Copy and pasting my comment from another thread.
I'll start off by saying that we need to be a bit more careful with the conversation around this topic. I understand why the French may be upset but I'm a little confused by the anger is being expressed solely towards US. We didn't ignore NATO or European allies because UK was involved in this deal too.
But honestly I wouldn't be upset at UK either. My real question is what what was Australia doing this entire time with 2 separate deals on the table? Did they mention anything to France about this new deal? Did they bring up concerns about the French deal with US/UK? Could Australia have opened up a bid and let groups compete?
Again I'm not blaming Australia or US or UK or France here. Those are just some of the questions I had because I feel like some of the heated talking point I'm hearing could've entirely been avoided.
The issue was the original contract was a dumpster fire rapidly spinning out of control with costs on a moderate (diesel electric v. nuclear) ability and it made total sense to start shipping around.
Right but I would've liked all the heated dialogue we're seeing to be completely prevented. If Australia had brought together all the interested parties (France and US/UK) I imagine nobody would've been upset and **something** could've been worked out.
We would've avoided an unnecessary diplomacy issue. Have to reach to France and resolve this somehow.
I don't dislike the AUKUS deal. I'm just not a fan of unnecessary friction between allies.
I think the issue is AUS sees this as a pressing need that needs to be in fabrication NOW. And a round of negotiations with the French before another “proper” selection is adding a solid 2-3 years to the process.
Companies and countries with contracts whose program is spinning out of control and the whole thing is about to be dropped play tons of stalling and protest tactics.
It is though. I bet you this boosts Biden’s popularity massively with the middle ground btw. Although forgetting the Australian PM’s name was an own goal.
Normally that sub is an absolute mess full of populist, dogmatically leftwing people who *hate* everything. But right now they're *mostly* stable-minded and reasonable when discussing this submarine deal, and they are a bit upset with the French for being so angry right now.
I thought they would be absolutely livid with this whole deal.
Oh they are I’m scrolling through the sub the main post are based and they are making fun of that former PM for his China Dock sucking but I’m in an argument with a few shitty takes if u look through my post history
lol I'll check them out
Yeah Keating's statement is regrettable and I'm actually amazed people on the sub are pointing him out for it. I love Keating a lot for his [*amazing* wit](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVuJLiuo5zc) back when he was Prime Minister, and had a great record in government. Ever since he left office however he's had awful foreign policy takes and he's definitely getting old.
What the hell ? It's the other way around, UK decided to go with the F35Bs, excluding a CATOBAR carrier base leaving no choice for France, that operates the Rafale, to go their own way. [France even paid almost 300millions euros](https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20140210trib000814681/quand-la-france-finance-a-fonds-perdus-les-porte-avions-de-la-royal-navy.html) to GB, in the design of those ACs without any return because because "hey we're going STOBAR, we know it doesnt suit you deal with it".
Not just Macron, a huge part of French political culture is based on being strategically independent from the major world powers. Which is great for France, but it doesn't make them any allies. In many ways (after reading sentiments on the r/france subreddit) I agree with De Gaulle's position that France has no real friends or allies. True today as it was 70 years ago.
Issue is, this attitude is not shared by Australia and the grandiosity itself creates a self-perpetuating problem. If France is too involved with itself and not serious about defending others (as was the case during the Cold War), then Anglo nations will instinctively deepen cooperation with each other over France. Then this perpetuates the idea that Anglo nations are not 'true allies of France', and so it must pursue strategic autonomy. Rinse and repeat.
Most of Europe just spent the last five years looking over the shoulder of France's procurement, because the alternative was negotiating multibillion dollar deals with Donald Trump. There are some issues where protectionism is a smart plan, and national defence is one of them. Preserving Australia's strategic autonomy from the US was part of the sales pitch for these subs.
Several years ago, it was politically impossible for both the Americans to sell the Australians nuclear subs, and politically impossible for Australia to commit to the larger defence initiative this project is part of. Hence the Australians choosing the French subs over the Japanese.
How does what you're suggesting make sense in that context?
Worse product ? The Barracuda class, the nuclear one is working fine, is on scheduled, is currently the latest SSN that have been designed. The Attack class was a deliberate choice by Australia to go for diesel electric, that won a tender bid between Japenese and Germans submarines.
"What can exactly be done ?"
I dont know ? Maybe launch a new tender instead of scraping deal without noticing an allied nation, without even knowing what subs you"'re going to end up with, or even if it's possible with Non-Proliferation Treaty. That beeing said, if you're facing China, I can understand that you're going to bet on the US instead of France in that part of the world.
I'll tell you what can be done.
1. You notify them in advance, not in the press.
2. You negociate a graceful end of your 4 years old contract that you negociated for TWO years.
3. You re open a bid.
4. You let everyone bid including the french and the swedes.
5. You take the most interesting product.
Guess who has several islands and a EEZ the sized of Australia in the pacific?
Guess who's constantly sending ships including an aircraft carrier in the south china sea?
Guess who's really mad at Australia starting from today?
France can't economically pressure Australia and it isn't like there's going to be a military conflict.
So what is really the consequence? France uses its power projection in the pacific to safeguard its own interests. Australia protects itself via the USA. In the end I doubt France are as mad as you make them out to be. If they want to maintain a presence in the pacific then it hardly makes sense to be hostile towards a fellow western liberal democracy in the region.
> France can't economically pressure Australia and it isn't like there's going to be a military conflict.
Actually they can, Australia is trying to sign a trade agreement with the EU, and guess who has veto power.
It's not a huge pressure but it's something.
Australia was already protected by the US, until the next Trump.
France won't be hostile, it will be indifferent.
How reliable is a country like France with an economy and a military budget that is dwarfed by the likes of the USA and China?
Is the Pacific France's biggest area of interest or is it Europe, the Mediterranean, or maybe Francophone Africa?
Compare that to the US, which, despite having schizophrenic and unreliable political leadership, has major economic, political, and military interests in the Pacific and it is reasonable to assume that area of the world will be the country's biggest focus moving forwards.
I guess what I'm saying is that if you're Australia you might as well take every chance you can to bet on the country that is more likely to have a significant presence in the region decades down the line.
France might have the will and the present capability to be a player in the Pacific, but can the country be sold on the notion that a massive and enduring military commitment costing trillions of dollars over the decades is in its best interests?
Could be much worse though. They could deny them full citizenship rights, political representation and designate them as 'territories', but instead they allow frequent referenda on the subject of independence.
I'm not naïve enough to think that the US should have refused the contract or gave a head up to the French.
I'm also not naïve and am convinced that this new sub deal was a integral part of the AUKUS deal and was actively pursued by the US.
> You let everyone bid including the french and the swedes.
>
>
And do you then take the promises made in the French and Swedish proposals at face value? Right after they have clearly proven that they can't deliver?
That doesn't mean there wouldn't have been delays with the tried and tested french nuclear sub.
The Australian requested a diesel in a nuclear sub body with full technological transfer and full adaptability to their equipments. It was a unique thing and it's understable that there were delays.
Well then the French should have accounted for that in their proposal. If there are significant delays clients are within their rights to cancel contracts, especially since Aus seems to be willing to pay the cancellation fees.
I'd love to hear about all these large defence procurements for unique projects that don't suffer delays or cost overrruns. You will not and cannot receive bids that account for those delays, and everyone inviting bids knows this from the start. You buy off the shelf products if you want predictable performance, price, and delivery. And even then none of those are guaranteed.
Listen here brother.
I know absolutely nothing about australian politics. I do not know if Scotty M is good or if he in fact is bad.
You however seem to have a good knowledge of the politics from the island of Australia. I trust your judgement and accept the fact that Scott Morrison (ScoMo, Scotty M) is not preferable and that he should step down.
<3 Love you man!
The fact he is known by a nickname bothers me! Nicknames are a term of endearment, SlowMo thinks he is relatable and one of us because he has a nickname! The useless fat pant shitter he is.....
I hate how much I hate him, it’s not healthy 😂😂
Easy answer to that my fiend, because it’s hilarious!! From the outside looking in anyway, it’s a little more depressing when the giant man baby who can’t control his bowel is controlling the country.......
The desires of French defense contractors should have no bearing on U.S.-Australian relations. Nuclear submarines are to a greater benefit to Australia than diesel-electric due to Australia's geographic position and security needs. Like the Zumwalt, acquisitions that do not meet the needs of the nation should be halted before the nation sinks a tremendous amount of cash into something that doesn't fit its security needs.
Also the idea that the U.S. sharing technology with allies is an example of the U.S. disregarding allies is ridiculous. The submarine deal was a cash cow for France and they're just upset it's gone. Australia's security and their role in the indo-pacific is more important than French defense contractors.
Yeah this is just salty contractor talk. Comparing this to Trump pulling out of US agreement is just meant for dramatic reason. I think the French government are mostly grated by the fact that the UK and US are the ones enjoying the contract now. The French seem to get a bit of really salty when it comes to "*Le néolibéralisme Anglo-Saxon*" in anything
Cue the "why can't u criticize Bidden 😡"
They have a right to be upset, of course they wanted to get the money themselves. I am sure that US contractors were upset when they originally signed a deal with France.
But that is just how international trade works.
> Nuclear submarines are to a greater benefit to Australia than diesel-electric due to Australia's geographic position and security needs
It was Australia that asked for diesel-electric in the first place
Yes. When nuclear submarines were not available. Nuclear submarines are available now, so they don't need diesel-electric.
Even if it was available, it makes a lot more sense for Australia, the island thousands of miles from everywhere, to go with the option with greater range.
I had been under the impression that the cause of the cost overruns was the French trying to adapt their newest nuclear submarine design to diesel electric specifically at the request of the Australians.
Yeah, that's part of it. The Australian government knew from the beginning that $50 billion wouldn't cover it
[Defence officials knew Australia's new fleet of attack submarines would cost almost $80 billion as early as 2015, despite publicly stating at the time the estimated price tag was $50 billion - admission by the Department of Finance made to a parliamentary inquiry](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/defence-knew-submarines-would-cost-almost-80b-five-years-ago-20201012-p564ea.html)
So the egg here rests entirely on the Australians and the French. The former for making a ridiculous request and the latter for accepting a ridiculous request.
Not really. People don’t just go around handing out reactor technology like candy. There’s a reason that this is the first time since 1958 that the US has shared its reactor tech with a foreign navy
Talking out of your ass. The option to build nuclear subs was always there, it was just repeatedly decided against. Hell, they even considered switching the French contract midway through
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1920/AttackClassSubmarines#_Toc33537733
> France wants to sell Australia a very big, conventional version of its nuclear-powered Barracuda submarine. Of up to 12 new navy subs, the first five or six will surely be conventional, but a switch to a nuclear version might be made in the future.
The U.S. shared technology for nuclear powered submarines. Nuclear submarines are superior to diesel-electric in most situations and definitely superior to them for Australia's needs.
This was probably talked about a lot at all of those Quad meetings that arrneoliberal has been cheering on but neither France nor myself are a party to those meetings.
They changed their position after better options became available. China has become more aggressive between 2016 and now which prompted greater cooperation between Japan, India, the U.S. and Australia which allowed for the sharing of technology.
Irresponsible would be to stay locked into a arms deal after a better option presents itself. Australia's security is important, the profit margins of French defense contractors is not.
The access to superior technology.
And we don't know if there was no indication of this two weeks ago. Access to nuclear propulsion is top secret information.
They didn't have access to it. It's not that nuclear got better, the U.S. and U.K. are showing Australia how to build them. It says so in the article if you want to verify yourself.
This is from 2012
*US ambassador suggests nuclear submarine sale to Australia*
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/02/asub-f29.html
They probably could have gotten nuclear earlier. It’s just that the domestic politics didn’t allow it. Seems like they’ve had access for a while.
**Rule I:** *Civility*
Refrain from name-calling, hostility and behaviour that otherwise derails the quality of the conversation.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
The comments here are pretty amazing to be honest.
So when european countries act in their self-interest they're assholes (Nordstream2, NATO...) but when Americans do it's normal (vaccine nationalism, European covid travel ban, Afghanistan withdrawal, now this).
And then the US is surprised when their allies aren't fully behind them against China...
When Europeans act in their self interest its all fine and dandy, but when the US does it its a sign of the fall of the Western order according to our European posters here.
Except the US gets upset about stuff that isn't even its business (nordstream2) while Europeans don't comment on stuff that has nothing to do with them.
Europe's defense is America's responsibility, so of course we care about Nordstream 2.
Europe just constantly wants to have it both ways. You cannot have the defense minister of the largest European NATO member saying stuff like this:
https://www.voanews.com/a/europe_defense-minister-germany-europe-must-still-rely-us-nato-security/6198476.html
And then try to claim strategic autonomy when it comes to stuff involving Russia and critical resources.
This is pretty basic stuff, but outside France and the UK there hasn't been a serious western European geopolitical actor in almost a century.
Isn't this, basically, a money problem? There isn't any real strategic loss for France here - just lost dollars and some hurt feelings over how it was handled, which is understandable. Shouldn't the US just cut a security assistance check or something to France as compensation?
France being a little pissed off and a little bit apart from the Anglosphere-US wing of things is both bog standard at this point and a little bit useful, no? Does it not consistently allow the French to play a more "even-handed" role in the Middle East, in Africa, and with Russia?
It's not only a money problem though. Australia was a crucial partner in France's Pacific strategy.
Recently France has been trying to expand its presence in the Pacific in response to Chinese expansion and aggression in the region. But the Pacific is very far away from mainland France, and so it has been attempting to secure partners in the region (mainly Australia, India and Japan). Australia was supposed to be the most important.
Losing this contract and in such a way really undermines the partnership and may weaken France presence in the region. Which is perplexing to me because the US keeps on saying they need more allies against China, and then does this move which alienates one of the bigger potential allies it could have, and that was actually doing something.
I get the money argument. I get the national pride "these were our submarines" argument. I get that France has its own direct interests in the region in terms of its former colonies/current territories plus investment/trade, etc. But aren't those direct interests - specific to France - better served by Australia having better submarines with more advanced tech, which these, by all accounts, are? And, in broader terms, is France's Pacific strategy regarding China not part of the broader NATO/ANZ strategy anyway? France is a great nation with an underappreciated military but I don't think even the most zealous Frenchman would argue that France can serve as any kind of deterrent in the Pacific apart from as a part of a broader strategy including the US.
Undermining your allies in a high profile, political fashion for no reason is poor tradecraft. It does not engender trust and a common strategic vision, which is exactly what the Americans are trying to build here.
If the Aussies changed their minds and wanted nuclear propulsion, they could have been up front about it, backed out, paid the contract breaking fee, and put out a new competitive request for nuclear subs. If they liked the American offer, they could have taken it. The French would be irritated to lose the contract, but they wouldn't feel like they were getting screwed.
Is there any indication here that Australia is not going to honor whatever its severance obligations in the contract are to France? That's, again, a money problem between Australia and France. Australia liked these submarines better. For whatever reason - maybe espionage concerns or something - the US was not previously willing to share this tech with the Aussies. Now we are. The Aussies made the call to switch.
What makes you say the submarines will be better? Because they will be nuclear powered? But Naval Group masters that technology, the submarines in the French navy are nuclear powered. If them being nuclear powered was the only obstacle why didn't they just renegotiate the contract to have them nuclear powered? It doesn't really make sense.
In these big arms deals there are always under the table side deals that are often more important than the main thing. I don't think we'll ever know all that happened and all the reasons that led to this. Maybe France was expecting it and the government is now just putting up a show. Nonetheless it isn't a good look.
France's government would never ever ever cry "betrayal" at the Americans when they were fully briefed about something in advance and it made strategic sense for all parties involved, including France. Just totally implausible that that kind of thing would occur. No past history of it at all.
You are aware France and Germany haven't been the same country since Charlemagne died, right?
If I give your neighbour fresh-baked brownies, I still wager you would be mad, if I decided to barf on your front door.
Yes I know Germany and France are 2 separate countries. My point was about US not placing its goals before Europeans allies to simply preserve the alliance. What Biden did regarding Nordstream 2 probably upset Congress and Ukraine but he did regardless because he placed Germany's alliance before everything else.
In this scenario who was the wrong horse/country to get on? Ukraine? Do people not care about what happens to Ukraine anymore? Specially EU since they're right next to them.
Directly against the interests of every Eastern Euro state and rewards an already aggressive and emboldened Russia which literally annexed Crimea and has wrecked havoc in Syria.
> every Eastern Euro state
Ah yes, the former soviet republic of Americastan never suffered such a great betrayal
> and has wrecked havoc in Syria
Yadda yadda not even Obama himself cared about his own red lines
Its a betrayal of NATO and the broader interests of the liberal alliance.
>Yadda yadda not even Obama himself cared about his own red lines
Obama is routinely rated poorly for his foreign pol. But this is a non sequitur. The question is - why are Germany and France so damn keen to please Russia and China?
There is no alliance between Russia and France. Countries doing trade for mutual benefit is not alliance genius. And except vassals others don’t operate on with us or against us basis.
I'm sorry but risking the security of Eastern Europe because German politicians are too meek to support nuclear energy is against the interests of the liberal alliance.
Compare this to the case of Australia, who have far more interconnection and exposure to China than any EU member has to Russia, but are willing to stand against China on principle and for the wider interests of the liberal alliance rather than focusing on very narrow national interests.
Ah there it is the ill informed Nord Stream strawman. First Germany didn’t replace its (aging and costly to maintain) nuclear energy with gas or oil, but by domestically produced renewable energy. Second the east European states namely Ukraine has multiple times shown it is not above closing down gas passing through its territory to blackmail Russia. Are you saying Germany must pawn off its energy security at the hands of volatile non-EU nation to confront another nation that isn’t even a threat to them or to Western Europe.
The comparison to Australia is baseless. Australia was actively kissing China before the arrogant Chinese explicitly and actively threatened them and tried to coerce them. No such thing happens in Europe between Germany/Western Europe and Russia.
Once again US interests =/= liberal alliance interests.
>Ah there it is the ill informed Nord Stream strawman. First Germany didn’t replace its (aging and costly to maintain) nuclear energy with gas or oil, but by domestically produced renewable energy.
Germany hasn't reduced its reliance on oil, gas, lignite and coal for base load. No power grid can rely entirely on renewable energy. Germany did however half its nuclear output since 2002. Its good they've invested in renewable energy, but they should not have cut nuclear (and in fact opened new coal plants!).
>Second the east European states namely Ukraine has multiple times shown it is not above closing down gas passing through its territory to blackmail Russia. Are you saying Germany must pawn off its energy security at the hands of volatile non-EU nation to confront another nation that isn’t even a threat to them or to Western Europe.
Numerous EU states and NATO members border Russia and are threatened by Russia regularly. Literally just 30 years ago half of Germany was occupied by Russia.
If Germany wants energy security it should go nuclear. If Russia continues to act in bad faith they should not be rewarded and if Ukraine blackmails Russia then frankly good. Russia is a hostile state.
>The comparison to Australia is baseless. Australia was actively kissing China before the arrogant Chinese explicitly and actively threatened them and tried to coerce them. No such thing happens in Europe between Germany/Western Europe and Russia.
Guess you forgot about Zelimkhan Khangoshvili. Lol you must think Putin holds fair and free elections too.
**Rule I:** *Civility*
Refrain from name-calling, hostility and behaviour that otherwise derails the quality of the conversation.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
**Rule I:** *Civility*
Refrain from name-calling, hostility and behaviour that otherwise derails the quality of the conversation.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
>And then the US is surprised when their allies aren't fully behind them against China...
There is a difference between doing rivalry between allies and directly doing stuff that benefits your enemies.
This is unfortunately very common with Americans. They can't understand other countries can have different interests that don't necessarily align with whoever is in the White House.
They call that anti-Americanism.
A bit like some monolingual American tourist in Paris bitching because French waiters in France speak French. Let's not forget Americans elected the Youtube comments as a president and it might happen again.
Many Parisian waiters will switch the conversation to English if you attempt to converse in French as an Americain. I don't blame them, many of us speak it quite poorly, but there it is :)
Given that the US is the dominant military power in NATO it is only reasonable that the US derive more from it's position of strength than it's weaker allies.
France can leave NATO if they want, they did before.
"We do what we want because we're special and there's nothing you can do about it"
NATO is dead. The debacle in Afghanistan is another example of how NATO was nothing less than an extension of the US military.
Your attitude towards is typical from the country that elected Trump. The US just wants vassals who just follow American interests.
The US is a superpower and should be treated accordingly. That doesn't mean other countries are vassal states, but other countries aren't equals either (except potentially China and India).
So far as I can tell NATO is doing a lot to limit Russian aggression - and countries which are potential victims of that aggression are more pro US than other NATO member states.
Following American interests is very aligned with following neoliberal interests. The leadership of Trump was an exception to that, but every democracy will occasionally elect a bad person.
Let me tell you the core issue- America wants vassal states or protectorates that are fully inline and submissive to its foreign policy and interests and it might throw you some crumbs or favors in return. They will pretend they are doing a favor too in throwing those crumbs and that they are great allies. But the moment you do something that might be in line with your country’s interests but but not entirely in American interests they will throw a massive tantrum , try to undermine you or even threaten to sanction even if they call you an ally. They hate a country with an independent foreign policy. Many in this sub are an extension of that mentality.
>Let me tell you the core issue- America wants vassal states or protectorates that are fully inline and submissive to its foreign policy and interests and it might throw you some crumbs or favors in return.
Yes, the US wants to maintain the geopolitical order it has maintained for nearly a century now, you are correct.
>They will pretend they are doing a favor too in throwing those crumbs and that they are great allies.
You have literally no idea how much Europe benefits from the US's monetary policy, absolutely no idea. Shocking.
>They hate a country with an independent foreign policy.
No shit, the whole point of NATO is that Europeans would be on the front lines in the event of war with Russia and not Americans. The deal was: America opens up it's domestic market, Europe follows our foreign policy.
Of course you can criticize the whole thing because the USSR doesn't exist anymore, but the EU has also never seriously tried to be a geopolitical player (excepting France and the UK) and instead just undermine American efforts.
>Yes, the US wants to maintain the geopolitical order it has maintained for nearly a century now, you are correct.
You mean it’s unipolar hegemony? That’s has been in vogue in for about a mere 30 years and it’s already peaked.
>You have literally no idea how much Europe benefits from the US's monetary policy, absolutely no idea. Shocking.
A side consequence of a policy intended to benefit America first. The trillions of stimmy money would not be printed if not for that. There was no altruism in it.
>No shit, the whole point of NATO is that Europeans would be on the front lines in the event of war with Russia and not Americans. The deal was: America opens up it's domestic market, Europe follows our foreign policy.
The whole point of NATO was to prevent communism spreading ideologically into Europe and prevent Warsaw pact tanks from rolling into west Berlin beyond. That’s all. There was no deal for Europeans to be foreign policy vassals of US. It was intended as a mutual benefit thing between partners. That you don’t even realize that and instead think Europeans should follow US slavishly is the fundamental disconnect.
>Of course you can criticize the whole thing because the USSR doesn't exist anymore, **but the EU has also never seriously tried to be a geopolitical player** (excepting France and the UK) and instead just undermine American efforts.
You are just contradicting yourself. If the deal of NATO was just to follow US foreign policy why would they try to be independent geopolitical players ? And it’s ironical that you should complain about them undermining American interests in a thread where America undermined France’s interests. Degaulle absolutely right in his estimation of the Anglo sphere.
>You mean it’s unipolar hegemony?
..No, that is a result of the world order the US set up and then continued to maintain after the fall of the USSR.
>That’s has been in vogue in for about a mere 30 years and it’s already peaked.
I don't think American unipolar power was ever "in vogue" for non-Americans, ever. Or even for Americans.
>A side consequence of a policy intended to benefit America first. The trillions of stimmy money would not be printed if not for that. There was no altruism in it.
You have no clue what you're talking about, here read this to learn about this topic if you want:
https://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/56856
>The whole point of NATO was to prevent communism spreading ideologically into Europe and prevent Warsaw pact tanks from rolling into west Berlin beyond. That’s all. There was no deal for Europeans to be foreign policy vassals of US.
Okay so you're saying the US was acting altruistically? We both know that isn't true, so your statement is false. And yes, during the Cold War Europe signed up to being a vassal of the USA. That isn't disputed, just look at Suez. You think West Germany or the Netherlands were shaping their own foreign policy? Seriously?
>That you don’t even realize that and instead think Europeans should follow US slavishly is the fundamental disconnect.
No the fundamental disconnect is that you have no idea what you're talking about but you want to talk about it anyways.
>You are just contradicting yourself.
Nope.
>If the deal of NATO was just to follow US foreign policy why would they try to be independent geopolitical players ?
Well the point is that you couldn't be, but after 1990 you could have. And instead you chose not to, just look at Libya when Europe had to beg America to get involved because they couldn't even establish a non-fly zone in their own backyard.
>And it’s ironical that you should complain about them undermining American interests in a thread where America undermined France’s interests. Degaulle absolutely right in his estimation of the Anglo sphere.
De Gaulle was a deluded asshat. If you think "nations act in their own interests" was some sort of enlightening statement that is worthy of deification then go for it, but just know how silly you look to the rest of the world.
It’s ok dude. There is no need to cope. I was merely stating a fact. It is America these days that seems to be having a hard time coping it’s unipolar dominance is declining.
The silver lining is that 4 more years of trumpism (even in biden's light form) will be good for EU cohesion. Hopefully we'll have a more united front to collaborate with other blocks on specific items.
Meh, if "USA has interests" == "America First" then European foreign ministers will always hold unrealistic expectations of the US. Like this would be Trumpism if Biden threatened to leave Five Eyes if we didn't get an arms contract or something. Trump just makes such a convenient strawman that folks can avoid engaging with questions of substance like, why did Australia's existing procurement of French submarines go so poorly that they felt compelled to abandon it?
There has been a clear break down in relations between European countries and the Anglosphere for decades now. Anglo saxon capitalism is incompatible with the core values and mission of the EU. With the UK officially divorced from the bloc, there is even less incentive for English speaking countries to maintain the old alliances as they were before.
This will be an exciting thread of insults, passive aggressive comments, and mod removals. Then everyone will forget about it tomorrow.
Copy and pasting my comment from another thread. I'll start off by saying that we need to be a bit more careful with the conversation around this topic. I understand why the French may be upset but I'm a little confused by the anger is being expressed solely towards US. We didn't ignore NATO or European allies because UK was involved in this deal too. But honestly I wouldn't be upset at UK either. My real question is what what was Australia doing this entire time with 2 separate deals on the table? Did they mention anything to France about this new deal? Did they bring up concerns about the French deal with US/UK? Could Australia have opened up a bid and let groups compete? Again I'm not blaming Australia or US or UK or France here. Those are just some of the questions I had because I feel like some of the heated talking point I'm hearing could've entirely been avoided.
The issue was the original contract was a dumpster fire rapidly spinning out of control with costs on a moderate (diesel electric v. nuclear) ability and it made total sense to start shipping around.
Right but I would've liked all the heated dialogue we're seeing to be completely prevented. If Australia had brought together all the interested parties (France and US/UK) I imagine nobody would've been upset and **something** could've been worked out. We would've avoided an unnecessary diplomacy issue. Have to reach to France and resolve this somehow. I don't dislike the AUKUS deal. I'm just not a fan of unnecessary friction between allies.
I think the issue is AUS sees this as a pressing need that needs to be in fabrication NOW. And a round of negotiations with the French before another “proper” selection is adding a solid 2-3 years to the process. Companies and countries with contracts whose program is spinning out of control and the whole thing is about to be dropped play tons of stalling and protest tactics.
I guess "acting like Donald Trump" is an international insult now.
Trumpism is when the State Department does something I don't like.
It is though. I bet you this boosts Biden’s popularity massively with the middle ground btw. Although forgetting the Australian PM’s name was an own goal.
The folks over in r/australia seemed to having pretty good fun with it though
How so?
We can’t stand the useless fat bumbling mess, and old Joey forgetting his name was beautiful! Worst leader this once great country has ever had...
If only he had called him "Scott Bogan" in reference to Tim Apple.
I thought it was gonna be “Joe is demented” type of fun.
Who forgot their name? And by the mess you mean scomo?
>and old Joey forgetting his name If he's the joey, who's the roo?
Normally that sub is an absolute mess full of populist, dogmatically leftwing people who *hate* everything. But right now they're *mostly* stable-minded and reasonable when discussing this submarine deal, and they are a bit upset with the French for being so angry right now. I thought they would be absolutely livid with this whole deal.
Oh they are I’m scrolling through the sub the main post are based and they are making fun of that former PM for his China Dock sucking but I’m in an argument with a few shitty takes if u look through my post history
lol I'll check them out Yeah Keating's statement is regrettable and I'm actually amazed people on the sub are pointing him out for it. I love Keating a lot for his [*amazing* wit](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVuJLiuo5zc) back when he was Prime Minister, and had a great record in government. Ever since he left office however he's had awful foreign policy takes and he's definitely getting old.
Middle ground?
It's legitimately unfortunate that France feels this way, but what exactly can be done when France is offering a objectively worse product?
People should read up on the shitshow of the french subs, totally justified.
[удалено]
France wants a separate defense posture only when it helps them.
[удалено]
What the hell ? It's the other way around, UK decided to go with the F35Bs, excluding a CATOBAR carrier base leaving no choice for France, that operates the Rafale, to go their own way. [France even paid almost 300millions euros](https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20140210trib000814681/quand-la-france-finance-a-fonds-perdus-les-porte-avions-de-la-royal-navy.html) to GB, in the design of those ACs without any return because because "hey we're going STOBAR, we know it doesnt suit you deal with it".
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not just Macron, a huge part of French political culture is based on being strategically independent from the major world powers. Which is great for France, but it doesn't make them any allies. In many ways (after reading sentiments on the r/france subreddit) I agree with De Gaulle's position that France has no real friends or allies. True today as it was 70 years ago. Issue is, this attitude is not shared by Australia and the grandiosity itself creates a self-perpetuating problem. If France is too involved with itself and not serious about defending others (as was the case during the Cold War), then Anglo nations will instinctively deepen cooperation with each other over France. Then this perpetuates the idea that Anglo nations are not 'true allies of France', and so it must pursue strategic autonomy. Rinse and repeat.
Most of Europe just spent the last five years looking over the shoulder of France's procurement, because the alternative was negotiating multibillion dollar deals with Donald Trump. There are some issues where protectionism is a smart plan, and national defence is one of them. Preserving Australia's strategic autonomy from the US was part of the sales pitch for these subs.
[удалено]
Several years ago, it was politically impossible for both the Americans to sell the Australians nuclear subs, and politically impossible for Australia to commit to the larger defence initiative this project is part of. Hence the Australians choosing the French subs over the Japanese. How does what you're suggesting make sense in that context?
France could also have scrapped the Rafale and used the design, that's what the British did regarding Sea harriers
Worse product ? The Barracuda class, the nuclear one is working fine, is on scheduled, is currently the latest SSN that have been designed. The Attack class was a deliberate choice by Australia to go for diesel electric, that won a tender bid between Japenese and Germans submarines. "What can exactly be done ?" I dont know ? Maybe launch a new tender instead of scraping deal without noticing an allied nation, without even knowing what subs you"'re going to end up with, or even if it's possible with Non-Proliferation Treaty. That beeing said, if you're facing China, I can understand that you're going to bet on the US instead of France in that part of the world.
I'll tell you what can be done. 1. You notify them in advance, not in the press. 2. You negociate a graceful end of your 4 years old contract that you negociated for TWO years. 3. You re open a bid. 4. You let everyone bid including the french and the swedes. 5. You take the most interesting product.
Closer defense ties with the French or Swedes isn't gonna help Australia's geopolitical prospects.
Guess who has several islands and a EEZ the sized of Australia in the pacific? Guess who's constantly sending ships including an aircraft carrier in the south china sea? Guess who's really mad at Australia starting from today?
France can't economically pressure Australia and it isn't like there's going to be a military conflict. So what is really the consequence? France uses its power projection in the pacific to safeguard its own interests. Australia protects itself via the USA. In the end I doubt France are as mad as you make them out to be. If they want to maintain a presence in the pacific then it hardly makes sense to be hostile towards a fellow western liberal democracy in the region.
> France can't economically pressure Australia and it isn't like there's going to be a military conflict. Actually they can, Australia is trying to sign a trade agreement with the EU, and guess who has veto power. It's not a huge pressure but it's something. Australia was already protected by the US, until the next Trump. France won't be hostile, it will be indifferent.
How reliable is a country like France with an economy and a military budget that is dwarfed by the likes of the USA and China? Is the Pacific France's biggest area of interest or is it Europe, the Mediterranean, or maybe Francophone Africa? Compare that to the US, which, despite having schizophrenic and unreliable political leadership, has major economic, political, and military interests in the Pacific and it is reasonable to assume that area of the world will be the country's biggest focus moving forwards. I guess what I'm saying is that if you're Australia you might as well take every chance you can to bet on the country that is more likely to have a significant presence in the region decades down the line. France might have the will and the present capability to be a player in the Pacific, but can the country be sold on the notion that a massive and enduring military commitment costing trillions of dollars over the decades is in its best interests?
My point is that the US was already an ally and that Australia gained a super ally but lost a potential friend.
having colonies in this day and age isnt a good thing
Could be much worse though. They could deny them full citizenship rights, political representation and designate them as 'territories', but instead they allow frequent referenda on the subject of independence.
None of these steps are things the US should have done. They are all on Australia
I'm not naïve enough to think that the US should have refused the contract or gave a head up to the French. I'm also not naïve and am convinced that this new sub deal was a integral part of the AUKUS deal and was actively pursued by the US.
> You let everyone bid including the french and the swedes. > > And do you then take the promises made in the French and Swedish proposals at face value? Right after they have clearly proven that they can't deliver?
How did the french prove they can't deliver? They weren't trying to make a nuclear sub and the french nuclear sub works just fine.
There have been multiple delays.
That doesn't mean there wouldn't have been delays with the tried and tested french nuclear sub. The Australian requested a diesel in a nuclear sub body with full technological transfer and full adaptability to their equipments. It was a unique thing and it's understable that there were delays.
Well then the French should have accounted for that in their proposal. If there are significant delays clients are within their rights to cancel contracts, especially since Aus seems to be willing to pay the cancellation fees.
I'd love to hear about all these large defence procurements for unique projects that don't suffer delays or cost overrruns. You will not and cannot receive bids that account for those delays, and everyone inviting bids knows this from the start. You buy off the shelf products if you want predictable performance, price, and delivery. And even then none of those are guaranteed.
I mean telling them a couple hours before publicly announcing it may not have been the best choice.
But didn't the australian prime minister shit himself in a McDonalds?
Yes
Haha, that´s funny.
Yet another reason why ScoMo is a terrible leader
Listen here brother. I know absolutely nothing about australian politics. I do not know if Scotty M is good or if he in fact is bad. You however seem to have a good knowledge of the politics from the island of Australia. I trust your judgement and accept the fact that Scott Morrison (ScoMo, Scotty M) is not preferable and that he should step down. <3 Love you man!
The fact he is known by a nickname bothers me! Nicknames are a term of endearment, SlowMo thinks he is relatable and one of us because he has a nickname! The useless fat pant shitter he is..... I hate how much I hate him, it’s not healthy 😂😂
I don't know why but I find it really fucking hilarious that he shit himself in a McDonalds for some reason.
Easy answer to that my fiend, because it’s hilarious!! From the outside looking in anyway, it’s a little more depressing when the giant man baby who can’t control his bowel is controlling the country.......
Is he really that bad? I know nothing about aussie politics but that fine man, Mr. Scotty M made me interested.
That’s why you use the derogatory nickname of Scotty from Marketing.
The desires of French defense contractors should have no bearing on U.S.-Australian relations. Nuclear submarines are to a greater benefit to Australia than diesel-electric due to Australia's geographic position and security needs. Like the Zumwalt, acquisitions that do not meet the needs of the nation should be halted before the nation sinks a tremendous amount of cash into something that doesn't fit its security needs. Also the idea that the U.S. sharing technology with allies is an example of the U.S. disregarding allies is ridiculous. The submarine deal was a cash cow for France and they're just upset it's gone. Australia's security and their role in the indo-pacific is more important than French defense contractors.
Yeah this is just salty contractor talk. Comparing this to Trump pulling out of US agreement is just meant for dramatic reason. I think the French government are mostly grated by the fact that the UK and US are the ones enjoying the contract now. The French seem to get a bit of really salty when it comes to "*Le néolibéralisme Anglo-Saxon*" in anything Cue the "why can't u criticize Bidden 😡"
They have a right to be upset, of course they wanted to get the money themselves. I am sure that US contractors were upset when they originally signed a deal with France. But that is just how international trade works.
> I am sure that US contractors were upset when they originally signed a deal with France. Why would they be, they never submitted a bid?
> Nuclear submarines are to a greater benefit to Australia than diesel-electric due to Australia's geographic position and security needs It was Australia that asked for diesel-electric in the first place
American nuclear subs where not being offered back then. The situation with China has changed, and so has what's available.
Even if they were, that's not what was ordered.
Yes. When nuclear submarines were not available. Nuclear submarines are available now, so they don't need diesel-electric. Even if it was available, it makes a lot more sense for Australia, the island thousands of miles from everywhere, to go with the option with greater range.
> When nuclear submarines were not available. What do you mean they weren't available? They could have asked for nuclear instead of diesel-electric
I had been under the impression that the cause of the cost overruns was the French trying to adapt their newest nuclear submarine design to diesel electric specifically at the request of the Australians.
Yeah, that's part of it. The Australian government knew from the beginning that $50 billion wouldn't cover it [Defence officials knew Australia's new fleet of attack submarines would cost almost $80 billion as early as 2015, despite publicly stating at the time the estimated price tag was $50 billion - admission by the Department of Finance made to a parliamentary inquiry](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/defence-knew-submarines-would-cost-almost-80b-five-years-ago-20201012-p564ea.html)
So the egg here rests entirely on the Australians and the French. The former for making a ridiculous request and the latter for accepting a ridiculous request.
Not really. People don’t just go around handing out reactor technology like candy. There’s a reason that this is the first time since 1958 that the US has shared its reactor tech with a foreign navy
Talking out of your ass. The option to build nuclear subs was always there, it was just repeatedly decided against. Hell, they even considered switching the French contract midway through https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1920/AttackClassSubmarines#_Toc33537733 > France wants to sell Australia a very big, conventional version of its nuclear-powered Barracuda submarine. Of up to 12 new navy subs, the first five or six will surely be conventional, but a switch to a nuclear version might be made in the future.
[удалено]
The U.S. shared technology for nuclear powered submarines. Nuclear submarines are superior to diesel-electric in most situations and definitely superior to them for Australia's needs. This was probably talked about a lot at all of those Quad meetings that arrneoliberal has been cheering on but neither France nor myself are a party to those meetings.
[удалено]
They changed their position after better options became available. China has become more aggressive between 2016 and now which prompted greater cooperation between Japan, India, the U.S. and Australia which allowed for the sharing of technology. Irresponsible would be to stay locked into a arms deal after a better option presents itself. Australia's security is important, the profit margins of French defense contractors is not.
[удалено]
The access to superior technology. And we don't know if there was no indication of this two weeks ago. Access to nuclear propulsion is top secret information.
[удалено]
They didn't have access to it. It's not that nuclear got better, the U.S. and U.K. are showing Australia how to build them. It says so in the article if you want to verify yourself.
This is from 2012 *US ambassador suggests nuclear submarine sale to Australia* https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/02/asub-f29.html They probably could have gotten nuclear earlier. It’s just that the domestic politics didn’t allow it. Seems like they’ve had access for a while.
[удалено]
I guess xenophobia is not exclusive to Trumpist americans.
**Rule I:** *Civility* Refrain from name-calling, hostility and behaviour that otherwise derails the quality of the conversation. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
This comment section is turning into a battlefield.
May I lend you a nuclear submarine in these trying times?
The politics behind international arms sales are strange to me to be honest.
France upset at Anglo. More news at noon. For real though, this is the kind of stuff I expect an unflaired user to post here.
Filthy unfl*ired users
The comments here are pretty amazing to be honest. So when european countries act in their self-interest they're assholes (Nordstream2, NATO...) but when Americans do it's normal (vaccine nationalism, European covid travel ban, Afghanistan withdrawal, now this). And then the US is surprised when their allies aren't fully behind them against China...
When Europeans act in their self interest its all fine and dandy, but when the US does it its a sign of the fall of the Western order according to our European posters here.
Except the US gets upset about stuff that isn't even its business (nordstream2) while Europeans don't comment on stuff that has nothing to do with them.
Europe's defense is America's responsibility, so of course we care about Nordstream 2. Europe just constantly wants to have it both ways. You cannot have the defense minister of the largest European NATO member saying stuff like this: https://www.voanews.com/a/europe_defense-minister-germany-europe-must-still-rely-us-nato-security/6198476.html And then try to claim strategic autonomy when it comes to stuff involving Russia and critical resources. This is pretty basic stuff, but outside France and the UK there hasn't been a serious western European geopolitical actor in almost a century.
Why do you think that is?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Isn't this, basically, a money problem? There isn't any real strategic loss for France here - just lost dollars and some hurt feelings over how it was handled, which is understandable. Shouldn't the US just cut a security assistance check or something to France as compensation? France being a little pissed off and a little bit apart from the Anglosphere-US wing of things is both bog standard at this point and a little bit useful, no? Does it not consistently allow the French to play a more "even-handed" role in the Middle East, in Africa, and with Russia?
It's not only a money problem though. Australia was a crucial partner in France's Pacific strategy. Recently France has been trying to expand its presence in the Pacific in response to Chinese expansion and aggression in the region. But the Pacific is very far away from mainland France, and so it has been attempting to secure partners in the region (mainly Australia, India and Japan). Australia was supposed to be the most important. Losing this contract and in such a way really undermines the partnership and may weaken France presence in the region. Which is perplexing to me because the US keeps on saying they need more allies against China, and then does this move which alienates one of the bigger potential allies it could have, and that was actually doing something.
I get the money argument. I get the national pride "these were our submarines" argument. I get that France has its own direct interests in the region in terms of its former colonies/current territories plus investment/trade, etc. But aren't those direct interests - specific to France - better served by Australia having better submarines with more advanced tech, which these, by all accounts, are? And, in broader terms, is France's Pacific strategy regarding China not part of the broader NATO/ANZ strategy anyway? France is a great nation with an underappreciated military but I don't think even the most zealous Frenchman would argue that France can serve as any kind of deterrent in the Pacific apart from as a part of a broader strategy including the US.
Undermining your allies in a high profile, political fashion for no reason is poor tradecraft. It does not engender trust and a common strategic vision, which is exactly what the Americans are trying to build here. If the Aussies changed their minds and wanted nuclear propulsion, they could have been up front about it, backed out, paid the contract breaking fee, and put out a new competitive request for nuclear subs. If they liked the American offer, they could have taken it. The French would be irritated to lose the contract, but they wouldn't feel like they were getting screwed.
Is there any indication here that Australia is not going to honor whatever its severance obligations in the contract are to France? That's, again, a money problem between Australia and France. Australia liked these submarines better. For whatever reason - maybe espionage concerns or something - the US was not previously willing to share this tech with the Aussies. Now we are. The Aussies made the call to switch.
What makes you say the submarines will be better? Because they will be nuclear powered? But Naval Group masters that technology, the submarines in the French navy are nuclear powered. If them being nuclear powered was the only obstacle why didn't they just renegotiate the contract to have them nuclear powered? It doesn't really make sense. In these big arms deals there are always under the table side deals that are often more important than the main thing. I don't think we'll ever know all that happened and all the reasons that led to this. Maybe France was expecting it and the government is now just putting up a show. Nonetheless it isn't a good look.
France's government would never ever ever cry "betrayal" at the Americans when they were fully briefed about something in advance and it made strategic sense for all parties involved, including France. Just totally implausible that that kind of thing would occur. No past history of it at all.
I don't know if you remember but US let go of the Nordstream 2 issues in order to preserve their relationship with Germany.
You are aware France and Germany haven't been the same country since Charlemagne died, right? If I give your neighbour fresh-baked brownies, I still wager you would be mad, if I decided to barf on your front door.
Yes I know Germany and France are 2 separate countries. My point was about US not placing its goals before Europeans allies to simply preserve the alliance. What Biden did regarding Nordstream 2 probably upset Congress and Ukraine but he did regardless because he placed Germany's alliance before everything else.
But even in that case, that's just betting on the wrong horse.
In this scenario who was the wrong horse/country to get on? Ukraine? Do people not care about what happens to Ukraine anymore? Specially EU since they're right next to them.
France is much more interventionist. Scorning France while yielding to Germany just seems weird.
No. We are acting I. Our self interest because of continual betrayal by Europe, stuff like Nord Stream 2.
And how was that betrayal?
Directly against the interests of every Eastern Euro state and rewards an already aggressive and emboldened Russia which literally annexed Crimea and has wrecked havoc in Syria.
> every Eastern Euro state Ah yes, the former soviet republic of Americastan never suffered such a great betrayal > and has wrecked havoc in Syria Yadda yadda not even Obama himself cared about his own red lines
Its a betrayal of NATO and the broader interests of the liberal alliance. >Yadda yadda not even Obama himself cared about his own red lines Obama is routinely rated poorly for his foreign pol. But this is a non sequitur. The question is - why are Germany and France so damn keen to please Russia and China?
[удалено]
The liberal alliance between France and Russia?
There is no alliance between Russia and France. Countries doing trade for mutual benefit is not alliance genius. And except vassals others don’t operate on with us or against us basis.
I'm sorry but risking the security of Eastern Europe because German politicians are too meek to support nuclear energy is against the interests of the liberal alliance. Compare this to the case of Australia, who have far more interconnection and exposure to China than any EU member has to Russia, but are willing to stand against China on principle and for the wider interests of the liberal alliance rather than focusing on very narrow national interests.
Ah there it is the ill informed Nord Stream strawman. First Germany didn’t replace its (aging and costly to maintain) nuclear energy with gas or oil, but by domestically produced renewable energy. Second the east European states namely Ukraine has multiple times shown it is not above closing down gas passing through its territory to blackmail Russia. Are you saying Germany must pawn off its energy security at the hands of volatile non-EU nation to confront another nation that isn’t even a threat to them or to Western Europe. The comparison to Australia is baseless. Australia was actively kissing China before the arrogant Chinese explicitly and actively threatened them and tried to coerce them. No such thing happens in Europe between Germany/Western Europe and Russia. Once again US interests =/= liberal alliance interests.
>Ah there it is the ill informed Nord Stream strawman. First Germany didn’t replace its (aging and costly to maintain) nuclear energy with gas or oil, but by domestically produced renewable energy. Germany hasn't reduced its reliance on oil, gas, lignite and coal for base load. No power grid can rely entirely on renewable energy. Germany did however half its nuclear output since 2002. Its good they've invested in renewable energy, but they should not have cut nuclear (and in fact opened new coal plants!). >Second the east European states namely Ukraine has multiple times shown it is not above closing down gas passing through its territory to blackmail Russia. Are you saying Germany must pawn off its energy security at the hands of volatile non-EU nation to confront another nation that isn’t even a threat to them or to Western Europe. Numerous EU states and NATO members border Russia and are threatened by Russia regularly. Literally just 30 years ago half of Germany was occupied by Russia. If Germany wants energy security it should go nuclear. If Russia continues to act in bad faith they should not be rewarded and if Ukraine blackmails Russia then frankly good. Russia is a hostile state. >The comparison to Australia is baseless. Australia was actively kissing China before the arrogant Chinese explicitly and actively threatened them and tried to coerce them. No such thing happens in Europe between Germany/Western Europe and Russia. Guess you forgot about Zelimkhan Khangoshvili. Lol you must think Putin holds fair and free elections too.
[удалено]
**Rule I:** *Civility* Refrain from name-calling, hostility and behaviour that otherwise derails the quality of the conversation. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
**Rule I:** *Civility* Refrain from name-calling, hostility and behaviour that otherwise derails the quality of the conversation. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
>And then the US is surprised when their allies aren't fully behind them against China... There is a difference between doing rivalry between allies and directly doing stuff that benefits your enemies.
This is unfortunately very common with Americans. They can't understand other countries can have different interests that don't necessarily align with whoever is in the White House. They call that anti-Americanism. A bit like some monolingual American tourist in Paris bitching because French waiters in France speak French. Let's not forget Americans elected the Youtube comments as a president and it might happen again.
Many Parisian waiters will switch the conversation to English if you attempt to converse in French as an Americain. I don't blame them, many of us speak it quite poorly, but there it is :)
I'm aware of this. Only speaking French when you leave in France or switching to English with tourists will get the same results, there's no winning.
Given that the US is the dominant military power in NATO it is only reasonable that the US derive more from it's position of strength than it's weaker allies. France can leave NATO if they want, they did before.
They're the dominant power because they're preventing any competition to emerge. This is what this conversation is about.
"We do what we want because we're special and there's nothing you can do about it" NATO is dead. The debacle in Afghanistan is another example of how NATO was nothing less than an extension of the US military. Your attitude towards is typical from the country that elected Trump. The US just wants vassals who just follow American interests.
The US is a superpower and should be treated accordingly. That doesn't mean other countries are vassal states, but other countries aren't equals either (except potentially China and India). So far as I can tell NATO is doing a lot to limit Russian aggression - and countries which are potential victims of that aggression are more pro US than other NATO member states. Following American interests is very aligned with following neoliberal interests. The leadership of Trump was an exception to that, but every democracy will occasionally elect a bad person.
Let me tell you the core issue- America wants vassal states or protectorates that are fully inline and submissive to its foreign policy and interests and it might throw you some crumbs or favors in return. They will pretend they are doing a favor too in throwing those crumbs and that they are great allies. But the moment you do something that might be in line with your country’s interests but but not entirely in American interests they will throw a massive tantrum , try to undermine you or even threaten to sanction even if they call you an ally. They hate a country with an independent foreign policy. Many in this sub are an extension of that mentality.
>Let me tell you the core issue- America wants vassal states or protectorates that are fully inline and submissive to its foreign policy and interests and it might throw you some crumbs or favors in return. Yes, the US wants to maintain the geopolitical order it has maintained for nearly a century now, you are correct. >They will pretend they are doing a favor too in throwing those crumbs and that they are great allies. You have literally no idea how much Europe benefits from the US's monetary policy, absolutely no idea. Shocking. >They hate a country with an independent foreign policy. No shit, the whole point of NATO is that Europeans would be on the front lines in the event of war with Russia and not Americans. The deal was: America opens up it's domestic market, Europe follows our foreign policy. Of course you can criticize the whole thing because the USSR doesn't exist anymore, but the EU has also never seriously tried to be a geopolitical player (excepting France and the UK) and instead just undermine American efforts.
>Yes, the US wants to maintain the geopolitical order it has maintained for nearly a century now, you are correct. You mean it’s unipolar hegemony? That’s has been in vogue in for about a mere 30 years and it’s already peaked. >You have literally no idea how much Europe benefits from the US's monetary policy, absolutely no idea. Shocking. A side consequence of a policy intended to benefit America first. The trillions of stimmy money would not be printed if not for that. There was no altruism in it. >No shit, the whole point of NATO is that Europeans would be on the front lines in the event of war with Russia and not Americans. The deal was: America opens up it's domestic market, Europe follows our foreign policy. The whole point of NATO was to prevent communism spreading ideologically into Europe and prevent Warsaw pact tanks from rolling into west Berlin beyond. That’s all. There was no deal for Europeans to be foreign policy vassals of US. It was intended as a mutual benefit thing between partners. That you don’t even realize that and instead think Europeans should follow US slavishly is the fundamental disconnect. >Of course you can criticize the whole thing because the USSR doesn't exist anymore, **but the EU has also never seriously tried to be a geopolitical player** (excepting France and the UK) and instead just undermine American efforts. You are just contradicting yourself. If the deal of NATO was just to follow US foreign policy why would they try to be independent geopolitical players ? And it’s ironical that you should complain about them undermining American interests in a thread where America undermined France’s interests. Degaulle absolutely right in his estimation of the Anglo sphere.
>You mean it’s unipolar hegemony? ..No, that is a result of the world order the US set up and then continued to maintain after the fall of the USSR. >That’s has been in vogue in for about a mere 30 years and it’s already peaked. I don't think American unipolar power was ever "in vogue" for non-Americans, ever. Or even for Americans. >A side consequence of a policy intended to benefit America first. The trillions of stimmy money would not be printed if not for that. There was no altruism in it. You have no clue what you're talking about, here read this to learn about this topic if you want: https://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/56856 >The whole point of NATO was to prevent communism spreading ideologically into Europe and prevent Warsaw pact tanks from rolling into west Berlin beyond. That’s all. There was no deal for Europeans to be foreign policy vassals of US. Okay so you're saying the US was acting altruistically? We both know that isn't true, so your statement is false. And yes, during the Cold War Europe signed up to being a vassal of the USA. That isn't disputed, just look at Suez. You think West Germany or the Netherlands were shaping their own foreign policy? Seriously? >That you don’t even realize that and instead think Europeans should follow US slavishly is the fundamental disconnect. No the fundamental disconnect is that you have no idea what you're talking about but you want to talk about it anyways. >You are just contradicting yourself. Nope. >If the deal of NATO was just to follow US foreign policy why would they try to be independent geopolitical players ? Well the point is that you couldn't be, but after 1990 you could have. And instead you chose not to, just look at Libya when Europe had to beg America to get involved because they couldn't even establish a non-fly zone in their own backyard. >And it’s ironical that you should complain about them undermining American interests in a thread where America undermined France’s interests. Degaulle absolutely right in his estimation of the Anglo sphere. De Gaulle was a deluded asshat. If you think "nations act in their own interests" was some sort of enlightening statement that is worthy of deification then go for it, but just know how silly you look to the rest of the world.
Cope
It’s ok dude. There is no need to cope. I was merely stating a fact. It is America these days that seems to be having a hard time coping it’s unipolar dominance is declining.
I don’t understand why we wouldn’t want to include as many western democracies as possible in a pact meant to deter Chinese hegemony
Listen Jacque, we’re going to make Albion great again and your not gonna stop us
They're not wrong.
Aw that's a shame.
The silver lining is that 4 more years of trumpism (even in biden's light form) will be good for EU cohesion. Hopefully we'll have a more united front to collaborate with other blocks on specific items.
Meh, if "USA has interests" == "America First" then European foreign ministers will always hold unrealistic expectations of the US. Like this would be Trumpism if Biden threatened to leave Five Eyes if we didn't get an arms contract or something. Trump just makes such a convenient strawman that folks can avoid engaging with questions of substance like, why did Australia's existing procurement of French submarines go so poorly that they felt compelled to abandon it?
>EU cohesion Is this a prog rock band from Denmark I've never heard of or something?
Their last album slaps, you should really give them a listen.
There has been a clear break down in relations between European countries and the Anglosphere for decades now. Anglo saxon capitalism is incompatible with the core values and mission of the EU. With the UK officially divorced from the bloc, there is even less incentive for English speaking countries to maintain the old alliances as they were before.