French President Emmanuel Macron has brought up the idea of sending NATO soldiers into Ukraine because members of the US-led bloc are plotting to divide up the country, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Wednesday.
Macron first suggested two weeks ago that when it came to NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine, no option should be off the table, but was publicly disavowed by most NATO members. He has since argued that France might send its own soldiers should Russia "break through to Kiev or Odessa."
"All these statements that Macron and other NATO politicians make, about the possibility of introducing contingents or some kind of paramilitary units into the territory of Ukraine, are related to the partition of what they see as the remnants of Ukraine," Zakharova said at a press briefing in Moscow.
Territorial aspirations help explain why Kiev has not been invited to join the bloc yet, Zakharova argued. This would require all NATO members to recognize Ukraine's borders, and not all of them are willing to do so, she added.
They are ready to occupy and partition Ukraine.The "moral preparation" of the population in both NATO countries and Ukraine is already underway, Zakharova said, with some politicians speaking about such an outcome openly.
"All this is happening, as usual with NATO members, under a false flag. They talk about countering Russia, but are in fact starting to divide the remains of Ukraine between themselves," she said, adding that this should serve as a warning to those who "entrust their fate to NATO."
As for Paris, Zakharova said, French troops invaded Russia in the early 19th century and again in the early 20th. "France would do well to remember how that ended."
Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Russia in June 1812, with close to 700,000 French and allied troops. Six months later, fewer than 100,000 men staggered back across the Niemen River.
The second French expedition is less well known, because it was much more modest and somewhat shorter. In December 1918, Some 15,000 French soldiers landed in southern Russia as part of an Entente intervention against the Bolshevik revolutionaries. After multiple losses to the Red Army, the French expedition departed in April 1919.
Reader Comments
I watched Macron's recent press conference about his fear of Putin and all things Russian and my only take-away from that is that Macron is a rather condescending, effete little narcissist. Perfect qualities for European royalty - but who made him king?
Russians are not afraid because they know the French will burn their nation to the ground before they ever go to war for Macron. Too bad the Uke's were not that clear thinking early on.
Brigitte Macron being a man is not something I've read much about - only that Brigitte was Emmanuel's school teacher.
Now, looking at photos of Brigitte the possibility of her being a he is there, plus when I look at Emmanuel's parents the mother appears to wear the pants in the family - so Emmanuel has grown up with a dominant female.
At the moment I will need a bit more evidence on Brigitte being a Big Mike.
Your twitter link has nothing at the end of it.
Thanks for the rabbit hole to follow! LOL!!
I suppose the uncovering of Brigitte's real history and sex is a preamble to the expected revelation of Big Mike Obama's true self.
Getting the public programmed to accept the unacceptable
But what are they protecting. Land? In my view, the Ukraine was the hub of the corruption for the West. They could and did anything they wanted: money laundering, organ harvesting, child sex trafficking, bioweapons labs targeting Russian genetics, drug experimentation and trafficking. It explains all of the visits to the Ukraine, and perhaps Zelensky is extorting the West.
In fact, when you wait long enough, they destroy themselves : [Link]
With regard to the history lesson Putin delivered in the Carlson interview, you don't have to go back a thousand years to get a feeling for the issues. Look at maps of Europe from 1900 to 1920 - so only a little over 100 years. Before WW1, the country identified as the Russian Empire extended far enough west that the map shows no such individual countries as Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Modava, no Georgia, Azerbaijanm Armenia... all of those are shown as part of the Russian Empire. Not even a "Poland" - that region was Germany in the north, along the Baltic seacoast most of the way up to Kaliningrad, and the southern part was - you guessed it, Russian Empire. Other than Serbia, the Balkan states (and most of Greece) were "Ottoman Empire". No Kosovo, no Monte Negro, no Croatia. No Turkey, no Syria, no Iraq - all part of the Ottoma Empire.
All of those other countries appeared miraculously during the events surrounding WW1, and the Ottoman Empire simply disappeared - and the Bolshevik Revolution, of course... (funded by Wall Street and City of London). It's a wonder the fighting hasn't continued full pace the whole hundred years. Maybe it has, and the current "war" is nothing more than a series of battles.
All my American schools ever mentioned about WW1 was the trenches, Lusitania and how the Treaty of Versailles paved the way for Hitler. I don't recall anything being said about the end of Empire for Germany, Russia, Ottomans, and good part of Austro-Hungary.
Side note: the deal between Stalin and Hitler to divvy up Poland probably looked a lot like the pre-WW1 map. Makes more sense from that point of view, I'd say.
Mind you, even Finland did not really exist before the end of WWI. And the story of the "winter war" (and it's continuation) is not really what we are told in the West.
As a side note, the British king, German emperor and the Russian tsar were cousins. Another thing we are rarely told. Only one of this monarchies survived, suspiciously. And even worse, not only was the Eastern branch ( the Romanovs) murdered by shady figures with ties to Western intelligence agencies (Lenin), their gold reserves, which the tsar had parked in London, disappeared thereafter. Go figure ...
Grandma's brother - we called him Uncle Bud - told of fighting as a Marine, in 1919 and 1920, around Murmansk against the Bolshies. Saw an article about that in a Men's magazine when in my teens, so tend to believe it.
The cousin-kings angle, all grandsons of Queen Victoria was not taught in American system, as far as I recall. Perhaps it was mentioned tangentially, but no emphasis. I was a voracious reader, growing up, and came across it early on.
In another thread, I think I listed the "countries" that didn't exist before WW1, and you are quite correct, the maps of Europe during say 1900-1914 showed almost none of the so-called "buffer states" between Russia and western Europe. They all appeared after WW1, magically: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, all the Balkans except Serbia were "new". Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, the entire "middle east" of Syria, Lebanon, etc. All magic, and barely mentioned in our "history" writings.
All things considered, I see international politics, including wars, as little more than spectacular Punch'n'Judy shows.
And very obviously, smaller countries (like the Baltics, Finland, or now Armenia or Moldova) are just pawns in the game.
"Game" is probably as close as it gets to describe WTF "they" are up to.