‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video ... deal-video

There is a discussion in the military forum about what the Australians will buy etc., but I think the political and geopolitical aspects are better for this forum.

The link I posted is from the UK, it doesn't mention that France isn't happy with that country either for its role in this...

Le Drian, the French foreign minister, was defense minister before, at the time this deal was struck, so he knows it very well.

The US claims there were advanced warnings but this is denied, on the contrary merely two weeks ago the Australians told president Macron the contract was solid.

One reason Australia chose the Barracuda derivative subs was to be somewhat independent of US policy, I guess that ship has sailed.

Well if independent policy is the goal, then ultimately able to get the country's own capability of constructing nuclear submarine can give them much more independence in the long term.

There is no plan to develop any kind of nuclear industry so it doesn't seem to be the goal. France would of course be willing to help otherwise, we sold nuclear reactors to China after all.

Aesma wrote:

There is no plan to develop any kind of nuclear industry so it doesn't seem to be the goal. France would of course be willing to help otherwise, we sold nuclear reactors to China after all.

I've read that France didn't want to do much technology transfer.

That's the nature of defence procurement.

Everyone plays dirty, including France.

In the meantime the US is asking its European allies to come to the Western Pacific to do "freedom of navigation" stuff. Acting like this towards the only one aside from the UK which has nuclear subs, nuclear ballistic missiles, and a carrier group, doesn't seem like a good way to get that.

International diplomacy is how nations screw each other over. This is not the first time, and won't be the last time these things happen. France has always been a dark horse in arms sales. Sometimes you're the pigeon, sometimes you're the statue.

Except the contract was won 5 years ago ! There are hundreds of Australians (with families) working on it in France, plenty of French people in Australia too.

Here is the concerning part for the world.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... ship-aukus

Some critics of the agreement warn that it sets a dangerous precedent for countries to exploit a loophole in the NPT. The treaty allows non nuclear weapon countries to build nuclear-powered submarines, and to remove the fissile material they need for the submarine reactors from the stockpile monitored by the global watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, opening up the possibility it could be diverted to making weapons. Australia would be the first country to make use of the loophole.

“My concern is not that Australia would misuse the nuclear material we give them and use the loophole to build nuclear weapons,” James Acton, co-chair of the nuclear policy programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said. “My concern is it sets a terrible precedent that other countries could abuse. “Iran is the obvious example here. We would go batshit if Iran removed nuclear material from safeguards.”

I understand the blow to France, but at this point, the US and UK are looking to stabilize the region and help Australia as they come under ever increasing pressure from China.
Hopefully down the road there are avenues to bring France back into this, but for now this is what we have.

extender wrote:

International diplomacy is how nations screw each other over. This is not the first time, and won't be the last time these things happen. France has always been a dark horse in arms sales. Sometimes you're the pigeon, sometimes you're the statue.

On this we agree. It's all silly business - the five permanent members of the UN 'Security Council' are also the top arms traders. What a coinkydink!

I feel that France is really over-reacting. "Drama queen" kinda stuff. And dragging on the USA for it? Any problem is completely between France and Australia. And with their "agreement" being 5 years along and Australia doing this, something tells me the agreement wasn't as agreeable as France is making it out to be.

Tugg

France's reaction may be heated and "overdone" but I think it'll serve their longer term interests well as it relates to any strategic defense goals they have in Asia in the coming decades. I don't see any other outcome here than an eventual rapprochement with the new alliance and nice fat business contracts to soothe the pain of this single outcome. Outside of Asian allies (Japan, SK, Taiwan and with sufficient effort and love someday India and an Vietnam) France is the single other power that has the assets to make a major difference in the new alliance.

At the end hundreds of meetings and countless reviews the conclusion must've been very stark that diesel subs just wouldn't suffice to protect Australia's regional and national interests. This is a great move and lets China know that any attempt to forcibly take over the South China Sea as wholly-owned Chinese territory will be countered by a deadly serious alliance with deadly serious assets. Certainly the UNCLOS ruling didn't have the desired effect.

Tugger wrote:

I feel that France is really over-reacting. "Drama queen" kinda stuff. And dragging on the USA for it? Any problem is completely between France and Australia. And with their "agreement" being 5 years along and Australia doing this, something tells me the agreement wasn't as agreeable as France is making it out to be.

Tugg

We're talking about a contract worth 56 billion euros, or about 0,023% of our GDP. I'm sure the US would take well to lose a contract of comparable size in similar circumstances, it would be a mere 522 billion dollars, who cares, right ?

Some choice quotes from the NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/us/p ... arine.html) :

The degree of French anger recalled the acrimony between Paris and Washington in 2003 over the Iraq war and involved language not seen since then. “This is not done between allies,” Jean-Yves Le Drian, the foreign minister, said in an interview with Franceinfo radio, calling the deal a “unilateral, brutal, unpredictable decision.”

French officials described the exclusion of France, a NATO member, from the new British-Australian-U.S. military partnership as a moment that will deepen an already widening rift between longstanding allies. President Emmanuel Macron has already said he intends to pursue French “strategic autonomy” from the United States.

Still, the lack of consultation — and the last-minute revelation — has infuriated French officials in Washington, who on Thursday angrily canceled a gala at their Washington embassy to protest what they called a rash and sudden policy decision that resembled those of former President Donald J. Trump.

Asked what Mr. Biden thinks about being compared to Mr. Trump, Ms. Psaki shot back: “The president doesn’t think about it much.”

The gala was to commemorate the “240th Anniversary of the Battle of the Capes,” celebrating the French navy’s help in a 1781 battle during America’s fight for independence.

deepen an already widening rift between longstanding allies

Much of that "already widening" was due to French pushing of an EU military, etc. If you look at it in realpolitik terms, what was more essential in the Pacific, a very occasional visit by the CdG CVN or the 8 new SSNs based in the region. I think the answer is obvious. It seems like the British are taking the Pacific more seriously the last year.

Aesma wrote:

Tugger wrote:

I feel that France is really over-reacting. "Drama queen" kinda stuff. And dragging on the USA for it? Any problem is completely between France and Australia. And with their "agreement" being 5 years along and Australia doing this, something tells me the agreement wasn't as agreeable as France is making it out to be.

Tugg

We're talking about a contract worth 56 billion euros, or about 0,023% of our GDP. I'm sure the US would take well to lose a contract of comparable size in similar circumstances, it would be a mere 522 billion dollars, who cares, right ?

Some choice quotes from the NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/us/p ... arine.html) :

The degree of French anger recalled the acrimony between Paris and Washington in 2003 over the Iraq war and involved language not seen since then. “This is not done between allies,” Jean-Yves Le Drian, the foreign minister, said in an interview with Franceinfo radio, calling the deal a “unilateral, brutal, unpredictable decision.”

French officials described the exclusion of France, a NATO member, from the new British-Australian-U.S. military partnership as a moment that will deepen an already widening rift between longstanding allies. President Emmanuel Macron has already said he intends to pursue French “strategic autonomy” from the United States.

Still, the lack of consultation — and the last-minute revelation — has infuriated French officials in Washington, who on Thursday angrily canceled a gala at their Washington embassy to protest what they called a rash and sudden policy decision that resembled those of former President Donald J. Trump.

Asked what Mr. Biden thinks about being compared to Mr. Trump, Ms. Psaki shot back: “The president doesn’t think about it much.”

The gala was to commemorate the “240th Anniversary of the Battle of the Capes,” celebrating the French navy’s help in a 1781 battle during America’s fight for independence.

Yes, I understand but again, it appears Australia wanted nuclear and France was not willing to "go nuclear" and so they sought out a partner(s) that would.

So I get all the indignation and the real loss, both economically and status-wise, but the customer gets to choose ultimately.

What do you think otherwise should have happened?

And if the shoe were on the other foot do you think France would have NOT done a deal with a partner that wanted to do one with them for something the USA was not willing to provide? Even if it meant obviating an existing contract with the USA? No, I think not. (I kinda think France would revel in being able to do such.)

Tugg

Another point to add...no matter how po'ed the French are, they can't turn their backs on Pacific defense because of French Polynesia and New Caledonia.

Yes, Grande Terre in New Caledonia is about half the size of Taiwan...

From what I can find Australia didn't want nuclear subs, they wanted to keep their options open for when it would be politically palatable, so the Barracuda order allowed them to change their mind on that later.

Aesma wrote:

In the meantime the US is asking its European allies to come to the Western Pacific to do "freedom of navigation" stuff.

The best bit of this is how the US complains that the Woody Island reclamation etc violates the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea whilst the US hasn't even ratified/passed/enacted the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Hypocrisy through and through.

Honestly, the more I read about the South China Sea dispute, the more I think it's like the War in Eurasia in 1984. China needs to appease their Sino-Nationalists and know that invading Taiwan would be catastrophic. America's Military Industrial Complex needs the next Gravy Train now that the money for Iraq and Afghanistan all but stopped. Thus lots of nationalistic chest thumping. Lots of land reclamation in the SCA. Lots of enormous military exercises. Lots of P8 Poseidons, Submarines and everything in between sold. Lots of angry press releases and press conferences about ABC violating XYZ's airspace/territorial waters.

With the Submarines, France offered nuclear submarines, Australia wanted them redesigned to be diesel electric. Then they kept changing their desired specifications (with an the expected effect on budgets and completion dates). Then they did want nuclear after all.

Nuclear is controversial in Australia. Not as much so as in New Zealand but infinitely more so than in France, USA and England. The decision to acquire Nuclear Submarines is probably the biggest defense strategy shift in Australia since Vietnam: all over the headlines. Will be interesting to see how it's received politically. Might be a bit of a political hot potato in years to come.

That the US would work to undermine an ally is not surprising. Bad things happened to Gough Whitlam when he tried to close Pine Gap. With 'allies' like the US.....

To be honest, these kind of games between the big boys with nukes, makes the case why those without nukes who can build them, should. And to hell with non-proliferation because you cannot trust no one anymore. The only trustworthy nukes are the nukes you own and can hit back with.

Derico wrote:

To be honest, these kind of games between the big boys with nukes, makes the case why those without nukes who can build them, should. And to hell with non-proliferation because you cannot trust no one anymore. The only trustworthy nukes are the nukes you own and can hit back with.

The only trustworthy nukes are ones that aren't built and can't be used.

While in someways you are right, it only leads to greater likelyhood of nuclear war and mass death and destruction.

Tugg

Will France now resurrect the Continental System and attempt to "punish the Anglosaxons"?

Tugger wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Tugger wrote:

I feel that France is really over-reacting. "Drama queen" kinda stuff. And dragging on the USA for it? Any problem is completely between France and Australia. And with their "agreement" being 5 years along and Australia doing this, something tells me the agreement wasn't as agreeable as France is making it out to be.

Tugg

We're talking about a contract worth 56 billion euros, or about 0,023% of our GDP. I'm sure the US would take well to lose a contract of comparable size in similar circumstances, it would be a mere 522 billion dollars, who cares, right ?

Some choice quotes from the NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/us/p ... arine.html) :

The degree of French anger recalled the acrimony between Paris and Washington in 2003 over the Iraq war and involved language not seen since then. “This is not done between allies,” Jean-Yves Le Drian, the foreign minister, said in an interview with Franceinfo radio, calling the deal a “unilateral, brutal, unpredictable decision.”

French officials described the exclusion of France, a NATO member, from the new British-Australian-U.S. military partnership as a moment that will deepen an already widening rift between longstanding allies. President Emmanuel Macron has already said he intends to pursue French “strategic autonomy” from the United States.

Still, the lack of consultation — and the last-minute revelation — has infuriated French officials in Washington, who on Thursday angrily canceled a gala at their Washington embassy to protest what they called a rash and sudden policy decision that resembled those of former President Donald J. Trump.

Asked what Mr. Biden thinks about being compared to Mr. Trump, Ms. Psaki shot back: “The president doesn’t think about it much.”

The gala was to commemorate the “240th Anniversary of the Battle of the Capes,” celebrating the French navy’s help in a 1781 battle during America’s fight for independence.

Yes, I understand but again, it appears Australia wanted nuclear and France was not willing to "go nuclear" and so they sought out a partner(s) that would.

So I get all the indignation and the real loss, both economically and status-wise, but the customer gets to choose ultimately.

What do you think otherwise should have happened?

And if the shoe were on the other foot do you think France would have NOT done a deal with a partner that wanted to do one with them for something the USA was not willing to provide? Even if it meant obviating an existing contract with the USA? No, I think not. (I kinda think France would revel in being able to do such.)

Tugg

Not really...

The Australians were already running into developmental problems right from day one with the French contract. The French were already over budget, heavily delayed, with numerous other technical issues not being resolved. Negotiations between the French and the Australians were reported to have gone so badly early last year that the Australians were already looking for a contingency plan to walk away if negotiations continued to be stalled:

https://www.defensenews.com/2020/01/17/ ... val-group/

It looks like the Australians have decided to walk away, following the recommendations.

Importantly Scott Morrison that fella from down under is facing having to fight an election in probably the next six months.
A lot of Australians are very unhappy with his part in their current covid situation. The flaws in their quarantine system, covid deaths in aged care facilities, and a slow and shambolic vaccine procurement and rollout. And his support "never having another lockdown" NSW that led to the failure to contain a small outbreak that has now engulfed NSW and VIC and spread at times to everywhere else in Australia, bar TAS and NZ.
Also his dilatory approach to climate change and some chauvinistic attitudes are alienating sections of the electorate.

zkojq wrote:

With the Submarines, France offered nuclear submarines, Australia wanted them redesigned to be diesel electric. Then they kept changing their desired specifications (with an the expected effect on budgets and completion dates). Then they did want nuclear after all.

Is this true? I can't find any corroboration, albeit a quick search only, that France had nuclear boats on the table. More facts are coming out now that this contract was not going well at all. In France's defense I can't think of a single one that ever did. But let's wait to see more facts come out. I see a lot of evidence already that this should not have come as a surprise to people in the know on the French side. The fact remains, with China dialing its nine dash line up to eleven, diesel boats aren't the right tool for the job. And let's not kid ourselves, a partnership like this sends an unequivocal message to China and, equally important, another from the US to its allies in Asia. The protection they're seeking to confirm and bolster in the face of China's military aspirations could never come from the EU. That's not an insult, that's a fact based on Francs's and the EU's regional capabilities and stated policy of non confrontation (with Russia or China). This whole deal is superbly rational on so many levels it begs the question how it didn't happen 10 years ago.

wingman wrote:

zkojq wrote:

With the Submarines, France offered nuclear submarines, Australia wanted them redesigned to be diesel electric. Then they kept changing their desired specifications (with an the expected effect on budgets and completion dates). Then they did want nuclear after all.

Is this true? I can't find any corroboration, albeit a quick search only, that France had nuclear boats on the table. More facts are coming out now that this contract was not going well at all. In France's defense I can't think of a single one that ever did. But let's wait to see more facts come out. I see a lot of evidence already that this should not have come as a surprise to people in the know on the French side. The fact remains, with China dialing its nine dash line up to eleven, diesel boats aren't the right tool for the job. And let's not kid ourselves, a partnership like this sends an unequivocal message to China and, equally important, another from the US to its allies in Asia. The protection they're seeking to confirm and bolster in the face of China's military aspirations could never come from the EU. That's not an insult, that's a fact based on Francs's and the EU's regional capabilities and stated policy of non confrontation (with Russia or China). This whole deal is superbly rational on so many levels it begs the question how it didn't happen 10 years ago.

The French offered a non-nuclear version of their Barracuda attack submarine, called the Short-Fin Barracuda to meet the Australian design requirements.

The big issue with the French Barracuda-class derivative was that the French would have had to redesign the submarine for a conventional power plant, and also try to fit and integrate American combat systems and weapons into the design. And the Australians would be in effect the launch customer of this Frankenstein of a design, and be left holding the bag if something did go wrong, which it would have. No wonder the Aussies canned the procurement.

I think there are more angles to the above that people thought. One should remember that whether New Zealand, Australia or even U.S. still have their independent trade relations with China in which China dominates. We will never know as to what was discussed, understood and what was signed. Have seen this enough in Govt. as well as corporate organizations.

Also, if one of the either parties expect that writing down is just the start of the process (the agreement) and many things can be negotiated and re-negotiated then those misunderstandings can also create situations such as above. At the end, whether it is China or Russia, both will be pleased with the outcomes so far.

Another point which somebody made about history, U.S. has backstabbed its own allies number of times especially when they see them as competitor. After destroying Japan via the two nukes (WWII), they used same/similar Marshall plan but when Japan started becoming big, it slapped sanctions against it and did plaza accord. Both the famed Japanese navy and its mercantile arm which were famous world-over was forced to become a mere shadow of itself. China saw the opportunity and the U.S. having tasted how cheaper imports stabilized their economy didn't want that to end. This actually lead China to grow. Why do we all forget that? The Americans also did know when the Chinese started expanding the mercantile fleet, but the U.S. slept on the wheel. Shared by none other than an American mercantile officer. https://www.andrewerickson.com/2021/07/ ... the-world/

Think have shared the long-read I shared before as well. Either way you look at it, as the popular saying goes, 'there are no free lunches', America realized but perhaps a bit too late. And now trying all these things, which is fuelling more chaos rather than anything else. None of the countries seem to have anything in common with each other than the fact that they hate China, and that isn't good enough for any sort of equal-unequal partnership.

This could have been handled much better by the US and especially Australia. France has every right to be angry. France also is a major player in the Indo Pacific area and it would be wise of the US and Australia to have good relations with France . This was not helpful.

Mortyman wrote:

This could have been handled much better by the US and especially Australia. France has every right to be angry. France also is a major player in the Indo Pacific area and it would be wise of the US and Australia to have good relations with France . This was not helpful.

Australians generally were very surprised by this announcement earlier in the weak, and especailly from our empiracally worst PM in 50 years. To drive us from a position of mid-ranking, reasonably independent "western" country in the Asia-Pacific into such an apparently strong alliance with a superpower from a century ago and a declining superpower seems a poor move for the nation.

Many Australians already thought the $90 billion submarine aquisition from France was questionable. To now dump this for US nuclear submarines is gob-smacking.

casinterest wrote:

Here is the concerning part for the world.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... ship-aukus

Some critics of the agreement warn that it sets a dangerous precedent for countries to exploit a loophole in the NPT. The treaty allows non nuclear weapon countries to build nuclear-powered submarines, and to remove the fissile material they need for the submarine reactors from the stockpile monitored by the global watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, opening up the possibility it could be diverted to making weapons. Australia would be the first country to make use of the loophole.

“My concern is not that Australia would misuse the nuclear material we give them and use the loophole to build nuclear weapons,” James Acton, co-chair of the nuclear policy programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said. “My concern is it sets a terrible precedent that other countries could abuse. “Iran is the obvious example here. We would go batshit if Iran removed nuclear material from safeguards.”

I understand the blow to France, but at this point, the US and UK are looking to stabilize the region and help Australia as they come under ever increasing pressure from China.
Hopefully down the road there are avenues to bring France back into this, but for now this is what we have.

How is this stablising the region? It's just adding to the existing arms race. The Aussies probably won't receive there first boat until sometime in the 2030's, a lot can change between now and then.

Tugger wrote:

Derico wrote:

To be honest, these kind of games between the big boys with nukes, makes the case why those without nukes who can build them, should. And to hell with non-proliferation because you cannot trust no one anymore. The only trustworthy nukes are the nukes you own and can hit back with.

The only trustworthy nukes are ones that aren't built and can't be used.

While in someways you are right, it only leads to greater likelyhood of nuclear war and mass death and destruction.

Tugg

I think it's a wash. I think everyone that could have nukes having them would make it less likely there would be a destructive mass casualty war, because it would make any nation think 10 times before attacking another, just as it occurs now between the ones that do.

It would make the chance of a rogue nuclear event clearly more likely, as there would be a far greater chance that they fall into the hands of a non-government actor with evil intentions. It's pick your poison really.

No nukes is clearly not an option given the craven attitude of the nuclear powers.

Derico wrote:

To be honest, these kind of games between the big boys with nukes, makes the case why those without nukes who can build them, should. And to hell with non-proliferation because you cannot trust no one anymore. The only trustworthy nukes are the nukes you own and can hit back with.

Israel with US backing has been giving the finger to the NPT for decades.

Derico wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Derico wrote:

To be honest, these kind of games between the big boys with nukes, makes the case why those without nukes who can build them, should. And to hell with non-proliferation because you cannot trust no one anymore. The only trustworthy nukes are the nukes you own and can hit back with.

The only trustworthy nukes are ones that aren't built and can't be used.

While in someways you are right, it only leads to greater likelyhood of nuclear war and mass death and destruction.

Tugg

I think it's a wash. I think everyone that could have nukes having them would make it less likely there would be a destructive mass casualty war, because it would make any nation think 10 times before attacking another, just as it occurs now between the ones that do.

It would make the chance of a rogue nuclear event clearly more likely, as there would be a far greater chance that they fall into the hands of a non-government actor with evil intentions. It's pick your poison really.

No nukes is clearly not an option given the craven attitude of the nuclear powers.

We are talking about nuclear powered submarines, not nuclear armed submarines.

It is likely that with an Australian nuclear submarine, while the bulk of the boat will be built in Australia, the reactor section would be built overseas and shipped to Australia to be fitted to the rest of the sections. Major servicing and refuelling could of course be done overseas.

ThePointblank wrote:

Derico wrote:

Tugger wrote:

The only trustworthy nukes are ones that aren't built and can't be used.

While in someways you are right, it only leads to greater likelyhood of nuclear war and mass death and destruction.

Tugg

I think it's a wash. I think everyone that could have nukes having them would make it less likely there would be a destructive mass casualty war, because it would make any nation think 10 times before attacking another, just as it occurs now between the ones that do.

It would make the chance of a rogue nuclear event clearly more likely, as there would be a far greater chance that they fall into the hands of a non-government actor with evil intentions. It's pick your poison really.

No nukes is clearly not an option given the craven attitude of the nuclear powers.

We are talking about nuclear powered submarines, not nuclear armed submarines.

It is likely that with an Australian nuclear submarine, while the bulk of the boat will be built in Australia, the reactor section would be built overseas and shipped to Australia to be fitted to the rest of the sections. Major servicing and refuelling could of course be done overseas.

Amazing how some with so little knowledge about a subject can have such strong options on it.
SSN = Nuclear powered, conventionally armed. In the Cold War US SSN’s could carry nuclear tipped anti sub weapons but not since then. The USSR did for anti shipping.
Russian ones might still do.
SSBN = Nuclear powered armed with nuclear armed ballistic missiles.
Australia wants SSN’s since the threat from China has escalated in their region in the last few years, so the range and endurance advantages of the SSN when you consider how vast that region is, plus the contract with France was controversial from the start and got worse.

France today recalling its ambassadors from the US and Australia won’t change that, they maybe should perhaps ask why the contract was cancelled without resorting to the all too common cry of ‘Anglo plots, de Gualle’s been dead over 50 years for heaven’s sake.

casinterest wrote:

I understand the blow to France, but at this point, the US and UK are looking to stabilize the region and help Australia as they come under ever increasing pressure from China.
Hopefully down the road there are avenues to bring France back into this, but for now this is what we have.

stabilize the region ??

Laughable

i understand Australia and other countries concern about China in the region, but this will not stabilize the region. That is just a hopelesly naive thing to say.

Mortyman wrote:

This could have been handled much better by the US and especially Australia. France has every right to be angry. France also is a major player in the Indo Pacific area and it would be wise of the US and Australia to have good relations with France . This was not helpful.

I think from France's POV this is the main point. Even the US admits that when they say they told France in advance, they mean they called the Elysée palace a couple hours before the announcement !

If Australia changed its geopolitical stance and instead of going with relatively neutral France wants to escalate things with an alliance with the US, then everyone will admit that changing the order makes sense (although we really don't know yet what is ordered exactly, and how much will it cost). However this should have been said months ago by both countries to France, an ally of them, and the only other Western country with a decent military that has actually territory and citizens in the region.

Philosophically, France supports Taiwan's independence of course, but if a war happened now, would we even want to participate with such allies ?

China has announced that Australian territory is now fair game for nuclear strikes, I wonder how Australian people will take this.

Aesma wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

This could have been handled much better by the US and especially Australia. France has every right to be angry. France also is a major player in the Indo Pacific area and it would be wise of the US and Australia to have good relations with France . This was not helpful.

I think from France's POV this is the main point. Even the US admits that when they say they told France in advance, they mean they called the Elysée palace a couple hours before the announcement !

If Australia changed its geopolitical stance and instead of going with relatively neutral France wants to escalate things with an alliance with the US, then everyone will admit that changing the order makes sense (although we really don't know yet what is ordered exactly, and how much will it cost). However this should have been said months ago by both countries to France, an ally of them, and the only other Western country with a decent military that has actually territory and citizens in the region.

Philosophically, France supports Taiwan's independence of course, but if a war happened now, would we even want to participate with such allies ?

China has announced that Australian territory is now fair game for nuclear strikes, I wonder how Australian people will take this.

The French should have seen this coming; there were signals from Australia indicating that they wanted out of the deal since at least June:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/breaki ... 0c3d6291d3

Mr Moriarty said he had thought more about the issue over last 12 months and had a number of discussions with senior officers about how to proceed if the project to build the 12 Attack Class submarines falls through.

“It became clear to me that we were having challenges with the Attack class program, over the last 15, 12 months,” he said.

“So, of course, you do reasonably prudent thinking about what one of those options might be or what you might be able to do if you’re unable to proceed.”

However, Mr Moriarty said no decision had been made and the government was committed to the project with French submarine company, Naval Group.

This after in April, the Australian government refused to sign a contract for the next phase of the French submarine project, giving Naval Group until this month to comply with its demands about providing a promise to the delivery schedule and pricing:
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/ne ... 513-p57rid

With the previously revised schedule for the delivery of the now cancelled Attack class submarines, the earliest delivery date possible was in 2035 or later, with construction extending into the 2050s.

It's clear that the Australians are moving towards their contingency plan towards a US/UK nuclear design because they've reached their limits to the lack of progress with the French.

Call an ambassador home over a lost arms sale! How diplomatic.

Kiwirob wrote:

How is this stablising the region? It's just adding to the existing arms race. The Aussies probably won't receive there first boat until sometime in the 2030's, a lot can change between now and then.

China has been remarkably consistent in their approach in the region, I have not seen any retreat in any of their stated principles related to territory and influence, indeed they like Russia have expanded by force, no different than some say the USA has done. The USA retreated from Viet Nam, Iraq and now Afghanistan, where has China retreated?
Now if you mean that Australia may change their opinion I agree, as I posted earlier, once China exerts its trade influence which I expect to be greater than the existing measures due to the current spat about Covid, I expect the Aussies to change course and possibly allow USA and UK nuclear basing and go diesel for their defensive subs.

ThePointblank wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

This could have been handled much better by the US and especially Australia. France has every right to be angry. France also is a major player in the Indo Pacific area and it would be wise of the US and Australia to have good relations with France . This was not helpful.

I think from France's POV this is the main point. Even the US admits that when they say they told France in advance, they mean they called the Elysée palace a couple hours before the announcement !

If Australia changed its geopolitical stance and instead of going with relatively neutral France wants to escalate things with an alliance with the US, then everyone will admit that changing the order makes sense (although we really don't know yet what is ordered exactly, and how much will it cost). However this should have been said months ago by both countries to France, an ally of them, and the only other Western country with a decent military that has actually territory and citizens in the region.

Philosophically, France supports Taiwan's independence of course, but if a war happened now, would we even want to participate with such allies ?

China has announced that Australian territory is now fair game for nuclear strikes, I wonder how Australian people will take this.

The French should have seen this coming; there were signals from Australia indicating that they wanted out of the deal since at least June:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/breaki ... 0c3d6291d3

Mr Moriarty said he had thought more about the issue over last 12 months and had a number of discussions with senior officers about how to proceed if the project to build the 12 Attack Class submarines falls through.

“It became clear to me that we were having challenges with the Attack class program, over the last 15, 12 months,” he said.

“So, of course, you do reasonably prudent thinking about what one of those options might be or what you might be able to do if you’re unable to proceed.”

However, Mr Moriarty said no decision had been made and the government was committed to the project with French submarine company, Naval Group.

This after in April, the Australian government refused to sign a contract for the next phase of the French submarine project, giving Naval Group until this month to comply with its demands about providing a promise to the delivery schedule and pricing:
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/ne ... 513-p57rid

With the previously revised schedule for the delivery of the now cancelled Attack class submarines, the earliest delivery date possible was in 2035 or later, with construction extending into the 2050s.

It's clear that the Australians are moving towards their contingency plan towards a US/UK nuclear design because they've reached their limits to the lack of progress with the French.

IMHO the Australians were just creating an excuse to dump their contract, knowing a deal with US/UK was just around the corner. This kind of deals aren’t made overnight and you have to find some legal loopholes to get out of it.
The way it took the French by surprise and their action shows this wasn’t a contract on the verge of cancellation.

So we actually believe that the French government does not have and use intelligence resources in the UK, US and AUS?
How much of this "surprise" and its resulting effects are genuine or means for additional political / economic moves?

ThePointblank wrote:

The French should have seen this coming; there were signals from Australia indicating that they wanted out of the deal since at least June:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/breaki ... 0c3d6291d3

Mr Moriarty said he had thought more about the issue over last 12 months and had a number of discussions with senior officers about how to proceed if the project to build the 12 Attack Class submarines falls through.

“It became clear to me that we were having challenges with the Attack class program, over the last 15, 12 months,” he said.

“So, of course, you do reasonably prudent thinking about what one of those options might be or what you might be able to do if you’re unable to proceed.”

However, Mr Moriarty said no decision had been made and the government was committed to the project with French submarine company, Naval Group.

This after in April, the Australian government refused to sign a contract for the next phase of the French submarine project, giving Naval Group until this month to comply with its demands about providing a promise to the delivery schedule and pricing:
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/ne ... 513-p57rid

With the previously revised schedule for the delivery of the now cancelled Attack class submarines, the earliest delivery date possible was in 2035 or later, with construction extending into the 2050s.

It's clear that the Australians are moving towards their contingency plan towards a US/UK nuclear design because they've reached their limits to the lack of progress with the French.

I was talking about diplomacy not intelligence. The French side knew very well something was up, that's why they seeked reassurance from the Aussies and indeed the US. That's why both ambassadors are called back : Australia and the USA blatantly lied - only days ago - about the deal they were making in France's back.

As for the new deal, do you know things we don't ? Are you sure Australia will get submarines before 2035 ? Is the refit of the Collins class cancelled ?

BTW about the cancelled contract, I also think the "issues" were a set up to pay as little compensation as possible to Naval Group. I've heard something like 400 millions euros need to be paid.

Also, you can better understand why France didn't want to share too much sensible technology...

Mortyman wrote:

stabilize the region ??

Laughable

i understand Australia and other countries concern about China in the region, but this will not stabilize the region. That is just a hopelesly naive thing to say.

I'd argue just the opposite. In the face of military expansionism nothing is more destabilizing than doing nothing. A European of all people should understand that. Non confrontation is a choice and I respect it. But ask people that live in South Asia bordering China or Eastern Europeans if they have confidence in that kind of policy. A poll in the Baltics, Ukraine, Poland, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, The Philippines, Australia etc etc would be very revealing. To the point of AUKUS, China being in complete control of the world's most valuable shipping lanes is a vital strategic interest for the entire world.

Some people argue that the US is nothing but a destabilizing back-stabbing world killer. The facts don't bear that out. Since WWII US allies and defeated Axis powers have enjoyed the greatest period of peace, wealth creation and technological advancement the world has ever experienced. We didn't do that on our or exclusively for ourselves. We did that together and by designing and promoting a world order that maximized the benefits for more people than any other "global order" or "global superpower" before it. It's far from perfect and terrible mistakes were made along the way, but on balance it's a positive result.

If anyone here thinks China or Russia has that kind of long-term interest they are more naive than anyone in the room. Russia's entire raison d'être is global DE-stablization and China cares about nothing more than nationalistic glory and controlling the thoughts of 1.2B people and eventually all 7B of us. They would eat the world like Saturn ate his son. If French anger is so deep and true that it leads to the creation of world-class 1M person EU military force to protect EU interests I think that would be an outstanding long-term consequence of AUKUS.

Just a few points...
1. Maybe this is "destabilizing", but not in the way that most assume. China keeps building their military, no matter what other countries do, or don't do. It's destabilizing because China is getting pushback, which they didn't expect.
2. So many posters are so "anti-US" that the UK is almost totally ignored here. Yet, the UK is an equal member in the treaty and it seems likely that the Aussie SSNs will be British designs. Of course, that matters naught to those who hate the US.

johns624 wrote:

Just a few points...
1. Maybe this is "destabilizing", but not in the way that most assume. China keeps building their military, no matter what other countries do, or don't do. It's destabilizing because China is getting pushback, which they didn't expect.
2. So many posters are so "anti-US" that the UK is almost totally ignored here. Yet, the UK is an equal member in the treaty and it seems likely that the Aussie SSNs will be British designs. Of course, that matters naught to those who hate the US.

France got snubbed here 5 years into a deal, and while I think Australia can make deals with who and what they want, there are a lot of resources that go into commitments such as these. Perhaps France will find other buyers.
My big concern here is whether this is an offshoot of Brexit and it's effects on Trade between all countries involved. Will this be the start of a new economic power alliance, or a one time deal that might help the UK out a bit due to their Brexit issues .

I'm kind of surprised that Canada wasn't included. Maybe it has something to do with them not trusting Trudeau. The way that Canada has pushed back on choosing a new fighter and building the ice patrol ships before the sorely needed CSCs, they don't think that Canada can bring much to the table.

pune wrote:

Another point which somebody made about history, U.S. has backstabbed its own allies number of times especially when they see them as competitor. After destroying Japan via the two nukes (WWII), they used same/similar Marshall plan but when Japan started becoming big, it slapped sanctions against it and did plaza accord. Both the famed Japanese navy and its mercantile arm which were famous world-over was forced to become a mere shadow of itself. China saw the opportunity and the U.S. having tasted how cheaper imports stabilized their economy didn't want that to end. This actually lead China to grow. Why do we all forget that? The Americans also did know when the Chinese started expanding the mercantile fleet, but the U.S. slept on the wheel. Shared by none other than an American mercantile officer. https://www.andrewerickson.com/2021/07/ ... the-world/

Think have shared the long-read I shared before as well. Either way you look at it, as the popular saying goes, 'there are no free lunches', America realized but perhaps a bit too late. And now trying all these things, which is fuelling more chaos rather than anything else. None of the countries seem to have anything in common with each other than the fact that they hate China, and that isn't good enough for any sort of equal-unequal partnership.

Spent most of my career in the Shipping Industry. The US did not force the Japanese out of shipping or producing things for that matter. Japanese wages grew to those of the US and Europe. Building and crewing ships is not rocket science but is labor intensive. Whoever has the cheapest labor wins.

America still runs a large trade deficit with Japan so I'm not sure where you got that fact from.
Top Five Trade Partners (Google)
Mexico - $615 billion traded with a $102 billion deficit
Canada - $612 billion traded with a $27 billion deficit 
China - $559 billion traded with a $346 billion deficit
Japan - $218 billion traded with a $69 billion deficit
Germany - $188 billion traded with a $67 billion deficit

marcelh wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I think from France's POV this is the main point. Even the US admits that when they say they told France in advance, they mean they called the Elysée palace a couple hours before the announcement !

If Australia changed its geopolitical stance and instead of going with relatively neutral France wants to escalate things with an alliance with the US, then everyone will admit that changing the order makes sense (although we really don't know yet what is ordered exactly, and how much will it cost). However this should have been said months ago by both countries to France, an ally of them, and the only other Western country with a decent military that has actually territory and citizens in the region.

Philosophically, France supports Taiwan's independence of course, but if a war happened now, would we even want to participate with such allies ?

China has announced that Australian territory is now fair game for nuclear strikes, I wonder how Australian people will take this.

The French should have seen this coming; there were signals from Australia indicating that they wanted out of the deal since at least June:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/breaki ... 0c3d6291d3

Mr Moriarty said he had thought more about the issue over last 12 months and had a number of discussions with senior officers about how to proceed if the project to build the 12 Attack Class submarines falls through.

“It became clear to me that we were having challenges with the Attack class program, over the last 15, 12 months,” he said.

“So, of course, you do reasonably prudent thinking about what one of those options might be or what you might be able to do if you’re unable to proceed.”

However, Mr Moriarty said no decision had been made and the government was committed to the project with French submarine company, Naval Group.

This after in April, the Australian government refused to sign a contract for the next phase of the French submarine project, giving Naval Group until this month to comply with its demands about providing a promise to the delivery schedule and pricing:
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/ne ... 513-p57rid

With the previously revised schedule for the delivery of the now cancelled Attack class submarines, the earliest delivery date possible was in 2035 or later, with construction extending into the 2050s.

It's clear that the Australians are moving towards their contingency plan towards a US/UK nuclear design because they've reached their limits to the lack of progress with the French.

IMHO the Australians were just creating an excuse to dump their contract, knowing a deal with US/UK was just around the corner. This kind of deals aren’t made overnight and you have to find some legal loopholes to get out of it.
The way it took the French by surprise and their action shows this wasn’t a contract on the verge of cancellation.

The French knew that the Australians were concerned and upset with the French over the lack of progress with the contract, technical problems, and the budget blowout since January 2020:

https://www.defensenews.com/2020/01/17/ ... val-group/

They should have been paying attention to political news in Australia for over a year; the messaging was becoming increasingly clear that the Australians were becoming frustrated for a while and were looking for a way out.

My question is: did the Australians negotiate in bad faith with the French, or did they change their minds only at the last minute?

While I can understand France is upset over the diplomacy of this, recalling ambassadors seems like an overreaction. I also find it interesting that all the French rage is directed at Australia and the US, when it was initiated and coordinated by the UK. All the more telling that this reaction is a bit of political theater by Macron since there's an election coming up. I guess it's easier to use the US as a scapegoat rather than go after the UK as well.

https://www.politico.eu/article/why-aus ... -sub-deal/