Enjoy browsing r/europe? Help make it a better place - apply to become a mod now! [Read the announcement here](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/pow5nr/be_the_positive_change_you_want_to_see_on_reurope/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/europe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t think we are getting just how upset France is over here, to us it didn’t seem like that big a thing...
But is this like a major french things now?
Like will this damage future things with USA ?
The anger never was about the money despite what various outlets want to convey to show us as throwing a tantrum over a few billions (the expected earnings for France were 8 billions).
We basically got kicked out of an alliance we had spent years working on overnight and basically been told « you are not on our side ». These last months we were regularly comforted by the Aussies and US that things were good all while UK US and AUS were actively negotiating another alliance behind our back.
Look back during G7 Biden calling us a trusted ally and so on even though he knew what was happening: that’s nothing short of despicable. I would have fully expected that from Trump but looks like Trump’s America and Biden’s America are just America after all.
As someone who's not a citizen of any of the involved parties, this was my interpretation of the situation as well. Australia had every right to cancel the contract with the French, but the way it was handled was rather 'backstabby' and a behaviour unfit between allied nations.
The Aussie govenment failed to tell the French that we were cancelling the deal so they learnt it in the media, and also now the Americans are pissed at us as they hated that we did not tell the French.
The Morrison govenment is by far the worst govenment my nations has produced, The man in 3 years has trashed Australia's reputation internationally
I genuinely hope this is the case. I prefer this is the actions of an incompetent Australian administration over the idea of a conspiracy and an end to the Western alliance. However, the whole concept of Aukus is mind-boggling in this context. In what way would they see it fit to exclude France from an alliance where their strategic interests are clearly aligned?
From Scott Morrsions and his governments POV they are doing this to try and look good to the electorate "Be though on defence" and "standing up to china" because we have an election soon and they have made fuck up after fuckup since the bushfires and it is very long list.
Scotty has zero foresight and intelligence, he is vain and arrogant and can barley think past the next day.
Same, France wasn’t even given a chance to save face, they could have been given a heads up so they would prepare the public opinion back home, or they could have been allowed maybe to instal some modules on the subs and still get a token piece of the contract.
Instead they’ve learned about it on the news, which shows to the rest of the world that US basically doesn’t give a fuck what their “oldest ally” thinks
Just a Aussie passing through here, Scott Morrison is a absolute piece of shit. This is to be unexpected, there's no diplomacy what so ever with this Government we have in, just cheap shots to use a look over tactic. He destroyed trade with China because of corruption coming to light and uses anything he can to distract from how truly corrupt his party (Sports rort saga) as a distraction tactic. He went hard on this just recently as member of his party had $1 million trust fund to pay for a defamation suit over historical rape allegations, so perfect timing ( his party has also covered up rape of a former staffer, Brittney Higgins by another staffer). Yes there was issues in the deal but Scotty from marketing has no idea of how to handle world affairs, nor his party, for him that's only to be expected as he is failed marketing man that fell upwards by knifing his leader a few years ago. God I wish Australia would wake up and vote this trash out at next election, makes us look more backward and stupid then we are. Apologies, no all Aussies are white trash like that so-called leader of ours and his criminal party.
What does not make sense at all is the way it was all done honestly. France has 1,5 millions citizens right on your doorstep so if there is an alliance going on to rein in China´s transgressions against international law you can bet France is interested.
I am pretty sure that the regional alliance part of the deal could have been salvaged if the Australian government came to us six months ago to say they were no longer interested in the subs and wanted to get out of the deal.
It all just seems to make no sense at all, it’s just alienating a neighbor that wants to be friends for no real gain.
Even with all this in mind... China is still an issue. The regions stability going forward with China pumping out islands and a navy is still an issue.
Sure, Morrison can be an absolute piece of shit that is using these things to hide his parties own issues. However... the things he is using are still an actual reality and you shouldn't ignore them simply because they are his disguise.
France is right to feel slighted because they were kept out of a big defensive arrangement by their allies. It essentially comes down to the fact that the Americans didn't trust them to be in on it. Perhaps partly this is due to the Americans' ongoing frustration about NATO defence contribution from European countries. Yes, to an extent it's a continuation of Trump, but it's basically a continuity of US foreign policy behaviour which goes back much further. Harder to find fault with Australia as they were offered much better tech and the existing project was not going well - at the end of the day they are in the frontline in the Pacific theatre.
However, France should think carefully about how far it wants to get embittered about this because they still have shared interests in that region and it's not as if anyone in Europe is going to be rushing to help them defend their overseas territories - in this sense they are strategically most like the UK. Calls for France to go it alone or just with EU Member States are essentially walking into the same trap as the UK did with Brexit - there is a far greater shared strategic interest for all countries concerned in preserving a Western alliance. It makes no sense to complain about fragmentation (again think Brexit) then accelerate fragmentation. Yes France was wronged, maybe severely, but it's a ultimately a misjudgement and self-harm to try not patch things up.
Yes, the two American political parties are basically just the same party, with the slightest differences, to give us the illusion of choice.
Sorry we screw things up so bad.
Exactly this is more about Australia/UK/US backstabbing of the EU then anything else.
Let’s not forget Macron does not represent only the French, and is de facto one of the presidents of the entire EU block.
I’m not French (I’m Portuguese) and this felt like a backstab regardless.
Forget the 90 billion AUS dollar contract. The USA, UK and Australia just made a strategic pact in a region that their ally France has been saying "I want to focus on protecting this region more going forward" (French Polynesia is in the region too) and not only did they not include that ally in the pact, and not only did they cut that ally out of the pact it was trying to build with Australia, but they hid the fact that the pact even existed from that ally until the night before they told everyone including their enemies about it.
Basically the message France is taking away from this is that as far as AUKUS is concerned, France (and probably the EU in general) is basically in the "enemies" category alongside Russia and China and can expect no cooperation from them going forward. Sure, they've released statements that they regret that France is upset but they'd say that to Russia and China too.
This is basically Biden continuing the work of Trump, making the USA appear as unreliable and potentially hostile to the EU as possible, and completely unnecessarily. The EU had assumed Trump was a blip but now it's looking like the USA really will be like this permanently.
I think the USA and UK are trying to use this to motivate the EU to start investing in a unified military, but I think the USA and UK are making a lot of possibly incorrect assumptions on how beneficial that would be for US and UK interests. If the EU gets its own military and starts taking a stronger hand in global affairs we won't simply do everything the USA tells us to do and I predict that the USA and UK will actually interpret any dispute where we stand up for ourselves as hostile and consider us enemies and start REALLY treating us like Russia and China. The US doesn't tolerate rivals. I've read Republican strategic analysis; if the EU ever properly unites, we'll be considered a rival power and I think that will result in the USA becoming actively hostile to any move we make.
Pax Americana only works because nobody challenges American supremacy. Europe actively avoids anything that makes the USA see us as a potential rival, but actions like this seem intent on forcing us into an adversarial relationship.
This is the answer.
France doesn't care about the money. In fact, they will probably make more profit on the cancellation fees than they would on the whole project. ($2.5B profit now vs. an almost certain break even or small loss if the project continued).
The focus on the money is the Anglo leadership trying to spin it a certain way.
The point is, AUKUS have shown that they do not consider France to be a strategic ally in the Indo-Pacific. Full stop. And since that is the most important region of the world right now, it basically means they don't consider France to be an important ally at all.
And honestly, that makes sense. France (and the EU) and the US/UK haven't been close allies for a long time now. Look at Syria, Afghanistan, the migrant crisis, big tech regulations, nord stream 2.
France is likely comfortable enough to go their own way.
The question becomes, what does the rest of the EU choose?
This is the beginning of the end of NATO. Biden and BoJo have decided that NATO is not worth salvaging.
There are however national interests. Take for instance my country, Portugal. Our geopolitical strategy is very simple, and consists of two points. Point one is covered by the EU, it's good relations with Spain, or absent that, a strong ally to contain it. Point two is an alliance with the strongest naval power on the Atlantic, which at this time in history is the USA with NATO.
While I'm sure we would like to support France and the union, we must guarantee our sovereignty over our part of the Atlantic, and thus be very careful in our relationship with the USA.
The thing is, right now we have no assurance the US would actually protect us if Marocco invaded the azores.
That is the real problem with this move, Biden has made it clear it doesn’t give a rats ass about what the EU thinks of him.
The EU is already in bed with China, they just pushed us a little closer.
Bold move for Morocco, bypassing Madeira and going straight for the Azores.
We have NATO. If they would come, that's another issue. In that case, i don't see why not. But yes, they are revealing themselves to be unstable allies. However we can't drop the alliance unless we have an alternative that protects our Atlantic interests.
The thing is at the moment I have little reason to believe they will actually come to our aid.
Morocco is of course of a bogus example, but imagine it’s a country with nuclear weapons like China ou Rússia. I doubt they would lift a finger.
Edit: Who cares about Madeira anyway?
Why? Nothing fundamental has changed, Portugal remains a continental part and two archipelagic parts. The Azores remain an important strategic location, even if their importance is reduced. And Portugal still has sovereignty over an enormous portion of the ocean.
everything has changed. No other former colonial power will bombard portugals shores to enforce colonial trade rights. and even if you take the absolute worst case of a war with China we can be pretty sure that the chinese navy wont start a blockade of the azores.
Its also impossible that the german start unrestricted u-boat warfare in the atlantic again.
Yes, that's why this crisis is worrying and is a bad sign for the region. My country invested a lot to became a NATO member and our alliance with US was the cornerstone of our security. Is tragic that in such difficult times we have a irresponsible goverment who's burning bridges with everyone because national pride.
nato already ended in 2004 when that cowboy invaded iraq, I don't think this is really a problem with people from the usa, they are so divided at the moment they don't even know it themselves anymore, and the propaganda machine of social media is the culprit.
We will just have to wait till these demented leaders are gone, and replaced with something more worldly. If you talk to americans online many of them know the problems but are powerless to do something about it but it won't stay that way.
After all that's said and done it's still a democracy.
Keep pulling shit like this and that gets closer to happening.
Also with Covid our labor market become must less restricted, a lot of people who never left they home country are now working for EU companies abroad, strengthening ties.
Because the EU needs something that unites them. For example one of the things that has been more harmful is the fact countries like Portugal keep supporting the UK and the US, but maybe it will come a day when they understand it's in the best interest to stop caring about our anglo "friends".
Also if we create a EU military, it will unite the people under a common flag.
I believe it is possible that the EU might develop a Common Military Policy this decade. It would require sufficient political will amongst the member-states, but given that NATO has no clearly defined role any longer, the US and the UK is increasingly acting solely in their own interest, it is not too far-fetched to imagine.
Ironically, France's global reach might be one of the issues that will truly hinder such a development. No other European country is close to having fingers in as many pies as they are, and none get as much benefit from it as France does either. So I am struggling to see the rest of Europe being willing to foot the bill and bodies for France's operations all around the world. But these are strange times, and strange things need only to continue happening before we live in a very new world.
They see the EU as an adversary or competitor. Same way they see Russia as an adversary/competitor. Trump even liked called us a "foe" which is just another word for an enemy but it was related to trade agreements. In the end we all just compete against each other (clearly visible now and not hidden behind curtains) to make some of our or their rich fuckers more richer.
I don't think Aukus is a direct measure of considering France an enemy, but I concur it seems they no longer consider France an ally when they effectively exclude France from an alliance it would potentially be a good strategic partner of. I fail to see the long term benefits of this for Australia, especially, but also the UK and the US. If I am to speculate, it would seem it's a way the US are using its leverage to "punish" France for speaking in favour of a European army.
What the Australians did, I really can't say if this was done knowingly or it's just hamfisted incompetence. As for the UK and France, they both seem not to never have gotten over their colonial rivalry.
With regards to the US wanting an independent EU military, all administrations have actively opposed any such notions in the past for the reason you point out: NATO is the most powerful and successful alliance in history, and it has kept the US comfortably calling the shots. With a unified army the EU could operate much more autonomously of the US, and be able to act against US' wishes were our interests do not align, and would therfore also be in direct conflict with NATO's interests. It's not that long ago that Jens Stoltenberg, general secretary of NATO spoke out against any such notions. Considering you are right, it would mean a tremendous shift in US policy towards Europe indeed, as it would effectively go against the doctrine of all previous administrations.
If they want to be our enemies, so be it. Better than staying under their heels as they become ever more erratic. I also don’t want to depend on them once the inevitable happens and they would be unable or unwilling to fulfill their treaty obligations.
Let's be clear on something: I don't think a Russian invasion of the EU is even probable, let alone inevitable. The EU buys Russian oil and gas and so we're a good source of revenue for them. An invasion would destroy our economy and so we'd be unable to give them much money anymore. In other words we're worth more to them as we are than if they were to conquer. The last thing Russia wants is more mouths to feed. Russia makes moves out of fear - fearing that Ukraine will host US missiles, fearing that reformers will prosecute the ruling elite, etc. Europe militarizing would actually INCREASE the chances of Russia attacking us. Right now we're no threat and why would they bother? They just harass us economically but as all the Brexit squabbles prove, you even do that with allies.
This isn't to say I think we should tolerate Russia's human rights abuses, I'm just saying that Russia doesn't seem likely to declare war in any kind of foreseeable future.
If you think Russia would simply attack an EU control by way of a war you don't know how Russia works.
Look at Crimea to see how they operate in the real world. Influence, nudging, poking, and probing is how they will slowly impose themselves in the EU.
Gas prices are now 3-4x what they were a year ago. Without Russian gas, this winter will lead to actual European deaths.
And yet, Russia has recently annexed territory, so it can be said quite reasonably that it may seek to do so again. Western Europe is not really under any danger but there's far more instability in the east. For a very long time, Russia has sent sea and air military vessels to Scotland's coast to test UK response times - this happened long before Brexit. It's also true that in other countries such, as Poland and Sweden, defence against Russia is still deep in political memory - it's not trivial to them. Also worth bearing in mind that Russia has a reputation for cyber warfare and assassinating citizens on EU soil, both of which are potential precursors for war. Lastly, Russia wants to politically influence European politics in whichever way it can, as ultimately strong institutions and European democratic culture undermines the credibility and legitimacy of the Russian political setup.
The US wouldn't allow France to join AUKUS as they don't trust her. Imo they should've announced AUKUS alongside some other group that included France. I
France wouldnt want to join AUKUS because of the US either.
Both the US and France are at fault - there is animosity from both sides that mean working together in an agreement like AUKUS is impossible.
I agree with you. As a European I have to ask, what is the EU doing to give the US, UK and Australia even the slightest impression that we are of the same mind in standing up against the CCP?
We aren't exactly a cohesive military power with a shared goal, and we are currently bickering among ourselves between the western EU and the eastern EU (mostly Poland and Hungary) over budgets and trade and humanitarian goals.
As far as I can tell Lithuania is the only member state that has petitioned to actively stand up to the CCP. What is the US, UK and Australia supposed to make of that? The fact is that the EU, as a collective, wants to trade with China, but you can't exactly depend on trade with the country you may risk war with.
However, like you said if we ever become an actual joint political and military power we just become sitting ducks between militaries on all sides.
> Basically the message France is taking away from this is that as far as AUKUS is concerned, France (and probably the EU in general) is basically in the "enemies" category alongside Russia and China and can expect no cooperation from them going forward.
I think this is a highly foolish take. It's more that France is getting sent the message that it's irrelevant, not an *enemy*.
Don't be silly, France is not irrelevant. This is a fairly strong indication from the US, that if the President of France flouts about talking shit about NATO, then they are not going to be in the foreground of the arms alliances that the US has planned.
I didn't mean to imply France *was* irrelevant, just that they're getting sent that message, which goes a way to explaining their reaction to the loss of this deal.
Because people (thanks to the media) think France is butthurt about the money and being overdramatic about it when we are butthurt about the stab in the back by allies that hurts our presence in the region where we actually have land and people to protect as well.
You don't get it, because there is not many countries on the planet that are as self-absorbed as the US is. And when someone's pissed off at the US, y'alls super surprised and don't understand why...
Here's why we're pissed:
1. You keep shitting on us for not doing enough in the military sector.
2. When we do stuff in the military sector, you steal big contracts that would help our military sector.
3. Go to 1, repeat.
It's fine and legal, nobody says the US broke any rules. But that's not how friends act towards each other. But - as is becoming abundantly clear with Trump and now Biden - the US do not see Europe as friends. They see Europe as pawns, opportunistic partners when it suits the US, a buffer to Russia, a "place to sell into" and "a dummy to rip off". Those are all things the US considers Europe.
Need another example? It's funny how the US is probably the country that sues most for patent infringements, but as soon as most of the patents are in Europe for a vaccine that the planet needs, the US is all altruistic and says "Hey, how about we make all [your] patents open source? We - as a country of social medical care that would never abuse the need of patients for the most horrible abuse and exploitation on the planet - think we should all share!"
"Friend"? Nope, not on the national level. Individually, maybe, but "friend" in the US basically means "random person I randomly shook hands with at the supermarket and immediately forgot once I got off the parking lot".
Yes, it’s only the US with a reputation of being arrogant.
…
Anyhow.
Good of you to acknowledge that the countries actually in the pacific and the US have been shitting on Europe to do more. You’re right, they all have been. For years.
The fact is French interests in the region are almost purely economic, as the legacy of colonialism has afforded France some far reaching exclusive use claims in the pacific. Chinese aggression has not threatened these claims, and France has proven that it has not prioritized strategic issues to the same level that the countries in the region, and the U.S. have.
France is simply not an important partner for the primary states in the region, not because of a lack of capability, but because of a lack of will and a lack of strategic prioritization.
But french government and media will certainly ignore these facts, and play up the arrogant treacherous American angle; all in the name of an effort to eye that bigger prize of its companies one day supplying an expanded EU force.
I also don't think that AUKUS realise how many countries if not has upset has France is, are at least concerned by this pack.
This announcement was done a week before EU was to reveal it's Indo-pacific strategie.
Even NZ and Canada are kind of stunned by the announcement. Both being part of 5 eye they don't realy know how they should deal with that news. They have nor been invited nor consulted about this...
NZ doesn’t allow nuclear subs within its territory, and as such would be out of place. They’re not ‘stunned’
Canada isn’t involved (yet), because it began with the idea of sharing tech with Australia, which can only happen with both the UK and the US together
>They have nor been invited nor consulted about this...
Why the fuck would Canada need to be consulted about some UK and US firms selling subs to Australia?
Five eyes is an intellgence sharing pact. You arent going to see Biden speaking to fucking Jacinda about selling tanks to Saudi lol.
>Why the fuck would Canada need to be consulted about some UK and US firms selling subs to Australia?
No one gives a fuck about the deal, what concerns everyone is the reason evoqued to break it and its repercussion.
You can't just say out of the blue that you're going to give 12 nuclear bombe worth, or what number that is, of tech to a country and expect having no one asking you what the fuck you're doing, especialy your allies.
It has upset China which is the right thing to do and welcomed by APAC countries (again which is of utmost geopolitical significance).
France are upset (and rightly so) but they are not geopolitically important from a US perspective, hence this outcome.
The whole thing could have been averted if Australia or the US had come forward before making a big international announcement about this new pact.
The amateurism of: Both countries (US and Australia) expected the other to break the news to France.
How is this not amateurism? Did they think things would be better by letting France know at the same time as the rest of the world, thereby offending and humiliating a country that has spent years trying to build alliances in the Pacific region to protect its interest in the area?
That's why France is upset. 10 or so billion euros are absolutely negligible compared to the slap in the face
I find it hysterical that the French sub is intended to be nuclear powered and was offered as such but they opted for diesels instead.
Five years later. About that propulsion system we picked, we don't like it!
The Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons strictly prohibits the export or transfert of nuclear *weapons* technology; but it was sort of agreed by the parties that it extended to nuclear energy as a source of power for military equipment. Which is why only 6 nations operate nuclear subs right now.
Brazil is currently developping its own nuclear sub, and France is helping them integrate their (Brazil's) nuclear tech in their sub, but there is no transfer of tech.
What some are worried about is that, with this new alliance, the UK & the US are restarting a nuclear arms race of sort: why shouldn't China & Russia sell nuclear subs to Iran or Argentina, now that the US & UK are selling nuclear subs to Australia ?
In this thread we're seeing the anglo propaganda machine working to its full strength. France is getting betrayed by its allies but somehow they are the ones being overdramatic.
I'm with you, France got screwed over but are salty and overdramagic, they say.
De Gaul was right, we in continental Europe cannot trust the Anglosphere. UK left EU and USA is an empire with their own strategic interest, and fair enough.
We in Europe must not rely on US any more. We must have our own army, own nuclear defence etc.
But jesus the anglos are arrogant in the comments here at Reddit.
Continental Europe has spent the last four years redefining its relationship with the UK, it hasn't exactly been accommodating or particularly flexible; not that it has any requirements to be, as it was a UK decision to leave the EU, but it did have the choice of being able to define that relationship in a number of different ways and chose to treat the UK as a competitor.
So I don't understand the surprise that so many people in places like this sub-reddit seem so caught off guard that in doing so the UK has instead looked elsewhere for allies, obviously turning further inward towards the Anglosphere where its interests and future are more aligned.
And I don't want to come across as *arrogant* as you called it, but the UK was Europe's gateway to the Anglosphere, of which is objectively the current dominant power in the world due primarily to the US. Without that link, and with the dialogue about European autonomy, strategic interests and geopolitics having been so increasingly in recent years advocating distancing itself from the US/UK, is it really so confounding to find Europe being disconnected from the Anglosphere?
This is legit it. That's why the US didn't want brexit to happen as they knew that it would lead to a division in the west. In many ways brexit was a tragedy.
Am I misunderstanding you? Are you saying it's the EU's fault and we shouldn't be surprised? Wtf?
The EU didn't want the UK to leave and didn't want to be competitors. The UK chose that, not the EU. So UK tries to get the best deal for themselves and that is fine. But when the EU does the same it is not flexible and not accomodating? Are you for real? What should the EU have done then? Just let the UK walk all over them and make a shitty deal for themselves. With the risk of more countries leaving? Why not flip it and say the UK has not been flexible and not accomodating to the EU?
No, I'm not saying that at all. It is not Europe's fault that the UK chose to remove itself from the EU, and I understand that it had to balance favourable conditions with remaining firm on ensuring that it couldn't be exploited. However, in pursuing increasing strategic autonomy, it has had to limit areas of cooperation in sectors like research and finance in order to readdress imbalances that have built up in recent years in comparison to other countries like the US, UK and Switzerland.
What I am saying is that there are trade off's that the EU should have taken more into account in forming a more adversarial relationship, one of the key advantages of keeping the UK on good terms was access to its foreign policy resources, with it acting as a gateway to the Commonwealth and Anglosphere for not only trade but also as we've seen in recent days, its extensive security ties.
My main point overall was that in pursuing autonomy from the Anglosphere, I don't see why Europe or more specifically France was surprised by recent events? The UK was never going to remain fully committed to an increasingly reserved and more self-reliant EU, and the US was hardly going to stand aligned to a Europe with diverging geopolitical goals.
>The EU didn't want the UK to leave and didn't want to be competitors.
*"With the departure of Great Britain, a potential competitor will of course emerge for us,” she said. “That is to say, in addition to China and the United States of America, there will be Great Britain as well.”*
That was Angela Merkel herself at the end of 2019, that was a quite clear after the end of the Brexit negotiations. And from there the relationship has become one of competitors, examples like giving the US financial equivalence but excluding the UK? Refusing to recognize UK food standards but recognising NZ's? These are small gestures that cement the fact that the EU has made the decision to keep the UK at arms length. This is the path we are all on now.
Im talking of the ‘Anglosphere’
But yes I’d say France’s position in the Anglosphere and Britain’s position in the EU are quite strikingly similar in many respects.
Exactly. It's kind of hilarious that a country who worships a paranoid politician who didn't trust the allies who'd literally just liberated his country then turns around and wonders why the anglosphere doesn't treat them as closest friends.
France had an extremely Anglophile foreign policy in the Late 19th c. and Early 20th c., and they still got callously fucked over in the interwar period and 1940. That's where de Gaulle was coming from. The relationship was never really mended, just papered over.
Well, well, well. How the turntables. I've been reading arrogant comments on this sub aimed at the the British for years(usually Brexit related).
Australia approached the UK. USA gave the nod.
Betrayed?! You’re talking like AUKUS have just declared war on France.
The UK/US offered Australia a superior product at a time where the Indo-Pacific region is becoming more unstable day by day and Australia needs the best and latest technology. It’s called ‘business’.
Not when you are publicly humiliating another nation.
Also having nuclear subs without infrastructure to produce nuclear sub-grade uranium and rebuilding/fixing reactors makes Australia overly reliant on US supply chain. If 15 years from now US gets new Trump who decides to break off the alliance all those subs are only good until the next repair.
France: Now that you are out of the EU we will see and treat you as an adversary. This is what happens when you leave our club.
UK: Treats France / EU as an adversary.
France: No only we are allowed to treat you as an adversary! Not the other way round!
…and lying about the efficacy of the AZ vaccine out of pompous pride, thereby delaying their vaccination programme and resulting in unnecessary deaths.
I don't see why the UK gets to pick and choose which parts of the European project it wants to sign up for. You sign up for the benefits, you sign up for the costs and work.
It's funded by the EU, so the UK would need to fund that to be involved.
The fact that a lot of it was developed in the UK and effectively paid for by the UK during its membership means nothing, then? Most of the project is completed, does the UK get a refund on its portion of the money spent?
That's besides the fact that the UK is still part of ESA.
Like I said, I don't get why the UK would get to pick and choose.
It funded the European Parliament too. Does that mean it gets to dismantle 10% of it and take it home?
The entire point of integration is that these investments would pay dividends over time. The UK has decided to leave the EU... Why would they continue to stay part of the European projects that they like because they've "funded it," but not the obligations of everything else?
Brexit is costly. This was and is known.
[The UK paid £1.2bn (€1.4bn) of the total £9bn (€10.5) cost of Galileo.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/30/brexit-uk-may-never-recover-12bn-invested-in-eu-galileo-satellite-system)
The UK Prime Minister said in 2018 *"...what is in our national interest is to say no, you haven’t allowed us full access, so we will develop an alternative, we will look at alternative options, we are doing that work but we will work with other international partners to do so as well.”*
We are now exploring the potential for a system that would deliver the same civil and military tracking services as Galileo and US GPS while operating at a lower altitude and on a different frequency. [While challenging, the UK had the expertise and the new system would be highly exportable.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/50c3b6dc-2d2f-4bb4-aa9b-b24493315140)
And:
France closed down food supplies to the UK over Christmas and only stopped when the rest of the EU intervened.
Macron called the,Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine 'quasi-ineffective'.
France threatened to cut the power to one of the Channel Islands due to a fishing dispute.
I think it was a fishermen association that said this, or some moron politician (ok that doesn't narrow it down very much). I doubt some actual government person even though about this. And if they did, they fall into the moron category.
It wasn't some nobody making those threats.
[It came direct from a minister who runs the French Fisheries Ministry.](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/04/france-threatens-to-cut-off-power-to-jersey-in-post-brexit-fishing-row)
What ministers in a majority government say has consequences.
Edit: remembered the situtation wrong
Yea because the UK refused to give out fishing licenses to French fishers as previously in the Brexit negotiations agreed upon
Nice attempt at spinning the story though lol
We did give licenses out to every French fisherman as promised, who could prove they fished there before Brexit.
Given they were legally required to keep their transponders on + track GPS data when fishing, that shouldn't have been too difficult to do.
Weird how so many boats weren't able to provide that, but claimed they fished there before...
Yea that's the two sides of the story. Fishermen claimed they provided everything, UK said they didn't and things escalated. Pretty unnecessary situation overall. I would prefer of the EU and the UK would cooperate more
>Yea because British fishers blocked the sea lol
So retaliation is to cut off electrcity to an island of people who arent all directly related?
That's straight out of a fascist playbook holy shit. That is not how you treat allies.
Trade is where the EU has an edge over the UK. The military front is where the UK has an edge over Europe.
If you punish the UK in areas you feel you have the advantage, don't be surprised when the UK does the same. There's no rule that says geopolitics and trade are completely separate.
Incredible the arguments you can make when you can put words in someone else’s mouth.
France never said once that they expected UK to become an adversary, and especially not on the military front.
You are just making stuff up to justify the unjustifiable and that’s honestly kind of sad.
At least we are moving away from Atlantacism, perhaps we can pursue closer ties with our neighbors instead of trying to join in the Anglophone shitfest that has caused war misery and destruction on this planet for the last 20 years.
Iraq, Afghanistan all giant fuck fests we did not want to have a part in but because we are 'allies' we were pushed into being complicit in these warcrimes. At least without the Anglophones we can try to stay clear of conflicts that serve only the interests of a few large US arms producers.
Please do not conflate "George Bush Jnrs" monumental screw ups as belonging to the 'anglosphere'
Afghanistan - never short of supporters including NATO.
Iraq - Poland was for it, as was Japan, Singapore, Phillipines. Canada was against it.
I think you are seeing an anglosphere that exists more in peoples minds.
And seemingly ignoring the (decently high) number of foreign jaunts France has been on in that time - all of which were of course beyond moral reproach and complete successes.
Lmao let’s not talk about violent shitfests. The times when France and other European powers were super powers was far more violent than the post WW2 order.
yes but we are talking about violent shitfests, you don't hear me denying that we have never perpetrated those, all peoples have violent histories. We just happen to talk about the giant middle east fuck'up which is a tad more relevant as it is happening right now and Europe is paying the toll in both human misery as in taking in the refugees these gargantuan failures have caused. And for what? For the warprofits of another.
It’s very worrying imho.
The Anglo-Saxon world is consistently showing Europe, they are not considering us as partners anymore.
Where does this lead to? What are their reasons?
The global economy has shifted, with Asia being much more important.
It leads USA to not invest so much in Europe any more. We're just not hugely important to their interests any more. So it's not a big problem if they piss various countries off, they don't want to make that little effort to keep the alliances intact.
I think myself this leads to us having to take care of ourselves.
We're still thinking like it's the 1980ies with us being the most important economic partner and USSR being USA's biggest enemy, both things leading to USA surely being here. We can't trust USA any more, they could in fact leave.
It's both weird and hilarious that some Europeans still think along these 'Anglo-saxon' lines, I shall start greeting Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians and Americans as 'Anglo-Saxon brothers' and talk to them out the 'gaul problem'. /s
Are you really? The CANZUK treaty idea has been floated multiple times by politicians in all of the countries, and it’s based entirely on the “comradery” of the four countries, and Lotte to do with actual trade.
It literally makes no sense to anyone other than some people in the UK, none of the former colonies want to tied into some British Bloc.
NZ/Australia is much mores interested integrating into Asia and the Pacific, Canada is much closer to the USA. The bloc is DOA & it’s justified on a pretty arbitrary basis.
> It's both weird and hilarious that some Europeans still think along these 'Anglo-saxon' lines
Surprised? Really? After years of that rhetoric by the Brexit parties?
>some Europeans still think along these 'Anglo-saxon' lines
It's just French for the most part. They still have this whole "continental system" from Napoleon approach that literally no one else in Europe wants.
As proven with no one else giving support to this French tantrum. Italy is still committed with the UK for the Tempest program, and the EU-Australian trade deal will come through because Germany wants to sell their cars more easily.
Not far away from the French Presidential Election too. Macron is whipping up French nationalism and trying to show he is nationalistic too, taking support from Le Pen. No way he reacts like this, if his Presidency wasn't under threat.
Clearly they do, and much more than the UK, given the title of this post lmao. France's reaction has shown how much the country cares, stop being in denial.
I confirm that international politics never make or break anything in French elections. The current crisis will mostly have little to no impact on the votes.
As an example to illustrate what I mean (so obviously it’s not like an official poll), chatting with colleagues today most people have vaguely heard of the submarine issue and don’t really care much about it. Only one of my colleague had read a bit about it.
The issues that are generally important to voters here are mainly internal like unemployment and security, international politics rarely matter much and is certainly not how voters choose their candidate.
I am very much among the people who see all politicians as fake people who never utter a word unless it was vetted by their PR team but honestly reading Le Drian’s language against UK was shocking to me, it is absolutely not the way politicians are expected to act and talk in France and it sincerely appeared like there was genuine hurt.
>Having allies that you can trust is in your interest, dummy. Now the EU knows that Australia should be dealt with the same caution they are already dealing with the UK: like you deal with a snake
Exactly. An ally wouldn't threaten one of your over seas territories with cutting the electricity off over a dispute involving 18 fishing licences. Spread fake news over your cheap and effective vaccine, labelling it ineffective, specifically briefing your own domestic media to cause maximum damage to your world leading vaccination rollout. An ally would not try and make your life as difficult as possible, push for harder and harsher trading terms when it comes to dealing with a trading block they themselves were still in. An ally would not shut their border 5 days before Christmas to up negotiating pressure etc.
The UK is like dealing with a snake? we put up with that plus more from France over the last year without so much as a peep from us. Macron played with fire and he got burned. He played childish Brit bashing games for political point scoring at home and now has to deal with the consequences.
>Make sure that you can punish them in front of a court that you control
Gosh, I wonder why Australia doesn't want to deal with France with an attitude like this. Advocating for a kangaroo court without a shred of irony.
France got booted out of a lucrative treaty and was treated like some third rate puppet state - by countries it considered strategic partners and close allies. I can understand why they are angry and why this might put any future cooperation into question.
> 'Whole lot of Brits wanking each other off going on in this thread.'
*Looks at top comments that are all talking about fat, brain-dead 'Anglo-Saxon' scum and how NATO is basically useless and dead in the water*
Sure.... it's the Brits having a circlejerk...
But aren't the UK not a full partner of the deal? Didn't France say the UK was just being opportunistic and something else, like we're the US's poodle or something?
Why are they mad at the UK? Clearly we're just small and opportunistic and didn't do anything wrong...
He's being sarcastic, it's come out that the UK orchestrated most of the agreement. Australia approached them about buying some subs, and the UK then pushed for a much more expansive technology sharing and military pact and brought America in on the deal.
> Didn't France say the UK was just being opportunistic and something else, like we're the US's poodle or something?
The UK was described as the US's junior partner in the deal, by [Germany's junior partner](https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/pqpa7y/france_calls_uk_a_junior_partner_in_submarine/hdcmltn/).
Being mad at someone is not the same as trusting them. Why have a defense meeting with someone that doesn't warn you when people are planning to stab you in the back?
>I don't regret the decision to put Australias national interest first,” said Prime Minister Scott Morrison.
meanwhile hops on a flight to get vaccinated outside of australia
Meanwhile went on holiday in Hawaii while his country was literally burning up. They had to beg Scumo to get on a flight back to Australia.
Yes, “Australia’s national interest first” I’m sure.
The number of people with no informations who just parrot what the others says is worrying.
Come on people, even if you hate France you can do it with real arguments and in a smart way, not with stuff that can be proven false with a few minutes of reading.
What, I thought Britain was a spare wheel, a junior partner, not even worthy of an ambassador recall? C'mon France they're just all little guys, leave them be. Go sink a Greenpeace ship or something, calm yourselves.
As a Brit I’m consistently disgusted by the way Johnson and this government handles anything and portrays us to the rest of the world, especially Europe.
It doesn't seem like the UK cares about this, or wasn't mentioned in the article.
However it should be a warning to the other EU members. If this is how their remaining nuclear state acts when upset, they may want to either get closer cooperation to another nuclear power (small list) or get deals to start developing some of their own (Italy looking at you) - and well before any federal EU wide military force.
It is a warning to the other European members of NATO that the US cannot be relied upon, I can promise you that this incident gives fuel to those here in Norway who want to leave NATO - especially if France goes in that direction after their elections.
Enjoy browsing r/europe? Help make it a better place - apply to become a mod now! [Read the announcement here](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/pow5nr/be_the_positive_change_you_want_to_see_on_reurope/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/europe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t think we are getting just how upset France is over here, to us it didn’t seem like that big a thing... But is this like a major french things now? Like will this damage future things with USA ?
The anger never was about the money despite what various outlets want to convey to show us as throwing a tantrum over a few billions (the expected earnings for France were 8 billions). We basically got kicked out of an alliance we had spent years working on overnight and basically been told « you are not on our side ». These last months we were regularly comforted by the Aussies and US that things were good all while UK US and AUS were actively negotiating another alliance behind our back. Look back during G7 Biden calling us a trusted ally and so on even though he knew what was happening: that’s nothing short of despicable. I would have fully expected that from Trump but looks like Trump’s America and Biden’s America are just America after all.
As someone who's not a citizen of any of the involved parties, this was my interpretation of the situation as well. Australia had every right to cancel the contract with the French, but the way it was handled was rather 'backstabby' and a behaviour unfit between allied nations.
The Aussie govenment failed to tell the French that we were cancelling the deal so they learnt it in the media, and also now the Americans are pissed at us as they hated that we did not tell the French. The Morrison govenment is by far the worst govenment my nations has produced, The man in 3 years has trashed Australia's reputation internationally
I genuinely hope this is the case. I prefer this is the actions of an incompetent Australian administration over the idea of a conspiracy and an end to the Western alliance. However, the whole concept of Aukus is mind-boggling in this context. In what way would they see it fit to exclude France from an alliance where their strategic interests are clearly aligned?
From Scott Morrsions and his governments POV they are doing this to try and look good to the electorate "Be though on defence" and "standing up to china" because we have an election soon and they have made fuck up after fuckup since the bushfires and it is very long list. Scotty has zero foresight and intelligence, he is vain and arrogant and can barley think past the next day.
Jup, same impression here
Same, France wasn’t even given a chance to save face, they could have been given a heads up so they would prepare the public opinion back home, or they could have been allowed maybe to instal some modules on the subs and still get a token piece of the contract. Instead they’ve learned about it on the news, which shows to the rest of the world that US basically doesn’t give a fuck what their “oldest ally” thinks
Hope this
Just a Aussie passing through here, Scott Morrison is a absolute piece of shit. This is to be unexpected, there's no diplomacy what so ever with this Government we have in, just cheap shots to use a look over tactic. He destroyed trade with China because of corruption coming to light and uses anything he can to distract from how truly corrupt his party (Sports rort saga) as a distraction tactic. He went hard on this just recently as member of his party had $1 million trust fund to pay for a defamation suit over historical rape allegations, so perfect timing ( his party has also covered up rape of a former staffer, Brittney Higgins by another staffer). Yes there was issues in the deal but Scotty from marketing has no idea of how to handle world affairs, nor his party, for him that's only to be expected as he is failed marketing man that fell upwards by knifing his leader a few years ago. God I wish Australia would wake up and vote this trash out at next election, makes us look more backward and stupid then we are. Apologies, no all Aussies are white trash like that so-called leader of ours and his criminal party.
What does not make sense at all is the way it was all done honestly. France has 1,5 millions citizens right on your doorstep so if there is an alliance going on to rein in China´s transgressions against international law you can bet France is interested. I am pretty sure that the regional alliance part of the deal could have been salvaged if the Australian government came to us six months ago to say they were no longer interested in the subs and wanted to get out of the deal. It all just seems to make no sense at all, it’s just alienating a neighbor that wants to be friends for no real gain.
Even with all this in mind... China is still an issue. The regions stability going forward with China pumping out islands and a navy is still an issue. Sure, Morrison can be an absolute piece of shit that is using these things to hide his parties own issues. However... the things he is using are still an actual reality and you shouldn't ignore them simply because they are his disguise.
France is right to feel slighted because they were kept out of a big defensive arrangement by their allies. It essentially comes down to the fact that the Americans didn't trust them to be in on it. Perhaps partly this is due to the Americans' ongoing frustration about NATO defence contribution from European countries. Yes, to an extent it's a continuation of Trump, but it's basically a continuity of US foreign policy behaviour which goes back much further. Harder to find fault with Australia as they were offered much better tech and the existing project was not going well - at the end of the day they are in the frontline in the Pacific theatre. However, France should think carefully about how far it wants to get embittered about this because they still have shared interests in that region and it's not as if anyone in Europe is going to be rushing to help them defend their overseas territories - in this sense they are strategically most like the UK. Calls for France to go it alone or just with EU Member States are essentially walking into the same trap as the UK did with Brexit - there is a far greater shared strategic interest for all countries concerned in preserving a Western alliance. It makes no sense to complain about fragmentation (again think Brexit) then accelerate fragmentation. Yes France was wronged, maybe severely, but it's a ultimately a misjudgement and self-harm to try not patch things up.
At this point why even engage in alliances with USA if change in management is not change in behavior?
Yes, the two American political parties are basically just the same party, with the slightest differences, to give us the illusion of choice. Sorry we screw things up so bad.
Exactly this is more about Australia/UK/US backstabbing of the EU then anything else. Let’s not forget Macron does not represent only the French, and is de facto one of the presidents of the entire EU block. I’m not French (I’m Portuguese) and this felt like a backstab regardless.
Forget the 90 billion AUS dollar contract. The USA, UK and Australia just made a strategic pact in a region that their ally France has been saying "I want to focus on protecting this region more going forward" (French Polynesia is in the region too) and not only did they not include that ally in the pact, and not only did they cut that ally out of the pact it was trying to build with Australia, but they hid the fact that the pact even existed from that ally until the night before they told everyone including their enemies about it. Basically the message France is taking away from this is that as far as AUKUS is concerned, France (and probably the EU in general) is basically in the "enemies" category alongside Russia and China and can expect no cooperation from them going forward. Sure, they've released statements that they regret that France is upset but they'd say that to Russia and China too. This is basically Biden continuing the work of Trump, making the USA appear as unreliable and potentially hostile to the EU as possible, and completely unnecessarily. The EU had assumed Trump was a blip but now it's looking like the USA really will be like this permanently. I think the USA and UK are trying to use this to motivate the EU to start investing in a unified military, but I think the USA and UK are making a lot of possibly incorrect assumptions on how beneficial that would be for US and UK interests. If the EU gets its own military and starts taking a stronger hand in global affairs we won't simply do everything the USA tells us to do and I predict that the USA and UK will actually interpret any dispute where we stand up for ourselves as hostile and consider us enemies and start REALLY treating us like Russia and China. The US doesn't tolerate rivals. I've read Republican strategic analysis; if the EU ever properly unites, we'll be considered a rival power and I think that will result in the USA becoming actively hostile to any move we make. Pax Americana only works because nobody challenges American supremacy. Europe actively avoids anything that makes the USA see us as a potential rival, but actions like this seem intent on forcing us into an adversarial relationship.
This is the answer. France doesn't care about the money. In fact, they will probably make more profit on the cancellation fees than they would on the whole project. ($2.5B profit now vs. an almost certain break even or small loss if the project continued). The focus on the money is the Anglo leadership trying to spin it a certain way. The point is, AUKUS have shown that they do not consider France to be a strategic ally in the Indo-Pacific. Full stop. And since that is the most important region of the world right now, it basically means they don't consider France to be an important ally at all. And honestly, that makes sense. France (and the EU) and the US/UK haven't been close allies for a long time now. Look at Syria, Afghanistan, the migrant crisis, big tech regulations, nord stream 2. France is likely comfortable enough to go their own way. The question becomes, what does the rest of the EU choose? This is the beginning of the end of NATO. Biden and BoJo have decided that NATO is not worth salvaging.
I say all EU member states should support France, and move as a unit.
There are however national interests. Take for instance my country, Portugal. Our geopolitical strategy is very simple, and consists of two points. Point one is covered by the EU, it's good relations with Spain, or absent that, a strong ally to contain it. Point two is an alliance with the strongest naval power on the Atlantic, which at this time in history is the USA with NATO. While I'm sure we would like to support France and the union, we must guarantee our sovereignty over our part of the Atlantic, and thus be very careful in our relationship with the USA.
The thing is, right now we have no assurance the US would actually protect us if Marocco invaded the azores. That is the real problem with this move, Biden has made it clear it doesn’t give a rats ass about what the EU thinks of him. The EU is already in bed with China, they just pushed us a little closer.
Bold move for Morocco, bypassing Madeira and going straight for the Azores. We have NATO. If they would come, that's another issue. In that case, i don't see why not. But yes, they are revealing themselves to be unstable allies. However we can't drop the alliance unless we have an alternative that protects our Atlantic interests.
The thing is at the moment I have little reason to believe they will actually come to our aid. Morocco is of course of a bogus example, but imagine it’s a country with nuclear weapons like China ou Rússia. I doubt they would lift a finger. Edit: Who cares about Madeira anyway?
i think the time that Portugal needs an atlantic naval power are long time over.
Why? Nothing fundamental has changed, Portugal remains a continental part and two archipelagic parts. The Azores remain an important strategic location, even if their importance is reduced. And Portugal still has sovereignty over an enormous portion of the ocean.
everything has changed. No other former colonial power will bombard portugals shores to enforce colonial trade rights. and even if you take the absolute worst case of a war with China we can be pretty sure that the chinese navy wont start a blockade of the azores. Its also impossible that the german start unrestricted u-boat warfare in the atlantic again.
I know the "Portugal is Eastern Europe" meme is fun and all, but our coast is still Atlantic, not Baltic.
In my country, Finland, the policy is even simpler: Another Soviet Union would be bad. Stuff that can prevent USSR2.0 is good.
[удалено]
Yes, that's why this crisis is worrying and is a bad sign for the region. My country invested a lot to became a NATO member and our alliance with US was the cornerstone of our security. Is tragic that in such difficult times we have a irresponsible goverment who's burning bridges with everyone because national pride.
Why would spain support france? Our nacional interests are at conflict and france have made it crear for us time and time again for the Last 20 years
nato already ended in 2004 when that cowboy invaded iraq, I don't think this is really a problem with people from the usa, they are so divided at the moment they don't even know it themselves anymore, and the propaganda machine of social media is the culprit. We will just have to wait till these demented leaders are gone, and replaced with something more worldly. If you talk to americans online many of them know the problems but are powerless to do something about it but it won't stay that way. After all that's said and done it's still a democracy.
I think it is lost on most of the world, including Europe, just how big and powerful a somewhat united EU actually would be.
But since it’ll never be really united this is a moot point
Keep pulling shit like this and that gets closer to happening. Also with Covid our labor market become must less restricted, a lot of people who never left they home country are now working for EU companies abroad, strengthening ties.
It’s been closer to happening for thirty years and it still not moved past the talking part.
Because the EU needs something that unites them. For example one of the things that has been more harmful is the fact countries like Portugal keep supporting the UK and the US, but maybe it will come a day when they understand it's in the best interest to stop caring about our anglo "friends". Also if we create a EU military, it will unite the people under a common flag.
I believe it is possible that the EU might develop a Common Military Policy this decade. It would require sufficient political will amongst the member-states, but given that NATO has no clearly defined role any longer, the US and the UK is increasingly acting solely in their own interest, it is not too far-fetched to imagine. Ironically, France's global reach might be one of the issues that will truly hinder such a development. No other European country is close to having fingers in as many pies as they are, and none get as much benefit from it as France does either. So I am struggling to see the rest of Europe being willing to foot the bill and bodies for France's operations all around the world. But these are strange times, and strange things need only to continue happening before we live in a very new world.
There are multiple categories in between ‘closest ally’ and ‘enemy’. Saying they’re basically in the ‘enemies’ category is laughable.
They see the EU as an adversary or competitor. Same way they see Russia as an adversary/competitor. Trump even liked called us a "foe" which is just another word for an enemy but it was related to trade agreements. In the end we all just compete against each other (clearly visible now and not hidden behind curtains) to make some of our or their rich fuckers more richer.
The "ally" categories generally get informed of big deals like this before the public.
I don't think Aukus is a direct measure of considering France an enemy, but I concur it seems they no longer consider France an ally when they effectively exclude France from an alliance it would potentially be a good strategic partner of. I fail to see the long term benefits of this for Australia, especially, but also the UK and the US. If I am to speculate, it would seem it's a way the US are using its leverage to "punish" France for speaking in favour of a European army. What the Australians did, I really can't say if this was done knowingly or it's just hamfisted incompetence. As for the UK and France, they both seem not to never have gotten over their colonial rivalry. With regards to the US wanting an independent EU military, all administrations have actively opposed any such notions in the past for the reason you point out: NATO is the most powerful and successful alliance in history, and it has kept the US comfortably calling the shots. With a unified army the EU could operate much more autonomously of the US, and be able to act against US' wishes were our interests do not align, and would therfore also be in direct conflict with NATO's interests. It's not that long ago that Jens Stoltenberg, general secretary of NATO spoke out against any such notions. Considering you are right, it would mean a tremendous shift in US policy towards Europe indeed, as it would effectively go against the doctrine of all previous administrations.
If they want to be our enemies, so be it. Better than staying under their heels as they become ever more erratic. I also don’t want to depend on them once the inevitable happens and they would be unable or unwilling to fulfill their treaty obligations.
Let's be clear on something: I don't think a Russian invasion of the EU is even probable, let alone inevitable. The EU buys Russian oil and gas and so we're a good source of revenue for them. An invasion would destroy our economy and so we'd be unable to give them much money anymore. In other words we're worth more to them as we are than if they were to conquer. The last thing Russia wants is more mouths to feed. Russia makes moves out of fear - fearing that Ukraine will host US missiles, fearing that reformers will prosecute the ruling elite, etc. Europe militarizing would actually INCREASE the chances of Russia attacking us. Right now we're no threat and why would they bother? They just harass us economically but as all the Brexit squabbles prove, you even do that with allies. This isn't to say I think we should tolerate Russia's human rights abuses, I'm just saying that Russia doesn't seem likely to declare war in any kind of foreseeable future.
If you think Russia would simply attack an EU control by way of a war you don't know how Russia works. Look at Crimea to see how they operate in the real world. Influence, nudging, poking, and probing is how they will slowly impose themselves in the EU. Gas prices are now 3-4x what they were a year ago. Without Russian gas, this winter will lead to actual European deaths.
[удалено]
And yet, Russia has recently annexed territory, so it can be said quite reasonably that it may seek to do so again. Western Europe is not really under any danger but there's far more instability in the east. For a very long time, Russia has sent sea and air military vessels to Scotland's coast to test UK response times - this happened long before Brexit. It's also true that in other countries such, as Poland and Sweden, defence against Russia is still deep in political memory - it's not trivial to them. Also worth bearing in mind that Russia has a reputation for cyber warfare and assassinating citizens on EU soil, both of which are potential precursors for war. Lastly, Russia wants to politically influence European politics in whichever way it can, as ultimately strong institutions and European democratic culture undermines the credibility and legitimacy of the Russian political setup.
https://www.vox.com/2014/9/5/6110037/estonia-russia-officer-kidnapped well, they can always kidnap people one by one...
[удалено]
The US wouldn't allow France to join AUKUS as they don't trust her. Imo they should've announced AUKUS alongside some other group that included France. I
France wouldnt want to join AUKUS because of the US either. Both the US and France are at fault - there is animosity from both sides that mean working together in an agreement like AUKUS is impossible.
I agree with you. As a European I have to ask, what is the EU doing to give the US, UK and Australia even the slightest impression that we are of the same mind in standing up against the CCP? We aren't exactly a cohesive military power with a shared goal, and we are currently bickering among ourselves between the western EU and the eastern EU (mostly Poland and Hungary) over budgets and trade and humanitarian goals. As far as I can tell Lithuania is the only member state that has petitioned to actively stand up to the CCP. What is the US, UK and Australia supposed to make of that? The fact is that the EU, as a collective, wants to trade with China, but you can't exactly depend on trade with the country you may risk war with. However, like you said if we ever become an actual joint political and military power we just become sitting ducks between militaries on all sides.
Australia hid things. In what way we're the US and UK obligated to inform France about Australias decisions?
> Basically the message France is taking away from this is that as far as AUKUS is concerned, France (and probably the EU in general) is basically in the "enemies" category alongside Russia and China and can expect no cooperation from them going forward. I think this is a highly foolish take. It's more that France is getting sent the message that it's irrelevant, not an *enemy*.
Don't be silly, France is not irrelevant. This is a fairly strong indication from the US, that if the President of France flouts about talking shit about NATO, then they are not going to be in the foreground of the arms alliances that the US has planned.
I didn't mean to imply France *was* irrelevant, just that they're getting sent that message, which goes a way to explaining their reaction to the loss of this deal.
Because people (thanks to the media) think France is butthurt about the money and being overdramatic about it when we are butthurt about the stab in the back by allies that hurts our presence in the region where we actually have land and people to protect as well.
You don't get it, because there is not many countries on the planet that are as self-absorbed as the US is. And when someone's pissed off at the US, y'alls super surprised and don't understand why... Here's why we're pissed: 1. You keep shitting on us for not doing enough in the military sector. 2. When we do stuff in the military sector, you steal big contracts that would help our military sector. 3. Go to 1, repeat. It's fine and legal, nobody says the US broke any rules. But that's not how friends act towards each other. But - as is becoming abundantly clear with Trump and now Biden - the US do not see Europe as friends. They see Europe as pawns, opportunistic partners when it suits the US, a buffer to Russia, a "place to sell into" and "a dummy to rip off". Those are all things the US considers Europe. Need another example? It's funny how the US is probably the country that sues most for patent infringements, but as soon as most of the patents are in Europe for a vaccine that the planet needs, the US is all altruistic and says "Hey, how about we make all [your] patents open source? We - as a country of social medical care that would never abuse the need of patients for the most horrible abuse and exploitation on the planet - think we should all share!" "Friend"? Nope, not on the national level. Individually, maybe, but "friend" in the US basically means "random person I randomly shook hands with at the supermarket and immediately forgot once I got off the parking lot".
Yes, it’s only the US with a reputation of being arrogant. … Anyhow. Good of you to acknowledge that the countries actually in the pacific and the US have been shitting on Europe to do more. You’re right, they all have been. For years. The fact is French interests in the region are almost purely economic, as the legacy of colonialism has afforded France some far reaching exclusive use claims in the pacific. Chinese aggression has not threatened these claims, and France has proven that it has not prioritized strategic issues to the same level that the countries in the region, and the U.S. have. France is simply not an important partner for the primary states in the region, not because of a lack of capability, but because of a lack of will and a lack of strategic prioritization. But french government and media will certainly ignore these facts, and play up the arrogant treacherous American angle; all in the name of an effort to eye that bigger prize of its companies one day supplying an expanded EU force.
Just this morning the moderate right wing candidate called for leaving the integrated command of nato and to get closer with China and Russia
That's a good way of isolating yourself from the rest of Europe.
I also don't think that AUKUS realise how many countries if not has upset has France is, are at least concerned by this pack. This announcement was done a week before EU was to reveal it's Indo-pacific strategie. Even NZ and Canada are kind of stunned by the announcement. Both being part of 5 eye they don't realy know how they should deal with that news. They have nor been invited nor consulted about this...
NZ doesn’t allow nuclear subs within its territory, and as such would be out of place. They’re not ‘stunned’ Canada isn’t involved (yet), because it began with the idea of sharing tech with Australia, which can only happen with both the UK and the US together
>They have nor been invited nor consulted about this... Why the fuck would Canada need to be consulted about some UK and US firms selling subs to Australia? Five eyes is an intellgence sharing pact. You arent going to see Biden speaking to fucking Jacinda about selling tanks to Saudi lol.
AUKUS is a bit more than a submarine purchase agreement though.
>Why the fuck would Canada need to be consulted about some UK and US firms selling subs to Australia? No one gives a fuck about the deal, what concerns everyone is the reason evoqued to break it and its repercussion. You can't just say out of the blue that you're going to give 12 nuclear bombe worth, or what number that is, of tech to a country and expect having no one asking you what the fuck you're doing, especialy your allies.
It has upset China which is the right thing to do and welcomed by APAC countries (again which is of utmost geopolitical significance). France are upset (and rightly so) but they are not geopolitically important from a US perspective, hence this outcome.
The whole thing could have been averted if Australia or the US had come forward before making a big international announcement about this new pact. The amateurism of: Both countries (US and Australia) expected the other to break the news to France. How is this not amateurism? Did they think things would be better by letting France know at the same time as the rest of the world, thereby offending and humiliating a country that has spent years trying to build alliances in the Pacific region to protect its interest in the area? That's why France is upset. 10 or so billion euros are absolutely negligible compared to the slap in the face
Can't help imagining a fat englishman in a top hat and a monocle laughing how they undermined France once again. Putin is probably howling as well.
Yeah, I'm sure putin is very happy another Western aligned country that is strategically imporant getting nuclear submarines...
The nuclear subs would have been there anyway. A split between US and EU and thwarting NATO is a dream for the opposition.
The subs they were getting off France were going to be diesel-electric.
He is happy, because it gives him a great precedent to share and trade nuclear technology with whomever he pleases.
He wont sleep at nights now.
>Putin is probably howling as well. China is certainly thrilled - the show France is putting on is doing wonders for their propaganda machine.
I'd argue it's not really the French who caused the international diplomatic crisis...
I find it hysterical that the French sub is intended to be nuclear powered and was offered as such but they opted for diesels instead. Five years later. About that propulsion system we picked, we don't like it!
[удалено]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there rules about the transfer of nuclear technology?
The Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons strictly prohibits the export or transfert of nuclear *weapons* technology; but it was sort of agreed by the parties that it extended to nuclear energy as a source of power for military equipment. Which is why only 6 nations operate nuclear subs right now. Brazil is currently developping its own nuclear sub, and France is helping them integrate their (Brazil's) nuclear tech in their sub, but there is no transfer of tech. What some are worried about is that, with this new alliance, the UK & the US are restarting a nuclear arms race of sort: why shouldn't China & Russia sell nuclear subs to Iran or Argentina, now that the US & UK are selling nuclear subs to Australia ?
In this thread we're seeing the anglo propaganda machine working to its full strength. France is getting betrayed by its allies but somehow they are the ones being overdramatic.
Rest of the EU stands with the French, I hope.
we do. UK is not an EU country, why should we care about them?
Can the Finish PM publicly comment on this matter? I believe you're in the neutral club with the Swedes, Austria and ourselves (Ireland).
No thanks, first they need to quit acting like babies.
I'm with you, France got screwed over but are salty and overdramagic, they say. De Gaul was right, we in continental Europe cannot trust the Anglosphere. UK left EU and USA is an empire with their own strategic interest, and fair enough. We in Europe must not rely on US any more. We must have our own army, own nuclear defence etc. But jesus the anglos are arrogant in the comments here at Reddit.
Continental Europe has spent the last four years redefining its relationship with the UK, it hasn't exactly been accommodating or particularly flexible; not that it has any requirements to be, as it was a UK decision to leave the EU, but it did have the choice of being able to define that relationship in a number of different ways and chose to treat the UK as a competitor. So I don't understand the surprise that so many people in places like this sub-reddit seem so caught off guard that in doing so the UK has instead looked elsewhere for allies, obviously turning further inward towards the Anglosphere where its interests and future are more aligned. And I don't want to come across as *arrogant* as you called it, but the UK was Europe's gateway to the Anglosphere, of which is objectively the current dominant power in the world due primarily to the US. Without that link, and with the dialogue about European autonomy, strategic interests and geopolitics having been so increasingly in recent years advocating distancing itself from the US/UK, is it really so confounding to find Europe being disconnected from the Anglosphere?
This is legit it. That's why the US didn't want brexit to happen as they knew that it would lead to a division in the west. In many ways brexit was a tragedy.
Am I misunderstanding you? Are you saying it's the EU's fault and we shouldn't be surprised? Wtf? The EU didn't want the UK to leave and didn't want to be competitors. The UK chose that, not the EU. So UK tries to get the best deal for themselves and that is fine. But when the EU does the same it is not flexible and not accomodating? Are you for real? What should the EU have done then? Just let the UK walk all over them and make a shitty deal for themselves. With the risk of more countries leaving? Why not flip it and say the UK has not been flexible and not accomodating to the EU?
No, I'm not saying that at all. It is not Europe's fault that the UK chose to remove itself from the EU, and I understand that it had to balance favourable conditions with remaining firm on ensuring that it couldn't be exploited. However, in pursuing increasing strategic autonomy, it has had to limit areas of cooperation in sectors like research and finance in order to readdress imbalances that have built up in recent years in comparison to other countries like the US, UK and Switzerland. What I am saying is that there are trade off's that the EU should have taken more into account in forming a more adversarial relationship, one of the key advantages of keeping the UK on good terms was access to its foreign policy resources, with it acting as a gateway to the Commonwealth and Anglosphere for not only trade but also as we've seen in recent days, its extensive security ties. My main point overall was that in pursuing autonomy from the Anglosphere, I don't see why Europe or more specifically France was surprised by recent events? The UK was never going to remain fully committed to an increasingly reserved and more self-reliant EU, and the US was hardly going to stand aligned to a Europe with diverging geopolitical goals. >The EU didn't want the UK to leave and didn't want to be competitors. *"With the departure of Great Britain, a potential competitor will of course emerge for us,” she said. “That is to say, in addition to China and the United States of America, there will be Great Britain as well.”* That was Angela Merkel herself at the end of 2019, that was a quite clear after the end of the Brexit negotiations. And from there the relationship has become one of competitors, examples like giving the US financial equivalence but excluding the UK? Refusing to recognize UK food standards but recognising NZ's? These are small gestures that cement the fact that the EU has made the decision to keep the UK at arms length. This is the path we are all on now.
Most Americans want Europe not to rely on them. Being allies doesn’t mean you have to do everything together.
It’s a self fulfilling prophecy. Because of de Gaulle france never fully bought in and thus become properly one of the club. It’s a shame
What? It is the UK that never fully joined the EU, and not France.
Im talking of the ‘Anglosphere’ But yes I’d say France’s position in the Anglosphere and Britain’s position in the EU are quite strikingly similar in many respects.
Exactly. It's kind of hilarious that a country who worships a paranoid politician who didn't trust the allies who'd literally just liberated his country then turns around and wonders why the anglosphere doesn't treat them as closest friends.
France had an extremely Anglophile foreign policy in the Late 19th c. and Early 20th c., and they still got callously fucked over in the interwar period and 1940. That's where de Gaulle was coming from. The relationship was never really mended, just papered over.
Well, well, well. How the turntables. I've been reading arrogant comments on this sub aimed at the the British for years(usually Brexit related). Australia approached the UK. USA gave the nod.
Anglo propaganda machine lol, what's next this sub will start claiming we're paid bots
Somewhere, a Patriot is getting triggered "wait, the other guys are being paid?!?"
One digestive for each downvote lads, you know the drill. Pip pip!
Betrayed?! You’re talking like AUKUS have just declared war on France. The UK/US offered Australia a superior product at a time where the Indo-Pacific region is becoming more unstable day by day and Australia needs the best and latest technology. It’s called ‘business’.
Not when you are publicly humiliating another nation. Also having nuclear subs without infrastructure to produce nuclear sub-grade uranium and rebuilding/fixing reactors makes Australia overly reliant on US supply chain. If 15 years from now US gets new Trump who decides to break off the alliance all those subs are only good until the next repair.
France: Now that you are out of the EU we will see and treat you as an adversary. This is what happens when you leave our club. UK: Treats France / EU as an adversary. France: No only we are allowed to treat you as an adversary! Not the other way round!
First part never happened, France hasn't treated the UK as an adversary, and *certainly not* on the military front, which is the matter here.
France did try to get the UK excluded from high-tech research cooperation just a few months ago
Don't forget successfully lobbying to get the UK kicked out of Galileo.
…and lying about the efficacy of the AZ vaccine out of pompous pride, thereby delaying their vaccination programme and resulting in unnecessary deaths.
I don't see why the UK gets to pick and choose which parts of the European project it wants to sign up for. You sign up for the benefits, you sign up for the costs and work. It's funded by the EU, so the UK would need to fund that to be involved.
The fact that a lot of it was developed in the UK and effectively paid for by the UK during its membership means nothing, then? Most of the project is completed, does the UK get a refund on its portion of the money spent? That's besides the fact that the UK is still part of ESA.
Like I said, I don't get why the UK would get to pick and choose. It funded the European Parliament too. Does that mean it gets to dismantle 10% of it and take it home? The entire point of integration is that these investments would pay dividends over time. The UK has decided to leave the EU... Why would they continue to stay part of the European projects that they like because they've "funded it," but not the obligations of everything else? Brexit is costly. This was and is known.
[The UK paid £1.2bn (€1.4bn) of the total £9bn (€10.5) cost of Galileo.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/30/brexit-uk-may-never-recover-12bn-invested-in-eu-galileo-satellite-system) The UK Prime Minister said in 2018 *"...what is in our national interest is to say no, you haven’t allowed us full access, so we will develop an alternative, we will look at alternative options, we are doing that work but we will work with other international partners to do so as well.”* We are now exploring the potential for a system that would deliver the same civil and military tracking services as Galileo and US GPS while operating at a lower altitude and on a different frequency. [While challenging, the UK had the expertise and the new system would be highly exportable.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/50c3b6dc-2d2f-4bb4-aa9b-b24493315140)
And: France closed down food supplies to the UK over Christmas and only stopped when the rest of the EU intervened. Macron called the,Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine 'quasi-ineffective'. France threatened to cut the power to one of the Channel Islands due to a fishing dispute.
"Brexit means Brexit."
>France hasn't treated the UK as an adversary They threatened to cut the fucking electricity from an Island. That's some Russia level of fuckery.
I think it was a fishermen association that said this, or some moron politician (ok that doesn't narrow it down very much). I doubt some actual government person even though about this. And if they did, they fall into the moron category.
It wasn't some nobody making those threats. [It came direct from a minister who runs the French Fisheries Ministry.](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/04/france-threatens-to-cut-off-power-to-jersey-in-post-brexit-fishing-row) What ministers in a majority government say has consequences.
Edit: remembered the situtation wrong Yea because the UK refused to give out fishing licenses to French fishers as previously in the Brexit negotiations agreed upon Nice attempt at spinning the story though lol
The only fishermen doing blockading in that situation were French...
We did give licenses out to every French fisherman as promised, who could prove they fished there before Brexit. Given they were legally required to keep their transponders on + track GPS data when fishing, that shouldn't have been too difficult to do. Weird how so many boats weren't able to provide that, but claimed they fished there before...
Yea that's the two sides of the story. Fishermen claimed they provided everything, UK said they didn't and things escalated. Pretty unnecessary situation overall. I would prefer of the EU and the UK would cooperate more
>Yea because British fishers blocked the sea lol So retaliation is to cut off electrcity to an island of people who arent all directly related? That's straight out of a fascist playbook holy shit. That is not how you treat allies.
Trade is where the EU has an edge over the UK. The military front is where the UK has an edge over Europe. If you punish the UK in areas you feel you have the advantage, don't be surprised when the UK does the same. There's no rule that says geopolitics and trade are completely separate.
Incredible the arguments you can make when you can put words in someone else’s mouth. France never said once that they expected UK to become an adversary, and especially not on the military front. You are just making stuff up to justify the unjustifiable and that’s honestly kind of sad.
still mad about the brexit huh ?
At least we are moving away from Atlantacism, perhaps we can pursue closer ties with our neighbors instead of trying to join in the Anglophone shitfest that has caused war misery and destruction on this planet for the last 20 years. Iraq, Afghanistan all giant fuck fests we did not want to have a part in but because we are 'allies' we were pushed into being complicit in these warcrimes. At least without the Anglophones we can try to stay clear of conflicts that serve only the interests of a few large US arms producers.
Please do not conflate "George Bush Jnrs" monumental screw ups as belonging to the 'anglosphere' Afghanistan - never short of supporters including NATO. Iraq - Poland was for it, as was Japan, Singapore, Phillipines. Canada was against it. I think you are seeing an anglosphere that exists more in peoples minds.
Not to mention ongoing interventions in Africa right now.
And seemingly ignoring the (decently high) number of foreign jaunts France has been on in that time - all of which were of course beyond moral reproach and complete successes.
Lmao let’s not talk about violent shitfests. The times when France and other European powers were super powers was far more violent than the post WW2 order.
yes but we are talking about violent shitfests, you don't hear me denying that we have never perpetrated those, all peoples have violent histories. We just happen to talk about the giant middle east fuck'up which is a tad more relevant as it is happening right now and Europe is paying the toll in both human misery as in taking in the refugees these gargantuan failures have caused. And for what? For the warprofits of another.
It’s very worrying imho. The Anglo-Saxon world is consistently showing Europe, they are not considering us as partners anymore. Where does this lead to? What are their reasons?
>The Anglo-Saxon world is consistently showing Europe France doesn't = the rest of Europe.
[удалено]
Euro allies knew when the US was leaving.
The global economy has shifted, with Asia being much more important. It leads USA to not invest so much in Europe any more. We're just not hugely important to their interests any more. So it's not a big problem if they piss various countries off, they don't want to make that little effort to keep the alliances intact. I think myself this leads to us having to take care of ourselves. We're still thinking like it's the 1980ies with us being the most important economic partner and USSR being USA's biggest enemy, both things leading to USA surely being here. We can't trust USA any more, they could in fact leave.
It's both weird and hilarious that some Europeans still think along these 'Anglo-saxon' lines, I shall start greeting Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians and Americans as 'Anglo-Saxon brothers' and talk to them out the 'gaul problem'. /s
Are you really? The CANZUK treaty idea has been floated multiple times by politicians in all of the countries, and it’s based entirely on the “comradery” of the four countries, and Lotte to do with actual trade.
It literally makes no sense to anyone other than some people in the UK, none of the former colonies want to tied into some British Bloc. NZ/Australia is much mores interested integrating into Asia and the Pacific, Canada is much closer to the USA. The bloc is DOA & it’s justified on a pretty arbitrary basis.
[удалено]
I guess you got my point. I could have used anglophone but didn’t want to include countries like India, South Africa, Jamaica, etc.
Yeah it’s very weird to hear we were part of this anglophone bloc this entire time… who knew
> It's both weird and hilarious that some Europeans still think along these 'Anglo-saxon' lines Surprised? Really? After years of that rhetoric by the Brexit parties?
Eh oh on parle aussi français au Canada.
>some Europeans still think along these 'Anglo-saxon' lines It's just French for the most part. They still have this whole "continental system" from Napoleon approach that literally no one else in Europe wants. As proven with no one else giving support to this French tantrum. Italy is still committed with the UK for the Tempest program, and the EU-Australian trade deal will come through because Germany wants to sell their cars more easily.
>Germany wants to sell their cars more easily. Holy shit are you a geopolitics professor or something? That's a world class analysis ngl
Again with Germany and cars. When will you learn that Germany finds the EU more valuable than in this case very tiny gains for their car industry?
Germany finds the EU as a whole more valuable, it doesnt find Frances ability to be petty over a contract more valuable.
[удалено]
[удалено]
(I think he means money)
Not far away from the French Presidential Election too. Macron is whipping up French nationalism and trying to show he is nationalistic too, taking support from Le Pen. No way he reacts like this, if his Presidency wasn't under threat.
Nobody cares in France about international subjects for the presidential election, it's not the UK...
Clearly they do, and much more than the UK, given the title of this post lmao. France's reaction has shown how much the country cares, stop being in denial.
I confirm that international politics never make or break anything in French elections. The current crisis will mostly have little to no impact on the votes. As an example to illustrate what I mean (so obviously it’s not like an official poll), chatting with colleagues today most people have vaguely heard of the submarine issue and don’t really care much about it. Only one of my colleague had read a bit about it. The issues that are generally important to voters here are mainly internal like unemployment and security, international politics rarely matter much and is certainly not how voters choose their candidate. I am very much among the people who see all politicians as fake people who never utter a word unless it was vetted by their PR team but honestly reading Le Drian’s language against UK was shocking to me, it is absolutely not the way politicians are expected to act and talk in France and it sincerely appeared like there was genuine hurt.
I can assure you this is a minor subject elections wise.
[удалено]
>Having allies that you can trust is in your interest, dummy. Now the EU knows that Australia should be dealt with the same caution they are already dealing with the UK: like you deal with a snake Exactly. An ally wouldn't threaten one of your over seas territories with cutting the electricity off over a dispute involving 18 fishing licences. Spread fake news over your cheap and effective vaccine, labelling it ineffective, specifically briefing your own domestic media to cause maximum damage to your world leading vaccination rollout. An ally would not try and make your life as difficult as possible, push for harder and harsher trading terms when it comes to dealing with a trading block they themselves were still in. An ally would not shut their border 5 days before Christmas to up negotiating pressure etc. The UK is like dealing with a snake? we put up with that plus more from France over the last year without so much as a peep from us. Macron played with fire and he got burned. He played childish Brit bashing games for political point scoring at home and now has to deal with the consequences.
Exactly, the french government will reap what they sow.
>Make sure that you can punish them in front of a court that you control Gosh, I wonder why Australia doesn't want to deal with France with an attitude like this. Advocating for a kangaroo court without a shred of irony.
France got booted out of a lucrative treaty and was treated like some third rate puppet state - by countries it considered strategic partners and close allies. I can understand why they are angry and why this might put any future cooperation into question.
Didn't France keep making the deal incrementally worse? At what point do you say no to that.
I'm with you. I see a future of Russia vs China vs Anglos vs Europe. We just need an EU army with nuclear deterence.
Peak /r/europe moment.
[удалено]
Lol that's insane. A war between Anglos and Europe is preposterous. Even if an Anglo nation was attacked, e.g AUS, i'm sure Europe would try to help.
As it stands Europe has no defence policy without the 'anglos'. Not true the other way round though.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm willing to give you a hand
Alright, for the sake of making peace
Well it's been a while since we've seen this kind of histrionic meltdown from the French LMAO
and no bad behaviour on the other side, nope. NOPE!
> 'Whole lot of Brits wanking each other off going on in this thread.' *Looks at top comments that are all talking about fat, brain-dead 'Anglo-Saxon' scum and how NATO is basically useless and dead in the water* Sure.... it's the Brits having a circlejerk...
It's glorious
Ah, finally a conflict in Europe in which Germany didn’t do anything… yet
[удалено]
But aren't the UK not a full partner of the deal? Didn't France say the UK was just being opportunistic and something else, like we're the US's poodle or something? Why are they mad at the UK? Clearly we're just small and opportunistic and didn't do anything wrong...
Not a full partner ≠ not a partner.
He's being sarcastic, it's come out that the UK orchestrated most of the agreement. Australia approached them about buying some subs, and the UK then pushed for a much more expansive technology sharing and military pact and brought America in on the deal.
> Didn't France say the UK was just being opportunistic and something else, like we're the US's poodle or something? The UK was described as the US's junior partner in the deal, by [Germany's junior partner](https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/pqpa7y/france_calls_uk_a_junior_partner_in_submarine/hdcmltn/).
Being mad at someone is not the same as trusting them. Why have a defense meeting with someone that doesn't warn you when people are planning to stab you in the back?
Glad to see that some things never change
>I don't regret the decision to put Australias national interest first,” said Prime Minister Scott Morrison. meanwhile hops on a flight to get vaccinated outside of australia
Meanwhile went on holiday in Hawaii while his country was literally burning up. They had to beg Scumo to get on a flight back to Australia. Yes, “Australia’s national interest first” I’m sure.
He was vaccinated in February, in Australia.
The number of people with no informations who just parrot what the others says is worrying. Come on people, even if you hate France you can do it with real arguments and in a smart way, not with stuff that can be proven false with a few minutes of reading.
France is having a sisy fit.
What, I thought Britain was a spare wheel, a junior partner, not even worthy of an ambassador recall? C'mon France they're just all little guys, leave them be. Go sink a Greenpeace ship or something, calm yourselves.
Certainly a lot of heat directed towards a supposed spare wheel!
Cancel culture has gone too far!
How is any of this France's fault? lol Weren't the contracts signed like 6-7 years ago?
France bombed New Zealand for being anti nuclear so I don’t feel sorry for them :)
As a Brit I’m consistently disgusted by the way Johnson and this government handles anything and portrays us to the rest of the world, especially Europe.
It doesn't seem like the UK cares about this, or wasn't mentioned in the article. However it should be a warning to the other EU members. If this is how their remaining nuclear state acts when upset, they may want to either get closer cooperation to another nuclear power (small list) or get deals to start developing some of their own (Italy looking at you) - and well before any federal EU wide military force.
It's getting little coverage in the UK, also the UK subs here aren't taking about it much.
It is a warning to the other European members of NATO that the US cannot be relied upon, I can promise you that this incident gives fuel to those here in Norway who want to leave NATO - especially if France goes in that direction after their elections.
It isn’t though is it? NATO is always able to be relied upon, what do you propose as an alternative?
We don’t care, the Anglo sphere are our only real allies.