubtedly be a large escalation resulting in further mobilisation in Russia. If you were a french soldier, would you be willing to go to the front without some much more serious negotiations occuring? Have we learned nothing since 9/11 and fighting on foreign soil?
Yes of course they would that’s why they’re in the military because they are happy to risk their lives for their nation security. It’s not like they get asked every time there’s a conflict.
I feel like you’re trying to make some sort of point, but it’s so muddy as to be completely incomprehensible. Russia, as in Putin, is not willing to negotiate so what exactly are you expecting to happen here.
Additionally I have no idea what 9/11 is supposed to have to do with this given the fact that France had nothing to do with that conflict. That comment seems to have been thrown in there for literally no reason.
Ukraine is soon to be part of the EU, so foreign territory is debatable
There’s nothing to discuss.
Putin invaded a sovereign country and the only acceptable outcome is returning all of Ukraine’s lost territory including Crimea, Ukraine should have to sacrifice absolutely nothing.
That doesn’t require a discussion, it requires Putin to pack up and leave.
