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

France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 299 posts

Re: France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

#271

Post by fspeech »

ericmay wrote: post #266
fspeech wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would make a good strategy for China if it were true: keep tension high at the SCS to draw US away from Europe; solidify relationship with Europe to develop technology and hedge against Russia.

I mean there are some interesting elements there but I don’t see the solidifying Europe one as much. I think it’s more so Europe being independent and trading with both China and the US and keeping both at arms length, which is what’s driving the US to stop caring about Europe militarily. No more Middle East wars (oil supply is secured and Iraq was won), and why bother defending Europe? What are they defending it fro…

I don't think that is what US political elites want but it is actually a good outcome for world peace. Russia is not moving anywhere, neither is China. Continental detente will play out over many decades, way beyond US election cycles. An independent Europe trading normally with both US and China, and Russia, is a much more stable configuration. Core Europe will feel secure at the price of peripheral Europe. However in such a scenario, while everyone may prosper, the geopolitical center will move back to the Eurasian continent. AUKUS will be mostly irrelevant. Sure they can pat themselves on the back for deterring China, but China got the crown jewel if it can pry Europe away from the military alliance with the US. China and European powers are much more naturally aligned. France recognized PRC right after China helped Vietnam to kick them out. Think about that for a while! And European countries helped China into the UN to replace Taiwan.

Re: France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

#272

Post by PoignardAzur »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #217
PoignardAzur wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Hoping for conflict.

I mean, ideally, I'd hope Biden would get back into the JCPOA, pay Iran reparations for the damage they inflicted to their economy by going back on their own deal, pardon Julian Assange, close Guantanamo Bay and all US black sites, cease drone strikes on foreign soil, scale back US surveillance on allied countries, and repeal FATCA.

But realistically, none of this is going to happen.

So realistically, I'm hoping Biden screws up enough that European countries wean themselves off of their dependence on the US.

Re: France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

#273

Post by fspeech »

r00fus wrote: post #246
fspeech wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Australia is 5000 miles away from China, only slightly less than Hawaii. Sure Australia is lower cost with vast land but don't see how that is immediate game changer.

The area in question is the south china sea, and further areas from China. Probably related to the defense of entire chain of US reliant countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam as well as Australia. Ultimately, it has to do with commerce as power influences commercial interests as well.

That sounds super vague. Taiwan is economically integrated with China, so are South Korea and to a lesser extent, Japan. Vietnam is dependent on Chinese imports and they share a land border. Most of Australia exports go to China. At peace time this is just posturing. In time of war no one ever doubted Australia would be on the side of the US.

Re: France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

#274

Post by Robotbeat »

tkojames wrote: post #16

It is super laughable because the nuclear powered version that they are building for themselves was a fixed bid contract for something like 10 billion for 8 subs.. and the Australian contract keeps going up and up something like 35 billion for ten subs. The diesel sub for Australia is based on the nuclear sub that they signed the fixed bid contract for. Anybody with half brain can tell they are making up the lost of…

I heard (from The Drive https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42390/australian-navy-...) the French deal had gone up to $70 billion. Why is this fact not presented more obviously? France seems to have been soaking Australia for an inferior, non-nuclear submarine fleet. Why is it surprising or even controversial that they cancelled the deal? I realize France is doing a full time PR push, here, but it seems to come down to a pretty terrible deal that Australia doesn’t want any more. Seriously, $70 billion for 12 diesel subs??

Re: France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

#275

Post by sudosysgen »

fspeech wrote: post #225
sudosysgen wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US uses 93-97% uranium as a matter of public record. Other countries use more weakly enriched uranium, the US and UK are the exception, so I understand the error in the article above. See this better source ; https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2019/06/naval-reactors-leu/

I wasn't questioning your numbers but thanks for the reference. I think they are being purposedly vague about this. Transferring weapons grade uranium would be a real threat to the NPT.

Well, it's pretty clear, the US is going to provide weapons grade uranium to Australia. Yes it's highly sensitive under the NPT, but the US doesn't care at all.

If the uranium had lower enrichment, it wouldn't be able to last 25 years, so it's certain that this is weapons grade.

Re: France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

#276

Post by fspeech »

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #251
Renaud wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The upset is not just about the loss of a commercial deal, I'm sure there will be some contractual compensations. The issue is about the manner in which the deal was announced. Newspapers describe the urgent calls from the AU officials to their French counterparts hours before the very public announcement by the US, UK and AU. Diplomatically, that's a pretty callous thing to do to a partner. The ballooning costs may…

As a French, this is very much the feeling here. We do not talk much about the financial impact (though Naval Group is obviously not happy) but indeed rather the way it was announced. As for the trust part, I would say that this is more being naive, which is always a surprise to me. We dealt with the British during Brexit and the overall feeling is that we lost the deal (fishing, British disregard of the deal, Irelan…

Actually Europe is super important as a force of balance. There is nothing more coveted by the Chinese than European friendship.

Re: France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

#277

Post by jakeinspace »

cedricgle wrote: post #199
markus_zhang wrote: post #179

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.

Sure, but if the US command had for some reason been psychopathic enough, Afghanistan could have been leveled into a barren desert. Wars of occupation are messy and often inherently unwinnable. But the US can absolutely "output harm" anywhere on earth.

Re: France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

#278

Post by frozencell »

ericmay wrote: post #265
skissane wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t think incompetence is a compelling answer given the current administration. Really? I see the debacle of Afghanistan as evidence that all recent US administrations are perfectly capable of incompetence – whether Bush or Obama or Trump or Biden. And Iraq before that. No denying that Trump took incompetence to worrying new heights, but I don't think we should therefore dismiss the idea that the other three ad…

In other words, everybody is incompetent except the country completely caught off guard in this situation? Sorry I just don’t buy the incompetence argument. What is going on here is geopolitical calculus. The US doesn’t care about France that much anymore. I think we all want to cling to the past, but the world is changing. Alliances come and go, things change. France and the EU have lost a lot of status with the US…

The world is changing, but not the US.

Re: France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

#279

Post by ericmay »

fspeech wrote: post #271
ericmay wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean there are some interesting elements there but I don’t see the solidifying Europe one as much. I think it’s more so Europe being independent and trading with both China and the US and keeping both at arms length, which is what’s driving the US to stop caring about Europe militarily. No more Middle East wars (oil supply is secured and Iraq was won), and why bother defending Europe? What are they defending it fro…

I don't think that is what US political elites want but it is actually a good outcome for world peace. Russia is not moving anywhere, neither is China. Continental detente will play out over many decades, way beyond US election cycles. An independent Europe trading normally with both US and China, and Russia, is a much more stable configuration. Core Europe will feel secure at the price of peripheral Europe. However…

> I don't think that is what US political elites want but it is actually a good outcome for world peace. Russia is not moving anywhere, neither is China. Continental detente will play out over many decades, way beyond US election cycles. An independent Europe trading normally with both US and China, and Russia, is a much more stable configuration. Core Europe will feel secure at the price of peripheral Europe

Agreed maybe with some asterisk and what-ifs but this seems likely.

> However in such a scenario, while everyone may prosper, the geopolitical center will move back to the Eurasian continent.

I think moves to the pacific, south East Asia, Japan, Korea, China, Australia, Indonesia, India, etc. That's where most of the world's people are. I don't think Russia is developed enough in the east to be of too much relevance here. Long story short, the important parts move, to the slow irrelevance of Europe.

> AUKUS will be mostly irrelevant.

Yikes. I can't think that's further from the truth. This move just upped the ante and is yet another signal of Anglosphere commitment to the region.

> Sure they can pat themselves on the back for deterring China, but China got the crown jewel if it can pry Europe away from the military alliance with the US.

Well Europe certainly won't ally with China barring something insane happening. They've chosen the path of keeping more neutral, which lends to your first point about the stable configuration. A Europe allied with China would be destabilizing. But I also don't think it matters. Europe has lost its military relevance for the foreseeable future because there's just nothing going on in Europe that matters.

The whole purpose of NATO and the European alliances with countries like France was to ward of Russian aggression and keep Europe stable from starting another ridiculous world war, but... it doesn't look like that's needed anymore. So what is the U.S. doing focusing on Europe?

> France recognized PRC right after China helped Vietnam to kick them out. Think about that for a while! And European countries helped China into the UN to replace Taiwan.

And the U.S. fought to get China into the WTO and spent decades trying to forge economic ties. I wouldn't read into that too much. And then if you wanted to, well why are European countries saber rattling against Chinese influence? So I think it's more that Europe wants to play both sides, which is annoying the U.S. which is now no longer really getting the ROI it wants from European engagements, especially now that it is withdrawing from the Middle East.

Re: France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

#280

Post by ericmay »

frozencell wrote: post #278
ericmay wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, everybody is incompetent except the country completely caught off guard in this situation? Sorry I just don’t buy the incompetence argument. What is going on here is geopolitical calculus. The US doesn’t care about France that much anymore. I think we all want to cling to the past, but the world is changing. Alliances come and go, things change. France and the EU have lost a lot of status with the US…

The world is changing, but not the US.

In what way is the world changing but the US isn't changing?
Post reply on HN