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

101–110 of 113 posts

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

#101

Post by mmarq »

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #91
curionav wrote: post #84

Politics plays a significant role here: * next year a new presidential election will take place in France * Macron may use this contract cancellation as an opportunity to decrease France participation in NATO (technically it could leave the integrated command) as De Gaulle did before him. This would allow him to capture more votes from the right as he would appears as a strong leader then, acting in continuity with G…

> France can not go out of NATO, the alliance with all its drawbacks is just too important for its own defense. France could. It has maintained a strategy of independence regarding its own defense. France has its own nukes, its own nuclear submarines, designs and operates its own fighters, has a nuclear powered aircraft carrier and has some limited capacity of projection. France has no American troops stationed on it…

France, like any other western country, UK included, is heavily dependent on the USA for defence. France’s low opinion of NATO is part of a broader delusional weltanschauung which sees France as an economic and military superpower. It is staged in a parallel universe where the 19th century never ended and the Franco-Prussian war never happened.

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

#102

Post by mytailorisrich »

inglor_cz wrote: post #69
mytailorisrich wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 economic…

Jihadism in Africa is an issue for Europe and the West as a whole so others can be involved.

No-one is going to help you preserve your own territory, quite the opposite. National territory is always a vital interest.

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

#103

Post by bodge5000 »

Adrig wrote: post #52
bodge5000 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets not pretend this was a mighty backstabbing by everyone else who france treated with nothing but kindness. I can't speak much for the US or Aus, but I wouldn't call them on good terms with the UK, beyond even the historical jibes. I'm sure this is bad for France, don't get me wrong, but in terms of how their allies acted, its not particularly shocking or even abnormal.

It is, tho. Diplomacy is a sensible thing. It's not as much about the contract lost, but the way it was handled. The contract was also a key piece for a deeper collaboration in the pacific area, one of the most important geopolitical sectors for the next 20 years. France shared highly confidential material for months, while Australia already had decided to breach the contract. In international relationships among all…

As I said, France has not been a strong ally of the UK (again, cant speak for US or Aus, but may be a similar situation there) in the past or even very recently, why you would expect differently the other way around I don't know.

Also doesn't look like this was a "breach" of contract, just a cancellation. A breach implies what was done is illegal in international law, a cancellation implies they simply went elsewhere.

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

#104

Post by WastingMyTime89 »

mmarq wrote: post #101
WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> France can not go out of NATO, the alliance with all its drawbacks is just too important for its own defense. France could. It has maintained a strategy of independence regarding its own defense. France has its own nukes, its own nuclear submarines, designs and operates its own fighters, has a nuclear powered aircraft carrier and has some limited capacity of projection. France has no American troops stationed on it…

France, like any other western country, UK included, is heavily dependent on the USA for defence. France’s low opinion of NATO is part of a broader delusional weltanschauung which sees France as an economic and military superpower. It is staged in a parallel universe where the 19th century never ended and the Franco-Prussian war never happened.

> France, like any other western country, UK included, is heavily dependent on the USA for defence. France’s low opinion of NATO is part of a broader delusional weltanschauung which sees France as an economic and military superpower.

No, it definitely is not. France defense is entierely built around its hability to launch a nuclear strike. Officialy the doctrine hasn't changed much since the fifties. France maintains the mean to destroy an unspecified number (it was estimated to be at least ten in the fifties) of cities in any country of the world which makes invading France strategically unsound in terms of cost.

France is not the UK. It has little illusion regarding its overall projection power or economic importance. No one in France thinks France is a superpower. That doesn't mean the French view themselves as impotent or insignificant. France remains a modern economy and a regional power which is quite proud of its culture and heritage and thinks it can influence its neighbors and allies for the best in an union which is large enough to stand on its own and defend its own values in an increasingly multipolars world.

From a French point of view, the EU shouldn't have to align itself with the USA or China to exist safely. If that means making concessions to Germany and the northern countries when it comes to how the economy should work and accepting long negociations in Brussels to reach agreements then so be it. That's the price of being an union and it's better than the alternative.

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

#105

Post by 1cvmask »

jean_tta wrote: post #11
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".

America even sanctions countries it refuses to sells defense systems to, and who then have the gall to buy it from others.

I doubt the EU could even contemplate creating something similar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countering_America%27s_Adversa...

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

#106

Post by nicoburns »

me_me_me wrote: post #77
nicoburns wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 sh…

It's relevant because a primary alternative to partnering with China is likely to be partnering with the US.

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

#107

Post by gatronicus »

thow-58d4e8b wrote: post #89
gatronicus wrote: post #26

One article said that the France contract was about 7 bil per diesel sub, while the new one will be 4 bil per nuclear sub. I can't imagine how you can justify 7 bil for a diesel sub. Is it possible that France though that Aus had no alternative and ran the price up?

This is the real question. From the outsider perspective, it looks like the navies and militaries of the western world are evolving towards extremely expensive, specialized high-tech "toys", produced in very low numbers, that require extensive year-long training just to get anything done. Most of which are useless against guerilla warfare insurgencies, and of doubtful utility against peer nation state competitors. Fe…

The main purpose of the submarine is to deliver nuclear missiles from near the enemy shore, so arguably it's most important feature would be to remain undetected.

It's unclear if modern tech can "reveal" where the subs are, rendering them useless.

I agree on your point regarding surface ships, they are walking dead, they can't defend against drone/missile swarming.

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

#108

Post by detaro »

gatronicus wrote: post #107
thow-58d4e8b wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the real question. From the outsider perspective, it looks like the navies and militaries of the western world are evolving towards extremely expensive, specialized high-tech "toys", produced in very low numbers, that require extensive year-long training just to get anything done. Most of which are useless against guerilla warfare insurgencies, and of doubtful utility against peer nation state competitors. Fe…

The main purpose of the submarine is to deliver nuclear missiles from near the enemy shore, so arguably it's most important feature would be to remain undetected. It's unclear if modern tech can "reveal" where the subs are, rendering them useless. I agree on your point regarding surface ships, they are walking dead, they can't defend against drone/missile swarming.

That's one class of submarines. One that doesn't really make sense for Australia, given they don't actually have any nukes to deliver.

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

#109

Post by zaphirplane »

liotier wrote: post #75
zaphirplane wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t see the working with part, I see a buy from France or else part

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

#110

Post by me_me_me »

nicoburns wrote: post #106
me_me_me wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 sh…

It's relevant because a primary alternative to partnering with China is likely to be partnering with the US.

US largely outsourced its manufacturing, so EU is not as dependant on US as other way around - EU to USA import export graph [0]

Treating EU like a tiny country that needs to rely on imports of finished products is discounting the fact EU is the largest trading block in the world.

Besides EU can decide to incentivise the manufacturing of key goods (like germany getting into electronics manufacture).

Also US cannot bully EU like it does other weaker countries.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...

Post reply on HN