Charles de Gaulle took France out of NATO...
No, he didn't.
Source <---not Wikipedia source
"Many people think that French President Charles de Gaulle took his country out of NATO in 1966 when he demanded that all military headquarters and installations not under French command depart French territory by 1967, but this is not the case.
What France did was withdraw from NATO's integrated military command structure – thus French personnel were no longer assigned to the staffs of headquarters in the NATO command structure and French units were not placed under NATO command, but France remained an active member of the Alliance itself and French personnel continued to serve at NATO's political headquarters in Brussels as well as in liaison offices at the other military headquarters.
The French armed forces also worked out secret arrangements for cooperation with NATO in wartime, so the Allies were sure that they could count on France in the event of a crisis or war."
(and secretly hated the US).
Debatable but within bounds of subjective analysis. Can't find anything
clearcut in a few seconds of searching about him hating the USA.
CDG wanted France to be known as a global power on par with the US....always romanticizing about the days that they were.
Seems reasonable to me.
Source
" De Gaulle protested at the strong role of the United States in NATO. He considered the
"special relationship" between the U.S. and the UK to be too close and too detrimental to the French role in Europe. The existing NATO situation gave the United States a veto power a nuclear weapons and thus prevented France from having a fully independent nuclear force of its own. In a memorandum sent to President
Dwight D. Eisenhower and Prime Minister
Harold Macmillan on 17 September 1958, he proposed a tripartite directorate that would put France on an equal footing with them. He also wanted NATO's coverage to expand to include
French Algeria, where France was waging a counter-insurgency and sought NATO assistance.
[31] "
They are not a member no matter what Wikipedia claims.
What source would you accept as valid?
Maybe "member" is a fungible term though.
Paying dues and signing up doesn't make it seem fungible to me. For certain, all members will try to game the alliance in their best interests, which could lead to the difference of opinion between being an active member versus one that is "on paper only". So maybe France is better considered to be "a less than optimal member of NATO"?
Germany is clearly a card carrying member of NATO but functionally not a member in the least...where France is absolutely committed to the security of Europe and the most reliable global ally of the western world..more-so than the US today.
Germany sending helmets to Ukraine when others are sending defensive weaponry is, well to me at least, worth a
Am hoping the Macron-Putin meeting this week calms the Ukraine situation...thanks France. USA seems to be a bit too comfy with the stick for the last 20 yrs.
NATO did work. The Soviet Union believed that collectively if they attacked one, that all would respond and as a deterrent it was successful.. I believe that was true....
Agree.
....but today the economic interests of several NATO countries will prevent them from going against Russia or China.
Mostly think this is true, at present....hence the diplomacy thing and talking back of the situation by various countries that are not the USA or UK. (If things get hot, yeah, then you get to stand one the side of the fence of your choosing and hope your friends are all agreeing what fence that is.)
Certainly seems to me that this is what Russia is thinking or testing out with Ukraine, and would think same applies with China with Taiwan.