Aukus

[grumbler]

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

Thanks for confirming that your reaction is just emo.

From the Globe article mentioned above and edited to respond to Grumber.

He said he was I am surprised to hear Mr. Trudeau Grumbles 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 informed," Mr. Norman said.

The retired naval flag officer said that, if Mr. Trudeau was fully briefed Grumbles does know the content of the deal "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."

  First Rule of Holes, my friend.  The best response to the observation that you are being emo is not, as here, to double down on the emo.

Canadian national security is exactly the same today as it was before the Aukus agreement was made.  The butthurt is different, but, since you are The Boy Who Cried Butthurt, we no longer take you seriously.

Canada's access to "both current and emerging technologies, from cyber and artificial intelligence, to acoustics and underwater warfare – a whole range of very important strategic capabilities" is not even mentioned in the Aukus agreement, let alone been damaged by it.

[Sheilbh]

Just to pick up on the ambassador point an Italian Professor of War Studies at KCL has pointed this isn't without precedent with allies under Macron. At different points France has recalled their ambassadors to Italy, Turkey and now Australia and the US. I don't think France did it under recent previous presidents I can think of but seems to be a thing with Macron.

[crazy canuck]

Canada's access to "both current and emerging technologies, from cyber and artificial intelligence, to acoustics and underwater warfare – a whole range of very important strategic capabilities" is not even mentioned in the Aukus agreement, let alone been damaged by it.

Thanks but I prefer to accept the judgment of a retired Canadian rear admiral who has more knowledge in this particular area than you likely have.

[OttoVonBismarck]

As is typically the case, crazy canuck has very little of any value to say, and just defaults to idiotic anti-americanism, he's been playing this schtick for many years.

I do however think you guys are just seriously underestimating the important of American hard power, and it's also frankly difficult to separate our control of the global financial system and a number of other systems from that hard power. Institutions that we have a lot of influence over (like the UNSC) or even outright control over, were largely setup in an era when the vast majority of the world's economic activity was operating under the literal aegis of American military protection. Japan + Western Europe was a huge % of the overall global GDP in the 50s/60s/70s before the rise of continental East Asian economies began apace, not to mention India + Brazil were also economic backwaters in that era.

The United States has been an essential economic partner since WWII due to having the largest economy in the world basically the entire time until very recently (and even that gets into which formula for GDP you use when comparing to China), but it is highly unlikely that so many of the world's wealthy economies would have basically submitted to the level of control we have over the current financial and economic system had we not been the most powerful country on earth after WWII that was providing direct and massive, security guarantees to those countries--not to mention early on we were funneling huge amounts of money into rebuilding those countries from damage suffered in WWII.

America didn't become what it is today through something like the "Belt and Road Initiative" nor do I think it could have. We didn't trade and diplomacy our way to being the world's superpower. I'll note before someone stupid attempts to make the argument--this is not me saying our economic activities and diplomatic activities the last 70 years had nothing to do with it--they absolutely did. You could argue they are three legs of a tripod, you can't establish the sort of American-centric system we have without each of the three legs, but I'd argue even that they aren't three "equal" legs. Neither configuration of two could stand stable on their own, but arguably the military element is what produced the conditions that the other two could even be leveraged to the degree they have been.

FWIW, I made it clear I don't think a massive hard power build up by every wealthy country is ideal or even their best path forward. I'm simply saying if you really don't think hard power was essential to American supremacy I think you're bonkers.

[crazy canuck]

As is typically the case, crazy canuck has very little of any value to say, and just defaults to idiotic anti-americanism, he's been playing this schtick for many years.

sorry to have bruised your sensitive ego.

[Zanza]

I think I understand your perspective, but I disagree. I still remain convinced that the Greenback, not the GI is the biggest source of American power. I think American military power is just a reflection of its economic might. And that it is this economic might that has won WWII and shaped the postwar order to this day.

[grumbler]

Thanks but I prefer to accept the judgment of a retired Canadian rear admiral who has more knowledge in this particular area than you likely have.

Ah, the appeal to authority fallacy.  Haven't seen that one from you in several days.  It's good that you rotate through your fallacious statements so frequently and thoroughly.  It keeps us amused.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think I understand your perspective, but I disagree. I still remain convinced that the Greenback, not the GI is the biggest source of American power. I think American military power is just a reflection of its economic might. And that it is this economic might that has won WWII and shaped the postwar order to this day.

Germany and Japan didn't get trade dealed and "strategic agreemented" to death. They got beat by guys with guns willing to use them and die using them. There's a big difference between economic power and the willingness to convert it into, and to then use, military power.

[OttoVonBismarck]

There's also frankly a reason Russia hits above the weight of any European power, or even the EU, in most matters of force projection--because they maintain a sizable military. There's a reason that China is actively working hard to convert its massive economic power into having a first tier military. It's simply obvious some things cannot be achieved through diplomacy and trade deals.

[ulmont]

Sounds like big, but seemingly deliberate failure of Australian diplomacy. They reinforced their alliance with the US, but extremely pissed off France. The US can to a degree ignore the feelings of its allies as they are indispensable. Not sure if Australia is well served with pissing off their neighbour France.

I have some geographical questions based off of this characterization.

[Syt]

Sounds like big, but seemingly deliberate failure of Australian diplomacy. They reinforced their alliance with the US, but extremely pissed off France. The US can to a degree ignore the feelings of its allies as they are indispensable. Not sure if Australia is well served with pissing off their neighbour France.

I have some geographical questions based off of this characterization.

They're bordering in Antarctica



(And France has some Pacific territories.)

Also, isn't France's longest land border with Brazil?

[Zanza]

Sounds like big, but seemingly deliberate failure of Australian diplomacy. They reinforced their alliance with the US, but extremely pissed off France. The US can to a degree ignore the feelings of its allies as they are indispensable. Not sure if Australia is well served with pissing off their neighbour France.

I have some geographical questions based off of this characterization.

Neighbors across the Coral Sea.

[grumbler]

Neighbors across the Coral Sea.

Huh.  I had no idea that New Caledonia was still a colony of France.  It has to be in a much better position for independence than 90% of the post-WW2-independent Pacific nations.

[Zanza]

They voted against independence twice in the last four years.

[ulmont]

(And France has some Pacific territories.)

I suspected the Pacific territories - which I'm sure have the same salience in the minds of metropolitans as Paris - would be the answer.  But c'mon, man.

Neighbors across the Coral Sea.

Yes, when I think "neighbor", I too think of them being "2000km* across the ocean."

*Approximate Sydney.

Also, isn't France's longest land border with Brazil?

Yes re: France's longest land border being with Brazil.  Neither of which are near Australia, I hasten to note.