Aukus

[grumbler]

Withdrawing one's ambassador is an extremely portentous move in international diplomacy.  It is the warning shot in severing diplomatic relations.

Recalling the ambassador to the home country "for consultations" is a medium-serious step but just a gesture.  I wonder if that's actually what is happening.  I can't believe that France would essentially issue an ultimatum threatening to severe diplomatic relations over something like this, which is what actually withdrawing an ambassador is (a new or returning ambassador would have to go through all the accreditation ceremonies, I believe).

[The Brain]

The furia francese in action.

[Admiral Yi]

Unless the French were lied to or cheated in some I don't see how the butthurt is warranted.

[Sheilbh]

Interesting timing from a UK defence journalist

George Allison
@geoallison
BAE, Rolls-Royce and Babcock will design a new class of nuclear powered attack submarines for the Royal Navy to replace the Astute class - currently referred to as SSN-Replacement (SSN-R).
Two contracts worth £85 million each have been awarded to BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce to deliver design and concept work for SSN-R.

[Duque de Bragança]

Recalling the ambassador to the home country "for consultations" is a medium-serious step but just a gesture.  I wonder if that's actually what is happening.  I can't believe that France would essentially issue an ultimatum threatening to severe diplomatic relations over something like this, which is what actually withdrawing an ambassador is (a new or returning ambassador would have to go through all the accreditation ceremonies, I believe).

That's what the French link I gave says and what I imagined, following the tweet.

L'ambassadeur de France aux États-Unis, Philippe Etienne, a été rappelé vendredi soir à Paris pour consultations, de même que son homologue en Australie, Jean-Pierre Thébault.

I think this is heading into overreaction territory now.

From you at least. 

[crazy canuck]

Unless the French were lied to or cheated in some I don't see how the butthurt is warranted.

We are all supposed to be allies.  It was reported today that Canada was not even told this was happening.  France was not either.  France had a deal in the works.

Either someone in the US State Department (or whatever department is supposed to be in charge of talking to allies) dropped the ball or the decision not to keep allies in the loop was a deliberate decision.  The first is excusable - concerning but excusable.  The second signals that the US is continuing down the path of basically saying fuck you to its allies.

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally further details announced today by Australia and they've announced that "throughout the 2020s, Australia will rapidly acquire long-range strike capabilities to enhance the ADF's ability to deliver strike effects across our air, land and maritime domains".

Some will be investing in their own manufacture, then Tomahawk missiles, long range anti-ship missiles (extended range), joint air-to-suface standoff missiles (extended range), hypersonic missiles (development with the US for the air force) and precision guided missiles for land forces. I don't really know what any of that means - but it seems probably more important and immediate than the sub point.

Again, the thing I find really striking is the sense of threat/risk from the Australian government that's requiring this type of spending on this type of defence deal - with bipartisan support (and getting the French diesel subs was a big controversial issue apparently). I don't know if sort of feels like if Poland reached a point where they felt a need to heavily invest in tanks and stuff they'd need to defend against Russia we would/should notice. It might be nothing and it may be an over-reaction by Canberra but it seems like something that matters.

[grumbler]

Unless the French were lied to or cheated in some I don't see how the butthurt is warranted.

We are all supposed to be allies.  It was reported today that Canada was not even told this was happening.  France was not either.  France had a deal in the works.

Either someone in the US State Department (or whatever department is supposed to be in charge of talking to allies) dropped the ball or the decision not to keep allies in the loop was a deliberate decision.  The first is excusable - concerning but excusable.  The second signals that the US is continuing down the path of basically saying fuck you to its allies.

The United States had no deal with France, and no obligation to inform France about every diplomatic or military initiative it is undertaking.

France can be mad at Australia for pulling out of the deal the two countries had, but hat probably doesn't have the same political rewards as blaming the US for the failure of the French themselves to maintain the contract.  Of course, the nation at fault is as likely to be France as it is Australia, but in no way is the failure of the French to keep their contract the fault of the US. Being allies doesn't mean that contracts cannot be cancelled.

[crazy canuck]

Incidentally further details announced today by Australia and they've announced that "throughout the 2020s, Australia will rapidly acquire long-range strike capabilities to enhance the ADF's ability to deliver strike effects across our air, land and maritime domains".

Some will be investing in their own manufacture, then Tomahawk missiles, long range anti-ship missiles (extended range), joint air-to-suface standoff missiles (extended range), hypersonic missiles (development with the US for the air force) and precision guided missiles for land forces. I don't really know what any of that means - but it seems probably more important and immediate than the sub point.

Again, the thing I find really striking is the sense of threat/risk from the Australian government that's requiring this type of spending on this type of defence deal - with bipartisan support (and getting the French diesel subs was a big controversial issue apparently). I don't know if sort of feels like if Poland reached a point where they felt a need to heavily invest in tanks and stuff they'd need to defend against Russia we would/should notice. It might be nothing and it may be an over-reaction by Canberra but it seems like something that matters.

Yeah, the more we learn about this the more it sounds like it is really the US deciding to go with just two allies.

From the Globe article I mentioned:

He said he was surprised to hear Mr. Trudeau play down the pact as merely a submarine purchase deal. "I think it's misleading and concerning ... I would like to believe he was poorly briefed by his staff," Mr. Norman said.

The retired naval flag officer said that, if Mr. Trudeau was fully briefed, "he doesn't understand what is going on internationally and he doesn't understand what the significance of an arrangement like this is as it relates to international security."

He said the agreement goes far beyond access to U.S. submarine technology.

"This is about accessing both current and emerging technologies, from cyber and artificial intelligence, to acoustics and underwater warfare – a whole range of very important strategic capabilities."

[crazy canuck]

Unless the French were lied to or cheated in some I don't see how the butthurt is warranted.

We are all supposed to be allies.  It was reported today that Canada was not even told this was happening.  France was not either.  France had a deal in the works.

Either someone in the US State Department (or whatever department is supposed to be in charge of talking to allies) dropped the ball or the decision not to keep allies in the loop was a deliberate decision.  The first is excusable - concerning but excusable.  The second signals that the US is continuing down the path of basically saying fuck you to its allies.

The United States had no deal with France, and no obligation to inform France about every diplomatic or military initiative it is undertaking.

France can be mad at Australia for pulling out of the deal the two countries had, but hat probably doesn't have the same political rewards as blaming the US for the failure of the French themselves to maintain the contract.  Of course, the nation at fault is as likely to be France as it is Australia, but in no way is the failure of the French to keep their contract the fault of the US. Being allies doesn't mean that contracts cannot be cancelled.

Thanks for confirming its a big Fuck You to US allies.

[Sheilbh]

An alternate Canadian perspective:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canadas-exclusion-from-three-eyes-only-confirms-what-was-already-the/

Of course the UK is just thrilled to be involved I think - but more practically given the new UK subs announcement it feels likely that we'll be sharing the tech (for that bit) and we rely heavily on the US so need them to go along with it.

Edit: Incidentally I totally get why the French are angry and think that's fair enough. But I think JR's points are true and also I don't think the countries involved could have risked it leaking before getting an agreement - which it would have had they told the French in advance. I think Le Drian's language and pulling ambassadors (especially when there's crickets from the rest of Europe) is a little bit much.

[grumbler]

Unless the French were lied to or cheated in some I don't see how the butthurt is warranted.

We are all supposed to be allies.  It was reported today that Canada was not even told this was happening.  France was not either.  France had a deal in the works.

Either someone in the US State Department (or whatever department is supposed to be in charge of talking to allies) dropped the ball or the decision not to keep allies in the loop was a deliberate decision.  The first is excusable - concerning but excusable.  The second signals that the US is continuing down the path of basically saying fuck you to its allies.

The United States had no deal with France, and no obligation to inform France about every diplomatic or military initiative it is undertaking.

France can be mad at Australia for pulling out of the deal the two countries had, but hat probably doesn't have the same political rewards as blaming the US for the failure of the French themselves to maintain the contract.  Of course, the nation at fault is as likely to be France as it is Australia, but in no way is the failure of the French to keep their contract the fault of the US. Being allies doesn't mean that contracts cannot be cancelled.

Thanks for confirming its a big Fuck You to US allies.

Thanks for confirming that your reaction is just emo.

[HVC]

I don't get how it's screwing over Canada. It's not like we're going steady and the us can't see other people. We weren't even trying to negotiate our own deal with Australia that America screwed over.

As for France, the ordeal started with a huge data leak from DCNS that got Australia antsy enough to demand the same level of protection the us gives for military procurement (in 2016). Then the budget doubles and a promise to produce 90% in Australia get cut to 60% without any guarantees against further cuts. Australia also has to spend billions to repair some of their current sub fleet because the new ones won't be done on time. These concerns weren't taken seriously when Australia played the delay game in 2019 when signing further contracts. Contracts with clauses to void if " fundamentally impacted  ", which I think the aforementioned examples should cover. Hell if it wasn't America, Australia would have been smart to renegotiate with Germany or Japan (who lost the original bid).

[HVC]

Canada has four subs that spend more time in dry dock then the water (thanks uk), and hasn't shown any interest in replacing them. Not sure what our part in a sub deal would be. As for general intelligence and tech, I thought we already have those treaties with the states.

[The Minsky Moment]

As far as I can tell Trudeau is right- its basically a tech sharing deal for nuclear powered attack subs.  I haven't seen any written pact document but going by the statements of 3 leaders and the reporting it appears that's the main event, and everything else is ancillary.