USA to sell Nuclear Subs to Australia

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Quite frankly I don’t buy that framing of sensible Atlanticists upset because they’re being undone by evil populist Gaullists like Melenchon. Macron has been pushing for French and European strategic autonomy from the US for years: he called NATO “brain dead” in 2019. The rhetoric and reaction has been so heated from France because this has been a gift to them and needs to be exploited to the hilt, because reluctant partners like Germany need to be convinced to go along with any plans for decoupling from the US. (Which is also why a pro-Russia drift cannot happen, because European defence integration will have to happen with the approval of Eastern European countries who in Macron’s vision would be abandoning the shield of US protection.)

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Why did Biden also not factor in that there is a very big debate about how to deal with China within the EU, and that right now the pro-Chinese integration and cooperation camp, led by Germany, is winning, whilst France was still sitting on the fence, with Macron calling out China for human rights abuses? Biden could have got Macron to commit to hindering pro-China trade and economic agreements, as well as joining this Pacific alliance as a deterent to the Chinese.

This is not an argument for mollifying France: this is why AUKUS happened. The three are reliable military counterweights to China and France is not. If you are Biden, tightly binding Australia into naval integration is a gigantic strategic win; for Morrison it’s getting shared defence platforms with the largest power in the region and protector. France is just not that relevant here. And the US has pivoted to Asia and cares less about what France might do in Europe nowadays.

France can’t engage in cakeism. If they want the strategic autonomy to balance relations with China then they have to accept being shut out of tight anti-China security pacts and losing arms deals to countries directly threatened.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

The problem is that "Strategic Autonomy" is often seen as meaning equal distance between US and China, and admittedly Macron and his ministers haven't helped with their "Braindead Nato" remarks (which contrary to Anglophone media reporting at the time, was aimed mainly at Turkey, not at the US), which it does not.

???

President Emmanuel Macron of France has described Nato as "brain dead", stressing what he sees as waning commitment to the transatlantic alliance by its main guarantor, the US.
Interviewed by the Economist, he cited the US failure to consult Nato before pulling forces out of northern Syria.
He also questioned whether Nato was still committed to collective defence.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50335257

It was not a misinterpretation of “Anglophone media reporting” about Turkey. It was an interview given to a British magazine that explicitly questioned US commitment to Europe. This did not begin with AUKUS, it has been a long held ambition of France under Macron to break Europe out of the US defence umbrella, and has been a running thread through quite frankly stupid complaints about the US pulling out of Syria and Afghanistan. The reaction to the sub deal is more opportunism.

As for France being more anti China than Germany, that is fine as far as it goes (although I still find it dubious that France really would sacrifice trade with China for a US-led coalition if it came down to it), but a problem when France’s vision for collective European security would necessarily mean giving Germany a bigger say in its foreign policy. Much of the problem is France’s narcissism in believing it can use the rest of Europe to merely augment itself, the denial yesterday that France would ever give up its security council seat to the EU while proposing an EU army was a case in point.

The idea that French/EU strategic autonomy would be the province of “irrelevant cranks” if only the US would stop being so mean is delusional. It is literally foundational to the European project for many.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

And yes, some French FP people wonder why they should indulge in the Baltic and Eastern states concerns when they hardly help France with its concerns. Look how some have sided with the US in this debacle.

Because the US is a more reliable partner than France in opposing Russia.

Complaining about the US umbrella and then being upset that other countries, including fellow EU member states, may choose to align with the US shows the incoherence of French foreign policy. Strategic autonomy for me but not for thee.

This is also why an independent European foreign policy of the kind Macron envisions is essentially narcissistic, and not very likely.

France is far more relevant than the UK in the Indo-Pacific. So if relevancy were an issue the UK would have been left out. The UK is as irrelevant as France. And its hardly anti-China given the levels of FDI between the two. Its response to Hong Kong was limp wristed at best.

Well the UK is the junior partner in the agreement, in there because it is built on top of already existing US-UK nuclear cooperation. I agree that the UK’s strategic involvement in the Indo-Pacific isn’t really relevant, at least not yet with the “tilt to the Indo-Pacific” only beginning with this year’s defence review. But neither France nor the UK is ever going to be able to compete with the US in the region. It’s an easy bet for Australia to make.

If France wants an Indo-Pacific strategy it will have to play second fiddle to other countries’ interests in the region. This isn’t a betrayal but reality.

And yes, I'll maintain that the US could have been more tactful and France would be far more comitted to NATO. Did you just randomly forget the whole Iraq debate in this equation? It showed that the US can have little consideration for its allies in Europe and the fear in French circles (and many EU) is that we basically have to pray for a Democrat administration every 4 years to even remotely progress the relationship from now on. And now Bidens move is just another hit at that theory. Thats something that is for strategists, unthinkable.

Comparing a nuclear sub deal to invading Iraq is hysterical in both senses of the word.