It seems like a bit of an overreaction. Is shipbuilding that important to France?
France has nuclear submarines too, so maybe France could still have played some role? Maybe AUKUS could have been AFUKUS? They didn’t allow France into the negotiation room, and they told France “everything is fine, we are sticking with your submarines” even while secretly negotiating with the US and UK.
I think being excluded and lied to upsets Macron far more than the submarines themselves do.
Look at the repercussions now. France is huffing and puffing and what exactly is going to happen? The Us is still buying French wine and German cars, and the EU is still buying US products and trade is just going to continue on as normal. Who cares?
On the other hand, Australia is vital.
I don’t think NATO exists in a meaningful way anymore and this is just window dressing around what has already happened. Russia is Europe’s problem. And the US is losing a reason to engage when Europe is seemingly not willing to. Think about it. If you take away the saber rattling why would the US give a shit about Russia? It’s an economic backwater. Europe doesn’t want to pony up and show teeth. What is to be gained? Hell, the US and Russia will probably forge better ties going forward.
And yes I’m an American, but I’m just looking at this as I see it geopolitically.
It also seems distressingly naive to say "it's been two days and nothing's happened, so nobody cares" when talking about the EU reaction. The only fast EU action you ever get is the statements, and those have been supportive of France. The interesting thing is to see what happens this spring when France has the EU presidency.
Anyway, the big benefit of NATO is to keep Europe and the US aligned; Europe has lived with Russia for a long time before NATO existed and the big trouble in Europe was about keeping whatever nations where large at the time from attacking each other.
I don't see the US and Russia getting along much better, precisely because, as you say, Americans don't think they need to respect the Russians very much, a judgment which the Russians don't agree with.
This is kind of like a nice piece of trivia. France has 0 ability to protect those territories and they're pretty much useless to any other country except in the event of a war in the Pacific, in which case the US would be using them as basis (or China or Japan or whoever but definitely not France). Sure France could sail the Charles de Gualle to the Pacific but it's not like the UK and the Falklands. It's uh... a bit of a drive. (Not to mention if there is a serious power in the region on the island(s) that is probably not enough of a force to fight with - the CdG I mean). The EU allies had a tough time with Libya without American logistics support. This was a wakeup call for the US.
The UK was added because of the close alliance. Better power projection capabilities than France but it's certainly close. But the point is that the UK is on board. Team USA all the way baby. France? Eh... not sure if we want to anger China kind of stance. They (like the rest of the EU) is keeping both trying to guess, and the US doesn't value being in that position. Better to force the issue.
> It also seems distressingly naive to say "it's been two days and nothing's happened, so nobody cares" when talking about the EU reaction. The only fast EU action you ever get is the statements, and those have been supportive of France. The interesting thing is to see what happens this spring when France has the EU presidency.
No no. I'm saying you saw what will happen. Nothing meaningful will happen because France and the EU can't really do anything. Tell me, what are they going to do? Get the gang together and start a trade war? Be even more wishy-washy toward the now non-existent US interests in the Middle East?
> Anyway, the big benefit of NATO is to keep Europe and the US aligned;
The problem here is the assumption that either cares to be aligned anymore. The EU says they're not committed to the US. So the US is relegating the EU to "just another country/group of countries". The US went through a surprising amount of trouble with the whole Huawei thing. The US expectation is frankly - hey we say drop this because China is a rival. Europe just didn't play ball and now the US is saying hey I don't think we can count on you. And you can't blame this on Trump either. It doesn't matter what his approach is.
> Europe has lived with Russia for a long time before NATO existed and the big trouble in Europe was about keeping whatever nations where large at the time from attacking each other.
I think this reinforces my point. NATO is irrelevant now. There's nothing left in Europe to care about. What's Russia going to do? Annex Ukraine? What is the US supposed to do that Europe isn't already more than willing to do? Soviet tanks aren't going to be driving through Berlin so what's the point anymore?
> I don't see the US and Russia getting along much better, precisely because, as you say, Americans don't think they need to respect the Russians very much, a judgment which the Russians don't agree with.
Yea but now we go from "bad Putin bad!!!" to "eh? who cares?". That's an improvement. Russia really is an economic backwater and this is all about economics.
At least this is my take. Appreciate your thoughts here!
I guess Europeans aren't happy to impose political sanctions on command.
This US approach where we talk about human rights and freedom but stuff people into Guantanamo bay (itself illegally occupied) without trial and attack rivals without a pretence of due process really rubs europeans the wrong way.
Right. And so now the United States is moving on from Europe. They still get all the benefits of trade and such without any of the commitment that they feel wasn't being reciprocated.
I'm not trying to make a moral judgement of the US or EU or something here, just trying to interpret what moves are being made.
This "US was helping ungratefull Europe, and now is tired of doing so" story seems to have a few pages missing.
The US bases here are largest outside US itself, and are vital for US logistics - they have everything from stategic airlift to nukes. Every deployment to Middle East involved them. So lets not pretend US has no need of them.
US ability to project power around the world depends on countries being willing to host their kit.
Where can I see the evidence of this "moving on" happening in the real world, rather than it just being a diplomatic spat? None of the equipment has left.
It doesn't matter what is true, it matters how the parties feel about these things.
> The US bases here are largest outside US itself, and are vital for US logistics - they have everything from stategic airlift to nukes. Every deployment to Middle East involved them. So lets not pretend US has no need of them.
The US isn't going to be in the Middle East anymore.
> US ability to project power around the world depends on countries being willing to host their kit.
Eh not really. Aircraft carriers, aerial refueling capabilities, etc. It definitely makes things easier though. For the Pacific the US has Australia, Guam, the Mariana Islands, etc.
> Where can I see the evidence of this "moving on" happening in the real world, rather than it just being a diplomatic spat? None of the equipment has left.
The US just walked out of Afghanistan without giving a shit about NATO and started giving nuclear technology to Australia within the span of about 3 months... The US is moving missiles out of Saudi Arabia [1].
I mean it's not like it's going to be some big announcement or something.
[1] https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-removes-advanced-missi...
France has nuclear-powered submarines carrying nuclear ICBMs. Of course they can defend their islands.
> Sure France could sail the Charles de Gualle to the Pacific
France has a permanent navy presence in the Pacific. They don't need to get an aircraft carrier there. Aircraft carriers are useless against a modern army anyway. It's all about submarines.
> because France and the EU can't really do anything
That's the second economic block in the world. There is plenty they can do to piss off America if they want to. They could think it's in their best interest to be more concilient with China for example. That's how diplomacy works.
> What's Russia going to do?
Russia is a nuclear power and one of the largest country on the planet, a country full of natural resources. They are also quite close to China and an important link in the new silkroad which is an important part of China global strategy. You can't just dismiss Russia. It's foolish.
Let's not pretend that France is going to go to nuclear war to over these territories.
> France has a permanent navy presence in the Pacific. They don't need to get an aircraft carrier there.
I mean so does the Philippines. The question is what are they going to do with it?
> Aircraft carriers are useless against a modern army anyway. It's all about submarines.
I'm not really sure that's true. And why would it be less true with better detection technology now than it would have been in World War II where aircraft carriers were what mattered?
A submarine will have to find the carrier fleet and evade defenses. No easy feat. Navies have been battling submarines for decades so it's not like it's some big secret weapon.
> That's the second economic block in the world. There is plenty they can do to piss off America if they want to.
I think this is wishful thinking. The US is far stronger than the EU is economically, and any sort of actions harms the EU too. So there isn't really much they can do.
> They could think it's in their best interest to be more concilient with China for example. That's how diplomacy works.
and that's why the US is going behind Frances back, creating and strengthening alliances with the Uk and Australia. The US has come to believe that the EU is more interested in playing both sides, which doesn't benefit the US.
> Russia is a nuclear power and one of the largest country on the planet, a country full of natural resources.
100%
> They are also quite close to China and an important link in the new silkroad which is an important part of China global strategy.
I wouldn't be so quick to toss Russia into China's lap. The silk road is mostly marketing. Some economic development but it's a ho-hum affair.
> You can't just dismiss Russia. It's foolish.
Sure I can. What exactly are they going to do? Bother Europe? It's not 1970 anymore. My point isn't that Russia doesn't have capabilities. My point is they don't really have much to do that they aren't already doing and most of it is targeted toward agitating Europe which, appears to not want the US's help with.
Who is going to conquer them?
And if someone tried, I think it is likely that other regional powers would help – Australia, New Zealand, the US – not for any great love of France, but rather because they'd see such a conquest as a threat to their own national security, so they'd want to help France out of self-interest.
New Zealand is kind of eh too. They don’t contribute much to the alliance of the Anglosphere countries and have been (for their own export-oriented economic reasons) reluctant to anger China… an ally in the region? Sure. But it depends on how (from the perspective of the US) annoying they are. The whole “no nuclear on the island” thing basically forces the US to violate New Zealand sovereignty in the event of a war if they’re going to dock there at all. So what’s the US to do? New Zealand wants to have its cake and eat it too.
Again, not judging NZ or France here, just speaking to what I’m observing in the geopolitical sphere.
Now, if they'd tried to do that, maybe it wouldn't have worked out – but it appears Australia/UK/US never tried, they did all of their negotiating completely behind closed doors, without telling France what they were doing, and then presented it to France as a fait accompli. If they tried to include France, and the discussions had broken down, France still would have taken it better than the current situation, where Australia/UK/US made no attempt to include them.
France is officially an important and long-standing formal ally to the US and the UK through NATO. Australia and France do not have a formal military alliance, but had been describing each other as "strategic partners". I think the way Australia/UK/US went about this has caused unnecessary damage to their relationship with France. They could had arrived at essentially the same outcome in a way which caused far less damage to that relationship. Viewed in that light, I don't think geopolitics is very relevant – whatever the value of France as an ally or partner, needlessly offending them is just stupid.
What I would say is that I question this premise. It’s not Trump. I don’t doubt for a second that this reaction is something of a surprise for the allies we’re discussing. So the question is why? I don’t think incompetence is a compelling answer given the current administration.
> Viewed in that light, I don't think geopolitics is very relevant – whatever the value of France as an ally or partner, needlessly offending them is just stupid.
Right. I think the US, UK, and Australia simply don’t value the EU as a partner against China. Or maybe there’s another explanation. It would take a lot of convincing that this is just ignorance or stupidity on behalf of three different countries. They either don’t care, or there is something else at play.
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 administrations have also demonstrated it, even though not to quite such an exuberant degree.
And having witnessed the lack of urgency with which the Australian federal government pursued the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, the idea that the Australian government might be incompetent, not just at fighting a pandemic, but also at managing international relations, does not seem implausible. Likewise, many Brits question the competence of the Johnson government – COVID vaccination rollout is one area in which they have done well, but in many other areas (including other aspects of COVID response) their competence is widely questioned.
France is actually the least upset at the UK, because they expect this kind of behaviour from them, especially under Boris Johnson – there is a reason why the phrase "perfidious Albion" is centuries old – but they expected better from Australia and the US.
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 and I don’t think the US views them as willing partners in the US’s approach to contain China.
Why wouldn't they? Nuclear retaliation is their whole defense doctrine. They probably won't need to because they maintain adequate diplomatic relationships with all of the different powers in the Pacific.
> I'm not really sure that's true. And why would it be less true with better detection technology now than it would have been in World War II where aircraft carriers were what mattered?
Carrier groups are too slow and carry too little protection to actually resist an attack from a military of an equivalent technological level nowadays. Anti-ballistic ship missiles and supersonic missiles fired from high altitude are a pain to detect and fly too fast to be reliably stopped. The US has been trying to develop counter-measures but their actual capabilities are unproved and they remain vulnerable to saturation. You will not be able to operate carriers close to China or Russia if they want them out of the picture.
> Sure I can. What exactly are they going to do?
Cripple your navy? Nuck you? Geopardize your economic blocus with China and provide them with the mineral they need? They could do all of these things.
Step out of your bubble. You don't understand the actual position of the USA in the modern world. You can't just dismiss countries. That's not how diplomacy works.
We’re at risk of losing any essence of what we were originally talking about. But I see no compelling reason that France would launch nuclear weapons for any reason other than a potential invasion of France or unless some other country launched nuclear weapons at it.
> Carrier groups are too slow and carry too little protection to actually resist an attack from a military of an equivalent technological level nowadays.
Not seeing any evidence of this whatsoever.
> Anti-ballistic ship missiles and supersonic missiles fired from high altitude are a pain to detect and fly too fast to be reliably stopped. The US has been trying to develop counter-measures but their actual capabilities are unproved and they remain vulnerable to saturation.
So nobody has a Navy then… and now the US just maintains the current advantages it has? And why develop hypersonic missiles (which the US has) and deploy them when your potential adversaries can’t stop cheaper cruise missiles either. Launched from, oh, idk, nuclear powered subs in the region that the US Navy also has and is increasing via allies such as Australia?
And not to mention, potential adversaries have to find US ships and overcome their defenses which, are pretty good though not perfect. Meanwhile those ships are probably out there doing things in places you don’t have reach to. If a war broke out with China, which is a country that is massively dependent on imports, you can just use your land based (Japan, Guam, Australia, etc.) and have the US Navy seize shipments coming to China. Now what? Transport resources from Central Asia to vulnerable factories and other facilities in the coast?
> You will not be able to operate carriers close to China or Russia if they want them out of the picture.
You’re assuming that it’s necessary to do so and that the US fleet is somehow just a passive recipient of attacks without countermeasures or the ability to initiate an offensive.
> Cripple your navy? Nuck you? Geopardize your economic blocus with China and provide them with the mineral they need? They could do all of these things.
Well jeez in that case the US can just nuke Russia! But we aren’t talking about unrealistic, world-ending scenarios. Russia can’t cripple the US Navy, won’t nuke it, and is already trading with China.
> Step out of your bubble. You don't understand the actual position of the USA in the modern world. You can't just dismiss countries. That's not how diplomacy works.
“Someone has a different opinion than me so they just live in a bubble”
c’mon.
European leaders can't follow all the dicktats from across the ocean, and the decision to support Iraq war has ended Tony Blair's career. I have encountered this attitude before, and the vibe I am getting is that you don't want partners and allies, you want lapdogs.
A lot of Europeans see these decisions as serving Washington's interests rather than their own, and if you want to leave europe, many like Macron will say 'good riddance'.
If the US left Europe completely what happens? That’s the question the US is asking now and by the moves they’re making it seems to me the answer is a resounding “nothing that we care about”.
By what metric did you conclude that? It doesn't have a majorlead in anything measurable
Re. USA and Russia, it was US, not EU pressing for greater sanctions against Russia
> Re. USA and Russia, it was US, not EU pressing for greater sanctions against Russia
Right... that's my entire point. The US is doing this on behalf of Europe based on the idea that there is a Russian threat (there isn't really for core EU nations) and that Europe wants to be defended. Europe doesn't want to be defended and isn't onboard with US actions to "defend" Europe. So why would the US spend any time here? What's to gain? A Europe that doesn't want the US? There's much more important things going on and you can't waste time and resources on this.
Why should they? America is an unreliable partner. They torpedoed a good deal with Iran, mismanaged the withdrawing from Afghanistan, have been a nuisance regarding the building of pipelines between Germany and Russia and an overall destabilizing force in the Middle-East. Trump did happen. The fastest Europe separates itself from the American sphere of influence, the better.
And now you know why the US and UK didn't give the slightest shit about how mad France got about this deal. NATO is dead, the US is leaving Europe for better or worse, wanted or not.
And keep in mind I'm just doing my best at an interpretation/observation. Everything you cite here from the perspective of some or many European nations can be just reasons for not wanting to throw their cards in with the US... but the US can act too and say fine, then we're moving on to what we want to do with or without you. This is clearly occurring with the pivot to Asia and strengthening of alliances.
Idk how things will shape up, but I wouldn't be shocked in the next 20-40 years to see free movement of trade and people between the US, Australia, and the UK.
I doubt that is going to happen for full free movement of people. I think Australia especially doesn't want to allow anyone from the US or the UK to move here. Professionals with degrees–doctors, nurses, lawyers, accountants, engineers, IT people, etc–I think the majority of Australians don't have a problem with that. But a flood of British retirees–or chavs–searching for sunny beaches?
I can foresee agreements to streamline the process of getting a visa for university-educated professionals and make it easier and simpler and faster, but I doubt Australia will want to agree to doing away with the selectivity and just allow anybody, even American or British unskilled labourers with no particular qualifications, to immigrate.
All speculative here so thanks for your thoughts!!!! (Serious)
If this question was raised in 2015, it would have been unequivocally yes. So was last 4 decades of partnership with NATO.
We have such a short-term memory and forgot the state of the world before the pandemic, let alone before Trump.
Australia is a big country, lots of resources, extremely important as a land of last resort in the Pacific. Far more important to US global interests than the EU. No question in my mind.
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 from? They can’t stop Russia from chipping away at countries. The EU is going to have to do that.
So for the US it’s like why spend money or resources or attention in Europe? Just trade with the EU like any other countries and get the same benefits without any of the cost.
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.
European neutrality is all that China could hope for and it is good enough for strategic detente.
> This move just upped the ante and is yet another signal of Anglosphere commitment to the region.
If it is about moving US troops and assets out of harm's way by stationing them down under, it will be a strategic retreat dressed up as pivot. It is good for peace but it also gets US out of the play. US will be like Aaron Burr: out of the room where the play is made.
> well why are European countries saber rattling against Chinese influence?
Because some peripheral European countries are desperate to keep US engaged. As much as they don't like the Russians, they won't necessarily welcome German overlords either.
Right which is why the US is moving forces out of the EU. But the problem is in the event of an actual war the EU will either be neutral (unlikely) or pro-US. It also doesn’t matter because the EU was never going to Asia anyway. So nothing of importance listed
> If it is about moving US troops and assets out of harm's way by stationing them down under, it will be a strategic retreat dressed up as pivot. It is good for peace but it also gets US out of the play. US will be like Aaron Burr: out of the room where the play is made.
No the US and the Anglosphere is just arming Australia. The US hasn’t withdrawn any troops.
> Because some peripheral European countries are desperate to keep US engaged. As much as they don't like the Russians, they won't necessarily welcome German overlords either.
Sure. That just means a thorn in the side of the Russians and Chinese.
Sure but I thought your point is that US should or will leave Europe. I actually don't believe that will happen.
> No the US and the Anglosphere is just arming Australia.
The first sub is not expected to be in service before 2040.
> The first sub is not expected to be in service before 2040.
Right. So if you wanted to say that wasn’t meaningful, then they wouldn’t do it because the timeline is perceived to be too long. But I think they’re operating on longer time scales.
But also this is just one action of many. Wouldn’t surprised to see something like a joint US, UK, Australian base in Australia or similar.
Australia could have gone with US nuclear submarines, but still thrown some sops to the French, like some engineering consulting or training cooperation or buy some components from them or something. France would not have liked that, but still would likely have been more happy than they are now, where they've been shut out completely. Even if Australia/UK/US tried to include France somehow, but it didn't work out, would have gone down better than the current situation in which they never took France into the conversation.
Whether or not it's true, or if this will work, will take a lot more time to figure out.
Recalling an ambassador over a 1-2% of GDP slight seems pretty proportionate. It is a lot of money.
The other thing that surprises me is the Anglo centric makeup of AUKUS, Oceana anyone?
Basically any diplomatic actions that on their face appear to be overreactions, or intense provocations, are better understood as communicating something to a domestic audience in a context that rewards it.
Classic example is "wolf warrior diplomacy", where tweets from Chinese officials can seem to indicate that the PLA is about to deploy tanks when in reality it's just a diplomat trying to look as nationalistic as they can for their bosses' approval.
Or when France opposed the Iraq War in 2003, the "Freedom Fries" nonsense in America was really more about the general patriotic hysteria of the moment rather than a sign that there was any enduring hatred for France.
No, that was about personal revenge for the press eviscerating her and calling her the "Ice Queen"[1] after an interview segment was shown on TV in which Merkel can be seen rejecting a refugee girl's teary-eyed plead to bend the asylum law solely for her.
[1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKBa2VvUMAE1Ymv?format=jpg&name=...
[2] https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/7/29/a-refugees-hope...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-20/australia-attack-clas...
And can anyone weigh in on whether these deals getting scuttled is so rare. Esp for advanced military equipment, I’d think that it’s quite common.
And the reason they did it this way is basically because it was domestically convenient for them to have a press release last Wednesday and they didn't want to bother with first cancelling the contract and waiting even a month with announcing the new alliance that at the moment is entirely on paper.