Aukus

[Berkut]

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.

Weren't you just crying about strawmen?

I guess at least this is you admitting that in fact this is just about cash, and nothing to do with "allies" at all. Which France has a pretty clear track record about "allies" and their support for them.

It's fine - it's just about cash. Money. At least for France. Which is why they are so mad.

If it was actually about allies, they would be please that their ally is getting radically better capabilities for much less money.

[Zoupa]

I was just taking a dig at your holier than thou usual attitude, which frankly is irrelevant in diplomacy. All diplomacy is cynical and backstabbing.

So, well done, the US won that round. What's amateurish is how Australia and the US won it. This is needless collateral damage. Obviously there was always going to be blow-back from France/EU, but good diplomacy, alliance-reinforcing diplomacy plays differently.

Early in the year, Morrisson and Blinken should have called the Quai d'Orsay and said listen we're going with US subs. How can we loop you guys in so it doesn't cause a row? Le Drian and Macron could have used a treaty or an agreement or joint exercises or SOMETHING as window dressing, they would have called it a realignement, an expansion of the alliance with Australia.

Instead we get "Everything is fine" til the day of. Australia and the US left very little options to France as a response.

The fact you expect France/EU to be cheering is baffling.

[Eddie Teach]

They still had options. They could play it up or down.

[Berkut]

I was just taking a dig at your holier than thou usual attitude, which frankly is irrelevant in diplomacy. All diplomacy is cynical and backstabbing.

So, well done, the US won that round. What's amateurish is how Australia and the US won it. This is needless collateral damage. Obviously there was always going to be blow-back from France/EU, but good diplomacy, alliance-reinforcing diplomacy plays differently.

Early in the year, Morrisson and Blinken should have called the Quai d'Orsay and said listen we're going with US subs. How can we loop you guys in so it doesn't cause a row? Le Drian and Macron could have used a treaty or an agreement or joint exercises or SOMETHING as window dressing, they would have called it a realignement, an expansion of the alliance with Australia.

Instead we get "Everything is fine" til the day of. Australia and the US left very little options to France as a response.

The fact you expect France/EU to be cheering is baffling.

I don't at all expect France to be cheering, since it is clear that France doesn't consider themself an ally of anyone but France. They actually believe that "all diplomacy is cynical and backstabbing" hence they would never cheer any outcome that didn't directly line their pockets or advance only their own interests. I mean, according to you, anyway.

I think if Australia had said early on they were going elsewhere, the cynical and backstabbing response from France would have been to raise a giant row about the terrible US, and what a betrayal it was, and Trump, and tried to pressure Australia to stick to the double cost, lower capability deal. That would be good for France, but nobody else involved, except I guess China. So why would Australia do that?

I mean, you just said that France's response no matter what would be backstabbing. When you recognize that you are dealing with someone who is not going to deal with you in good faith, then why would you tell them much of anything?

And France kindly, with their response (and yours aligns perfectly with it) made it clear that they were very right not to tell them anything beyond the financial aspects of the deal. And they signalled that they were unhappy with those aspects for months prior to this.

You think I am holier than thou?  I suppose I am, since I think countering countries like China and Russia and other actual threats to liberal democracy is more important then "winning the round" *against the people who are actually supposed to be the allies France is pretending to be so very, very upset with*.

[Berkut]

They still had options. They could play it up or down.

Oddly enough, when the story first broke, I was surprised. I thought Biden had stepped on his dick a bit again, and right after Afghanistan.

But Zoupa and Viper have convinced me I was wrong.

[grumbler]

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).

What alliance is ever won by "some competitive tender process?" 

France has never been a formal ally of Australia since SEATO was dissolved in 1977.  Her "alliance" with Australia couldn't have been the "central to their Indo-Pacific strategy" (and even Macron referred to it as a "strategic partnership," not an alliance).  France seems determined to ruin that strategic partnership in a fit of pique over a perceived commercial slight.

AUKUS isn't a replacement for the French submarine deal; it is an agreement to share technologies and develop a replacement for the French submarine deal.  Moreover, it comes from an Australian initiative, not a British or American one.  The country that France should be blaming for losing the submarine contract is France.  But, of course, France can't recall its ambassadors to France.

[Sheilbh]

What alliance is ever won by "some competitive tender process?" 

But I think on this point you guys are being a little bit slippery.

When it comes to the benefits for Australia and the US - it is negotiating the alliance. When it comes to the damage France suffered - it's just about subs.

Your post was that France was just in it for the money - they were fiddling with contract terms, didn't satisfy their customer. The US just watched while Australia cancelled the contract. And now you flip it to being not about that, but actually about an alliance.

It's both - that's the point. I think it's on balance a good thing - I think it's good for Australia, the UK and the US. Unlike Zoupa I don't think there was another way to do it where you could loop in the French without it sort of acting as a spoiler/leaking. But at the same time it's like France got jilted at the altar and found out via text. I don't think we need to pretend that any of the AUKUS countries just innocents who want the best for each and maybe too pure for this world. This was successful, cynical and justified diplomacy - just like France reacting strongly and trying to leverage concessions out of it.

France has never been a formal ally of Australia since SEATO was dissolved in 1977.  Her "alliance" with Australia couldn't have been the "central to their Indo-Pacific strategy" (and even Macron referred to it as a "strategic partnership," not an alliance).  France seems determined to ruin that strategic partnership in a fit of pique over a perceived commercial slight.

Yeah - and as I've said the French reaction might go some way to explaining why Australia wanted an alternative.

AUKUS isn't a replacement for the French submarine deal; it is an agreement to share technologies and develop a replacement for the French submarine deal.  Moreover, it comes from an Australian initiative, not a British or American one.  The country that France should be blaming for losing the submarine contract is France.  But, of course, France can't recall its ambassadors to France.

I totally agree on the nature of the agreement but I think that is also what France has been booted from - both in terms of the 2+2 forum (which released a "substantive" statement just two weeks before this happened but also very strong statements on Chinese coercion over Australia, joint exercises, very warm words at the G7 between Macron and Morrison. While all of that was happening the AUKUS talks, which excluded France, were ongoing.

[grumbler]

What alliance is ever won by "some competitive tender process?" 

But I think on this point you guys are being a little bit slippery.

When it comes to the benefits for Australia and the US - it is negotiating the alliance. When it comes to the damage France suffered - it's just about subs.

Your post was that France was just in it for the money - they were fiddling with contract terms, didn't satisfy their customer. The US just watched while Australia cancelled the contract. And now you flip it to being not about that, but actually about an alliance.

It is Zoupa that insists that it is all about money.  I was simply showing him the logical conclusion of his argument - that it is all about money, that is true for France, as well.

I think that you are being overly slippery about insisting that the French sub  deal and AUKUS are, essentially, the same things just with different partners.  That might work for moral equivalency arguments, but not serious arguments about the real world.

The inclusion of the plan to build nuclear submarines for Australia is the only element of AUKUS that equates to the French submarine deal.  An alliance and a purchase agreement are not equivalent.

It's both - that's the point. I think it's on balance a good thing - I think it's good for Australia, the UK and the US. Unlike Zoupa I don't think there was another way to do it where you could loop in the French without it sort of acting as a spoiler/leaking. But at the same time it's like France got jilted at the altar and found out via text. I don't think we need to pretend that any of the AUKUS countries just innocents who want the best for each and maybe too pure for this world. This was successful, cynical and justified diplomacy - just like France reacting strongly and trying to leverage concessions out of it.

France is perfectly entitled to be unhappy about Australia cancelling the sub deal.  That's especially true if Zoupa is correct and that was all about money in the first place.  If "it's like France got jilted at the altar and found out via text," then France should be angry at her fiancé, not recalling ambassadors (for the first tie ever) from the best man, and making smarmy remarks about the caterer for the next wedding.

I totally agree on the nature of the agreement but I think that is also what France has been booted from - both in terms of the 2+2 forum (which released a "substantive" statement just two weeks before this happened but also very strong statements on Chinese coercion over Australia, joint exercises, very warm words at the G7 between Macron and Morrison. While all of that was happening the AUKUS talks, which excluded France, were ongoing.

What, exactly, has France "been booted from?"  And how can you read the contempt with which France addressed the members of AUKUS and conclude that France feels bad about being excluded?  None of the strategic partnerships, warm words, joint exercises, etc need be cancelled because France lost a commercial contract, unless that's what France wants.  It rather makes a mockery of the claim by France that their strategic partnership with Australia was a central feature of their Asia-Pacific strategy if they throw it away so lightly, though.

[Zoupa]

Groom punches bride to be at their wedding right before the vows, in front of everybody. Groom then winks at the maid of honor who happily steps into the bride's place. Groom turns around to former bride with a black eye, asking "Why are you mad, baby? I thought you loved me, don't you want me to be happy? Can you not cause a scene on my wedding day?"

[Sheilbh]

I think that you are being overly slippery about insisting that the French sub  deal and AUKUS are, essentially, the same things just with different partners.  That might work for moral equivalency arguments, but not serious arguments about the real world.

The inclusion of the plan to build nuclear submarines for Australia is the only element of AUKUS that equates to the French submarine deal.  An alliance and a purchase agreement are not equivalent.

You had an issue with me talking about the Franco-Australian "strategic partnership" as an alliance - isn't there the same problem with AUKUS? It isn't a new alliance. At the moment, from my understanding the bit that's been agreed is the subs and some language around wider tech sharing.

I think it will develop into more because of existing alliances and relationships but, it's not, from what I've read a new alliance in that sense. I think the same reasoning applies to the Franco-Australian alliance/"strategic partnership".

France is perfectly entitled to be unhappy about Australia cancelling the sub deal.  That's especially true if Zoupa is correct and that was all about money in the first place.  If "it's like France got jilted at the altar and found out via text," then France should be angry at her fiancé, not recalling ambassadors (for the first tie ever) from the best man, and making smarmy remarks about the caterer for the next wedding.

I think France is angry at Australia (the bride/groom?) - but to torture this metaphor a little more they're also annoyed at the best man and caterer because it turns out their now a throuple.

What, exactly, has France "been booted from?"  And how can you read the contempt with which France addressed the members of AUKUS and conclude that France feels bad about being excluded?  None of the strategic partnerships, warm words, joint exercises, etc need be cancelled because France lost a commercial contract, unless that's what France wants.  It rather makes a mockery of the claim by France that their strategic partnership with Australia was a central feature of their Asia-Pacific strategy if they throw it away so lightly, though.

Yeah - as I say I think France's response is part of the reason why Australia was possibly looking for an alternative/way out.

[Eddie Teach]

Groom punches bride to be at their wedding right before the vows, in front of everybody. Groom then winks at the maid of honor who happily steps into the bride's place. Groom turns around to former bride with a black eye, asking "Why are you mad, baby? I thought you loved me, don't you want me to be happy? Can you not cause a scene on my wedding day?"

Case in point why tortured analogies are super unhelpful.

France and Australia had a deal. France changed the terms, so Australia walked out. This happens all the time and should have been expected.

[The Brain]

They could have prayed instead.

[Admiral Yi]

I like to think that I'm open to the argument that the US and Australia did something bad and France and the EU are justified in their condemnation, but analogies are not going to get me there.

[Sheilbh]

I like to think that I'm open to the argument that the US and Australia did something bad and France and the EU are justified in their condemnation, but analogies are not going to get me there.

Apologies for introducing that stream of chat

My basic point is I think AUKUS is, on balance good. I think it makes a lot of sense for Australia especially if their view/assessment of threats has shifted. It's good for the UK just to be involved. And it's good for the US if it leads to enhanced capabilitiy I suppose in the South Pacific.

But I don't think that just means the French should row in and cheerlead it. I think it's incredibly frustrating and a suprise to the French which is going to cause them to need to re-calibrate pretty quickly, so I sympathise with their anger and frustration about it. And I think expressing that is probably the best way to get some prizes out of it.

I think the EU has done enough to show solidarity with a member state but without actually causing any unpleasantness which I think has been their aim. Though I would note the solidarity w/ France v the notable lack with Poland and the Baltics over Nordstream or with Lithuania over Chinese bullying - I imagine it's being noticed there too and feels a little bit Chirac's take on "new Europe".

[OttoVonBismarck]

I just want to point out it's extremely rich that the French are saying the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan represents clear evidence of U.S. unreliability. Let's think about that for a second--a war that served hardly any American geopolitical interest, that we conducted for over 20 years at massive cost, and a human cost born almost entirely by our soldiers (at least in terms of the West; obviously the Afghan people bore the highest cost.)

Let's talk just a moment about French involvement in Afghanistan, something it was supposedly involved in to satisfy treaty obligations to an ally:

2001 - 21st RIMA - 640 soldiers
2003 - 500 members of the 3500-strong ISAF
2008 - "French contingent grew to 1600 men"
2010 - A deployment of 70 French soldiers to Helmand Province
2012 - Around 3400 French troops are deployed in Afghanistan

In February of 2012 in response to the unbelievable outcome of four of those soldiers being shot and killed, President Sarkozy threatened to "suspend operations in Afghanistan."

In June of 2012 incoming President Hollande announced the withdrawal of 2000 of France's 3400 troops, leaving 1400 for training and logistics, ending any active combat role in the country.

I'm not honestly sure what to make of that commitment--a reflection on how pitiably small and insignificant it was for a country that still thinks of itself as a Great Power, or how feckless the French leadership was in the face of...a few soldiers being killed (something that is common to all soldiers who fight in wars.)

I don't remember anyone shitting all over the French for that. But hey, I do remember the French...in this thread, shitting on us for withdrawing from Afghanistan 9 years later? That was rich.

Let's remember what the French have done to prove how stable and great they are at being allies--in response to AUKUS at least one leading French political figure threatened that France should withdraw from NATO operational command (going back to the pre-2008 de Gaulle status with NATO.) That's sure stable and trustworthy behavior for a major ally "our defense industry loses some money? Time to threaten to partially withdraw from the alliance."

Imagine if the U.S. had pushed to boot Turkey out of NATO over it buying Russian surface to air missile systems.