211–220 of 299 posts
I got how bad this seems from the French perspective, but pulling Ambassadors sounds like something you do if a country assassinated your diplomat or something, not just due to losing a military contract.
They are less upset about the deal itself and more upset with the way it was abruptly announced. It really doesn't make the french look like a respected ally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Europe has been unwilling to throw their cards in with America 100% Why should they? America is an unreliable partner. They torpedoed a good deal with Iran, mismanaged the withdrawing from Afghanistan, have been a nuisance regarding the building of pipelines between Germany and Russia and an overall destabilizing force in the Middle-East. Trump did happen. The fastest Europe separates itself from the American spher…
> The fastest Europe separates itself from the American sphere of influence, the better. And now you know why the US and UK didn't give the slightest shit about how mad France got about this deal. NATO is dead, the US is leaving Europe for better or worse, wanted or not. And keep in mind I'm just doing my best at an interpretation/observation. Everything you cite here from the perspective of some or many European nat…
I doubt that is going to happen for full free movement of people. I think Australia especially doesn't want to allow anyone from the US or the UK to move here. Professionals with degrees–doctors, nurses, lawyers, accountants, engineers, IT people, etc–I think the majority of Australians don't have a problem with that. But a flood of British retirees–or chavs–searching for sunny beaches?
I can foresee agreements to streamline the process of getting a visa for university-educated professionals and make it easier and simpler and faster, but I doubt Australia will want to agree to doing away with the selectivity and just allow anybody, even American or British unskilled labourers with no particular qualifications, to immigrate.
The issue is not the submarine deal, but frustrations lasting for months over other issues, in particular the travel ban. The US has had an EU travel ban for over 18 months, despite the EU having more vaccination and less covid than the US[0]. Which country's citizen are not banned from traveling to the US? Russia! Despite a soaring epidemic and very low vaccination rates. Biden told the world that 'America is back'.…
That's technically true, but de-facto entering the US is almost impossible if you need a new/renewed visa - the US stopped issuing those in Russia, and even for people wealthy enough to fly to a different country to get a US visa, that is also nearly impossible with wait times of 6+months.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I understand, your basic nuclear weapon (WWII tech) isn’t technically difficult to build because the principles are well known. The uranium is the difficult part. Sure you could extract the fuel rods, but how many weapons will you get out of it? Is having a handful of low yield bombs worth the international sanctions? I think you’re better off having strategic strike capability with cruise missiles from sub…
These submarines have 95% enrichment fuel. You only need ~10kg to make a high yield weapon with the right design. You're going to get multiple weapons with the fuel stored in a single submarine. Cruise missiles are vulnerable. They can be intercepted and shot down, and they give your position away. Low reward, high risk. Nuclear deterrence can certainly be worth it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> France has 0 ability to protect those territories France has nuclear-powered submarines carrying nuclear ICBMs. Of course they can defend their islands. > Sure France could sail the Charles de Gualle to the Pacific France has a permanent navy presence in the Pacific. They don't need to get an aircraft carrier there. Aircraft carriers are useless against a modern army anyway. It's all about submarines. > because Fra…
> France has nuclear-powered submarines carrying nuclear ICBMs. Of course they can defend their islands. Let's not pretend that France is going to go to nuclear war to over these territories. > France has a permanent navy presence in the Pacific. They don't need to get an aircraft carrier there. I mean so does the Philippines. The question is what are they going to do with it? > Aircraft carriers are useless against…
Who is going to conquer them?
And if someone tried, I think it is likely that other regional powers would help – Australia, New Zealand, the US – not for any great love of France, but rather because they'd see such a conquest as a threat to their own national security, so they'd want to help France out of self-interest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn’t just that Australia cancelled the deal and made a new one with someone else. It is they kept their plans secret from France instead of letting them know about it and giving them a chance to make a counter-offer or save some face. France has nuclear submarines too, so maybe France could still have played some role? Maybe AUKUS could have been AFUKUS? They didn’t allow France into the negotiation room, and the…
Looks to me like political hardball being played and it’s surprising France (and to a lesser extent the EU). Frankly, France and the EU have been trying to straddle a middle ground between the US and China, and strategically Europe is mostly irrelevant outside of the UK (yes I know France can project some power I’m not downplaying them) but they have been dragging their feet and the action is just not going to be in…
It looks like the vaunted experience of Biden and his team has not translated into any sort of deft policymaking, particularly in foreign policy. The messy pullout out of Afghanistan, followed by this scuttling of the deal in progress between Australia and France have reinforced the notion that Uncle Sam can not be relied upon, even by his closest allies. Pretty surefire way of helping fence-sitters become client sta…
Honestly, I'm kind of hoping Biden keeps pulling moves like that. My biggest worry with a Biden presidency was that he'd undo Trump's effect on US image. There's increased awareness in EU countries now that the US cannot be relied on, and that any relationship with them will always be one of vassalage (see also the proposed US-UK deal after brexit). There's still a serious chance Biden might be a return to business a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, France has far more territory in the Pacific than the UK, and better positioned too. The UK is part on the basis of historical ties, not because someone looked at a map and said "hey, that guy controls some important bits". It also seems distressingly naive to say "it's been two days and nothing's happened, so nobody cares" when talking about the EU reaction. The only fast EU action you ever get is the stat…
> Actually, France has far more territory in the Pacific than the UK, and better positioned too. This is kind of like a nice piece of trivia. France has 0 ability to protect those territories and they're pretty much useless to any other country except in the event of a war in the Pacific, in which case the US would be using them as basis (or China or Japan or whoever but definitely not France). Sure France could sail…
European leaders can't follow all the dicktats from across the ocean, and the decision to support Iraq war has ended Tony Blair's career. I have encountered this attitude before, and the vibe I am getting is that you don't want partners and allies, you want lapdogs.
A lot of Europeans see these decisions as serving Washington's interests rather than their own, and if you want to leave europe, many like Macron will say 'good riddance'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US is able to output harm while China doesn't have that ability.
Seeing how the Afghanistan war ended I don't think so. The last time the USA properly won a war was when they nuked cities and civilians, whereas China and Russia never went this far. Now given that USA is definitely the more belligerent of the 3, it might happen again.
when will the world wake up?