Yeah, but that's because they're Russians and therefore don't care if they lose their forces to a pointless suicide attack. It wasn't the intended result; it was just a result they were willing to accept.
You're just going for a four-dimensional chess conspiracy theory because you prefer that to simply admitting that the Russian strategists are just callous and incompetent.
There was no attack. Russian positioning was threatening the US base. The US asked the Russians if the forces were theirs, the Russians said no, the US attacked. Had the Russians said yes, a different set of protocols would have been used instead of blatant attack. The US would have given the mercs a chance to withdraw.
The US drew first blood in this incident.
As long as Russia doesn't attack French (or other NATO country) soil, then Article 5 is not triggered, yes.
But if Russia decides to escalate by an attack on NATO-protected soil, then it's on them.
That wouldn't be an escalation, that would be retaliation to an escalation.
That's ridiculous. You know EU/NATO stance on what Russian territory is, it's what is legitimately recognized as Russian territory, in other words, the 1991 borders. As you know, Western-supplied weapons have come up with a restriction of not using them on targets on Russian territory, and Ukraine has happily used them to target sites in the Donbass and in Crimea, without anybody complaining.
Otherwise, two can play this game. Let's say that France declares to unilaterally annex all of Ukrainian territory. Now if Russia keeps its genocidal missile strikes on Ukrainian cities, that's magically an attack against NATO, thanks to people just being able to declare such or such territory now belongs to them because they said it. That's good for kids playing make believe in the school's courtyard; but it's not how the real world works.
NATO doesn't cover disputed territories, only sovereign territories as identified in 1950 something.
Nope, nope, nope. Russia attacks France, Article 5 is invoked, Russia gets its *censored* kicked. That's how it works.
Don't believe that's gonna be the case. Or there wouldn't be a need for consensus.
America is dumb and cowardly, but there are plenty of people who are eager to get rid of the Russian threat. Again you're making a mistake if you think countries like Poland will be okay with Russian attacks against the EU just because America is too busy getting "great again" by sulking in the corner, sitting on its thumbs.
What I'm saying is only the US can move NATO, not France.
More bull conspiracy theories.
But it's happening.
This, too, is bull. It's been debunked so many times.
These negotiations are different from what Boris interfered in. Boris convinced the Ukrainians to keep the war going right in the beginning. You've posted the link to negotiations that happened after his interference.
I've seen the video of Macron and Putin just before the invasion. Where Macron tells Putin that his demands don't make sense.
Putin asked for full implementration of Minsk, something that was already negotiated by France, Germany and Ukraine and agreed upon.
Putins demands "don't make sense" because France/Germany had no intention of going through with Minsk. This is really the main reason for the invasion in the first place. All Macron did was go on a rant about how the people living in Donbas had no rights to a voice.
Minsk would have kept Russian forces out of Ukraine. Donbas would have been an autonomous territory within the state of Ukraine. The only reason why France/Germany were fooling around was 'cause of this misplaced belief that Russia has no plans of invading Ukraine.
And the UK made sure this war would prolong.