Aukus

[Berkut]

One in five humans lives in China and an even higher share of the global middle class. The economic rationale for Hollywood to cater to these customers is something you will not be able to fight. It's all about profits.

The issue has nothing to do with Hollywood catering to Chinese customers.

[The Minsky Moment]

So dishonest in the non-legalistic sense.  I see.

Not really.

Imagine you have a friend that has spent the last 6 months saving up allowance to buy a rare comic book he really likes, that has only one copy.
The day before the last allowance payment, you go into the store and buy it yourself.
You haven't broken a deal or been dishonest in terms of lying.  But might have just lost that friend.

I get why France is pissed off.  But the world is also not a 4th grade playground.  There are issues beyond the immediate matter at stake.

[The Minsky Moment]

Perhaps a more directly applicable example would be the anger many Americans felt when Chirac did not support the US over the 2003 Iraq War.  That was also a situation where there was no direct legal or treaty obligation but many Americans including the government at the time felt betrayed.

[Admiral Yi]

Imagine you have a friend that has spent the last 6 months saving up allowance to buy a rare comic book he really likes, that has only one copy.
The day before the last allowance payment, you go into the store and buy it yourself.
You haven't broken a deal or been dishonest in terms of lying.  But might have just lost that friend.

I get why France is pissed off.  But the world is also not a 4th grade playground.  There are issues beyond the immediate matter at stake.

So you're saying because the US just wanted their nuclear sub deal, whereas France really, really wanted their diesel sub deal something fierce, and France was their first, France has some grounds to be pissed off?  Sort of like the love triangle in Fast Times at Ridgemont High?

[Eddie Teach]

Perhaps a more directly applicable example would be the anger many Americans felt when Chirac did not support the US over the 2003 Iraq War.  That was also a situation where there was no direct legal or treaty obligation but many Americans including the government at the time felt betrayed.

And Languish made fun of those people. Freedom fries and whatnot.

[Berkut]

Perhaps a more directly applicable example would be the anger many Americans felt when Chirac did not support the US over the 2003 Iraq War.  That was also a situation where there was no direct legal or treaty obligation but many Americans including the government at the time felt betrayed.

Well,it took 18 years, but revenge is best served cold....

[Zoupa]

Perhaps a more directly applicable example would be the anger many Americans felt when Chirac did not support the US over the 2003 Iraq War.  That was also a situation where there was no direct legal or treaty obligation but many Americans including the government at the time felt betrayed.

Well,it took 18 years, but revenge is best served cold....

I know it's a quip, but those 2 things are apples and oranges.

In any case, much of the brouhaha is about the manner in which this story developed. Yi can compare it to high school all he wants, but the definition of diplomatic is showing an ability to deal with people in a sensitive and effective way.

And I'm sure all you anglos would be totally ok if the situation was reversed right? If at the last minute another allied country would swoop in and take a huge defense contract away?

Actually swoop in is not a correct qualifier, which makes it even more duplicitous. The state department must have been working this reversal for months, these things don't happen in a vacuum.

Just another crack in Nato. The US shows itself an unreliable ally, whoever is President.

[Admiral Yi]

The last minute before what?  What was due to happen the minute after the US swooped in?

[Sheilbh]

And Languish made fun of those people. Freedom fries and whatnot.

Let's wait until the Elysee canteen re-names hamburgers Strategic Autonomy Sandwiches before we make that comparison.

Just another crack in Nato. The US shows itself an unreliable ally, whoever is President.

I'm not sure that would be the view from a lot of the rest of Europe such as Poland - as I say the silence from the rest of Europe is pretty telling.

But I think whoever is President - the centre of the American world is not the Atlantic and NATO for the first time in ages. This has been underway since 2011 but, I think, combined with the withdrawal from Afghanistan is now a proper "pivot". Which is going to be a jarring shift for Europe not so much because the fundamental mutual defence bit but seeing the world through the prism of the Atlantic and Europe.

The more telling thing will be whether the Americans continue to support French operations in the Sahel - and American support is essential for those operations.

[Josquius]

Yeah... This isn't the US swooping in at the last minute from what I've seen. The French - Australian deal was a long protracted mess that was on the brink of collapse.
At worst its Australia starting to have a look on Tinder before the break up is absolutely official.

[Duque de Bragança]

Let's wait until the Elysee canteen re-names hamburgers Strategic Autonomy Sandwiches before we make that comparison.

Unofficial "Union des Suppositoires Atomiques" already exists, but is not that common anymore.   

I'm not sure that would be the view from a lot of the rest of Europe such as Poland - as I say the silence from the rest of Europe is pretty telling.

That or the rest of the EU not having (anymore in the case of Portugal) any possessions in the "Indo-Pacific" area.

But I think whoever is President - the centre of the American world is not the Atlantic and NATO for the first time in ages. This has been underway since 2011 but, I think, combined with the withdrawal from Afghanistan is now a proper "pivot". Which is going to be a jarring shift for Europe not so much because the fundamental mutual defence bit but seeing the world through the prism of the Atlantic and Europe.

Be ut for countries who wish they were Switzerland.  or even others who have a troublesome non-EU neighbor.

The more telling thing will be whether the Americans continue to support French operations in the Sahel - and American support is essential for those operations.

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

[OttoVonBismarck]

 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.

[Berkut]

Perhaps a more directly applicable example would be the anger many Americans felt when Chirac did not support the US over the 2003 Iraq War.  That was also a situation where there was no direct legal or treaty obligation but many Americans including the government at the time felt betrayed.

Well,it took 18 years, but revenge is best served cold....

I know it's a quip, but those 2 things are apples and oranges.

In any case, much of the brouhaha is about the manner in which this story developed. Yi can compare it to high school all he wants, but the definition of diplomatic is showing an ability to deal with people in a sensitive and effective way.

And I'm sure all you anglos would be totally ok if the situation was reversed right? If at the last minute another allied country would swoop in and take a huge defense contract away?

Actually swoop in is not a correct qualifier, which makes it even more duplicitous. The state department must have been working this reversal for months, these things don't happen in a vacuum.

Just another crack in Nato. The US shows itself an unreliable ally, whoever is President.

Of course they are apples and oranges.

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. I certainly would not take it as any sort of indicator of their dedication to another, entirely separate alliance that the customer in question is not even a member of! Australia isn't even a part of NATO!

[OttoVonBismarck]

FWIW we've seen Boeing lose out to Airbus before and I don't remember the U.S. having a shit fit. Hell, we had a lot of problems with the French in the early 2000s and we never came close to the sort of diplomatic temper tantrum that France is throwing right now over the loss of a defense contract.

[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.