France recalls US and AU ambassadors over sub-deal(economist.com)
economist.com
France recalls US and AU ambassadors over sub-deal
https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/09/18/french-fury-over-the-american-australian-sub-deal
71 comments
The term for it:
> "Perfidious Albion" is a pejorative phrase used within the context of international relations diplomacy to refer to acts of diplomatic sleights, duplicity, treachery and hence infidelity (with respect to perceived promises made to or alliances formed with other nation states) by monarchs or governments of the United Kingdom in their pursuit of self-interest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidious_Albion
And as said in Ireland, "the Brits are at it again".
> "Perfidious Albion" is a pejorative phrase used within the context of international relations diplomacy to refer to acts of diplomatic sleights, duplicity, treachery and hence infidelity (with respect to perceived promises made to or alliances formed with other nation states) by monarchs or governments of the United Kingdom in their pursuit of self-interest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidious_Albion
And as said in Ireland, "the Brits are at it again".
TIL. Interesting rabbit hole.
BAE (f.k.a British Aerospace) said on the day of the AUKUS announcement it is prepared to participate. That doesn't sound like a company that has been closely involved in the negotiations.
In all likelihood the Australians will pick US Virginia-class subs off the shelf, not made in Australia and not the (excellent) British Astute-class subs, because the US doesn't normally let junior partners get the spoils, only crumbs. For instance when the US organized the 1953 coup that overthrew the Mossadegh government in Iran at the British' request, the Anglo-Iranian oil company was replaced with a consortium of US and European oil companies, with the British getting less than the would have had if they had accepted Mossadegh's most maximalist plan).
In all likelihood the Australians will pick US Virginia-class subs off the shelf, not made in Australia and not the (excellent) British Astute-class subs, because the US doesn't normally let junior partners get the spoils, only crumbs. For instance when the US organized the 1953 coup that overthrew the Mossadegh government in Iran at the British' request, the Anglo-Iranian oil company was replaced with a consortium of US and European oil companies, with the British getting less than the would have had if they had accepted Mossadegh's most maximalist plan).
I don't think they will, UK (in parliament) was clear its in the thing to let AUS fund development of a New SUB. Then use those works to develop its next generation. I'm sure US is happy for AUS to establish a 2021 blueprint they can improve on.
So basically they dislike the UK enough it didn't change their opinion of them.
In no political expert but it seems like the choice was between France:
very expensive and cost overrunning, less intimidating subs and no strategic cooperation.
USUK: we give you superior tech, you help us police China and display a clear message that the US won’t fight this alone.
The French are pissed? Je suis desolé.
If the Chinese start pushing Aus around and we need help, the French would point to the EU tying their hands while they pat their pocket full of our billions.
This decision is not just a embarrassment for France but it’s a vote of no confidence on the EU’s willingness to deter China.
The French are pissed? Je suis desolé.
If the Chinese start pushing Aus around and we need help, the French would point to the EU tying their hands while they pat their pocket full of our billions.
This decision is not just a embarrassment for France but it’s a vote of no confidence on the EU’s willingness to deter China.
The French boat was going to be hilariously obsolete by the time it became operational.
This lets Australia out of a bad deal while people get distracted by Freedom Fries-type theatrics.
This lets Australia out of a bad deal while people get distracted by Freedom Fries-type theatrics.
You are very lightly skipping over the point where they already had a contract with France, worth 90 billion euro. If they didn't like the deal they were getting with France, they should have backed out before signing, rather than sign and then change their minds a few weeks later.
The deal was a sad joke to begin with to get "the pompous poodle" re-elected (which worked). He then soonafter resigned and went to work for the people he shadily brokered this (good for them / bad for us) deal for
Basically it's treasonous behaviour that has become the norm for our political class of buck suckers.
Read the links in my post elsewhere in this thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28580035
The deal never should have been allowed to proceed in the first place. It was a travesty it dragged on for so long... but then again this is Australia that sells gas to overseas countries for half the price we sell to ourselves (even after liquefaction and transport taken into account).
It is so bad, because Australia is the largest gas EXPORTER in the world, but yet on the flipside the system is so corrupted by vested interests that several states of Australia (e.g. Victoria) are are seriously considering saving money by building several gas IMPORT terminals to buy the gas back from foreign countries, after the Australian gas cartel has already sold to those countries for half the price they sell to locals. It runs right to the top, and beyond. The country is run more by the mining powerbrokers and Murdoch than the politicians who are just muppets. Even our current PM famously said something like "the muppet show is over" when trying to placate the media hounding him after the last successful bloodless coup (changing of the countries leader decided only by vested interests)
Basically it's treasonous behaviour that has become the norm for our political class of buck suckers.
Read the links in my post elsewhere in this thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28580035
The deal never should have been allowed to proceed in the first place. It was a travesty it dragged on for so long... but then again this is Australia that sells gas to overseas countries for half the price we sell to ourselves (even after liquefaction and transport taken into account).
It is so bad, because Australia is the largest gas EXPORTER in the world, but yet on the flipside the system is so corrupted by vested interests that several states of Australia (e.g. Victoria) are are seriously considering saving money by building several gas IMPORT terminals to buy the gas back from foreign countries, after the Australian gas cartel has already sold to those countries for half the price they sell to locals. It runs right to the top, and beyond. The country is run more by the mining powerbrokers and Murdoch than the politicians who are just muppets. Even our current PM famously said something like "the muppet show is over" when trying to placate the media hounding him after the last successful bloodless coup (changing of the countries leader decided only by vested interests)
That sounds really bad, and I can only wish you good luck with dealing with the whole parasite class in your country. I was only pointing out that having a 90 billion euro contract stolen by another party is always going to cause some bad blood, and that such a thing is in fact not unreasonable.
Apparently it was much further along than a few weeks as well. As more news comes out I see total valuations from 30 to 90 billion, and apparently the contract was running for a few years already. It also seems to include much more than submarines, so this is apparently the US and UK just giving Australia money to oust the French.
Funny(?) story: years ago I was working on a piece of software for a medium-sized space agency, and the French government sent a government minister to tell them to buy a French alternative instead. They laughed in his face and are still using mine, but the simple fact that they had the gall to do this rankles. So on a personal level I very much applaud anyone sticking it to the French and their insane drive for empire, but even so I do recognize that tearing up a 90 billion contract is always going to be a problem, no matter what.
Also, next time someone posts here that we should really give up on meat and flying "because the planet", I'll refer them to the Australians who are apparently uselessly shipping gas back and forth across the ocean... Fix that kind of BS first before bothering the rest of us.
Apparently it was much further along than a few weeks as well. As more news comes out I see total valuations from 30 to 90 billion, and apparently the contract was running for a few years already. It also seems to include much more than submarines, so this is apparently the US and UK just giving Australia money to oust the French.
Funny(?) story: years ago I was working on a piece of software for a medium-sized space agency, and the French government sent a government minister to tell them to buy a French alternative instead. They laughed in his face and are still using mine, but the simple fact that they had the gall to do this rankles. So on a personal level I very much applaud anyone sticking it to the French and their insane drive for empire, but even so I do recognize that tearing up a 90 billion contract is always going to be a problem, no matter what.
Also, next time someone posts here that we should really give up on meat and flying "because the planet", I'll refer them to the Australians who are apparently uselessly shipping gas back and forth across the ocean... Fix that kind of BS first before bothering the rest of us.
Having recently come back to Australia, I'm staggered (and honestly impressed) at how good the media is at shaping a story to suit the needs of politicians.
In all of this talk of "betraying the French" or "siding with the US", there is not even a mention of the fact Australia is spending towards $100 billion on multiple nuclear submarines.
This for a country that only has 25 million people and a GDP of around $1.4 trillion USD.
Why on earth does Australia need nuclear submarines, and why isn't that money being spent to improve the lives of regular tax paying Australians?
A county of 25 million people that doesn't even have nuclear power (or nuclear weapons) has no need of nuclear submarines, it's an obscene waste of money.
In all of this talk of "betraying the French" or "siding with the US", there is not even a mention of the fact Australia is spending towards $100 billion on multiple nuclear submarines.
This for a country that only has 25 million people and a GDP of around $1.4 trillion USD.
Why on earth does Australia need nuclear submarines, and why isn't that money being spent to improve the lives of regular tax paying Australians?
A county of 25 million people that doesn't even have nuclear power (or nuclear weapons) has no need of nuclear submarines, it's an obscene waste of money.
Completely disagree with respect to the media - the cost was the key question from the opposition and this was widely reported on the ABC.
Even the first 5 minutes of this mornings insiders was detailing these questions.
Even the first 5 minutes of this mornings insiders was detailing these questions.
This seems more like a US strategic move than an australian one. I m just not sure that AU should be on board with it
The sub-deal might be the trigger, but countries don't return ambassadors over a sub-deal. This can't be explained without underlying tensions.
One big cause might perhaps be an 18 months travel ban preventing Europeans from visiting the US, a travel ban which separates families and has no justification anymore.
One big cause might perhaps be an 18 months travel ban preventing Europeans from visiting the US, a travel ban which separates families and has no justification anymore.
It's a 60 billions USD sub deal tho.
"Scott Morrison said the decision will be made after an 18-month process to explore and assess all the issues and options involved."
Just to be clear, Australia is also governed by a bunch of opportunistic jerks like the UK is at the moment. I would not be at all surprised is this was a feint to get the French to lower the price and the "investigation" will find various technical issues that preclude going with either the UK or US designs. Australia as a deep anti-nuke history, the government can probably use that as an excuse to fold on the new deal too.
Just to be clear, Australia is also governed by a bunch of opportunistic jerks like the UK is at the moment. I would not be at all surprised is this was a feint to get the French to lower the price and the "investigation" will find various technical issues that preclude going with either the UK or US designs. Australia as a deep anti-nuke history, the government can probably use that as an excuse to fold on the new deal too.
What if the French don’t take bait?
This is mainly due to internal reasons (Election day is in a few months). Macron wants to appear Jupiterian again. He changed its communication strategy since this summer. Last couple of months he even "replaced" his (Prime) Minister(s) in the media.
Also, an important factor has to be understood about the majority of people in France (Europe?): they hated Trump. When a Democrat was elected, they believed that they had a friend sharing their view on the world. Reality felt like a stab in the back.
Reality is that we have entered a new Cold War: China vs USA. Countries have to take a side.
For those interested about the *Thucydides Trap* (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides_Trap) we are now seeing, I strongly advise this TED talk with Graham Allison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XewnyUJgyA4
Also, an important factor has to be understood about the majority of people in France (Europe?): they hated Trump. When a Democrat was elected, they believed that they had a friend sharing their view on the world. Reality felt like a stab in the back.
Reality is that we have entered a new Cold War: China vs USA. Countries have to take a side.
For those interested about the *Thucydides Trap* (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides_Trap) we are now seeing, I strongly advise this TED talk with Graham Allison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XewnyUJgyA4
On the face of it, recalling their ambassadors seems like a petulant and counter-productive way of registering a protest. What is it supposed to do that a speech wouldn't? Is there any effect of this other than not having someone to formally represent France's interests in those countries?
I was only watching this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYF08jJi9Hg) a few weeks ago, and now all this...
The French are fried since their foreign policy is now toast.
These articles are so plain, they don't explain context.
I'm not a foreign policy expert or historian but isn't there a rather recent change in foreign relations of Australia, meaning their strategic needs have changed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia%E2%80%93China_relati...
Or maybe it's just posturing.
I'm not a foreign policy expert or historian but isn't there a rather recent change in foreign relations of Australia, meaning their strategic needs have changed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia%E2%80%93China_relati...
Or maybe it's just posturing.
I found this article helpful for more context: https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/2021/09/18/the-submarine...
It's by Hugh White the former deputy-secretary of the Australian Department of Defence.
It's by Hugh White the former deputy-secretary of the Australian Department of Defence.
Japan, South Korea, and Australia are all the quintessential middle parties in a bipolar power dynamic between the US and China.
Historically, that's turned out pretty well for them, as countries in that position can attract favorable terms from both major powers, who want to court them as allies.
Who knows if the government of Australia is thinking in these terms, but I'd be incredibly interested in what concessions and non-public promises Australia got behind the scenes for this.
And in terms of future international relationships, it does demonstrate to China that Australia isn't willing to make alliances solely on the basis of economic pressure. It will be curious if (in the medium to long term) China holds a grudge, or tries to reattract Australia with incentives.
Historically, that's turned out pretty well for them, as countries in that position can attract favorable terms from both major powers, who want to court them as allies.
Who knows if the government of Australia is thinking in these terms, but I'd be incredibly interested in what concessions and non-public promises Australia got behind the scenes for this.
And in terms of future international relationships, it does demonstrate to China that Australia isn't willing to make alliances solely on the basis of economic pressure. It will be curious if (in the medium to long term) China holds a grudge, or tries to reattract Australia with incentives.
> but I'd be incredibly interested in what concessions and non-public promises Australia got behind the scenes for this
The US agreeing that Australia can have nuclear submarines powered by weapons-grade uranium is a huge concession in itself. The US has been insisting that only nuclear weapons states be allowed to possess weapons-grade uranium. They are making an exception to that for Australia. Nuclear submarines powered by weapons-grade uranium do not require refuelling during their operational life; those powered by reactor-grade uranium do.
And, the US has been trying to block South Korea from building a nuclear submarine at all, even one powered by reactor-grade uranium only. Most international suppliers of enriched uranium (even only reactor-grade) sell it on the condition that it is not used for military purposes. In theory, South Korea could try to enrich it themselves (like Brazil and Argentina are doing for their own nuclear submarine programs), but in practice South Korea fears the international controversy that may cause, and the risk it may offend the US. South Korea has been asking the US to supply reactor-grade fuel for naval use, but thus far the US refuses. So even allowing Australia to have nuclear submarines at all, when it blocks other allies from doing so, is also a big concession.
The US agreeing that Australia can have nuclear submarines powered by weapons-grade uranium is a huge concession in itself. The US has been insisting that only nuclear weapons states be allowed to possess weapons-grade uranium. They are making an exception to that for Australia. Nuclear submarines powered by weapons-grade uranium do not require refuelling during their operational life; those powered by reactor-grade uranium do.
And, the US has been trying to block South Korea from building a nuclear submarine at all, even one powered by reactor-grade uranium only. Most international suppliers of enriched uranium (even only reactor-grade) sell it on the condition that it is not used for military purposes. In theory, South Korea could try to enrich it themselves (like Brazil and Argentina are doing for their own nuclear submarine programs), but in practice South Korea fears the international controversy that may cause, and the risk it may offend the US. South Korea has been asking the US to supply reactor-grade fuel for naval use, but thus far the US refuses. So even allowing Australia to have nuclear submarines at all, when it blocks other allies from doing so, is also a big concession.
China isn't very good at letting go of grudges, it seems like.
They are just into realpolitik. They will switch their purchases from Australia to the US despite the strategic rivalry because it is in their interest to increase economic dependence there. They will tolerate far more transgression from the US but if others follow they will be sure to set an example of them.
On the other hand, Australia is a huge source of raw materials for China. As an example, they produce more than 1/3 of the world's iron ore.
So this is more than China pushing around another random country. They'd have to cut off their own ear to spite Australia.
So this is more than China pushing around another random country. They'd have to cut off their own ear to spite Australia.
Sure. Just look at the divergence of steel price from iron ore price. I don't think steel producers are complaining. The fact is, China has been way over consuming in terms of steel. Even if they continue to depend on Australia for iron ore, ore pruducers are not going to compensate wine makers or coal miners for their losses.
China only has about a 25 year history of participating in international politics, as a force to be reckoned with. We'll see.
No idea. The leader of the opposition in Australia said, paraphrasing "the us couldn't win a fight with a bunch of villagers with ak47 for 10 years, so it's a bad deal"
Australia is weird.
Australia is weird.
Afghanistan was a live combat training exercise. It gave valuable experience to career officers who will lead the U. S. Military for the next 30 years.
Russia and China can’t deploy troops in their own country. The U.S. military can land 10’s of thousands of troops, with a support supply line any where in the world on less than 24 hours notice, along with all the firepower that comes with those troops.
To “win” in Afghanistan would require slaughtering about half the population of the country, something the U.S. military could easily do, but it would make the U.S. into an international pariah, and that would be bad for business.
If the U.S. sovereignty was actually threatened all but the nuclear weapons would be unleashed, including all the top secret weapons that have been developed since the Gulf War, it would probably seem like Star Wars.
Russia and China can’t deploy troops in their own country. The U.S. military can land 10’s of thousands of troops, with a support supply line any where in the world on less than 24 hours notice, along with all the firepower that comes with those troops.
To “win” in Afghanistan would require slaughtering about half the population of the country, something the U.S. military could easily do, but it would make the U.S. into an international pariah, and that would be bad for business.
If the U.S. sovereignty was actually threatened all but the nuclear weapons would be unleashed, including all the top secret weapons that have been developed since the Gulf War, it would probably seem like Star Wars.
> Afghanistan was a live combat training exercise. It gave valuable experience to career officers who will lead the U. S. Military for the next 30 years
I served in the Marines and we were well aware people, especially those with combat experience, were leaving hand over fist. Amos was commandant during my time, and this article tells some of the story about what happened: https://taskandpurpose.com/news/the-marines-corps-needs-to-c...
I served in the Marines and we were well aware people, especially those with combat experience, were leaving hand over fist. Amos was commandant during my time, and this article tells some of the story about what happened: https://taskandpurpose.com/news/the-marines-corps-needs-to-c...
> Afghanistan was a live combat training exercise. It gave valuable experience to career officers who will lead the U. S. Military for the next 30 years.
Experience at losing embarrassingly. (To guerrillas it created, no less!)
> The U.S. military can land 10’s of thousands of troops, with a support supply line any where in the world on less than 24 hours notice, along with all the firepower that comes with those troops.
You'd think that, wouldn't you? But it's a paper tiger: post-Vietnam, the US takes great (but quiet) care to ensure that the big song and dance is only deployed on some dirt-poor hellhole with no capable conventional fighting force to withstand the first few episodes of an erect Wolf Blitzer watching B1's firebomb civilians. After a little while, it either leaves in "triumph" (Panama, Grenada, Gulf War I) or it stays and gets bent over the barrel by the insurgencies that inevitably form from the remnants of the regime it invaded (Afghanistan, Gulf War II). It's only good at shooting fish in a barrel and making it look like Michael Bay movie. But after falling on its face so hilariously in Vietnam it knows it can't handle much more than that.
> To “win” in Afghanistan would require slaughtering about half the population of the country, something the U.S. military could easily do
You know I almost agree with you, but it's plain that when the US military sets its mind to something, failing miserably at that thing can't be far behind. (Unless that something is using our Nintendo pilots to remote-control-incinerate a high school graduation. So you may be right after all.)
> but it would make the U.S. into an international pariah
More than it already is, somehow?
> If the U.S. sovereignty was actually threatened all but the nuclear weapons would be unleashed, including all the top secret weapons that have been developed since the Gulf War, it would probably seem like Star Wars.
A cursory glance at the average BMI of our professional fighting forces leads me to suspect that the only similarity to Star Wars in such a scenario would be to scenes involving Jabba the Hutt.
Experience at losing embarrassingly. (To guerrillas it created, no less!)
> The U.S. military can land 10’s of thousands of troops, with a support supply line any where in the world on less than 24 hours notice, along with all the firepower that comes with those troops.
You'd think that, wouldn't you? But it's a paper tiger: post-Vietnam, the US takes great (but quiet) care to ensure that the big song and dance is only deployed on some dirt-poor hellhole with no capable conventional fighting force to withstand the first few episodes of an erect Wolf Blitzer watching B1's firebomb civilians. After a little while, it either leaves in "triumph" (Panama, Grenada, Gulf War I) or it stays and gets bent over the barrel by the insurgencies that inevitably form from the remnants of the regime it invaded (Afghanistan, Gulf War II). It's only good at shooting fish in a barrel and making it look like Michael Bay movie. But after falling on its face so hilariously in Vietnam it knows it can't handle much more than that.
> To “win” in Afghanistan would require slaughtering about half the population of the country, something the U.S. military could easily do
You know I almost agree with you, but it's plain that when the US military sets its mind to something, failing miserably at that thing can't be far behind. (Unless that something is using our Nintendo pilots to remote-control-incinerate a high school graduation. So you may be right after all.)
> but it would make the U.S. into an international pariah
More than it already is, somehow?
> If the U.S. sovereignty was actually threatened all but the nuclear weapons would be unleashed, including all the top secret weapons that have been developed since the Gulf War, it would probably seem like Star Wars.
A cursory glance at the average BMI of our professional fighting forces leads me to suspect that the only similarity to Star Wars in such a scenario would be to scenes involving Jabba the Hutt.
It’s a terrible deal as Australia initially had France redesign a nuclear powered submarine to be Diesel Electric. There was also massive negotiations and posturing from both governments about building the submarines locally.
Fast forward a few years and the Australian Government had announced one of the driving factors of this deal is nuclear power rather than diesel electric. We’re also building [reportedly] even less of the Submarine locally now. Not to mention the delivery delays this will cause & our lack of servicing capability.
Even as an Australian I can see how this would really annoy France.
Fast forward a few years and the Australian Government had announced one of the driving factors of this deal is nuclear power rather than diesel electric. We’re also building [reportedly] even less of the Submarine locally now. Not to mention the delivery delays this will cause & our lack of servicing capability.
Even as an Australian I can see how this would really annoy France.
I think the point was that, apparently, the official position of the Australian opposition (who should be more critical of the government) was that the US couldn't fight themselves out of a paper bag, rather than France was better and honour should be important. Perhaps there's no such thing as honour anymore?
But this is just my very limited European view of the news, and news is something that I restrict myself on.
But this is just my very limited European view of the news, and news is something that I restrict myself on.
> Perhaps there's no such thing as honour anymore?
Among governments though? That's rich. They treat their own citizens worse than this. They're happy to move industry and jobs offshore, change policies and legislation at a moments notice.
Among governments though? That's rich. They treat their own citizens worse than this. They're happy to move industry and jobs offshore, change policies and legislation at a moments notice.
France was reportedly stumbling on their end of actually delivering the modified Barracudas though. Here, this is an excellent, very very detailed blog post on the whole topic https://corporalfrisk.com/2021/09/17/a-pounding-in-the-pacif...
Is it too early at this point to wonder if there isn't some kind of underhanded deal going on?
No it's not too early. We know the French deal was absolutely crappy to begin.
Follow the money. Christopher Pyne brokered this $50Bn deal to get re-elected (some boatbuilding would happen in SA) which blew out to $90Bn and rising.
Pyne immediately retired (got his pollie-perks-for-life golden ticket stamped) and then immediately became "employed" as a consult with the people profiting massively from this twisted deal against the public interest.
Pyne followed the same slimy playbook as Andrew Robb (4) who sneakily slipped the 99-year Darwin Port dodgy deal across the line, and then he got a free $880k "job" with them the day he left parliament shortly thereafter.
Borderline treasonous behavior is rife with our political elite (both sides stink badly)
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2016/04/would-you-employ-ch...
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2019/07/pyne-poisons-ey/
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2020/01/audit-office-torped...
(4) https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2018/06/chinese-sell-andrew...
Follow the money. Christopher Pyne brokered this $50Bn deal to get re-elected (some boatbuilding would happen in SA) which blew out to $90Bn and rising.
Pyne immediately retired (got his pollie-perks-for-life golden ticket stamped) and then immediately became "employed" as a consult with the people profiting massively from this twisted deal against the public interest.
Pyne followed the same slimy playbook as Andrew Robb (4) who sneakily slipped the 99-year Darwin Port dodgy deal across the line, and then he got a free $880k "job" with them the day he left parliament shortly thereafter.
Borderline treasonous behavior is rife with our political elite (both sides stink badly)
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2016/04/would-you-employ-ch...
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2019/07/pyne-poisons-ey/
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2020/01/audit-office-torped...
(4) https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2018/06/chinese-sell-andrew...
Sounds like a good thing the government is scrapping the deal. Hopefully next they can redistribute the Darwin Port to those whose needs are greater.
The actions of the US government the past few decades have flat out confused me at times, so I don't really try to understand them any longer. But the more and more I know about the details of this particular deal, the less I understand what exactly Australia is doing here?
I wish there was a reliable place you could go for objective analysis in cases like this, but I'll have to settle for simple confusion for now I guess.
I wish there was a reliable place you could go for objective analysis in cases like this, but I'll have to settle for simple confusion for now I guess.
This is just my speculation, but I wouldn’t put it past the Australian Prime Minister making a “Captains Call” here.
He’s notoriously stubborn and doesn’t listen to experts in all circumstances he should.
You are conflating actions of different governments over decades into one singular action.
The world has changed a lot and if the government of the day feels it needs to alter a $90 billion purchase (which was initially $40 billion by the way before cost overruns) to better protect their citizens then it is their right as elected officials.
Also don't focus on the PR sideshow of the submarines, this is about the alliance itself.
The world has changed a lot and if the government of the day feels it needs to alter a $90 billion purchase (which was initially $40 billion by the way before cost overruns) to better protect their citizens then it is their right as elected officials.
Also don't focus on the PR sideshow of the submarines, this is about the alliance itself.
I mean the US clearly had the military capability to "win" against anything in Afghanistan. But effective occupations and regime change are brutal. It's not the 1940s - the US public of today would not stand for something as intensive as the occupation of Germany after WW2, for example.
The U.S. won the fight handily. It's the massive project of reshaping the political culture of diverse and fiercely proud and tribal people that proved to beyond the capability of our military (a role it was never designed or trained for).
Out of interest, do you believe you the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a win or loss for the USSR?
Apples and oranges. The topic under discussion is military tech and military ability. The strategic victories or blunders of civilian leadership and diplomatic corps are just as important -- indeed often moreso -- but they are somewhat orthogonal to military strength.
There are only a couple ways to lose a battle, but countless ways to lose a war.
There are only a couple ways to lose a battle, but countless ways to lose a war.
That’s exactly my point - of course the former USSR and current US have a more powerful military than anything that exists or existed in Afghanistan.
It wasn’t solely a military problem but both chose a primarily military solution (as did the British before them).
It wasn’t solely a military problem but both chose a primarily military solution (as did the British before them).
You appear to be disagreeing with my disagreement with "the us couldn't win a fight with a bunch of villagers with ak47 for 10 years"
How does your point support the original claim? You and I are in agreement that fighting alone can't solve the problem of Afghanistan, but I don't see how that bears any relationship to judging the fighting.
How does your point support the original claim? You and I are in agreement that fighting alone can't solve the problem of Afghanistan, but I don't see how that bears any relationship to judging the fighting.
Reshaping the political culture of a nation will either take decades, or be extremely brutal. The public won't stand for either anymore.
The only way to win in a place like AF is if you become a wild animal and just lay things to waste. No one could get themselves to do that. Not the Persians or British or Soviets or Americans. No one wanted to descend to that.
Also for context some years back Australia recalled ambassadors to France over nuclear testing in the pacific. So this is a bit tit for tat in response.
Regardless I feel it's incredibly badly handled especially given trade situation with China. Australia is pivoting more towards other markets like EU (negotiations happening currently) and I can't imagine France is going to be too agreeable to this.
Regardless I feel it's incredibly badly handled especially given trade situation with China. Australia is pivoting more towards other markets like EU (negotiations happening currently) and I can't imagine France is going to be too agreeable to this.
The last French nuclear test was in January 1996, so rather unlikely.
Australia cut a huge deal to purchase 12 diesel-electric attack submarines with France 5 years ago, basically taking the current-generation French nuclear attack submarine and replacing the nuclear power plant with a diesel one. Japan and Germany were also in line. France does not sell nuclear propulsion tech because of nuclear proliferation concerns. That project has been running over budget and the Australians were complaining the French were dragging their feet about the technology transfers and establishing Australian manufacturing for the subs, which was a big consideration for Australia, their current obsolescent Collins-class subs being Australian-made.
Contrary to what many people say, modern diesel submarines are actually stealthier than nuclear ones, because they are smaller (this would not apply to a modified nuclear attack sub, of course). In 2007 a Chinese diesel sub surfaced near the USS Kitty Hawk carrier, having apparently been undetected in the middle of a US exercise. They do have less endurance, but that is only an issue if Australia expects them to patrol far beyond its borders.
Apparently 6 months ago Biden started a secret dialogue with the Australians, offering nuclear propulsion tech to counter China. The US only ever did that with the UK, not even with Canada. The Australians' relationship with China has been deteriorating markedly, even though it is their largest market. Conversely the Chinese banned most Australian imports but not iron ore, because they don't have (yet) an alternative supply to feed their steel industry, although Guinea (in Africa) is a potential candidate. Keep in mind Australia is largely a resource extraction economy, despite being an advanced industrialized nation.
The Australians don't have any nuclear tech, not even a civilian nuclear power program, so any nuclear subs would need to be fueled and serviced by the US or the UK, which means Australia is effectively ceding part of its sovereignty (just as the British did, because their Trident nuclear missiles are 100% US-made). This is a significant development as up to now the Australians wanted to preserve their autonomy.
What are the French upset about?
1) The loss of a AU$ 90B contract, which means probably a €30B hole in France's naval R&D that will need to be plugged somehow. For a middling country like France, that is a lot of money.
2) France has a significant presence in the Pacific, unlike every other European nation, even the UK. 2M French citizen live there, and 7000 military personnel. France also has the largest maritime Exclusive Economic Zone in the world thanks to its possessions in the Pacific, but there are separatist movements in New Caledonia and Tahiti. The French-Australian deal was also part of a strategic cooperation deal with Australia, as the French are just as concerned about Chinese incursions in the Pacific as the Australians, and it has the benefit of being a deal with a peer, not as the junior partner of the US superpower (although of course Australia is the superpower of the Southern Pacific, but that means little compared to the US or China). This strategy is all in tatters now.
3) The French were blindsided, learning of the AU-UK-US deal from the press release, in the most humiliating way possible
4) They were not invited to participate in this AUKUS military alliance.
The consequences are severe and the US completely underestimated that. In 1966 the US commander of NATO refused to answer President de Gaulle's question of whether US nuclear weapons were stationed in France, and in retaliation France withdrew from NATO unified command (and NATO SHAPE headquarters in Paris and Rocquencourt near Versailles had to be moved to Belgium), and expelled US troops stationed in France.
France has recalled its ambassadors to the US and to Australia for consultations, which is just one step short of cutting diplomatic relations. To do so with the US is simply extraordinary, it's only happened once before, during the French revolution.
President Biden rightfully criticized Donald Trump for attempting to contain China while burning bridges with all its allies at the same time by waging sanctions against all of them, but this is a blunder of the same magnitude. France was the more China-skeptic of the major European powers, whereas Germany basically cares only about its exports and appeases China, and the UK was trying to have it both ways by becoming the chief Chinese investment partner in Europe. With this stunt, the US gets Australia to abandon its former policy of independence from the US, but basically sets back its efforts to mobilize Europe against the Chinese by at least 5 years,
Contrary to what many people say, modern diesel submarines are actually stealthier than nuclear ones, because they are smaller (this would not apply to a modified nuclear attack sub, of course). In 2007 a Chinese diesel sub surfaced near the USS Kitty Hawk carrier, having apparently been undetected in the middle of a US exercise. They do have less endurance, but that is only an issue if Australia expects them to patrol far beyond its borders.
Apparently 6 months ago Biden started a secret dialogue with the Australians, offering nuclear propulsion tech to counter China. The US only ever did that with the UK, not even with Canada. The Australians' relationship with China has been deteriorating markedly, even though it is their largest market. Conversely the Chinese banned most Australian imports but not iron ore, because they don't have (yet) an alternative supply to feed their steel industry, although Guinea (in Africa) is a potential candidate. Keep in mind Australia is largely a resource extraction economy, despite being an advanced industrialized nation.
The Australians don't have any nuclear tech, not even a civilian nuclear power program, so any nuclear subs would need to be fueled and serviced by the US or the UK, which means Australia is effectively ceding part of its sovereignty (just as the British did, because their Trident nuclear missiles are 100% US-made). This is a significant development as up to now the Australians wanted to preserve their autonomy.
What are the French upset about?
1) The loss of a AU$ 90B contract, which means probably a €30B hole in France's naval R&D that will need to be plugged somehow. For a middling country like France, that is a lot of money.
2) France has a significant presence in the Pacific, unlike every other European nation, even the UK. 2M French citizen live there, and 7000 military personnel. France also has the largest maritime Exclusive Economic Zone in the world thanks to its possessions in the Pacific, but there are separatist movements in New Caledonia and Tahiti. The French-Australian deal was also part of a strategic cooperation deal with Australia, as the French are just as concerned about Chinese incursions in the Pacific as the Australians, and it has the benefit of being a deal with a peer, not as the junior partner of the US superpower (although of course Australia is the superpower of the Southern Pacific, but that means little compared to the US or China). This strategy is all in tatters now.
3) The French were blindsided, learning of the AU-UK-US deal from the press release, in the most humiliating way possible
4) They were not invited to participate in this AUKUS military alliance.
The consequences are severe and the US completely underestimated that. In 1966 the US commander of NATO refused to answer President de Gaulle's question of whether US nuclear weapons were stationed in France, and in retaliation France withdrew from NATO unified command (and NATO SHAPE headquarters in Paris and Rocquencourt near Versailles had to be moved to Belgium), and expelled US troops stationed in France.
France has recalled its ambassadors to the US and to Australia for consultations, which is just one step short of cutting diplomatic relations. To do so with the US is simply extraordinary, it's only happened once before, during the French revolution.
President Biden rightfully criticized Donald Trump for attempting to contain China while burning bridges with all its allies at the same time by waging sanctions against all of them, but this is a blunder of the same magnitude. France was the more China-skeptic of the major European powers, whereas Germany basically cares only about its exports and appeases China, and the UK was trying to have it both ways by becoming the chief Chinese investment partner in Europe. With this stunt, the US gets Australia to abandon its former policy of independence from the US, but basically sets back its efforts to mobilize Europe against the Chinese by at least 5 years,
> With this stunt, the US gets Australia to abandon its former policy of independence from the US, but basically sets back its efforts to mobilize Europe against the Chinese by at least 5 years
I think the US is pretty reasonably concluding that France, and Europe overall, are not going to 'mobilize' against China regardless. We are not even two years from the EU & China signing their Comprehensive Agreement on Investment treaty in late 2020, which was heavily pushed by both France and Germany. It was a pretty stunning poke in the eye to America. The treaty is now apparently on ice, but I think the US clearly sees that Europe sans Britain is not going to be part of an anti-China alliance. So why bother appeasing the Europeans? What do we get out of it?
I think the US is pretty reasonably concluding that France, and Europe overall, are not going to 'mobilize' against China regardless. We are not even two years from the EU & China signing their Comprehensive Agreement on Investment treaty in late 2020, which was heavily pushed by both France and Germany. It was a pretty stunning poke in the eye to America. The treaty is now apparently on ice, but I think the US clearly sees that Europe sans Britain is not going to be part of an anti-China alliance. So why bother appeasing the Europeans? What do we get out of it?
France had frozen out Huawei, the UK had refused to do so until US sanctions made their equipment unviable. The UK will always fall in line eventually, but until recently it had been courting China hardest of all, even more than Germany, which has at least started introducing something like CFIUS.
If anything this story shows how powerful the military industrial complexes are (in France, in the US). The threat from China is speculative but the business opportunities for the military industry are quite real and massive in size.
Here is a comedy video showing how absurd the whole situation in Australia is. https://youtu.be/MTCqXlDjx18
This is actually a great question, for real: Why is australia into this , and how do they see the US in their future , considering their advantageous position near rising china?
Utopia (2014-2019). Seems amazingly good.
This grated:
“… This formed part of French efforts to build up a geo-political presence in the Indo-Pacific and act as a global player in the region in the face of an assertive China. It keeps over 7,000 soldiers there, and regularly patrols through the South China Sea. Nearly 2m French citizens live in the Indo-Pacific, including on French territories such as French Polynesia and New Caledonia.”
The French have no care for the people of the South Pacific, their vain attempts at empire continue, while their toxic and deadly legacy in the region remains.
Careful complaining too hard about the behaviour of France though, they bombed us down here in New Zealand when we did.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/09/france-has-und...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warri...
The French have no care for the people of the South Pacific, their vain attempts at empire continue, while their toxic and deadly legacy in the region remains.
Careful complaining too hard about the behaviour of France though, they bombed us down here in New Zealand when we did.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/09/france-has-und...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warri...
> French foreign minister says France didn't recall the British ambassador over the AUKUS row because France is familiar with the UK's "permanent opportunism" and said Boris Johnson was the "fifth wheel on the carriage".
* https://twitter.com/kimwillsher1/status/1439294035357749257
:)