This statement can be neither true nor false because it's nonsense. It contains too many arbitrary elements to have any real specific meaning. Trying to count battles is a silly and pointless exercise in gatekeeping.

Firstly a "battle" isn't well defined. This could mean multi-month high intensity struggle like The Somme. It could mean a year long guerrilla war like "Battle of Algiers." It could mean a riot like the "Battle of Bow Street." It could even be a humorous term for a wartime incident with only one side like the 1942 "Battle of Los Angeles." Wikipedia doesn't even try to distinguish, nor should it.

Secondly, nationality is also fairly arbitrary, especially going back in history. Are we only referring to national troops under control of the central government? Which crusading armies count as French? Which groups of settlers count as Americans? More arbitrary gatekeeping.

Also, what gets written down enough to show up on wikipedia? Basically, stuff English speaking countries are most interested in and have historical sources in. This contains an obvious bias towards Western Europe.

All that being said, France and the French have a long military record and a long literary tradition of writing about battles. It's just silly to compare nations in this way.