Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

France cancels defence meeting with UK over submarine row, sources say

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 113 posts

Re: France cancels defence meeting with UK over submarine row, sources say

#11

Post by jean_tta »

inglor_cz wrote: post #2

On one hand I understand them, sudden cancelation of a contract is very unpleasant and demeaning. On the other hand, this is basically a diplomatic version of a tantrum; and powerful countries rarely respond to a tantrum by doing anything substantial. If France could get the rest of the EU behind it, then maybe. But rest of the EU looks at the problem with disinterest, given that they stood to gain nothing from the o…

I don't understand why major arm contracts suddenly went from having obvious geopolitical implications (e.g. Turkey S-400 procurement) to being "mere contracts".

Re: France cancels defence meeting with UK over submarine row, sources say

#13

Post by [deleted] »

Balero wrote: post #10
inglor_cz wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are basically three things that France can now do: a) abandon New Caledonia entirely. This may happen anyway, as an independence referendum is scheduled for December and the balance is uncertain; b) join AUKUS as a junior partner, very painful but logical; c) embrace China out of spite or as a result of different geopolitical calculus. That would probably have significant realignment echos in Europe, because Fr…

> b) join AUKUS as a junior partner, very painful but logical; Why is this logical? These partners have already shown that they are going to betray France's trust and lie to them. It would be better to be on your own than have unreliable partners, or worse ones that work against you.

[deleted]

Re: France cancels defence meeting with UK over submarine row, sources say

#14

Post by willvarfar »

sedan_baklazhan wrote: post #9
inglor_cz wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Former Soviet satellites still trust it as a deterrent against Russia.

But did NATO (ever in its history) function as a defence alliance, not as an agressive alliance, though?

NATO has only ever been a defense alliance.

Early in the cold war there were a few senior generals on both sides that thought the US could or should make a first strike against Russia. But the leadership and the populous on both sides of the curtain never thought that was what it was all about at all. The aggressor was always going to be Russia invading western Europe, and NATO was always about defending it.

Re: France cancels defence meeting with UK over submarine row, sources say

#15

Post by willvarfar »

inglor_cz wrote: post #5
gerty wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just a contract though. France actually has a maritime border with Australia and its own interests in the Pacific -> the entire French Pacific strategy was wiped out by 3 "allies" behind its back.

There are basically three things that France can now do: a) abandon New Caledonia entirely. This may happen anyway, as an independence referendum is scheduled for December and the balance is uncertain; b) join AUKUS as a junior partner, very painful but logical; c) embrace China out of spite or as a result of different geopolitical calculus. That would probably have significant realignment echos in Europe, because Fr…

There's a new trending joke in defense circles about how the opportunity was missed for a FAUKUS alliance, which would have been comically delicious to pronounce.

Re: France cancels defence meeting with UK over submarine row, sources say

#16

Post by tetrisgm »

google234123 wrote: post #12

France was probably aware much earlier that the contract was in jeopardy. Everyone in France being on vacation in July and August didn’t help at the end.

Your first sentence is pure speculation, and was refuted by French officials. The second sentence is just hyperbole. I’m sure you can do better!

Re: France cancels defence meeting with UK over submarine row, sources say

#17

Post by gerty »

inglor_cz wrote: post #5
gerty wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just a contract though. France actually has a maritime border with Australia and its own interests in the Pacific -> the entire French Pacific strategy was wiped out by 3 "allies" behind its back.

There are basically three things that France can now do: a) abandon New Caledonia entirely. This may happen anyway, as an independence referendum is scheduled for December and the balance is uncertain; b) join AUKUS as a junior partner, very painful but logical; c) embrace China out of spite or as a result of different geopolitical calculus. That would probably have significant realignment echos in Europe, because Fr…

There are also alternative ways of sending a message, e.g. targeting of US soft power. While INSTEX was not a huge success in its time, an alternative payment mechanism that works around US sanctions aligns well with French (and even EU) interests and strongly against US.

Re: France cancels defence meeting with UK over submarine row, sources say

#18

Post by Proven »

Screw them, they're one of the guilty parties responsible for the ongoing continental-size abuse of population in the EU, through various EU and ECB policies.

They can sell the subs to the ECB, that should be easy. The ECB pays them, and parks the subs in Frankfurt (or Hamburg, whatever). Similar to the way they hand out cash for worthless FPIIGS government bonds.

Re: France cancels defence meeting with UK over submarine row, sources say

#19

Post by jean_tta »

willvarfar wrote: post #14
sedan_baklazhan wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But did NATO (ever in its history) function as a defence alliance, not as an agressive alliance, though?

NATO has only ever been a defense alliance. Early in the cold war there were a few senior generals on both sides that thought the US could or should make a first strike against Russia. But the leadership and the populous on both sides of the curtain never thought that was what it was all about at all. The aggressor was always going to be Russia invading western Europe, and NATO was always about defending it.

Including, of course, the defensive invasion of Afghanistan using article 5.

Re: France cancels defence meeting with UK over submarine row, sources say

#20

Post by WastingMyTime89 »

inglor_cz wrote: post #5
gerty wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just a contract though. France actually has a maritime border with Australia and its own interests in the Pacific -> the entire French Pacific strategy was wiped out by 3 "allies" behind its back.

There are basically three things that France can now do: a) abandon New Caledonia entirely. This may happen anyway, as an independence referendum is scheduled for December and the balance is uncertain; b) join AUKUS as a junior partner, very painful but logical; c) embrace China out of spite or as a result of different geopolitical calculus. That would probably have significant realignment echos in Europe, because Fr…

> a) abandon New Caledonia entirely.

It's more that Caledonia could chose to leave. But that only marginaly change the issue. France has other territories in the Pacific.

> b) join AUKUS as a junior partner, very painful but logical;

That would be very illogical. France interests are not aligned with the USA. Also they are a nuclear country with a permanent seat on the UN security council. They will never be a junior partner to an alliance with the USA or Australia let alone the UK.

> c) embrace China out of spite or as a result of different geopolitical calculus. That would probably have significant realignment echos in Europe

There is no need for spite or realignment. China is a diplomatic and commercial partner of the EU. The systemic opposition is strictly the doctrine of the USA. There is plenty to gain through the diplomatic route as long as you see China as an equal partner and not an inferior country. Lobbying China is harder than it used to be but not impossible.

There are plenty of alternative to these three scenarios anyway. The logical next steps would just be pushing for further for military integration in the EU (Afghanistan already left a sour taste in everyone's mouth anyway) and lobby to get the EU - Australia free trade agreement severely limited then carry on as usual. The relationship with the UK will see no progress as long as Johnson is PM so it seems useless to waste time on it.

Post reply on HN