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

61–70 of 113 posts

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

#61

Post by sofixa »

rmm wrote: post #41
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…

>>On one hand I understand them, sudden cancelation of a contract is very unpleasant and demeaning. It was definitely not sudden. They had been warned many times for growing costs, delays etc.. It may have been 'sudden' in the sense that they didnt think Australia would actually pull through with the threat.

Sudden in the sense that in spring they discussed concretely what's going wrong and what is needed to fix it, and came out thinking everything is OK for Australia. While Australia was negotiating with the US and UK.

If growing costs and delays are the supposed issue, buying nuclear submarines of an unspecified design while having no nuclear facilities or know-how, with the scheduled date of arrival of the first nuclear sub is in 2040, is a very weird way of fixing it.

If Australia wanted a quick and cheap submarine class, they should have bought the Japanese proposal. If they wanted a nuclear one, they could have tendered for it and gotten a French proposal based on the Barracudas. But they did neither.

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

#62

Post by akmarinov »

kryptiskt wrote: post #48

So they have failed to deliver for five years with huge cost overruns and delays and get all mad when their customer says enough is enough. I wonder if any lessons learned will make it way back to their defense industry, or if playing the victim will suffice for them too.

So Australia’s answer is to further delay things by starting over and getting nuclear submarines at best 10 years later than the new french timeline, but realistically probably a lot more?

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

#63

Post by inglor_cz »

nicoburns wrote: post #51
inglor_cz wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is plenty to gain through the diplomatic route as long as you see China as an equal partner and not an inferior country. Does China see other countries as equal partners? Their Howling Wolf diplomacy seems to kick in whenever anything they dislike appears in any media. See their current hatefest against Lithuania, a country with population smaller than Shanghai. I for one am not very ready to sacrifice, e.g.…

> See their current hatefest against Lithuania, a country with population smaller than Shanghai. The US isn't much better. They have a history of invading of destabilising the governments of countries they don't like. > we can at least discuss them mostly freely and the authoritarian developments (governmental and distributed alike) tend to get some pushback and dissent, and the dissidents do not end up in jail or sh…

This is where different countries have different experiences.

If I were a Latin American, I would be distrustful towards American power projection. But I am a Central European and our history with the U.S. is a lot better.

I am not trusting them blindly, but the worst import we had from the U.S. so far was a shallow-ish pop culture, plus some of the racial nonsense that really rubs the wrong way in a different context.

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

#64

Post by JetSetWilly »

akmarinov wrote: post #59
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…

It’s not so much the cancellation of the contract as how it was done instead. AUKUS basically blindsided France, didn’t give them any warning or a chance to diplomatically save face. It was like spitting in their face. Why bother having a defence meeting with the UK if they’ll turn around tomorrow and spit in France’s face again by not telling them something?

> Why bother having a defence meeting with the UK if they’ll turn around tomorrow and spit in France’s face again by not telling them something?

It is not the UK's responsibility to inform France of a status change in their contract with Australia. In fact the UK has a duty to stay out of it as they are not parties to the contract- it is up to Australia to inform France.

France has a right to be peeved, but not at the UK or US.

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

#65

Post by Adrig »

kryptiskt wrote: post #48

So they have failed to deliver for five years with huge cost overruns and delays and get all mad when their customer says enough is enough. I wonder if any lessons learned will make it way back to their defense industry, or if playing the victim will suffice for them too.

The usa is definitely a reassuring partner concerning delays and cost overruns in the weapon industry

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

#66

Post by zaphirplane »

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.

It’s not right to say to be allies you need to put my commercial interests above your security and commercial costs

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

#67

Post by zaphirplane »

liotier wrote: post #53
alexitorg wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How has the French pacific strategy been wiped out? What was it?

France’s Indo‑Pacific Strategy: https://au.ambafrance.org/IMG/pdf/en_indopacifique_web_cle0f... Multilateralism was a pillar of that strategy. Australia shifting from an equal partner to a US vassal signals an end to that.

Hmm France doesn’t want strong partners ? :)

If buying American makes one a vassal wouldn’t buying French be the same ?

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

#68

Post by jean_tta »

rualca wrote: post #57
jean_tta wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

It's not hard to understand why Turkey's case has critical geopolitical implications while Australia's doesn't really have one. I mean, just take a look at the sellers and the military alliances the buyers are in.

Australia went from an ever-closer relationship with France to ditching them, unannounced. Even if it is unwarranted, surely France reaction _is_ a major geopolitical consequence.

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

#69

Post by inglor_cz »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #56
inglor_cz wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

French vital interests are in Africa, not in Pacific. And the strategic situation in Sahel isn't good. Given that military budgets are always strained, it makes sense to concentrate on the core challenges and leaving the Pacific be.

France has strategic interests in Africa. And it has also vital interests in the Pacific because it actually has territories in the region. France has the largest maritime EEZ in the world, owning 8% of the global EEZ areas. A lot of that is due to its territories in the Pacific and Indian Ocean. New Caledonia also has 25% of the world's nickel reserve. Defending your national territory is a vital interest. Saying th…

You got me. I was only thinking about the territories themselves (arguably not crucially important) and forgot about the maritime EEZs that come with them. These seem to be rather important.

(Though probably not "vital" in the same sense as suppression of jihadism is. A massive growth of jihadism in North Africa could destabilize peace in France itself, while loss of Pacific territories would only be painful economically.)

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

#70

Post by WastingMyTime89 »

roenxi wrote: post #28
WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> lobby to get the EU - Australia free trade agreement severely limited then carry on as usual This type of response always baffles me. Australia here is not buying what France is selling. If they object to that, making it harder for Australians to buy other things France is selling is the opposite of clever. And in reverse - Australia sells food and raw materials. Under what circumstances is it bad for France to tra…

> Australia here is not buying what France is selling. If they object to that, making it harder for Australians to buy other things France is selling is the opposite of clever.

Australia have been extremely untransparent regarding their position and how they conducted the whole negociation. They lied to their French counterparts during the summer and announced their withdrawal in an extermely clumsy and frankly disrespectful way. Why would you want to put in place treaties easing controls and trades with countries which have already proven they are dishonest?

> Restricting trade is cutting of the nose to spite the face.

No one talked about restrictions. I just expect France to lobby for things to stay as they are rather than go in the direction of easier trading.

Post reply on HN