On this side of the channel no one is sure what is going to happen. Some polls suggest that he would win in the first round, the way the others are split. But he is playing a strange game in not saying.whether or.not he is going to run or not.
It seems the polls you are reading in the UK are totally different from the ones being carried on French TV and some press.
Remember the response by JFK to the USSR sending missiles to a state willing to accept them, but close to the USA. Cuba. A state which the US did arrange an invasion – Bay of Pigs.
Whoever is Russian President may react in the same way.
That’s a very different situation though; more so if seen in the context of the time. I recommend Plokhii’s “Nuclear Folly” book for a detailed treatment.
gallois wrote:
Some polls suggest that he would win in the first round […] It seems the polls you are reading in the UK are totally different from the ones being carried on French TV and some press.
I would not look to the British press or polls on French elections (or any other foreign ones, for that matter). But I would trust a poll that suggest an outright first round win even less – it is simply ludicrous; no French president since the direct elections were (re-)introduced in the 60s ever won first round, the field is far to fragmented. It would be interesting to see how that poll was conducted…
The regular French polls suggest he will comfortably make it to second round, and then face either LePen or Pécresse, or maybe Zemmour, all three to his right. But he would need double the predicted 25-ish-% vote to get the required >50% in the first round.
or some trends here: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_de_sondages_sur_l%27%C3%A9lection_pr%C3%A9sidentielle_fran%C3%A7aise_de_2022
Last time around, he crushed LePen 66% to 33% or thereabouts in the second round so my money would be on him winning second round – while his popularity has dropped, LePen also declined quite a bit. But on the other hand, the candidates to his right (Pécresse, LePen, Zemmour) have around 15% each, if they are all concentrated in the second candidate he has a tougher fight in the second round than last time.
So, as Graham says, he (as every politician) will not want a good crisis go to waste when it comes to securing his role. It ain’t over until the fat lady sings…
Pécresse started well with the same percentage of the vote as LePenn and Zemmour combined.
She has since gone down hill and is now on a par if not slightly below LePenn.
The pundits reckon that Pécresse is the greater threat to Macron, should it go to a second round as she will garner much of the vote from the right and also much of the left vote.
The polls are up and down like crazy. A month ago the average of polls showed Macron at 46%.
You have to remember that polls are a) not a very good measure these days b) Macron has not yet thrown his hat into the ring. The opinion pollsters do not know how to handle this.
gallois wrote:
b) Macron has not yet thrown his hat into the ring.
Does anyone think that he wont stand for re-election??
I don’t think so, but people are beginning to wonder about his motives.
Graham wrote:
It is the done thing in most of Europe to let the US carry the entire NATO burden. Trump had a valid point: “this is mostly about protecting European countries, so pay your way”
Well, NATO is no alliance. NATO is an allegiance to the USA. It’s deeply routed in the NATO doctrine. The US will never enter any conflict whatsoever unless they are 100% in charge. This is why France will never become a “full” NATO member. As far as the US is concerned, the farther away from the US territory any war activity will happen, the better. The other NATO members are a bit more pragmatic and economical.
Trump was and is a joke. His point is valid though, but only so far it is in every countries interest to assure they have a military force with believable capabilities also without the US. Today this is France first and fore most, then UK and to a bit lesser extent the Nordic countries (no nukes). We also have Turkey here. Also remember that neither Sweden nor Finland is part of NATO. Germany for instance is a joke. Norway alone has larger and better air force at this point in time (the part that actually can be used to fight). This is what we see in Ukraine right now. Russia can simply roll into Ukraine at any moment, and most probable will (or not, we will see soon). If they do, they will meet only token resistance if any at all. For the US it’s clearly better to remain in control over the forces in Europe, because there is no other option than to completely withdraw from NATO all together, and that means goodbye buffer zone and back to pre WWII days.
Under Stalin, Russia rolled some 300,000 troops into Finland. The Finnish army was about 80,000. Russia got beaten back and didn’t dare try again
Russia rolled a huge force into Afghanistan and had to retreat as the body bags and costs rose.
IMO Ukraine will at least give Putin a bloody nose and the majority of his people even poorer than they already are. Putin survives because he controls the media.
That’s also not to say that the US has done any better sending forces to other countries which is why they will not send forces to Ukraine.
NATO is an allegiance to the USA
There is a very good reason for the US wanting to be in charge, given that they are paying most of the bills. Look at European history 
The number of countries in Europe who have a “backbone” is one of the smallest possible non-negative even integers, and the number of those which doesn’t hate the US is the smallest possible nonzero nonprime number. Probably comparable to the number of GA pilots willing to get together and buy an airfield which is threatened with closure by property sharks
That’s also not to say that the US has done any better sending forces to other countries
Militarily, they did fine, where there was no risk of the conflict going wider (as was a risk in Vietnam).
which is why they will not send forces to Ukraine.
They can’t, due to the risk of nuclear escalation. They also don’t have a clear obligation to defend it.
Putin will pay a heavy economic price for an invasion, however. A lot of pressure will be put on Germany to not buy his gas – probably unsuccessfully since Germany has few options now. But elsewhere he will lose business. The world doesn’t need Russia, in the way the world needs China to support the “cheap and cheerful” consumer demand which cannot be realistically replaced.
My money would be on Putin withdrawing, but not before he takes things to the very edge. This isn’t 1968… CZ was already the property of the USSR, ex Yalta.
Russia rolled a huge force into Afghanistan
It was never a huge force. To do an invasion, you need to go in with overwhelming force – like the US did in the Gulf. Anything less, you get high losses, and in the end the locals will just take the p1ss. But Afghanistan was pointless anyway, in terms of territory. There is nothing there. The USSR was always after territory, anywhere, everywhere, but the US has no interest in territorial gain.
With a bit of luck, the long term fallout may be a move around Europe to nuclear power, and that will really put Russia out of business.
