This article suspiciously seems like saber rattling to me. Like it was placed in the Economist to send a message to someone.
It is good for global security that France has a strong military and is strengthening it. But it is only a small consideration. It is nonsense to talk about France embarking on a global "high-intensity, state-on-state conflict" and projecting land military power from Russia to Turkey, and "naval presence" in the Indo-Pacific, the Mediterranean, the Atlantic and the Persian Gulf, without noting that this would mean far more powerful militaries than France being involved and would mean nukes flying and most human life on the planet being wiped out in short order.
In 2021, saying that France is preparing for a high-intensity war with Russia or Turkey is as absurd as saying that the State of Texas is preparing for a high-intensity war with North Korea or Mexico.
The only scenario where France would be engaged in a high-intensity war with Russia or Turkey is if World War III started. I believe that it is reasonable to say that a high-intensity war between the world powers would probably result in the end of human civilization within a few hours. The fact that 10,000 French soldiers are planning to do a 4 day military training exercise in 2023 is a tiny consideration in the larger scheme of any strategic plans that NATO and the EU have for a hypothetical WWIII.
What is most suspicious is that the article tries to equate such a world-ending event with on-going and hypothetical French military adventures in Africa. French military adventurism in Africa and the Middle East is not a high-intensity, state-on-state conflict.
> This article suspiciously seems like saber rattling to me. Like it was placed in the Economist to send a message to someone.
Who? Why?
> would mean nukes flying and most human life on the planet being wiped out in short or
We had 50 years of Cold War and MAD and plenty of large, gruesome wars and no one got nuked. France was involved with some of them, too, e.g. Vietnam.
The lesson of the Korean War is that even with nukes, intense conventional war is still possible, even likely.
> The only scenario where France would be engaged in a high-intensity war with Russia or Turkey is if World War III started
Not at all. If the French -- already reluctant members of NATO, with a history of trying to NOT be a member -- were to walk out of the alliance, why would that conflict lead to WW3? An multi-polar world with an independent Europe means that they can fight their own wars against Russia and Turkey -- they have in the past!
I don't know. There are many possibilities, known and unknown. If you're asking me to speculate, with the limited information I have, I would put my money on trying to scare some African military force that France is engaged in conflict with.
> The lesson of the Korean War is that even with nukes, intense conventional war is still possible
Korea and Vietnam were Cold War era wars between highly asymmetric opponents. They were proxy conflicts between global superpowers. The entire premise of a "Cold War" or "proxy war" is that it allows powerful opponents to avoid a high-intensity conflict where mutual destruction is assured. That is not state-on-state, high-intensity conflict. Just like French involvement in the proxy wars in Africa and the Middle East is not state-on-state, high-intensity conflict.
> An multi-polar world with an independent Europe means that they can fight their own wars against Russia and Turkey -- they have in the past!
Again, we are not in the past. We're not discussing war in the context of 19th century European military technology, we are discussing a future major global conflict. The last time Europe was at war with Russia and Turkey, it was exactly in the context of a world war.
A multipolar world (as opposed to a unipolar or bipolar world) is exactly the kind of situation where one would expect high-intensity, state-on-state conflict to develop into a World War. That's pretty much the store of WWI and WWII. The Cold War is the story of a bipolar world. Notice how Cold War is "cold," the opposite of "high-intensity."
One of the contingencies driving the French planning is the potential waning or disengagement of some of those powers (one in particular), and the reason for it's preparation is to reduce the power gap with the others.
It is good for global security that France has a strong military and is strengthening it. But it is only a small consideration. It is nonsense to talk about France embarking on a global "high-intensity, state-on-state conflict" and projecting land military power from Russia to Turkey, and "naval presence" in the Indo-Pacific, the Mediterranean, the Atlantic and the Persian Gulf, without noting that this would mean far more powerful militaries than France being involved and would mean nukes flying and most human life on the planet being wiped out in short order.
In 2021, saying that France is preparing for a high-intensity war with Russia or Turkey is as absurd as saying that the State of Texas is preparing for a high-intensity war with North Korea or Mexico.
The only scenario where France would be engaged in a high-intensity war with Russia or Turkey is if World War III started. I believe that it is reasonable to say that a high-intensity war between the world powers would probably result in the end of human civilization within a few hours. The fact that 10,000 French soldiers are planning to do a 4 day military training exercise in 2023 is a tiny consideration in the larger scheme of any strategic plans that NATO and the EU have for a hypothetical WWIII.
What is most suspicious is that the article tries to equate such a world-ending event with on-going and hypothetical French military adventures in Africa. French military adventurism in Africa and the Middle East is not a high-intensity, state-on-state conflict.