French Defence Strategy & Rearmament - a new war economy, deterrence & strategic autonomy
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 05. 2024
- When I did a video on the German military around 10 months ago, I made one off hand joke unfavourably comparing the Bundeswehr to the French military on a cost-capability basis.
Given the storm of email I got after posting that video, I feel confident saying that there may be a strong perception on the internet that France is a nation lacking in serious military heft, both now and historically.
The reality is that France has long been one of Europe's major military powers, and while no longer the great power it was before WW1, France remains nearly unique among European States for a number of reasons, ranging from being the only Nuclear armed EU state, to being one of the few nations around the world with the ability to meaningfully project power internationally, supported by carrier aviation.
In this video I look at the French military and military industry as they currently stand, but also at what Paris' future plans tell us about the way the French military (and economy) are likely to evolve in response to the war in Ukraine and rising international tensions.
Because with France, rearmament isn't just about building up a powerful national defence, but about relentlessly pursuing 'Strategic Autonomy'
Patreon:
/ perunau
Caveats & Comments:
All usual caveats apply - with the point reiterated that comparing platform and system counts between militaries is fraught with issues. It is done here to illustrate a point but should always be done with caution.
I'd also like to emphasise that when discussing historical events, that discussion should never be taken to constitute endorsement - I may talk for example about the Suez crisis for example without endorsing any of the parties that were involved. It may seem a simple point but I've seen that become an issue on YT in the past so wanted to make it explicit..
Reading and Sources:
Note that this is much abridged as I do no have access to my original source list while in transit - it will be updated in the coming week
Platform figures as per MB2022 &, in some instances, official key figures published 2021
www.defense.gouv.fr/sites/def...
Indo-Pacific Strategy:
www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/IMG/pd...
For reference - 2021 strategic update
www.stjornarradid.is/library/...
Macron calls for 'war economy'
www.france24.com/en/france/20...
English version of the 2022 review:
nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/29...
Reporting on increased production of CAESAR
www.lemonde.fr/en/economy/art....
Macron to send military program law to Assembly
www.defensenews.com/global/eu...
Timestamps:
00:00:00 -- FRENCH DEFENCE STRATEGY & REARMAMENT
00:01:38 -- WHAT AM I TALKING ABOUT?
00:03:10 -- FRENCH MILITARY HISTORY
00:08:05 -- napoleon's France
00:15:07 -- cold war France
00:17:03 -- FRENCH STRATEGIC POSITION
00:19:09 -- setting goals
00:23:15 -- THREATS AND OBJECTIVES
00:25:46 -- THE FRENCH MILITARY
00:34:12 -- FRENCH NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES
00:45:02 -- A FRENCH ADVANTAGE?
00:46:40 -- selected French and German equipment graph
00:48:11 -- how?
00:55:07 -- INDUSTRY & SYSTEMS
00:58:35 -- European giants
01:02:56 -- protecting export
01:06:04 -- FRANCE'S PLANNED TRANSFORMATION
01:09:04 -- economic preparation
01:12:02 -- FRANCE AND "STRATEGIC AUTONOMY"
01:12:17 -- pursuit of autonomy
01:13:49 -- the challenges of autonomy
01:16:03 -- CONCLUSIONS
01:17:41 -- CHANNEL UPDATE
The desire to call this one "no surrender" was strong, but I decided to refrain from doing so. Apologies both for the late release (travel made it almost impossible to avoid) and any disservices to the French language you hear in this video...
Thank you as always to the Patrons who selected this topic after some months in research and production.
Love your content man keep it up.
Do you have one in the works for italy and the uk as well?
Perun, would you consider doing a video on South Korea's deterrance strategy ("Three axis")? I think analysing the world's first attempt at conventional deterrance in an economic context is significant, because:
1) pro-nuclear armament discussions in Korea are partly fueled by arguments that conventional-deterrence, even in theory, is near impossible to finance (due to costs involving the scale of missile defense, matching destructiveness)
2) If conventional-deterrence is a realistic policy, other (financially capable) countries can model it instead of pursuing nuclear armament
3) If conventional-deterrence is not viable, whether the benefits of hypothetical nuclear deterrence outweigh the costs of South Korea going nuclear (current nuclear exports getting cancelled, intl sanctions, toll of nuclear arsenal on defense budget)
Your channel content has changed. Since the war in Ukraine started your content has shifted and will become an important resource for future historians.
Please do a vid on Swedish rearmament and defence strategy (now and in the cold war) in the future I think you’ll notice that is very much on going here if you look into it. Our military has some goals for 2035.
Probably never gonna happen but doesn’t hurt to bring it up.
My reaction to hour long PowerPoints is perhaps abnormal.
Depends on how much you were giggling
My reaction to it being 3 hours later than usual maybe even more so
Nope, totally normal.
Normal reaction. No worries.
@@dazamanday I am waiting for my weekly Unauthorized History of the Pacific War Podcast. It's late too.
“How one line in a cartoon did more damage to France’s military reputation in the Anglosphere than some panzer divisions”. Utterly savage
Dein Bien Phu probably didn't help much either.
@@davidford3115 jokes on them, they didn't fare any better
@@davidford3115 You mentioned Dien Bien Phu a couple of times in a couple of replies under a few different people.
Get off it, man. France (like the US) caused disproportionate casualties in Vietnam, and then they (just like the US) had to withdraw and concede defeat because the superior ability of the vietnamese to absorb losses. Get over yourself.
@@piritskenyer Get off it? Clearly you don't actually want to debate merits. You don't want to address the fact that French incompetence in Vietnam follows a pattern that began in WW2. And their performance in Africa while better in the short term, has done NOTHING to make the region more stable. If anything, it continues the pattern of questionable strategic choices on their part.
@@davidford3115 You're hilarious, dude.
"France is not a prize worthy of ten Russian cities" - 4/5 Russian oligarchs disagree with this statement.
But three of those four tripped through windows, so they don’t get a vote.
I must say that I laugh a lot with that one :D
@@davidblair9877 So true...
@@davidblair9877 time for some new material
That reminds me of that quote: “Going to war with the French is like carrying a tuba deer hunting.”
A lot is made of France's refusal to join in the 'with us or against us' invasion of Iraq. Remember, France contributed to coalition forces in 1991 and were happy to do so. This war was a justified one. Iraq having invaded and annexed a sovereign nation. The invasion of Iraq in 2001 was unjustified and France was brave enough to say no, not in our name.
Correct. The intelligence agencies in the USA and UK told Bush/Blair there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. France, Germany, and Canada got it right. That's why Chirac/Schroeder wouldn't follow Bush/Blair.
Remember americans are voters and they are merely represented by their representatives, thus the voterbase of the US is complicit in this crime against humanity and it forever stains those that cannot prove loud active opposition
Yeah, France actually made the better call then.
@@WhiteIkiryo-yt2it And those of us Europeans who followed along the with the US on their foolish mission often did so under duress, and it made the US quite a lot less popular.
The fact that we refused to join the 2001 invasion of Iraq and the US being so butthurt that it started the Freedom Fries and French white flag surrendering monkeys BS proves that we were right.
The Simpsons is an Instrument of National Power that should not be overlooked when making plans either at the strategic or tactical level
I spent 10 minutes laughing so hard that I completely lost track of this week's subject matter. 🤣
To be fair there is an episode that showed that the Soviet Union never broke up which has aged nicely
the ability of Hollywood to project the views of the US is more powerful than its military
Used to be. It hasn't been good for at least 3/4 of its run. The first 1/4 is mythical, though.
It's true. The Simpsons shaped domestic nuclear policy in the US. Or maybe it just reflected it.
As a chronically overeducated pizza hut delivery guy, your videos are very easy to listen to while out on deliveries. Thanks man!
Another chronically overeducated delivery driver here, and I approve this message
Hey there fellow delivery people
Bon courage!
I also love listening to these while I work.
EX-Pizza delivery guy here also
I had the chance to spend some time visiting the charles de gaulle aircraft carrier. While the planes, control rooms and many other things impressed me. Knowing it can produce 2000 fresh baguettes each day filled me with warm patriotic pride!
Love French food! Hope the "Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier" is better than your cars but
@@qbi4614 It's funny how most French-made stuff is treated as luxurious abroad, except for our cars which are considered crappy.
@@qbi4614 you don't like Bugattis ?
@@stitch77100 Food outstanding, cars and ships poo
Nobody and I mean nobody has built the ugliest ships (and cars) like the French
However the food OMG! My few days in Paris with genuine French food is outstanding
@@qbi4614 my question was merely if you hated the Bugatti cars too, which I thought was a simple enough question.
For the rest, I would separate appearance of a vehicle and capabilities (as would any decent engineer). But I don't know what ugly ships were built in France...
29:48 Member of the French army here (doesn't qualify me on anything that much, but give me some insight) : for us it's a tank (it's even called as such : "char"), it's used like an MBT but for when Leclerc isn't actually the best choice.
It's deployed to provide the same role than an MBT (mobile armored direct fire support with a large caliber gun, including AT capabilities) but with greater mobility at a far lesser cost and way smaller logistical headache, where the US would deploy Abrams in the middle Middle-East, France will deploy AMX-10RC.
But if it's against a force that have actual armored capabilities above an armored technical or a refurbished Soviet AFVs in the hands of some warlords, Leclerc it is, but the AMX-10RC will still be around with different roles, like heavy recon or exploitation manoeuvres and wreck havoc behind enemy lines.
(Fun fact : to make it even more annoying, even though it's the only one from all the AMX 10 vehicles classified as a tank, it's also the only one not tracked)
To conclude : it's called a tank and it's used like a tank, so for me (even though I disagreed before actually looking into it) it's a tank when in French use (and anyone using it like us).
It probably won't close the debate for most but I'm of the side of calling a vehicle in the context of when and who.
For exemple :
T-55 ? 1950s, USSR : medium tank.
In use by any Middle Eastern country ever since : MBT.
Depends of the doctrine and the user and the use, but doctrine always prevail (like the Type-59 isn't going to become a "Riot control vehicle" due to the Tiananmen Square massacre).
to be fair, if deploying in africa a pickup truck with a .50 cal on it would probably qualify as a tank too. wouldnt work so well in a european battle though...
Excellent way of looking at it.
@@pezpengy9308for the pickup, not really.
We deployed the AMX-10RC during Desert Storm against a real army, and as I mentioned against an enemy with actual capabilities, they tend to be used differently.
Not to mention that against an actual army, any equipment "wouldn't work so well" in comparison to fighting militias...
@@danielpeirson3071 thanks !
Merci pour votre service ❤️🇫🇷
I actually LIKE France's idea of using a nuclear cruise missile as a "we really fu**ing mean it" message.
The "we don’t play poker here" missile
@@Taletad Ironicaly, the annual deterence excercice for pre strategic nuclear strike is called "Exercice Poker"
Well french are a fairly direct people in my experience. Guess this extends to nuclear policy
If every country in the world used that idea, we'd probably have no countries at this moment.
@@EuroUser1 yes this is why we need nuclear non proliferation and less dictatorships
If you told me 2 years ago that i would be excited about hour long powerpoint presentations, i’d assume you are insane. Yet, here we are.
As others have said more succinctly than me: reality is stranger than fiction.
I definitely resemble that remark!
A 1 hour plus power point on France no less.
doesn't mean you are not insane. could be you are insane with many fellow crazies enjoying these videos in great company.
@@davidmclean357 Is that sort of
“Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you”?
By the way, a small detail for everybody before any joke on it:
"Terrible" in English does not have the same meaning as in French. This submarine is not horrible haha.
Terrible in French means more "dreadful" or "fearsome".
It still makes a funny meme tho regardless of the connotation.
terrible can also be positive used in a slangish context
It still has that meaning in English in addition to the more usual meaning of poor quality
Inspiring terror, yes.
That is also a meaning in English, although this usage has become antiquated.
Same goes for the word “awful”, which at its base level simply means “full of awe”.
The 'Anglosphere' is a claustrophobic bubble of self-talk. I know; I grew up in it. Most attitudes in it toward France are confidently based on nothing more than embarrassingly ignorant tropes and caricatures. If one wants to be informed, read far more widely e.g. on English language versions of European news sites (DW, France 24 and others). The very balance and insightful report in this video is rare exception.
As a former french air force officer I wholeheartedly reckon Perun should be (very politely) invited to deliver lectures at western military academies. If cadets haven't changed too much since my heyday, they would love hearing from him, as would higher ranking officers too.
PS : oh and by the way, your french pronunciation is pretty good. You obviously went to a fair amount of effort not to hurt our feelings (granted, we can be absurdly touchy about it) and I for one dig your aussie pinch of salt of an accent :)
It is militaries - give them a few years and they will discover Perun...
Yeah, he might sound convincing unless he talks about subject you actually happen to know something about (case in point: Polish videos)
@@piotrd.4850 I would be interested to know what your objections were (but maybe you have voiced them already in the comments below said Polish videos, got to check). About this one, if it may comfort you, I did not spot any gigantic blunder.
@@d.e.2526 He made a laundry list and various comments over the months but they were mostly incoherent rants.
@@correctionguy7632 link?
Time for the weekly defence analysis which gets shoutouts from active personnel.
The consistency in quality since 'All bling no basics' has been frankly unbelievable
It is unbelievalbe! Can't appreciate this enough
Agreed
Merci!
Everyone wants to be the Modern Major General,
Nobody wants to be the poor Grunt SOB.
@@Marinealver Yup...truth is nobody believes or dreams they will to be the guy digging the foxhole for the new louie that the company hates... or the people on youtube cheerleading for communism...they all believe they'll be the intellectual at the head of the pollitburo and not one of them realizes they'll actually be the guy cleaning the toilets of the municipal waste water treatment and trash sorting facility because those facilities don't exist and are not needed in "real communism".
Whenever I see English-language content about the Hundred Years' War, I bet that the English defeat at the battle of Castillon in 1453 will be ignored. This decisive French victory marks the use of artillery as a major battlefield weapon, and the symbolic transition from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance.
It is curious how these people like to remember these English victories with the technologies of the Middle Ages in its last century, but always forget the very instructive conclusion of this war. It makes one wonder how England could lose this war, did it lose it? Vraiment curieux n'est ce pas?
La partie de la vidéo sur l'histoire militaire française est très pénible à regarder en effet. Comme quand il dit que l'empire Carolingien est plus un héritage allemand que français mais que pour la vidéo il va quand même donner une part du mérite à la France 🤦♂
La base quoi ... ca se gausse sur la bataille d'Azincourt, mais ca ne parle jamais de la bataille de Patay.
The problem the English have created is that they feel they are at the center of European history and world history.
In reality England was never in the center of European history and that makes for some odd opinions at times, But I suppose it's human as they say.
@@hurri7720 I guess they still didn't digest the fact they were the first French colony.
But France had a small last joke with the Exocet.
10:45 In their defense, the French weren't quite so boneheaded about their uniforms in the run up to WW1 as so many documentaries like to claim. Before the war started they had already selected a more monochromatic blue uniform, which eliminated the red pants and hat, and which would become the standard French uniform by later into the war. Unfortunately by then it was already too late to manufacture and issue the new uniforms in sufficient quantities before the war started. So despite having already selected a far more sensible uniform before the war started, the entire French army went to war in August 1914 with the far more conspicuous old uniform with bright red trousers and hats. The first deliveries of the new uniforms wouldn't reach troops until the end of September 1914. It would take about another year for the whole army to be equipped with the new uniform. Apparently this period is called the clothing crisis (I assume this is a nod to the British shell crisis).
It's a bit off topic, but there's a book & movie called "the pant" based on a real story that involves this red pant : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucien_Bersot
czcams.com/video/DdWCo7JxaGc/video.html
I am utterly appalled by the brazen disregard of the Emutopians for their neighbors. Time and time again, the poor Kiwilanders have to deal with crises brought about by Emutopia's unchecked aggression in the region. Great vid Auzzie, keep up the great work. #StandwithKiwiland #ResistEmuAgression
I really wish the game Azur Lane would adopt those names just like how Canada is "Maple Monarchy", Japan is "Sakura Empire", China is "Dragon Empry", Italy is "Sardegna Empire", "Eagle Union" is the US, "Northern Parliament" is the USSR, "Iron Blood" is Germany, "iris Libre" is the Free French, and "Vichya Dominion" is the Nazi collaborating government of Marshall Petain.
@@davidford3115 is Canada really the Maple Monarchy? Never heard that one
Viva La Kiwiland
Emutopia delenda est!
Yes. Especially the fast bowling.
As an Australia ever since I decided to read up on Desert Storm, I've always been fascinated and surprised at how and why the French Division Daguet were given the left most flank and widest flank of the ground operation (and arguably one of the most important). That was way out west with very distinguished US Army troops such as 82nd Airborne, 18th Field Artillery and 101st Airborne. After a bit of reading into their systems, military and strategy it made a lot more sense.
A lot about what you touched on in this video regarding their wider military strategy, projection and armour philosophy confirmed a lot of my suspicions; that France's modern military is a far more capable fighting force than most suspect, that they do so on a tight budget (but still manage, especially for an expeditionary force), and that they like to go F A S T
Can't really blame them after they watched the Germans drive past the Maginot line and asked for eating recommendations in Paris as they flipped them off in WW2
@@peacepeople9895 in that matter you should be amazed by how fast the Brits can swim them. After dropping they weapon in the middle of the fight at Dunkirk they swim back across the channel as fast as possible. They probably broke the world record. I am surprises they don’t get more Olympic titles in the swimming competition.
@@leonidasthermopylae3378 Seems like a totally reasonable response to something utterly unrelated... Dunkirk has nothing to do with the Germans outflanking the Maginot Line. The Maginot Line was a piece of brilliant engineering and was genuinely impregnable, hence why the Germans had to completely skirt it and go round it. So why bring up Dunkirk?
@@WhistlingFerret it actually does since the German were able to isolate the Brits and the French by going though the Ardennes forest. Dunkirk is a just reminder to the Brits who forgot how they behaved in combat at that time.
@@leonidasthermopylae3378 that's a very bold claim to make, considering the brits stuck it out ALONE for nearly 2 years, whilst half the French turned into vichy France and nazi collaborators. Let's not forget the travesty that was Mer-El-Kebir, thanks to the French admiralty not understanding how to treat their allies. And if the brits had not retreated at Dunkirk, protected by the French (which was a noble task and they understood what was needed), then the war could not have continued, as the LAST army willing to keep fighting FOR FRANCE would have been destroyed.
Having been trained by and having trained with French legionaries and several other country’s elite soldiers, I can tell you the French are amongst the best and most versatile.
Speaking of French Naval capabilities, it bears mentioning that part of France's vested interest in having significant quantities of both patrol vessels and expeditionary forces comes not only from its responsibility to defend it's overseas possessions, but, in particular, its maritime EEZ, which is (somewhat surprisingly) the world's largest.
2nd largest behind the US
@@darkvador4499 Depends how you count it.
@@darkvador4499 actually the first one although I do agree that we are cheating a bit but we really have the biggest EEZ
@@redwithblackstripes Personally I am interested in the areas they claim and the areas they actually either profit from or defend.
Each could say a lot.
According to the UN, France has the world's largest EEZ. Saying things like 'depending on how you count it' is silly, since the EEZ is defined by the UNCLS. If one wants to argue that the US SHOULD have a larger EEZ because of this or that, well, okay, but as it stands, it has an EEZ that is smaller than Frances, and not by only a little bit- the difference is 340,000 sq km: about twice the size of the state of Florida, or 3/5 of European France.
BTW ... France _was right_ about there being insufficient evidence for WMDs in Iraq way back in 2003. I talk to Americans who *still* hold that against them even after admitting that Iraq II was probably a mistake (or at least based on a big lie).
War didn't happen because of WMD's
I mean…not really?
We knew Saddam had chemical weapons, not in the least because we and France supplied them to him during the Iran-Iraq War time period. We also knew he used them on both the Iranians and in putting down Kurdish rebellions.
What we didn’t have evidence for was the accusation he was using them again after vowing not to (and notably, not doing so in Desert Storm). Which does still mean the US was wrong to both falsely accuse Saddam and invade his country, but it’s worth noting few countries believed his denial even if they didn’t think the invasion was justified.
@@GintaPPE1000 The French knew it and the US administration knew that too. The only intel they had was the word of one Iraqi who applied to Germany's BND telling them those weapons existed. Not exactly a solid base to start a war on. That's why the French and the Germans stood out of it all together. Chirac obviously knew what "source" it was this info came from too since Germany and France are bros in Europe. Bush just wanted to start it and inflated this guys BS with slides powerpoint slides and whatever in front of the UN.
The war was not launched solely because of weapons of mass destruction, it was launched for a variety of reasons that had been building for over a decade and all converged at the same time - one of which was indeed Saddam’s intransigence on UN weapons inspections (specifically his expulsion of all inspectors from the country, and his repeated claims to be restarting his WMD programs), but that was far from the only reason.
After initially tepid support for military action, yes the threat of WMD stockpiles was exaggerated (by some, not all) to better “sell” the war. In the end, this was hugely self-defeating, as the discovery of virtually no WMDs made it appear like the main pretense of the war had been false.
But don’t confuse the WMD hyperbole with the myriad of actual strategic reasons for launching the war, or for that matter for France’s actual strategic reasons for opposing it. For example, one of the main reasons France opposed the war because it was a longtime partner of Saddam’s regime, and saw Iraq as a sort of extension of their sphere of influence in the Levant.
@@TheLocalLtno the reason France opposed Irak II was that we knew the complete mess it will be after the campaign.
The AMX 10 is like a Unicorn: you don't know what it actually is, but you love the notion that it exists.
Well it's going out of service for the EBRC Jaguar as of 2021. It's actually a nice vehicle too.
I put it in the same class as the 105mm mounted stryker. Heavy recon vehicle.
It’s a floor wax! It’s a dessert topping!
Also would recommend people to find the video of Amx10 rc jumping it's very fun
And for some damn reason its Scotland’s national animal.
I find it hard to understand how (some) Americans can look at French strategic autonomy and deduce that France doesn't want to be on their team. The only way for this point of view to make sense to me would be for these Americans to not actually want allies, but dependant vassals who don't ever question them.
Especially when some American politicans say want Europe to be able to look after itself. Which exactly what France been building towards for decades.
Just know that being allied doesn't mean being friends, and that spying on allies is something some countries are well known for.
(I'm guessing it is also a way to reduce the psychological burden or blocks some people could express if they had to spy on actual friendly people. But it's just a very minor point, obviously)
Exactly. They dont want a concurrent, especially in rich countries.
It’s not hard to see when France’s leadership makes comments about how France and the rest of Europe should not aid the USA in its upcoming struggle with China linking the phrase “strategic autonomy”, even as the USA pours resources into the Ukrainian fight that is strategically important to Europe, but not as important as Taiwan is to the USA.
@@kurousagi8155 you seem to completely forget how France is actually helping Ukraine, providing excellent equipment and training Ukrainian soldiers, just as well as the other NATO countries...
I don't know what you are trying to achieved here, but misinformation and deception come on mind. (Unless you never heard of Caesar and MLRU artillery systems, just as an example)
Mixing one comment on "France don't want to escalade the tension in the taiwanese region" with "they are not helping Ukraine" seems a bit stretching and dishonest, don't you think ?
The fact that a Simpson meme is enough to generate such a strong myth regarding France in the USA tells us more about the cultural and intellectual decline (or utter absence) of the US citizens than anything.
as a frenchman I always wonder wether this opinion is maintained by the media or if it is embeded in popular culture.
Perun, would you consider doing a video on South Korea's deterrance strategy ("Three axis")? I think analysing the world's first attempt at conventional deterrance strategy in an economic context is significant, because:
1) pro-nuclear armament discussions in Korea are partly fueled by arguments that conventional-deterrence, even in theory, is near impossible to finance (due to costs involving the scale of missile defense, matching destructiveness)
2) If conventional-deterrence is a realistic policy, other (financially capable) countries can model it instead of pursuing nuclear armament
3) If conventional-deterrence is not viable, whether the benefits of hypothetical nuclear deterrence outweigh the costs of South Korea going nuclear (current nuclear exports getting cancelled, intl sanctions, toll of nuclear arsenal on defense budget)
I will do Korea - including expanding a bit on the DPRK as well since that helps establish part of the threat that RoK strategy has to respond to.
Second this
@@PerunAU ok, I've sent an email thru your general contacts @ in case I can help w/ anything (general info, translations etc)
Can't wait for the Korean episode, should be great.
@@PerunAUreally excited to head that!
America: guidance kit for everything, and calls everything an M1 (also uses "freedom units")
Japan: make no change at all, or leap directly to the cutting-edge stuff such as AI and railguns
Poland: just buy everything
France: all about autonomy, hate tank treads with a passion, and believes in nuclear warning shot (s)
Someone should make a sitcom out of this
1960 film "The Mouse that Roared" treat, available on youtube, now gives me goosebumps as well as laughs.
@@pynn1000 you are first person I have seen on this platform mention that movie, thank you
Germany: too lazy to bother to upgrade its military, doesn't know how to swim, really good at selling tanks and guns but doesn't want to use them
Japan: follows america wherever it goes, turns warships into waifus (real they make ads like that now), trying to figure out if its a military or not (probably bipolar), helicopter frigate transporting starship not carrier embarked fixed winged non aviation (not a carrier), definitely bipolar
More offensive take on your sitcom:
America: uses smart everything (probably to compensate abysmal geography levels), you get an M1, you too, everybody has M1!, Overkill is the new measured response, healthcare secondary to the next batch of f-69 block M1 (noice)
Poland: what's a water? I'll take everything in your stock in exchange from my lungs and my liver plz, deep throats america when it's not busy yelling at germany for existing, has a boogey man in his head that tells him all of western europe will betray it to russia despite it no making any sense, buys even more stuff in case western europe betrays poland (mecanics on suicide watch)
France: GOTTA GO FAST, TOO FAST, *face plant in walls* i now build 600ton tanks and build walls on the rhine fast is so 2020. NNN stands for no nuke november (100% fail rate), the military when it sees something not made in france: 💀, wants to stick pp in wheels (wheel go F A S T). Find yourself a woman who likes you like the french army likes desert (probably not a sith lord)
@@pougetguillaume4632 Given what has happened in Ukraine, Poland kind of has a point. Gone are the times you can say: you are overthinking Russia; and Putin was right at least in pointing out Europe disunity as a factor.
As a frenchman I must say this is one of the fairest military capability reviews I've seen on CZcams so far
I found the French nuclear doctrine chillingly pragmatic. Thank you, Perun, for this informative presentation.
Only the fools can consider nuclear weapons as toys to play the childish game of "who has the biggest one" (3 countries on Earth love to do that, almost like an ego sport). In France, we do consider mutual destruction of the world to be a little bit more serious than a child's game... But hey, we are the ones everyone like to tease and mock... Go figure....
The author could have quoted Charles de Gaulle in this regard: in 1962 he said: "Within ten years, we will have the capacity to kill 80 million Russians. Well, I don't think you want to attack people who can kill 80 million Russians, even if you yourself can kill 800 million French people, supposing there were 800 million French people."
I was a bit surprised that you didn’t discuss the French nuclear industry more. France was one of the few European nations that had little to fear from when Russia turned off the gas. France gets the vast majority of its electricity from nuclear power plants. Aside from Sweden (which gets about 40-45% of its electricity from nuclear power & a roughly equal amount from hydro) France is pretty much the only country in Europe that’s relatively immune from blackmail by fossil fuel exporters.
Norway would be the exception you are looking for, being not only a petrol producer but mostly self-sufficient through hydro- and windpower even if they would cancel the oil production tomorrow.
True but we are dependant on fissable materiel importation mainly from Kazakstan wich is in Russian sphere of influence. It's still a tricky situation.
@@shuaguin5446 France import less than 30 % of it's Uranium from Kazakstan, the majority of wich come from Niger, where the French company Orano exploit the mines.
"Sweden (which gets about 40-45% of its electricity from nuclear power"
No, Sweden only gets about 30% of its electricity from nuclear.
Pretty sure the UK also doesn't rely on Russia either. I think about 5% of its oil imports are/were Russian, and over 50% of the UK's gas is sourced domestically. Norway makes up a huge chunk of Britain's energy imports. The UK could perhaps do more when it comes to nuclear power, but it still produces around 15% of its energy needs via nuclear. It has the largest offshore wind farms in the world as well as huge wind and wave energy potential, so honestly France and the UK have it good compared to most of Europe
As a 'Murican who grew up during the latter part of the cold war, my take is this...
We can joke all day long about French valor, Parisian snobbery, or Macron's ill-advised outreaches to Putin in an attempt to appear more statesmanlike. After all, in the US we've been targets of jokes, outrage and memes in between, the world over, for decades. That said, the USA owes its very existence to France (a blood debt which we later paid off, but still). More to the point, I have always respected that unlike certain other continental powers *cough* Germany *cough*, France is one of the few that is actually willing to act when it is required, and more than willing to get their hands dirty when "soft power" is insufficient, rather than hide behind false virtue. Also, they were far more sensible for many years about using nuclear power than some, and while their reactors are aging badly (as are ours), at least it shows some reasonable strategic planning on that front as well.
Most Americans, regardless of what CNN or the NYT claim, do not want to abandon Europe or other allies, but we DO want those allies to carry their weight in their own backyard, esp. since we have a more daunting challenge (from our standpoint) in the PRC. Sure, we squabble with the French, but kudos to them for being in the category of those pulling their fair share, and for being willing to tell US administrations to suck it, once in a while... A true friend can tell you when you're full of crap.
Vive La France
PS... sorry/not sorry about that whole AUKUS thing... :P
I just want to point out that Macron's outreach to Putin WAS useful, it closed off an avenue of victimhood theatre for Russia. They can't claim that the West is entirely closed off to diplomacy, or at least can't do it as well, when they have visibly snobbed Macron's attempts at diplomacy.
@@pierre-yveslegal1702, it also allowed Macron to evaluate Putin's psychological state. I seem to remember he referred to this.
It is worth noting though that while Macron still maintains direct dialogue with Putin, he has agreed to help Ukraine, and also agreed that Ukraine should join NATO and the EU as well. While I don't like Macron, keeping a line of communication while also telling Putin to shove it when he makes his laughable demands is a good approach.
From a froggy CESM, or more seriously a french NCO twice injuried (a NDE even) in 30 years of services under the tricolore flag (and still in race), Thank you ! I have served 5 years in french forces based in Germany, I have worked with the 1st US armoured cavalry brigade, I was always looking my american brothers with envy when is aw that for just a little engine problem, they were changing it and were operational in 30 minutes when us, had to change my uniform of tankist for the one of a mech and after 3 hours, the tank was more or less able to fight again (AMX30B)...I was speaking with a US Lieutenant (and not a leftenant, sorry the rosbifs or the Pommes) and he told me, the support ? in US army, for a single fighter, there is 9 persons who work for him... and I answer in french army, there are 3 fighters which can support the single support guy... ! LMAO
One aspect that I think plays into the French's butt monkey status is media. French media just doesn't have the same global reach as American or even British media, so their successes get understated and their failures are blown out of proportion. I can count on one hand the number of films featuring French military personnel as more than background characters and can only recall one where they are protagonists, its Wolf's Call btw. Case in point, Nolan's Dunkirk pretty much erased the contributions of the French and Belgian rear guard during the evacuation.
French were somewhat pissed about Dunkirk movie in french press. Nolan basically said it was historically accurate further fanning flames.
@@murphy7801 Yeah Dunkirk was about as historically accurate as Braveheart.
@@murphy7801 You don't see it, but I remember at least once, they say it's French soldiers holding the line allowing British soldiers to retreat.
But it also misses that huge numbers of French soldiers were also evacuated out of Dunkirk.
@@hazzardalsohazzard2624 And the glorious Battle of Arras that actually prevented the German panzers from rolling over the evac site.
@@dulio12385WILLIAM WALLICE KILLED 50 MEN.. 50 AS IF IT WER ONE
French Navy is good. The Perle sunk my ship several times during an exercise on an Atlantic crossing and we didn't even know they were there. Their Captain came on board and showed us some very embarrassing periscope films!
I love the Ruby-class submarines !
In all fairness, did other subs sink your ship in exercises ?
@@Taletad Subs will always get through if they are persistent.
Was it during the Royal Navy Auriga 2010 exercise alongside seven Royal Navy warships and one United States Navy destroyer?
Damn... first 7 minutes assured me that what I need (and what I was not aware I wanted) is Perun analizing for 2 hours war economics of Middle Ages. Maybe Crusades, 100 Years War or Mongol Conquest. And no: not the history of battles and famous figures, but nitty-gritty economy of taxes, manpower, supplies, resurces and reality of waging war in time of feudal economics...
Perun should get some advertising budget from paradox, I'm itching to go back and revisit some crusader kings and hearts of iron
I so wish to see him megacampaign CK3 to HOI4
I agree actually.
There are actually some fairly good works of scholarship coming, ironically, out of the traditions inspired by the french school of historiography called the annales, which focused on detailed social and economic analysis.
Something I hope we can look forward to when the war in Ukraine is over.
Imports don’t include “radars from Netherlands”, Thales Netherlands, like Thales UK, etc. Is a recent rebrand of the filial companies Thales( 100% French company from France) established in other countries in order to sell its hardware to said countries, but the material is developed and made in France, just produced in said countries for export reasons, while France’s Thales equipment is French developed and made…
(This was written at the 29 minute mark)
I think you will find that the key reason why France avoids tracks is because it is expeditionary centric. Tracked vehicles are only capable of a third or less of the travel distance without maintenance compared to a wheeled vehicle which can cover hundreds of kilometres.
If you need to go anywhere with a reduced maintenance footprint, wheeled equipment can go farther (and faster depending on the ground of course). You just have to have skilled operators that can identify and select terrain accordingly to avoid becoming immobilised.
Tracks are beautiful in a conventional war because the fronts are defined and distances travelled are less. Also as these are large scale affairs they (should) have the requisite logistics footprint.
The final thing to consider in the tracks vs wheeled debate is especially relevant in asymmetric combat and is also something the ukrainians have used to great effect against the russians.
Tracked vehicles only have two tracks, and if you take out one, the vehicle is a mobility kill until the crew can repair the track (extremely unlikely under fire). Meanwhile a multi-wheeled armoured vehicle (3 or 4 axle a.k.a. 6 or 8 wheeled) is often designed so that up to half of it's wheels can be damaged and the vehicle can potentially still extract itself.
Thought that tracks are a lot worse in places like the Sahara than wheels.
@@imrpovking845 yes, some places can only be reached by tracks. However it comes at a cost of fuel consumption, weight, Maitenance and most important is this case: speed.
Speed is crucial for the theaters in which France needs to be present (Central Africa, until recently mali..) where they are fighting insurgents who have Toyotas trucks and motorcycles. You can’t catch any of these two with a tracked vehicle
weight (aerotransport) and mobility are playing great roles here.
@@OhSiixo
As France is deep into EU terrirory and surronded by seas on 3 sides, in case of France getting involved in a high intensity conflict, it would be hundreds if not thousands miles away from it's territory, (the closest being Poland/Romania maybe) .
So any massive deployment of French forces on a coherent frontline is, in any case, an expeditionnary force, no matter if it's for a peace keaping/military aid to Africa or getting involved in a coaliton against China deploying full diviisions in India for exemple.
So if we need to be somewhere and be operationnal in due time we need to have the lighter possible logistic.
As a French, I must commend your impressive analysis and in-depth exploration. I'll certainly share this video as a resource for those looking to move beyond the typical stereotypes about the French army. You've nailed our approach to strategic autonomy, which is often misinterpreted as a desire for isolation or a longing for past superpower status. As for your French it was clearly not to be ashamed of. Well done and thank you for this video.
As a French you still believe the lies that France liberated Paris and no French ever served outside France for the Nazis
As an American, I'm very interested to see where France specifically, and the EU generally end up going in the future with regards to defense policy and spending. Everyone I've seen mocking or spitting on France for wanting to support more domestic/EU defense industries and supply chains seem to think they're doing it specifically to undermine American hegemony within the strategic military and economic world order. I would humbly disagree with the point that we are both part of the same defensive alliance (NATO), we hold similar cultural, political, and economic philosophies, and maybe most importantly, we don't have competing strategic interests. The amount of people that were seething over Macron's statements about decoupling from US defense suppliers, who not weeks before were roasting the EU (including France) for not investing enough money in defense spending was unbelievable.
@@cah11111 german dude here. What i think will happen is that Europe will become more independent when it comes to defence, but will still greatly cooperate with the US.
@@sugandesenuds6663 More independent in operations and equals of command while still being integrated in systems.
@@sugandesenuds6663 as an American, I think it would be great IF Europe becomes more independent from USA on defence, but I still don't see how a France that wants to keep its defence autonomy and relationship with Russia intact, a Germany that seems allergic to making its own decisions, and an emergent E. Europe and Scandinavian bloc that wants a more aggressive response to Russian imperial aims can make and implement a coherent defence strategy without USA leading them.
It's nice to hear someone who knows what they're talking about give the French military it's due credit - and also acknowledging the strategic and political policies that cause France to insist on doing everything the French way.
This was an interesting and well-timed video for me, as France has just a couple of days ago declared that they will be sending a military attachments to their embassy in my country (Armenia). While it's marked as Russian ally on Perun's maps, we are gradually shifting out of Russias political and mllilitary sphere of influence over the last 3-4 years due repeated biggorty of their government, and French are among our key partners in that regards, along with Greece, India, and Iran and, partially, Arab countries (yeh, a somewhat strange club given today's politics, but all of them really don't want Turkey becoming an Ottoman Empire again :D )
Hopefully you coming out of Russian dominance means Azerbaijan will fuck off soon.
if anything, iran is the strangest partner out of these
but again iran is mostly hostile to the USA, saudi arabia, israel and whoever following the USA's foreign policy
I'm French and Armenia's situation not being talked about in western media as much as Ukraine really broke my heart and showed me how much we made people care about Ukraine for political reasons rather than the humanitarian matters at play.
Armenia should have gained access to support packages on the same scale Ukraine had simply on the ground that both countries are facing the same threat. I'm quite ashamed there were no political will to send CAESARs or 10RCs to Armenia the same way there was for Ukraine. And I'm sure your governement's ties with Russia is no innocent in that matter.
Honestly hopping that there will be some serious effort in the future to support your country as there is today with Ukraine.
@@lucaj8131 you realise Armenia is a close Russian ally right? And the whole of Armenia is not under threat, just a disputed border territory that has been under both sides control in living memory. It’s shit and Azerbaijan needs to fuck off, but Armenia isn’t under existential threat like Ukraine.
@@lucaj8131 You bring fair points, but it is hard to stay away from Russias influence in our region. You can take Georgia as an example, they have a direct conflict with Russia, but still are within Russian sphere of influence, and may even get deeper into it as some analytics say after the recent actions of the Georgian government.
Now, Turkey and Iran could have been the balancing for Russian influence in the region, but both are, as of right now, further radicalizing countries with fragile economies themselves. So yeh, both Armenia and Georgia are in a very tight region :(
I know the history was just a side section but FWIW probably the most crucial development in France in the modern era, that you didn’t mention, was the severely arrested demographic transition that France underwent over the course of the 19th century.
France traditionally was so strong because they had a relatively large population relatively to any other single European state (aside from Russia, which of course couldn’t utilize their population as effectively), but in the 19th century, while England and Germany’s population grew by over 300%, France grew by just 33%.
It was this demographic reality, more than any military, economic or political development that reduced France from the leading continental power to parity with Britain and clear inferiority to Germany. For the sake of comparison, if France had a demographic transition anywhere near as strong as England and Germany, their population would almost certainly be over 100 million today.
I studied it in economics. France may not have gotten a "true" demographic transition, which was worrying also at the time in French politics, it now seems to finally align with French interests as France has one of the highest birth rates in Western Europe and projections estimate the French population will reach 80 - 90 million (the most optimistic ones say 100 millions) in 2050 / 2100. Thus France will probably become the most populated country in Europe in the next years as Germany is having an ageing population like Britain or Italy. Nonetheless, these countries (mostly Germany) may once again rely on immigration.
Moral of the story : demographic transition may increase a population (and a fortiori the amount of workforce available) on the short term, it lands a hit on the birth rates of countries that now seems to depopulate while France benefits from the lack of "true" demographic transition
@@chickenbucket4640 Without going political, I personally think that's not it, and we absolutely don't benefit from it, we have the same problems as Germany and England, and the birth rate is very influenced by the migrants birth rate who heavily profits from the system and the taxes, such as at some point, in some cities, migrant's children births exceed native french ones, like in Paris region (Île-de-France) where babies from african immigrants ancestry represent 73% of the births. Obviously thoses statistics and studies are banned/censored so if we want numbers we have to think smarter but that's it.
BLABLABLABLA....
YOU KNOW YOUR ASS.
Actually, France was more populous than Russia for a lot of times, being only "outnumbered" in the 1800's.
I think it's pretty obvious that the main military advantage France has is Asterix, Obelix and the magic potion that makes them so strong 💪
🤣 Vive la Gaule ! (no pun intended)
Shh, don't let them hear about our ultimate weapon!
Go idefix
@@CHMichael Yep! Love that little guy. In my books as a kid he was called Dogmatix.
LOL!
For me as a Brit, I find the French military to be the most impressive in Europe. They've managed to build the industrial base to natively design, build, maintain and dismantle Nuclear powered subs, and aircraft carriers; nuclear weapons; a large aerospace industry, think Airbus and Dassault; a large-ish surface navy; lots of native armoured vehicles including tanks. All of this and more without the technical support or gifts from Uncle Sam.
As a consequence of bringing, and maintaining, industry, their budget goes much further than the equivalent UK defence budget.
Vive la France!
and ironically people scream that we are not independant just because we buy our standard rifle to germans now
@@hestan723 we don't even buy them from Germany. We just got a contract with a German firm.
I agree entirely. A genuinely independent force with a clear plan.
Let's hope the UK works out what it wants to be and how. Instead of 'pepper potting' it's limited resources with two carriers and a strategy of 'whatever the Americans want'.
tbf French nuclear industry benefitted a lot from US help, and a lot of our nuclear reactors were based on US designs, which work very well and are quite safe & efficient.
So we benefitted a lot from the technical support of US for our nuclear industry.
And for the hydrogen bomb the UK helped us quite a lot actually, as France were having troubles to make a good h bomb alone.
But yes, regarding plenty of things, like the subs industry or the aerospace industry, french tehnical capability is quite impressive.
Especially knowing that France is the biggest player in the Europe space program, and that Airbus (currently Euoprean company but mainly French) is the main civilian long rang aircraft that is the nearly only competitor to Boeing in the world stage.
@@Benjamin.Jamin. Problem with the UK is 'pepper potting' with two Carriers as you call it is probably actually a GOOD idea, personally I would have preferred three, with three full Task Groups of Destroyers and Frigates.
Why? I do not know if you have noticed, but we are an Island, in other words Maritime defence is and always has been the central facet of the UK's defence. Our Army has *always* been traditionally small. Only twice in our history have we raised citizen Conscript armies, in WWI and WWII, and we did not go conscript in WWI until 1916, half way through the war.
So a strong Navy is not pepper potting as you put it, but is a central, core requirement for the defence of the UK. Period. It always has been, and as long as Blue Water navies are viable it always will be.
The Army mostly exists as it does to provide an expeditionary capacity to the British Military, its too small to defend the UK, and frankly is not DESIGNED to. The task of actually defending our Island falls in the laps of the Royal Navy and the RAF, because why shoot at enemies on our own shores when it is far safer to sink them before they get to us?
Because that is what any invader of the UK has to do, they have to put people, equipment and supplies on ships and transport them to our shores. Even with a much smaller navy than during the days of Empire, there are still only a small group of Nations with the Maritime Assault capability of doing that. Of those only the USA and potentially China could attempt an invasion with any realistic expectation of success....
Our Alliance with the USA is also a lot deeper that a strategy of 'whatever the American's want.' While the UK is allied with, and closely supports the US, we do not simply do whatever they want. The Americans advised us not to go into the Falklands for example, we did it anyway, winning a war that no one, and I mean NO ONE at the time thought we were capable of winning.....
After more than a year of compulsive viewing, I have a small quibble. French Indochina was not just Vietnam, but included both Laos and Cambodia.
Many know of the US involvement in Vietnam, but far fewer are aware of the undeclared war they prosecuted at the same time in Laos.
That’s what I thought too!
and the war crimes and crimes against humanity that they both undertook.
@@abhishekparmar6702 shhhh 🤫 it's called casualties when its done non white people
Yes the North Vietnamese were backing Communist rebels in both Laos and Cambodia, in addition to South Vietnam. I’m not too familiar with the situation in Laos, but I know in Cambodia, the sovereign prince tried to avoid war by rejecting American military support and instead allowing Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge to use the Ho Chi Minh trail through the countryside, which had the exact opposite effect and eventually led to the Khmer Rouge taking over his country and using him as figurehead for their genocide.
People love to decry the “secret” campaigns against the North Vietnamese and their allies in Cambodia and Laos, but forget that these wouldn’t have had to be secret if, at least in Cambodia, those in power actually wanted to defend their country rather than handing it to lunatics like the Khmer Rouge on a silver platter.
France has reason to lead Europe, rather than obey Washington
In response to the intro, as a Dutch person I feel the French in this regard. The field of history is dominated by English history, which surprise surprise, has surpressed the history of nations they fought and lost wars against.
Brits when their most important king was a French invader and another very influential king was a Dutch invader:
Both named William, too.
@@craigstephenson7676 In the latter case, "invade" might be a bit of strong word, he was practically invited to come in and conquer England by protestant dissenters!
@@Croz89 wasn't it the British parliament who invited them to come and overthrow the Catholic monarch?
"Suppressed" is not the right word. "ignored" is better. History is written by the victors. Having said that, Michiel de Ruyter is one of my personal heroes, not because I was taught about him in school, but because I love history, so I go looking for it.
Sometimes it’s not how you got the job (England defeating the Dutch navies) but what you did with it (Colonize everything you could reach.)
Being a student of PERUN is a treasure. I have a PhD but never have I been captivated over 63 weeks to an area I had zero interest in 15 months ago. Well done.
I wish more PhDs were as open as you are about learning new things. Freeman Dyson has a few choice words about PhDs who are not as openminded as you are.
Go on! You just like the jokes?
...all this from a simple gaming channel!
I hear jokes about French surrenders, and my teeth grate. I've been to the Great War cemetery at Notre-Dame-de-Lorette, and seeing the expanse of crosses shows that the French are not cowards; in that war, they were too brave, and the Great War wasn't an aberration.
Just thank you
I'm French, but also Estonian and Canadian and this vidéo is excellent ! I deal with these security-related issues and currently live in Estonia supporting French troops because I speak both languages.
I'd add only 1 thing to this excellent, balanced presentation : I believe the focus of French doctrine is now moving toward Europe and away from former French colonies in Africa, given Poutine's war in Ukraine. For the French, it's better to fight on Ukrainian (and even Estonian) soil than in Metropolitan France, proper. Africans, both their citizens and their leaders, seem to prefer having Wagner Group mercenaries doing the dirty work that the French once did mostly gratis. Wagner just wants gold mines in the Central African Republic in addition to a fee for their services, preferably in dollars, euros or Swiss francs.
Each defence funding model has their strengths and weaknesses and Perun has shown the benefits of the French model very clearly. This model also has the broad support of much of French society, though the Rassemblement National would probably direct more support to Russia, as Marine Le Pen owes Russian banks a lot of money.
Question 1: do you think RN could tilt towards Russia once they win? Or is there enough structural inertia to prevent that? Also Russia won't be able to finance foreign politicians much longer, no?
Question 2: in your experience, is the French defense establishment ready to give up national autonomy for a more coordinated European response, maybe in exchange for the rest of Europe (coughGermanycough) becoming a bit more French in their defense approach?
@@chooseyouhandle Perun apologised for his prononciation of French, which was never the less understandable. Let me share this linguistic gem with you. In France, and I believe other French-speaking countries, Путин is transliterated as Poutine rather than Putin because putain (which would be pronounced in roughly the same way as putin) means bitch, slut, whore, tart among other possible English translations.
Whilst Perun's use of Private Conscriptovich is perfectly acceptable, I don't believe he'd go so far as to call the Prime Minister of Emutopia Mr Dickhead, or something similar. Although I'm very much rooting for Ukraine to win this war, I want to avoid diminishing or daemonising the man who started it. I trust we understand each other better now.
@@antonnurwald5700 Question 2 first. My short answer : no, French politicians won't abandon the principle of strategic autonomy lightly. The abridged long version is that relevance on the international stage is part of our identity and has roots in our history of empire. Stated differently, it's our way of coping with the end of empire. If Germany were to become "a bit more French in their defence approach" then we'd certainly want to be in charge of the European security enterprise. That said, we might concede to using English as a language of command to ensure interoperability. Many large French companies, including defense companies like Thales, use business English in their daily operations. Airbus and Renault are 2 other examples.
I believe Europe must do more to ensure its own defense and, in Europe, the French model is the best one going. The Swiss model is another good example, as is the Finnish model. A hybrid of the Finnish/Swedish model is another possibility. I'd be delighted if the Baltic trio would join Poland's rearmament initiative with € 1 or 2B. There are lots of options to strengthen the European arm of Nato.
As for your 1st question about politics and the Rassemblement National, I'm already uncomfortable with their pro-Russia posture. Marine Le Pen owes Russian banks quite a lot of money. The Front National (FN) borrowed heavily from Alfa Bank to finance Le Pen's presidential bid in 2017 and lost. Soon thereafter, the Front National became the Rassemblement National by buying the rights to the name of an insignificant fringe party, closing the FN and moving the membership list to a new entity. Call this the French version of the American Chapter 11 bankruptcy. It was a simple business decision.
If Russia loses Poutine's war, the RN will likely remain pretty silent because their horse didn't win the derby. Should the tables turn and Moscow is able to declare victory in some remotely plausible form then Le Pen may feel justified to tilt more toward Russia than she already has provided she sees a domestic advantage in doing so. Maybe. It's hard to be certain.
Finally, Moscow will continue to finance foreign politicians regardless of whether they win or lose the war, and its cost to the economy. Russia will always have enough money to buy-off spineless politicians from Washington DC to Tel Aviv and beyond. It's a dishonourable tradition that they've practised since the 1st partition of Poland/Lithuania in 1772. Moscow will always seek to identify weaknesses and exploit them to what it believes is in its interest. It doesn't matter if Russia is led by a tsar, bolsheviks or an autocratic president who has governed for over 20 years, and would like to stay in the job for another 10-12. In the end, only a decisive loss in Ukraine will put Russia on the path of internal self-reflection and move the country and her people into a post-imperialist future. Until then, the sort of multi-polarism of which Poutine speaks can only lead to more war.
Le Pen and her party are racist traitors to the nation and should be thrown in jail
@@hannojaanniidas9655 The russian bank argument is a bit much. What about former prime minister working for a russian company, François Fillion? Would you say that former president Sarkozy presidency was pro-Russian? I would argue that if a french bank would have accepted to lend some money to a democratic party, they wouldn't have had the problem.
This was one of my favorite videos, maybe my favorite. It did a really good job of convincing me that rather that just doing things for the sake of being French, there is a very respectable set of ideals that have been seemingly very well executed.
You've convinced me to never make 'white flag' jokes about the French again!
You still can, but only if you refer to the French royal standard of 1643-ish (white tends to represent royalty, and this standard was white, with golden "Fleurs de lys" all over it.)
Official flags of France in Battle on land and at sea, and not at all a symbol for surrendering.
The joke is only a proof of ignorance.
French guy here.
You can keep doing that. I think we should have the mental fortitude and confidence to accept it as a joke or disregard it as some ignorant guy spouting nonsense (not in your case of course 😛)
Merci! J'apprecie vraiment! :)
As a French, thanks !
Don't worry, when we resurrect Napoleon, and reconquer Europe, then the world, we won't forget all the "allies" who made fun of us all these years ! :p
From what my Bundeswehr vet buddy tells me, the gross incompetence of the German procurement system simply cannot be overstated. So it appears the real answer is the Frenchmen and women managing their procurement are competent.
One disagreement: France never tried to "challenge superpowers like the USA. More correctly, France (en fact Europe) has sightly different interest as the USA. Suppose Trump comes back and make friend with Putin, are we supposed to follow? Suppose the USA totally shift its power to the Pacific and neglects Europe (for sure not the case today but tomorrow?) I believe Europe should stand on its own two feet while still a close ally to the US and France will push for that vision even more in the future.
Don't worry.. US will never let Europe off leash
Hey Perun, as someone who also lives in Sydney, your comment about the cost of apartments here made me laugh. It also hurt me.
Seriously though, I discovered your channel via a friend a couple of weeks ago. I never would have expected hour-long videos in presentation format would be so enjoyable. I’m learning so much it’s crazy. You’re doing great work, mate.
They're pretty awesome eh? Hi from the GC!
I have several friends in the US Navy and they say during joint operations the French carrier is the only carrier that can perform operations anywhere close to the US Navy carriers
Hopefully the next French Carrier catches up
@@murphy7801 yeah the British carriers were large disappointment no ability to launch awacs or refueling aircraft like the US carriers and French carriers can and the awacs aircraft is key to keeping your task force alive
@@mattmopar440 Why can't those things be launched as well? Seems like an odd failing.
@@jgw9990 Ramp style (non catapult) carrier have massive restrictions on the aircraft they can operate pretty much its helicopters and vertical take off fighters currently the F-35 and harrier which means no support aircraft. the Charles de Gaulle and American carriers operate the E-2 Hawkeye which cant take off from a ramp deck only a Catapult. As for mid air refueling the US uses modified F18s which cant take off from a ramp and the French use modified Dassault Rafale
@@jgw9990they have AEW helicopters in the form of the Merlin crows nest helicopters, but helicopters can never have the same endurance or reach as a dedicated AEW aircraft.
And yes, currently no known options for tankers.
Seems like French armor design is consistent with its small arms design. That design is, as Ian at Forgotten Weapons puts it, "France doesn't copy anyone and no one copies France."
I think Drachnifel also said the same thing!
Actually Italians did copy the French with the centauro. The result is excellent, by the way, and the name is brilliant.
Japan: copies French machine guns and anti-aircraft guns
@@reginaldpasao8390 France: excellent! You have fallen into my trap!
Didn't technically everyone copy the French? I mean the first modern rifle and bullet is French, as well as smokeless powder.
That's reassuring. As an American, I really do want France to be strong. We can't function independently, and I believe capable allies will make the difference in future conflicts.
I must say, these videos are of extraordinarily high quality. Having worked in the humanitarian sector in a multitude of countries throughout the world I very much appreciate your no nonsense and well pondered analysis. My most sincere compliments for your work Perun.
A lot of people in the Anglo-sphere almost instinctively think of Britain as the second most powerful western nation, and for most of the anglo-sphere being members of the British commonwealth I find that understandable. I find this phenomenon less understandable for the US, especially given France and America’s shared military histories and how similar the 2 militaries are.
And considering what France did for us during our revolution against the Britts, and the fact that they where actually right about Iraq.
That's easy- the shared military history between the UK and USA is stronger and more recent, the two have more in common and the UK is much more likely to back up the USA (even if they probably shouldn't) in global confrontations.
Isn’t japan second most powerful western nation? Economically miltary diplomaticaly etc?
Similar? Well sure we’ve surrendered a few times most recently in Afghanistan but I think Frances still takes the cake.
@@silverhost9782Yea I agree with you also Macron doesn’t have a single person who likes him in the American government.
The lightweight wheeled thing makes perfect sense, given their focus on price/performance, There's a pentagon paper somewhere, where someone argues that armored vehicle logistics blows up proportional to the fifth (!) power as a function of weight. Yes, the equation is X^5! That's absolutely ridiculous! But it makes sense if you think about it. Heavier tank? More fuel. Heavier spare parts. Heavier support vehicles. Heavier ammo. More logistics vehicles. More fuel for the logistics vehicles. No wonder France is going all in on wheels! Save vehicle weight, save a ton on logistics! You get less terrain capability, but does that really matter if your forces are stuck because they can't get fuel, ammo, and spare parts? EDIT: To paraphrase the later nuclear section: "Keep reliability up, costs down!" That's the French military philosophy in a nutshell!
a power of 5 is really _really_ ridiculous. Got any way to find as source for that paper?
also note that most of Western and Central Europe is covered in good roads so off-road capability is not so critical. Also there is no mud season in most of Europe
@@paulmcneil9971 true alot french vehicles are designed with Europe and Africa as the primary surfaces. Also on roads both the AMX 10 rc and it's replacement (jaguar ebrc) can do about 95kmph on road. So definitely on the mobility Warfare side.
@@freddy4603 I saw it come across on Hacker News, and I've been searching for it again ever since!
Brilliant, comprehensive presentation.
As a German, I'm tempted to make comparisons between France and Germany, but I think there's a misconception. The armed forces are more often than not the utmost national, in the sense of nationalistic institution of a a nation of considerable size - even in Switzerland it looms large. The German armed forces post-1945 and any geostrategic approach by Germany lack this national dimension. The national self-confidence and willingness to prevail and also make sacrifices for the nation, as a raison d'être of the armed forces, is simply not there in Germany. We have a nation state with about the nationalist intensity if Belgium.
My sentiment is that France is very much alive...
Hmm however if you scrap the surface, the German battle order is quite coherent aligning 2 heavy divisions and 1 rapid reaction division.
Germany clearly misses a lot of strategic assets, but since you don't have nuclear deterrence you can more easily invest in a solid air-ground force. The inclusion of the Dutch brigades in the German battle order are also quite smart.
I would say that the only big blunder was to spend a fuck ton of money to buy F-35 planes with the special fund.
its a anglosphere thrope of German's armed forces, he don't get far about why Germany post ww2 had changed their mind, those guys aren't living on european continent, they can't understand
As an Israeli I would love to have this type of analysis done on our military, but I assume the controversy alone doesn’t make it worth while. Not to mention the probably very limited public information.
Love the video and as always, keep it up!
To not go really in depth, i am not a fan at all about israeli politics, but isreali defense and military is such a big player that he really should anyway speak about it.
Feeling compassion for the palestinians doesn't change the fact that the Merkava is propably the best tank in the world, and that the israelian industry is leading the defense sector in many new technologies.
I really hope he will make a video about new defense industry players, like Israel and South Korea.
The section on nuclear power alone would be…
@@Michelpelleteuse I wonder if it is at all possible to make any video about Israel without it becoming political, or at the very least, scorching the video’s comment section lol
Maybe perun could make a spin-off channel to cover highly controversial topics lmao
@@DingleberryWhite i think its doable. im pretty sure even opposing sides can have a doctoral discussion even on israeli military infrastructure. whats a bigger problem is, finding out the hard facts about actual military standing of israel. historically speaking they have punched way above their weight; with similar instruments where french lost in algeria israel won in egypt/ stalemate, another, world wide example of copying instruments means lower quality but (finns and ) israelis have copied russian instruments and made them world class (as opposed to chinese copies of US instruments which are relatively sub par), where numerically large egptian, syrian arimes failed, korean, american, french and german large armies failed in various wars, much smaller israeli army counter attacked outskirts of damascus from golan heights, how do you measure this? how do you evaluate this in traditional sense ? not to mention, how many active nukes does tel aviv have ;) .
Sadly I suspect any video on your pretty bloody amazing military will result in some...butthurt people shouting incoherently in the comments...
(Thanks for training our military too!)
Denmark-Norway sided with Napoleon because the British weren't fans of our neutrality. They sailed by Copenhagen, bombed the city indiscriminately, stole the fleet, and went home. Had Britain left us alone, we would have staid out of that war
Yes but the British raid eliminated the potential threat, so still a net win. Mers El Kebir thing
Right-O. And kept the union with Norway perhaps. If it hadn't been for the bloody Swedes changing side to get a new king. But that mostly water under The Bridge by now. Literally.
@@User-he6zd Not quite how the Danes and the Norwegians saw it, though, was it?
The French was a bit miffed about Mers-el-Kebir, too. Remember?
@@ulrikschackmeyer848 Well yeah, that's why I said its like Mers el Kebir lol. France hated the Brits more than the Nazis for a while after that one!
@@User-he6zd France may have hated us but they nolonger had a fleet to action that hate like Copenhagen, a Nuetural fllet always has to be combined with the enemy fleet when planning
Any country that went through what France went through in WWI would be DEEPLY traumatized.
WWII wasn't exactly a picnic.
@@gaoxiaen1 And the ones who went through it came out in what state?
@@gaoxiaen1 the french where not ready for another slaughter 20 years later !
Perhaps they shouldn't have ganged up on Germany together with Russia.
@@gaoxiaen1 Yeah, but for France the fighting was over really quick. My point was that the trauma of WWI set up the collapse of WWII.
59:25 , Hi i don't know where did you get the info that 50% of "Les Chantiers de l'Atlantique" is owned by Fincantieri, because they don't (they don't even own a shipyard in France). "Les Chantiers de l'Atlantique" are owned at 84% by the french government and 11-12% by Naval Group there is no space for an italian firm to own 50% of it.
And since when the f35 is a reference, since when a non-opperational weapon is considerate a reference? weapons and weapons systems are meant to do war not to be opperate at the cost of your national defence budget and 30 years of developement.
Otherwise you did a good job on that video 👍
The French national ability to focus on clear, logical and achievable defence goals, and implement them on a whole of government basis over the medium to longer term, stands in marked contrast to the UK government and civil service approach, which explains why France still has successful aerospace and automobile industries, while the UK equivalents have since 1945 collapsed in a welter of conflicting short-term government policies (or, in many cases, no national policies whatsoever). Speaks volumes for the benefits of getting your top civil servants/administrators from the École National Admistrative rather than the Oxford and Cambridge debating society. This video also casts a new light on the French/Australian submarine contract - clearly an important part of France’s overall plan to increase its influence in the Indo-pacific, with the Australian rather than the French taxpayer paying for it. No wonder they were upset when Australia cancelled!
Not collapsed but destroyed or sold off
The australian/french contract was doomed by the australian government from the start: they went quoting for diesel engines, chose Naval Group which is a specialist in nuclear engines, then cancel only to choose a nuclear option. They could have stayed with Naval Group for a fraction of the money they paid as reparation for cancelling. They still went on with the US. This only shows how submissive Australia is to the US really.
@@Mplkjo15 I think that is an overly simplistic view. The French reactors use low enriched uranium and require refuelling , while the US reactors do not. As a nation, without a domestic nuclear industry, Australia could not have operated a submarine with the French type of nuclear propulsion plant. In addition, wow, I agree that Australia considers interoperability with US forces to be important, in the past. It has often bought Europeans defence hardware in preference. For example, Australia bought the Mirage rather than the US Super Sabre or British Hawker Hunter. Australia bought Austrian Steyr rifles rather than US Armalites, Spanish warships, German Leopard 1 tanks rather than US M-60s, and european helicopters to replace its American Bell UH-1s. And it is planning to standardise on British designed nuclear submarines in the long run. Given Australia’s experience with the very unsatisfactory eurocopter helicopters, it would not be surprising if there were to be greater emphasis on American equipment.
@@glennsimpson7659this argument is pure bullshit. You can store the nuclear fuel for 20 years by buying it day one, and store it on you're own country. In particular to be 100% captive to US submarines.
As a strategic decision, it's clearly logic with the big picture of being close to a US Colony under protection due to the china's threat. But for this particular contract it's a total mess, and the final solution will cost billions more, and take and crazy time to be effective.
@@glennsimpson7659 exepted every 10 years french subs it takes 4 months to maintenance nuke fuel and all the sub, on a virginia class every 10 years it takes 2 years to maintenance mandatory without refuelling! ;) missleaders of Aussies political did their job, at last Naval was 12% of the profit on this deal, US corps taking the rest
People : Ok, but what is the AMX? Light tank? Recon vehicle? Infantry support? Give us a clue..
France : Oui.
It is fast, low weight and can give a punch, don’t teally care about the rest. It makes sense when designed for an african expedition.
the official classification by the french classification is "armored recon vehicle", so not a tank. But, it's original description at the launch of the project required a vehicle that had enough armement to be used for "aggressive recon", and had to be able to be used as a replacement for an MBT when required. So it's a recon vehicle as well as a wannabe-tank
Oui, you're not wrong, it's all that.
I can't believe we've been conditioned to look forward to awesome PowerPoint presentations but...here we are.
Keep up the good work!
"The military ends up with things it feels it needs - rather than A10s."
SHOTS FIRED!
One comment I've regularly heard about the French armed forces is they have the best meals, be it MRE, field kitchen or back at base or on a ship. The French clearly don't feel being in a warzone is an excuse to serve poor quality food.
I read that in Afghanistan, one French MRE was exchanged for 5 Americans MRE.
A friend who was in the French army army also said that they often ate locally (restaurant etc, when they could of course) and kept all their MREs aside to barter with other armies. (That's how my friend got US Ranger shoes)
Member of the French military here,
Our MREs are awesome and are indeed used to barter with other armies when possible !
They are extremely well thought and are quite diverse in there menus, there is also a large selection of MREs that don't contain pork for our Muslim and jewish soldiers (those ones tend to be the best MREs too btw if you ever have the opportunity to get your hands on them).
As for kitchens and back at base, I've never eaten badly in any of all the one I've eaten in (for lunch and dinner, breakfast are pretty hit or miss honestly depending on where you are).
(But even then, not every branch have the same standing regarding mess (I think it's also the word in English for where you eat on a military base), the French Ground Forces usually have the "worst" one, (which is still great) but the Air Force and Navy's mess are even better, with more choices for main courses and all, you actually need to be careful to not quickly put some weight).
In my experience it's just due to the importance of cuisine in our culture and its impact on moral on the field.
A good example of that is the fact that we have a standard issue knife to eat is a multi tool that with comes with a fork, spoon, can opener and, and I can't stress this enough, a corkscrew.
But I'm gonna be honest, even with the diversity in MREs and great quality, it gets old real fast one the field and like everyone else we do bring personal stuff too (the crowd's favorite being saucisson, a dry and salted pork sausage).
@@Pratt_tbf Saucisson would make for a real debate weither or not its a drug or an actual part for a meal given how good it is lol
French engineering has always followed its own path. Automotively many firsts, and Citroen was as unique and innovative as they come. It's still nice to see a different way of thinking and good to have France continue to value its independent thoughts and approaches. We're all better for it.
Then again the Renault ft17 (off the top of my head) basically laid out the blue print for the modern tank even if it was small. There are several other ideas that have come up from them going there own way which helped her allies. Diversity of thought is a definitely a good thing
There’s a saying amongst fans of French cars and French guns: “The French copy no one, and no one copies the French.”
@@MaxwellAerialPhotography except, this isn't true, at all. The Chinese copied some French equipment, like the Crotale AA missile, and some of their helicopters too.
The Korean were greatly "inspired" by the Leclerc autoloader for their K2, and some old weapons were copies from French armament at the time.
The French designers are just not afraid to experiment and get sometimes some interesting results. And sometimes not... XD
There is three way to do things. The right way, the wrong way and the french way.
We must add the French cannon 75 designed in 1897 and widely used during WW1. Considerd by far the most advanced gun of its time, terribly efficient and fast for its hydraulic anti-recoil system. The famous US "Long Tom" 155 mm is a direct derivative .
I’ve never understood these people who say France “never won a battle”. It’s like their knowledge of history only goes back to WW2. It’s like they’ve never heard of the Napoleonic Wars, 100 year war, etc. They sound like idiots because France in fact has a long history of military prowess.
Yeh
czcams.com/video/HlgzEGTB-l4/video.html
And hell France in WW2 and beyond won numerous battles too, they just arent talked about because its not American or English but stuff like Bir Hakeim saved the English forces in Africa, the force Leclerc led across Lybia is the stuff of legend bluffing their way through much tougher opponents to win
The breakthrough alongside polish forces in the Italian campaign the French army which freed southern France alongside its allies etc... hell even in 1940 it was far from one sided beatdown germany often were pushed back for a few days with harsh losses due to french fighting fiercely
I fucking hate that stupid surrender monkey myth. My great grandfather was stuck on the beach at Dunkirk, and if it wasn't for French élan and gallantry he wouldn't have gotten home. Suspiciously my grandfather was born 9 months after he got back, so indirectly I wouldn't exist without French bravery.
« French Rafale and Swedish Grippen are not F-35 equivalent », it’s true, at least this two can fly under storm and even if USA doesn’t allow you to use your own aircraft …
And we do not tend to lose it in some farmland...
@@BzhToine But at least, not at takeoff...
As it turns out, French opposition to the American adventure in Iraq may have been the correct position to take.
Only because Republicans can't fight overseas and also on Sunday morning talk shows at the same time.
As it turns out, Saddam's chemical weapons were of French manufacture. The US had the receipts as it was the US government that told Jac Chirac to sell them to Iraq.
Correct for the wrong reasons. They just don't like the Americans bossing them around...
@@theotherohlourdespadua1131 apparently that was a good reason in hindsight. All wars the US have been fighting since WW2 was for bad reasons. Why is it a wrong reason to not being bossed around by someone with bad judgement?
@@theotherohlourdespadua1131 It was correct for all the right reasons. I remeber French experts openly predicting all the problems with stability of the region, religious fanatics, "nation building" being doomed to fail etc.
The "French Military bad" meme really needs to be challenged.
Russia is actually doing a pretty good job for this.
Yes you're right. Rafale is not F35 : Rafale works perfectly 😂
Vive la France!
As an American, I grew up with the surrender monkey narrative which I've always associated with their capitulation during WW2. It is only as I've learned more about WW2 that I've come to understand that the French military fought bravely and well, they were simply beaten by Germany's new tactics, forced into an impossible position, and they surrendered when they had no other realistic option.
In more recent times, France refused to go along with our invasion of Iraq and many Americans resent them for that decision. However, it is good to learn here that France has a sense of their own military responsibilities in maintaining the global rules based order. They have consistently spent to maintain a military capable of upholding those responsibilities. Yet they sometimes break with the US and NATO.
That last bit is a good thing. When you are the world's super power, attempting to maintain a consensus among like minded nations to uphold that rules based global world order, you do not want lapdogs who bend to your every whim. If your allies bend to your every whim, they will grow to resent you and will break away when the shooting starts. Also, give your allies credit for being the intelligent beings that they are, if they wish to do something different, they probably have a good reason that makes sense to them. When allies are treated with respect and allowed to go their own way at times, that respect is more likely to run both ways and is more likely to result in an alliance that holds when the shooting starts. We've seen the fruits of this strategy now that there's a war in Europe and almost every NATO member has stepped up to help stop the Russians.
I am glad I was never aware of that narrative, never was attracted to the Simpsons and this proves once more I didn`t miss much. Yes the French military fought bravely but the biggest problems France had was fifteen years of horrible decisions by that time i.e: The Maginot Line being the biggest and costliest of them all. In today`s money they probably spent 100 b. euros on a heavily defended line that stopped at the Ardennes forest. But what if a future
German invasion force was to pass through it to go around the Maginot line? Well that`s exactly what they did and it worked like a charm. Even the French knew that the forest could be penetrated by small tanks because they had tried it in the mid 30s and had been successful at it, but after ten years of publicly proclaiming Maginot to be invincible they couldn`t admit their massive blunder aloud. So they remained quiet about it and hoped the Germans
wouldn`t invade in the near future. We all know how that went.
As to "Germany`s new tactic", I`m assuming you are referring to the "Blitzkrieg" and Guderian. The irony of all of this is that those tactics were actually French, thought up by De Gaulle in his 1932 book "Fil de l`epee" which Guderian read a few years later, agreed with and proposed to Hitler. Hitler agreed with the concept of armoured divisions smashing the enemy lines at full speed and Guderian was allowed to form dozens and dozens of such divisions.
When De Gaulle made the same proposition to his superiors, who except for Gamelin, were all older than 75 yrs and living in the past; they told him his blitzkrieg idea was ridiculous and that tanks should only be used, sprinkled among the infantry, period. So, once more a major mistake by the French Marechals. De Gaulle and some other lower officers knew what was about to happen but as a then Colonel was powerless to effect any change. I can only imagine how gut-wrenching those years in the late 1930s must have been for him.
There are other examples of bad decisions but the list is too long. So history goes.
If they weren't an island the British would've been blitzkrieged just like the rest of Europe.
@@paulcarfantan6688
*Even the French knew that the forest could be penetrated by small tanks because they had tried it in the mid 30s and had been successful at it, but after ten years of publicly proclaiming Maginot to be invincible they couldn`t admit their massive blunder aloud. So they remained quiet about it and hoped the Germans wouldn`t invade in the near future. We all know how that went.*
This sounds rather weird, because the entire reason that the Germans were able to breakthrough there was that is was more lightly defended due to the French not believing a significant force would attack swiftly through the Ardennes. If they indeed did knew it was possible, they'd have a put up a stronger defence there.
Now maybe they indeed did knew light tanks could pass through it, but there is something very different between that and how much how fast.
Overall the Maginot line would have done what it was supposed to, rather French tactic elsewhere failed on properly using that strength.
But yes, French military leadership was overall old and thinking in a old outdated tactical style.
@@MDP1702 What happened was that between 1927 and 1933 those elderly marechals and generals convinced themselves that the Ardennes forest was impenetrable and when they tested it with their own tanks, found out otherwise after having spent a fortune and made along with the Minister of Defence, countless public claims that this defensive line was impenetrable. But now even if they had decided to reinforce along that forest, the Germans would just have rammed through the middle of Belgium as they had done in 1914. The way that Maginot was planned was like a backyard fence that only has 2 1/2 sides. Would you wonder why there are still strangers in your backyard if you din`t go all the way to three sides ?
You state that there must have been a problem with French tactics. That is a huge understatement. There were many, many wrong decisions taken and their accumulation led to the 1940 defeat. But you are correct that their tactics also sucked.
A few years ago I was reading up on French tanks of the interwar period and it was stated that they took much longer to develop the few types of tanks than they should have and also that they could not build as many as they would have needed,
do you know why ? Well in both cases they were short of funds between 1928-36 because of how much they were spending on the Maginot Line.
So the M.L not only gave them a false sense of security, but actually made them less safe because it stopped them from building enough tanks. A double-whammy of stupidity.
Lastly, you shouldn`t find all of this weird since you understand that the leadership was old, set in their ways and close-minded. There are many other examples I could give you, but I would have to write an essay. Lol.
@@paulcarfantan6688
*But now even if they had decided to reinforce along that forest, the Germans would just have rammed through the middle of Belgium as they had done in 1914.*
This argument doesn't make sense. Better to have the Germans ram through the middle of Belgium, than invade France and risk them turning their flank. It makes a lot more sense that the French underestimates how fast and how many mobile troops could go through the Ardennes. Like I said, it is one thing that a light tanks can cross the Ardennes, it is something entirely different to have a large number of tanks, trucks and troops cross the Ardennes before the French could bring up reserves to reinforce that part of the front.
*The way that Maginot was planned was like a backyard fence that only has 2 1/2 sides.*
It was meant to either stop the German attack there, or force them to go through Belgium, definitely bringing the UK into the war and giving the French more time to respond AND to not have to fight on their own territory. The general idea behind the maginot line wasn't a bad one, rather it was badly executed.
*A few years ago I was reading up on French tanks of the interwar period and it was stated that they took much longer to develop the few types of tanks than they should have and also that they could not build as many as they would have needed*
I think the French actually had more tanks and generally of better quality, however they lacked things like radio's in every tanks, etc. I believe and they were distributed across the front withing infantry troops, meaning on parts of the front the French tanks would be hugely outnumbered, despite the French actually having as many or more tanks in total.
As a french soldier i just fucking happy with this vidéo, keep like this Perun 💪
Could you please check with your superiors if you have any spare Storm Shadows (or whatever you call them) lying around that could be shipped eastward? It was a joint Anglo-French project. I'm sure Kiev could use them shortening the war and promoting the fastest possible - lasting - peace, that your president so desperately want. Could you tell him that, please? Thanks a lot.
@@ulrikschackmeyer848 SCALP-EG in French. We only have estimates of numbers, but it seems UK had several hundred more than France.
@@ulrikschackmeyer848 Dear Sir,
I have the impression that you mean well, but have respect for Dylan 26, as he is a soldier and doesn't make policy. No need for that kind of sarcarsm. I concur with your opinion that more has to be done to shorten the war but know that a soldier has to folow policy. It doenst help.
@Dylan 26: do your job well soldier and be proud. You should be.
I am French and I approve this message 😁
Also, it’s interesting that some of the major ideas detailed in this video were taught to me in high school as part of our history classes. So kudos to our school system!
30:25 One of the important things you forgot to mention about the French Navy is that it is the only country outside the US and China to field a CATOBAR aircraft carrier. Catapult launches allow for larger and more capable aircraft to be used and thus allow better projection of naval airpower than using ski-jump carriers.
I always found it curious why France put so much importance into having a highly-capable and likely expensive carrier, but your explanation on France's desire to keep an independent expeditionary ability makes a lot of sense.
I think that the fact that France has the largest EEZ in the world (even ahead of the USA) and territories all over the world (it touches all time zones) requires that it has the possibility to go
The U.K. carrier can launch f35 in beast mode so a ramp isn’t a problem
@@MrTangolizard lol
@@MrTangolizard thats great and all, meanwhile its an F-35, it sounds, it acts, and looks cool, but that stuff is so harsh to maintain for anyone not the US that its laughable ^^, no autonomy whatsoever in defance capacity
No defense autonomy, and a greatly reduced range of the aircraft. That's the British F35 situation, well played!
Thank you for this one. As a former US Navy guy, (and always hearing that the French military is a joke!), I'm now sure that the "joke" is on anyone who tries to mess with them.
But do they have the training and field experience? Having advanced gear doesn't mean a damn thing if they don't know how to use it properly. The Russians are proving that with the spectacular failure to properly leverage their technological advantage over the Ukrainians. Training with inferior equipment will always defeat a better equipped force without proper training. France has the technology, but do they have the training to go with it?
@@davidford3115 words spoken out of ignorance only prove how little you took time to research anything.
We have some of the best training programs in the world. Our armies are volunteer based and motivated, we have recent battle experience in expeditionary campaign in Africa Sahel region, Afghanistan where we basically fought alone as far as European presence went, we helped the iraqi retake the North of their country where you American fucked up the situation in the first place.
Some of our regiment existed before your country was even a thought and still maintain excellence.
You, my good fellow are a basic French hater that should open a book and chill rather than send comments based on your ignorance.
Good day.
@@davidford3115 yes, they have training and experience. French soldiers are well trained and are experienced through the operations in africa.
@@davidford3115 The French military is one of the most experienced military in the world, because we actually are warmongers, we have been at war pretty much continiously for the last 80 years, we are very, very experienced.
@@davidford3115 they have a lot of first hand experience in Africa.
About wheel v track: Some accounts I've read of joint US/France operations in the middle east said the wheeled vehicles could climb up the afghani mountain sides with stupid amounts of ease vs everyone else's tracked vehicles.
I'd assume it is mostly in the mud and maybe crossing obstacles like small trenches that tracked is more beneficial. Though regarding the mud, tractors don't generally use tracks either 🤔
Tracks are generally better for spreading out weight. Trying to balance a 50 ton tank on 4-8 square ft of dirt or mud is generally a bad idea. You can get away with it better on rock, or with a lighter tank.
Yeah France use of wheeled Vehicles was validated when they deployed in afghanistan, the amx10 really was a mountain goat out there, they did sometimes had problems with mud on river bed crossings but even heavy tracked vehicle sometimes struggle with it.
Granted it's been a few years since and it's purely anecdotal, but during KFOR our men would always and without exception feel safest when it was the French's turn to guard camp. Exemplary allies indeed. I hope that example has since brought on a few impulses here and there to catch up to provide the same sense of security to our allies. Us being the Bundeswehr though, I'm a bit on the fence.
Same experience in AFG. Also BW here.
Geographically, the Carolingian Empire was very much more French than German.
Of course, he's referring to the fact that the Franks were one of the Germanic tribes.
Downloading this to watch later on my flight home. For once, I'll actually be excited to squeeze into my economy seat.
I like these to listen to while cleaning the house lol
@@squirrelsinjacket1804 doing the same right now
Tracks are super expensive, they're not very reliable and you only need them in certain areas of the world - The French are usually no in those areas. So they, cleverly, decided to use 6x6 or 8x8 instead. Faster, more efficient, less costly, easier to maintain, more reliable and gets to 97 % of the places a vehicle with tracks can reach. And when I, a former tanker, say that, you can trust me.
Plus can't you just put some armor slat add-ons on wheeled IFVs to give some extra protection?
Bonus point: you can still move with one flat wheel. But you're a sitting duck with one broken tread.
@@thewisp7447 You can, but that's more weight. And there's a point where wheels just buckle.
And as we've seen in Ukraine when shit gets REALLY muddy not even tracks can help. Only farmers have the luxury of having a footprint of 5g/mc2 by running gigantic twin wheels front and aft on a (by military standards) light vehicle.
@@andersjjensen That, or you’re a Patria Sisu or a BvS 206.
As a French citizen, I am very worried about what happened to Alstom Power, and the now dependency of France on the good will of GE (and therefore the US) for its power generation (and yes, nuclear power plant turbines too) as well as grid systems... This sell off of our long standing energetic autonomy is downright treasonous (as one could also argue that it threatens our nuclear weaponry autonomy as well).
The dependence on Germany for small arms systems and ammunition as well as the absorption of Giat/Nexter with KraussMaffei is very VERY concerning too... Time will tell I guess
This video was WAY more interesting than I thought it was going to be. Once again, great content. Thanks, Perun.
I've long been a fan of the French approach to budgeting and procurement, in particular the DGA, and tried to drum up support for greater UK emulation of their methods. Instead ever since the financial crisis British governments have become ever more fickle with defence budgets and our procurement has declined from poor to awful.
Oh the UK defence budget is in a sorry state. It's strange that a right wing government doesn't prop up the military or the police. It's like they want to get french Revolutioned.
Hey, DGA is the the real mvp of the french military, and the main reasin as to whyour procurement is so efficent, having a brits praise it is an honour my dude
Thanks for the kind words my dude, if that can make you feel (a bit) better from a French perspective I've been told it's always easier and more efficient working with Brits on an international program than with the Germans which supposedly are to be our greatest allies.. Fr 🤝Uk bffs
True ! DGA is great for big programms, and to keep them under good supervision over time. BUT, because there is a but. They lack quick reaction on urgent needs. That's why the "the agence d'innovation de défense" was created, to fulfil urgents needs and innovations not foreseen by the DGA, cooperating with innovative small companies/ startups delivering equipments that a long procurement program don't deal with. Also special forces have dedicated units aimed to produce specific equipments.
I’ve been excitedly waiting for this episode since the last seconds of the Germany episode.
I think it bares reminding, that in November 1918, the French Army was the most advanced and powerful Army on earth. It had more machine guns, tanks, aircraft, and trucks than either the Americans or British Empire. Having finally learned the lessons of the war, it had an advanced combined arms offensive doctrine second to none. Unfortunately France threw away nearly all these advantages during the inter wars years, being both broke and traumatized by its experiences in the Great War.
" the French Army was the most advanced and powerful Army on earth"
At the tactical level the French army was not so advanced - you only have to check loss ratios, and it is kind of funny that the US army copied the French system.
@@olafkunert3714 French were the front line and the first nation to enter the fight, which tends to drive up casualties. Just look how much the US lost jumping in at the tale end of the conflict in 1917. Don't forget many French cities including Paris were shelled with artillery
@@olafkunert3714 the US may have copied some elements of French unit organization, but it largely ignored the tactical lessons the French an British were trying to teach them, and repeated costly mistakes in 1918 that the French and British had made and then learned from in 1915-1917.
The French Army of autumn 1918 was utterly unrecognizable compared to the French Army which marched to the frontiers in the summer of 1914.
@@olafkunert3714the ratio is simply due to who was on the defense and offense.
All entente countries on the western front had a worse ratio than germany because they were more on the offensive to retake lost land. Turns out winning takes more than doing more frags, counterstrike players in shambles right now.
Why is it so incredible to think that france was the mightiest country at some point? It's okay to say that about germany, or the uk but france just has to be weaker than someone else right?
@@MaxwellAerialPhotography As was the British. Fun fact, the BEF, in the last 100 days of the war, referred to in the UK at any rate as the 100 days Offensive, captured more German troops, machineguns and artillery pieces than the French, American and Belgian armies combined.
The point here is not to try and claim the British Army of 1918 was better than the French, but simply to illustrate that everyone had learned lessons by that point.
To put it into context I will discuss the British Platoon structure of a914, and the same unit in 1918. Apologies for my concentrating on the British Army but to be fair it is the only one of WWI where I am familiar enough with deep down unit structure to comment in any depth. The German and French Armies both made similar changes at the platoon level from what I have read.
In 1914 the British Army Platoon consisted of four Sections (our word for squads), each of 12 men, plus a HQ section which comprised the Platoon commander, the Platoon Sergeant, and the platoons stretcher bearers and runners. All in all about 50 men. ALL of them were riflemen. A British infantry Battalion had two machineguns (as did a British Cavalry Regiment, a fact not many people know), but they were controlled at the Battalion level.
By 1918 the platoon was unrecognisable. It was still split into four sections plus a HQ section, but those sections were smaller. They were also specialists. The sections consisted of 1 Rifle section, 8 riflemen, one of the manoeuvre sections. A guns section consisting of a pair of Lewis guns, each with a two man crew and two ammunition carriers who also acted as local defence for the guns, as well as spare crew if the original gun crews became casualties. A mortar or rifle grenade section, usually the latter. Four rifle grenadiers with 4 ammunition carriers and guards. And finally the second manoeuvre element, the grenadier section.
As you can see, in the Infantry Platoon of 1918 you see the genesis of the modern combined arms infantry platoon which is still used today. I am not as familiar with the French and German platoon makeup, but as I said, from what I have read you were seeing similar changes in both.
J’étais lent to watch this broadcast because it wasn’t about the war in Ukraine - silly me! I live in France and had so many unformulated / malformulated questions answered . Thank you so much 👍
Wow, this presentation is way way better than most anglo sources on the topics. I know the french publish their intentions and that most of these information are public, but still, producing a coherent and complete view like this ? This has to cost a lot of time. I even wondered for a moment : is there a team behind Perun ? Many "military advisers" companies I know of aren't able to articulate this topic that cleanly and that completely.
For all the stereotypes of the French being cheese-eating white flag wavers, people forget they still have a better military than most European countries. And they have a pretty good track record when it comes to wars.
I mean, there’s a reason why so much military vernacular comes from french rather than english or german, they used to be the best at it.
@@aidenhall8593 used to be? They still are better at it than 90% of countries
@@Someone-wj1lf what does "best" mean in your book?
@@aidenhall8593 French was the language at Europeans courts, and most officers were nobles. And in the german armies many French expressions vanished after the Napoleonic wars....
When pondering France's military power, we must keep in mind the population collapse created by the Napoleonic wars, and WW1.
France's population (just as Russia) never recovered from these blows.
And on a cultural level it had an even deeper impact on families and values.
All this to say that France has a strong capable military industry, the technical and research are on par with the best. Their special forces are top shelf.
What they lack is a large tax base to sustain military expenditure, and a large growing young population to man the guns of a larger regular military to project power.
Respectfully to all, and specially to the french soldiers who literally carry the tradition on their shoulders.👍
Dear Perun, thank you for this balanced rendition of french mil strategy. The historical context was much appreciated as well. You captured very nicely the situation, the good and the bad and the complex relation with Europe. In french we say "Chapeau l'artiste!" :-) (e.g. "well done, artist!")
You have a perfect mix of seriousness and humor when talking about defense policy matters.
You just won yourself a like and a new subscriber.
I am truly impressed. You were good to begin with, you got better. Amazing work. Wonderful analysis and attention to detail. I have learned a lot here, thank you for that. And thank you for making the internet a better place.
You, sir, are truly a master of throwing in brilliant but minor intellectual jokes that leave the people who catch them laughing, while not making it awkward for those who missed the joke entirely. My hat is off to you.
One little known fact about the french 1914 uniform: in 1912, a new greyish blue uniform was adopted, planned to be mass issued in 1915/16. And it did: the famous "bleu horizon" uniform was that but in 1914, they went to war with what they had. And the effect of the red has been overestimated by France to account for the horrendous losses of August 1914. In fact, several units, including colonial troops, had no red vcomponents in their uniforms and suffered the same losses
Also the germans and british suffered massive losses too as their uniforms weren’t good camouflage
If you look at the numbers, a similar amount of german soldiers were mowed down by french machine guns as frenchmen by german ones
Artillery doesn't care much about camouflage.
@@ronsparks7887 You need a target to fire your artillery at
If your target is camouflaged, you won’t see it and therefore won’t shoot at it
@@Taletad Except the tench hell of WWII was a different kind of beast. You could safely assume that if there was a trench there would be people in it.
@@andersjjensen yeah and the bright red pants were long gone when the war entrenched itself
Perun,
Thanks for another great video! I’ve been waiting for this one for some time and was not disappointed. I’ve been very happy to see you getting more and more recognition for your outstanding work, both from respected creators on this platform (such as Kraut’s shoutout in his most recent video) and those outside the YT sphere (such as Richard Iron on AIIA last week). Thank you for all of your hard work; your channel is an invaluable resource to anyone who hopes to better understand the war in Ukraine and defense policy around the world.
Beautifully researched and written educational video, as usual. One of the high points of my week.
I think most of us who have some idea about militaries think of the France bashing as just friendly ripping on each other. We’re perfectly aware of how tough they are, and they’re one of the first countries we’ll turn to when hoping for a joint operation, but it’s always fun to rag on your older brother. We love the French, our democracies grew up together and shared a lot of blood. They have some very nice war machines. We joke about those we respect. Baguette.
And never forget that without us you would be part of the Commonwealth with a lovely Union Jack on the top left of your flag...
It is indeed a friendly ripping. We only joke about those we care for. Burger lover.
Insert mandatory joke about our tea swilling colonial cousins here.
Quaso
We rip on France but in the end we are Allie’s. The French never seem to want to go along with mutual defense doctrine. They always look to buck the system. The fact is the American military umbrella allows them to exist and has for a long time. We owe you our freedom from Hreay Britain of which we will always be grateful but you never hear the French say the same about us even though we actually sent our boys to fight for them in huge numbers. I still see the British common wealths as much closer Allie’s but in a fight for survival we could both rely on each other and we both know it.
I once cautiously told a French friend an anti-French joke.
He said: "Oh. We tell that joke too."
I was =so= impressed!