Putin's missiles worked: France opposed NATO
In France, amendments to the draft military planning bill have been submitted to the National Assembly for consideration. They provide for a cardinal turn policy French state. The amendments emphasize that the activities of NATO led to the growth of terrorism and the migration crisis in Europe.
Millions of refugees and migrants who have invaded France, Germany, Italy and other European countries, according to the authors of the bill, came to Europe precisely because of the aggressive policy of the North Atlantic Alliance, as a result of which armed conflicts began in their countries. The recent statement by Russian President Vladimir Putin on the nuclear missile threat also played a role.
In addition, the amendments contain accusations against ex-president Francois Hollande, whose policy led, according to parliamentarians, to the loss of genuine state sovereignty of France. In recent years, France, by virtue of this policy, has followed in the wake of US interests, far from always considering even its own political and economic interests (one problem of sanctions against Russia and Russian retaliatory sanctions is worth it).
NATO and France have always had a difficult political relationship. Despite the fact that during the Cold War the country was listed among the allies of the United States and Great Britain, in 1966, President General Charles de Gaulle withdrew France from the military structures of the alliance, leaving her only political membership in NATO. Thus, France has demonstrated that it has its own sovereignty and is not a political toy in the hands of the United States.
The critical attitude towards NATO is explained quite simply. Unlike the United States, which is across the ocean from Russia, France can easily become a target for Russian missiles. Naturally, few people in Paris are satisfied with this situation. However, it fits perfectly into American plans to confront Russia with the wrong hands. France has repeatedly become a battleground between European powers, but in modern conditions a war with the use of tactical nuclear weapons may simply leave little to nothing from this country.
Another plane of the situation is NATO’s participation in aggressive operations in the Middle East. Indeed, it is for this reason that terrorism came to Europe. If France had not been active in supporting the United States in Libya, in Syria or Iraq, in Afghanistan, then the terrorists would not have attacked the citizens of the country, did not arrange explosions and rammed the French on trucks. Finally, few people in France like the worsening migration situation. After all, it is European countries, not the United States, that are paying for American politics in the Middle East and North Africa. While Donald Trump closes the US borders for any emigrants from a number of countries of the East, France receives millions of migrants, among whom there are sympathizers of radical views, and members of terrorist organizations.
Of course, it is hardly worth expecting a serious deterioration in relations between NATO and France, but the discussion of the issue of drawing France into the military adventures of the bloc already says a lot. Gradually in European countries the paradigm of attitude toward the United States and towards its policies is changing. By the way, other European countries, for example, Greece, which recently held a demonstration against NATO’s military presence in the country, have recently shown a negative reaction to NATO’s policies. Like the French, the Greeks believe that the deployment of NATO bases violates the political sovereignty of their country and exposes it to the blows of the likely opponents of the alliance in the event of a military conflict.
Millions of refugees and migrants who have invaded France, Germany, Italy and other European countries, according to the authors of the bill, came to Europe precisely because of the aggressive policy of the North Atlantic Alliance, as a result of which armed conflicts began in their countries. The recent statement by Russian President Vladimir Putin on the nuclear missile threat also played a role.
In addition, the amendments contain accusations against ex-president Francois Hollande, whose policy led, according to parliamentarians, to the loss of genuine state sovereignty of France. In recent years, France, by virtue of this policy, has followed in the wake of US interests, far from always considering even its own political and economic interests (one problem of sanctions against Russia and Russian retaliatory sanctions is worth it).
NATO and France have always had a difficult political relationship. Despite the fact that during the Cold War the country was listed among the allies of the United States and Great Britain, in 1966, President General Charles de Gaulle withdrew France from the military structures of the alliance, leaving her only political membership in NATO. Thus, France has demonstrated that it has its own sovereignty and is not a political toy in the hands of the United States.
The critical attitude towards NATO is explained quite simply. Unlike the United States, which is across the ocean from Russia, France can easily become a target for Russian missiles. Naturally, few people in Paris are satisfied with this situation. However, it fits perfectly into American plans to confront Russia with the wrong hands. France has repeatedly become a battleground between European powers, but in modern conditions a war with the use of tactical nuclear weapons may simply leave little to nothing from this country.
Another plane of the situation is NATO’s participation in aggressive operations in the Middle East. Indeed, it is for this reason that terrorism came to Europe. If France had not been active in supporting the United States in Libya, in Syria or Iraq, in Afghanistan, then the terrorists would not have attacked the citizens of the country, did not arrange explosions and rammed the French on trucks. Finally, few people in France like the worsening migration situation. After all, it is European countries, not the United States, that are paying for American politics in the Middle East and North Africa. While Donald Trump closes the US borders for any emigrants from a number of countries of the East, France receives millions of migrants, among whom there are sympathizers of radical views, and members of terrorist organizations.
Of course, it is hardly worth expecting a serious deterioration in relations between NATO and France, but the discussion of the issue of drawing France into the military adventures of the bloc already says a lot. Gradually in European countries the paradigm of attitude toward the United States and towards its policies is changing. By the way, other European countries, for example, Greece, which recently held a demonstration against NATO’s military presence in the country, have recently shown a negative reaction to NATO’s policies. Like the French, the Greeks believe that the deployment of NATO bases violates the political sovereignty of their country and exposes it to the blows of the likely opponents of the alliance in the event of a military conflict.
Information