USA to sell Nuclear Subs to Australia

[Zinneke]

I can't be pro-French in this, I still see some credit to the Atlantic relationship but I do understand why this would be the straw that breaks the camel's back. The reality is the French compete with the US military-industrial complex for arms procurement in their own back yard (the EU) and often the US arm twists other member-states into submission rather than playing fair*. The perception by the French too is that the whole US NATO strategy now just consists of forcing member-states to up their budgets so that they can buy American, NOT so that they buy what NATO really needs*.

This deal effectively strong arms the French out of another arms deal. There was no fair process or auction, it was litterally one contract signed, US comes in, forces the Aussies to break the agreement, sells their own stuff,and the UK adds to the humiliation by providing the nuclear submarine tech. Whilst the UK is the immediate beneficiary really what this does is ensure Australia and the UK "buy American", even if the French product is cheaper and more effective.


I would also add, humiliating the French and French-bashing constantly has been a theme in Anglo-Saxon circles for a while now. I would say careful what you wish for. Whilst Panzerdaddy was shaking hands with Reagan, Panzergirl is firmly in the pro-Putin camp. Ritually humiliating the French is not going to help pro-US Presidents get in. And in general, I don't see the point of  French-bashing just because they are in the midst of a deep cultural and social decline (yet still a much more progressive society in parts than the US, despite the hand-wringing from some Atlas Democrats on here who think that because of its laicité tradition France is a fascist state...rest assured, the real reactionaries are those who agree to allow parents to abuse their children).




 The US also no longer has a prominent/natural ally with a big voice in the EU council. It basically has Denmark and maybe the Netherlands,who of course spy on behalf of them, but when push comes to shove may find it hard to counter a Franco-German initiative to no longer buy American, cut a deal with Putin for security and leave Biden without real presence in Europe. 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.  



Overall, I can comprehend the French perspective as the right one. They are supposed to be allies with all these countries and yet these countries treat them like a bit-part player. Eventually there will be no incentive for the French to play ball. They won't withdraw from NATO but they certainly will start to consistently undermine US interests within it if they continue to see the US as an adversary. What Biden has done is risky diplomacy in the long run. Mainly because it doesn't just piss off the incumbent President, but the entire Ministry where an institutional struggle between pro-US and pro-Russia/Third Way camp has been there for decades. That kind of damage is very hard to repair with just conferences.



* I am not suggesting that the French arms industry are any better with Françafrique, etc. But they do agree to things like standardisation and have taken a leading role in setting up a DG at EU level for ensuring the procurement is efficient and that the arms industry is remotely competitive rather than an insanely corrupt scam done behind closed doors.

[Zinneke]

Relations between the US and much of Europe were still much worse in the Dubya era surely.

They were, but Europe felt more respected.

I'd also add that the American FP establishment was right on Afghanistan, and that the fuss the Europeans kicked up was just poor intelligence and strategy. We can't blame the US for holding up an agreement to withdraw, even if it was done by the previous incompetent administration. But on other issues such as the travel ban, AUZUK, and their big tech companies, the EU has a right to ask what is going on.

[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.

[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.