7 ms·
> but also Turkey or a North African country. What? Turkey is separated from France by half a dozen countries, all of which would severely object to Turkish fo
by zabzonk 6y ago
> but also Turkey or a North African country.
What? Turkey is separated from France by half a dozen countries, all of which would severely object to Turkish forces passing through them, and other NATO states would also have severe objections to such a conflict. And no North African states have any significant amphibious capability - there is a sea between North Africa and France, you know.
- reducesuffering 6y agoDo you think if Turkey invaded a nearby country like Greece or Armenia, that France would do nothing?
- eloff 6y agoGreece is a EU member state. The whole EU would react to such a thing - which is why Turkey would never do something that dumb. Russia, ever the villain (and oft deserved) is also not dumb. The most likely flashpoints for major conflict in my eyes are Pakistan - India, India - China, and China - Taiwan. It's a stretch to picture the French getting involved in any of those. Major conflict in Europe just doesn't seem likely to me.
- realusername 6y ago> Greece is a EU member state. The whole EU would react to such a thing - which is why Turkey would never do something that dumb. That's exactly because EU members would react that Turkey doesn't do it and preparing for this scenario is exactly how you prevent it.
- reducesuffering 6y agoUnless you don't consider it major, I think you're missing the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict that just happened 6 months ago, with a huge ability to spiral out of control, cause a humanitarian crisis, which Turkey will definitely get involved in supporting Azerbaijan. There is now really bad blood between ethnic Armenians and Azerbaijanis, and Armenians still live in Nagorno-Karabakh, currently only safeguarded by Russian troops. That situation is still a tinderbox until an actual resolution is achieved and generations have passed.
- eloff 6y agoI wouldn't describe that as major (I wasn't aware of it) but it looks like a mess.
- wavefunction 6y agoTurkey was already involved in recent hostilities. Armenia alleged Turkish troops and air support were involved in the fighting in December while Azerbaijan claims Turkish involvement was limited to "military advisors".
- dmos62 6y agoMajor conflict is a relative term, but I'd call Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine and Armenia major conflicts that happened in Europe within last ~20 years.
- eloff 6y agoThose are not the kind of major WWII style conflicts discussed in the article.
- astrobe_ 6y agoI believe it did not escalate to a major conflict because UE carefully avoided it. Ukraine, in my profane view, was clearly a casus belli for UE, as this country, IIRC, was seriously considering joining the UE and UE members were not objecting (unlike for Turkey - some say this rejection was the cause of Erdogan).
- tablespoon 6y ago>> Major conflict is a relative term, but I'd call Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine and Armenia major conflicts that happened in Europe within last ~20 years. > Those are not the kind of major WWII style conflicts discussed in the article. WWII-style conflicts are an especially major type. They were so unusually major that the "world war" moniker was coined for them, because calling them a plain "war" just wouldn't do, and anything similarly unusually major would probably be cataclysmic at this point. I don't think that should be the threshold for calling something "major."
- tomjen3 6y agoI am not sure Russia would not attempt to take the Baltics. They directly border Russia, has previously been a part of the Soviet Union, etc. It would depend entirely on how Europe and the US reacts of course. If Europe stand united then Russia would stay out. If the US was willing to get involved then Russia would stay out. Possibly France and Poland could stop Russia from taking the Baltics, but I don't think so. I would have said Turkey wouldn't do anything, but with Erodogan I don't know any longer. As for major conflicts in Europe, I have seen, stood on and crawled in the bunkers from the Atlantic wall (not hard, they are still very much a part of the landscape here in Denmark) I have seen the beeches in Normandy that are still marked by shell holes (or possibly granade holes). It is a nice reminder that major conflicts really did happen there. I too used to think they would not happen in Europe ever again, because we could always count on the US as the backer of the peace and then nobody else would do anything. That got a shock on 9/11, and then the deal (which to be fair was never very good for the US) got a serious wack with the Trump administration. Without guaranteed US backing, the peace in Europe seems a lot less solid. A united Europe (especially with the ability to buy weapons from the US, which I don't think is going to be an issue) is still very strong (and Russia isn't), but Europe is not united in much. And the public certainly isn't going to be happy with large scale war. We like our public safety nets, easy lives and long summers just as much as the next person. Anyway that is a long armchair comment about the sentiment here in Europe.
- eloff 6y agoI think we can get some idea of what Russia would risk from how the acted with the Ukraine. Shadow warfare, proxy warfare, territory annexation. It would be a serious escalation in strategy and risk to invade and annex a Baltic state. It seems unlikely to me, for what it's worth. Turkey is expanding their influence on their neighborhood, but they won't seek out conflict with the EU, that's suicide. Turkey and Russia could be a problematic situation though. They're similarly sized economies, although Russia has a serious military advantage.
- reducesuffering 6y ago> Turkey and Russia could be a problematic situation though. They're similarly sized economies, although Russia has a serious military advantage. Russia's GDP is twice the size of Turkey. Russia is more similar to UK/France/Canada than Turkey.[0] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- zabzonk 6y agoI think a lot of NATO and EU states would do something, which is why it is almost certainly not going to happen.
- dghf 6y agoTurkey and Greece are both members of NATO, so if they went to war, would the remaining NATO states have to sit it out? Or would one of the two be designated the aggressor, and the rest of NATO obliged to come to the aid of the other?
- zabzonk 6y ago> if they went to war, would the remaining NATO states have to sit it out An interesting question, which i think you would need some legal expert on the NATO treaties to explicate. But mercifully for 50 years or so they haven't ever done such a thing, and I don't see the military forces of either country wanting to. The bonkers Turkish leadership is another matter, but the Turkish (and Greek, to be honest) military have a tendency to remove inconvenient leaders.
- aksss 6y agoNATO commits members to protect each other. If one member invaded another, it seems like a pretty clear violation of the treaty. In other words, grounds for being expelled from pact, so no more conflict about the remaining members coming to the invaded party’s aid.
- tomjen3 6y agoThere is a huge different between Greece and Armenia in that case. Greece is EU and western. Armenia, I don't think most people even know where it is (I certainly don't, no offense to anybody from Armenia).
- EliRivers 6y agoIt's OK, France delivers. France will go to where the war is; which is a lot harder than it sounds. There are very few nations in the world capable of sustained, global, serious power projection, and France is one of them.
- zabzonk 6y agoWhat, with one ageing aircraft carrier?
- EliRivers 6y agoIf needs be. They ran a ferocious pace of sorties for an extended period from off the coast of Libya a bit under a decade ago, and since then it's not exactly been sitting on the sidelines; the aircraft, the carrier, the weapons and the logistics. That experience is still present in the personnel, the carrier is still operational, they've still got the air power to go with it. Basically, yes. They can and will. That's real, proven, global power projection. The number of other countries in the world capable of that can be counted on the fingers of one hand. What, with one ageing aircraft carrier? The way you ask that question suggests that the answer should be "no"; but it's not. The answer is "yes".
- zabzonk 6y ago> That's real, proven, global power projection No, it isn't. Libya is just across the Med from France, not in the Pacific. > The number of other countries in the world capable of that can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Well, really on one finger.
- EliRivers 6y agoLibya is just across the Med from France, not in the Pacific. They didn't walk the resupply over. They have ships, they have friendly nations, they have the financing to purchase what they need, they have a real logistics organisation capable of resupplying globally. How inconvenient for this discussion that Libya wasn't on the other side of the planet, but there it is. Well, really on one finger. This is incorrect. Perhaps you're thinking of the USA, which is an order of magnitude more capable than any other. They are not, however, the only nation capable of delivering sustained global power projection.
- Mediterraneo10 6y agoThe reason that France is concerned about conflicts in North Africa states is not because those countries have amphibious military capability and can strike metropolitan France. It is (besides the cynical suspicion that France likes maintaining some economic hegemony over its former colonies) because every North African conflict sends another wave of refugees and economic migrants north towards Europe.
- iSnow 6y agoI am not totally sure but I read it in a way they are preparing for a major war, not necessarily an invasion of France. But if Turkey hypothetically starts occupying Greece islands or Russia one of the Baltics AND at the same time, the USA is unwilling or incapable of intervention, it probably would be France and the UK to fight at the front lines.
- dmos62 6y agoFrance, UK, and the rest of NATO, I guess.
- BenoitP 6y agoTurkey is part of NATO at the moment, so it would not trigger an automatic NATO-wide engagement. But for a Baltics invasion, it would.
- slowmovintarget 6y agoThis would mean the disintegration of NATO, and likely at a time when China also decides to move on Taiwan. It's also unclear whether the US has the will to do more than protest strongly at UN meetings.
- aksss 6y agoI, for one, look forward to Europe reasserting itself globally. They’ve been in time-out long enough. Sure it leads to great domestic social programs while their neighboring regions burn or are managed by others, but they could be doing more for the world than convening accords, agreements and half-hearted condemnations nobody really takes seriously. They’re the Floyd[0] of global politics, laying on the couch smoking pot while reminding you to buy some cleaning products while you’re out. [0] https://youtu.be/nIA-5l4tRyY https://youtu.be/nIA-5l4tRyY
- zabzonk 6y agoWell, Turkey did invade a Mediterranean island - Cyprus, and the UK, France and the USA made no military response (despite the UK having significant military presence in the south of the island) - they did institute a lot of half-hearted economic sanctions.
- pjc50 6y agoPossibly at some point their response to the Mediterranean refugee crisis will be to invade Libya rather than just bomb it.
- nabla9 6y agoEU has mutual defense clause just like NATO. France is strong proponent of the clause and the only country to ever invoke it. France is also NATO member like Turkey. But if Turkey and Greece go into war with each other, sides are taken. Greece is EU member, Turkey is not.
- ericmay 6y agoGreece would fall under NATO protection in this scenario (plus EU) as it's a member of NATO. NATO is a defensive pact, so I think attacking a NATO member (even if you're a NATO member) likely results in NATO action against the aggressor.
- nabla9 6y agoNATO has not rules for war between members. When NATO's Article 5 (mutual defense) is invoked, all decisions require consensus so that does not work. When Greece-Turkey conflicts have happened in the past, NATO members have used strong diplomatic pressure. Turkey might be booted from NATO if war escalates. France has made its choice clear. They are protecting Greece against Turkey. (1) France challenges Turkey’s territorial and resource claims. (2) French have conducted a joint military exercise with Greece and Cyprus as message to Turkey.
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoWhen did France invoke the EU's mutual defense clause?
- nabla9 6y ago2015 after the Paris attacks.
- gh-throw 6y agoThe US is separated from Iraq by half a world, but invaded it twice. France still has a top-10 military and maybe the most effective overseas force projection capabilities outside the US and Great Britain (maybe China, we'll see how effective their navy is, sooner or later). Not to mention a long-standing nuclear arsenal. If Europe—any of it, at least in the EU or NATO—is attacked from the East, the French will be on the front lines, and landing on beaches. Turkey, on its own or as a puppet of (probably—god, they've wanted it for like 200+ years at this point) Russia, is increasingly a realistic threat. Plus Russia itself. Like other major European former-colonizer states, France maintains strong ties to many parts of the world and is relied on, or considers itself responsible for, security in those regions. Algeria is attacked? France will surely show up to the party. Algeria decides to take some kind of Cuba-like action against French property? France will likely be there, in a very different capacity. They have strong interest in Lebanon (threatened, potentially, by Syria and Turkey, among others) and much of West Africa, as well, where, if you follow international news, their foreign legion and special forces are often deployed and quite active. Sidebar: They're also possibly the most experienced torturers in the West. You see them called in for it sometimes, if you read between the lines a bit. Yikes. See also: Libya, and Italy's leadership there (for better or worse). France has similar ties to a dozen or more countries in Africa and the Levant. Warranted or not from some broader perspective, they'll tend to see intervention in conflicts there as obligatory and desirable.
- zabzonk 6y ago> the French will be on the front lines, and landing on beaches. They have never done so effectively in the past (Vietnam? Algeria? Suez?) and I don't see them doing it now or any time in the future.
- dv_dt 6y agoI wonder how much of it is part of the increased NATO requirements for a putting a increased percentage of GDP into defense, pushed in part by the US wanting to lower it's international defense outlays. And, to some degree, I wonder if the strategic change is driven by more erratic and less long term stability in the US's willingness and ability to defend the EU.