Aukus

[Berkut]

I'm still fascinated that the French seem to view this as something "America did" instead of "Australia did", while obviously a lot of this happened behind closed doors all the reporting we've gotten thus far suggests the genesis for this was Australia reaching out to the U.S. months ago to see if we'd be able to bail them out of a submarine deal that wasn't working for them. Apparently the great sin wasn't trying to get out of that deal, but agreeing to help do it, which is strange.

It really makes no sense.

If this is just about the defense contract, then it makes sense that France is upset, as that is a huge economic hit. But if that is it, they should be mad, in order, at:

1. France. Who fucked this up so bad? Who let the deal fall to pieces like that? When a company loses a big deal to some other company, you don't get mad at the other company! You figure out what went wrong with YOUR company.
2. Australia. I mean...barely here. They are a potential customer. It's your job to keep them happy, and if they are not happy, then...well how is that THEIR fault? They should just go ahead and pay twice as much as was agreed and not get what they were promised when promised and be good little customers and smile and say thank you and shell out the cash? But I guess you can get mad at them if you want.

That is if this is just about the economics of a huge defense contract. If that is what this is about, then all this anger, IMO, is 100% about France being pretty desperate to not examine their own disaster, and trying pretty hard to find someone else to be mad at - oh look! The USA! Why, you can always make hay bitching about them! Let's blame them!

If this is about more then economic factors - if it is about the strategic implications of a shift in alliances and a "new" US-AUS-UK pacific alliance, then....getting all pissed off and pulling ambassadors or insulting everyone...well, THAT doesn't really seem like a very effective way to argue that you ought and want to be part of a new alliance structure, is it? If the concern about a country like Australia hitching its security wagon to France is based (in part) on not being really sure of France's commitment to opposing China on principle, then seeing them throw a temper tantrum over this does, as someone mentioned, make it kind of clear that it was the right move. A sober, realpolitik analysis of this from France's perspective makes it pretty clear that the "tempter tantrum" response has no upside to it at all.

I have zero doubt that the US, Australia, and the UK for that matter would welcome a genuine interest from France in a trans-Pacific alliance with actual teeth and dedication. Their response to this makes it pretty clear that they have no such priority. But it is still early. Perhaps this is all just domestic posturing for the French audience while real diplomacy is happening behind closed doors....?

[The Minsky Moment]

And no, you are actually incorrect. I don't think I would at all relate some other country deciding to go with some other option for a defense contract as any kind of diplomatic issues at all.

There was the tussle with Turkey over buying the S-400.  However the issue there was not that Turkey was not buying American but that they were buying non-NATO.  I doubt the US would have cared much if Turkey had gone with a European system.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I do wonder to what extent current bad feeling with the US not consulting anyone on Afghanistan and the UK being an arse hole over brexit related matters have made this worse than it would otherwise be.

What do you mean by "not consulted?" It was discussed in a meeting of top allies back in March, withdrawal had been announced many months in advance etc. What level of consultation is expected for us deciding where to deploy our military?

[grumbler]

Germany withdrew from the F-35 consortium and went with Eurofighter, even though all of the analysis said that the F-35 was the better deal.  The US ambassador is still there.

As Berkut argued, the French temper tantrum has no upside for France.  I'd go further and argue that it demonstrates that there's serious diplomatic baggage attached to deals a government might make with a French company; maybe it's worth paying a little more to go Japanese and not risk a major diplomatic crisis over a business deal.

[Josquius]

I do wonder to what extent current bad feeling with the US not consulting anyone on Afghanistan and the UK being an arse hole over brexit related matters have made this worse than it would otherwise be.

What do you mean by "not consulted?" It was discussed in a meeting of top allies back in March, withdrawal had been announced many months in advance etc. What level of consultation is expected for us deciding where to deploy our military?

It was pretty big news.

https://www.ft.com/content/3ea7e87e-ab3a-4e14-8396-8061420942b0

[OttoVonBismarck]

There's a difference between "not consulted" and "didn't give NATO allies a veto over our withdrawal." We didn't do the latter, but nor should we be expected to give them such a veto. But we certainly discussed it with our allies before hand.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think Americans will stop, that would be really against their interests.

This is part of my point. I think since the war when the centre of American attention has been Europe there has been an extension of Europe's interests are America's. I don't think that's necessarily the case in the future. American focus is on Asia and Biden's description of re-trenching is the US is only engaging in areas of "vital interests". It may be that they're convinced the Sahel is worth supporting - in America's vital interests - but if it's not then I think they'll be looking at the benefit from supporting France in this region outweighs the sort of resource and attention cost that takes that could be better spent in Asia and Europe should be able to look after its own neighbourhood.

I do wonder to what extent current bad feeling with the US not consulting anyone on Afghanistan and the UK being an arse hole over brexit related matters have made this worse than it would otherwise be.

My understanding is that of all the European allies the French are least bothered by Afghanistan - the allies pushing for Biden to stay were Italy and the UK. The French largely pulled out in March/April because their assessment was the government wouldn't survive without American forces. They were right.

On Brexit I think it's probably the other way round - I imagine there is zero sympathy in offical circles in London given that France either pushed the hardest line within the EU on Brexit talks on a number of submarine sized issues (Galileo, equivalence, fishing etc) or they were very happy to tell the media that the French government was pushing the hardest line.  I'm not sure that it's a great ongoing approach as it will ultimately mutually weaken us - so I'd like a lot of effort made to putting the relationship back on track and re-invigorating it. At the moment though I'd expect France to push for retaliation through EU measures - I believe since the deal was announced they've already said they're not happy with Jersey on fisheries and are pushing to raise that issue again.

The other Brexit side that I find slightly striking is that for all the talk of the UK being empire-nostalgic and "not finding a role" etc is this feels like the latest example of what's been true since 1956 (if not 1942) - that the UK is an ally of the US, is a middle power and very much the junior ally who hopes to have influence by being close to the US. The press may get pathetically neurotic about our relationship with the US (and I think a bust of Churchill is aiming low - we should aspire to a life-size portrait of Jim Callaghan in the Oval Office) but I don't think there's much angst about our global role or has been for at least the last 65 years. This is just the latest example of that.

There's a difference between "not consulted" and "didn't give NATO allies a veto over our withdrawal." We didn't do the latter, but nor should we be expected to give them such a veto. But we certainly discussed it with our allies before hand.

I think the bigger issue from the UK perspective was the US was still saying in mid-August that they intended to keep their embassy open and the airport open - that changed very rapidly and the UK (and other European countries who were following the American lead) felt blindsided by how sudden the US change was and weren't ready to start evacuating civilians.

[grumbler]

I think the bigger issue from the UK perspective was the US was still saying in mid-August that they intended to keep their embassy open and the airport open - that changed very rapidly and the UK (and other European countries who were following the American lead) felt blindsided by how sudden the US change was and weren't ready to start evacuating civilians.

The US embassy was closed on August 15 (mid-August) so the US wasn't telling anyone that it would remain open.  The US claimed that same day that the US troops would hold the airport only to evacuate US citizens and those visa holders and applicants who could get there. 

The reason that the situation changed rapidly was that the Afghan government collapsed rapidly, and the US was as blindsided by that as the UK, so the UK making a "bigger issue" of blaming the US for the Afghan government's betrayal just shows how anxious the UK is to escape their own blame for not evacuating earlier.

[Sheilbh]

The US embassy was closed on August 15 (mid-August) so the US wasn't telling anyone that it would remain open.  The US claimed that same day that the US troops would hold the airport only to evacuate US citizens and those visa holders and applicants who could get there. 

Right - and according to reporting in Europe on 12 August (also mid-August ) the US was telling European partners they were keeping the embassy and the airport open.

[grumbler]

The US embassy was closed on August 15 (mid-August) so the US wasn't telling anyone that it would remain open.  The US claimed that same day that the US troops would hold the airport only to evacuate US citizens and those visa holders and applicants who could get there. 

Right - and according to reporting in Europe on 12 August (also mid-August ) the US was telling European partners they were keeping the embassy and the airport open.

So the UK is blaming the US because the situation changed between August 12th and mid-August?  It would be great if the US government was as omniscient as some of our European allies seem to believe, but that's not possible in the real world.

[Sheilbh]

So the UK is blaming the US because the situation changed between August 12th and mid-August?  It would be great if the US government was as omniscient as some of our European allies seem to believe, but that's not possible in the real world.

No I think the furstration was not being in the loop as, presumably, the US position changed and emergency contingency measures were put in place. So they were planning on the basis of the US keeping its embassy open etc (and not just the UK, it was other allies, Dutch, Italian etc) which changed rapidly and, because they weren't in the loop, abruptly.

Edit: Incidentally - re. silence from European capitals - Germany and Australia have today announced a new defence agreement for military cooperation in space (primarily around sensor data), which is possibly not the sort of signal Paris would want to see at this point.

[Berkut]

Other than the fat contract, what is it that France actually WANTS?

[Eddie Teach]

So the UK is blaming the US because the situation changed between August 12th and mid-August?  It would be great if the US government was as omniscient as some of our European allies seem to believe, but that's not possible in the real world.

No I think the furstration was not being in the loop as, presumably, the US position changed and emergency contingency measures were put in place. So they were planning on the basis of the US keeping its embassy open etc (and not just the UK, it was other allies, Dutch, Italian etc) which changed rapidly and, because they weren't in the loop, abruptly.

Edit: Incidentally - re. silence from European capitals - Germany and Australia have today announced a new defence agreement for military cooperation in space (primarily around sensor data), which is possibly not the sort of signal Paris would want to see at this point.

And thus the Federation is born.

[grumbler]

No I think the furstration was not being in the loop as, presumably, the US position changed and emergency contingency measures were put in place. So they were planning on the basis of the US keeping its embassy open etc (and not just the UK, it was other allies, Dutch, Italian etc) which changed rapidly and, because they weren't in the loop, abruptly.

The US made the decision to evacuate the remaining US embassy personnel when Taliban troops arrive in Kabul, August 15th.  There was no loop for the UK to be in, as far as the documentation I have seen goes.  Maybe you can point me to a source that explains in some detail what the UK expected versus what it got, because I can't find anything.

[viper37]

Other than the fat contract, what is it that France actually WANTS?

A reliable partner in the Pacific would be my guess.  US is seen as unreliable lately, and I'm not sure I disagree entirely with that assessment.  Not that Australia can replace US firepower, but it can serve as an antenna, share intelligence and coordinate defense plans if it comes to that, due to proximity of some of France's Pacific islands with Australia.  I think France wanted this deal to further develop New Caledonia, to sign other cooperative agreements with Australia, and possibly New Zealand, to help in case of disasters, that kind of things.  Maybe even through in something for La Réunion, much farther away, but still closer to Australia than mainland France.

I don't really understand how they can be so upset just for the monetary part of the contract.  Maybe I haven't read enough about it, but the reaction does seem disproportionate to what is actually in play.

As for Australia, if they had wanted to go nuclear instead of diesel, I'm sure it could have been arranged.  As I'm told, France has a deal with Brazil to upgrade their submarine fleet to a nuclear one.  So there must be other reasons than this on Australia's side.

I suspect there was a lot of pressure from the UK to make Australia change their mind.  When in doubt, blame the British.  Can't ever be far from the truth