British and French will be sent to die in Ukraine.

What happens when you vote people like this into power they'd gladly send your sons to die for their project
Btw is Macron in power still? I always thought he was being replaced.. what happened wtf

If you see this twaddle from a new account please report it rather than replying.

There aren't enough people posting as it is. Who am I going to argue with if we report all the trolls?

What happens when you vote people like this into power they'd gladly send your sons to die for their project

Btw is Macron in power still? I always thought he was being replaced.. what happened wtf

The first thing to be said about the proposal to deploy British and French troops to Ukraine is that it is nothing more than one part of a face-saving exercise for two leaders who are deeply unpopular at home and are desperately trying to make themselves look important on the world stage.
It was not long ago that Sir Keir Starmer declared that Ukraine was on "an irreversible path" to NATO membership. In an attempt to hide this glaring error of judgement, he dreamed up the idea of a "coalition of the willing", which has in reality proved to be not very willing at all. The three other major European powers - Germany, Poland and Italy - have all ruled out stationing troops inside Ukraine. President Macron, safe in the knowledge that he will be out of office next year, has gone along with the idea but there is widespread opposition on both the left and right, notably voiced by the leading contender in the presidential race:
Far-right leader Bardella renews push against French troops in Ukraine: The comments are likely to prompt concerns over the durability of any French security commitments to Kyiv.
https://www.politico.eu/article/french-far-right-leader-jordan-bardella-renews-push-against-troops-in-ukraine/
French withdrawal would leave Britain exposed as the only willing member of the coalition of the willing.
Even if the idea was eventually to take shape the logistical problems involved would render it futile. The latest suggestions that have emerged are that Britain would send "less than" 7,500 military personnel, and the French a possible 6,000, all of whom would be an obvious target in the event of hostilities breaking out. According to Sir Richard Shirreff, former deputy commander of NATO, at least 50,000 would be required to provide a meaningful reassurance force or an enforcement force. The most recent government figures show there are around 147,000 people in the UK armed forces, with just over half assigned to the army.
Even conservative estimates of 10,000 troops on deployment would put pressure on the UK’s Regular Army, according to Stuart Young, a former engineer officer in the Royal Navy and visiting fellow at Cranfield University. Thousands more would be required to undertake training and other activities in readiness for deployment.“To sustain a force of 10,000 troops on the ground in Ukraine, a total of 30,000 troops would be needed,” he said. “This total does not include personnel undertaking support and planning activities back in the UK.
“In total, this represents over 40 per cent of the British Army. Such a deployment could only be sustained for a short period before the impact on the Army’s other tasks becomes very significant. There would be similar impacts on the Royal Air Force and, to a lesser extent, the Royal Navy.”
Unsurprisingly, much public reaction here in the UK has been scathing, with suggestions that politicians should send their own sons and daughters first. Reform on the right is opposed and the Green party on the left demands a "robust international mandate". Even the Conservatives are sceptical.
And all this is predicated on the assumption that Russia will sign a peace treaty that includes Western troops inside Ukraine. While that is not beyond the bounds of possibility, it will no doubt come with strict limitations that would render the whole plan an expensive and dangerous waste of time.
In the event of a peace treaty and/or a ceasefire (which I have been advocating for the last three years, during which time Western leaders were telling Ukraine to fight on) there will be a need for robust security guarantees. But this particular proposal is anything but that.

"In the event of a peace treaty and/or a ceasefire (which I have been advocating for the last three years"
What were the specific terms of your proposed treaty/ceasefire?

First, let's put those words back into context. What I said was:
"In the event of a peace treaty and/or a ceasefire (which I have been advocating for the last three years, during which time Western leaders were telling Ukraine to fight on) there will be a need for robust security guarantees. But this particular proposal is anything but that."
The terms and conditions of a peace treaty are obviously for the parties to the conflict to determine. The point I am making in the part of the sentence within the brackets is that I have been advocating peace negotiations for three years and during most of that time the majority of Western leaders were encouraging Ukraine to eschew negotiations and try to regain territory by military means. I am pleased to note that they have now abandoned that approach.

Everyone bar Putin has been advocating a peace treaty for years. I thought you had some specific proposals.
It seems reasonable for a nation to continue defending itself against an invader until a lasting cease fire has been enforced. Otherwise, the invader could just walk in and the treaty is immediately obsolete. Even then, we saw how Russia treated past cease fires.

There is strong evidence to suggest that certain Western leaders encouraged Ukraine to fight on rather than to pursue peace negotiations that were taking place in the spring of 2022. Opinion on this is sharply divided but a fair and balanced assessment was offered in this Guardian article, dated April 22nd, 2024, before the current crop of European leaders started to actively advocate "a just and lasting peace".
To quote a couple of relevant passages:
"The two sides were able to agree on some major concessions, mostly around the question of the postwar European security order, and they were willing to talk, even in the face of a brutal ongoing war. And although there are other reasons why the talks failed, the promise of Western commitments undoubtedly did play a role in undermining the Ukrainian willingness to come to an agreement at that time."
"Some Western supporters of Ukraine point to extreme statements by Russian elites to argue that there can be no negotiated end to this conflict – Russia will never be satisfied until it is victorious. Yet these early negotiations clearly disprove that point. Both sides presented their demands, and traded drafts back and forth with concessions on certain issues. Clearly, they never reached a final deal. But there were already visible concessions occurring during this process, from Russia’s suggestion that Crimea’s status might be open to negotiation, to the back and forth between the two sides on the size of a postwar Ukrainian army."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/22/boris-johnson-ukraine-2022-peace-talks-russia
I could have cited articles, primarily from left-leaning Western commentators (not from the Russian side), that are far more critical of the West's approach at the time.
However, the purpose of my post at Reply 7 was to question both the wisdom and feasibility of the proposal to station British and French troops inside Ukraine, in the event of a peace settlement that European leaders now appear to be anticipating.

Rather than simply "telling Ukraine to fight on" regardless, the context seems to be that Western promises of support led Ukraine to believe that it could get a better deal than that being offered at the time by Russia. (Of course, at the time they couldn't have known that the future US president was going to undermine Ukraine and Europe and provide tacit support for Putin).
The idea that the failure of peace talks was down to European leaders rather than Putin is somewhat far-fetched.