USA to sell Nuclear Subs to Australia

[Meclazine for Israel]

where are our French/Francophile posters?

Are you referring to 10 May 1940?

no, just wanting to get an opinion on the current issue from someone who likes France

Um....well.

I am yet to move on from the Battle of Agincourt in 1415.

And the Rainbow Warrior bombing in New Zealand was basically terrorism.

[Zinneke]

I must say, the "You shouldn't snub the French or they'll ally with the Russians" line is not exactly the killer argument in favour of closer cooperation some appear to think it is...

That's not exactly what me and parochial are saying. It is more complex than that. It's first the idea that the blind convergence with US interests isn't always in our interest (was Iraq in British interests, given they overall played a minor role in the actual military operation? Or was it because Tony fancied the Beltway career that could await him if he joined the Dubya social circle?)

But more importantly, I think we are saying : French foreign policy bubble has a historic divide between the Gaullists and the Atlantacists, with a growing pro-Russian (or at least, pro-Russian appeasement) lobby forming up. If you value a strong transatlantic cooperation, why give the latter oxygen to thrive in both the media-political bubble (Mélenchon, other irrelevant left-wingers and far right figures all declared their opposition to NATO this weekend), as well as the institutional bubble, as in Quai d'Orsay. These people would be irrelevant cranks if this AUZUK backstab didn't give them the platform to propose a new direction for French strategy.

[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.

[Storebought]

Macron to demand 'clairification' from Biden about AUKUS

The French presidency spokesperson said Wednesday’s call would be a chance to clarify the way in which this announcement was made and how the US could re-engage in its relationship with an ally.

Macron is expecting “clarifications about the American decision to keep a European ally outside fundamental talks about cooperation in the Indo-Pacific,” Gabriel Attal added, making clear that French anger remained unabated.

The French foreign affairs minister, Jean-Yves le Drian, also cancelled a meeting planned for Wednesday between the foreign ministers of Britain, France, the US and Germany. Scheduling difficulties were cited but the German foreign minister, Heiko Maas, said the meeting was abandoned due to “disgruntlement on the French side, which I can understand, and that some things there first need to be straightened out before we can sit together in this format”.

I've been trying to understand this from the French angle, and I reach the same contradictions that Statilius ran into.

This editorial is as clear a statement as any as to what the French were trying to do in the Pacific:

France: a bridge between Europe and the Indo-Pacific

France is focusing its efforts on striking an equilibrium between the indispensable balancing against China with the need to avoid an escalatory posture toward Beijing. France sees itself as a “mediating, inclusive and stabilizing power” that aims to promote a “stable, law-based and multipolar order” in the region.

As the new U.S. administration moves full speed ahead toward the Indo-Pacific, there is now room for greater cooperation between Washington and Paris. Notwithstanding its rich defense cooperation with the United States, France has of late preferred to distance itself from U.S.-China tensions, which it perceived as contributing to the polarization and instability of the region. The situation is now different, as the Biden administration has proposed a more balanced strategy that combines competition with Beijing and greater cooperation with U.S. allies and partners.

Now that the French feel thwarted in their ambitions in the Pacific to act as a Third Way (just like the Cold War), rather than change their plan, they will actively disrupt the military alliance between the US/UK and the EU as retaliation.

[Storebought]

Eh, it depends. Strategic autonomy is one thing, yes, but within the major EU countries France has been the strongest pushers for a anti-China course. France has had a Indo-pacific strategy aimed at defending a "hegemony-free Indo-pacific" since 2019, something most other EU countries don't have at all (and the UK only with the integrated review this year), it has massively built up its defense relations with countries like India, Japan, Vietnam and, until recently, Australia in a way that other European countries did not. It has, like the Five Eyes, but unlike most other EU countries, banned Huawei. In terms of Freedom of Navigation is the SCS or Taiwan strait it has been much more aggressive than most other European countries. At the start of this year for instance France sent it's nuclear submarines through and regarding Taiwan it has both regularly sent warships through the strait and upgraded Taiwan's weapons, resulting in threats from Beijing, and both things notably the UK has been very reluctant to do.

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. Strategic Autonomy means a France and a Europe that is capable of self-defending its values and interests, which not entirely but mostly align with the US'. In practical terms "Strategic Autonomy" is a strategy that means a much more strong and effective stance against China that that of the rest of the EU (esp. Germany, whose strategy is essentially that nothing is wrong).

Being charitable to French intentions -- I see that their strategy was planned during the mid 1990s, when India, restarting their nuclear weapons tests, gained the ire of the US (for some stupid reason), and China under Zhang Zemin was at their best behavior, pretending to follow international norms in order to gain admission to the WTO and a smooth takeover of Hong Kong, which it did (for some stupid reason). French foreign policy was indeed smarter than US policy then.

But China has changed (or, rather, reverted to form) from what is was in the 1990s. China since Xi has become demonstratively more aggressive in the Pacific. French foreign policy wasn't able to either thwart Chinese aggression or to convince its Coalition of the Willing that the French would stand with them under attack.

[windjammer]

I mean,
Let's be honest. The US has always thrown under the bus for short term gains. They have been doing that for decades.


And frankly I Can understand that. But you are all going to reap it really soon.

[dead0man]

I mean,
Let's be honest. The US has always thrown under the bus for short term gains. They have been doing that for decades.


And frankly I Can understand that. But you are all going to reap it really soon.

in what way?  Is there anything we can do to stop it?

[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.

[Zinneke]

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.)

Again, misinterpretation. The conflict is within the French foreign office and military. The political sphere is another matter.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[StateBoiler]

Note that India is still conspicuously absent from this "Indo-Pacific" Asian NATO bs. I wonder what it's going to take to really get the Quad together, it'll be hard to contain China without flanking them in South Asia.

India historically has strong Russian ties militarily (thus why Pakistan has strong American military ties). That's changing, but it's not something you can do with a snap of the fingers.

Macron has come off this whole thing like a dumbass. I'd be pissed off too, but moreso in private and I wouldn't pull ambassadors, that's incredibly Trumpian. The Australians are still living up to the contract and paying a withdrawal fee.

Australians got a better deal and took it. Per the French being angry, this has been in the works for 15 months and they didn't know about it, meaning:

1.) French intelligence had no clue
2.) this was started by the Trump administration and like with the Afghan withdrawal it was something that Biden chose to follow through with after transfer of power.
3.) 15 months ago places us in June 2020, right when the Chinese reacted angrily and took actions against the Australians for requesting an international inquiry into the origins of Covid-19, that tells me this process for AUKUS and the new submarines started with the Australians inquiring the Americans and/or British about it

Reading at a defense forum, the old deal was for 90% built in Australia and France negotiated it down after contract was signed to 60%. Price kept skyrocketing as well as delays. Part of the blame for this is on the French for performance. The old contract I don't see how it would've gone well. They were retrofitting a nuke sub to be a diesel, which the mechanical engineer I am tells me "problems". Seems there were shenanigans involved at the time with a South Australia member of Parliament (Pine? Pike?) that was looking out locally instead of what was best for Australia.

Australia being in the middle of the Pacific, nuke subs make more sense as far as the range they need. Plus, it's a much stronger deterrent for a certain country to their north. As far as China, this is the first material reaction to what has happened since Xi took power of being more "jingoistic" as far as their near abroad. The Indians are on board too due to the clashes in the Himalayas last year and that Chinese-owned port in Sri Lanka serves one real purpose.

[StateBoiler]

French interests in the Indo-Pacific are New Caledonia, which China right now is pushing to declare independence for their own purposes.

[Storr]

French interests in the Indo-Pacific are New Caledonia, which China right now is pushing to declare independence for their own purposes.

Because of nickel. Unusual for Pacific islands, New Caledonia is blessed with 25% of all the planet's nickel reserves. (I'm also under the impression/assumption nickel is a big factor as to why New Caledonia hasn't previously gained independence)

[NOVA Green]

Ummm....

Maybe the US could just supply much higher quality subs at a cheaper cost than France and Australia chose to cut their losses on the T&Cs with their French Contract?

Usually the most obvious explanation is the best--- really is anybody actually arguing about the quality of US vs French Nuclear Subs?

Anybody who believe French will do better---- raise your hand now.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Ummm....

Maybe the US could just supply much higher quality subs at a cheaper cost than France and Australia chose to cut their losses on the T&Cs with their French Contract?

Usually the most obvious explanation is the best--- really is anybody actually arguing about the quality of US vs French Nuclear Subs?

Anybody who believe French will do better---- raise your hand now.

France had been working for 6-8 years and achieved nothing and spent $2Bn. We cut our losses.

The US product is simply better quality and more cost effective.

Time for France to fold up their BBQ and take their bat and ball and go home.
 

[Meclazine for Israel]

French interests in the Indo-Pacific are New Caledonia, which China right now is pushing to declare independence for their own purposes.

Because of nickel. Unusual for Pacific islands, New Caledonia is blessed with 25% of all the planet's nickel reserves. (I'm also under the impression/assumption nickel is a big factor as to why New Caledonia hasn't previously gained independence)

As a Nickel geologist, that is simply not true.

Vale has withdrawn the Ni resource as it is an uneconomic laterite deposit. Meaning it is now zero.

To publish a mineral resource, it must have the possibility of being extracted and developed economically.

Even if New Caledonia were economic, and that can be switched back on, it would be less than 10% of global Ni reserves.

Australia has the largest volume of Ni 'resources'.

Russia have the biggest single undeveloped Ni 'resource' and will have for years to come given the nature of the Ni mineralisation at the Norilsk deposit.

China has much better Ni resources in it's own backyard than what is in New Caledonia.

Keep in mind that if a country says it has 10% of the world's reserves of a mineral, they may only have 1% as most companies don't publish total underground resources. Only the amounts they may plan to get in the next 5 years.

New Caledonia nickel is all surface resources.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Ummm....

Maybe the US could just supply much higher quality subs at a cheaper cost than France and Australia chose to cut their losses on the T&Cs with their French Contract?

Usually the most obvious explanation is the best--- really is anybody actually arguing about the quality of US vs French Nuclear Subs?

Anybody who believe French will do better---- raise your hand now.

I don't know, how anyone (but, muh Muricans) could miss it, but the main problem is how America treated its ally (no warnings, no "negotiations" etc), not the contract per se.

[GoTfan]

Ummm....

Maybe the US could just supply much higher quality subs at a cheaper cost than France and Australia chose to cut their losses on the T&Cs with their French Contract?

Usually the most obvious explanation is the best--- really is anybody actually arguing about the quality of US vs French Nuclear Subs?

Anybody who believe French will do better---- raise your hand now.

France had been working for 6-8 years and achieved nothing and spent $2Bn. We cut our losses.

The US product is simply better quality and more cost effective.

Time for France to fold up their BBQ and take their bat and ball and go home.
 

We at least owed them the courtest of telling them well in advance.

Instead we told India first and the French only found out an hour before it was formally announced possibly by press.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1454865188587515924

One more reason to nuke the hell out of the Aussies.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Macron can go back and look at his empty shipyard with no orders.

France was falling behind on the initial contract and were sacked.

Macron does not want to admit that their work was crap. So he goes on the offensive with smoke and mirrors.

France carry on like perfectionists, but when it comes to military technology, the US are far superior.

[GoTfan]

Macron can go back and look at his empty shipyard with no orders.

France was falling behind on the initial contract and were sacked.

Macron does not want to admit that their work was crap. So he goes on the offensive with smoke and mirrors.

France carry on like perfectionists, but when it comes to military technology, the US are far superior.

I suppose no one's considered the fact that the Collins class will be in its 60s by the time we get the US subs.

[StateBoiler]

Macron can go back and look at his empty shipyard with no orders.

France was falling behind on the initial contract and were sacked.

Macron does not want to admit that their work was crap. So he goes on the offensive with smoke and mirrors.

France carry on like perfectionists, but when it comes to military technology, the US are far superior.

I suspect those submarines will find an EU buyer.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Macron can go back and look at his empty shipyard with no orders.

France was falling behind on the initial contract and were sacked.

Macron does not want to admit that their work was crap. So he goes on the offensive with smoke and mirrors.

France carry on like perfectionists, but when it comes to military technology, the US are far superior.

I suspect those submarines will find an EU buyer.

3 years into the contract, the French had not built a single thing, part or otherwise. The forecast for an operational Submarine was 2040.

Then they were sacked. under the terms of the contract which made them look incompetent.

Macron is a fraud.

[FrancoAgo]

for compensate the french got a frigates order from the greek navy
for compensate the italian, that otherwise had the greek order, they got a greek yard with 8 corvettes to build