The French armed forces are planning for high-intensity war

https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/03/28/the-french-armed-forces-are-planning-for-high-intensity-war

by undefined1 • 5 years ago

91 171 5 years ago

the_duke• 5 years ago

Can anyone recommend some quality, somewhat neutral books that analyze the economical, political and military developments over the last and future decades?

We are obviously seeing shifts in the global economy and power balance, with the US losing it's complete dominance, China becoming more confident and aggressive, countries like Turkey showing increasing aggression against the EU, and a more multi-polar balance in general.

I'd love to learn some more, but most of the books I find are too "pop-sci", have a strong "US good/China scary & evil" tint, or a too narrow focus.

dis-sys3• 5 years ago

I am reading Brzeninski's The Grand Chessboard this week. It is a 24yo book with some very interesting stuff.

throwaway89434516• 5 years ago

have a strong "US good/China scary & evil" tint

The US is imperfect and perhaps worse than (post-colonial) Europe in many respects, but does anyone seriously think that a Chinese global hegemony would be better? I understand that this is controversial and I'm not trying to agitate, but I am curious about who holds this position and why?

vmception2• 5 years ago

Well that's part of the point, China is obsessed with territorial unity, not expansionist policies, where the overlap is limited specifically to where we already know: other places that China already calls China. The American perspective is that everyone is secretly trying to expand - like America did. Chinese hegemony could happen in other areas, like how it already has resulted in movies being changed to accommodate Chinese audiences, or having leverage over many private sectors who want access to their market, and with a currency based hegemony that could increase. But the other person's point about books being too "US good/China scary & evil" is exactly about the very limiting false dichotomies that you latched directly on to.

dv_dt2• 5 years ago

I don't see the comment as thinking it's better, but more that it's a very likely possibility of a shifting balance of power.

dmos628• 5 years ago

It's fine that you're asking for insight into some specific point of view, but do you feel that comparing Chinese hegemony to US's pertains to what the person said?

eunos2• 5 years ago

does anyone seriously think that a Chinese global hegemony would be better

I welcome Chinese non judgemental policy especially internal matter.

dis-sys3• 5 years ago

It would be good for many small developing countries that don't seek for global hegemony. For those developing countries, China's rise proves that there is an alternative route for modernization. Of course, for the west, that itself is THE single biggest threat from China.

nathannecro2• 5 years ago

Sure, happy to provide the contra. Not everything I write below is something I necessarily believe to be true, but it should be generally representative of the beliefs from the opposite position.

China as a nation and as a group of people have rarely (if ever) been aggressive outside their own borders. Any time where China exerted force or pressure outside its own country is justified as being purely defensive in nature. Internally, this is seen as largely being a cultural difference between Chinese philosophy/practice and the rest of the world.

In contemporary times, this practice of non-aggression translates to China's global policy. "One belt, one road" -- one of the primary globalization initiatives of China -- is built around Chinese support of critical national and trade infrastructure of developing countries. The idea is to build up trade partners and diplomatic allies through cooperation and capital infusions. Examples include building international trade ports, providing billions in medical aid, donating technology infrastructure, building millions of km of roadways, and investing in local enterprises. Fundamentally, China is focusing on countries left by the wayside by Western regimes (Africa, parts of Southeast Asia, South America, parts of the Middle East) but China is a good partner to many European countries. This is a dramatic departure from European colonialism and American exceptionalism where military might and economic threats were the standard negotiating tactics.

This, the Chinese allege, is fundamentally why a Chinese global hegemony is better than previous historical attempts. The Chinese do not significantly interfere with other nation's business unless it is as an ally of support or unless it's a defensive reaction to outside aggression. This allows other nations and peoples of the world to live their own lives while taking advantage of the market efficiencies, technology, and capital resources that China can provide.

pbhjpbhj3• 5 years ago

How about no hegemony? Are we allowed that as an option. USA seems only to be fighting China, so it can replace/keep itself in place as bully of the World meddling and causing untold harm for very perverse ends. We need actual democracy, if we can make it work, proportional representation seems a bare minimum to work towards if we want to seek greater global cooperation (which we must to combat global climate change). Instead we have opposition of other countries only so the powerful of our own countries can step in and reap the benefit, rather than to actually take moral high-ground, or seek better outcomes for our respective countries. Take Brexit, how can purposeful interruption of trade and restriction of movement possibly bring QoL improvements to the populous, it can't, it was all a cynical plan to benefit the elite. Maybe it will act as a wake up call.

fatjokes4• 5 years ago

I'll try to make a good-faith response.

does anyone seriously think that a Chinese global hegemony would be better

False equivalency; no one is arguing that. However, a multi-polar world is appealing. The US is certainly not always a good actor here either: the US has 50+ years of foreign interventions to point to that span the globe, particularly the middle east, latin america, and southeast asia. Less extreme: its ability to unilaterally cause pain for even allies (EU, Canada) through trade tariffs wasn't exactly welcomed.

It would be in Europe (and other regions') interest to be able to defend their own interests on equal footing with the US. Currently, they cannot do that (military and economic dependence). Having China offers leverage. I.e., the US will be incentivized to behave better if other countries can say "well if you push us too far, we'll work with China."

This is just my armchair analysis. I'm not invested enough to back this up with citations or anything so if that's what you're looking for feel free to ignore and argue with someone else who cares more.

thinkmassive• 5 years ago

Some books I recently enjoyed, mostly focused on the infosec aspect but still somewhat on topic:

The Kill Chain, by Christian Brose

Active Measures, by Thomas Rid

Sandworm, by Andy Greenberg

Fatal System Error, by Joseph Mann

wcarss3• 5 years ago

I would also love to find a book like that. But, I doubt that it exists -- probably the world was always like this, but, it seems like there is just too much going on, and too much context to try to grasp and consider.

One example of just one thing that's barely been reckoned with in mass public discourse, a tiny thing and an unfathomably huge thing, is the impact of national and corporate intelligence agencies on the world over the past 200 years, during the time when any nation could project force into pretty much any other via easy global travel.

Every major country has not just spies, but significant resources they can bring to bear in terms of psychological operations and embedded operatives across the political spectrum. Just one small example of this kind of thing is Operation Gladio[1], which had massive ramifications for the political landscape in Europe in the last 50 years, and there are countless things like this that we do and don't know anything about.

Just the USA has had a hand in so many bizarre and hugely important events, and then to think that Russia, China, Germany, Israel, France, the UK, and any number of other countries have operated in a similar fashion since WWI or earlier? Yikes!

And that doesn't even touch on the corporate side of it, with its roots going back to the gilded age or earlier, where unions and putdowns and murders and all kinds of nutty (but secret) behaviour was just... normal.

There's just so much we don't, and may never know, and even that stuff is just a tiny portion of the picture. The kind of open and secret economic games that get played, power and relationship dynamics between countries and their leaders, their wealthy families, the networks of people who meet through family and upbringing, grudges, debts, ideological choices and pragmatic ones -- it goes on and on and on. And then the technological changes!

But, I would really love to read that book if you find it.

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

hn8788• 5 years ago

The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World. It's written by a retired British general. It covers how war changed during the industrial revolution, then with the creation of nuclear weapons. The main point of the book is that conventional warfare is all but obsolete, but high level commanders don't know how to conduct anything but conventional warfare, and that the media can win or lose a conflict based on the narrative it pushes.

abeppu• 5 years ago

In addition to just the difficulty posed by the breadth of what you're asking for, if there are also institutional or structural pressures which preclude such a work from existing?

On the academic side, I get the sense that there is so much pressure to specialize and deeply study narrow areas that a really broad work (global developments over decades) would not be well received. Within think tanks, a broad survey would likely still need to be concordant with an institutional agenda. And if really broad documents are being produced within state departments/foreign ministries or other parts of government, we would never see them?

legitster• 5 years ago

I've read a bit of Peter Zeihan. It's hard to be a good judge of his accuracy - he can come across as a bit of a pompous - but he seems knowing and somewhat neutral.

john_moscow• 5 years ago

When it comes to contemporary political events, there is too much incentive to push a specific agenda, and too little incentive to be neutral. So if you want a neutral opinion, you need to piece it together from multiple biased sources.

My personal feeling, as a first-generation immigrant, is that the West has eliminated the local incentives for traits associated with personal strength. Partly by moving jobs requiring problem-solving to cheaper countries. Partly by the corporate culture trying to refocus people's passion into areas where they wouldn't accumulate economic leverage (passion about hobbies, social issues and identity is OK, passion about the product that would make you one day start your own business is a no-no).

So we have a high concentration of strong ambitious people used to solving problems in countries like China (because the entire world literally pays them to do so). And we have a lot of softer people taking too many things for granted in the West, sitting on most of the world's wealth. This is a textbook recipe for a conflict.

Balgair• 5 years ago

I don't have any books to recommend, let alone 'neutral' sources, but two research 'areas' may help:

1) The USMC reading list. If you want an English language view of the current state of 'thought' from the leaders of any near-future conflicts, this list is it. It goes from poolee to the top brass. Maybe look for the more top level books and read from there. Though the underlying mindset is important and is from the lower rank books.

https://mca-marines.org/commandants-professional-reading-lis...

2) The wikipedia articles on the Nagorno-Karabakh war of October 2020 and their linked pages. Obviously there aren't any books out on this war yet, as it was so recent. But the underlying mechanics of the war are likely to be the ones we're seeing in the near future as both sides were somewhat evenly matched and had access to modern weaponry. "The war was marked by the deployment of drones, sensors, long-range heavy artillery[99] and missile strikes, as well as by state propaganda and the use of official social media accounts in online information warfare.[100]" I'd maybe put out a google alert for books about this conflict when they come out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict

chriselles2• 5 years ago

Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides's Trap?

China’s Three Warfares(non-kinetic/pre-kinetic warfare): https://cryptome.org/2014/06/prc-three-wars.pdf

Professor Anne Marie Brady: https://twitter.com/Anne_MarieBrady

sjg007• 5 years ago

Geopolitics is all about oil.

closeneough• 5 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard

zabzonk9• 5 years ago

but also Turkey or a North African country.

What? Turkey is separated from France by half a dozen countries, all of which would severely object to Turkish forces passing through them, and other NATO states would also have severe objections to such a conflict. And no North African states have any significant amphibious capability - there is a sea between North Africa and France, you know.

reducesuffering4• 5 years ago

Do you think if Turkey invaded a nearby country like Greece or Armenia, that France would do nothing?

eloff9• 5 years ago

Greece is a EU member state. The whole EU would react to such a thing - which is why Turkey would never do something that dumb.

Russia, ever the villain (and oft deserved) is also not dumb.

The most likely flashpoints for major conflict in my eyes are Pakistan - India, India - China, and China - Taiwan. It's a stretch to picture the French getting involved in any of those.

Major conflict in Europe just doesn't seem likely to me.

zabzonk9• 5 years ago

I think a lot of NATO and EU states would do something, which is why it is almost certainly not going to happen.

tomjen32• 5 years ago

There is a huge different between Greece and Armenia in that case. Greece is EU and western. Armenia, I don't think most people even know where it is (I certainly don't, no offense to anybody from Armenia).

EliRivers3• 5 years ago

It's OK, France delivers. France will go to where the war is; which is a lot harder than it sounds. There are very few nations in the world capable of sustained, global, serious power projection, and France is one of them.

zabzonk9• 5 years ago

What, with one ageing aircraft carrier?

touisteur2• 5 years ago

All this might explain the recent acute interest in French frigates or aircraft, even second hand, from Egypt and Greece...

Mediterraneo10• 5 years ago

The reason that France is concerned about conflicts in North Africa states is not because those countries have amphibious military capability and can strike metropolitan France. It is (besides the cynical suspicion that France likes maintaining some economic hegemony over its former colonies) because every North African conflict sends another wave of refugees and economic migrants north towards Europe.

iSnow• 5 years ago

I am not totally sure but I read it in a way they are preparing for a major war, not necessarily an invasion of France.

But if Turkey hypothetically starts occupying Greece islands or Russia one of the Baltics AND at the same time, the USA is unwilling or incapable of intervention, it probably would be France and the UK to fight at the front lines.

dmos628• 5 years ago

France, UK, and the rest of NATO, I guess.

zabzonk9• 5 years ago

Well, Turkey did invade a Mediterranean island - Cyprus, and the UK, France and the USA made no military response (despite the UK having significant military presence in the south of the island) - they did institute a lot of half-hearted economic sanctions.

pjc50• 5 years ago

Possibly at some point their response to the Mediterranean refugee crisis will be to invade Libya rather than just bomb it.

nabla93• 5 years ago

EU has mutual defense clause just like NATO. France is strong proponent of the clause and the only country to ever invoke it.

France is also NATO member like Turkey. But if Turkey and Greece go into war with each other, sides are taken. Greece is EU member, Turkey is not.

ericmay• 5 years ago

Greece would fall under NATO protection in this scenario (plus EU) as it's a member of NATO.

NATO is a defensive pact, so I think attacking a NATO member (even if you're a NATO member) likely results in NATO action against the aggressor.

AnimalMuppet4• 5 years ago

When did France invoke the EU's mutual defense clause?

gh-throw5• 5 years ago

The US is separated from Iraq by half a world, but invaded it twice.

France still has a top-10 military and maybe the most effective overseas force projection capabilities outside the US and Great Britain (maybe China, we'll see how effective their navy is, sooner or later). Not to mention a long-standing nuclear arsenal. If Europe—any of it, at least in the EU or NATO—is attacked from the East, the French will be on the front lines, and landing on beaches. Turkey, on its own or as a puppet of (probably—god, they've wanted it for like 200+ years at this point) Russia, is increasingly a realistic threat. Plus Russia itself.

Like other major European former-colonizer states, France maintains strong ties to many parts of the world and is relied on, or considers itself responsible for, security in those regions. Algeria is attacked? France will surely show up to the party. Algeria decides to take some kind of Cuba-like action against French property? France will likely be there, in a very different capacity. They have strong interest in Lebanon (threatened, potentially, by Syria and Turkey, among others) and much of West Africa, as well, where, if you follow international news, their foreign legion and special forces are often deployed and quite active.

Sidebar: They're also possibly the most experienced torturers in the West. You see them called in for it sometimes, if you read between the lines a bit. Yikes.

See also: Libya, and Italy's leadership there (for better or worse). France has similar ties to a dozen or more countries in Africa and the Levant. Warranted or not from some broader perspective, they'll tend to see intervention in conflicts there as obligatory and desirable.

zabzonk9• 5 years ago

the French will be on the front lines, and landing on beaches.

They have never done so effectively in the past (Vietnam? Algeria? Suez?) and I don't see them doing it now or any time in the future.

tablespoon2• 5 years ago

Sidebar: They're also possibly the most experienced torturers in the West. You see them called in for it sometimes, if you read between the lines a bit. Yikes.

Can you expand on this?

aksss9• 5 years ago

If Europe—any of it, at least in the EU or NATO—is attacked from the East, the French will be on the front lines

Somebody forgot to tell Ukraine about this Gallic heroism.

dv_dt2• 5 years ago

I wonder how much of it is part of the increased NATO requirements for a putting a increased percentage of GDP into defense, pushed in part by the US wanting to lower it's international defense outlays. And, to some degree, I wonder if the strategic change is driven by more erratic and less long term stability in the US's willingness and ability to defend the EU.

sabellito• 5 years ago

It'd be cool for HN to have a [paywall] tag so I don't spend time opening these links.

Don't get me wrong, I'd bet the article is great, but I'm not interested in an Economist subscription right now.

rossdavidh2• 5 years ago

Agreed

Zealotux• 5 years ago

In this case, disabling JavaScript will get you through.

throway1001• 5 years ago

disabling the site visit is an alternative solution

kpennell• 5 years ago

https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome

sgt1012• 5 years ago

Good - by preparing seriously in this way (if they go through with it) and browbeating the Germans and Dutch to do the same there is a possibility that Europe will not offer a post Putin Russia an easy out from whatever dire crisis overtakes it.

At the moment three divisions could waltz into Berlin and hold the whole project ransom, unless the yanks stopped them. The yanks can stop anything, but as the last whitehouse living person showed - the yanks can be fickle.

France must orchestrate a serious military capability in Europe for the sake of global stability, and it must do it now. The Germans must pay for this. Poles, Italians and Greeks could staff it.

smcl• 5 years ago

You're making kind of a big show of using "the yanks" - what's that about? Is that a British military thing (like how they don't refer to being "in Afghanistan" but "in Afghan")

mrep• 5 years ago

Old term for americans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee

sgt1012• 5 years ago

I was just being silly, to try and get people to read.

rossdavidh2• 5 years ago

So, two competing hypotheses: 1) France knows something we don't know about the likelihood of them getting into a high-intensity war 2) France's military is worried about the civilian government cutting their budget until they are irrelevant, as happened in most of the rest of European NATO, and wants to look relevant

medium_burrito2• 5 years ago

It's Greece-Turkey, as others have said. Turkey has burned through much of it's foreign reserves, tourism is fucked and we could see Erdogan whipping up nationalist sentiment in the face of major economic difficulties.

Longer term, as Putin slides out of the picture with his medical issues, Russia is an interesting candidate for instability. The Chinese might try to solidify their land grab in the east, but the bigger worry is Russia breaking apart and imploding.

Europe has zero capability for warfare in the Pacific, so that is irrelevant.

reducesuffering4• 5 years ago

Putin's medical issues are unconfirmed and even with them, he may not resign for another decade plus. I remember recently how western media had all but confirmed Kim Jong-Un was dead and it was being kept secrey.

a_f• 5 years ago

Turkey has already had varying involvement with warfar recently with engagements in Syria and Armenia-Azerbaijan. I would not be suprised to see them engage in further conflict.

fxtentacle• 5 years ago

It's a way of generating a stable income and something to do for those losing their jobs to automation.

Isn't the US military also a huge employer?

sleepysysadmin• 5 years ago

The context of large military operations is not necessarily new. It's about being prepared and not necessarily aggression.

In his strategic vision for 2030 published last year, however, General Thierry Burkhard, the head of the French army, outlined the need to prepare for high-intensity, state-on-state conflict.

Flipside when the military gets a 46% boost in budget... that's politicians making it abundantly clear that this is more than operations. This is

Now place this in context.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/09/france-thousa...

Anyone remember the Yellow vest protests? Ya they went away after the French government arrested them all.

Between November 2018 and July 2019, 11,203 Yellow Vests protesters were placed in pre-charge detention.

As the link points out... France declared martial law pre-covid and has gotten significantly worse during covid.

So it makes me wonder. Is this just a continuation of martial law or escalation? Or do they expect their military will be up against other states?

camdenlock• 5 years ago

As opposed to a low-intensity war...?

riskneutral3• 5 years ago

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.

dragonwriter• 5 years ago

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.

blaser-waffle2• 5 years ago

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!

riskneutral3• 5 years ago

Who? Why?

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."

gpayan• 5 years ago

French officers tend to be more sceptical than British or American ones that technology will transform the battlefield. “Technology is never 100% effective,” warns General Burkhard. “Soldiers must always be able to fight in a degraded way…when the technology does not work any more.”

I would be interested to hear more on that from General Burkhard. Because right now - and based on my very limited understanding of the topic - this feels like the kind of statement that could look rather misinformed when looked back at in the future. This actually reminds me of the French army and French generals preparing for WW2; stuck with their existing organizational structures and mental models (that led them to victory in WW1), they discounted new warfare theories/technologies and strategies (such as: combining planes and tanks, blitzkrieg) that led them to a quick and complete defeat.

chriselles2• 5 years ago

The US led western coalition militaries are all now pivoting to peer level(Russia/China) military threats.

Russia was a great power in great decline, but still capable of great disruption(Georgia/Ukraine).

China is a great power with great momentum.

But this is not another Cold War.

During the Cold War the world was largely bifurcated into competing networks based on ideology.

Nations switching from one network to another were rare and switching costs were high.

Now in a highly integrated global economy value proposition is what matters and switching costs for nations is much lower.

Having 1 billion daily active users in the developing world on a Superplatform(Facebook/WeChat) is worth more than the 1 trillion sunk cost invested in Supercarriers(Nimitz/Ford Class).

This is not another Cold War, it is ruthless and relentless competition between competing value propositions.

giardini• 5 years ago

What is "high-intensity war" for the French armed forces?

Jacque: "Monsieur Commander, our allocation of Sauvignon Blanc 1961 for the samedi dinner has been redirected to the front!'

Claude: "Mon Dieu! Qel sorte du monde! Order the Malbec as soon as possible. Nou sommes perdues!"

"And have you made room for the bound-and-gagged ISIS prisonnières? We want to be certain they can view our leisure dining, so as to torture and tempt them to abandon their Muslim faith for a carafe of excellent vin Francais, not to mention our excellent prostitues nicoise.

Do not forget that theese is indeed high-intensity warfare and we must bring our bunker-busters to the fore in an overwhelming move to close the gap! Oh, hon, hon, hon!

Jacque: Mais Senior Commander, the 5th Brigade of the American military, the pride of Black Fighting strength, will be attending the samedi dinner,

Claude: Nous sommes perdues! Peut-etre, peut-etre...oui, I have eet! Tell the cooks to spice the Americains' meals with saltpeter! Oh, hon, hon, hon! I am not a Commander for nothing! With nightfall the French will advance with high-intensity, while ze Americains fumble with their limp pythons! Hon, hon, hon! Commander indeed!

The French armed forces are planning for high-intensity war

Related Stories