Can a RAND Corporation report on France be useful to France ?

France is an ally , not a "partner". Wars are not waged by law firms and strategy consultancies but by nations .

I've always been flabbergasted by American think tanks, particularly those funded by government moneys. Not because their reports lack depth or interest, nor because their researchers are intellectually limited: they aren't.

My astonishment comes from how these government-funded think tanks are consistently exposing the intentions of the U.S. administration while still being viewed by the public as neutral and objective experts.

Let me be clear: no nationalist or knee-jerk reactions here. My concern is genuine. I fear I see where this is heading, and I'm speaking my mind openly.

What's the purpose of analyzing French military capabilities based on a highly unlikely scenario?

When I read in a publically available report titled "A Strong Ally Stretched Thin" that "France could support a U.S.-led war effort in Eastern Europe now or in the next ten years," I reckon this as the work of strategists from the Washington, D.C. cocktail party circuit pushing an agenda. The authors include a former CIA Political Analyst (who spent one semester year at Paris' EHESS), a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Development under the Obama administration, and, to round out the team, a French researcher previously with the Small Arms Survey in Geneva.

Believing that France as a nation would fall for this nudge would be either naive or excessively arrogant, except the French mainstream media, known for its low journalistic standards and masochistic tendencies, jumping straight into the trap with headlines like "An American Think Tank Severely Criticizes The French Military."

What the devil is "burden sharing"? No country goes to war to bear another's burden. A military coalition or alliance members primarily shares strategic interests, goals and intentions. It is not and will never be in France’s and Europ’s interests to enter into a collision course with Russia.

What's the likelihood of a prolonged, high-intensity, conventional U.S.-led war in Eastern Europe in the next decade? None.

It's far less likely than a civil war breaking out in France. The overwhelming majority of the French public would not support a war against Russia, and opposition would be stronger, more resolute, and more aggressive than for the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. All's well: Russia neither has the intent nor the capabilities to invade Western Europe.

Why analyze French military capabilities through the lens of an improbable scenario? What's the point when France's military isn't primarily configured for this unlikely event?

The Biden administration has adopted the same stance as the Obama administration with regards to Russia, fueled by neocon delusion. What does this tell us about the Biden administration ? That it is striving to start a war with Russia, most likely through one or several proxies and the expense of all other NATO members and european economies.

The strategy is to pressure weak French politicians (and Emmanuel Macron is notably weak) into designing a military that complements the U.S for the sole purpose of serving U.S. interest.

The goal is to push France away from its strategic doctrine of long-range, in-depth yet relatively small external operations, which are supported by Europe's most powerful navy, air force, and amphibious capabilities.

The objective is to gain strategic control for the U.S. Navy over France's maritime domain, the second largest in the world.

There's also an intent to dismantle parts of France's defense industry, a major U.S. competitor, with Germany's help.

In a "stage blocking session" for my podcast series on the French-American fight against communism after WWII, I reiterate how FDR's intent to place France under U.S. military administration was one of history's most foolish ideas. Now, it seems we have another one courtesy of the Biden administration.

What lies between France and Eastern Europe? Germany. The country whose close half of all defense expenditures are de facto covered by U.S. taxpayers, and which was hesitant to engage its troops in actual combat in Afghanistan (1-800-VeeNeedCAS).

If you talk to any American officer or serviceman who has recently fought alongside French troops, here's what you'll hear :

• The French military is the only European military capable of operating independently anywhere without needing to be transported, resupplied, and babysat by the U.S.

• The French military is the most combat-experienced in Europe on all terrains.

• France is the only major European NATO member meeting its defense spending commitments. Most problems listed in the RAND report are steming from political incompetence.

• France is the only EU member with serious and effective ISR capabilities.

If "burden sharing" is the idea, isn't it foolish to encourage your oldest ally, who has Europe's most capable military, to become less capable?

My concern is that the Biden administration, like all US administration since the end of WWII (at the exception may be of the 2 Nixon administrations), prefers lapdogs over allies.

Is this what's meant by "multilateralism"? Secretary Blinken's public interference in France's and the UK's consular affairs was a sign of this, and this RAND report, led by a former Obama appointee, amplifies it.

Forgive my French, but when the shit hits the fan, who needs a lapdog?