Russia-Ukraine War Politics Thread Mk. 2

[Lord Sovereign]

And threatening Russia with war, to try to get them to back off Ukraine, is not going to be accepted by much of the US populace.

The US public isn't interesting threatening Russia with a clenched fist, as you put it.

Bacle, this is myopia and it is in the Kremlin’s interest for you to think this way.

No one is talking about putting boots on the ground, except in peacekeeping rolls when the war is over. And the only way you can end the war with a lasting peace is destroying the Russian will and ability to fight.

You do this by making it painfully clear to them that you’re aware their soviet stockpile, the thing that has kept them in this harebrained war, is running out. Thereafter you threaten to ensure Ukraine is still pissing lead by the time that stockpile runs out, so if Russia wants to finish this war with the semblance of an army it is to come to the table now.

If it doesn’t, you’ve made your gesture and can then happily let the Ukrainians break Russia for you. All they are asking for is ammunition, not American blood.

 

[Zachowon]

China has backstabbed russia pretty hard during this conflict.
I don't see Putin going out to bat for China for no benefit to himself.

I do, because unlike the US, China will have the same leader seats from now, and is more then willing to buy oil and gas from them as it gurantees a constant source unlike what they sre bound to lose to the west during a war.

 

[Bacle]

Bacle, this is myopia and it is in the Kremlin’s interest for you to think this way.

What the Kremlin feels about me and others thinking that people like Marduk want the US to take measures that will effectively lead to a situation of direct US/Russian combat over Ukraine doesn't matter.

These are honest feelings of me and many other Americans, and trying to use the 'Kremlin likes X' argument is the same as the 'Hitler ate sugar' argument; it doesn't actually address the issues at hand and is an attempt to dismiss, shame, and belittle the honest feelings of people in America.

No one is talking about putting boots on the ground, except in peacekeeping rolls when the war is over. And the only way you can end the war with a lasting peace is destroying the Russian will and ability to fight.

You are talking about the 'threaten Russia with a clenched fist', Marduk is acting like anything but a desire for conflict with Russia is 'peacenik foolishness', and the UA gov has still been trying to get into NATO (thus obligating US forces to fight and die for Ukraine if things start up again), when repeatedly told no.

All indications I see are that many people want the US to not just keep aid going to Ukraine or increase it (even if Congress won't pass another aid package, Ukraine has to pay for everything up front just like other nations), and some even talk about the US threatening a no-fly-zone or strike Russian units in Ukraine among the NAFO-type on Twitter.

You do this by making it painfully clear to them that you’re aware their soviet stockpile, the thing that has kept them in this harebrained war, is running out. Thereafter you threaten to ensure Ukraine is still pissing lead by the time that stockpile runs out, so if Russia wants to finish this war with the semblance of an army it is to come to the table now.

Unfortunately this idea runs smack dab into a North Korea sized problem, and we have even less leverage over Kim than we do Putin.

Russia can still buy gear from North Korea, at quantity, and NK hasn't stopped producing weapons of the type Russia needs/wants because of their own conflict with SK.

Running Russia out of gear was a workable, but long shot idea, before North Korean got involved. Now, unless we can find a way to get Kim to stop selling Putin weapons (not happening outside of maybe another Trump/Kim summit, which doesn't seem likely), Russia will just keep leaning on NK supplied gear and NK troops to make up for domestic shortfalls.

And Kim has a lot of gear and troops he can send to Russia, and a domestic situation even more secure than Putin.

If it doesn’t, you’ve made your gesture and can then happily let the Ukrainians break Russia for you. All they are asking for is ammunition, not American blood.

Continued aid/arms sales to Ukraine can help them hold the line, but they won't 'break' Russia as people like you and Marduk keep hoping.

The only ways to 'break' Russia that are actually viable all involve US direct involvement, and that isn't happening.

At best Trump can drive the price of oil so low Putin can no longer afford his domestic social programs and the war at the same time, and will either have to cease combat or cut domestic programs, both of which come with potential political dangers.

Ukraine best hope of survival, not of 'breaking Russia' but of basic survival as a nation, is that Putin annoys Trump enough that Trump decides to crater the global oil prices, even against the wish of the oil industry groups, and removes enough of Russia's income that Putin can no longer afford to push the frontline further, if he wants to keep paying for dead soldiers and social programs.

 

[Zachowon]

We will see what the price of oil does to Russia besides them selling in bulk to China.
If it makes then come to the table awesome, and if it doesn't then what?

 

[strunkenwhite]

Given Zelensky and co keep waffling on the minerals deal, which would actually see Ukraine become a net benefit to the US, how the US is affected by what is happening in Ukraine really depends on if UA/Zelensky have a modified mineral deal they will sign in a few days/next week or so.

If the US isn't getting something back out of Ukraine for all the aid/sales/intel we have provided, then what happens in UA isn't terribly important to the daily life of the average American.

Utterly failed to address the point I was making.

If Ukraine can pay for 2-3x the amount of supplies they are getting/asking for/buying, and it doesn't impact our ability to supply and stockpile gear for use in the Pacific, great.

But we aren't at a point of production capacity where that is the reality on the ground, from what I've seen; production bottlenecks are still such we have to chose between stockpiling some gear for the Pacific or sending it to Ukraine (if they've paid for it), we cannot always do both at the number Ukraine wants/needs.

Are you factoring in things like public support for Ukraine increases political ability to increase production?

My issues with current aid to Ukraine is based on a few things:

1) Zelensky fucked up what should have been an easy signing visit, a visit he requested, and then people in UA and the EU began lying about it being an 'ambush', while at the same time Vance saying Europe no longer get to free ride on US defense and abuse the US economy and no longer seems to share some value with the US due to their internal political action regarding free speech and the illegal immigrant/jihadi issues was considered a 'betrayal'.

Ungrateful, two-face, and outright gaslighting actions by UA/EU in regards to Trump and Vance have burned a lot of my previous goodwill toward UA.

2) UA is not in a position where it can do more than hold the line, and maybe limited raids into places like Belgorod, and they may have overplayed/overstayed their operation in Kursk. This is when UA is continuing to have manpower/recruiting issues and frankly the leadership is more Soviet minded than NATO-styled, and it's causing a feeling of 'Are we throwing good muntions and money after bad out of pride/unwillingness to admit UA isn't using it wisely?'.

If Europe wants to keep throwing good money and muntions after bad, that's on them, but the US has other responsibilities in the Pacific where we could be stockpiling munitions for a fight with the CCP, and if no amount of aid/sales will get UA the victory they want and aren't being used wisely by UA, then those muntions might be of better effect to the US public by having them stockpiled in the Pacific.

3) Because it seems no amount of previous support for UA matters, the second someone says that UA is making mistakes and needs to reign in it's expectations. That burns a lot of goodwill from people who used to be ardent UA supporters, and makes it so UA seem ungrateful and unwilling to deal with any reality that might involve them giving up lands in legal, formal documentation, not simply calling places 'occupied', and that no amount of desire for NATO membership will make it happen for UA.

4) The timeline for confrontation with the CCP has constantly been getting shorter, they may make a move on Taiwan within this year, so time is not on the side of the US and we therefore have to make some hard choices about stockpiling for that fight vs selling/sending things to UA. We do not have years to build up our stocks while selling to UA, and if things go hot with Taiwan, we may not even have the spare heavy lift capacity to ship much shit to Europe as a whole, never mind UA.

We do not have the time to do things the way UA and the EU would like, partly because the EU has been playing so nice with the CCP and Russia for decades, EU underspending on NATO so the US is more stretched in the Pacific where NATO isn't useful most of the time, and because the 'End of History' bullshit so many prior admins in the US and west had bought into.

1. Incredibly shallow; there is no way to spin that incident or its fallout as deserving to steer the ship of state.

2. Do you take the position that Russia is no longer significantly dependent on its pre-war accumulated assets? Because if Russia is still burning assets it can't fully replace then holding the line is a pretty reasonable plan.

3. This point is entirely emotionally based. I disagree strongly with your claim but even if you were correct it would not follow that social media slapfights should dictate national policy.

4. Like I said above, it's easier to get support for ramping up military production to help Ukraine than to fill warehouses in the Pacific against a fight with China that may not happen at all. (With most Americans IMO, not necessarily you.) But if the fight does kick off then the production will be there and can be redirected. As for heavy lift capacity, I'm sure Ukraine would rather get stuff by boat than not at all so the point is moot.

 

[strunkenwhite]

Unfortunately this idea runs smack dab into a North Korea sized problem, and we have even less leverage over Kim than we do Putin.

Uh, quick reminder that for every North Korea there is also a South Korea, and if NK ships X tons of ammo to Ukraine it's plausible that SK may feel safe in shipping X tons of ammo to Ukraine. I believe I recall seeing news articles that this dynamic has indeed been observed already, but I'm open to correction.

 

[Bacle]

Are you factoring in things like public support for Ukraine increases political ability to increase production?

I'm factoring in the logistical and bureaucratic bottlenecks that have been slowing up US factory construction and factory enlargement for decades, more than public sentiment.

Without new factories putting gear out, there is limit to how much production can be increased on existing production lines, and new arms/weapons factories end up delayed and fucked with by NIMBY's and often green groups who oppose things on environmental grounds.

Public support for Ukraine is also dropping, and Congress won't pass a new aid package.

1. Incredibly shallow; there is no way to spin that incident or its fallout as deserving to steer the ship of state.

It's reality, feeling are facts in and of themselves, and public fuck-ups on the scale that Zelensky did can have decades of repercussions.

He eventually apologized to Trump in a letter, but doesn't appear willing to publicly admit he made a mistake.

Zelensky is someone I used to view as another Churchill, but now see an actor who has overplayed his part, has a support/film/production crew that are not exactly doing him any favors in their own competence, and publicity agents blowing diplomatic/PR smoke up his ass that inflated his ego to an unhealthy degree.

I believe Zelensky is a brave and righteous man, but righteousness is a poor substitute for competence and effectiveness, and I think he's been puffed up so much his ego and anger at Russia overrode his better judgement, and may be continuing to do so.

We will see if the mineral deal actually comes through this week, as he and Trump have talked about.

2. Do you take the position that Russia is no longer significantly dependent on its pre-war accumulated assets? Because if Russia is still burning assets it can't fully replace then holding the line is a pretty reasonable plan.

No, because North Korea isn't running out of gear or troops, and Putin has no problem leaning on the Norks for both.

The idea to run Russia out of gear was viable, but a long shot, until Kim became involved; now, it's a farcical fantasy that ignores current realities.

We may be able to run Putin out of funds to pay for more gear from the Norks, but attrition on the battlefield isn't going to work very well when North Korea can always expand it's own production, or even help improve production numbers inside Russia itself.

3. This point is entirely emotionally based. I disagree strongly with your claim but even if you were correct it would not follow that social media slapfights should dictate national policy.

What's that old Chinese proverb about 'The punishment for treason is death, the punishment for being late is death; we are late."

When no amount of previous support for Ukraine counts for a damn, the second you say Zelensky fucked up and/or that UA's in a bad position that more munitions and arms sales are unlikely to fix, then people are going to get burned out on Ukraine as an issue and start to feel it was all just about leftist-style virtue signalling about the conflict, not actual good faith debates or discussions.

There is very little attempt to understand and address the issues causing UA to lose support, and a lot of attempts to shame and belittle people, even previously ardent UA supporters, for daring to say that Zelensky fucked up and/or that UA's not in a position to get what it wants for a 'victory', and will have to make a deal that it may not like, if it wants to survive as a nation.

4. Like I said above, it's easier to get support for ramping up military production to help Ukraine than to fill warehouses in the Pacific against a fight with China that may not happen at all. (With most Americans IMO, not necessarily you.) But if the fight does kick off then the production will be there and can be redirected. As for heavy lift capacity, I'm sure Ukraine would rather get stuff by boat than not at all so the point is moot.

I think that getting support for stocking up for defense of Taiwan has more bipartisan support and a better chance of getting through Congress, at this point, compared to making it about Ukraine.

Democrats, NAFO-types, and some actions by Zelensky and UA's gov that amounted to playing teamball in US domestic politics were not a good idea, and effectively showed UA is more a Democrat project/issue than a bipartisan issue. The way many in Ukraine and Europe have talked about and treated Trump and his admin hasn't helped things either; I remember the talks of 'Trump-proofing' before and after the election, which did nothing to breed good will between Trump's base and Ukraine.

And when I was speaking of heavy lift capacity, that included boats/ships; the US merchant marine and logistics fleet is not very big these days, and all of it will be needed in the Pacific if things go hot over Taiwan. Perhaps some European military shipping/transport groups/operations could try to fill the gap, but I am not as familiar with them.

Uh, quick reminder that for every North Korea there is also a South Korea, and if NK ships X tons of ammo to Ukraine it's plausible that SK may feel safe in shipping X tons of ammo to Ukraine. I believe I recall seeing news articles that this dynamic has indeed been observed already, but I'm open to correction.

Except last I saw, SK wasn't going to send lethal aid to Ukraine or let Ukraine buy their gear directly, because they have their own relations with Russia to consider.

https://www.reuters.com/world/south-koreans-remain-opposed-sending-arms-ukraine-2024-11-27/

 

[strunkenwhite]

I'm factoring in the logistical and bureaucratic bottlenecks that have been slowing up US factory construction and factory enlargement for decades, more than public sentiment.

Without new factories putting gear out, there is limit to how much production can be increased on existing production lines, and new arms/weapons factories end up delayed and fucked with by NIMBY's and often green groups who oppose things on environmental grounds.

Public support for Ukraine is also dropping, and Congress won't pass a new aid package.

It's reality, feeling are facts in and of themselves, and public fuck-ups on the scale that Zelensky did can have decades of repercussions.

He eventually apologized to Trump in a letter, but doesn't appear willing to publicly admit he made a mistake.

Zelensky is someone I used to view as another Churchill, but now see an actor who has overplayed his part, has a support/film/production crew that are not exactly doing him any favors in their own competence, and publicity agents blowing diplomatic/PR smoke up his ass that inflated his ego to an unhealthy degree.

I believe Zelensky is a brave and righteous man, but righteousness is a poor substitute for competence and effectiveness, and I think he's been puffed up so much his ego and anger at Russia overrode his better judgement, and may be continuing to do so.

We will see if the mineral deal actually comes through this week, as he and Trump have talked about.

No, because North Korea isn't running out of gear or troops, and Putin has no problem leaning on the Norks for both.

The idea to run Russia out of gear was viable, but a long shot, until Kim became involved; now, it's a farcical fantasy that ignores current realities.

We may be able to run Putin out of funds to pay for more gear from the Norks, but attrition on the battlefield isn't going to work very well when North Korea can always expand it's own production, or even help improve production numbers inside Russia itself.

What's that old Chinese proverb about 'The punishment for treason is death, the punishment for being late is death; we are late."

When no amount of previous support for Ukraine counts for a damn, the second you say Zelensky fucked up and/or that UA's in a bad position that more munitions and arms sales are unlikely to fix, then people are going to get burned out on Ukraine as an issue and start to feel it was all just about leftist-style virtue signalling about the conflict, not actual good faith debates or discussions.

There is very little attempt to understand and address the issues causing UA to lose support, and a lot of attempts to shame and belittle people, even previously ardent UA supporters, for daring to say that Zelensky fucked up and/or that UA's not in a position to get what it wants for a 'victory', and will have to make a deal that it may not like, if it wants to survive as a nation.

I think that getting support for stocking up for defense of Taiwan has more bipartisan support and a better chance of getting through Congress, at this point, compared to making it about Ukraine.

Democrats, NAFO-types, and some actions by Zelensky and UA's gov that amounted to playing teamball in US domestic politics were not a good idea, and effectively showed UA is more a Democrat project/issue than a bipartisan issue. The way many in Ukraine and Europe have talked about and treated Trump and his admin hasn't helped things either; I remember the talks of 'Trump-proofing' before and after the election, which did nothing to breed good will between Trump's base and Ukraine.

And when I was speaking of heavy lift capacity, that included boats/ships; the US merchant marine and logistics fleet is not very big these days, and all of it will be needed in the Pacific if things go hot over Taiwan. Perhaps some European military shipping/transport groups/operations could try to fill the gap, but I am not as familiar with them.

Except last I saw, SK wasn't going to send lethal aid to Ukraine or let Ukraine buy their gear directly, because they have their own relations with Russia to consider.

https://www.reuters.com/world/south-koreans-remain-opposed-sending-arms-ukraine-2024-11-27/

"feelings are facts in and of themselves" sums up a lot of your arguments nicely IMO. I hardly feel I need to rebut that.

I agree having access to deep NK stockpiles is a major win for Russia, but NK doesn't have all the things that Russia needs. The argument still works for things NK cannot supply to Russia.

As for SK not "directly" giving/selling Ukraine its ammo, that may be true but it makes no difference to the shell or who it lands on how convoluted its passage was.

I agree that a hot Pacific war would tie up American logistics including ships; I feel that "heavy lift capacity" is a very poor term to describe water based shipping but there is no need to get into a pointless semantics argument (though if that was indeed a term of art being used accurately then I'd be interesting in learning that fact).

 

[Bacle]

"feelings are facts in and of themselves" sums up a lot of your arguments nicely IMO. I hardly feel I need to rebut that.

It's something I think a lot of the Right doesn't understand, at least the types who think like Ben Shapiro and say 'facts do not care about your feelings' as if humans are Vulcans and emotional context should have no part in decision making, despite that literally never being the case in human history.

Ignoring how people feel, and trying to just tell them they are wrong or helping the enemy for feeling a certain way, never works out well in long run.

I agree having access to deep NK stockpiles is a major win for Russia, but NK doesn't have all the things that Russia needs. The argument still works for things NK cannot supply to Russia.

As for SK not "directly" giving/selling Ukraine its ammo, that may be true but it makes no difference to the shell or who it lands on how convoluted its passage was.

I agree that a hot Pacific war would tie up American logistics including ships; I feel that "heavy lift capacity" is a very poor term to describe water based shipping but there is no need to get into a pointless semantics argument (though if that was indeed a term of art being used accurately then I'd be interesting in learning that fact).

Heavy lift capacity is both ships and aircraft; the US will probably see most of both tied up in the Pacific in the event Taiwan gets hit.

 

[strunkenwhite]

Heavy lift capacity is both ships and aircraft; the US will probably see most of both tied up in the Pacific in the event Taiwan gets hit.

You are correct here.

 

[Zachowon]

Aircraft are a lot easier to use in both theaters

 

[strunkenwhite]

Aircraft are a lot easier to use in both theaters

I thought it went without saying that airplanes are both faster and more flexible than ocean shipping, but more costly and generally with more limited throughput.

water, rail, truck, plane

 

[Bacle]

@Marduk @Lord Sovereign

Something for your consideration.

What does it say about the divide between European and American mindsets and cultural situations, when the Russian psy-ops groups seem to have a better handle on the mindset of the average American than our allies do?

Perhaps Europe could stand to maybe take a step back from lecturing, shaming, and complaining about the US, and maybe learn how to understand and address American concerns, instead of dismissing, belittling, and shaming Americans for not having the same mindset and concerns as Europeans do.

 

[Zachowon]

@Marduk @Lord Sovereign

Something for your consideration.

What does it say about the divide between European and American mindsets and cultural situations, when the Russian psy-ops groups seem to have a better handle on the mindset of the average American than our allies do?

Perhaps Europe could stand to maybe take a step back from lecturing, shaming, and complaining about the US, and maybe learn how to understand and address American concerns, instead of dismissing, belittling, and shaming Americans for not having the same mindset and concerns as Europeans do.

The entirety of Eastern Europe understands....
And bacle I will say this about them.
They have to worry about China as well in a diffrent manner.
In the end we need to take thier concerns serious because having thier help in PACOM would be almost guranteed, not from SEA countries.

 

[Largo]

Something for your consideration.

What does it say about the divide between European and American mindsets and cultural situations, when the Russian psy-ops groups seem to have a better handle on the mindset of the average American than our allies do?

That since people are lazy and shortsighted, it's easier to persuade someone to not do something than it is to persuade someone to do something?

That's what Russia propaganda is all about, even to its own people. It doesn't want Russians actively cheering for the war and screaming "Death to the Ukrainians", because then those people might start asking whether someone might do a better job at winning the war than Putin.

 

[strunkenwhite]

The Soviets failed to construct a fortress of lies strong enough to support a worldview easily torn apart by truth; but they did manage to demonstrate that throwing enough bullshit around could cultivate a sort of political nihilism that made most people check out completely. Russia has continued to cultivate this strategy both internally and externally.

 

[ATP]

The Soviets failed to construct a fortress of lies strong enough to support a worldview easily torn apart by truth; but they did manage to demonstrate that throwing enough bullshit around could cultivate a sort of political nihilism that made most people check out completely. Russia has continued to cultivate this strategy both internally and externally.

Well,ideal sovek supposed to tell one thing,when he belived in sometching else.Orwell take doublethinking from them.

 

[Bacle]

The entirety of Eastern Europe understands....

Understands what?

Russian/Soviet psy-ops competence, or why some Americans feel much of Europe doesn't understand the US domestic situation/feelings?

And bacle I will say this about them.
They have to worry about China as well in a diffrent manner.
In the end we need to take thier concerns serious because having thier help in PACOM would be almost guranteed, not from SEA countries.

The EU isn't worried about the CCP at all, they want to be friends with the CCP, regardless of what it does to NATO.

Maybe the Brits will help out in PACOM, but I do not see anyone else in Europe having the mix of political will and military gear to be useful allies in the Pacific, nor do I see the EU actually opposing the CCP in any way that matters, no matter how it undermines the NATO alliance.

The EU's only concern is how to keep their whole fucking wannabe 4th Reich going; the Germans decided to conquer Europe with bureaucrats and paperwork, instead of tanks and machines guns, and many in Europe happily went along with it.

I'll take Europe's concerns more seriously when they stop insulting, belittling, and shaming the US public for not always sharing their view of things, and when Europeans start realizing how much their free riding on NATO has cost the US public for decades, and not just in dollar terms, but in good will and trust.

That since people are lazy and shortsighted, it's easier to persuade someone to not do something than it is to persuade someone to do something?

That's what Russia propaganda is all about, even to its own people. It doesn't want Russians actively cheering for the war and screaming "Death to the Ukrainians", because then those people might start asking whether someone might do a better job at winning the war than Putin.

This doesn't address what I said though.

Why do Russia's psy-ops groups have a better read of the US public than our 'allies' usually do, and why don't Europeans understand the profound implications of this?

Perhaps it is time for some in Europe to start trying to be nicer to the US public and understand our concerns and issues, rather than dismiss and ignore them, when they aren't what the Europeans want to hear or agree with.

 

[Zachowon]

Understands what?

Russian/Soviet psy-ops competence, or why some Americans feel much of Europe doesn't understand the US domestic situation/feelings?

The EU isn't worried about the CCP at all, they want to be friends with the CCP, regardless of what it does to NATO.

Maybe the Brits will help out in PACOM, but I do not see anyone else in Europe having the mix of political will and military gear to be useful allies in the Pacific, nor do I see the EU actually opposing the CCP in any way that matters, no matter how it undermines the NATO alliance.

The EU's only concern is how to keep their whole fucking wannabe 4th Reich going; the Germans decided to conquer Europe with bureaucrats and paperwork, instead of tanks and machines guns, and many in Europe happily went along with it.

I'll take Europe's concerns more seriously when they stop insulting, belittling, and shaming the US public for not always sharing their view of things, and when Europeans start realizing how much their free riding on NATO has cost the US public for decades, and not just in dollar terms, but in good will and trust.

This doesn't address what I said though.

Why do Russia's psy-ops groups have a better read of the US public than our 'allies' usually do, and why don't Europeans understand the profound implications of this?

Perhaps it is time for some in Europe to start trying to be nicer to the US public and understand our concerns and issues, rather than dismiss and ignore them, when they aren't what the Europeans want to hear or agree with.

Eastern Europe is giving everything they can to support the US and Ukraine, and Finland for example has shown more then enough to help us.
And France sure would gladly get invovled in the Pacific if it allows then to have power again.

Yes Euros will get closer to China, but others will push against it as well.

 

[Bacle]

Eastern Europe is giving everything they can to support the US and Ukraine, and Finland for example has shown more then enough to help us.
And France sure would gladly get invovled in the Pacific if it allows then to have power again.

Yes Euros will get closer to China, but others will push against it as well.

Ok, a few things:

1) I meant European understanding of US domestic issues, not just military stuff. I have seen willingness to help the US militarily in some regards, but very little in terms of attempts to understand and address US domestic concerns that involve the EU's abuse of NATO protection to exploit the US worker.

2) Finland is a useful military ally (ice breaker deal is very much something that benefits the US) and I am glad to have them in NATO. On balance, I have also seen NAFO-type Finns wishing Trump had died in Bulter, PA, saying 'the assassin shouldn't have missed' and effectively embracing an utter TDS mindset and lies about Trump, just because Orange Man Bad.

3) France might help in the Pacific, but only if the CCP threaten their Pacific territories, and last I saw the CDG was busy in the eastern Med launching escort operations for NATO AWACs over the Black Sea. If France had a few more carriers, they'd definitely be useful in the Pacific; the Mistral's would be of some use in the Pacific, but I am not sure what France is doing with those right now, and France is still stuck dealing with the Houthi's as well. Unless the Houthi threat is gone by the time the CCP goes for Taiwan, France is still going to be occupied escorting ships in the Red Sea, and we might still be stuck fighting them depending on how hard we keep nailing the Houthi's.

4) I haven't seen anyone from the EU actually attempt to push back against the CCP, rather than cozy up to them more and more. Pardon me if I do not have confidence the voices pushing back will override thus who want to get closer to the CCP.