Aukus

[viper37]

You just left Afghanistan rot and crumble under its own weight because that's what the population wanted.  5 years ago, a moron was elected promising to put US first and saying a big fuck you to everyone.  Now, he stands ready for round 2 and still has a good chance of returning to the presidency.  Then the new guy comes in and backstabs an ally.

This is why the US is unpredictable.

Berkut did nothing of the sort.  The national Government of Afghanistan, without the involvement of Berkut at all, surrendered to the Taliban with barely a whimper.  The US government, predictably, didn't want to see American soldiers die for a government whose own citizens wouldn't risk death for.

That's why national interests are predictable.

The US announced a peace treaty with the Taliban without even consulting with the Afghan government.

That was after 3 years of fucking up the Afghan situation where the Talebans steadily gained ground.

Afghan was called a "failed country" for a reason.  If the objective was to simply punish the Talibans, the US didn't need any NATO allies and only had to send a couple of missiles over Kabul back in 2001.  Done deal, let's move on.

The moment you engage in rebuilding a country, trying to change it to become something else, it's a long term process.  The US basically abandonned Afghanistan in 2003 to go fight in Iraq.  Intelligence resources were no longer there, and only an handful of Airforce soldiers were left on the field.

Obama attempted a counter-surge, but it's something that can't be fixed simply by military power.  If it had, the US would have been victorious two decades ago.

It's an exercise in political shaping of a non existent country, from the ground up.  It takes time and dedication.  And deciding on a fixed time table is simply the wrong way to attack the problem.

America lost its appetite for foreign conflicts.  That makes it an unreliable ally.  That others could be relied upon in the same situation is neither here nor there.  The point is the US can't be relied upon to see any conflict through its ultimate resolution.

If we're talking Afghanistan specifically, it's not just the US fault, it's not a burden it should have been alone to share, and France in particular, could have done a lot more than dragging their 2003&on.

But, with regards to the contract, say what you will, but if the situation had been reveserd, and France had push a country to cancel it's F-35 contract in favour of adopting the Rafale, you and Berkut would be talking Freedom Fried and a ban on Cabernet by now.  Just as you were pissed when El-Chi sent a big "fuck you" to the US when declining to participate in the Iraq war.  Given how this one turned out to, I guess he was right back then, even if the wrong reason.

[Admiral Yi]

Plenty of countries have left the F-35 deal and no one here raised a peep.

[viper37]

So the US radically increasing one of its allies ability to defend itself is somehow evidence that the US cannot be relied upon to defend its allies?

I know next to nothing about nuclear submarines capabalities, but let's assume you and Grumbler are right and the US does have the best nuclear submarine technology currently in use.

If the best nuclear sub tech was French instead of American, do you think Biden's government would have talked to France, and told them: let's work together on helping Austalia develop nuclear maintenance facilities for a fleet of nuclear submarines instead of selling them diesel subs? 

The answer: nah.  It's a question of money first&foremost.  Creating good paying jobs in the US will be infinately more popular than upgrading the military capabilities of a foreign country. It's the same in France, in Canada, in the UK, everywhere: domestic issues count for much more political gains than any kind of foreign issue.

But it's still backstabbing an ally.  It's like seducing your best friend's girlfriend because you believe you are better than him.

[The Brain]

The "chad US DESTROYING virgin France" narrative may not only be factually challenged but also less than productive.

[Sheilbh]

I'm not engaging with your strawmen Berkut.

I'm simply saying that I think French diplomats will get a lot of mileage out of our allies amateurish displays.

I totally agree - and so far they've already extracted ongoing US commitment to the Sahel, they've told London to come up with ideas to get the relationship back on some sort of course and they are pushing the strategic autonomy idea.

It's probably not enough to outweigh the loss of the contract and the Australian relationship, but it's something that France wouldn't have if they just meekly accepted this. Although, as I say, I think all the rhetoric and reason in the world won't matter in terms of European strategic autonomy for the reasons I mentioned with OvB.

America lost its appetite for foreign conflicts.  That makes it an unreliable ally.  That others could be relied upon in the same situation is neither here nor there.  The point is the US can't be relied upon to see any conflict through its ultimate resolution.

I don't think Afghanistan proves much and I don't think the US wants conflicts or that's the right barometer. But I think that US focus is going to be on the Pacific and China, so short of a full-blown Russian invasion they will care less about European relationships, unless those countries are helping in the Pacific or sort of keeping China from gaining too much influence in the European end of the continent.

Basically I think over the last decade Europe (and its neighbourhood) has gone from the heart of American foreign policy which it's been for the entire post-war to, basically, being like Pakistan or the Phillipines or Japan were in the Cold War.

[grumbler]

The US announced a peace treaty with the Taliban without even consulting with the Afghan government.

That's not true.

That was after 3 years of fucking up the Afghan situation where the Talebans steadily gained ground.

If by "3 years of fucking up the Afghan situation" you mean leaving troops there to defend a government no Afghan would defend, that's true - but that wasn't clear at the time.

Afghan was called a "failed country" for a reason.  If the objective was to simply punish the Talibans, the US didn't need any NATO allies and only had to send a couple of missiles over Kabul back in 2001.  Done deal, let's move on.

Since that wasn't the objective, your point is meaningless.  And the European NATO allies themselves invoked Article 5.  The US never requested it.  That was probably the highest point of NATO cooperation in its history.

The moment you engage in rebuilding a country, trying to change it to become something else, it's a long term process.  The US basically abandonned Afghanistan in 2003 to go fight in Iraq.  Intelligence resources were no longer there, and only an handful of Airforce soldiers were left on the field.

Again, untrue.  US troop levels were 7100 at the end of 2002, 13,100 at the end of 2003, 20,300 at the end of 2004.  Exactly the reverse of the bullshit you are trying to peddle.

Try arguing with real facts, not MAGAt-level "alternate facts," Mr. Trump viper.

Obama attempted a counter-surge, but it's something that can't be fixed simply by military power.  If it had, the US would have been victorious two decades ago.

It's an exercise in political shaping of a non existent country, from the ground up.  It takes time and dedication.  And deciding on a fixed time table is simply the wrong way to attack the problem.

Blah, blah, blah.  This has all been known since the beginning of forever.  But when most of the NATO allies cut and ran, there wasn't really any way the situation would get better.  The US should have pulled out right after that.

America lost its appetite for foreign conflicts.  That makes it an unreliable ally.  That others could be relied upon in the same situation is neither here nor there.  The point is the US can't be relied upon to see any conflict through its ultimate resolution.

No country can be relied on to so that, so the point is moot.  If that's the standard, no country is a reliable ally to any country, and pointing that out about the US becomes a mere truism.

If we're talking Afghanistan specifically, it's not just the US fault, it's not a burden it should have been alone to share, and France in particular, could have done a lot more than dragging their 2003&on.

But, with regards to the contract, say what you will, but if the situation had been reveserd, and France had push a country to cancel it's F-35 contract in favour of adopting the Rafale, you and Berkut would be talking Freedom Fried and a ban on Cabernet by now.  Just as you were pissed when El-Chi sent a big "fuck you" to the US when declining to participate in the Iraq war.  Given how this one turned out to, I guess he was right back then, even if the wrong reason.

Actually, France and Germany are doing what you claim would cause Berkut and I to "be talking Freedom Fried and a ban on Cabernet by now" and yet neither of us is doing that.  Why?  because we aren't crybabies.  In fact, neither of us was talking like that when France declined to participate in the Iraq War, so I guess that is just another one of those "alternate facts" you and your exemplar Donald Trump like to use.

[grumbler]

I know next to nothing about nuclear submarines capabalities, but let's assume you and Grumbler are right and the US does have the best nuclear submarine technology currently in use.

If the best nuclear sub tech was French instead of American, do you think Biden's government would have talked to France, and told them: let's work together on helping Austalia develop nuclear maintenance facilities for a fleet of nuclear submarines instead of selling them diesel subs? 

The answer: nah.  It's a question of money first&foremost.  Creating good paying jobs in the US will be infinately more popular than upgrading the military capabilities of a foreign country. It's the same in France, in Canada, in the UK, everywhere: domestic issues count for much more political gains than any kind of foreign issue.

But it's still backstabbing an ally.  It's like seducing your best friend's girlfriend because you believe you are better than him.

I've got no idea why you are so emotionally involved in  this to the point of making sophomoric comparisons, but the facts of the matter aren't really in dispute; the government of Australia was increasingly concerned that the French submarine deal was becoming unaffordable and would be completed so late that it would no longer provide the capabilities Australia found that it needed.  I don't think that they were ever really a formal "ally" of France, and dropping a deal they no longer thought to be in their best interests wasn't "backstabbing an ally."  It was just pursuing national interests.  Australia wasn't "seducing" France's "girlfriend."

The better analogy would be ordering a pepperoni and mushroom pizza online for $15, then getting a call back and being told that the place was out of pepperoni and the price for a just-mushroom pizza would be $30, and so cancelling the order and ordering your pizza from someone else.

[viper37]

Plenty of countries have left the F-35 deal and no one here raised a peep.

How many left the F-35 for a competing model like the Typhoon or the Raphale after signing a deal to receive X number of F-35?

[viper37]

The better analogy would be ordering a pepperoni and mushroom pizza online for $15, then getting a call back and being told that the place was out of pepperoni and the price for a just-mushroom pizza would be $30, and so cancelling the order and ordering your pizza from someone else.

Better analogy would be ordering a pepperoni pizza and 25 minutes later cancelling your order because you realized an all-dressed pizza with bacon was better.

I am not emotionally involved, unlike some stalwart defenders of US policies here.  I'm just noticing it is a backstab by the US toward an ally.  US, UK and Australia are all to blame.

If delays in production & delivery in military equipment weren't the norm, I'd agree with you Australia was perfectly justified in cancelling the deal.  As it is, it seems to be the norm.  Whats more, Australia was influenced in changing its needs by a 3rd party.  And you all think its fine, while we all know how you'd react if the French government backstabbed the US in a juicy military contract, given your past defence of all things US.

[Zoupa]

Didn't you know viper? The only thing that motivates the US is making sure allies get the very best equipment.   

Lowly considerations like money, jobs and prestige are quite below them. They're selfless like that.

[grumbler]

Didn't you know viper? The only thing that motivates the US is making sure allies get the very best equipment.   

Lowly considerations like money, jobs and prestige are quite below them. They're selfless like that.

  Like France wasn't in it solely for the money, and like they didn't change the terms to be more favorable towards them because it made them more money.  France is pissed because they lost some money.  Boo hoo.  Do a better job of satisfying your customer, and they won't drop you.

If the US watching while Australia cancels a contract with France is "backstabbing," then the term has no meaning. 

[Sheilbh]

The US didn't watch Australia cancel the contract and then win some competitive tender process.

In March (next phase of work contracts were due to be signed in April but weren't) the Australians went to the British and asked for help on nuclear subs as an alternative. The British and Australians worked to cobble together a plan and pitch it to the Americans. The leaders hashed out the big principles stuff at the G7 when they had a trilateral (which in retrospect does seem odd). Obviously Macron was also at that meeting standing next to Scott Morrison saying how Australia's alliance with France was central to their Indo-Pacific strategy, making a big show of welcoming Biden on his "America is back" tour and spending his time with Johnson on Northern Ireland.

At that point the Aussie defence minister says they are making contingency plans. But there's then the positive Australian-French meeting at the end of August, just a couple of weeks before the announcement.

I think it's okay to be cynical and not pretend like this was utterly innocent.

For what it's worth I don't think the US was motivated by jobs or money or prestige - though they'll get that and France will lose it - I think they were probably motivated by establishing another closer, allied institutional relationship with Australia and (I suspect) they'll end up with decent bases/using Aussie ports a lot for a lot of their fleet in the South Pacific (and France will lose those opportunities too).

[Eddie Teach]

I am not emotionally involved,

Right...

[Berkut]

I'm not engaging with your strawmen Berkut.

I'm simply saying that I think French diplomats will get a lot of mileage out of our allies amateurish displays.

And like I said, it seems pretty clear that "your diplomats" are doing a fine job showing that they aren't actually much of allies beyond being willing to take your cash.

[Berkut]

But, with regards to the contract, say what you will, but if the situation had been reveserd, and France had push a country to cancel it's F-35 contract in favour of adopting the Rafale, you and Berkut would be talking Freedom Fried and a ban on Cabernet by now.  Just as you were pissed when El-Chi sent a big "fuck you" to the US when declining to participate in the Iraq war.  Given how this one turned out to, I guess he was right back then, even if the wrong reason.

There are many countries that have chosen other suppliers for their aircraft than the F-35.

I appreciate your willingness to speak for me, but you are demonstrably wrong. I didn't cry at all when Australia signed the deal with France to begin with, for example.

And I never once said a fucking thing about "freedom fries" - I thought that was stupid.

You are just....lying your ass off here?