I jumped back into your archive when I discovered you 11 months ago. You have more authority with the tie. Your audio is WAY BETTER NOW. I love your stuff. you've polished your delivery a lot (heck, even your accent moved to more neutral). I love your stuff and your craft has come a long way.
Hello Anders, I am late to this and am not sure if you see my comment. On the chance you will, I will post. Firstly, Australia will get the first of these subs in about 40 years. 40 years, 4 0 years. It is very likely Australia will never see these submarines. Australia has no nuclear expertise or infrastructure. Having these subs makes Australia's defence capacity dependent on the direct support of another country. From a sovereignty perspective, AUKUS is a disaster. France was building Australia nuclear submarines, minus the nuclear engines. Australia asked to replace the nuclear engines with conventional engines. Making this change was why the costs had started to drift (as they do on all such projects). Had Australia wanted nuclear capacity, then the easiest option was to ask France to provide nuclear engines in their nuclear subs. The then Prime Minister (Turnbull) is urbane, sophisticated, intelligent and progressive. He signed the contract with France. His party was riven by conflicts, especially from the far right of the party and they hated him and everything he did. When he was deposed by his own party, the conservatives in the party made it their business to undo or abandon much of what he had done or supported. Choosing AUKUS over the French was a political decision against a defeated PM who represented progressive, liberal attitudes. Conservatives in Australia are anglo-phone to their bootstraps. Turnbull's predecessor (whom he overthrew), gave a knighthood to Prince Philip; it was his last act as PM. The bitterness of these party conflicts coloured the whole AUKUS deal. France has interests in Australia's region. New Caledonia is very close to Australia and for France to operate military in the region, needs good relations with Australia, not least for logistical support and basing. Macron's decision to work with Australia to strengthen military links was good for Australia and France and it didn't create any conflicts with European partners,. Indeed, it gave Europe a stronger stake in the Indo-Pacific region, taking your argument, thereby strengthening Europe's connection with the USA in this new region. For Australia, deeper involvement with France meant the likely support of another significant military power in addition to our traditional supporters. No country supports another from altruism, that France had its own interests is understandable and to be expected. But Australia is at the arse end of the world and it would be easy to see our concerns as very low on other countries' list of priorities so having more allies is a good thing for Australia. And Australia has the experience of being abandoned before. The 1942 fall of Singapore was THE pivotal experience for modern Australian history. I take you point about European focus outside of Europe causing conflicts within Europe however if it weren't for AUKUS being a betrayal of France and the contracts for real subs already in the dockyards for some pie in the sky vague promise of subs in 40 years from the US and UK, then the conflict would not have likely occurred. Britain effectively manipulated the prejudices of conservative politicians to transfer the lucrative French contract to the UK (and US). Likely Boris Johnson was a key mover of this deal. It is completely understandable that AUKUS, under these conditions, should create real rifts between the UK and France. Closer military connections between France and Australia is a good thing, not one that is inherently divisive for Europe. It was the appalling lack of faith from the Australian Govt and Prime Minister couple with the bad faith opportunism of the Johnson Govt that created these problems,
I seems that when bunker-grandpa in Moscow in Febr. 2022 started his full-scale invasion he thought that the West would easily be split, divided. I think this video explain some of what he had in mind. Well, to a large extent he was wrong, the West is more united now than it has been for a long time.
Other than WW1 history where many Australians died fighting in France, Australia has very little trade or cultural relationship with France. Given that situation, It was a strange decision by Australia, some 10 years back, to choose to purchase Subs from France. Australia of course has close ties with the UK, and since WW2 much closer ties with the US. Since the 60's, the US has effectively been Australia's primary ally for regional defence. It makes complete sense for Australia to purchase Subs from the US as they will be able to much better cooperate and compliment overall US military operations. In addition, the original contracted deliveries from France, were diesel rather than nucleur, and were many many years delayed and would have resulted in Australia recieving subs that were out of date, and less effective, therefore a decision had to be made. The subs from the US will be nuclear and modern. Overall its a no brainer decision for Australia, France is just complaining because its another set back for their military industry. France like the UK are not the world powers they think they are. The relationship between France and the UK is another issue and has deterioated massively due to the French attitude towards the UK's decision to leave the EU. The UK and Australia have always had strong cultural ties, and with the UK leaving the EU, its likely that UK trade will increase with both Australia and the Pacific and Asian countries. Together these facts resulted in the UK being included in the US/Australia defence relationship.
You're missing the fundamental problem: identity. Many Brits barely see themselves as or identify with Europe, and we saw it in the 2016 referendum. To these Brexiteers, they would rather go with some reincarnated version of the British Empire called the "Anglosphere" than make common cause with their European neighbours. It is perfectly natural then that the Anglos would go behind the backs of the Euros on a defensive alliance like this, why are we surprised? This war may have brought the band (the Western alliance) back together, but I'm not sure how long it will last.
It seems like a lot has changed in 13 months Anders. Do you think China is still on the same exponential ship construction path they were on before the implosion of their economy and the 'complications' of the zero-covid policy? And of course the whole world has changed since russia invaded Ukraine...
1. The spectre of nuclear proliferation is a specious point, nuclear propulsion or nuclear power generation is not in the non proliferation agreement and there is no pathway to nuclear weapons in terms of appropriate nuclear material for them that arises from the propulsion/generation programme. 2. Just like some European countries (especially Germany) have now woke up that there is a real threat on ‘their borders’, the Australian awakening was to the Chinese threat. 3. Let us be clear AUKUS presents no additional difficulty to European security EXCEPT that which arises from French vanity. Remember MACRON has until very recently sought to undermine/ devalue/ question NATO utility (largely because of the resentment that US contribution to European security gives the US has a proportionate voice. 4. If the respective parliaments of Finland and Sweden make a decision to make an application to join NATO, this will strengthen European security. 5. However, what has hitherto undermined European security the most is historic underfunding of defence effort, the most obvious being Germany (which has shamefully allowed its defence capability to wither on the vine over the last several years), but there are many other countries who have not pulled their weight - hence the vociferous (and not unwarranted) criticism from Trump, when he was POTUS. 6. The very best strategy for European security is for NATO members to invest the agreed amount of military capability and readiness and for NATO as a central organisation to performance manage the achievement of that generation of readiness with the implied default of ‘you do not perform then you have to leave the organisation’. What is counter productive is to try and set up secondary mechanisms such as a ‘European Army’ as some sort of misguided vanity distraction. In Sum, AUKUS is less to be concerned about , than failure in Europe to meaningful and proportionate investment in generating military capability and readiness for NATO.
You had me (not that I agreed with everything, but okay) until point 5. and Trump. Yes criticism was warranted. Except it came after Germany and other countries decided to increase their military budget. Also Germany has problems with procurement. It's not exactly money issue, it's bureaucracy issue. If anything former POTUS only strained the relationship even further. I'm almost thankful to that SOB Putin for unifying NATO again. European countries on the Eastern Flank were complaining about this under funding. USA complained about it. Also funnily enough to strengthen your 1st point - France actually offered to help build nuclear submarines in Australia. Offer was rejected on the basis that "Australia doesn't need nuclear submarines", so they offered a conventional version. That would give Australia more insight into building reactors. It was stunning, because such deals are rare and usually involved a lot more secrecy. Also French design some of their reactors to operate on highly enriched fuel. Not weapons grade - usually, but closer than I think any other country.
@jannegrey593 the relationship was in fact strained and for a good reason. Trump didn't suddenly create these conditions, they were pre-existing. He wasn't the first president to complain.
3:30 Nuclear power to nuclear weapons. That is a completely specious argument. The only commonality between compact nuclear power and nuclear weapons is known to any high school kid who took an AP physics class. The actual engineering is night and day different. In fact, this whole issue is a tempest in a teapot. I love France, but they can't get it through their heads that they are losing their position on they world stage, and there's not really a damned thing they can do about it.
@@celkat nuclear fuel is not sufficiently enriched to build effective bombs from. If Australia really wanted nuclear weapons, they could probably just ask the U.S. for some. The U.S. is pretty nervous about China at the moment, and tends to make "interesting" decisions when they are nervous. Quite frankly, I wouldn't be at all surprised if OZ already has nukes and just isn't telling anyone.
nuclear sub are considered controlled equipment. and if US is "nervous" atm and can make these kind of stupid decision, how should a "nervous" indonesia that has a history with Australia supporting seperatism in their nation feel about them getting nuclear sub. I won't be suprise if Indonesia suddenly form an alliance with China for nuclear sub. this is the dumbest move australia could make because it ignores how the rest of Asia will see the deal. this deal accelerated US decline in Asia and push country toward China.
I think that is true not just for France but for Germany as well, and the war has made that abundantly clear. But let's see, maybe they can put their butthurt egoes aside and realise they need to cooperate within Europe like equals. I do not think that is possible under Scholz and Macron, unfortunately, so we will see other countries in Europe and around the world rising. Poland is the one to watch in Europe, if they stop some of the idiotic behaviour of their government.
Looking at this analysis from the end of the first 3 months of the Russia-Ukraine war, the AUKUS pact exclues France for really quite obvious reasons (and I would have said that then too). Macron's vision of a Franco-German EU includes an EU military and the EU (it seems to me) is itself seeking to create EU defence champions out of one of two core Businesses (Airbus being one) as part of this process. Macron seems to endlessly state NATO is an anachronism that needs to be replaced. The Franco-German-Italian response to arming Ukraine has also been rather lacklustre in terms of action instead of words. Germany in particularité seems to have to be draggéd by a mixture of internal and external political pressure to do anything. Thus when we focus on the réal political and cultural rival for the 21st century (China) from a US point of view, especially with the UK and Australia's long term mutual support, why would it seek to include France in particular ? Indeed, I could certainly see Japan and Korea also seeking SSN capability. UK/Japan defence co-operation is already growing and all four will continue to pourchasse US equipment to a greater or lessor extent and seek close military co-operation in jointly led forces. Yes, Europe is also very interested, but with pacifist, self interested Germany and France and the EU looking to ever closer union and an EU military other European countries and corporations do have a choice to make. The immediate question is can NATO survive the creation of an EU military or can the EU itself become a military union ? (Post Ukraine, it really seems hard to believe Poland and the East will accept an EU military over NATO). That leaves Spain, Italy, Holland, Denmark, Poland, Sweden and Greece in particular with a potential tough décision. EU or NATO ? From a global perspective, expanding NATO to a global organisation by the inclusion of Australia, Japan and South Korea (I would include NZ, but that is another country that préfers pacifism right now). However, this seems impossible and implausible today. Does anyone really believe Macron's France, Germany or the EU commission would ever agréé to that sort of solution ? In this case, the olny solution for the US/UK is something more direct like AUKUS. I rather think (but i'm British) that both the Danes and Dutch would préfèr to be involved more directly, France would be 100 % against (everything has to be on France terms or not at all), whilst Germany and Italy would rather avoid the issue entirely. I dont have idea where the less global involved major European nations would stand (in particular Sweden, Poland, Spain), although the Eastern European states would stand with NATO (ie US) décision. I'm very interested to hear what Europeans think.
I think the major point here is what someone commented above, that France (and Germany) doesn't realise that they are not the leader anymore. Before the war this was already arguable, and with the war this is undeniable. Both France and Germany kept finding loopholes to sanctions to moscow and selling military-grade equipment, that has been now used in Ukraine. Equipment sold as late as 2019. This and the disastrous European (mainly German) addiction on cheap energy, is bound to change the whole makeup of the EU, which means, Macron's ideas of being the head of an EU military superpower, outside of NATO absolutely impossible. As you said, why would any country in Eastern (and Central East.) Europe put their chips on counting on French and German support, in case of disaster, when those are the two countries that are being the worst at reacting at the current crisis? Would France try to give away some Lithuanian land to apease Russia? To me that seems a no brainer for anyone bordering Russia. As for the Baltics, I think they have shown this already with Sweden and Finland immediately running to join NATO. Again, no way that France would go to war for Finland without an article 5, and would again try to apease Russia. Why on hell would you think a France alliance is a good idea by looking at current events? As for Southwestern Europe, mainly Portugal, Spain and Italy to some extent, I think they are more inclined to distance themselves from all this mess due to their privileged location in Europe. Portugal and Spain stayed out of WW2 and no one cared. Now, simply due to old status quo, it's very possible that Spain and Italy follow France and Germany, and with them smaller Western countries like Portugal, Belgium, and maybe even the Netherlands. I would not be surprised if the EU brodens the rift that already exists between South+West+Central and Central+East, leading to Baltics and Balcans joining Central East. Former Yugoslavia, I think that's the hardest puzzle in Europe, as everything else can be kind of extrapolated from the current reaction. And I think we often forget Turkey in Europe, but they are definitely one of the most important players in NATO, and they are clearly wild in their relationships. Hopefully, European leaders can stop being fuckwitts and realise that the EU doesn't stand a chance unless it is fully united.
Just for clarity. Australia commissioned its first nuclear reactor in 1958. They have always been a nuclear capable country. Whatever limits that capability has always been determined by the political will of the Australian people. Australia has long been one of the main suppliers of radioactive isotopes for the worlds nuclear medicine providers. The British conducted their nuclear weapons testing in Australia. If Australia had ever wanted nuclear weapons they would already have them. If you now think Australia having nuclear capability could be an issue, then you are about 60 years late to the party.
Why do you suppose that Japan is not a part of Aukus and renaming this Jaukus? If there is a tilt towards the Pacific Japan plays a serious roll in this area of the world.
The Australia France sub deal started as ok deal but France kept raising the price until the price of 12 French subs become same as 80 superior Japanese subs or 12 nuclear ones. The initial price was 24 billion and kept rising, the deal ended when French started asking for 160 billion
Australia is not asking France to build them sub, they are asking France to TEACH them how to build sub, that is the reason why Japan didn't want the deal. the fact that Australia don't have the manufacturing base and need to spend money to build it up is not France fault, if Australia accept building the sub in Japan or France, they would have their submarine for cheap. but that isn't what Australia is buying, Australia is not buying submarine, they are buying an industry.
Also on the pivot to Asia subject , isn’t it pathetic that Europeans are concerned that their gonna have to take more of their own responsibility in looking after their own defence & funding. They have the whole EU to do that with ???? even though little Australia is sending a decent amount of support to Ukraine. I can’t understand how any European nations would even bother about France & the UK & choosing sides . Just fob it off as France starting shit like they alway do , they’ll be back .
@Aditya Chavarkar it’s pathetic in many ways, encouraging Ukraine to become westernised & push for eu membership, proxy nato “ize” , & push that right along Russia’s boarder . We how big of everyone to give funds & arms to Ukraine to bleed itself dry fighting Russia, it’s only the civilians & other locals Ukraine & Russians dying. It was the west in 2014 that helped create a coup to topple the Russians puppets running Ukraine & replacing them with western puppets. And this is where we are now , people are dying there , France is crying over a shit deal for Australian submarines that won’t be ready till at least 2040 , when the war with China could kick off tomorrow! and to destabilise relationships cause they weren’t invited to the party, that’s just crybaby & typical French IMO! Australia , USA & Britain spilled huge numbers of men fighting to free France from total defeat at the hands of its neighbor Germany twice in two world wars & this is how they act because of submarine deal , that no contracts had been broken , just the next phase wasn’t given to the French! Yep pathetic in my unimportant opinion!
It's so pathetic. There's probably half a billion people in Europe less Russia. And they still can't even defend themselves? Just absurd. They're little children throwing a tantrum.
As an Australian I can tell you that the French project was seen as a rolling disaster here. This was made clear in successive government reports and media reports. I suspect France was particularly upset because they were of the belief they had Australia by the balls, consequently this was a major intelligence and diplomatic failure on their part. France was never serious about meeting it’s commercial, industrial or contractual undertakings. Especially with respect to building the submarines in Australian yards. They deserved what they got for their duplicity quite frankly.
You summed up the entirety of French foreign policy. They will only ever solely do what is in their interest. Of course every country does this, but successful countries seek a resolution that benefits themselves and their partners. The best agreements benefit everyone involved. France has never, will never, look beyond itself.
@@kuhaku9587 You have totally no clue about the EU and germany otherwise you would have known how often Germany has not taken the lead and decades other complained. And usually the german tax payer paid the EU bills for all those others that got far more and paid less. Who paid for the irish jobs back from late 80s and who gave the guarantees for the irish when they had burnt their capital in the 2010 crisis ? They had benefitted and taken the high risks for lowest taxes and became the harbor for all the american giants and did not pay back. I can remember when the german suppliers had build jobs in Ireland and we suddenly had to wait for supplies from ireland to avoid a stand still on the assembly line when leoni had moved to Ireland . 550 cars each shift at stake. Not funny and the only way were cargo planes for the whole wiring harness which you need from the first seconds the chassis has been welded. you can not push cars or trucks from the assembly line and refit them with the main wiring harness. And that has happened for decades over and over again. French had lost the contract not without a reason and it was the choice of the australian. Which military production project of the french army had worked out as planned ? Which main battle tank had sold better , whose jets ? Must have more than one reason and never forget the french economic espionage when there was a bidding between TGV and ICE back in the 90s and 20s. Even the british will know buy the german combat vehicles and not the french one. And our company had a big joint vernture with one of the big french car makers and that did not work that well cause the promised quality was missing.
France has a history of being a difficult and untrustworthy partner in international defence projects going back at least as far as the AFVG. The USA, UK and Australia are also members of the 5 Is intelligence community which brings with it an implicit level of trust that carries over in to technology sharing
france never really lived up to the contractual arrangement anyway ?, why would australia not want more advanced subs anyway , these are not actually nuclear armed submarines anyway
Let me get this right ! France is sooking because their not seen as a equal power or major player in the pacific? Is that right . Hhhmmmm they only hold a few colonial little islands , so how do they think they have major skin in this game ? We ( Australia & the United States ) we live here & the UK have major historical ties here . Look even a few nations & states still have the Union Jack on their flags & laws based on their common law . Look at Frances behaviour, that’s exactly the kind of reputation they have on the world stage & that makes em a difficult ally. It’s always been like that & now they are using this to upset the balance in the EU ! France is like that friend with mental illness, is ok but they can let ya down . At leased the USA can have good faith in its angalo cousins that they are staunch & to the end allies . Australia will need all of the help it can get in the fight against china’s expansion. So I guess you could say we need staunch allies, that don’t cut and run when the going gets tough. Japan & a few of the other Asian nations also live here & have no where to go , so we will need to count on each other . France should harden up & stop sooking, they look like a little toddler having a temper tantrum.
I think it's pretty clear that the AUKUS deal caused division between otherwise good allies, and that is exactly the opposite of what we need when facing China. It was bad diplomacy, and I think especially the US played it wrong. But well, since then Russia has done a great job of uniting the West, so I guess the long-term effects will be negligible.
@@anderspuck I think that will dépend on Macron's and the EU's commissions continuing attitude to Brexit. Boris' govt is only notionally Brexit (in practice its largely implemeting BRINO - Brexit in name only - right now and is very reluctant to face down the EU). The current deal structure has too many faults and flaws from a UK perspective to stand unchanged (I think many in the Uk would agréé Boris was too eager to get any deal in the face of establishment Remain majority). Since the EU/Macron line is you signed up to it, live with your décisions, UK political requirements (Boris/Tory élection in 2024) will drive a larger rupture between the UK and EU if nothing changes.
@Aditya Chavarkar France in both world wars upped the anti and got smashed both times , they tried to reclaim their colonial interests in Vietnam & got smashed again . They ( rightly or wrongly ) didn’t back the US in George W Bushes WAR in the Middle East , & now their trying to destabilise allies & create divisions because of a terrible corrupt & shit submarine deal that was only going to benefit them & not the Australian taxpayers.
Seeing French and German inaction over Russia's invasion of another European country in 2014 may have raised questions in Canberra over exactly how reliable such a defense partnership might be half a world away.
Excellent analysis. The French submarine was already outdated before it was built. It couldn’t perform the tasks that would be required. It was outrageously expensive. It was going to be years too late. Not enough was to be built in Australia. France is a potential security risk.
AUKUS. If they had put the US in front as being the most important memberstate, it would have been: USAUK "U suck". My guess is they have thought of that too :)
I'm sure they have. They would also be cautious about West-Pacific nations like Australia, Japan etc. go into alliance with NATO. That would create a new alliance that would probably be named "Pacific Ocean Trans Atlantic Treaty Organisation", or POTATO.
France abandoned the Pacific in World War Two and fought for the Nazis against Australian troops in Libya. Looking at their lack lustre support for Ukraine, who could possibly trust them when the crap hits the fan. Australia played a major role helping the U.K. develop nuclear weapons. Lately the Ukrainian non nuclear with international security guarantee option, looks like a Russian Army ration pack.
![DDG & G Herbo - Nosey [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/I9Ra0Zc2NlQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I jumped back into your archive when I discovered you 11 months ago. You have more authority with the tie. Your audio is WAY BETTER NOW. I love your stuff. you've polished your delivery a lot (heck, even your accent moved to more neutral). I love your stuff and your craft has come a long way.
Very interesting Anders. I wonder if any of your opinions on this have changed in the last year?
Hello Anders, I am late to this and am not sure if you see my comment. On the chance you will, I will post.
Firstly, Australia will get the first of these subs in about 40 years. 40 years, 4 0 years. It is very likely Australia will never see these submarines.
Australia has no nuclear expertise or infrastructure. Having these subs makes Australia's defence capacity dependent on the direct support of another country. From a sovereignty perspective, AUKUS is a disaster.
France was building Australia nuclear submarines, minus the nuclear engines. Australia asked to replace the nuclear engines with conventional engines. Making this change was why the costs had started to drift (as they do on all such projects). Had Australia wanted nuclear capacity, then the easiest option was to ask France to provide nuclear engines in their nuclear subs.
The then Prime Minister (Turnbull) is urbane, sophisticated, intelligent and progressive. He signed the contract with France. His party was riven by conflicts, especially from the far right of the party and they hated him and everything he did. When he was deposed by his own party, the conservatives in the party made it their business to undo or abandon much of what he had done or supported. Choosing AUKUS over the French was a political decision against a defeated PM who represented progressive, liberal attitudes. Conservatives in Australia are anglo-phone to their bootstraps. Turnbull's predecessor (whom he overthrew), gave a knighthood to Prince Philip; it was his last act as PM. The bitterness of these party conflicts coloured the whole AUKUS deal.
France has interests in Australia's region. New Caledonia is very close to Australia and for France to operate military in the region, needs good relations with Australia, not least for logistical support and basing. Macron's decision to work with Australia to strengthen military links was good for Australia and France and it didn't create any conflicts with European partners,. Indeed, it gave Europe a stronger stake in the Indo-Pacific region, taking your argument, thereby strengthening Europe's connection with the USA in this new region.
For Australia, deeper involvement with France meant the likely support of another significant military power in addition to our traditional supporters. No country supports another from altruism, that France had its own interests is understandable and to be expected. But Australia is at the arse end of the world and it would be easy to see our concerns as very low on other countries' list of priorities so having more allies is a good thing for Australia. And Australia has the experience of being abandoned before. The 1942 fall of Singapore was THE pivotal experience for modern Australian history.
I take you point about European focus outside of Europe causing conflicts within Europe however if it weren't for AUKUS being a betrayal of France and the contracts for real subs already in the dockyards for some pie in the sky vague promise of subs in 40 years from the US and UK, then the conflict would not have likely occurred. Britain effectively manipulated the prejudices of conservative politicians to transfer the lucrative French contract to the UK (and US). Likely Boris Johnson was a key mover of this deal. It is completely understandable that AUKUS, under these conditions, should create real rifts between the UK and France.
Closer military connections between France and Australia is a good thing, not one that is inherently divisive for Europe. It was the appalling lack of faith from the Australian Govt and Prime Minister couple with the bad faith opportunism of the Johnson Govt that created these problems,
I seems that when bunker-grandpa in Moscow in Febr. 2022 started his full-scale invasion he thought that the West would easily be split, divided. I think this video explain some of what he had in mind. Well, to a large extent he was wrong, the West is more united now than it has been for a long time.
Other than WW1 history where many Australians died fighting in France, Australia has very little trade or cultural relationship with France. Given that situation, It was a strange decision by Australia, some 10 years back, to choose to purchase Subs from France. Australia of course has close ties with the UK, and since WW2 much closer ties with the US. Since the 60's, the US has effectively been Australia's primary ally for regional defence. It makes complete sense for Australia to purchase Subs from the US as they will be able to much better cooperate and compliment overall US military operations. In addition, the original contracted deliveries from France, were diesel rather than nucleur, and were many many years delayed and would have resulted in Australia recieving subs that were out of date, and less effective, therefore a decision had to be made. The subs from the US will be nuclear and modern. Overall its a no brainer decision for Australia, France is just complaining because its another set back for their military industry. France like the UK are not the world powers they think they are. The relationship between France and the UK is another issue and has deterioated massively due to the French attitude towards the UK's decision to leave the EU. The UK and Australia have always had strong cultural ties, and with the UK leaving the EU, its likely that UK trade will increase with both Australia and the Pacific and Asian countries. Together these facts resulted in the UK being included in the US/Australia defence relationship.
You're missing the fundamental problem: identity. Many Brits barely see themselves as or identify with Europe, and we saw it in the 2016 referendum. To these Brexiteers, they would rather go with some reincarnated version of the British Empire called the "Anglosphere" than make common cause with their European neighbours. It is perfectly natural then that the Anglos would go behind the backs of the Euros on a defensive alliance like this, why are we surprised? This war may have brought the band (the Western alliance) back together, but I'm not sure how long it will last.
If AUKUS is a reincarnation of the British Empire, what is the EU a reincarnation of? (😬)
It seems like a lot has changed in 13 months Anders. Do you think China is still on the same exponential ship construction path they were on before the implosion of their economy and the 'complications' of the zero-covid policy?
And of course the whole world has changed since russia invaded Ukraine...
1. The spectre of nuclear proliferation is a specious point, nuclear propulsion or nuclear power generation is not in the non proliferation agreement and there is no pathway to nuclear weapons in terms of appropriate nuclear material for them that arises from the propulsion/generation programme.
2. Just like some European countries (especially Germany) have now woke up that there is a real threat on ‘their borders’, the Australian awakening was to the Chinese threat.
3. Let us be clear AUKUS presents no additional difficulty to European security EXCEPT that which arises from French vanity. Remember MACRON has until very recently sought to undermine/ devalue/ question NATO utility (largely because of the resentment that US contribution to European security gives the US has a proportionate voice.
4. If the respective parliaments of Finland and Sweden make a decision to make an application to join NATO, this will strengthen European security.
5. However, what has hitherto undermined European security the most is historic underfunding of defence effort, the most obvious being Germany (which has shamefully allowed its defence capability to wither on the vine over the last several years), but there are many other countries who have not pulled their weight - hence the vociferous (and not unwarranted) criticism from Trump, when he was POTUS.
6. The very best strategy for European security is for NATO members to invest the agreed amount of military capability and readiness and for NATO as a central organisation to performance manage the achievement of that generation of readiness with the implied default of ‘you do not perform then you have to leave the organisation’. What is counter productive is to try and set up secondary mechanisms such as a ‘European Army’ as some sort of misguided vanity distraction.
In Sum, AUKUS is less to be concerned about , than failure in Europe to meaningful and proportionate investment in generating military capability and readiness for NATO.
You had me (not that I agreed with everything, but okay) until point 5. and Trump. Yes criticism was warranted. Except it came after Germany and other countries decided to increase their military budget. Also Germany has problems with procurement. It's not exactly money issue, it's bureaucracy issue. If anything former POTUS only strained the relationship even further. I'm almost thankful to that SOB Putin for unifying NATO again.
European countries on the Eastern Flank were complaining about this under funding. USA complained about it.
Also funnily enough to strengthen your 1st point - France actually offered to help build nuclear submarines in Australia. Offer was rejected on the basis that "Australia doesn't need nuclear submarines", so they offered a conventional version. That would give Australia more insight into building reactors. It was stunning, because such deals are rare and usually involved a lot more secrecy. Also French design some of their reactors to operate on highly enriched fuel. Not weapons grade - usually, but closer than I think any other country.
@jannegrey593 the relationship was in fact strained and for a good reason. Trump didn't suddenly create these conditions, they were pre-existing. He wasn't the first president to complain.
3:30 Nuclear power to nuclear weapons. That is a completely specious argument. The only commonality between compact nuclear power and nuclear weapons is known to any high school kid who took an AP physics class. The actual engineering is night and day different. In fact, this whole issue is a tempest in a teapot. I love France, but they can't get it through their heads that they are losing their position on they world stage, and there's not really a damned thing they can do about it.
I thought the main concern here is the sheer access to enriched uranium that these subs provide
@@celkat nuclear fuel is not sufficiently enriched to build effective bombs from. If Australia really wanted nuclear weapons, they could probably just ask the U.S. for some. The U.S. is pretty nervous about China at the moment, and tends to make "interesting" decisions when they are nervous. Quite frankly, I wouldn't be at all surprised if OZ already has nukes and just isn't telling anyone.
nuclear sub are considered controlled equipment. and if US is "nervous" atm and can make these kind of stupid decision, how should a "nervous" indonesia that has a history with Australia supporting seperatism in their nation feel about them getting nuclear sub. I won't be suprise if Indonesia suddenly form an alliance with China for nuclear sub. this is the dumbest move australia could make because it ignores how the rest of Asia will see the deal. this deal accelerated US decline in Asia and push country toward China.
I think that is true not just for France but for Germany as well, and the war has made that abundantly clear. But let's see, maybe they can put their butthurt egoes aside and realise they need to cooperate within Europe like equals. I do not think that is possible under Scholz and Macron, unfortunately, so we will see other countries in Europe and around the world rising. Poland is the one to watch in Europe, if they stop some of the idiotic behaviour of their government.
@@lagrangewei East Timor was never part of any nation ruled from Jakarta.
Looking at this analysis from the end of the first 3 months of the Russia-Ukraine war, the AUKUS pact exclues France for really quite obvious reasons (and I would have said that then too).
Macron's vision of a Franco-German EU includes an EU military and the EU (it seems to me) is itself seeking to create EU defence champions out of one of two core Businesses (Airbus being one) as part of this process. Macron seems to endlessly state NATO is an anachronism that needs to be replaced. The Franco-German-Italian response to arming Ukraine has also been rather lacklustre in terms of action instead of words. Germany in particularité seems to have to be draggéd by a mixture of internal and external political pressure to do anything.
Thus when we focus on the réal political and cultural rival for the 21st century (China) from a US point of view, especially with the UK and Australia's long term mutual support, why would it seek to include France in particular ? Indeed, I could certainly see Japan and Korea also seeking SSN capability. UK/Japan defence co-operation is already growing and all four will continue to pourchasse US equipment to a greater or lessor extent and seek close military co-operation in jointly led forces.
Yes, Europe is also very interested, but with pacifist, self interested Germany and France and the EU looking to ever closer union and an EU military other European countries and corporations do have a choice to make. The immediate question is can NATO survive the creation of an EU military or can the EU itself become a military union ? (Post Ukraine, it really seems hard to believe Poland and the East will accept an EU military over NATO). That leaves Spain, Italy, Holland, Denmark, Poland, Sweden and Greece in particular with a potential tough décision. EU or NATO ?
From a global perspective, expanding NATO to a global organisation by the inclusion of Australia, Japan and South Korea (I would include NZ, but that is another country that préfers pacifism right now). However, this seems impossible and implausible today. Does anyone really believe Macron's France, Germany or the EU commission would ever agréé to that sort of solution ? In this case, the olny solution for the US/UK is something more direct like AUKUS.
I rather think (but i'm British) that both the Danes and Dutch would préfèr to be involved more directly, France would be 100 % against (everything has to be on France terms or not at all), whilst Germany and Italy would rather avoid the issue entirely. I dont have idea where the less global involved major European nations would stand (in particular Sweden, Poland, Spain), although the Eastern European states would stand with NATO (ie US) décision.
I'm very interested to hear what Europeans think.
I think the major point here is what someone commented above, that France (and Germany) doesn't realise that they are not the leader anymore. Before the war this was already arguable, and with the war this is undeniable. Both France and Germany kept finding loopholes to sanctions to moscow and selling military-grade equipment, that has been now used in Ukraine. Equipment sold as late as 2019.
This and the disastrous European (mainly German) addiction on cheap energy, is bound to change the whole makeup of the EU, which means, Macron's ideas of being the head of an EU military superpower, outside of NATO absolutely impossible. As you said, why would any country in Eastern (and Central East.) Europe put their chips on counting on French and German support, in case of disaster, when those are the two countries that are being the worst at reacting at the current crisis? Would France try to give away some Lithuanian land to apease Russia? To me that seems a no brainer for anyone bordering Russia.
As for the Baltics, I think they have shown this already with Sweden and Finland immediately running to join NATO. Again, no way that France would go to war for Finland without an article 5, and would again try to apease Russia. Why on hell would you think a France alliance is a good idea by looking at current events? As for Southwestern Europe, mainly Portugal, Spain and Italy to some extent, I think they are more inclined to distance themselves from all this mess due to their privileged location in Europe. Portugal and Spain stayed out of WW2 and no one cared. Now, simply due to old status quo, it's very possible that Spain and Italy follow France and Germany, and with them smaller Western countries like Portugal, Belgium, and maybe even the Netherlands. I would not be surprised if the EU brodens the rift that already exists between South+West+Central and Central+East, leading to Baltics and Balcans joining Central East.
Former Yugoslavia, I think that's the hardest puzzle in Europe, as everything else can be kind of extrapolated from the current reaction. And I think we often forget Turkey in Europe, but they are definitely one of the most important players in NATO, and they are clearly wild in their relationships.
Hopefully, European leaders can stop being fuckwitts and realise that the EU doesn't stand a chance unless it is fully united.
Baltic security is settled now. Sweden and Finnland joining NATO makes the Baltic a NATO lake and the Russian Baltic fleet a lame duck
France is a great power in the Pacific? Really? Huh.
Only in France, but even there the gangs are taking over...
Sure they are. They blew the shit out of the Muroa Atoll 🤣
australia is very far from europe and is concerned with china not europe ?
@Cheds i am glad my parents emigrated here and not where ever you are cheds ???
FRAUKUS does sound good. That’s why France was left out.
FAUKUS doesn't sound like the way to go either.
Just for clarity. Australia commissioned its first nuclear reactor in 1958. They have always been a nuclear capable country. Whatever limits that capability has always been determined by the political will of the Australian people. Australia has long been one of the main suppliers of radioactive isotopes for the worlds nuclear medicine providers. The British conducted their nuclear weapons testing in Australia. If Australia had ever wanted nuclear weapons they would already have them. If you now think Australia having nuclear capability could be an issue, then you are about 60 years late to the party.
Why do you suppose that Japan is not a part of Aukus and renaming this Jaukus? If there is a tilt towards the Pacific Japan plays a serious roll in this area of the world.
A very Euro perspective - ahem.
If time and interest, please provide other regional perspectives to this discussion.
The Australia France sub deal started as ok deal but France kept raising the price until the price of 12 French subs become same as 80 superior Japanese subs or 12 nuclear ones. The initial price was 24 billion and kept rising, the deal ended when French started asking for 160 billion
Australia is not asking France to build them sub, they are asking France to TEACH them how to build sub, that is the reason why Japan didn't want the deal. the fact that Australia don't have the manufacturing base and need to spend money to build it up is not France fault, if Australia accept building the sub in Japan or France, they would have their submarine for cheap. but that isn't what Australia is buying, Australia is not buying submarine, they are buying an industry.
Also on the pivot to Asia subject , isn’t it pathetic that Europeans are concerned that their gonna have to take more of their own responsibility in looking after their own defence & funding. They have the whole EU to do that with ???? even though little Australia is sending a decent amount of support to Ukraine. I can’t understand how any European nations would even bother about France & the UK & choosing sides . Just fob it off as France starting shit like they alway do , they’ll be back .
@Aditya Chavarkar it’s pathetic in many ways, encouraging Ukraine to become westernised & push for eu membership, proxy nato “ize” , & push that right along Russia’s boarder . We how big of everyone to give funds & arms to Ukraine to bleed itself dry fighting Russia, it’s only the civilians & other locals Ukraine & Russians dying. It was the west in 2014 that helped create a coup to topple the Russians puppets running Ukraine & replacing them with western puppets. And this is where we are now , people are dying there , France is crying over a shit deal for Australian submarines that won’t be ready till at least 2040 , when the war with China could kick off tomorrow! and to destabilise relationships cause they weren’t invited to the party, that’s just crybaby & typical French IMO! Australia , USA & Britain spilled huge numbers of men fighting to free France from total defeat at the hands of its neighbor Germany twice in two world wars & this is how they act because of submarine deal , that no contracts had been broken , just the next phase wasn’t given to the French! Yep pathetic in my unimportant opinion!
Indeed, it is pathetic, yes. But as for now it is what it is. Ten years from now, who knows?
It's so pathetic. There's probably half a billion people in Europe less Russia. And they still can't even defend themselves? Just absurd. They're little children throwing a tantrum.
As an Australian I can tell you that the French project was seen as a rolling disaster here. This was made clear in successive government reports and media reports. I suspect France was particularly upset because they were of the belief they had Australia by the balls, consequently this was a major intelligence and diplomatic failure on their part. France was never serious about meeting it’s commercial, industrial or contractual undertakings. Especially with respect to building the submarines in Australian yards. They deserved what they got for their duplicity quite frankly.
You summed up the entirety of French foreign policy. They will only ever solely do what is in their interest. Of course every country does this, but successful countries seek a resolution that benefits themselves and their partners. The best agreements benefit everyone involved. France has never, will never, look beyond itself.
@@ShaggyPWN Europe in a nutshell! Germany and other being exactly the same.
I think it's simpler than that, France has always felt it was more important than it really is.
@@jaysdood Europe in a nutshell?
@@kuhaku9587 You have totally no clue about the EU and germany otherwise you would have known how often Germany has not taken the lead and decades other complained. And usually the german tax payer paid the EU bills for all those others that got far more and paid less. Who paid for the irish jobs back from late 80s and who gave the guarantees for the irish when they had burnt their capital in the 2010 crisis ?
They had benefitted and taken the high risks for lowest taxes and became the harbor for all the american giants and did not pay back.
I can remember when the german suppliers had build jobs in Ireland and we suddenly had to wait for supplies from ireland to avoid a stand still on the assembly line when leoni had moved to Ireland .
550 cars each shift at stake. Not funny and the only way were cargo planes for the whole wiring harness which you need from the first seconds the chassis has been welded. you can not push cars or trucks from the assembly line and refit them with the main wiring harness.
And that has happened for decades over and over again. French had lost the contract not without a reason and it was the choice of the australian.
Which military production project of the french army had worked out as planned ?
Which main battle tank had sold better , whose jets ?
Must have more than one reason and never forget the french economic espionage when there was a bidding between TGV and ICE back in the 90s and 20s.
Even the british will know buy the german combat vehicles and not the french one. And our company had a big joint vernture with one of the big french car makers and that did not work that well cause the promised quality was missing.
Thank you for this presentation.
You're welcome. Glad you found it useful. ☺️
Rigtig god gennemgang, tak :)
Include France in a defense pack? With their self centered attitude? And wait for them to get offended and leave?
France has a history of being a difficult and untrustworthy partner in international defence projects going back at least as far as the AFVG.
The USA, UK and Australia are also members of the 5 Is intelligence community which brings with it an implicit level of trust that carries over in to technology sharing
damn good thing that war happened
france never really lived up to the contractual arrangement anyway ?, why would australia not want more advanced subs anyway , these are not actually nuclear armed submarines anyway
Thank you
Let me get this right !
France is sooking because their not seen as a equal power or major player in the pacific? Is that right .
Hhhmmmm they only hold a few colonial little islands , so how do they think they have major skin in this game ? We ( Australia & the United States ) we live here & the UK have major historical ties here . Look even a few nations & states still have the Union Jack on their flags & laws based on their common law .
Look at Frances behaviour, that’s exactly the kind of reputation they have on the world stage & that makes em a difficult ally. It’s always been like that & now they are using this to upset the balance in the EU ! France is like that friend with mental illness, is ok but they can let ya down . At leased the USA can have good faith in its angalo cousins that they are staunch & to the end allies . Australia will need all of the help it can get in the fight against china’s expansion. So I guess you could say we need staunch allies, that don’t cut and run when the going gets tough. Japan & a few of the other Asian nations also live here & have no where to go , so we will need to count on each other . France should harden up & stop sooking, they look like a little toddler having a temper tantrum.
I think it's pretty clear that the AUKUS deal caused division between otherwise good allies, and that is exactly the opposite of what we need when facing China. It was bad diplomacy, and I think especially the US played it wrong. But well, since then Russia has done a great job of uniting the West, so I guess the long-term effects will be negligible.
@@anderspuck yep it will sort itself out.
@@anderspuck I think that will dépend on Macron's and the EU's commissions continuing attitude to Brexit. Boris' govt is only notionally Brexit (in practice its largely implemeting BRINO - Brexit in name only - right now and is very reluctant to face down the EU).
The current deal structure has too many faults and flaws from a UK perspective to stand unchanged (I think many in the Uk would agréé Boris was too eager to get any deal in the face of establishment Remain majority). Since the EU/Macron line is you signed up to it, live with your décisions, UK political requirements (Boris/Tory élection in 2024) will drive a larger rupture between the UK and EU if nothing changes.
@Aditya Chavarkar France in both world wars upped the anti and got smashed both times , they tried to reclaim their colonial interests in Vietnam & got smashed again . They ( rightly or wrongly ) didn’t back the US in George W Bushes WAR in the Middle East , & now their trying to destabilise allies & create divisions because of a terrible corrupt & shit submarine deal that was only going to benefit them & not the Australian taxpayers.
Seeing French and German inaction over Russia's invasion of another European country in 2014 may have raised questions in Canberra over exactly how reliable such a defense partnership might be half a world away.
Excellent analysis. The French submarine was already outdated before it was built. It couldn’t perform the tasks that would be required. It was outrageously expensive. It was going to be years too late. Not enough was to be built in Australia. France is a potential security risk.
France potential security risk?!? Nah, you partner-up with the biggest boy with the most toys. Don’t over-think it.
If you mean risk because of how far behind they are, then for sure. The whole of Europe needs to wake up and get some new toys.
AUKUS. If they had put the US in front as being the most important memberstate, it would have been: USAUK "U suck". My guess is they have thought of that too :)
I'm sure they have. They would also be cautious about West-Pacific nations like Australia, Japan etc. go into alliance with NATO. That would create a new alliance that would probably be named "Pacific Ocean Trans Atlantic Treaty Organisation", or POTATO.
France abandoned the Pacific in World War Two and fought for the Nazis against Australian troops in Libya. Looking at their lack lustre support for Ukraine, who could possibly trust them when the crap hits the fan. Australia played a major role helping the U.K. develop nuclear weapons. Lately the Ukrainian non nuclear with international security guarantee option, looks like a Russian Army ration pack.