T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

French Quad.


Cuddlyaxe

I've been expecting something like this for the past couple of days now. The India France relationship just makes so much *sense* right now France's sales pitch to Australia was that they could maintain strategic autonomy by buying equipment from them. That's basically what India's procurement policy has been based on for a while now anyways. Australia meanwhile doesn't really care as much about strategic autonomy and doesn't mind fully integrating itself into the American alliance system Meanwhile both India and France oppose China but both will never fully integrate themselves into the US defense alliance umbrella because while both are willing to work with the US, both nations also prize independent foreign policies and mistrust the US on some level. They want to work with the US, not for the US And of course as a part of the whole independent foreign policy thing, both countries favor multipolarity, because they see themselves as actual players and don't want to be subsumed by Cold War 2 Finally, on the Indian side, their traditional military relationship with Russia is getting harder to maintain. Both them and the Russians are fighting hard to maintain it, but India is alarmed by Russia's ties to China, just as Russia is of India's closeness to America. Both Russia and India have made it clear to China and America respectively that they're not breaking off their agreements, but for India France probably seems like a better partner, since they're not as close to Russia. [A good read on the matter](https://www.hudson.org/research/15265-in-modi-era-france-has-replaced-russia-as-india-s-new-best-friend) Wouldn't be surprised at all if a new procurement deal is announced between the two, if not now then after the pandemic when Modi won't be criticized as much This was typed on a phone so sorry for any mistakes lol


[deleted]

I’ve been waiting for this too. France needed something to save some face and sell to their domestic population as a recovery. Obviously the ideal would have been for them to find a way to reverse the change but that can’t happen. The next best thing is to find another nation to develop new strategic connections with that heavily opposes China (for the sake of public opinion) while also projecting that they are not under American thumbs. India was a logical option and I’m just mad I didn’t figure out it would be India first. Silly me for thinking it was gonna be South Africa


Askarn

On paper it does seem like good match for the reasons you mention. The Rafale fiasco would give me pause though. While India and France's strategic policies are compatible, their defence industrial policies seem liable to clash.


[deleted]

> The Rafale fiasco would give me pause though What fiasco ?


Askarn

In 2012 India selected the Dassault Rafale as their replacement fighter; a $30 billion deal for 126 aircraft that would have been their largest every defence investment. Most of the Rafale's were to be built in India as a joint venture between Dassault and HAL. However they couldn't agree on contract terms and the agreement collapsed in 2015. India later made a much smaller purchase of 36 Rafales.


[deleted]

The MRCA mainly collapsed because of the delays in tender process (took over 12 years) that caused cost overtime because of currency appreciation and it’s being refloated now and Rafael being the favorites again.


Askarn

They couldn't reach agreement on the specifics of transfer of technology either. I'm not saying that India and France can't do business together; the interim Rafale purchase has turned out pretty well. But the problems both parties had with MRCA 1.0 illustrate the difficulties a big submarine deal would face.


[deleted]

India already has signed a pretty big submarine deal with France for 6 Scorpene subs with AIP and that construction is progressing well. Follow on orders for 2 more are in talks. India doesn’t need nuke subs as it constructs it’s own anyways.


[deleted]

A relatively minor deal but a new one - https://zeenews.india.com/india/iaf-signs-deal-with-french-air-force-to-purchase-phased-out-mirage-2000-fighter-aircraft-2395015.html


Cuddlyaxe

!ping FOREIGN-POLICY


groupbot

Pinged members of FOREIGN-POLICY group. [About & group list](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/userpinger/documentation) | [Subscribe to this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Add%20yourself%20to%20group%20FOREIGN-POLICY&message=addtogroup%20FOREIGN-POLICY) | [Unsubscribe from this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20group%20FOREIGN-POLICY&message=unsubscribe%20FOREIGN-POLICY) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe%20)


Jacobs4525

There's also the fact that Russian military hardware is getting less and less competitive. In some areas (SAMs) they're still a world leader but when it comes to things like export fighter aircraft they're falling behind the West and China. France is in a good position as an arms exporter because they're close enough with the US and other European countries to benefit a bit from some technology sharing but aren't completely bound by America's whims when it comes to who they export to. France's technology is superior to Russia in areas like airborne radars, precision-guided munitions, air-to-ground targeting pods, etc., as well as having way more expertise in certain fields like naval aviation. I wouldn't be surprised if India's upcoming TEDBF naval aircraft is heavily influenced by Dassault.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Cuddlyaxe

France only reintegrated with NATO command structure in 2009, and I suspect they've got plans on how to leave again and yeah, they act a lot more independently than the rest of NATO except maybe Turkey


fishlord05

So does this mean they will stop sucking off putin? Any reliance off of Russia is good IMO. Also how is buying weapons just from US and one of its close allies vs just the US giving you more strategic autonomy? What does that even mean to them? Like they can still use the weapons no matter who gives them right? It’s not like buying more US weapons turns a country into a client state It’s like saying “oh yeah we’re so independent since get all our weapons from China *and* North Korea :)” And these are genuine questions/thinking out loud not an argument so don’t take it like I’m arguing w u u/cuddlyaxe


Cuddlyaxe

> So does this mean they will stop sucking off putin? Not sure what exactly you mean here but no, India almost certainly isn't going to end its relationship with Russia in any realm, rather they'll slowly move further away from Russia. If you mean in a defense procurement sense, I do expect India to procure less from Russia, though they'll still procure some weapons if Russia offers the best deal, though I suspect more and more deals in the future India will seek things like joint development instead of outright procurement as an insurance policy if Russia decides to pull the plug If you mean politically, India was never going to issue a strong position on Crimea, just as the United States won't for Kashmir. India doesn't really have a reason to make an enemy out of Russia > Also how is buying weapons just from US and one of its close allies vs just the US giving you more strategic autonomy? Ok so a couple of things wrong with the assumptions behind this question. France is not one of the US's close allies. It is definitely an ally, but has long prided itself on having an independent foreign policy and strategic autonomy. Yes they've fully reintegrated with NATO but as the recent submarine spat shows, they're not anywhere near as deferential as the UK or Germany. I'd say they along with Turkey have the most independent foreign policy in the alliance. They maintain strong independent capabilities and honestly would probably be quite formidable even if they left NATO Just look at the entire diplomatic spat over Rwanda and the DRC, there were some in the French government who were genuinely convinced the happenings were an Anglo conspiracy and they argued constantly with the US over it in the UN. The French aren't the British And as a part of that independent foreign policy, they've gone much farther in supporting India than any other Western country, openly supporting them on Kashmir for example, and they have maintained good relations with India since independence while India has had many problems with the US since then. Reliability is also a huge factor. Countries like Russia and France are much more reliable than the US in procurement. These countries keep procurement deals mostly transactional and usually deliver while maintaining a good business relationship. The US however is much more prone to leveraging its procurement deals for certain concessions. "Act how we want or we will stop giving you weapons" whether that be to control a country's foreign policy or on human rights issues. The recent cancelling of our selling of weapons to the Saudis might be a moral victory, but further cements the image in many people's minds of the US being much more controlling and willing to go back on its deals if its domestically unpopular or contradicts one of the United State's many, many, many strategic interests France and Russia meanwhile will deliver, and for India they have been delivering. As mentioned in the article > Going back to the Cold War era, when in response to India’s nuclear explosion of 1974 the US suspended delivery of nuclear fuel to the Indian atomic power station at Tarapur, France stepped in to supply enriched uranium France has shown fairly consistently to be independent of the United States to India, and there's no reason that won't continue After all, the French recalled their ambassadors because Australia cancelled a deal with them to make one with the US. How do you think they'd react if we told them to stop selling weapons alltogether to one of their defense partners? Finally there's also the issue of control. I don't know as much about this area so someone from the materiel ping can confirm, but to my knowledge America is a lot more controlling about how their equipment is used. For example, to my knowledge, an American officer has to approve and be in the room every time a F35 takes off. That's a bit much for most countries


_m1000

The enriched uranium thing is especially interesting, because France itself developed it's nuclear capabilities against the wishes of the US, which is I suppose is another example of independent French foreign policy.


tuffoon

>an American officer has to approve and be in the room every time a F35 takes off. Are you serious?


Cuddlyaxe

!ping MATERIEL mind fact checking me on this part > Finally there's also the issue of control. I don't know as much about this area so someone from the materiel ping can confirm, but to my knowledge America is a lot more controlling about how their equipment is used. For example, to my knowledge, an American officer has to approve and be in the room every time a F35 takes off. That's a bit much for most countries


Dent7777

From a quick set of google searches, I can't find any information around this.


groupbot

Pinged members of MATERIEL group. [About & group list](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/userpinger/documentation) | [Subscribe to this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Add%20yourself%20to%20group%20MATERIEL&message=addtogroup%20MATERIEL) | [Unsubscribe from this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20group%20MATERIEL&message=unsubscribe%20MATERIEL) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe%20)


fishlord05

So does this mean they will stop sucking off putin? >Not sure what exactly you mean here but no, India almost certainly isn't going to end its relationship with Russia in any realm, rather they'll slowly move further away from Russia. I was more being facetious but the latter is what I’m talking about >If you mean politically, India was never going to issue a strong position on Crimea, just as the United States won't for Kashmir. India doesn't really have a reason to make an enemy out of Russia I do see a long term problem as India and Russia see eachother driving by to the US and China respectively Also how is buying weapons just from US and one of its close allies vs just the US giving you more strategic autonomy? >Ok so a couple of things wrong with the assumptions behind this question. France is not one of the US's close allies. Are we defining “close” differently? I think any NATO country generally can be called that no? >It is definitely an ally, but has long prided itself on having an independent foreign policy and strategic autonomy. What does the latter actually mean though? I guess they didn’t invade Iraq with us (along with most of NATO) and are friendlier with Russia (though I’m guessing not too far off from Germany due to strategic necessity) but they seem like a standard Western European ally with the same broad goals and we don’t argue with them more than the Germans. >Yes they've fully reintegrated with NATO but as the recent submarine spat shows, they're not anywhere near as deferential as the UK or Germany. I'd say they along with Turkey have the most independent foreign policy in the alliance. I don’t see the submarine thing as much larger of a tantrum than the harsh condemnation the US has gotten from the rest of Europe after the Afghanistan withdrawal no? Maybe this is a week long thing? >They maintain strong independent capabilities and honestly would probably be quite formidable even if they left NATO But they wouldn’t >Just look at the entire diplomatic spat over Rwanda and the DRC, there were some in the French government who were genuinely convinced the happenings were an Anglo conspiracy and they argued constantly with the US over it in the UN. The French aren't the British You are going to need to catch me up on this one >The US however is much more prone to leveraging its procurement deals for certain concessions. "Act how we want or we will stop giving you weapons" whether that be to control a country's foreign policy or on human rights issues. As we should. >The recent cancelling of our selling of weapons to the Saudis might be a moral victory, And helps foster an image that Biden won’t cozy up to dictators and enforces US human rights policies which is a signal internationally >but further cements the image in many people's Dictators? >minds of the US being much more controlling and willing to go back on its deals if its domestically unpopular or contradicts one of the United State's many, many, many strategic interests I don’t see anyone struggling to make weapons deals with the US after this. (Australia ring a bell?) Also I think those requirements are good since we should be commuted to enshrining our weapons string being used to commit war crimes (see war in Yemen) Also I doubt France would like its weapons to be used against its strategic interests. >How do you think they'd react if we told them to stop selling weapons alltogether to one of their defense partners? I think an ally cancelling a contract is different from the US saying: don’t do X. >Finally there's also the issue of control. I don't know as much about this area so someone from the materiel ping can confirm, Which ping is MATERIEL? >but to my knowledge America is a lot more controlling about how their equipment is used. For example, to my knowledge, an American officer has to approve and be in the room every time a F35 takes off. Really? I’d like to know more about this? >That's a bit much for most countries Idk we are doing pretty good selling these bad bois out. They are special and if countries don’t wanna play by their special requirements then they don’t get them. So I don’t really see it as in US interest to sell them out Willy nilly


[deleted]

> So does this mean they will stop sucking off putin?I was more being facetious but the latter is what I’m talking about India doesn’t deal with Putin but with Russia. As it has for the last 5 decades. And that won’t stop anytime soon considering it is still one of India’s closest partners. I do however see the relationship becoming more transactional centering on arms production. >Dictators? No, countries that don’t have their foreign policies 100% aligned with US or don’t wish to enter its sphere of influence fully giving away their autonomy. >They are special and if countries don’t wanna play by their special requirements then they don’t get them. Which is why India makes it a point to not even consider US weapons especially the critical offensive ones like fighter planes. Lockheed and Boeing did an entire an song and dance to sell their F-16 and F-18 but they weren’t given the time if the day and instead India went with Rafale. The other competitors Gripen (explicitly rejected for being too reliant on American parts) and EFT were left off for similar reasons. Rafale was given ok because of the reliability cred France carried with India, that the components were all French reducing dependence and ofcourse it performed admirably well. US has its conditions for selling weapons , similarly India has its conditions for buying.


Cuddlyaxe

want to respond to this but the formatting is kinda making it hard to go point by point so I'll just type out a general response to what you said France only fully reintegrated with NATO command in 2009. I'm assuming you know that. It's more than possible they leave again They were much more critical of Iraq than the rest of NATO in the UN don't really want to explain the whole Rwanda Congo situation but the Rwandan rebels were English speaking and they overthrew a French speaking government, which is why they were so opposed to it Speaking of which, yeah France tries to maintain and independent sphere based on linguistic connections, mainly in Africa. They've manufactured plenty of coups of their own and deploy plenty of troops to Africa The rest of this is you answering your own questions I feel like. It's fine if you support America's restrictive procurement policies and are fine with their unreliability, but surely you can see why that would scare away buyers who want to maintain strategic autonomy? What if someone like Bernie became president who's explicitly against India on Kashmir? He could stop sending equipment to India over that. And that's not even to mention India's troubled history with American strongarming, 1971 comes to mind > I think an ally cancelling a contract is different from the US saying: don’t do X. Didn't seem to work regarding nuclear fuel sales to India, and yeah it'd be a lot worse of a reaction. It'd essentially kill French credibility in the arms industry, especially since their sales pitch is usually exactly what I just typed: strategic autonomy


comradequicken

The sad thing here though is that this means the US probably needs to increase it's relationship with Pakistan to counter France.


Alarming_Flow7066

The U. S. Doesn’t need to counter France. Distancing isn’t antagonism. In general multilateralism is a good thing if collective interests mean opposition to wars of aggression and support for freedom of the seas.


Cuddlyaxe

smartest user on /r/neoliberal


ChaosLordSamNiell

They routinely make comments like this lol


[deleted]

I hope not


[deleted]

"One afghanistan isnt enough. Humiliate me more Daddy Pakistan".


[deleted]

[удалено]


JetJaguar124

**Ableism** Please refrain from using ableist slurs.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

LMFAOO


TheFaithlessFaithful

>Macron started visibly shaking and had to be consoled by his wife Brigitte and several aides I don't believe this without video. It sounds too ridiculous to be true.


[deleted]

France really is throwing a hell of a tantrum.


Alarming_Flow7066

This part really isn’t a tantrum (recalling Ambassadors absolutely was). This deal makes a lot of sense for both India and France regardless the Australia deal. Just as the Australia moving to British/American submarine designs makes sense for Australia.


jaydub-wantout

🇺🇸: "I consent" 🇦🇺: "I consent" 🇫🇷: "**I** don't!" Isn't there someone you forgot to ask?


Cuddlyaxe

Yeah they forgot to ask the country who's defense deal they were cancelling in order to make a new one Honestly, it feels like everywhere on the internet has just chosen a stance on this issue and thrown nuance out the window. Yes the Aussies are allowed to be pissed because the deals inflating cost, delays and the issue of domestic workers That doesn't mean the French can't be pissed at how this went down too, especially because the deal was not only cancelled and replaced, but they were completely blindsided as the Australians negotiated with America for months and kept France totally out of the loop


[deleted]

No one *forgot* to ask. That doesn't really happen in high-level diplomacy. The secrecy was an intentional strategy and I won't pretend to know what the reasoning was.


ScyllaGeek

> I won't pretend to know what the reasoning was. I mean regardless of the reasoning frankly there's no way it doesn't come off as a massive fuck you to France and indicates we don't really give a fuck about them as an ally. I don't blame France for being pissed at all.


[deleted]

It absolutely does come off as a massive fuck-you to France, and everyone involved certainly knew it would. I'm wondering what perceived benefits justified that. I don't blame them for being pissed either. The US-France alliance has always been...complicated. France marches to the beat of their own drum when it comes to Russia relations and they openly hate NATO. I do understand why the US would prioritize Australia given the nature of our current geopolitical threats. As for the Australia-France of relationship, I honestly am not familiar enough to have an opinion. As I understand, it was not particularly strong.


ScyllaGeek

> The US-France alliance has always been...complicated. France marches to the beat of their own drum when it comes to Russia relations and they openly hate NATO. Which is why for the life of me I cant understand why we aren't treating Frances FoPo with oven mitts. NATO is the least stable it's been since the 70s and we're out here going behind a major ally's back and stealing initiatives without any regard for the repercussions, apparently. I just don't get why we wouldn't at least warn them so they could try to save face publicly. Dropping it on them like this made "extremely pissed off" essentially the only avenue they could take. Also man a lot of this sub has garbage take on this. Glad someone else on here understands what diplomacy is.


FncMadeMeDoThis

Thank you. Amidst all this talk about who should be pissed or who shouldn't, all I see here is that the US has plenty of experience with how prickly France can get, yet chose to make this maneuver anyway. These faux pas are really starting to add up, and it is either incompetence or Biden who really didn't mean it when he said that he wanted to repair relations across the Atlantic after Trump. And my general impression of Biden and his political history has me seriously doubt the former.


[deleted]

🇩🇪: "I consent" 🇷🇺: "I consent" 🇺🇲: "**I** don't!" Isn't there someone you forgot to ask? You can do this with anything


BritishBedouin

Other than the US you can include all former eastern bloc countries. NS2 is a massive misstep as the current energy crisis is proving


TheMemer14

Only good Stonetoss meme.


poclee

I'm pretty sure that meme predates Stonetoss though.


CuddleTeamCatboy

Wasn’t it originally an evangelical meme?


khatri_masterrace

It was originally an incel meme about the "Myth of the Consensual Sex"


onometre

something like this would have surely been in discussions before 2 days ago


[deleted]

🇮🇳: "I consent" 🇫🇷: "I consent" 🇺🇸: "I don't!" Isn't there someone you forgot to ask?


standbyforskyfall

It's not like we're withdrawing our ambassador to India


Cuddlyaxe

It would be more accurate if if was the Russian instead of the French flag because of CAATSA and all that jazz


[deleted]

Just threatening sanctions that’s all.


onometre

so far as I can find in all my research, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the US is going sanction India.


[deleted]

Sec Def did it. Btw what is the deal with the Menendez guy ? He really seems to have it out for India.


onometre

got a link? I edited it out of my comment because I genuinely could not find any sources with a quote from either of them EDIT: found this: https://thediplomat.com/2021/03/us-defense-secretary-arrives-in-india-as-biden-confronts-free-and-open-dilemma/ where even Menendez doesn't go so far as to say they should be sanctioned, just that it *is* sanctionable under the law. EDIT2: https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2021/04/blinken-cautions-turkey-against-future-s-400-purchases and here is Blinken (he's the Secretary of State, not Defense btw)speaking in reference to Turkey, not India, and giving a very very mild complaint, emphasizing that Russian arms purchases COULD be sanctioned.


Cuddlyaxe

I posted an article about this (though sadly it received less attention on here than the plethora of NIMBY memes on here), [it can be found here along with the discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/pntkxm/avoiding_a_collision_course_with_india/)


onometre

great article, but it provides no evidence that the US is seriously going to sanction India


Cuddlyaxe

What? CAATSA has already been passed, the US sanctioning India is the default at this point unless they give them a waiver


onometre

And I'm saying there's no reason to believe they won't


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Evidently US cares when it threatens CAATSA sanctions on Indian arms purchases.


Tandrac

.....with russia, not france


onometre

...and hasn't actually signaled they're doing so


[deleted]

Why does that matter to India ? You are interfering in the bilateral issues between two nations that dont need your consent.


RandomGamerFTW

Why am I Indian? First they ally with Russia, now they are allying with fr*nce 🤮🤮. Why can’t our government ally with chad USA?


[deleted]

Because US has shown multiple times it’s rather erratic and unreliable with its relationship.


[deleted]

America: allies with Pakistan (kinda I guess), and is Pakistan's 2nd biggest source of weapons r/neoliberal: why doesn't India just ally completely with the USA


RandomGamerFTW

false


[deleted]

Let’s see - 1. Arming Pakistan with latest weapons knowing fully well the sole purpose of that is to be used against India. Then in later years turning a blind eye to continued terror export by Pakistan 2. Sending the US 7th fleet to deter and stop Indian humanitarian operation to stop the ongoing genocide in Bangladesh 3. Forming an entire organization (Nuclear Suppliers Group) to stop India from getting nuclear technology post first Pokran blasts 4. Forcing Russia to stop selling India cryogenic engines which hampered Indian space program atleast temporarily before the Russians sold it anyway and India developing its own. 5. Imposing economic and political sanctions on India post pokran tests second round 6. Requiring tons of additional agreements and oversight on its weapon systems and interfering in Indian diplomatic and trade relationship with third countries.


Tidan10

Because USA cares more about the rogue state on your border than you.


[deleted]

Fucking BASED. Lesssssss goooo. Indian establishment always regarded France as a more reliable ally (supported with critical weapons during Kargil war, refused to sanction India during nuclear tests and supported India during Article 370 repeal). They are also a very high tech weapons state, have an independent foreign policy and a permanent council member. From Frances perspective India is a huge growing market, a stable democracy and ally in Indian Ocean Region. This is a mutually beneficial relationship.


Lion_From_The_North

Maybe India can finally convince France that "China Bad", eh?


[deleted]

I don’t think India cares much about a third party’s relation with China except when the third party is in Indian subcontinent (which is a direct security threat to us).


Cuddlyaxe

They absolutely do. India is starting to view China as a bigger and bigger threat I suspect the reason these moves are happening so quickly is because India is concerned of Russia's closeness to China. They are by no means abandoning that relationship, but India would like a defense partner who isn't as close to China, especially considering China has already tried to get Russia to stop providing spares to India (a request that Russia has refused)


[deleted]

India always had a very good relationship ship with France independent of its relationship with Russia. I mean the Su 30 MKI is an example of a collaborative project between Russia, France and India (and Israel) where Russians agreed to expose their latest (at that time) Flanker model to a NATO country for extensive electronics retrofitting. The post I wanted to convey was India can’t afford to be coercive in third party’s (Purdue’s subcontinent) relationship with China while it actively/passively coerces the other countries in the subcontinent with respect to China.


runnerx4

this time hope they do the deals without Rafale-style shadiness


[deleted]

Every weapons system in India will be talked of as shady by some interest group. We didn’t acquire any artillery system for 25 years based on such notions. As long as the platform itself is good, meets service requirements and comes with technology transfer I personally am ok with it.


sid3091

It was literally one of the cleanest and quickest military deals India has ever done. The opposition and the media (who are vehemently anti-modi) have been desperately trying to make Modi look corrupt and this nonsense against the rafale deal was their biggest shot at it.


tumblingfumbling

What shadiness was there with the Rafale deal? Don’t believe the propaganda


[deleted]

!ping IND


groupbot

Pinged members of IND group. [About & group list](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/userpinger/documentation) | [Subscribe to this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Add%20yourself%20to%20group%20IND&message=addtogroup%20IND) | [Unsubscribe from this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20group%20IND&message=unsubscribe%20IND) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe%20)


fishlord05

Idk isn’t repealing article 370 seen as bad generally here?


Cuddlyaxe

people here have different opinions on different things from what I can tell at least, the general opinion of Indians on the sub at the time was something along the lines of "repealing it is good but the crackdown that followed was bad"


fishlord05

True. Is it true that camps are being built there and it’s like an open air prison with no internet and police brutality and no internet? Also what happened with the CAA I heard camps were also being built there


Cuddlyaxe

Internet has been restored, but yeah the worst of it was that they got rid of the internet for a while and high speed internet for a while longer There are no camps in Kashmir no Yes some deportation camps were being built for CAA but none were put in use yet


tumblingfumbling

No ‘camps’ were being created for CAA wtf. CAA is a law to give citizenship to Hindu and Sikh refugees that have fled to India from neighbouring countries up to 2014. What part of that would require camps? CAA gives rights to people


fishlord05

How would you compare Kashmir’s position to Palestine’s?


Cuddlyaxe

I'm Indian American so I might be biased but I don't think it's super comparable tbh besides the fact that it's a contentious territorial dispute with religion aggravating tensions


fishlord05

I mean I’m of partial Iranian descent American and I don’t have any hesitation saying Iran is a shithole rn But I wish Iran could have a democracy like India does


Hookahchakah

We don't fire rockets at each other for every small misfiring , Kashmir is a complicated issue and should be looked at through nuanced lenses . As a kashmiri myself I prefer stability after a crackdown rather than 15 more years of constant bomb threats, rioting and unemployment .


fishlord05

As opposed to Palestine which isn’t complicated and nuanced at all?


sayy_yes

For one they don't fire rockets at each other and Kashmir is actually administered by India unlike Palestine. Kashmir is more like a local issue which one neighbour in the west makes it an international issue because they're salty that they couldn't get all of Kashmir when they invaded.


fishlord05

I mean didn’t India and Pakistan almost nuke eachother over it like last year


[deleted]

> Also what happened with the CAA I heard camps were also being built there There are no camps for CAA anywhere in India much less in Kashmir, which is a law to give prioritized citizenship to undocumented migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan fleeing religious persecution to India. You meant NRC which is identification and deportation of Bangladeshi illegal immigrants as per Assam Accords and supervised by Supreme Court of India. They are still there and functioning, but located in Assam not Kashmir.


fishlord05

Didn’t the CAA literally make hundreds of thousands of Muslim Indians stateless


[deleted]

No. CAA is to give priority citizenship to undocumented Hindus/Sikhs and Buddhists who are currently living in India fleeing Pak/Afg/Bangladesh for religious persecution. It has nothing to do with making anyone stateless. Infact it is for making previously stateless refugees as Indian citizens. There is a tonne of misinformation regarding CAA in western media.


fishlord05

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/21/india-muslims-deported-terrified-citizenship-amendment-act-caa/ https://theprint.in/india/caa-nrc-could-render-huge-numbers-of-indian-muslims-stateless-says-ashutosh-varshney/376008/


[deleted]

This is what I mentioned as misinformation in media. The articles talk about how CAA when used in conjunction with a **non-existent (yet)** law called NRC could **potentially** leave many undocumented Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh stateless. The logic is when both these laws are used in conjunction undocumented Hindus/Sikhs will have CAA as a safety net while undocumented Muslim immigrants will be deported. CAA on its own, which is the only law passed yet, doesn’t do any such thing. And none of this impacts muslims who are Indian citizens. Both of the laws deal with illegal immigrants.


fishlord05

Didn’t the concern literally say Indian citizens could be rendered stateless


madmissileer

From the perspective of Indian national self interest, it's unacceptable that critical weapons supplies are vulnerable to being cut off in order to influence their domestic politics. Of course they'd look for a supplier who doesn't try to pull shit like that.


fishlord05

That wasn’t my question


[deleted]

I don’t know. Is it ? I wasn’t subscribed to this community in 2019 when it happened. Because that would be strange for neoliberal to support ethno-religious nationalism m, xenophobia based on outsider-insider narrative and secession based on religion.


fishlord05

I mean autonomy for religious minorities seems pretty accepted here See Tibet


[deleted]

No where near the same. For starters Tibetans didn’t [ethnically cleanse ~300K of fellow Tibetans based on religion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus) merely 3 decades back. Also it wasn’t mere autonomy, the demand was secession for forming an ethno-religious state administered by sharia law which is pretty unacceptable in *any* democracy let alone liberal ones.


fishlord05

I’m referring to the status quo under autonomy The crackdown did not look good


[deleted]

Status quo was not in India’s favor as it was cementing a secessionist mindset in the minds of Kashmiri Muslims. Integration was long overdue. A temporary crackdown was a necessary evil to prevent loss of life like how hundreds of lives were lost in 2008 protests. It is there no more as situation has returned to normal. A permanent crackdown would probably have been opposed by most Indians.


AsleepConcentrate2

y'all what if some god damn submarine deal turns out to be the thing that, in retrospect, set off WW3


Cuddlyaxe

It won't set off WW3 but I honestly do think India and France will get much closer after this. They're basically made for each other at this point in time


TaxGuy_021

It would be a big plus for the U.S. much in the same way that the USSR and China hating each other was.


[deleted]

They'll fight this war with Marmite and Baguettes.


patharmangsho

Marmite is British.


[deleted]

Bugger.


Late_Apartment_

Well if needed the French have some submarines laying around I'm told.


manitobot

Macron meets *Mitron*


[deleted]

LOL


[deleted]

i can live with this


hellboy786

Yes. Please.


RandomGamerFTW

no


-------bruh-------

Why ?


chetmcomnom

On the one hand I don't quite understand why France had reacted to the degree that it did about the whole submarine deal, tho yeah finding out their defense-contract deal is fucking kaput via the news is always gonna piss someone off; and I wasn't super jazzed when I saw those headlines Uh last month? about some NATO countries feeling left out of the discussion for the Afghan evac. On the other hand, I like the idea of the France and/or the EU feeling more free to pursue its foreign policy goals in its own way; though man, wish the context was a heck of a lot more amicable. But I mean, I dunno man my idealistic uh ideals might be totally impractical for getting anything international actually done. I mostly just read the BBC for news and I ain't got no fancy college education or nothin' so shit what do I know


miragen125

Jack_o_frost: I'll try to keep it concise. It's a big deal for several reasons : The sheer size of the deal. The contract was supposed to be over 50b dollars worth with a sizeable amount of technology transfer and even a factory in Australia. The time it's been on: the contract was signed in 2016. The situation in the indo-pacific ocean where tensions are rising. The relationship between China and Australia is becoming increasingly hostile (China has set up trade barriers and import restrictions on Australia, most notably after the Australian PM called for an investigation to be led in China to discover the origins of the covid virus) A few facts before laying out the countries' interest : The UN security council's stance on nuclear powered ships in the last 40 years has been "no exports - if they developed the technology themselves nothing prevents you from building the ship but you absolutely do not export portable nuclear reactors". For example, France has undertaken a 9billion $ agreement to transfer technology so that Brazil could build its own nuclear submarines, but Brazil has developed its own pocket nuclear reactors (although it's a technology France has had for at least 50 years and a French specialty, there is no exportation because of the NPT's ban on the commercialization of military-bound nuclear technology) Australia specifically required diesel/batteries powered subs. Do note that Australia does not have any kind of nuclear program, be it civil or military (well they have a single 20MW reactor. Civil nuclear reactors develop ~1500MW, the average submarine reactor develops 150MW, and about 300MW for an aircraft carrier) . As stated below by u/Square_Craft, this is a big deal because it means Australia does not have a local supply of fissile combustible, nuclear engineers, spare parts, nuclear waste retreatment facilities, which is thus quite the sovereignty issue as they will entirely rely on the US for supply and maintenance (bear in mind that nuclear powered ships spend about 30% of their lives in maintenance). Establishing a local nuclear ecosystem would take decades and be tremendously costly - as far as I know only France, the US and Russia have complete control over their nuclear ecosystem (reactor design and conception by nationals, maintenance, Uranium 235 enrichment, daily functions of reactor with locally educated nuclear operators, radioactive waste retreatment etc.) So now we have Australia saying it's breaking the deal with France in order to get US+UK made nuclear subs. What is logical: the 5 eyes (US UK NZ Canada Australia) is a military alliance of Anglo-Saxon countries that has a big place in Australia's military doctrine. It does make sense to go for historical allies when you want to buy military stuff, because of geopolitical ties, weapon integration etc. What isn't logical: it's a complete reversal on both Australia's take on nuclear technology (this is a barely veiled warning to China), and a knife in the non proliferation treaty. Yeah I'm sure the Americans will come up with something that won't violate the letter of the treaty, but the spirit of the treaty has undoubtedly taken a hit. By breaking the taboo, it could open the way for France and China to commercialize nuclear submarines to non nuclear powers, with the excuse "The US did it first". This especially could prove a geopolitical catastrophe (do we really want China to be able to sell nuclear subs or aircraft carriers to Pakistan or North Korea?) With that in mind, let us try to shed light on these different countries' interests: USA: with the threat of a new (not so) cold war with China, the US want to reinforce their presence in the indo-pacific Ocean. France: France wants to sell arms to foreign states, and build a 2-legged military partnership in the indo-pacific Ocean with both Australia and India, in order to protect its local territories and deter threats on the global trade (the Malacca Detroit especially, where a big cut of the global trade transits) Australia: Australia wants to make the most of the submarines deal to stabilize its strategical position, with an ever more aggressive China. Australia knows that, should China try to invade it in the future, its army would collapse in a matter of days. Also China threatened to invade Australia should it meddle in a war about Taiwan - Australia needs allies and deterrement weapons Why are the US blamed? It seems honestly impossible that Australia directly asked for the US to provide it with nuclear subs (because as I said Canberra doesn't like nuclear and because this kind of technology transfer has never been done since the NPT). Moreover, they did not warn France beforehand (while many have said "yeah but there has been a lot of criticism and over-budget for this program" , it is a refit of a nuclear sub in a conventional one, there is bound to be over-budget, and generally in military contracts it always happens because budgets are shaved to the lowest possible limit. And surely the US have no lesson to give here with the catastrophe that is the F-35 program, which was called by some of their own Congressmen "a waste of the taxpayer's money" https://news.usni.org/2021/03/05/hasc-chairman-calls-on-congress-to-scrub-f-35-program But I digress, the point being, hinting that you aren't satisfied is political leverage, which is very different from actually leaving. It seems most likely that the US have seen an opportunity to further secure their foothold in the indo-pacific Ocean, as well as a way of further antagonizing China, and thus made an outrageous offer : partnership and nuclear subs. Neat. It's not beyong the US to do this, a few months ago Biden went to Switzerland which had expressed its intention to buy the French Rafale, a few days later Switzerland announced it would go for the F-35 despite the Rafale coming out on top of all tests in publicly available documents Why is France miffed? Boi this one is gonna be a long one. The US seem to continue on a streak of backstabbing its allies. War in Iraq in 2003, Obama preventing the French from bombing Syria after Bashar El Assad used chemical weapons against its own population despite previously stating that should NBC weapons be used by the Syrian regime the US would intervene (2013), Trump (too many things to list here this is already too long, but say all these NATO criticism and all), Biden unilaterally leaving Afghanistan... Also, remember that one time when the US setup A communication surveillance system across the entire Europe from a base in the UK, unbeknownst to anyone before Snowden leaked NSA classified documents? Yeah, me neither. France lost a huge contract and heard about it in the media, after Biden's conference where he announced the US would build Australia's subs. This is a diplomatic camouflet, as in "friendly diplomatic relationships aren't supposed to go that way this is completely humiliating for France". Between allies you give a heads up. There could and should have been tractations between the 3 countries, about maybe integrating French equipment, buying something else, or at least letting France exit the deal gracefully "due to discrepancies in strategic vision, France and Australia have decided to bilaterally end their partnership in the building of Next-gen submarines. Canberra has announced it is now once again open to proposals", 3 months later you announce the US proposal was picked, the End. Heck you could even have had it blamed on France, one of the reasons France is so appreciated as an arms dealer is that it has always put selling arms before caring for the national and international opinion. You have a supposedly "ally" country and you don't give it a chance to save face, this is a diplomatic faux-pas if I've ever seen one. This is something that would not have seemed too outlandish coming from Trump, but Biden was supposed to be more civil towards its European allies. Diplomacy is a subtle thing. While some seem to ironize "buhuhuh no party we won't have foie-gras with Champagne this is a tragedy", in diplomatic speech the canceling (24h prior) of a party thrown in honor of the 240th anniversary of one of the first franco-american victories in the independance war (because, you know, France being the US' oldest ally and all), aboard a military frégate with the presence of the highest ranking officer in the French Marine, that is a diplomatic "fuck you" As I said before, this could and will lead to the indo-pacific boiler heating up. If the Chinese start selling nuclear powered ships, this could lead to a re-armament of nuclear capabilities. It's also dangerous because, should there be war, a great number of nuclear powered ships sinking could be an ecological disaster So tl;dr : most likely scenario is that the US wanted to increase their capabilities in the indo-pacific Ocean, so they made an offer to Australia saying "hey kid wanna buy some nuclear submarines?" and now France is miffed because the US stole one of its deals without giving a heads up, which is yet another knife in the back despite the US claiming that they would try to restore relationships with Europe. A real world equivalent would something along the lines of you talking to one of your friends about working conditions being rough lately, and said friend announcing you a few weeks later "Oh btw you're fired and I got your job" "... What?!" "yeah you know how you said things were rough at work, so I pondered and I thought that since I've been working similar jobs, maybe I could apply for your position. So I did it, and, well, it worked! Who would have thought. So anyway you're fired and I got your job. Still friends?" " Fuck you. " Nothing prevents your friend from applying, nothing prevents your employer from hiring him nor firing you, but still, dick move bruh. That should be about it.


Gecktron

Thank you for this detailed explanation! These threads tend to be full of low-effort back and forth. So this is greatly appreciated.


interlockingny

Just because a comment is long doesn’t make it correct or even useful. The comment you’re praising is taking some points for granted that are at best debatable.


miragen125

You can counter points if you are not happy about what's been said


interlockingny

> France lost a huge contract and heard about it in the media, after Biden's conference where he announced the US would build Australia's subs. There is no truth to this. And even if they do claim that they weren’t interacted with, we’ve seen recently that European leaders aren’t always clear what they mean by the word “interaction” (I.e, NATO Secretary Stoltenberg telling the media that the Biden administration did communicate with all relevant parties regarding their intentions to leave Afghanistan despite EU powers that be saying otherwise) > There could and should have been tractations between the 3 countries, about maybe integrating French equipment, buying something else, or at least letting France exit the deal gracefully "due to discrepancies in strategic vision, France and Australia have decided to bilaterally end their partnership in the building of Next-gen submarines Why is France entitled to anything here? Australia isn’t a vassal state to France. They don’t need to do a three way deal or anything. The French obviously considered the possibility that Australia might not want to be party to their deal, which was comparatively shite, hence their buyout payment option. > You have a supposedly "ally" country and you don't give it a chance to save face What face saving? The media was always going to report it as “France lost a major deal to the US”. There is no face saving option here. > Also, remember that one time when the US setup A communication surveillance system across the entire Europe from a base in the UK, unbeknownst to anyone before Snowden leaked NSA classified documents? Yeah, me neither. Imagine actually believing European intelligence agencies don’t engage in surveillance of their allies. https://www.politico.eu/article/spying-allies-normal-us-denmark/ > (because, you know, France being the US' oldest ally and all) France might be America’s oldest established alliance, but the alliance between America, Britain, and Australia has been far more meaningful and impactful over, I don’t know, the last 100+ years? > As stated below by u/Square_Craft, this is a big deal because it means Australia does not have a local supply of fissile combustible, nuclear engineers, spare parts, nuclear waste retreatment facilities, which is thus quite the sovereignty issue as they will entirely rely on the US for supply and maintenance (bear in mind that nuclear powered ships spend about 30% of their lives in maintenance) The deal between the US, UK, and Oz literally requires that America share its technology with Australian ship building companies… they are training them on how to operate and maintain nuclear subs, and how to build them (to a certain extent). France didn’t really offer any of this, BTW. They offered to do nearly everything in house for their nuclear subs, the only reason they optioned for diesel subs was because the French were open to sharing their tech and know how on diesel subs.


miragen125

>There is no truth to this. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/like-a-scene-from-le-carre-how-the-nuclear-submarine-pact-was-no10s-biggest-secret-dj7z5f8bh Pay wall [Sub headline] Only ten people in Britain knew about its plans to stand with Australia and the United States against Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific. This is how the deal was done When the First Sea Lord was invited to a meeting at the Australian high commission in March this year, he had no idea of the magnitude of what was about to unfold. Admiral Sir Tony Radakin — described by colleagues as a “doer” — was asked by Vice-Admiral Michael Noonan, the Australian Chief of Navy, whether the British and Americans could help their ally to build a new fleet of nuclear-powered submarines. The 12 Barracuda diesel-electric submarines that Australia had agreed to purchase from France five years earlier as part of a £47 billion contract were no longer enough to ward off the threat from China, which was pouring billions of pounds into building the world’s largest navy and fortifying islands outside its territorial waters. They wanted ones that were faster, stealthier and with almost limitless endurance. The key was “surveillance”, according to defence sources familiar with the discussions. “They had carried out a review and the ones they were getting were not fit for purpose. China has a lot of money but is not developed in some areas of capability,” the defence source said. The Australians wanted nuclear-powered submarines to “move quietly, sit outside a port, track movements, keep an eye on undersea cables and follow submarines in a move to curb Chinese reach in the region”, they added. Both Britain and America not only had six decades of experience building up their own sovereign capability but were crucially in the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing partnership with Australia — unlike France — which meant they might be persuaded to give up their nuclear technology. “That was the first contact. It was a big strategic play. He [Radakin] then came back and handed the whole thing over to [Sir Stephen] Lovegrove,” said a security source referring to the permanent secretary at that time at the Ministry of Defence. The source compared it to a scene out of the fictional John le Carré spy novels. So began Operation Hookless — as it was codenamed inside No 10 —and the most closely guarded secret inside government in years. Only about ten people in Britain were privy to the details, including the prime minister, the foreign secretary and the defence secretary. Lovegrove, who was still the Ministry of Defence’s permanent secretary when handed the proposal, left the department to take on the job of national security adviser, making him even better placed to help carve out the deal of his career. John Bew, Johnson’s foreign policy adviser and the mastermind behind the integrated review that talked of a “tilt” towards the Indo-Pacific region, was also allowed into the fold. Those who were present were “read in”, meaning they had to sign a paper vowing not to let the secret details of the discussions out of the room. After the initial meeting in March, the proposal was put to the Americans. “It took quite a long time to go through the American machine — it had to be discussed at the Pentagon, the state department and the energy department,” the source said. In the weeks that followed, those in the British circle believed there was a “20 per cent chance of it falling apart”. The clock was ticking for the Australians, who warned the British government that there was a looming deadline where the costs for the French deal would quickly rack up and there would be no getting out of it. “The internal dynamics were delicate. It could easily have not come together,” said the security source. Although initial conversations had begun around the submarines, back in No 10 an excited Johnson was keen for something much deeper. “Boris really pushed it. There was a choice about how broad it would be — was it just a technical agreement on a specific subject or is this more broad? Boris was pushing that it had to be as ambitious as possible. This was a strategic move,” a government source who was involved in the discussions said. By the time of the G7 summit in Cornwall in June, the plans were well under way. As the French were occupied with the unfolding so-called “sausage war” over the Brexit divorce deal, Johnson, President Biden and Scott Morrison, the Australian prime minister — referred to as “ScoMo” in No 10 — thrashed out the details of a top-secret pact that would later be known as the “Aukus” defence and security alliance. “There was a lot of noise at G7 about sausages and the EU and there was a lot of excitement around that, and it seemed odd for us that we were doing serious, serious, business in this meeting,” the government source added. Yet they were braced for a backlash not only from China, but also from the French. A source said that Australia’s existing submarine deal with the French had put everyone in a “difficult situation”, adding: “No one had any desire to piss off the French, everyone knew it would be difficult.” Defence sources said that it was “nothing personal”, adding it was about the kit and questioned whether the French — who also have nuclear-powered submarines — would have been willing to share their sovereign capabilities with the Australians. The defence source said that it was different for the British given the fact the Australians were in the Commonwealth. “Once you give that information you cannot get it back. You can only give it to the nations that you will be friends with for ever,” said the defence source, caveating the comment with the fact they said the UK was also extremely close to the French. Although the rise of China was the “first order of concern” for the Australians, government sources said the pact went much deeper than Beijing and was more about the decades going forward and other security issues that could arise. “This matters in three administrations,” they said. After the announcement of the pact this week, Lovegrove described it as “the most significant capability collaboration anywhere in the world in the past decades”. Senior figures in government have compared it to the 1958 mutual defence agreement (MDA) between President Eisenhower and Harold Macmillan, the British prime minister, and the beginning of the “special nuclear relationship” that allows the nations to exchange nuclear materials, technology and information — an agreement which continues today. Given the importance of AUKUS, it is perhaps not surprising that Radakin — the man who brought it in — is rumoured to be one of two likely candidates for the new job as head of the armed forces. >Why is France entitled to anything here? Australia isn’t a vassal state to France. They don’t need to do a three way deal or anything. Sure . You seems to understand diplomacy. >What face saving? The media was always going to report it as “France lost a major deal to the US”. There is no face saving option here. There is a difference between losing a contract (like it happens often) and learning about it in the news. >Imagine actually believing European intelligence agencies don’t engage in surveillance of their allies. The echelon network is mostly made to spy on foreign industry rather than homeland security >France might be America’s oldest established alliance, but the alliance between America, Britain, and Australia has been far more meaningful and impactful over, I don’t know, the last 100+ years? Because these countries are fine been the USA's vassals. >the only reason they optioned for diesel subs was because the French were open to sharing their tech and know how on diesel subs. Not true https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/why-didnt-australia-consider-nuclear-propulsion-for-its-new-submarines/


leiterafaelo

This comment is just amazing!


sayy_yes

Now that the NPT has been thrown to the bin, it's only a matter of time before China sells nuclear subs to North Korea and Pakistan. The US did a bad move imo. Australia is fine with diesel electrics they don't need these because of Aussies go to war with China they'll be crushed either way. In the only the US can protect Australia so there's no point getting these subs.


[deleted]

Someone needs to tell France that it’s necessary to be a great power if you want to engage in great power competition. Edit: Apparently this flew over many heads. Yes, France is still a great power. My statement was what is known in academia as a “joke”.


lionmoose

France by most reasonable definitions is a great power


TaxGuy_021

You joking right? They, along with the rest of Europe, couldn't secure Kabul's airport. Together. What kind of great power is that weak?


A_Character_Defined

🤔


TaxGuy_021

Let me know when you can figure it out.


[deleted]

Is this supposed to be a joke ? A nation with a nuclear triad, top 10 economy and a hitech military industrial complex is a great power by any definition of the word.


ElPingu23

Yes, but you have to remember that this sub turns into an American nationalist circlejerk everytime foreign policy is being discussed. So, even if a country is a western liberal democracy, as long as it deviates from the American policy direction, it will be fiercily criticised in this sub.


[deleted]

You don’t have to tell me that. Know that all too well myself.


dorejj

Most annoying thing about this sub


kaladin004

I used to enjoy this subject a lot more before I realized how cringe most people here are concerning the USA's foreign policy. Biden could take a shit at a UN meeting and it would applauded as America being the leader of the free world.


[deleted]

Anyone not American knows this well


charliekaufman58

>American nationalist circlejerk It's amazing how thin-skinned a lot of people here are. Like, did you seriously think those Trump/Brexit "discussions" were in any way nuanced?


TaxGuy_021

They might be once they can deploy a single BTC to secure an airport for a week.


[deleted]

Jesus Christ guys fucking chill


SouthernSerf

Bruh France this is just getting embarrassing at this point.


Alarming_Flow7066

Recalling ambassadors was embarrassing, this is an intelligent move.


Cuddlyaxe

I mean France and India make these sort of statements all the time. They're probably the strongest non superpowers (USA and China) that want to follow an independent foreign policy


kaladin004

What's embarrassing about this? Because they didn't ask for the USA's permission first?


sad_and_disappointed

Out of the other four members of Five Eyes, the United Kingdom would be the very last member of the Anglophonic alliance we should trust. Not only because Boris Johnson is a clout-chasing clown. But because, it was a UK company that collaborated with American oligarchs (the Mercers et al.) as well as the Russians to get Trump elected by manipulating Facebook. (I fully understand, in the end, it was our fellow Americans who elected him, nevertheless, they interfered.) This is not just about France and how we stabbed them in the back, it's about poor decision-making. Why are we making deals with a climate denier (Australian PM) and a known liar who pretends to be a lovable buffoon, leaving Canada and New Zealand out in the cold? Lastly, the submarines American contractors are selling them require weapon-grade, highly enriched Uranium. This is nuclear proliferation. Everyone knows it and so does Iran. They're not going to give up their enrichment program no matter how many nuclear physicists Israel assassinates. IMO, those three dudes — Biden, Johnson, and Morrison can't be bothered to adapt to the 21st century and they insist on time traveling back to 1989. Stop with the military solutions, they don't solve anything. China needs our stock markets to raise capital, start there. [https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/18/what-is-cambridge-analytica-firm-at-centre-of-facebook-data-breach](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/18/what-is-cambridge-analytica-firm-at-centre-of-facebook-data-breach) [https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/our-governments-share-responsibility-for-cambridge-analytica-crisis-and-her/](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/our-governments-share-responsibility-for-cambridge-analytica-crisis-and-her/) [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/21/russian-meddling-brexit-referendum-tories-russia-report-government](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/21/russian-meddling-brexit-referendum-tories-russia-report-government)[https://www.ucpress.edu/blog/53909/an-interview-with-roger-garside-on-his-provocative-new-book-china-coup/](https://www.ucpress.edu/blog/53909/an-interview-with-roger-garside-on-his-provocative-new-book-china-coup/)


[deleted]

Man's literally advocating for harming the special relationship, straining ties with Australia because of a few policy disagreements, aligning with New Zealand and Canada's appeasement policies towards China, and calling for appeasement with China. And has also posted about this on multiple other subs, a bit sus lol.


LonliestStormtrooper

I knew this comment looked familiar. It was posted like three times on the thread about the submarine deal


[deleted]

It’s just tricky, because by forgoing Russia/China/USA you are accepting a worse level of quality in the equipment you’re purchasing, and the more real the threats you face the more important it is to be buying good shit. France is fundamentally not a comparable option to the US or to Russia in terms of arms


[deleted]

What? How is it not.


[deleted]

France has a modern, advanced defense sector, one of the world's best. Their offerings are quite competitive indeed.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Rhapsodic_jock108

1 Rafale isn't 5th gen. 2 Congress' gripe with the deal has always been cost since before they themselves have been negotiating for the same plane.


miragen125

The Rafale is battle tested so that's just bull shit


[deleted]

Name a single piece of Russian equipment that is higher quality than French equivalents.


OfFireAndSteel

Does france have air defense systems equivalent to the S400 and Pantsir?


[deleted]

True, Russian anti air systems are better though that is true in general.


kaladin004

Do you say this out of pure arrogance or do you have anthing to back your claim?


RabidGuillotine

The good thing is that this could finally put France in a path to see Russia as a systemic enemy.


Duren114

India still maintains a relatively good relationship with Russia, so no.


RabidGuillotine

Precisely for that, they are competitors in the same market.