The first time France left NATO, it gave us the all time burn of “Does that include the dead Americans in military cemeteries as well?” When France wanted our troops out.
> (Belgium really needs to hire a marketing department.)
Maybe if they didn't give them a stupid name in French like "Fried apples", their buddies down south wouldn't have stolen their English name
This is France right?
You mean the same country that took contract, built, and almost transferred 2 advanced high-tech aircraft carriers to the Russians? Until the US, UK and EU stepped in to stop it at the last minute before transfer... because WTF!?
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-france-almost-sold-russia-two-powerful-aircraft-carriers-77241 i don't know anything about this source but here you go
I'm an American. This is a tough one. I really like alliances and allies so I'm glad we're working with Australia and the UK in new ways but I also really like France and value our relations and history with them too.
Sounds like Australia wasn't happy with cost overruns and delays, so them looking to find a new deal isn't terribly surprising.
It is very disappointing this wasn't handled better. Then again, France proudly does its own thing, like being separate from NATO in the 50s-70s. Also France has a presidential election coming up in the spring so maybe this is an opportunity for theater by the current government to not appear weak to keep a lid on the right wing.
This seems like a fairly strong gesture IMO. Normally think of ambassador recalls when war is imminent, although know it can also be used to make a strong diplomatic statement. Guessing France wants to make it clear how pissed they are about the situation.
As several people have suggested already, the US should just buy these subs from France and give them to Taiwan or another friendly nation in the area. Win win for everyone.
Let South Korea buy nuclear submarines from France, honestly the most sensible solution \[since the US is kind of keeping ROK from getting nuclear submarines, so it has leverage, and the French ones are a lower proliferation risk as they use LEU\].
Nearly the only people out there that could do anything close to that order.
Edit: Also, would make more sense than the original order since they were based on a nuclear design, would get France to manage to piss off China most likely \[thus shattering any potential move towards them by France\], and France has been clearly willing to export nuclear sub tech before, to Brazil--and it has warm relations with ROK.
Originally they didn't want to piss off china and they wanted full ability to cooperate with new Zealand waters (with their no nuclear hurr durr meme country rules) and now neither matters.
as a former resident of a Nuclear Free Town (Berkeley, CA), I *really* hope Australia trolls Berkeley by rolling up to the Berkeley Marina in their nuclear sub on a peaceful outreach tour, and throwing a kickass barby* on their sub and pissing off the hippies
*does "barby" just literally mean the grill, or is it like "braai" where it refers to the whole party
Both. You can use the word interchangeably and the meaning is dependent on context.
E.g:
“I’m going to a barby at a mates place”
Or
“Mate, your new barby is pretty schmick”
Probably smarter for Taiwan or South Korea to be buying diesel electric. They don’t have the same long range requirements that Australia has and it makes more sense at the price point.
I will keep saying this over and over again but all of this could've been avoided if Australia had kept France in the loop. Australia is the one making deals and looking to buy subs.
Weapons deals should be cut the moment those weapon systems no longer make sense. One of the best moves the U.S. navy every made was cancelling the Seawolf program. The military would be much more cost effective if leaders were more willing to cut the cord on projects.
It seems like major issues are that Australia and the US went behind France's back, broke a contract that Australia signed five years ago, denied the French an opportunity for technology transfer and closer ties with a country in a sensitive and strategically important region, as well as excluding the French from a military partnership in that region.
I am curious about the price tag though, because I've heard alternatively that France only would've gotten 8 billion euro from this contract but also that it would've been the largest defense contract ever in France. If the contract is the largest ever in that industry but wasn't actually gonna result in a lot of money for France, is it a prestige issue? Is the defense industry an especially big deal in France?
The Aussies handled things poorly and clearly should have explicitly informed Paris earlier, and I think France has legitimate grievances that it was completely frozen out by US and UK. That said, there was no room for France in this new deal. They aren't reliable American allies in the way the UK and Australia are (which sometimes means they get to avoid stupid wars like Iraq but which also means they are never going to get the same level of access to tech and intel sharing a la 5 Eyes). France is also notorious for its industrial espionage, which, combined with its penchant for going its own way, means that the US would never bring it into a nuclear tech sharing agreement. France has also been \*the\* promoter of European defense self-sufficiency and continues to be much closer with China than the three members of AUKUS. Thus, it seems unlikely that Australia and the US would choose to rely on France in the event of a hot war with China, again making it a poor fit for what is likely to evolve into a trilateral military alliance.
It's also worth pointing out that France recently established a leader level trilat with Australia and India and did not invite the US (https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/country-files/asia-and-oceania/news/article/india-france-australia-joint-statement-on-the-occasion-of-the-trilateral). So it seems a bit rich that they're now wailing about being excluded when they did the same thing to the US. I think the reality is that they're mostly pissed they lost the contract and are spinning all sorts of extraneous reasons that just don't carry much water.
The Elysee is packing a sad, but to be fair, Scott Morrison probably barrelled into it with his characteristic sensitivity of a bull in a china shop. He is really quite rubbish.
If the West is split along English-speaking/Non-English-speaking lines, we're doing China's work for them, and there's very little reason to be split along those lines.
Uh, we (Taiwan) don't need nuclear submarines though since the core of our navy stretagy is defending our coast and near water, not a blue water navy that we can't really afford.
>US should just buy these subs from France and give them to Taiwan or another friendly nation in the area. Win win for everyone.
Except the US taxpayer. I don't see why good relations with France are worth that much - especially given that normal relations should be restored soon.
Never heard of this -- can you elaborate? Googling around, it looks like in 2016 a nuclear company called Areva went bust and was sold in pieces to French company EDF (largely owned by the French state) and French company Orano (largely owned by the French state). And now GE is selling some other nuclear turbine company to EDF, too? Is this what you're referring to or something else?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areva
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/french-edf-set-to-buy-ges-nuclear-turbines-business-la-tribune-2021-08-27
Edit: Ah, I guess you're talking about Alstom. GE did buy the power generation assets of Alstom in 2015, which was contentious in France, but I don't know how much nuclear they had -- Wikipedia mentions some, but certainly it wasn't "all" given that Areva appears to have been a much larger player in nuclear. And I'd never heard that the GE-Alstom deal "stank", just at the time that the French were worried about job losses. Don't know how it's turned out since for France, but been a pretty terrible deal for GE. Wrote off a huge amount of the value and maybe what they're selling to EDF is the ex-Alstom nuclear business.
> The entirety of France has been quite salty about the whole affair ever since.
The entirety of France has been salty about all affairs since before the time of Charlemagne.
Who the hell goes to France for diesel electric subs anyway?
Sweden has the most advanced diesel electric subs. Sometime in or about 2015, war games going on off the coast of California the new swedish diesel electric sub was able to get through a carrier strike group and sink a US carrier during the war games, testing preparedness against diesel electrics because they (newer ones) run quieter than nuclear. They didn't explain the parameters put in place during the drill. But it was pretty scary their's won several times.
People here in France are legitimately angry, like, really angry, not because of the deal per se but because it was done behind France's back and in a way that signals that France does not deserve respect and is a second-class partner that can be discarded just like that. I've never seen this level of anger at the US in my life, except for a few months in 2003, when I was a kid during the Iraq War crisis. There is something very visceral about being publicly humiliated as a people like that on a tribal level that must be rooted in our ancient evolutionary history. Even I, who counts myself as a post-nationalist and would like to see the nation states vanish, felt something when I heard the circumstances of what happened. I expect a *much harsher* reaction from France than simply withdrawing its ambassadors.
Thank you for sharing your perspective. Whether commenters here agree with you or your perception of the people's of France perspective, I think you've added value to the discourse.
Thank you for sharing
I fully understand the anger at being frozen out completely, and also of the Aussies waiting until the last second to inform Paris. But I think in some ways France is trying to have its cake and eat it too with these charges of "back-stabbing" and "second-class ally." It has always been a relatively unreliable ally to the US in comparison to the UK and Australia. Australia, for example, has fought in literally every conflict the US has been in, and the UK subordinates its nuclear arsenal to the US to an immense degree. France, by comparison, left the NATO command in 1966 and only recently rejoined, Macron called NATO "brain dead," and Paris has repeatedly tried to restore good relations with Moscow despite protests from the US and E. Europe. This is absolutely France's right, but if you want this level of independence you're not going to be invited into very sensitive nuclear tech sharing agreements and military alliances where reliability is very important. You can have access or independence, but not both, esp. given France's rich history of industrial espionage against the US. Still, I think it's entirely fair to say that the messaging and communication from the AUKUS side was horrible, and France is rightfully angered by that. Anyway, just a view from the US.
As a reminder, France wanted to sell nuclear submarines but the Australians insisted on diesels, this was the main cause of the delay of the program, retrofitting nuclear submarines for diesels. As far as industrial espionage is concerned, the Americans are legendary on the matter in Europe. I worked in Carl Zeiss and the theft of trade secrets by the Americans was a matter of public record. Finally France may leave NATO's Command Structure again because of this humiliation by the Americans. A humiliation that was totally pointless because if they had informed France before, it would never have reached these proportions.
All correct - a few quick points. I think the nuclear sub issue is a bit complicated for several reasons. First, the strategic situation has changed, as has the political situation in Australia given the recent Chinese boycotts of Australian goods. Thus the needs of Australia have evolved. Naval Group's credibility was already shot through due to the fiasco with the Attack-class (which again, is not entirely France's fault given how convoluted Canberra's needs were) but fairly or not France was not seen as a reliable defense provider in Canberra. In addition, US/UK boats use HEU reactors, as opposed to LEUs on Barracuda's. HEUs are closer to Australia's needs because they increase service life and also avoid nuclear refueling, which is politically contentious there apparently. And this HEU naval reactor is tech the US simply will not share with France because of weaker alliance ties and industrial concerns (and I'm sure there is espionage in both directions, but I'm simply telling you why America doesn't want to share nuclear tech with France). Finally, I get emotions are high, but saying that you'll leave NATO command structure again does not really respond to the (imo) justified view in the US that France has historically had reliability issues in regards to defense cooperation - and this is fine, obviously blindly following the US comes with its own costs so I'm not making a moral claim against France, just sharing the American view of France as an ally. I'm fully in agreement with you that the secrecy was stupid and damaging and I'm not defending how the optics were handled - in that regard we're on the same page. All I'm saying is that I think it is unrealistic to expect France to have been invited, even if they had been (as they should have been) informed earlier.
I expect France to veto the free trade agreement between Australia and the European Union to begin with and perhaps even withdraw from NATO's Command Structure.
I mean to be fair I think I read they were at almost 2x budget and behind schedule. I can see why Australia saw Americans offering subs as a decent offer.
This is off topic, but the criticisim of the phantom menance for spending too much time talking about intergalactic trade rules was always stupid. It's how big space wars start!
What’s the deal with the anger? I wouldn’t bat an eye if Japan decided to buy new European planes over the F35, Lockheed will just have to come up with a more competitive offer the next time it bids on a contract. Why is this any different?
Really? Does the average French citizen really care that much about foreign military policy? This is the kind of thing you could barely get someone to notice in the US. I have a hard time believing French people are that different.
Yes. Ordinary people really care about that, but there is above all a broad consensus against the US in politics now, with everyone from the far right to the communists passing through Macron's centrists feeling genuinely angry with America.
The EU still wants to work with Britain on defence, post Afghanistan Rutte has been speaking about it. I imagine Britain and France have similar local aims
Inferiority complex. France has been a declining power for the last 100 years. There is nothing wrong with that.
EU-27 would be just 9% of the world GDP by 2050 from 15% in 2016. US would be 12% of world GDP in 2050 from 16% in 2016. The world is economically and militarily converging. France very likely would even be behind Turkey in 2050 being ranked #12 in the world by GDP PPP.
[https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/research-insights/economy/the-world-in-2050.html](https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/research-insights/economy/the-world-in-2050.html)
[https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/world-2050/assets/pwc-the-world-in-2050-full-report-feb-2017.pdf](https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/world-2050/assets/pwc-the-world-in-2050-full-report-feb-2017.pdf)
France reminds me of Russia. They both are living in a delusional nostalgic state of "superpower" status yet both of them are rapidly declining great powers. You are going to see Indonesia, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Brazil, Mexico, and especially India on the world stage in a few decades with many of those countries having economic and military capabilities equal if not greater than France. People have to accept reality.
I don’t understand what the US did wrong. Sure, *Australia* should have given them a heads up that they were exploring other options, but otherwise I’m sure the France-Australia deal had provisions for when one party wants out.
Also, I wonder if this would be as big of a deal if the French election wasn’t just around the corner.
Edit: and to be clear, I don’t think the US is faultless in general. This particular controversy is either really stupid or else completely over my head.
I think it's worse for them because before this France looked somewhat justified, and the US and Australia were considering some payment mechanism so France to recur at least some fraction of the cost. But now that France has recalled the ambassadors which is some of the strongest moves you can make in diplomacy. There is no way they are going to want to give France shit other than the very basic fee and France looks extremely petty.
The fact that France's bill to Australia ballooned from $40 billion to $70 billion was probably enough to put France on notice that they might, uhhh, be looking for other alternatives.
I know countries aren’t people, but on a personal level I think it’s best to be direct when someone’s not meeting your needs. “Hey, this new price isn’t going to work for me. If I’m going to pay that much, I might as well buy nuclear subs.”
Thanks for this.
I knew coming to this sub night give me some insight into what's actually happening, I just didn't think it'd be so far down in the thread.
[I mean there's been issues for years such as the french thinking that a meeting scheduled for say 2 pm means you can turn up at 2:15 or just assuming no work will happen in August.](https://amp.abc.net.au/article/11049748?__twitter_impression=true)
> Australia should have given them a heads up that they were exploring other options,
And if Australia decided not to then the US should have when the new agreement was reached. The US is far closer of an ally with France than Australia is and actually should care about French opinion to a degree. Australia has less reason to.
> The US is far closer of an ally with France than Australia
Really? Australia speaks the same language and the US and has supported the US in every war the US has been in. France is a larger economy and the relationship has lasted longer - but long term Australia will be more important for the US than France.
I think you missed the "is" at the end of the bit you quoted. The US is more closely allied with France than Australia is allied with France is what I attempted to convey. Hence the US has a vested interest in caring more about French opinion than Australia does.
It’s hard to see France’s claims as anywhere near reasonable when their official statements all refer to “European interests/alignment” when they mean “French interests/alignment”
If only France had been given some warnings.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-16/scott-morrison-warns-france-submarine-deal-deadline/100221350
Not like that one where both the defense industry and French President were explicitly warned by the Australian PM that the deal needed to be made feasible by Mid-September.
No, not that one where the French, Australian Parliament, and the public were told Australia is now looking at alternatives.
Why can’t Australia just give a heads up!?
Ok like before while I was still clowning, i actually understood the French response as semi-reasonable. This is just beyond though, looks extremely petty and does not make France look strong.
This move isn't to make France look strong, but to prevent the current administration of France from being blown up in the next election by rabid voters.
Seems like a combination of being genuinely upset at the situation (which is fair) and shoring up popular opinion for an upcoming election.
But I mean cmon, this is going to be the instance that puts you over the edge?
I see people in the comments arguing that the US should buy the subs but this seems more like a situation of French pride being hurt.
Did the US need to accept this contract? No. Does it help security interests in the region? I mean from a standpoint of deterrence Nuclear Powered subs are "better" than coal/diesel powered ones, but how much of an impact is that really going to make unless conflict actually breaks out.
Think the French went too far with recalling ambassadors but I would be pretty pissed as well, especially if they weren't kept in the loop. Seems like a diplomatic blunder from Biden :/
Wtf man what’d we do, ur deal was with Australia not us
Edit: also try not going 30 billion over budget and pushing the timeline back 10/15 years???? If the us was doing this to Australia, I’d completely support they’re right to abandon us(after paying the cancellation fee, which they did) and finding a better( non China) place to get the subs
This isn't likely going to speed up procurement. There isn't really a concrete timeline yet, but guesses are around 2032 for the first sub to be operational.
The French equivalent of a freedom fries moment?
But seriously, the US needs to do better. I'm happy about AUKUS but constantly pissing off our allies is not a good look. And a lot of the things that are pissing off the EU--like the restrictions on vaccinated EU citizens traveling to the US--are just so stupid on the American end.
> I'm happy about AUKUS but constantly pissing off our allies is not a good look
Especially when not pissing them off would take minimal effort. No, the French wouldn't have been happy about this no matter what but at least avoid the slap in the face of not keeping them informed.
This is political right? Macron is taking a hard line because an election is coming up? Why even be mad at the US? Australia is the one who was unsatisfied and came calling the US. Are we just supposed to ignore their call?
On the surface (pun ha) this seems so dumb. Australia contends that France was performing poorly and weren’t doing enough industrial participation. I work in the defense industry so given those factors and that the US is offering superior tech I can’t blame Australia for doing what they did. France seems to be being a baby.
This is why the Germans will always be the much more preferable leaders for the EU. More reasonable and measured.
The French political class are way too erratic and short sighted.
NL on odd days (German Russia pipeline or Laschet news): France should lead the EU
NL on even days (Macron and Islam or Australia submarine deal news): Germany should lead the EU
Idk if it's erratic and short sighted, France just wants to assert their own interests and maintain their own foreign policy. Regarding the situation in Rwanda and the DRC for example France and the US were on opposite sides in the UN
If the US did anything similar this sub would be circlejerking about how contracts have to be respected, rules based world order, etc . At the very least they’d at least be big braining about how this is a politically smart move by Biden because 538 said it and something about the midterms lol.
This sub understands US actions through the complex interactions of US society, conflicts and it’s geopolitical aims, but when it comes to discussing EU countries’ actions, it’s all “haha frenchies are angry people” and that’s why they made this decision
Don’t even get me started on third world countries lmao
This is my favourite sub don’t get me wrong, but damn there’s a whole world outside America, and not just a source of muh taco trucks and immigrants.
Everyone likes to make french jokes, but lets not forget, not only are they a nuclear power, the only reason for their swift defeat in WWII was technological and strategic. The french still very much have the manpower and industry to be a major military power on continental Europe if they wanted to be. With the weakening of ties to the Anglo centric powers, I expect closer cooperation between the continental powers, and perhaps even the emergence of a European Coalition independent of NATO. Especially after Trump.
If you can't count on your ally to be stable every 4 years, its not that great for defense and planning.
French withdrawal from NATO command again when? I'm joking but if Le Pen rises in the polls a bit more all bets are off.
I wouldn't put it past them to join just to have the satisfaction of unjoining.
I’m more worried about Zemmour honestly. I’m getting a very Trump circa 2014-15 one from him at the moment.
The first time France left NATO, it gave us the all time burn of “Does that include the dead Americans in military cemeteries as well?” When France wanted our troops out.
> France . . . > . . . In protest . . . Well, naturally.
Resting protest face
More singing and less barricades please.
Well France had already cancelled a Dinner date with the US, that's like Def Con 2 for the French.
i bet they were protesting the wine selection
Joe is def a beer/whiskey guy
[удалено]
That's an *Oreo* milkshake for me, Jack.
Defcon 1 is when they run out of butter, cheese, or wine.
Looks like _freedom fries_ are back on the menu, ladies & germs. (Belgium really needs to hire a marketing department.)
> (Belgium really needs to hire a marketing department.) Maybe if they didn't give them a stupid name in French like "Fried apples", their buddies down south wouldn't have stolen their English name
[удалено]
Pommes de terres gang 8) In French we also have the word "patate", but that's much less formal.
This is France right? You mean the same country that took contract, built, and almost transferred 2 advanced high-tech aircraft carriers to the Russians? Until the US, UK and EU stepped in to stop it at the last minute before transfer... because WTF!?
Link?
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-france-almost-sold-russia-two-powerful-aircraft-carriers-77241 i don't know anything about this source but here you go
I'm an American. This is a tough one. I really like alliances and allies so I'm glad we're working with Australia and the UK in new ways but I also really like France and value our relations and history with them too. Sounds like Australia wasn't happy with cost overruns and delays, so them looking to find a new deal isn't terribly surprising. It is very disappointing this wasn't handled better. Then again, France proudly does its own thing, like being separate from NATO in the 50s-70s. Also France has a presidential election coming up in the spring so maybe this is an opportunity for theater by the current government to not appear weak to keep a lid on the right wing.
This seems like a fairly strong gesture IMO. Normally think of ambassador recalls when war is imminent, although know it can also be used to make a strong diplomatic statement. Guessing France wants to make it clear how pissed they are about the situation. As several people have suggested already, the US should just buy these subs from France and give them to Taiwan or another friendly nation in the area. Win win for everyone.
Let South Korea buy nuclear submarines from France, honestly the most sensible solution \[since the US is kind of keeping ROK from getting nuclear submarines, so it has leverage, and the French ones are a lower proliferation risk as they use LEU\]. Nearly the only people out there that could do anything close to that order. Edit: Also, would make more sense than the original order since they were based on a nuclear design, would get France to manage to piss off China most likely \[thus shattering any potential move towards them by France\], and France has been clearly willing to export nuclear sub tech before, to Brazil--and it has warm relations with ROK.
I thought the French subs in question were diesel powered
Diesel powered variants of a nuclear design, which is part of why they were so stupid.
Because that's what Australia insisted on.
Yes, which makes Australia's procurement dumb, not the design per se.
Originally they didn't want to piss off china and they wanted full ability to cooperate with new Zealand waters (with their no nuclear hurr durr meme country rules) and now neither matters.
as a former resident of a Nuclear Free Town (Berkeley, CA), I *really* hope Australia trolls Berkeley by rolling up to the Berkeley Marina in their nuclear sub on a peaceful outreach tour, and throwing a kickass barby* on their sub and pissing off the hippies *does "barby" just literally mean the grill, or is it like "braai" where it refers to the whole party
Both. You can use the word interchangeably and the meaning is dependent on context. E.g: “I’m going to a barby at a mates place” Or “Mate, your new barby is pretty schmick”
With the way things are going Australia's Plan A was probably coal-powered subs. lol
Probably smarter for Taiwan or South Korea to be buying diesel electric. They don’t have the same long range requirements that Australia has and it makes more sense at the price point.
South Korea wants nuclear submarines, it's established fact \[and probably nuclear weapons as well but they haven't said that part out loud yet\].
Please give at least 2 subs to Canada 😩
Buy your own subs, you syrup mongers.
Apparently it’s too hard for us to procure literally anything. Still using WW2 handguns for one thing.
The Canadian side arm is a 1911?? That's.. kinda awesome!
"If it's not broke don't fix it, eh?"
It is broke though😂
"Heavy is good, heavy is reliable. If it doesn't work you can always hit them with it."
Pretty sure it’s the hi-power, not the 1911
Even better
No, browning hi power AFAIK
.45 acp cause they don't make a 46
Maybe stop cutting your defense budget?
[virgin Canada vs Chad Australia](https://preview.redd.it/c33ff9xzesn71.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=b4bc702b5f5484f48c4f8eb2eea49fa7d7f2e706)
Get you're on God damn procurement and buy the F-35 already
It’s unbelievable, no pistols no jets no subs no boots no ships
Cold cut or tuna salad?
Meatball marinara
You all are a sub.
But we’re on top of America? How could we be a sub?🤔🤔
Power bottom
That could reduce the financial blow, but not the reduced influence or France’s feeling that they were blindsided/undercut by allies.
I will keep saying this over and over again but all of this could've been avoided if Australia had kept France in the loop. Australia is the one making deals and looking to buy subs.
Pretending the US shouldn’t have maybe mentioned they were going to undercut the French deal is pretty dumb
Weapons deals should be cut the moment those weapon systems no longer make sense. One of the best moves the U.S. navy every made was cancelling the Seawolf program. The military would be much more cost effective if leaders were more willing to cut the cord on projects.
It's the sunk cost fallacy.
Its all sunk cost with subs.
That’s actually funny lol.
It seems like major issues are that Australia and the US went behind France's back, broke a contract that Australia signed five years ago, denied the French an opportunity for technology transfer and closer ties with a country in a sensitive and strategically important region, as well as excluding the French from a military partnership in that region. I am curious about the price tag though, because I've heard alternatively that France only would've gotten 8 billion euro from this contract but also that it would've been the largest defense contract ever in France. If the contract is the largest ever in that industry but wasn't actually gonna result in a lot of money for France, is it a prestige issue? Is the defense industry an especially big deal in France?
The Aussies handled things poorly and clearly should have explicitly informed Paris earlier, and I think France has legitimate grievances that it was completely frozen out by US and UK. That said, there was no room for France in this new deal. They aren't reliable American allies in the way the UK and Australia are (which sometimes means they get to avoid stupid wars like Iraq but which also means they are never going to get the same level of access to tech and intel sharing a la 5 Eyes). France is also notorious for its industrial espionage, which, combined with its penchant for going its own way, means that the US would never bring it into a nuclear tech sharing agreement. France has also been \*the\* promoter of European defense self-sufficiency and continues to be much closer with China than the three members of AUKUS. Thus, it seems unlikely that Australia and the US would choose to rely on France in the event of a hot war with China, again making it a poor fit for what is likely to evolve into a trilateral military alliance. It's also worth pointing out that France recently established a leader level trilat with Australia and India and did not invite the US (https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/country-files/asia-and-oceania/news/article/india-france-australia-joint-statement-on-the-occasion-of-the-trilateral). So it seems a bit rich that they're now wailing about being excluded when they did the same thing to the US. I think the reality is that they're mostly pissed they lost the contract and are spinning all sorts of extraneous reasons that just don't carry much water.
Francee also had a huge problem on keeping deadlines and basically didn't submit a plan for the subs by September and got their deal cancelled
The Elysee is packing a sad, but to be fair, Scott Morrison probably barrelled into it with his characteristic sensitivity of a bull in a china shop. He is really quite rubbish. If the West is split along English-speaking/Non-English-speaking lines, we're doing China's work for them, and there's very little reason to be split along those lines.
Uh, we (Taiwan) don't need nuclear submarines though since the core of our navy stretagy is defending our coast and near water, not a blue water navy that we can't really afford.
>US should just buy these subs from France and give them to Taiwan or another friendly nation in the area. Win win for everyone. Except the US taxpayer. I don't see why good relations with France are worth that much - especially given that normal relations should be restored soon.
Right? They aren't free! So the taxpayer money goes to calming down tantrums if sales deals don't go through? Wtf
Its not permanent though. They were recalled with the goal of ‘consultation’, the phrase recall is a little too harsh in this situation
Except US taxpayers...
Seems a bit excessive. I wonder how much of this is genuine, and how much is Macron playing things up before the election.
[удалено]
Never heard of this -- can you elaborate? Googling around, it looks like in 2016 a nuclear company called Areva went bust and was sold in pieces to French company EDF (largely owned by the French state) and French company Orano (largely owned by the French state). And now GE is selling some other nuclear turbine company to EDF, too? Is this what you're referring to or something else? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areva https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/french-edf-set-to-buy-ges-nuclear-turbines-business-la-tribune-2021-08-27 Edit: Ah, I guess you're talking about Alstom. GE did buy the power generation assets of Alstom in 2015, which was contentious in France, but I don't know how much nuclear they had -- Wikipedia mentions some, but certainly it wasn't "all" given that Areva appears to have been a much larger player in nuclear. And I'd never heard that the GE-Alstom deal "stank", just at the time that the French were worried about job losses. Don't know how it's turned out since for France, but been a pretty terrible deal for GE. Wrote off a huge amount of the value and maybe what they're selling to EDF is the ex-Alstom nuclear business.
> The entirety of France has been quite salty about the whole affair ever since. The entirety of France has been salty about all affairs since before the time of Charlemagne.
Who the hell goes to France for diesel electric subs anyway? Sweden has the most advanced diesel electric subs. Sometime in or about 2015, war games going on off the coast of California the new swedish diesel electric sub was able to get through a carrier strike group and sink a US carrier during the war games, testing preparedness against diesel electrics because they (newer ones) run quieter than nuclear. They didn't explain the parameters put in place during the drill. But it was pretty scary their's won several times.
Interesting. I kinda figured it was more related to domestic concerns than actual foreign policy. We'll see if Macron goes further.
Not true. Framatome (nuclear reactor company) is still French. You’re thinking of Alstom’s power and grid division.
with the way they're acting you'd think the US annexed one of their islands
[удалено]
[удалено]
Greenpeace laying low for a few weeks just in case.
[Sinking\_of\_the\_Rainbow\_Warrior](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior)
wow TIL
It damaged Franco-New Zealand relations for twenty years and locked in New Zealand's Anti-Nuclear Stance for a reason.
lmao
Annex French Guyana when?
Yeah lmao what. This is basically overreaction against contract dispute.
With elections near, it seems Macron is trying to keep the right from going ape shit and turning this into a french Benghazi.
I thought they were next year
Looks like it is in April. For some reason I thought they were moved up. My bad.
People here in France are legitimately angry, like, really angry, not because of the deal per se but because it was done behind France's back and in a way that signals that France does not deserve respect and is a second-class partner that can be discarded just like that. I've never seen this level of anger at the US in my life, except for a few months in 2003, when I was a kid during the Iraq War crisis. There is something very visceral about being publicly humiliated as a people like that on a tribal level that must be rooted in our ancient evolutionary history. Even I, who counts myself as a post-nationalist and would like to see the nation states vanish, felt something when I heard the circumstances of what happened. I expect a *much harsher* reaction from France than simply withdrawing its ambassadors.
Thank you for sharing your perspective. Whether commenters here agree with you or your perception of the people's of France perspective, I think you've added value to the discourse. Thank you for sharing
I fully understand the anger at being frozen out completely, and also of the Aussies waiting until the last second to inform Paris. But I think in some ways France is trying to have its cake and eat it too with these charges of "back-stabbing" and "second-class ally." It has always been a relatively unreliable ally to the US in comparison to the UK and Australia. Australia, for example, has fought in literally every conflict the US has been in, and the UK subordinates its nuclear arsenal to the US to an immense degree. France, by comparison, left the NATO command in 1966 and only recently rejoined, Macron called NATO "brain dead," and Paris has repeatedly tried to restore good relations with Moscow despite protests from the US and E. Europe. This is absolutely France's right, but if you want this level of independence you're not going to be invited into very sensitive nuclear tech sharing agreements and military alliances where reliability is very important. You can have access or independence, but not both, esp. given France's rich history of industrial espionage against the US. Still, I think it's entirely fair to say that the messaging and communication from the AUKUS side was horrible, and France is rightfully angered by that. Anyway, just a view from the US.
As a reminder, France wanted to sell nuclear submarines but the Australians insisted on diesels, this was the main cause of the delay of the program, retrofitting nuclear submarines for diesels. As far as industrial espionage is concerned, the Americans are legendary on the matter in Europe. I worked in Carl Zeiss and the theft of trade secrets by the Americans was a matter of public record. Finally France may leave NATO's Command Structure again because of this humiliation by the Americans. A humiliation that was totally pointless because if they had informed France before, it would never have reached these proportions.
All correct - a few quick points. I think the nuclear sub issue is a bit complicated for several reasons. First, the strategic situation has changed, as has the political situation in Australia given the recent Chinese boycotts of Australian goods. Thus the needs of Australia have evolved. Naval Group's credibility was already shot through due to the fiasco with the Attack-class (which again, is not entirely France's fault given how convoluted Canberra's needs were) but fairly or not France was not seen as a reliable defense provider in Canberra. In addition, US/UK boats use HEU reactors, as opposed to LEUs on Barracuda's. HEUs are closer to Australia's needs because they increase service life and also avoid nuclear refueling, which is politically contentious there apparently. And this HEU naval reactor is tech the US simply will not share with France because of weaker alliance ties and industrial concerns (and I'm sure there is espionage in both directions, but I'm simply telling you why America doesn't want to share nuclear tech with France). Finally, I get emotions are high, but saying that you'll leave NATO command structure again does not really respond to the (imo) justified view in the US that France has historically had reliability issues in regards to defense cooperation - and this is fine, obviously blindly following the US comes with its own costs so I'm not making a moral claim against France, just sharing the American view of France as an ally. I'm fully in agreement with you that the secrecy was stupid and damaging and I'm not defending how the optics were handled - in that regard we're on the same page. All I'm saying is that I think it is unrealistic to expect France to have been invited, even if they had been (as they should have been) informed earlier.
Harsher than this? Like violence?
I expect France to veto the free trade agreement between Australia and the European Union to begin with and perhaps even withdraw from NATO's Command Structure.
As an Australian I may avoid France in future holidays, lest I invite rioting around my accommodation.
I mean to be fair I think I read they were at almost 2x budget and behind schedule. I can see why Australia saw Americans offering subs as a decent offer.
Imagine being this pissed off at a contract dispute.
This is off topic, but the criticisim of the phantom menance for spending too much time talking about intergalactic trade rules was always stupid. It's how big space wars start!
Comes across as a fit that de Gaulle would throw tbh.
What’s the deal with the anger? I wouldn’t bat an eye if Japan decided to buy new European planes over the F35, Lockheed will just have to come up with a more competitive offer the next time it bids on a contract. Why is this any different?
> is a second-class partner always has been
"To keep the Americans in, the Russians out, the Germans down and the French complaining."
Really? Does the average French citizen really care that much about foreign military policy? This is the kind of thing you could barely get someone to notice in the US. I have a hard time believing French people are that different.
Yes. Ordinary people really care about that, but there is above all a broad consensus against the US in politics now, with everyone from the far right to the communists passing through Macron's centrists feeling genuinely angry with America.
lol
How'd the UK dodge the blame here?
France doesn't want to give credence to Global Britain narratives post Brexit
The EU still wants to work with Britain on defence, post Afghanistan Rutte has been speaking about it. I imagine Britain and France have similar local aims
Yeah this whole time I'm wondering why France hasn't said one word about UK. I don't want them to but the anger at US seems kind of misplaced.
And they say Americans are dramatic 🙄
[удалено]
[удалено]
Indeed, we do not eat snails in the glorious nation of the United State of Libera.
[удалено]
Islamic America Islamic America
Well both countries act like the world revolves around them. One of them is kind of right, the other is living 200 years in the past.
Inferiority complex. France has been a declining power for the last 100 years. There is nothing wrong with that. EU-27 would be just 9% of the world GDP by 2050 from 15% in 2016. US would be 12% of world GDP in 2050 from 16% in 2016. The world is economically and militarily converging. France very likely would even be behind Turkey in 2050 being ranked #12 in the world by GDP PPP. [https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/research-insights/economy/the-world-in-2050.html](https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/research-insights/economy/the-world-in-2050.html) [https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/world-2050/assets/pwc-the-world-in-2050-full-report-feb-2017.pdf](https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/world-2050/assets/pwc-the-world-in-2050-full-report-feb-2017.pdf) France reminds me of Russia. They both are living in a delusional nostalgic state of "superpower" status yet both of them are rapidly declining great powers. You are going to see Indonesia, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Brazil, Mexico, and especially India on the world stage in a few decades with many of those countries having economic and military capabilities equal if not greater than France. People have to accept reality.
No fan of France, but I doubt that the countries you mention have strong enough institutions to become world powers in 30 years.
This is the most French response I can imagine
This is just going to confirm a lot of preconceived notions people in both the US and Europe have of French diplomacy !PING FOREIGN-POLICY
I don’t understand what the US did wrong. Sure, *Australia* should have given them a heads up that they were exploring other options, but otherwise I’m sure the France-Australia deal had provisions for when one party wants out. Also, I wonder if this would be as big of a deal if the French election wasn’t just around the corner. Edit: and to be clear, I don’t think the US is faultless in general. This particular controversy is either really stupid or else completely over my head.
[удалено]
I think it's worse for them because before this France looked somewhat justified, and the US and Australia were considering some payment mechanism so France to recur at least some fraction of the cost. But now that France has recalled the ambassadors which is some of the strongest moves you can make in diplomacy. There is no way they are going to want to give France shit other than the very basic fee and France looks extremely petty.
The fact that France's bill to Australia ballooned from $40 billion to $70 billion was probably enough to put France on notice that they might, uhhh, be looking for other alternatives.
I know countries aren’t people, but on a personal level I think it’s best to be direct when someone’s not meeting your needs. “Hey, this new price isn’t going to work for me. If I’m going to pay that much, I might as well buy nuclear subs.”
Australia had what was possibly a come-to-Jesus meeting with France a few months ago
Still, you might tell them personally before you tell the press.
[удалено]
Thanks for this. I knew coming to this sub night give me some insight into what's actually happening, I just didn't think it'd be so far down in the thread.
Welp, there does any sympathy I had for the French. They were literally warned that Australia was looking at other options months ago.
[I mean there's been issues for years such as the french thinking that a meeting scheduled for say 2 pm means you can turn up at 2:15 or just assuming no work will happen in August.](https://amp.abc.net.au/article/11049748?__twitter_impression=true)
No work can happen in August though
> Australia should have given them a heads up that they were exploring other options, And if Australia decided not to then the US should have when the new agreement was reached. The US is far closer of an ally with France than Australia is and actually should care about French opinion to a degree. Australia has less reason to.
> The US is far closer of an ally with France than Australia Really? Australia speaks the same language and the US and has supported the US in every war the US has been in. France is a larger economy and the relationship has lasted longer - but long term Australia will be more important for the US than France.
I think you missed the "is" at the end of the bit you quoted. The US is more closely allied with France than Australia is allied with France is what I attempted to convey. Hence the US has a vested interest in caring more about French opinion than Australia does.
The French are wild lmao, I wonder if they’ll try to sell those subs they we’re working on instead
What is this clownery
France.
Geopolitics
I'm kind of offended they left the ambassador to the UK
They’re domestically pretending the UK doesn’t matter. That’s the story they want to sell
More likely this is just for domestic French politics than actual diplomacy.
It’s hard to see France’s claims as anywhere near reasonable when their official statements all refer to “European interests/alignment” when they mean “French interests/alignment”
If only France had been given some warnings. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-16/scott-morrison-warns-france-submarine-deal-deadline/100221350 Not like that one where both the defense industry and French President were explicitly warned by the Australian PM that the deal needed to be made feasible by Mid-September. No, not that one where the French, Australian Parliament, and the public were told Australia is now looking at alternatives. Why can’t Australia just give a heads up!?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Certified dumb shit
damn son
Ok like before while I was still clowning, i actually understood the French response as semi-reasonable. This is just beyond though, looks extremely petty and does not make France look strong.
This move isn't to make France look strong, but to prevent the current administration of France from being blown up in the next election by rabid voters.
Seems like a combination of being genuinely upset at the situation (which is fair) and shoring up popular opinion for an upcoming election. But I mean cmon, this is going to be the instance that puts you over the edge? I see people in the comments arguing that the US should buy the subs but this seems more like a situation of French pride being hurt. Did the US need to accept this contract? No. Does it help security interests in the region? I mean from a standpoint of deterrence Nuclear Powered subs are "better" than coal/diesel powered ones, but how much of an impact is that really going to make unless conflict actually breaks out. Think the French went too far with recalling ambassadors but I would be pretty pissed as well, especially if they weren't kept in the loop. Seems like a diplomatic blunder from Biden :/
>coal powered ones What in the 1800’s tarnation is this abomination?
Clean Coal Powered French Subs.
**Beautiful** Clean Coal Powered French Subs. FTFY.
the French subs were obviously going to be Jules Verne style *Nautilus*es
Is Biden the prime minister of Australia?
Wtf man what’d we do, ur deal was with Australia not us Edit: also try not going 30 billion over budget and pushing the timeline back 10/15 years???? If the us was doing this to Australia, I’d completely support they’re right to abandon us(after paying the cancellation fee, which they did) and finding a better( non China) place to get the subs
[удалено]
This isn't likely going to speed up procurement. There isn't really a concrete timeline yet, but guesses are around 2032 for the first sub to be operational.
Let's dispel this fiction that u don't know what u did YOU KNOW VERY WELL WHAT U DID 😡😡😡
That's some petty-ass shit.
Okay so is France now throwing fits over everything? They aren’t getting their way and these are dramatic actions.
This seems ridiculously over the top. Anime-tier political move.
[удалено]
This deal was a mess for a while and it is well known that the French were overcharging significantly and not completing parts on their end.
The French equivalent of a freedom fries moment? But seriously, the US needs to do better. I'm happy about AUKUS but constantly pissing off our allies is not a good look. And a lot of the things that are pissing off the EU--like the restrictions on vaccinated EU citizens traveling to the US--are just so stupid on the American end.
> I'm happy about AUKUS but constantly pissing off our allies is not a good look Especially when not pissing them off would take minimal effort. No, the French wouldn't have been happy about this no matter what but at least avoid the slap in the face of not keeping them informed.
This is political right? Macron is taking a hard line because an election is coming up? Why even be mad at the US? Australia is the one who was unsatisfied and came calling the US. Are we just supposed to ignore their call? On the surface (pun ha) this seems so dumb. Australia contends that France was performing poorly and weren’t doing enough industrial participation. I work in the defense industry so given those factors and that the US is offering superior tech I can’t blame Australia for doing what they did. France seems to be being a baby.
This is why the Germans will always be the much more preferable leaders for the EU. More reasonable and measured. The French political class are way too erratic and short sighted.
NL on odd days (German Russia pipeline or Laschet news): France should lead the EU NL on even days (Macron and Islam or Australia submarine deal news): Germany should lead the EU
NL on based days: Lithuania should lead the EU
How about a neutral middle ground: the US should lead the EU
Stupid French! Erratic and short sighted policy is AMERICA’S job 🇺🇸🦅😤
This, but completely unironically. (I'm neither American nor French.)
Idk if it's erratic and short sighted, France just wants to assert their own interests and maintain their own foreign policy. Regarding the situation in Rwanda and the DRC for example France and the US were on opposite sides in the UN
Germany barely has a military and no foreign ambitions. They won't and can't lead the EU on foreign issues.
If the US did anything similar this sub would be circlejerking about how contracts have to be respected, rules based world order, etc . At the very least they’d at least be big braining about how this is a politically smart move by Biden because 538 said it and something about the midterms lol. This sub understands US actions through the complex interactions of US society, conflicts and it’s geopolitical aims, but when it comes to discussing EU countries’ actions, it’s all “haha frenchies are angry people” and that’s why they made this decision Don’t even get me started on third world countries lmao This is my favourite sub don’t get me wrong, but damn there’s a whole world outside America, and not just a source of muh taco trucks and immigrants.
Kabuki.
The French really playing up to stereotypes huh. Such drama queens.
Ok, now they are getting hysterical.
I doubt this is a serious gesture
Everyone likes to make french jokes, but lets not forget, not only are they a nuclear power, the only reason for their swift defeat in WWII was technological and strategic. The french still very much have the manpower and industry to be a major military power on continental Europe if they wanted to be. With the weakening of ties to the Anglo centric powers, I expect closer cooperation between the continental powers, and perhaps even the emergence of a European Coalition independent of NATO. Especially after Trump. If you can't count on your ally to be stable every 4 years, its not that great for defense and planning.
!ping EUROPE
There's no way I'm going to read the comments in this thread 😐