French President Emmanuel Macron met with parliamentary parties on Thursday. During the meeting Macron said he was open to the possibility of sending troops to Ukraine, as announced by, according to French newspaper L’Independant.
Fabien Roussel, a representative of the French Communist Party, said after the meeting that “Macron referenced a scenario that could lead to intervention [of French troops]: the advancement of the front towards Odesa or Kyiv.”
He noted that the French President showed parliamentarians maps of the possible directions of strikes by Russian troops in Ukraine.
Following the meeting, Jordan Bardella of the far-right National Rally party noted that “there are no restrictions and no red lines” in Macron’s approach.
If French troops were sent into Ukraine and were then hit by Russia, would that then trigger NATO agreements?
Article 6 says:
"For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."
Aware this might be a situation where the spirit of the agreement ends up being more important than the legalese.
It would not. It’s a defensive treaty.
Ukraine isn’t a part of France or under the jurisdiction of France, so the attack wouldn’t be on France’s territory, and Ukraine isn’t a member of NATO itself.
Complete speculation but I’d bet that the UK government is so fickle that if France sent in troops then the UK would ‘have’ to send in its own, and by that point the US MiC would be complaining that the US hadn’t sent them in.
About the only thing the UK government has done right in the last few years, is getting help to Ukraine. I think the UK was even sending small weapons (shoulder fired rockets) in the first days of the full scale invasion, while most other nations were still waiting to see if Ukraine would buckle or not. And since then they were always early with other significant help: training programs, tanks, … They did well in this case I think.
UK would not let France fight a war without wanting a piece of the pie
Idk, reading it sounds like any attack on member troops would count
No, it’s narrower than that. It only applies to attacks directly on Nato countries. It doesn’t even apply to all of a country’s territories, only within the geographic range specified in the treaty. So for instance didn’t apply to the Falkland War, despite a territory under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom coming under attack. It’s not just any time a country’s troops or interests are under attack. US troops have been attacked many times in Iraq, Syria, and other locations, and Article 5 wasn’t invoked. The only time it was ever invoked by any country was the US after 9/11, which was pretty clearly on US territory. If it applied how you say, it could be used by any country to draw all of the rest into an offensive war, which is clearly against the spirit and words of the article.
No.
Did you read it? Do you care to provide any actual insight into the conversation, or are you just a troll?
Read article 6. No. It doesn’t meet the requirements.
Article 5 is null because if France sends troops, Russia has the right to self defense.
Also article 5 doesn’t mean anyone has to send troops. It means they have to do what they are willing to do.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
I doubt the United States would enter th conflict just because France wants to get in a fight. We have other treaty obligations we have to protect.
Russia is in no position where it needs to “self defend”. Its troops won’t be attacked if its troops leave Ukraine. The right to self defense is what Ukraine is using right now.
deleted by creator
Is this actually in response to my comment?
NATO is a defensive alliance. It is specifically designed to prevent a repeat of WW1. Nor will it support military adventurism. For example, the US could invoke Article 5 after 9/11 because the US was attacked on its own territory. The US could not invoke Article 5 when its troops were attacked in Iraq or when it liberated Kuwait. The French cannot invoke Article 5 when it’s troops are attacked in the Magreb. There are also geographic boundaries. The British could not invoke Article 5 when the Falklands were attacked, even though it is British territory, because it is too far south. The French could not invoke Article 5 when it was attacked in Indochina because that was too far east.
Even when a NATO country is attacked on its own territory, it can’t have initiated hostilities. For example, Poland can’t attack Russian territory, thereby declaring war on Russia, and then invoke Article 5 and expect the rest of NATO to jump in. NATO is purely defensive and voluntary. It was designed mainly to prevent a Soviet invasion of the rest of Europe that wasn’t already behind the Iron Curtain, while also preventing any ally from drawing the rest into a war that could lead to nuclear annihilation. It cannot be “gamed” or misused to draw allies into a war.
The forces in question need to be attacked somewhere that the treaty protects, which Ukraine is not.