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

71–80 of 113 posts

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

#71

Post by jean_tta »

willvarfar wrote: post #24
jean_tta wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There have been a long history of "hot" confrontations and proxy wars like Korea, Cuba and Angola, Vietnam, the Russians in Afghanistan and then the US in Afghanistan etc. But go ask random people on streets in the US, Russia or Europe, and they will focus on the "cold war" and the iron curtain and NATO's defense of the west against the threat of Soviet expansion.

If you ask about NATO _today_, I'd wager people would see it as a fancy name for "alliance with the US", which includes but is not limited to defense against Russia. A lot of people would think about Afghanistan, for instance.

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

#72

Post by rualca »

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.

> These partners have already shown that they are going to betray France's trust and lie to them.

What? Betray France? So France jeopardizes a nation's national defense by failing to deliver critical defense assets, and this is spun into being a betrayal on France?

Are we supposed to put our blinders on to think that this issue is about France's commercial interests and not Australia's national security?

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

#73

Post by jean_tta »

zaphirplane wrote: post #29
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.

What’s the strategy that was wiped ? AFAICT this is about a canceled contract and the secrecy of the negotiations. The French strategy can’t possible be based on selling submarines to a continent country bordering its atolls

See here: https://au.ambafrance.org/IMG/pdf/en_indopacifique_web_cle0f...

The French government has openly stated that this goes beyond the canceled contract per se.

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

#74

Post by jean_tta »

JetSetWilly wrote: post #64
akmarinov wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

I do not think anyone is arguing that the UK has some kind of legal obligation to inform France. Alas, alliance and more broadly international politics go beyond minutiae of contracts.

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

#75

Post by liotier »

zaphirplane wrote: post #67
liotier wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

Working with a similarly powerful partner and working with a major power are not the same balance in relationship.

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

#76

Post by JetSetWilly »

jean_tta wrote: post #74
JetSetWilly wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 th…

I do not think anyone is arguing that the UK has some kind of legal obligation to inform France. Alas, alliance and more broadly international politics go beyond minutiae of contracts.

It didn't have any obligation - legal, moral or otherwise. In fact it had an obligation not to interfere or surprise Australia by communicating things. The responsibility was 100% on Australia.

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

#77

Post by me_me_me »

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…

> The US isn't much better. They have a history of invading of destabilising the governments of countries they don't like.

This is whataboutism and has nothing to do with discussion on France/EU's stance of China.

Reading on you comments, are you living in the past? We are discussing current politics.

> Tell that to all the countries who tried to implement communist systems of government... and found their leaders shot or in jail.

That was happening 40 years ago in current EU countries, whats your point?!

> with their history of enforcing tariff-free markets on countries and flooding them with cheap US-made goods that wipe out domestic production leaving the countries in very dire straits

Again derailing conversation from China to USA

Edit: go ahead and keep downvoting me for literally pointing out logical fallacies

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

#78

Post by woofie11 »

kazen44 wrote: post #58
woofie11 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, France has consistently betrayed its allies, throughout history. The start of WWII is worth looking at, where both France and Britain broke mutual defense treaty after mutual defense treaty appeasing Germany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War A lost sale in contrast? That seems more like normal business than lying and betrayal.

mind you that pre world war two. the political and diplomatic game in Europe was far different then it is today. I would not expect France to the same behavior with other EU members.

None of the other parties here are EU members.

Culture runs deep. France adores Vercingetorix, who surrendered to Julius Caesar after "releasing" all the women and children to die of starvation between the Roman and French lines at the Battle Of Alesia.

Since WWII, France has been a fickle ally to the US at best.

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

#79

Post by tick_tock_tick »

Adrig wrote: post #65
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

The USA rarely sells "new" stuff so allies get the product after all that shit has happened. France was overhauling a sub design for them (probably why it was years late and way over budget).

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

#80

Post by rmm »

sofixa wrote: post #61
rmm wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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 nucle…

>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.

I saw no evidence of that. There was only reports of worsening relations.

>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.

No nuclear facilities or know-how is a a problem that can now be finally fixed. 2040 gives us plenty of time, and really, its only 10 years later than what was expected.

>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.

Yeah but come on. Comparing the french nuclear subs versus the US ones is apples an oranges. Only the US have the tech for sealed engines, and no need to refuel.

Post reply on HN