Although has some successful interventions, USA wasn't able to win a war since almost a century and in the last one people were falling from the planes when USA was trying to ran away. Russia wasn't able to defeat its neighbor, had to get help from DPRK, China to sustain parts of invasion and get help from the USA to expel invasion on its own territory. Although Israel was able to level a city in its proximity with tens of billions of US weapons, they still weren't able to capture it. Yemen, a country with less than 500$ per capita GDP is able to withstand US attacks and still block marine traffic by launching attacks.

The moral of the story is, if people don't feel like getting invaded you actually can't. There are a very few places that were successfully invaded, like Northern Cyprus or Crimea but those already had significant ethnic population with ties to the invaders.

Obviously it's very damaging and obviously some powers attempt to invade but I don't think that there's a credible case to just give up. Also, that argument is a good example of why EU should control its own communications.

In the saddest possible way, I think the US learned the lesson and won't engage in a classical on the ground warfare against a country like France. To start, France is a nuke holder with bases around the world, so the stakes are that much higher. And as you point out it already has an history of resistance and fighting to the bitter end.

So the only option an actual war would happen is IMHO extremely violent and short-lived, Hiroshima/Nagasaki levels of impact. I don't know how that would happen, and also don't want to know, but I see it at some rhetorical probability.