Australia is not in NATO.
Australia is not in NATO.
Australia doesn't need to be. The last time an Australian PM dared to act on his own country's interests rather than those of the US and UK, he got couped out of power by CIA and MI6.
Like the French you seem to be taking this hard. It's a submarine deal. Yes France got screwed but welcome to the world of competitive military sales and geopolitical interests. France got outplayed.
But hey if they don't to be friends France strike out on its own. Maybe it can supply its own troops for France's own adventures in Africa instead of US logistics doing it for them.
No, I have zero stakes in it. I'm amused more than anything.
France won the competition, in case you didn't notice. But you got the outplayed part right. I wonder what the term for competing geopolitical interests are... Hm, apparently it's "allies".
Agreed. About time more Murrican troops get sent somewhere, now that they got kicked out of Afghanistan.
Evidently not as Australia is not going to be buying/building French submarines are they? America was able to do sink the French deal pretty easily. Guess the French couldn't offer the same deal the US could
If France wants to go support tin-pot dictatorships like Chad they can do it with their troops and their logistics if they please. Not gonna hold my breath though. Europeans still don't have the ability to operate outside their borders without US logistics.Agreed. About time more Murrican troops get sent somewhere, now that they got kicked out of Afghanistan.
What I read from you, apart from that you don't know the distinction between a competition and this, is that your view of alliances isn't between peers. Did I get this right?
In that vein, don't you think there are better terms for that? Vassals? Satrapies?
Allies do compete with each other. Did you not realize that? Especially in terms of military sales. Look at India. The US is trying to out-compete France there as well. This is fairly normal.
Oh and thanks for mentioning the competition. It's irrelevant. France won it over the German and Japanese bids but evidently Australia decided that what the Americans were offering was better. Outplayed.
You sure you're not taking this hard? The hyperbole from you is amazing.In that vein, don't you think there are better terms for that? Vassals? Satrapies?
The posts being responded to are bad faith criticisms which come from a place of opposition to Anglo-American foreign policy. It is perfectly well understood that while allied nations share security/defense interests, they still compete with one another economically and politically, especially in peacetime.
I figured that. Honestly the French deal was bad.
https://www.politico.eu/article/why-...ench-sub-deal/
That is a great articling detailing several points on why Australia abandoned the French deal. And a lot of it has to do with the French themselves.
Did not see this explosion of posts on this thread. But France it seems to me always had a weak hand if a better offer came down the sea way. Australia was trying to push DE boat to the max to what an SSN can do easy. Also while everyone is always talking AIP it worth reconsidering they are a really slow doing anything but loitering slowly really reduces their ability to be the stealth weapons that everyone takes away from the first front line sales pitch. Plus nothing I read quickly say France was offering an AIP option just plain DE. I stand correction on that - like said I just did a quick look at background.
IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites
'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'
But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.
Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.
Well the price was certainly bad. The original French deal was 12 Barracudas for 31 billion dollars. That cost ballooned to 56 billion dollars. After factoring in maintenance, the cost went to 91 billion dollars.
12 diesel subs are not worth upwards to 91 billion dollars over their life.
Whoa, I never even heard of this before. Weird how Commonwealth nations are considered "democratic", but then there are all those cookie medieval laws that basically annul all democratic choice or makes it purely symbolic. Kinda reminds me of how "privy councils" work here in Canada.
The evidence for the alleged CIA/MI6 "coup" which occurred during the Australian constitutional crisis is speculative or inferred. No one will be surprised to learn that one of the star witnesses mentioned in the Guardian article, Christoper Boyce, was later convicted of spying for the Soviet Union. In any case, the affair has nothing to do with the Franco-Australian submarine deal.
I don't know about the younger generation, but since WWII the Australian electorate has been pretty wary of nuclear power. We have a research/medical reactor at Lucas Heights, and even that gets protested loudly.French nuclear testing in the pacific caused real anger heree as did the terrorist attack on NZ by French intel on the Rainbow Warrior (some hippy do gooders got killed).
My guess is the Morrison Government was sunk at the next election anyway (with the corruption and various rape scandals, and the cover up and the payment scandal, and the vaccine care and go-slow), but this deal makes sure it will be a massacre.
That said the strategic sense in it is strong. As Van and Ant say, thus gives Australia a way top pay for a place in the front line and back up our number 1 ally. The spin in the news is it was necessary but the divorce with France was fumbled.
Jatte lambastes Calico Rat
My sense is that this came so far out of left field for the activist community, that they're still out eating smashed avo on toast for $30 a plate and wont be meeting up to discuss it at the local anarchist clubrooms till mid-week. Labor are OK with the deal at the moment, but that doesn't really mean anything these days. The second someone says "Australian's to miss out on new European trade deal" they'll see their chance to flip.
This deal is going to happen tho. You don't flip off a key ally for the world's largest power and flip back. We're going to have to wear what ever tantrum the Euros throw at us now. Today's Economist makes the reason for French upset clear:
Spoiler for Economist:
Make no mistake, the French are embarrassed. Very. There are more French citizens in the Pacific than there are people in countries like Fiji, Tonga and Samoa combined, and a great many of them are conservative retirees who vote. With China's push into the Pacific, France (and the Euros) really wanted to be leaders in the region, rather than bit players. My feeling is it is going to cost something public, and knowing that this was going on behind backs for a while means trust will take a lot of rebuilding, but in private over the long term they'll play realpolitik behind closed doors - you win some you lose some. A few interactions will be cancelled, but it's not like we'll stop doing military exercises with the French Navy in the Indo-Pacific, and long term we'll probably see this new assemblage of letters alliance work with or even include France, and probably India too.
Last edited by antaeus; September 18, 2021 at 10:10 PM.
IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM
Nice projection you got going there mate. I'm not French for one, and secondly even if I were I would not waste every thought on "how can I twist reality so it's what I want it to be". But most importnatly I have talked about the deal a fair bit and I have not heard an actual argument against any of the points I have brought up.
Neither you or cope have brought up, and for my knowledge, you're probably completely unawares of it, the best argument the pro-new-deal argument would have had. Nor am I going to hand it to you to free, though, so better search if you want to give something.
Anyway, let's disregard for one that your claim that France lost the competition is 100% false and that as pointed out by me in #1868 the American deal was obtained completely differently. Let's disregard that the whole discussion about pros and cons regarding diesel vs nuclear is completely moot because, even though you seem to be completely unawares of it, the French sub is originally nuclear propulsed (as ALL French subs are), and that the desire to have it diesel driven was entirely Australian and was done after much deliberation (read on the Australian arguments pro and con here - but who am I kidding, you won't).
All this pushed aside, my point is astoundlingly simple: It's an exceptionally bad idea to piss on someone's leg you're trying to be friends with.
Me personally? I don't like French foreign policy. I don't like that they still perpetuate their colonial empire. You got my bias exactly wrong. But as much as I laugh at the Australian-French declaration underlining "the importance of the Future Submarine program" and agreeing "to strengthen military scientific research cooperation through a strategic partnership" in August when the decision to cancel the deal had been made somewhere between April and June, because it's absolutely hilarious, I don't purposefully delude myself into pretending this is normal, or that the French reaction isn't understandable.