For anybody wondering. France has a strategy of strategic ambiguity. That means they always leave all options open, so they can change their minds and also have the enemy guessing. That is why their are no red lines. It is fundamentally against French strategy. However it does not mean that France sends soldiers to Ukraine or anything like that.

A great example why it makes a lot of sense is Scholz. He was initially against sending Marder, Leopard, artillery and a lot more weapon systems, but later and not even too much later changed his mind. This did piss of countries like Poland and obviously Ukraine for no reason, create bad press and it means that Scholz saying no is somewhat of a temporary thing, which weakens his position in negotitations. If he had said that he has not decided to send those weapons to Ukraine, the entire time, then he would have had a lot less of an issue.

So please do not read too much into this. For France what matters, is if they say they are going to do something., not maybes.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

This does seem to be his political issue of the week. Any support is welcome, but I'm not sure if we can rely on him for it, and no, it's not a good idea to get directly involved, and he knows it.

[–] Questy@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's worthwhile considering the effect of a russian victory. Look at the effect 1.6 million Syrian refugees had on the EU. They fueled exit movements in multiple nations, which Brexit quieted down. They pushed far right parties to the forefront, damaged cohesion and threatened the Union. What would 6 or 7 million pissed off, betrayed, often veteran, Ukrainian refugees do to the cohesion of the EU? It's not a war that Ukraine would lose alone. France is showing the urgency of response the entire democratic world needs to show.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If you're talking about getting directly involved, what would the effects of a nuclear exchange be on European unity?

[–] Noodle07@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

We nuke together we die together

/s obviously

[–] photoncollector@mastodon.social 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

@Noodle07 @CanadaPlus The same as it would quickly be for the population of Canada.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

That is, bad. To be clear, I'm pointing out why that's a bad idea. The rules of cold warfare are pretty established now, let's follow them.