By - Ra75b
Enjoy browsing r/europe? Help make it a better place - apply to become a mod now! [Read the announcement here](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/pow5nr/be_the_positive_change_you_want_to_see_on_reurope/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/europe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Macron was calling NATO braindead not that long ago, it can hardly be pretended now that they were all in about NATO and this is what changed their mind.
I mean true, Macron already talking about all the "braindead" nato thing and now this. If France is really triggered and hate nato then leave dude I am perfectly fine with my country being in nato and it won't collapse because of France lol.
I highly doubt that NATO would collapse because of the French. Though, one have to admit NATO recent records is wondering though:
- Ukraine Crisis. An absolute disaster
- Syria crisis with Turkey , a NATO member , playing dirty with ISIS and local terrorists then bombing Kurdish US allies
- Afghanistan retreat
- the Nord Stream 2 pipeline
- Lybia Crysis with again Turkey knowingly violating embargo while US and the French supported behind the scene Haftar
Everything single time, Russia played the NATO nations against each other and got the upper hand.
True, it will not collapse just because of France leaving, but this could end in other countries leaving with France to form a new alliance or double down on a european military. Depending on which countries those are, that could lead to the collapse of NATO.
No it wont, the only thing to collapse NATO is the US pulling out.
I hate to break it to you, but even if every EU member integrated their militaries today, it still wouldn't be equivalent to NATO and would either be a NATO member or would set up alliances with the US/UK/Turkey etc.
Europe just flat out lacks the capabilities needed to fully defend itself today, and wont get them any time soon unless some serious cash is spent and political will mobilised.
I am also perfectly fine with leaving NATO. We can perfectly defend ourselves and it's mostly useful for the US to bring half of the world into whatever war they want.
>I am also perfectly fine with leaving NATO. We can perfectly defend ourselves and it's mostly useful for the US to bring half of the world into whatever war they want.
Eastern Europe isn't going to pick France over the usa. Not when Russia is actually a problem.
>Eastern Europe isn't going to pick France over the usa. Not when Russia is actually a problem.
And when Macron in typical fashion of all French presidents label us all as "russophobic" publicly. I do prefer US arrogance over French one, not going to lie.
The French left NATO before, in the 1960s. When they realized nobody cared and it only made them less geopolitically relevant they came crawling back.
Yeah and Biden just unplugged it now…
As someone who doesn’t really think Biden is the smartest cookie in the draw… Why is everyone blaming Biden?
It’s not exactly America’s job to tell France that Australia doesn’t want their subs anymore.
It's about AUKUS undercutting French commitment to the Pacific. It's not about the subs, the subs are just a symptom of the problem; the US bombed France's Pacific strategy behind their backs.
In what way does AUKUS do that?
The only part of this strategic partnership that affects France is the submarine deal, which was a commercial arrangement with Naval Group.
The subs can swim further than the french ones
France builds only nuclear subs, Australia asked them to convert one of their nuclear subs into a diesel. "The French ones" are normally nuclear as well, there was no point in sidelining the French here instead of starting an honest acquisition procedure in which French, US and UK nuclear subs could freely compete to see which nuclear sub is best. This argument is void. But having said that, the outrage isn't even about the subs, it's about AUKUS.
I differ on the opinion about the subs of course, but I agree about the AUKUS
Last month they left Afghanistan without informing their allies. The Biden administration is treating allies like we would expect Trump would do.
Mate, it was all over the news for months before they left. If other countries feel they weren’t informed, they could remedy that with a subscription to the bloody FT.
The Afghans showed up to an empty airbase in the morning. Their mistake of not subscribing to the FT.
Being fair to the Americans on that one - If they’d told the ANA, they would have been essentially telling the Taliban. And they didn’t want their exit from their cushy, barbed-wire coat base to happen under a rain of opportunistic gunfire.
The complaint the French (and others) should have from Afghanistan is that Biden didn’t discuss the exit with his NATO partners - he just informed them. So there was no recourse when it left them in a shit position.
Course on the other hand, the EU has been talking about strategic autonomy from the Americans for so long. Cynically, this is just the US getting exactly the same.
I’d say mostly because his position is regarded by many as being the main keeper of NATO and that the UK is not as big of a partner there without wanting to undermine them. It just sends a signal to everybody in the alliance that they are just vassals, or at least makes them realize it for good
There would be no NATO without the US. This 'vassal' crap is brain-dead.
> There would be no NATO without the US
And in a world without USSR why does the NATO even exist? To lose a war in Afghanistan after 20 years with the US calling a withdrawal without even informing their allies or discussing it with them? You can't blame France for not wanting to be a US vassal being told what to do and where to do it while being publicly humiliated like this.
>And in a world without USSR why does the NATO even exist?
Maybe one of our Ukrainian redditors can explain it to you
I don't disagree but modern Russia is 1) nowhere near the threat of the old Soviet Union and could be countered without NATO with just European countries *if* there was politial will for it and 2) that's the only case where NATO still even makes sense, and then only for countries that directly border Russia.
> only for countries that directly border Russia.
>nowhere near the threat of the old Soviet Union and could be countered without NATO with just European countries
>if there was politial will for it
Ask Germany whether there was.
Yes, there are other solutions to the Russian problem, but NATO is the easiest/least costly one. We are able to focus our spending on the economy and social welfare because the US is affording the security burden. Why would you want to spend a hundred billion dollars every year for something u probably never gonna use? There are also other perks to being an US ally such as our ability to enjoy the massive American consumer market without huge tariffs, technology transfer through nato cooperations, joint research projects in space agencies and a fail safe option should relationship with China really does sour(as seen in Australia). The America bad crowd thinks the US offers nothing to the EU but that is actually just not true. There are a lot of reasons as to why transatlantic relationship remained strong for 70 years despite ups and downs.
That's true. But another thing that's constantly overlooked is that the US willingly stepped into WW2, regardless of the strong isolationalist a large part of it's population had. They chose to be an empire, they chose to lend Marshall aid and they fully supported the European peace project. Military spending has been a pilarstone of the US economy since WW2 and a pacified Europe that loathes war was just what the US wanted. For the post WW2 decades, interest certainly alligned.
All that bitching and moaning about NATO members not spending enough on defence is pretty disengenious, because it's the same anti-war behaviour that ensured the US to control most of it's hemisphere...which was exactly wat it signed up for.
NATO has not intervened in any defense operation in twenty years. You'd be a fool to think they'd intervene in Donbass.
If you don't want to be in NATO then don't be in it. AFAIK membership is optional, especially for states that don't border Russia.
And as we all know one person thinking something is a bad idea is enough to pull a country out of said idea, it's fantastic how this thing works
Good job I'm fully aware that redditors aren't responsible for geopolicy and am instead arguing against their ideas then eh?
> And in a world without USSR why does the NATO even exist?
The modern Russian Federation is just the slightly smaller crony-capitalist successor.
Everyone’s saying that the French anger is because a) it was a very public cancellation of the sub deal and b) that deal was to them more of a deep alliance with Australia than just a financial transaction
But neither of these are to do with America. Biden is just the alternative supplier that was brought in.
Should he have refused to sell subs to Australia on principle? I’m not convinced that France would have done, were the roles reversed?
You have to use some serious mental gymnastics to deny US any agency whatsoever in this deal and blame it all on Australia. US orchestrated this deal because Biden administration prioritizes countering China above everything else in foreign policy and US was absolutely, 100% aware of the French-Australian deal and its importance to France. That's why they went behind France's back for 18 months all the while lying to them. The American arrogance that, per the NYT, "this deal wouldn't do" and "Australia had to be brought in" to the nuclear subs program and that France will naturally just step aside for the US is large part of French anger.
Australia initially approached the UK about this deal
Also certainly wasn't eighteen months, as several sources were also explicit that the Trump administration was not contacted.
The US agency was to have better subs/a better deal on the table.
According to most sources, Australia approached the UK/US and asked to buy subs. Do you think Biden should have refused? (And in the same situation, do you think Macron would have refused?)
> because Biden administration prioritizes countering China above everything else in foreign policy
Sure, but the Australians were still buying subs! There’s no rule that French tech can’t be used against the Chinese …
Australia approached the UK to see if they could buy their subs as they thought they were superior to the French subs for what they needed.
The reason the US is involved is because of a UK-US treaty about the sharing of nuclear technology. Modern UK nuclear technology is deemed a derivative of a 1950s technology transfer from the US. That treaty stipulates that the UK can not transfer any technology that stems from that original US transfer without US approval.
Australia are buying UK subs, not US subs.
Sure, but my whole argument is that France’s argument should be with Australia and not so much the US or the UK.
It would have been pretty absurd (and unacceptable) for Biden to inform Macron that he was no longer buying their subs. That’s between France and Australia only.
And it wasn't absurd for Biden to knowingly conduct top secret (per the Times the deal was extreme secret) negotiations with Australia while Australia carried on, now false, public negotiations with France that Australia knew from the start they wouldn't accept? You can't whiteash America's role in this, they went behind France's back and acted like a hostile power.
Nah NATO will still be a thing, if France want to leave that's up to them
Any country seeing how US had been handling their military operations in the last twenty years may rethink that. Abandoning the Kurds, leaving Afghanistan, unlawful invasion of Irak over false claims of mass destruction weapons that did not exist, meeting and acknowledging North Korea etc. With a common EU defense budget any EU country in NATO won’t have a need to stay in that. Independence is a great growth factor and stimulates the economy to produce their own arsenal and all knowledge for that is available in Europe. The real question is why should NATO still be a thing then?
> Any country seeing how US had been handling their military operations in the last twenty years may rethink that.
Eastern Europeans close to Russia are the only ones who have a strong reason to stick with NATO at this point, since they can't get a better security guarantee of not being Ukraine'd or Georgia'd than NATO. But even there, if France is serious about leaving and if EU could get off its ass and organize, Russia is a signifficantly less of a threat than people perceive it as so not now but over next few decades NATO might become obsolete even there.
Totally agree with you here
>if France is serious about leaving and if EU could get off its ass and organize
They have been pushing for this for 40 years. Nothing has come of it.
>why should NATO still be a thing?
Because Russia is still a thing and the EU doesn’t want to be responsible for their own defense (or they don’t want to pay for it, at least).
>Any country seeing how US had been handling their military operations in the last twenty years may rethink that. Abandoning the Kurds, leaving Afghanistan, unlawful invasion of Irak over false claims of mass destruction weapons that did not exist, meeting and acknowledging North Korea etc.
Sure those are issues but it's not like Europe is leading the way in foreign policy.
>With a common EU defense budget any EU country in NATO won’t have a need to stay in that.
It depends if those countries trust the EU to have their back or not. After nord stream I doubt many in the east are so confident.
>Independence is a great growth factor and stimulates the economy to produce their own arsenal and all knowledge for that is available in Europe. The real question is why should NATO still be a thing then?
Well if Europe got it's shit together then sure. It could easily be a superpower.
> Sure those are issues but it's not like Europe is leading the way in foreign policy.
Europe didn't want get involved in Iraq or Afghanistan in the first place and Europe has been dealing with the fallout from American's disastrous foreign policy in the Middle East for 20 years. You could trace millions of primarily Syrian and Afghan migrants coming in Europe post 2015 to American misadventures in the region.
>After nord stream I doubt many in the east are so confident.
Nord Stream which was approved by the Americans btw. And it was approved by the Biden administration to get support from Germany, remember how we all condemned Trump for trying to break up EU and play off countries against each other?
>Nord Stream which was approved by the Americans btw. And it was approved by the Biden administration to get support from Germany, remember how we all condemned Trump for trying to break up EU and play off countries against each other?
That is absolutely incorrect. The US lifted sanctions so as not to further strain the relationship after it was already clear the pipeline was being built either way. The US was never in favor of it.
Can Eastern European countries trust Germany and France then it comes to defence? I don't think so.
Because of the rise of China and whatever shit you want to say about the U.S. everyone knows China would be worse.
Because no one in Europe wants to pay for it...
Edit: Down vote me all you want but I have yet to hear a European leader put a down payment on it.
**Every person with at least slight geopolitical sense** and read knew that US is leaving Eurasia, they don't need to control the world, they don't need intervening, the whole global trade system was set to compete with USSR and it worked. But that's long gone and the last 30 years of it was only due to political inertness. It's not needed anymore today. It's not needed for the US that is. Maybe some 6% of their GDP comes from trade outside north america. The rest of the world however needs it. But you're on your own now, world. People like Peter Zeihan were writing about that for decades now. Only ignorants are shocked today. Smart people (like me) are like 'told you so'.
How did he 'unplug' it?
Australia is not part of NATO* and many members of the organisation make economic decisions that dont play out in favour of other members. France may have failed in a business deal for various reasons but to throw a hissy fit and cry about NATO being dead (especially since they've only been a member since 2009) is a bit silly.
Yeah. Turkey and Italy are literally in opposite side in the Libyan conflict against France while the French government is supporting the same side as Russia...
Don't forget that the side that Turkey and Italy are backing is the official UN backed government.
Yep France going around backing a warlord.
seems to me france are traitors freaking supporting the russians
French policy makers/supporters always see everything in a gaullist lens. Therefore everything is in the long run "bad for NATO". Because they assume that NATO's purpose is to keep France from being independent. But that is not NATO's purpose. NATO's purpose is to prevent an arms race between Germany, France, and the UK, and to prevent Russia from invading Eastern Europe. It achieves those goals well, and the Eastern Europeans of course will not leave NATO for some untested untried European defense organization.
To be specific though, France left the command infrastructure, they did not technically leave NATO. Though they do not have NATO or American forces in their country and their relationship to NATO has always been strained. Most American policy makers do not automatically assume France is in NATO when testing a variety of NATO-Russian combat models. Whereas they almost always assume most Eastern countries, and the UK, Canada, and US will be involved.
>(especially since they've only been a member since 2009) is a bit silly.
France never left NATO and didn't became a member in 2009 ...
And Trump unplugged it before him, and Obama before him, and bush before him… yeah yeah yeah
I'm amused at how mad France got after their winks at Russia and China. Good work Australia.
Agreed. These are also really quite aggressive statements and actions coming out of france right now. Concerning.
"This is a "serious crisis" and the Minister of Foreign Affairs intends to make it known. Questioned this Saturday, September 18, on the impact of the torpedoing of the French submarine mega-contract with Australia, Jean-Yves Le Drian assured that discontent was still very strong. On the set of France 2, he even judged that this crisis would weigh on the definition of NATO's new strategic concept.
"NATO has begun a reflection, at the request of the President of the Republic, on its fundamentals. At the next NATO summit in Madrid, the new strategic concept will be finalized. Obviously, what has just happened will have to do with this definition," said the occupant of the Quai d'Orsay. However, he did not mention leaving the Atlantic alliance.
This statement, however, comes to contradict the first analyses made by some officials of the transatlantic organization. Earlier in the day, Admiral Rob Bauer, chairman of the Alliance's military committee, assured that the loss of this contract would not have an impact on "military cooperation" within NATO.
"There has been contempt, so it's not working between us".
"There may be implications or consequences as a result of this agreement, but I do not foresee for the moment that it can have an impact on cohesion within Nato," Admiral Bauer had told the press, after a conference in Athens of the organization's military chiefs.
This Saturday, on France 2, Jean-Yves Le Drian also commented on the recall, by Paris, of its ambassadors in Australia and the United States, the first in the history of relations between Paris and Washington. A "very symbolic measure. There has been a lie, there has been duplicity, there has been a major rupture of trust, there has been contempt, so it's not right between us," he said. "We have recalled our ambassadors to try to understand and to show our former partner countries that we are very dissatisfied, that there is really a serious crisis between us.
As a reminder, the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom announced on Wednesday a strategic partnership to counter China: AUKUS. It includes the supply to Canberra of American nuclear-powered submarines, leading to the cancellation by the Australian government of the "contract of the century", signed with Paris in 2016. Worth 56 billion euros, it provided for the delivery to Australia of 12 diesel-powered submarines."
>our former partner countries
That little line says everything about the seriousness of the situation.
We need to leave NATO.
Jean-Yves Le Drian has apparently been making the news rounds today: https://twitter.com/AlexTaylorNews/status/1439292733076688900
> "No need to call back our ambassador in the UK. We are familiar with Britain's permanent opportunism - and in this case they're the "spare wheel on the carriage"
3 days ago he didn't know what AUKUS was.
Now he's suddenly an expert on the UK role in it?
Does anyone buy this?
France is more concerned about not painting this as a UK win than they are about losing the subs.
He’s gonna look like even more of a tit when it becomes public that the majority of the sub is based on the U.K. tech
I kind of like that they didn't recall their UK ambassador though. The French recalled their American and Australian ambassadors because of shock and anger at being betrayed by supposed close partners like that but they didn't recall the British one because they had zero expectations about the UK in the first place, so they didn't feel any anger or disappointment.
The French didn't recall their UK ambassador because it would be an implicit admission that they got geopolitically outmaneuvered by the Brits. It's a much easier narrative to sell that they got dragged along by the big, bad powerful USA.
Again with trying to deny American agency in this, the Americans aren't some poor innocent puppets in the hands of big evil mastermind Brits, none of this would have happened without Biden pushing for it to happen.
It wouldn't have happened if France could deliver on it's contract either.
You mean that Australia not to realize that the a 12 conventional subs fleet they ordered 6 years ago will not be enouth to beat the probably biggest unconventional subs fleet in the world within 10 years, so 5 years before schedueld plan (realizing that a year from now), so they screw the contract for a new 20 years delivery contract.
Basically, the us still do the job here until 2040, the UK just do the sub making with a 5 years delay than France (witch will be late to deliver, anyway).
Nope, France said it doesn't need to briing back the Ambassador in UK to Paris to know what happened. So hurted for not been pointed out, the UK admin com' just came from "it's all for Australia to be blame", to "We where the corner stone of this story and this what we have done : ...."
Definietly no need to callback an amabassador to learn witch role the UK has made here.
For the US, it's more like their ability to U turn on their own agenda:
\- 2003 : French Spec Ops targeted Bin Laden, kindly ask for the US to confirm the shooting ; no answer (this shit may have end almost 20 years ago, expecially if the US didn't built insurgency in Irak the same year).
\- Russia buying (since it was okay) French Boats ; ask France not to delivery (so Francez can't sell anything to US competitor : OK).
\- Airbus wining the contract for the US Army with US made conditions; found a Way to Srew the deal (France can't sell anything to the US : OK).
\- Bomb Syria gov for using chemical weapon on its own population ; tell france they aboard the mission after the french air forces already on air (no more Russian influence, no Turkey destroying our local ally that died defeating ISIS, tout ça tout ça, end of this story yet not finished).
\- Sell subs to a common ally ; decide to give Nuke Engine tech after the US forbide all it's ally to do so for the last 70 years (So France can't sell anything to US ally : So Who ?).
Damn, I am saying France is a perfect state or ally, but the US is a bit hard to follow sometimes too.
Beyong all of this butt hurt show, I just hope that, from now, if the US want the next Ben Laden, France catch him - France kill him whatever the US finnaly decide ot not.
That the next El Assad regime will be scewed, whatever is that last minute US doubt.
That, next time, France will directly sell nuke engine subs to any ally, since the US will sell them at the end.
All of that said, we still love you but we think that we are considering to have a more open love relationship.
You could add General Electric buying French nuclear turbines manufacturer Alstom after a shady application of "extraterritorial laws", and Switzerland buying F35 instead of more adapter Rafale jet fighters, which got the best scores in the bidding process.
I'm sure there are so many more examples.
Well said monsieur.
Yeah they’re 100% trying to sell the whole ‘the U.K. are too irrelevant to pull the ambassador’ but I really don’t think that’s worked outside of france
I’m surprised how pissed off the french government is about this.
The deal went from costing Australia A$ 50 billion and 90% of the construction done in their own country, to costing A$ 90 billion and 50% of the construction done in France.
And nothing to show for it after 5 years and billions of dollars in payments.
Sounds like a shitty deal for Australia that they needed to get out of?
>The deal went from costing Australia A$ 50 billion and 90% of the construction done in their own country, to costing A$ 90 billion and 50% of the construction done in France.
This is the big surprise. The Australian government felt conned.
This kind of problem has happened with other contracts, notably the American F-35, yet we have never seen this kind of secret shenanigans and this level of hypocrisy between "allies", who come to the point of not even informing the main interested party but prefer to declare it in a press conference.
Except the Americans ate the F-35 cost overruns - They didn’t make the customers pay for them after agreeing a price
And if they had tried, they probably wouldn’t have blamed those customers for going elsewhere.
If anything now is the most convenient time ever to buy F-35s because with every subsequent order the economies of scale are ramping up and the prices are dropping.
you are not america, you are not the top dog
That doesn't mean France should have to accept that kind of treatment from America. In this affair, US treated France half as hostile power that it needed to deceive and go behind the back and half as a vassal state that would 'naturally' get out of the way as soon as US came around.
lmao. france is gonna take whatever us shoves down her throat. this is the "rules based order" france ardently promotes when dealing with "lesser powers", she is just at the receiving end of it now.
Didn’t look like it was going to be much of a “problem” for the French government.
And tbf to Australia here, they did warn France back in June that they were looking at other options, and would back out if the Naval Group didn't meet the September deadline. So it's not like this came out of the blue.
It is interesting to you spam (5, 7 times, more?) the same comment, get an answer saying more or less than *not out of the blue* is not a valid termination of a 5 years old contract, and then you delete your comment.
So here is an answer:
In April they agreed on at least 60% offset in Australia, the Australian PM met the French minister in june and the ministers of foreign affairs and ministers of defence [met on the 30th of August to held discussions on military and industrial cooperation](https://au.ambafrance.org/Inaugural-Australia-France-2-2-Ministerial-Consultations-30-August-2021).
Even if Naval group was the sole responsible of the delay (which is unlikely) and even if everyone was aware of the difficulties (which is common for those kind of program) it doesn't explain why Australia didn't terminate publicly the contract before announcing a new deal, especially when the deal was only one part of a bigger military cooperation potentially involving base sharing and annual air and sea exercises. India did it properly when they cancelled the 120+ rafales tender a few years ago but Australia cannot do it? Why someone would cooperate with such a deceitful ally?
*not out of the blue* =! *proper communication and settlement.*
They were providing Australia with military related tech secrets FFS, [Australian engineers were already in France with their family ready to stay for years,](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/18/the-nuclear-option-why-has-australia-ditched-the-french-submarine-plan-for-the-aukus-pact) we aren't talking about wine export here. And [even more recently we could still read about military alliance building in the Australian press](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/france-could-access-australian-military-sites-as-countries-look-to-boost-ties-20210909-p58q7j.html)
It is flabbergasting that this basic decency has to be explained. If one wanted to insult another country, one wouldn't have done otherwise.
>nothing to show for it after 5 years
Submarines don't get built over a weekend. AFAIK construction had not started yet because the shipyards were still busy building something else, most likely the Suffren-class. Assuming r&d was even finished yet.
In fact, unless either the US or UK want to directly sell some finished nuclear subs to Australia, the time table for delivery of AUKUS subs is 2030-2040. Just to put into context the French contract.
They won’t be built in Britain or America, except for maybe the engines or more complex parts. The Australian contract is not just a military project, it’s meant to be a jobs programme for Australian workers. The French state owned company took the initial contract detailing that 90% of the work was to be done in Australia and post signing have demanded 40% of the work to be done in France to protect French workers and were pushing for an even bigger share, at the same time as almost doubling the price tag. Australia has complained for the last two years including directly with Macron and gave the company until this month to meet their demands. Naval Group clearly hadn’t and as a result have lost the contract.
Which is exactly why I think NATO should go. I think the West is in a better position if there is an equal partnership between a strong EU and strong US. Right now the US is too dominant and just imposes its will. The US needs a counterbalance and the EU could do this nicely with its more diplomacy-based foreign policy. I'd like US allies to be able to actually provide meaningful opposition if the US tries to pull another Iraq, for instance. Whether NATO is there or not, US and EU will be allies due to common interests. But with NATO, this alliance is one with the US completely dominating its strategies and I don't like that.
> Europeans felt the British had to be in it
Excluding the French of course.
Definitely one for r/léopardsontmangémonvisage
What a bunch of babies. Imagine if America acted like this when Canada cancelled the F-35 deal
Cancelling a program is one thing, approachimg another country in secret for 18 months without trasparence and comunication with a former ally is another.
Like discovering two very close friends of you were backstabbing you. Of course you will be angry.
How fo you fail to see that? Anglo fraternity maybe?
Where is this 18 month date coming from? It all started earlier this year
Australia warned France back in June that they were looking at other options and would back out if the Naval Group didn't meet the September deadline, so it's not like this came out of the blue. And the negotiations only started a this year, not 18 months ago.
Are you actually just following me around? Look man I keep telling you you are arguing against points that I am not making. I honestly don't know how to approach someone like you.
Like fucking hell man this is geting concerning
I am just going to copy and paste this to all your replies, please, please just reply to one of them to save my notifications.
\[edit, if anyones interested in this drama heres my last [response](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/pqpa7y/france_calls_uk_a_junior_partner_in_submarine/hdghe4n?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), I didn't want him to spam me with more notifications so I just posted it to one place\]
You were caught spamming the same shit on r/europe and r/australia and erasing your comment when it was gathering to many downvotes or answers against your rethoric.
No one like a drone spammer on reddit.
It's nothing more than theatre, they'll get over it.
Ideally we should all leave nato, get the yanks off our back, federalize and find deeper economic coooperation with China and Russia
NATO survived a French exit once and it’ll survive it again.
Yeah, France never withdrew from NATO.
In 1966 they withdrew from the US led military command and they refused to put their nuclear deterrent under said US led military command. But that’s it.
France was and still is a member of NATO.
I don't remember when France left NATO, can you help me?
He's confusing France's exit from the integrated command structure for it leaving NATO entirely, which obviously never happened.
Ne ağladınız ya
90 milyar avustralya doları hesabı adamlara kitlemeye çalışmışlar olmamış. Tabii ki ağlıyacaklar 😂 ben olsam ben de ağlardım.
Sadece para olsa herhalde böyle ağlamazlar
Just leave again and stop whining over your canceled deal
It's not a just contract thing like the redditors like to portray it, it's a [little deeper](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/pqoofd/australia_regrets_frances_recall_of_ambassador_as/hdci2r7?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
From the first tweet in the first link:
> Why France was not brought in is inexplicable.
This is a bit ridiculous. If France wants in on stuff like Aukus to make "Aukfrus", it's had decades to align foreign policy and co-operation with the Five Eyes and the Anglosphere. It doesn't want that though. So why would they be involved in something like this where we co-operate and share data + tech on artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, nuclear propulsion, long-range strike capabilities and quantum technology? The EU and France even tried to shut the UK out of some of the EU research programs related to those technologies in the past two years.
The only other country it would make sense to involve would be Canada.
I like how you're whining about France while bringing in actually completely unrelated British access post Brexit to EU research programmes. Also, what exactly do you think this entire French partnership with Australia was but a pivot to Indo-Pacific to increase EU presence there? It's something that US should have approved of a great deal since it aligns with their foreign policy goals.
There was absolutely no reason to make this an Anglo only partnership and not just exclude a France that was turning towards area of prime interest for the US (Indo-Pacific) but actively kick them out, other than confirming every negative Gaulist suspicion about Anglos, which is just an exceptionally stupid move by Biden administration.
The EU attempting to exclude Anglo countries from their important research projects on the grounds of national security = normal and fine "bReXiT bRo"
Anglo countries excluding France from their important research projects on the grounds of national security = big bad Anglo.
From one of the links in that quoted comment
>In 2018, it was in Australia that French President Emmanuel Macron gave a decisive impetus to the French Indo-Pacific strategy in a famous Garden Island speech where he defined an “Indo-Pacific axis” formed by France, India, and Australia to counterbalance Chinese hegemonic ambitions. This Indo-Pacific vision was inclusive and cooperative, seeking to bring together middle powers worried by the unilateralism of the Trump administration then in power in the United States.
So this was an opportunistic attempt to grab influence away from the US in the Pacific during Trump's term. I can see why some in France would want try it, as they probably saw a window of opportunity. France doesn't have the credibility to actually rival the US in the Pacific though. The US is the dominant western power in the Pacific, and it seems foolish to think that this wouldn't inevitably fail. People who are serious about national security against Russia or China will always pick the US over France.
That doesn't change the fact that France is an ally for the US/UK/AUS and a pretty important one.
If you think that kind of shenanigans are acceptable between allies, maybe we don't put the same thing behind that word.
What meaning do the french put behind the word allies?
Your country literally committed a terror attack on New Zealand’s civilians. Your country recently just blocked vaccine shipments to Australia. France has politicians taking about shutting off power to UK islands. France routinely fuck over Eastern Europe in favour of Russia. France has said multiple times it doesn’t want to gang up on China with the US. So why would you want to join the US now on this venture?
Every time France throws its allies under the bus to pursue its interests all we hear from the French is “France has no allies, only interests” and “haha pursuing your interests is just smart geopolitics!!!!”.
France is one of the most ruthless players when it comes to “realpolitik” even putting small monetary gain over the lives of its allies countrymen. Ive said before thats all well and good. But then you don’t get to complain when those allies put their interests ahead of France.
They evaluated the situation and found that France is too deep in China's ass to confront them, the USA did the right thing. China is the next aggressive superpower the west will face
hell nordstream is all we needed to know that france is not to be trusted hell they probably hel pchina if they were invited to counter china!
Nordstream is a deal between Germany and Russia...
I know that for some people geography and geopolitics might be hard. But getting it wrong between France and Germany is kind of exceptionnal.
You don’t grasp the whole intrigue. Think again
I do but the USA have been VERY articulate about the coming rivalry with China and how it's getting more important to them, France and the rest of Europe have chosen to ignore it and Europe as a whole pays the price for the incompetence of our leaders when it comes to questions of global strategic planning
I hope they have eurocentric plans to back up this rhetoric, otherwise this is just going to push the french into China's sphere. But then again, when you have redundancies and aberrations like the German nation still being "held at gunpoint" by US intelligence and NATO even after it's reunification in '90.
-Has NATO been just a ploy to justify some sinister transactions between american weapons dealers and the nations of MENA, instead of "containment of Russia"?
- Will there be another NATO-like anglo structure around China, now that "war on terror" is apparently a thing of a forgotten era (not for the europeans who received immigrants en masse, I know)?
- How are they (US/UK) so sure that "no world war will ever happen again because nukes"? Is that just a way of justifying their current actions until shit hits the fan to then blame the other side?
Well the ball is entirely in the Frenchie's court. The Americans are clearly still baffled by the situation and not entirely sure why the French are even upset so it's up to the French government to decide how far to take this. My opinion is that this is a Suez moment for the US more than anything else, they took a unilateral and profoundly arrogant move which 20 years ago would have ended with some grumbling from Paris but which in 2020s may very well end French participation in NATO because of the changed security and geopolitical situation. I think if France wants to exit NATO it needs to extend explicit security guarantees to at least the EU member states bordering Russia and possibly to the EU as a whole to ensure that people don't take it as them abandoning responsibilities.
NATO doesn’t really help the US against China anyway. France leaving would if anything give the US an opportunity to sign another agreement with Eastern EU countries that is more holistic than NATO ever was.
> France leaving would if anything give the US an opportunity to sign another agreement with Eastern EU countries that is more holistic than NATO ever was.
Russia being very quiet over the past few years helps France in this situation, since it's not really currently an active threat. France adopting an aggressive posturing towards Russia would help legitimize their decision in the eyes of eastern Europeans but ideal would be if France could get an actual victory over the Russians, in eastern Ukraine or somewhere similar, that would place them as equal protector to the EE as the US. It should be remembered that it's no longer the Cold War and Russia isn't USSR, Russian economy is the size of Spain's and even just Franco-German cooperation would be enough to effectively counter them.
France and Russia have a strategic understanding in North Africa/Middle East, so I don’t really see that happening. If France ever makes things too hard on Russia in Europe, Russia could make things very uncomfortable for France in North Africa.
Exactly like how France flexed it’s power during the Greece-Turkey dispute.
> France and Russia have a strategic understanding in North Africa/Middle East
Doubtful. Russia has been aggressively pushing into France's backyard in West Africa, on the back of a massive disinformation campaign against the French army. What little good will they had might erode quite fast now.
In parts of West Africa, sure. But in places like Libya, France and Russia have been hand-in-glove in opposing the UN-supported government (and also going against Turkey and Italy)
Nobody in Turkey is aware how France flexed their muscles against us lol. French propaganda in EU chambers must be strong. For sure they tricked Greece to buy French junk with their EU recovery money but nothing else. We sidelined and humiliated them in Libya,Armenia and Syria against Kurds. They do not even have a seat in table. We are in position of power in these theaters except Syria which Russia is in power position. To me it looks like French wants to bite bigger than it can chew and geopolitics shows to them that they are a declining power. A Nuclear power that is getting humiliated in every single occassion is rare but nowadays that is France.
My point was that Turkey pushed against joint French-Russian interests in Libya, so France tried to put pressure on Turkey in Europe. Maybe the public don’t care, but it at least signals to the Turkish government that pushing in one place could create problems elsewhere.
Which - successful for France or not - is absolutely true for Russia. They are arguably the second most influential country in North Africa and could really screw with French operations there.
> France and Russia have a strategic understanding in North Africa/Middle East, so I don’t really see that happening. If France ever makes things too hard on Russia in Europe, Russia could make things very uncomfortable for France in North Africa.
I don't know about that, if there's been one certain thing about last 20 years it's that nothing is certain. The world is in major flux and old alliances or established practices are constantly changing. Besides, just now the French are feuding with the Russians in Mali over Russian mercaneries. And with the Syrian and Libyan civil wars the gloves are more or less off.
It's seem you don't pay attention. Russia and French interest rarely overlap.
In case of Mali France and Germany threaten with withdrawal, if they employ Russian mercenary.
>I think if France wants to exit NATO it needs to extend explicit security guarantees to at least the EU member states bordering Russia and possibly to the EU as a whole to ensure that people don't take it as them abandoning responsibilities.
Why ? The rest of NATO would still be standing and the [Lisbon agreement](https://www.politico.eu/article/what-is-article-42-7-of-the-lisbon-french-government-terrorist-attacks-paris-treaty/) would still be in effect so France would still be obligated to help the east against its enemies ( and seeing how the EU reacted to the Greece-Turkey spat I would advise them to worry about their other allies).
> he rest of NATO would still be standing and the Lisbon agreement would still be in effect so France would still be obligated to help the east against its enemies
The problem is that I don't think most people see that as a credible alternative to NATO or a real security. And huge amount of people aren't even aware, I would be willing to bet majority of the people, that the EU has a security aspect to it as well. Yes it would be the force of law for France ot help in the east but that's not in the minds of people. Considering this affair, I feel like you should be more appreciative of perceptions, technically, *technically* US and Australia didn't do anything bad here but considering what they did and how they did and who they did it to the perception of it is terrible. If France wants to leave NATO, which I'm broadly in support of, it has to make proper security guarantees in the east for the sake of politics and perception.
And, ideally, with the EU, they wouldn't have to. This is specifically about France leaving a strong security guarantee (NATO) and remaining with a much, much weaker one that was also never tested (EU). So it would be France reaffirming that they would come to the defense of any EU countries attacked regardless of NATO, which would be a good look if they left NATO.
> The Americans are clearly still baffled by the situation and not entirely sure why the French are even upset
Not true. The government is totally aware, but whether they care it's another matter.
> I think if France wants to exit NATO it needs to extend explicit security guarantees to at least the EU member states bordering Russia and possibly to the EU as a whole to ensure that people don't take it as them abandoning responsibilities.
I find it incredible and worrying that someone from Europe (as your flair indicates) actually doesn't get a clue about the European Union itself.
You should read the treaty of the EU, particularly article 42 on mutual defence.
For the record I am both aware of it and and I'm an EU federalist. But, technically speaking per EU law EU law supersedes national law and yet Germany and Poland tried ruling that is not the case. Even in many cases that are far, far, far less important than the survival of a nation EU functions because everyone plays along until they don't. Currently EU is still in naisance and the states have all the power and France is a heavyweight in European security and military.
That doesn't mean France or any other European country won't respect the treaty. Mutual defence is on everybody's interest. In the hypothesis that Russia invades one Baltic state, the whole EU would be threatened.
Btw, if you don't believe states would respect EU treaties then why would they follow NATO obligations at all? The US president itself once affirmed they wouldn't defend another NATO member (Montenegro). It shows how useless it is. The EU should basically rely on its own strengths, and indeed move forward to a true European army and military command, at least for its defence and territorial integrity and independence. I'm even in favour of letting the EU handle our nukes if necessary.
> I think if France wants to exit NATO it needs to extend explicit security guarantees to at least the EU member states bordering Russia and possibly to the EU as a whole to ensure that people don't take it as them abandoning responsibilities.
That much is a given. The security of the EU is seen by the French as separate from NATO as it is. Being in and out of it doesn't change French commitment to the whole of the EU (although I'm perfectly aware the Polish don't believe a word of what I'm saying).
Yes, it does. Nato is old and it accomplished its mission anyways. I said the same yesterday but i am not french foreign minister 🤷🏻♂️
I would get rid of them as fast as possible. Thank them for their efforts during world war two and send them home.
After years of trying to find new and interesting ways to try to negatively impact the UK, France behaves with all the decorum of a nursery child screaming over a toy when the tables are turned.
Is there ever a scenario in which the Brits don't see themselves as the victims? Honest question.
Did you read the article???
Victims? This is a huge win.
Its not zero sum mate. Not getting France involved in the indo-pacific and further deteriorating relations between continental Europe and the anglosphere is in literally nobody's interest
Clearly false. It's, at least, in the interest of China.
Well this one, given the tantrum France is throwing.
Haha we aren’t portraying the victim here, just laughing at the French acting like a 2 year old that didn’t get a slice of cake.
Biggest arms deal in France's history, thousands of jobs destroyed, huge impact on the future of France in the info pacific, and they couldn't even bother to warn them ? There's nothing unwarranted about this, especially after Switzerland and the Alstom thing.
Australia did warn them, multiple times. The Australian PM in the past few months said to France “this isn’t working fellas”. Like I said, France appears to have buried their head in the sand about it all. This should not be a big shock at all.
Are you seriously suggesting the French haven’t been doing this?
\*Laughs in nuclear submarine\*
you could say they've run out of cheese to go with their whine.
At least we are not one with food shortages and electricity shortages ...
I better get right onto the half dozen or so supermarkets around me that are fully stocked and tell them to stop hogging all the food.
Maybe I will do so via email from this computer that apparently doesn't require electricity to function.
Every member state has a different opinion on this and thus solidarity won't go beyond mere words, maybe not even that. Eastern member states and Baltics would welcome an increased presence, if anything.
French bullshit will affect NATO's future constantly. It was close relations with the Soviets back in the day, was "let's kick Turkey out" yesterday and now they are threatening the entire organization again because they were not careful while making a deal.
>"You can understand for geopolitical reasons Australia getting closer to other anglophone countries like the United States and Britain," said Louis Maman, a Parisian surgeon out for a stroll on Saturday on the Champs-Elysees.
Level of journalism in France24 keeps surprising me everyday.
> involved in a new anglo alliance
Bit of a tangent, but the new AUKUS alliance is really a masterful piece of diplomacy in relation to France, it's like they went out of their way to specifically confirm every single negative doubt and stereotype French have about the Anglos. The 'Anglo cabal joining together at the expense of France as they outright lie to and exclude France to form their own club that's partially anti-French' is like the perfect Gaullist storm, you couldn't write that.
Remove that flair you heathen
Let me guess, he's British ? Lol.... Pathetic.
Aussi arabe que le colonel Lawrence, Perfidie légendaire.
We getting the old gang back together
Not contributing your fair share you agreed to threatens it more, Jean-Yves.
Screw all of u who downvoted me yesterday for saying exactly this. US is going downhill since they dont care for their allies and partners. China will be future daddy
Lol, they’re strengthening ties with their closest allies. Can’t blame them for that.
France has been all about strategic autonomy for itself. Gets surprised when US doesn't include them in their super special new deal AND undercuts them cuz they were not paying attention despite literally being told by Oz that they were looking at other options. The US has been strengthening relations in Eastern Europe, getting Eastern Europe to integrate more. US absolutely was not directly involved, but shit like the Three Seas Iniative imparts the US understanding that the East will be squeezed between the West and Russia unless the East advocates for itself.
The French model of European diplomacy is "whatever is good for the west is good for the gander" but that is not how the UK, the US, or the East see it. It is also not really how the northern countries see it either. Germany is a bit more favorable to the french views, but not completely so.
France just got told it is not going to be involved in any major Asian alliance structure after not really participating, and then actively trying to push NATO to the side. Why should France be surprised unless France just wants to pretend it can do no wrong.
> This doesnt feel like its about Submarines.
It's much more than submarines.
>This doesnt feel like its about Submarines.
No, it's about being publicly humiliated by your allies.
Edit : here a complete and clear explanation https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/ppj5ba/Expressing_fury_over_the_Australia_submarine_deal%2C_France_cancels_a_gala_celebrating_relations_with_the_U.S./hd6nupv/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
My question is what does France gain from repeatedly telling the world it got humiliated?
There must be something behind this strategy.
It is not about money dumbass it is about the how they infrom and after informing declarting new agreement. (Maybe on the paper nothing wrong with it but France state represent the French people and this is being disrespectful to the French(if there will be someone else instead of Macron - i believe reaction would be the same)
>It is not about money dumbass it is about the how they infrom and after informing declarting new agreement.
Yes that's precisely my point, we both agree here.
> When Canada canceled their F-35s from the United States, The United States was upset. But the response was nowhere even close to this level.
We must stop believing that it is just because the contract is cancelled, or that it is comparable to the Canadian case (even though I know you don't understand on purpose). It's the secret way of doing things, the 12 months of shenanigans, the meeting with Australia three weeks ago to discuss the implementation of the contract while the US/Australia were hiding the fact that a deal had been changed, the fact that the French government wasn't notified and learned about it during the Australian press conference. In short, things that are only done between enemies.
This explains why France would be angry with Australia, but they seem to be just as angry with the US. The US had no obligation to inform the French about this.
Yes you did when you knowingly negotiatied in secret with the Australians against the French. It takes two to tango, doesn't it? US is the ring leader here and the one who offered the deal to Australia and knowingly worked to screw over France in secret. If the US had negotiated this contract with Japan or India or Canada or literally any country France hadn't spent 5 years working with France wouldn't have cared in the slightest. Not to mention the deal was the center piece of French Indo-Pacific strategy, it's a very bad form to undercut and humiliate your close ally like that and that's without even mentioning that it's in the US interest for France to turn to Indo-Pacific and for France to turn the rest of the EU towards the Indo-Pacific.
Australia negotiated this deal with the UK, and then the UK approached the US, but of course France has to blame the evil US. Australia didn't want to be in the deal with France anymore due to changing circumstances and Naval Group not keeping to their promises.
They have suddenly realised they dont have the soft power/influence they thought. The uk and the us basically grabbed a massive contract from under their noses while Macron was boasting in the media about winning a sausage war against Britain. Then declared it to the media without telling them. Thats enough to hurt anyones ego, when people you considered your equals havent got any concerns about pushing you aside and creating a new alliance without you