How to P"""" off the French

[Churchlawtonblue]

When the war began, France embargoed weapons sales and support for Argentina. They also allowed the British to use French ports in West Africa and provided them with information on the weapons and planes that they had sold to Argentina.

not quite as straightforward as that Bob, they kept people on the ground in Argentina and had a sneaky foot in both camps.

But probably equally as damaging was our own BBC world service that deliberately broadcast information about Argentine bombs not going off due to incorrect fuse settings, which more than likely resulted in the deaths of British service men (despite MOD requests to not do so). all in the name of impartiality.

 

[BobKowalski]

Splits between the western powers economic polices only play into China's hands. Silly squabbles distract and waste time while China ruthlessly secures vast swathes of scarce global mineral resources.

Agreed. Trouble is the splits are real. We are split from Europe. Europe is leery of the US after Trump, Afghanistan and now this Aussie deal. Not that other European nations feel sympathy for the French as they all go head to head on major defence contracts, but what happened to the French could easily happen to them.

The US, no matter the administration, always puts US interests first and last. Europe needs to work together and develop its own foreign and defence strategies that can work independent of the US where necessary. Actions like this Aus deal will push the Europeans towards a common policy, but it will not involve the UK. The EU wanted a defence partnership but we declined.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

I didn't say it was an Aryan fantasy (whatever that is). As you have already correctly said, we are signatories of the UKUSA agreement along with the US, Canada, Australia and NZ, and already share FVEY intelligence so AUKUS will add little to intelligence collaboration. It's basically a deal for the Aussies to buy US subs instead of French ones and we've got ourselves involved to pick up a few few scraps of defence work that the US don't mind us having. For them it provides a nearly plausible story that it's not purely a sub deal but is part of a wider security arrangement, and for us it gives our government a "Global Britain" story for them to crow about and it throws some red meat to the Brexit supporting media who love a story about French noses being put out of joint.

I think we essentially agree, but it's only the loons howling at the moon on either side of the (now historical) brexit debate that wish to connect the Indo-Pacific policy dots to create either a 'brexit win' or a remain 'outrage' angle.
As to the wisdom of our new policy direction /security alliance I suspect we share many similar concerns.

 

[BobKowalski]

not quite as straightforward as that Bob, they kept people on the ground in Argentina and had a sneaky foot in both camps.

But probably equally as damaging was our own BBC world service that deliberately broadcast information about Argentine bombs not going off due to incorrect fuse settings, which more than likely resulted in the deaths of British service men (despite MOD requests to not do so). all in the name of impartiality.

No. They didn’t keep a foot in both camps. Mitterrand was very pro UK. There were no ‘sneaky sales’ to Argentina. The US were much more reluctant to support us than France were.

 

[west didsblue]

It isn’t a triumph of the US or UK over France but a triumph of strategy over economy. Well done the Aussies.

It’s a technology share deal (and it’s quite possible the US needed UK support to share some of the classified information) - the Aussies will build their own subs, albeit some of the tech they may buy from either the US or UK…who knows but it’s the square root of feck all in terms of revenues. Of course their is a caveat in the Aussie government announcement to say it will fulfill its aim using the most expedient approach so who knows how this will eventually land…maybe a couple of subs purchased the rest built locally.

More widely irrespective of the French, the UK or any other fucker the Aussies are perfectly entitled to look after their own interests - they operate in an ever changing region - and strategically for them it makes sense to go for the tech that provided them with the capability to defend these (namely unfettered access across the seas for shipments of imports and exports). For the US it gives them a country with shared values and a bit of cash to invest in military capability in the region. For the UK it’s about increasing its influence (or countering China’s) in the region - a stated aim. China continued to increase its military budget largely unopposed until now, this is a long overdue reaction.

I’m sure the French and Aussie companies will be compensated as per their agreements with the Aussie Government. That the French are wittering on about impacting the EU-Aussie trade deal is a bit small time.

I think it's too early to say whether it's a triumph of anything over anything for the long term. Of all European countries, the French have by far the biggest strategic presence in the Pacific with vast swathes of the ocean nominally under French control via French Polynesia, New Caledonia and Wallis & Futuna, probably second only to the US. Logically, from a strategic perspective, it would have made more sense for the US and Australia to align themselves with France in that region, which makes me think what they actually have done is more to do with trade than anything else. Just my opinion though.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Agreed. Trouble is the splits are real. We are split from Europe. Europe is leery of the US after Trump, Afghanistan and now this Aussie deal. Not that other European nations feel sympathy for the French as they all go head to head on major defence contracts, but what happened to the French could easily happen to them.

The US, no matter the administration, always puts US interests first and last. Europe needs to work together and develop its own foreign and defence strategies that can work independent of the US where necessary. Actions like this Aus deal will push the Europeans towards a common policy, but it will not involve the UK. The EU wanted a defence partnership but we declined.

I'd agree with all of that, but I think the greed and general liking for money of all involved in global arms sales will overcome any regional political difficulties.
At the root of this issue I'm not even sure if this is particularly a snub aimed at France but rather a US insistence on nuclear rather than diesel powered subs - and if those subs are going to be crammed with US tech, then maybe just the usual US paranoia/caution with regard to sharing?

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Agreed. Trouble is the splits are real. We are split from Europe. Europe is leery of the US after Trump, Afghanistan and now this Aussie deal. Not that other European nations feel sympathy for the French as they all go head to head on major defence contracts, but what happened to the French could easily happen to them.

The US, no matter the administration, always puts US interests first and last. Europe needs to work together and develop its own foreign and defence strategies that can work independent of the US where necessary. Actions like this Aus deal will push the Europeans towards a common policy, but it will not involve the UK. The EU wanted a defence partnership but we declined.

I agree, also think we were right to decline involvement in a European defence policy. Putting any troops on the ground, ships at sea or planes in the air under the policy of any European parliament or government will always be the hardest thing for any sovereign nation in Europe to agree to. That's why it hasn't happened yet.

Remember the French only relatively recently re-joined NATO and one thing Trump was right on was few European countries actually spend the agreed 2% of GDP on defence as part of their NATO commitment aside from the UK, France and Poland I believe?

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

No. They didn’t keep a foot in both camps. Mitterrand was very pro UK. There were no ‘sneaky sales’ to Argentina. The US were much more reluctant to support us than France were.

I suggest you check this out in a bit more detail than the google headlines Bob? I can add that they no doubt backed the UK much more, but some dodgy shenanigans were going on!

 

[smudgedj]

No. They didn’t keep a foot in both camps. Mitterrand was very pro UK. There were no ‘sneaky sales’ to Argentina. The US were much more reluctant to support us than France were.

Lol you write some shit.

The French stopped supply to Argentina simply because the great Lady Thatcher threaten them, and the Americans supplied us with their satellite information but more importantly the new all aspect sidewinder missile system giving the UK air superiority.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Lol you write some shit.

The French stopped supply to Argentina simply because the great Lady Thatcher threaten them, and the Americans supplied us with their satellite information but more importantly the new all aspect sidewinder missile system giving the UK air superiority.

Its fair to say the Americans were much more neutral, yes they helped but they were more interested in a brokered peace deal. Thatcher was disappointed in the support Washington offered.