Originally Posted by Nschoones
Thanks for taking the time to read the article before responding. His ideas are not that strange...
A nice reading indeed; Mr. Poulos & yours truly happen to agree on several points...
But certainly not on this critical one [sic
The French Empire fell not because Europe's peoples rose against him, but because Napoleon chose to march on Moscow instead of allowing Europe's new and greater unity to sink in. |
He gambled the continent and lost.
Wrong; Monsieur Buonaprtes's personal project historically fell for both aforementioned reasons, among other contributors.
He indeed gambled a Continent... and the Continent lost
(like some hundreds of thoudands of victims, among other losses)
Not that strange ideas indeed; but as Mr Poulos himself admits, this has already been tried:
Personal assessments may of course differ a bit...
... but in general terms the idea was not particularly successful.
Now, on the explicit contemporary agenda of Mr Poulos [sic
Uniquely, France has maintained this deep reservoir of soft power without having run short of hard power. |
It's the only nuclear-armed state east of Britain and west of Russia.
It has more aircraft carriers than Britain, which is working to redesign its own to mimic the systems used by the French.
And it's willing and able to intervene quickly in its near abroad, as in Ivory Coast, and take the lead in international military operations, such as in Libya.
An internal high-level 2008 review of French military policy led to NATO reintegration on the one hand and a grand strategy devoted to "freedom of action" on the other.
Today, Paris is at once more focused on the continent and more attentive to meeting the challenge of global threats.
Intentionally or not, this strategic turn toward a non-isolationist Eurocentrism reflects a growing authority behind France's power position.
The conclusion stands; such stuff is as needed as: