AUKUS Matters
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июн 2024
- What: The AUKUS deal between the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia has destroyed the French Australian submarine deal, and it indicates a changing foreign policy future where the three Anglo-Saxon countries are becoming increasingly involved in the Indo Pacific while a country like France, and the European Union seem to be being left behind.
Chapters:
00:00 - Intro
01:10 - The Basics
02:20 - The Indo Pacific
03:30 - What Aukus Represents
04:23 - European Defense
05:16 - CARD
06:03 - European Main Battle Tank
06:36 - Conclusion
“2022 will be the year of European defense.” Well, I guess he was right.
Was literally here to make that comment
Lol if anything this shows eu can't even protect Europe with US
@@amrutheshumashankar4996 well you can't stop russia from attacking but you can make the ukraine win.
Was looking for a comment like this. Ironic that Europe still won't take their security seriously still and keeps forcing the role upon the US.
Just pointing out you called the EU a country in your bio
I found it. Going to change it now and pin this comment.
@@hoogyoutube In the description of this video
I made a mistake and called the EU a country. This is incorrect, and I’ve changed it. I’ve added a comma to indicate a separated clause and changed it to singular for more clarity. If it gives the wrong idea, please let me know if I should still revise it.
I mean, it does fit all required definitions.
@@muninnsays9296 not really, every nation has its own foreign policy and it's not federalized, more like a special club/organization with very specific rules you have to follow
FYI: when we say 90 billion dollar submarine deal, we're referring to Australian dollars, and the deal was not 90 billion the moment it was initially signed: the stock footage is kind of misleading because it gives the idea that the deal was 90 billion the moment it was signed, but it was actually around 50 billion initially, and it raised to 90 billion later.
"and that means, that the three countries that were already notorious for being excessively loud when it's not socially acceptable decided to announce their own private clubhouse"
This line made me spit out my water Ü
The guy sounds like he's from one of those countries.
Yeah and they should continue to be loud and obnoxious, because standing in line like a good boy, means you're subservient and a slave who cannot think for yourself.
Only the Free can be loud and Obnoxious, and sure Australia, the UK and the US are becoming more and more like Europe for each passing day, with their limitations on the citizens freedoms. It's only a matter of time until the entire world is like Communist China where the citizens have no rights at all. We're heading for the bad ending guys, mark my words. When I'm old and dead, and you young'uns are left, mark my words, you'll wish you were dead.
@@livedandletdie xD
The French : “Damn Anglos!” 😅👍🇬🇧🇺🇸🇦🇺
You did not mention that The Barracuda class submarines that France sold to Australia are originally nuclear subs, that were retrofitted by demand of the Australians themselves. I think that's an important point.
The design of the reactor in the French subs means they can't get through the loophole in the NPT AUKUS is going to use.
Australia had a different relationship with China when they ordered those French Subs, the situation has changed
@@ausaskar How so? The french reactors don't use weapon-grade uranium. The US/UK ones do...
That is a disingenuous point. France wasn’t willing to deliver Nuclear subs. Presenting one option and then saying, “well that is the one you picked!” Isn’t exactly what most people have in mind when you say that Australia “demanded” it that way.
@@michaelm.3641 You are the one being disingenuous. The tender itself was for conventional subs, Australia specifically asked for non-nuclear propulsion. France offered the barracuda design, retrofitted for the Australian tender.
I think your video was good but I left feeling like the subject of the video changed half way through.
It started with AUKUS, then went to France, then to the EU military. But at no point explained why AUKUS matters and just skimmed on France and the EU army.
I feel like this would of been better as 2 videos:
"Why AUKUS matters" describing AUKUS and how it works, why it's been formed and what we can expect from it. As well as the response from the world showing a small bit about the EU military (linking the videos).
EU military video showing the issues they are facing (like AUKUS) and why they may need a unified military. A quick dive in to their current army's.
With a final point of France push in to the army.
Good video. I must say that as an Australian I wasn't expecting it to focus primarily on Europe and the consequences of AUKUS for it, but interesting nonetheless.
Completely fair, and I can totally imagine that the thumbnail also just gives the wrong idea
@@hoogyoutube I agree. I like your content though, keep it up!
This channel is mostly about Europe and the EU so that’s what I guessed
We aren't special. We're just an agreeable ally country located closer to China I feel.
US, UK, Australia: we do a little bit of trolling
You deserve more subscribers, the video quality is so good
Thanks! I really appreciate it.
Small thing… anyone else love that AUKUS flag you made as a combination of the 3 flags?
Cool design!
That merged flag is actually pretty cool
A new great channel I just discovered,! I am already binge-watching the videos posted and can't wait for more! keep the good work
we'll never see a centralised EU army, but more defense cooperation is realistic and important
There already is something alike.
i disagree, most politicians want a centralised european army, it'll take a while before we're there but i believe its an inevitability
@@fuckoff4705 Why? And what happens with national armies? Integration? You think nation states would give up their defences so easy?
@@HladniSjeverniVjetar You mean what happened to the US? The US used to have state-based militias. These were costly and depending on the state, would be better or worse equipped and better or worse trained. Over time, defense slowly became the duty of the federal government.
So anytime soon? No. Do I think that if the EU keeps integrating that'll happen? Yes. It's happened several times over human history, with the US being one of the more recent and obvious examples.
I think the issue is two-fold:
A. You're seeing EU members as competitors and fearful of each other, with the idea of them losing national armies as posing a risk to their existence;
B. You're ignoring the economic and security benefits of having centralized forces as opposed to 27 separate militaries.
Why would they have an issue with "giving up their defences so easy"? If the EU reaches a point of integration of having a strong central government, then there's nothing to fear from their fellow states, meaning only external, non-EU forces could pose security threats, security threats no single EU nation could deal with on their own, making individual militaries a moot point.
Really, the point is just reaching that state of integration, which will doubtlessly take at least another two decades.
Never say never but I think at some point Europeans in the EU are going to have to centralize more and speak more with a single voice if they are to protect their interest because the world is changing with the US continuing to get more powerful, a rising China and India and other groups of countries forming.
Basically, I think when push comes to shove, Europeans will integrate a lot more in areas that is hard to think of doing now and it won't be because they want too but because they have too if they want to protect their interest, the alternative is to be weak and divided with the likes of the US, China and India playing games with them which would impact the economy, political interest and even social system standards as the US have shown many times it wants to weaken standards like food standards, workers rights among other things which ironically, the UK could be the perfect test case to see that happen now they are not protected by the EU.
The Anglosphere coming along nicely.
If only the Great White North would throw their might in with this arrangement...
@@normanclatcher As a left-wing Canadian, no thank you lol. Us and the Kiwis are doing just fine.
@@ginch8300 You'll show up when needed, you always do.
💪🇬🇧🇦🇺🇳🇿🇺🇸🇨🇦
Don't like where it seems to be going, personally. Happy not to belong.
As an America, I want would love to see a more independent and militarily capable Europe, but the current situation with Ukraine has not given me a good deal of hope that that is something we will see in the future. I know that Germany gets jelly legs when confrontation is on the table, but NORD-2 was, is and will be a terrible idea for Europe so long as Putin plays his games.
As an American I agree.
Great take with how things have developed.
Love the choice of "Blue Danube Waltz", such a banger for video essays.
Hol up, you telling me you're less than 1K with videos of THIS quality? Holy shit, this gonna be a ride cuz you'll reach 100k in no time! Keep on the good work!
such good content and such a short amount of time, great work.
5:16
No matter what this is about
That entire video gives off extremely "near-future dystopia" feelings
Great videos. Glad to have stumbled across this channel.
Thank you :)
Damn dude, these videos are really high quality stuff. Waiting for your channel to take off
1.) The Attack Class contract was contracted in such a way that Australia is not obliged to proceed to the next stage following each. Diplomatically it could have been handled a lot better but contractually, not sure if France has a leg to stand on.
2.) South East Asia is gonna be a region everyone wants a foot in. Did u notice that Germany didn't wait for the EU and send a warship to visit Australia and the Netherlands sent a frigate to UK's carrier strike group. It would be great if EU can have a coherent strategy and throw its weight as a while but more often than not, member states dont wait.
3.) Greece is buying the French warships at more than half a billion euro apiece. OK
4.) a more consolidated European weapon development is doable. the biggest issue would be agreeing on a set of common specifications used by various counties.
5.) is a European army gonna interfere in North Africa on behalf of French interest?
The problem with the EU on external affairs is that it has a vision of where it will be at in the future and it acts like it is already there finds itself overreaching
3. Yes, Greece has a history of buying a crapton of Military hardware besides being broke
4. There are basically two 6th generation fighters in concept stage where multiple countries are cooperating. (UK+Italy and Germany+France respectively, besides others)
5. European army will be a self defence force which will have its hands tied as it'll need the OK from all members, which it will never get (apart from a member country being outright attacked by a foreign power)
5) I’ll never get how all saharien state falling into ISIS hands only affects France
Here i was looking for channels that had this kind of content... just stumble on it and couldnt believe your sub count isnt well past 100k already with the video essay style and quality.
Great videos, great quality. The only criticism I could have is that this video about card you played was extremely loud competed to rest of the video and this byte was a bit too long in my opinion. Are you in any way supported financially by any European agency or is it your hobby?
Noted. The videos are a constant work in progress, so they will hopefully get better each iteration. I am (we are) not supported by any European agency, and it is kind of a serious hobby I started with a group of friends where I'm the person responsible for the videos while the others work on www.romuluseurope.eu. We're going to try our hardest to make something from it, but we also treat it as a kind of risk free investment that's also just quite enjoyable to do
Keep up the good work and inform people
Your channel is awesome bro it's going to blow up for sure
I wouldn’t mind if USA, UK, NZ, Australia, Canada,
(and maybe Ireland)
Had freedom of movement.
If that happened I would definitely consider moving to aus or Florida for a year just to see what those places are like
Floridas a fun place to go but not a fun place to stay
The first time in my life youtube algoritms recomend me some good quality quete new chanel!
Good work, guys! I will be happy to see, as this chanel grows, couse quality of content is just amaizing.
How are these vids such high quality, keep it up
"Caution: Opinion" is really funny to me
The irony is that the original Barracuda submarines are nuclear, it was the Australian government that insisted to France and Naval group on redesigning the subs to be diesel electric. This cancellation of the deal with France because the subs are not nuclear is the Australians own fault.
Yo your channel is amazing
great vid!
I really like your visualizations
Love these videos! but i have to say, the quotes fading in backwards do make them harder to process
I hate to be that guy but, generally speaking, Europeans learn British English in school and to represent that "defense" should be spelled "defence", with a "c". Other than that I loved this video, it's very well made and explains the topic very well.
I'd say it'd be weirder to have the incongruity with British spelling and someone doing an American accent.
@@tefkah It's already weird to hear someone with an American accent have such an interest in Europe and how things work here. Once you figure out the speaker is Dutch, just with very good spoken English, that weirdness goes away. Regardless it is a very small detail that I feel very petty for complaining about haha
A 1 letter difference made you right almost 50 words...
Is it that hard for your brain to read defense?
@@brandonporter6223 Yes, and you wrote "right" instead of "write".
@@kjartannn ;)
3:59 *foreshadowing*
Good video. I wish there is another RUclipsr that can give more insight but from ASEAN perspective, because we are literally in the middle of the hot spot, lol
They left out Canada and missed out on the opportunity to call it CAUKUS
The fact this is in the description is telling "it is much more difficult to stay close to the truth when it comes to important narratives"
This definitely needs an update.
Great
I swear, Europe lives in it's own little "la la" land.
The only reason why being peaceful might be a bad idea is if other regions are not peaceful.
If we can set a precedent of being peaceful that’s immensely valuable and I’d be proud of that.
@@spaceowl5957
Let’s look at this through a game theory lens.
You have hawks and you have doves, and they both want the same birdseed.
Two doves go to the birdseed, they share it.
A hawk and a dove go to the birdseed, the hawk kills the dove and takes all the birdseed - or it might not necessarily kill the dove, but it nonetheless controls the engagement one-sidedly
Two hawks go to the birdseed, they fight, it’s a 50/50 chance who wins and gets the birdseed
It might seem that the ideal situation is that we all just be doves and share the birdseed, but realistically, it’s better to be a hawk with the option for violence, than a dove that lacks this option or has a pathetic ability to engage in violence as an option.
I know Europeans freak out at the sight of an American referencing the Bible, but the quote “the meek shall inherit the Earth” is *not* an accurate translation. The better translation is “people who carry swords and have the restraint and wisdom when to use them, will inherit the Earth”. I cite the Bible here, because this is simply a truth as old as mankind: the strong do as they wish, the weak suffer as they must. You either take the initiative, or you hide in your fortress and get surrounded.
@@cashflagg9728 Cool story, but it's funny that you think Europeans are meek.
@@adrien5834 Because they are meek. It exists as it is because from their perspective, one foreign power didn't want the other foreign power to influence them so they decided to camp there for 50 years after ww2.
@@fluoroantimonictippedcruis1537 What?
I feel like you should've specified more when you said China had largest Navy by if it was by Tonnage or quality or quantity or whatever. Because that kinda matters
This seems to have aged fairly well
Great video. 6:08 with that pronounciation I feel like you're Dutch :)
Can anyone tell me what the video at 5:16 is?
Have you made a video on CANZUK?
Leaving a comment so everyone knows i was here before this channel blows up
Great videos, but can you make the text appear from the beginning and not from the end? I happen to read from the beginning to end, not the other way around.. .kcul doog dna sknahT
seY
I'm curious as to how this policy has changed (and will adapt) due to Putrin's invasion of Ukraine. There is NATO, but I can't imagine Europe is feeling as powerful right now with such a close and direct threat.
What values do the EU intend to promote ?
The EU has some general principles that are usually present on any somewhat important EU policy document. They're relatively broad, but you can read about them here:
ec.europa.eu/component-library/eu/about/eu-values/
In regards to the Indo Pacific, you can see a somewhat superficial description of the EU's Indo-Pacific Strategy, and you'll come across a couple of the core EU values in the document:
ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_21_4709
@@hoogyoutube Well the EU has done a horrible job of caring of the Asia-Pacific other than trying a failed China appeasement.
Just the winner of globalization. USA, China, UAE, Iran, they don't care. Just the most succesfully one out there.
Lol like the French promoting "European Values" in Algeria. EU Values is literally just the new White Man's Burden
"Rule of law"
"Human rights"
Utterly meaningless buzzword.
1:16 in terms of numbers not in terms of tonnage would you rather have 10 aircraft carriers or 100 dinghy boats
It depends if they get torpedoes and how big they are. Because even if we lose all but three of our shitty little torpedo gunboats with all hands lost and sink two of your carriers with even 70% losses we're winning both economically and casualty wise.
@@RhelrahneTheIdiot the United States has more destroyers than the PRC
@@RhelrahneTheIdiot and there is no way three s***** torpedo boats are getting anywhere near a carrier battle group
@@spartanx9293 For now it might have more but overall people really overestimate the usefulness of surface combatants in a environment with nukes and submarines.
It is known that multiple nuclear capable states have developed 'nuclear' torpedoes capable of generating fleet killing tidal waves half a kilometre tall, it was actually part of a close call during the cold war where a Soviet submarine commander Mr Vasily Arkhipov had to refuse to give his permission to unleash one against a US flotilla during the Cuban Missile Crisis. If the enemy so much as uses ONE of them your entire fleet is gone unless a act of divine intervention occurs.
Remember our little boats are so small and so fast typical weapon systems will have issues targeting us, all we have to do is get in range and send off a hail of unguided torpedoes (To prevent decoy use, dumb is sometimes good) then try to leave without being killed. Even if we don't manage to sink you and simply force you to pull back for repairs that's still a supercarrier out of commission for weeks or months, .
Again as I said if we lose all but 3 of our ships and you lose both of our targets even if you save the majority of your sailors the economic, casualty and propaganda victory is on us. All we lost is some easily replaceable torpedo boats probably bolted together with scrap metal we took from a scrapyard, you lost two capital ships that can take up to six years to be combat ready from first beam to commissioning and potentially over ten thousand dead.
@@RhelrahneTheIdiot do you have any idea how effective modern precision weapons are you getting anywhere near a carrier without being intercepted first most likely by the cap (combat Air patrol)
That’s a damn-good flag in the Thumbnail
There is no way any of that actually happens. There is simply too much of a divide between Eastern Europe and Western Europe. Poles may enjoy the economic benefits the EU provides, but it'd be a cold day in hell when they trust Germany to help defend them from Russian invasion. And they're right, because Germany almost certainly wouldn't.
Money is quite powerful and the eatern parts of the eu are a nice buffer i wouldnt dismiss pan-european help that easily
@@martinfalkenberg7896 Way to say a whole load of nothing lol. What on Earth are you creating an EU army for, if not to replace NATO? The whole point would be to counter Russia and China, and to defend the Eastern bloc, yet that's exactly what Germany and the EU don't have the balls to do.
There's a reason the EU is so divided between East and West. The East rightfully recognizes the threat posed by Russia and wants real security. The West doesn't care about the East. They never have, and they never will. Germans won't die for Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians, or Estonians.
@@jeffmorris5802 C'mon man as if countries like hungary would agree to do anything against China. The EU has too many culturaly and economicaly different players which leads to incapability to agree on security policy. Whil a EU army is a nice gimmick, it won't do shit. It certainly won't be a tool for EU foreign diplomacy outside its own borders.
@@martinfalkenberg7896 I would say they are in NATO for security and in EU for prosperity
@@martinfalkenberg7896
"Willing to trust" is a bit wishful. I think it's their best option, but given any choice, they'd just defend themselves.
An alliance with Russia is obviously out of the question for them, China is also unreliable, so what other option do they have? If they didnt pick America/Eur, they do be picked off by Russia.
So there is no scenario in which they would reject a European partnership, in a case where they are trying to defend against Russia.
It was simply the best available choice for them, but not the optimal one.
But what even is an EU army? Are we going to see a bunch of Greeks and Italians fighting? Danes and Swedes? Germans and French? "European army" is such a vague term.
Is NATO strange to you? Why would a joint European Command be any different?
@@adrien5834 Because NATO has the UK and US providing the bulk of the work. The only country I can think of in the EU that has an agile and far-fetching military system is France.
@@adrien5834 It ain’t gonna be like NATO country’s in Europe will lose their military’s & instead of protecting also serving their own country’s They be crushing them with an iron fist by the order of the EU . The European army will be the modern day red army . By losing their military’s they be vulnerable & The EU can do whatever the hell it wants like using the European army to take over Europe without a lot of pushback . ruclips.net/video/m41Tdl5mvdg/видео.html
Imagine how powerful CANZUKUS would be
big CUNKUZ
At that point they might as well call it the Anglosphere
@@werren894 Canada United Nations Kazakhstan Uzbekistan??
@@markusz4447 yep
CANZAUKUS
Why don't you have over 1 million subs yet
Well 2022 was the year of European defence
Your graphics are very trippy. Something up with the rendering.
1:14 in terms of raw numbers? yes, but you can't compare a frigate to a super carrier, america is still the #1 naval power
Yup
But none of it matters if wall street and our politicians keep selling us out to china.
I’d be shocked if the US merged/annexed Australia, but 0:51 is a damn fine flag up top
For the Algorithm!
aukus is extremely important. it means the eu will finally dramatically increase defense spending, which means the us will have less of a chance of leaving nato, which means Russia will have to russ down Ukraine faster before the 2022 eu comes around and they get a stronger military
Why would it increase EU spending?
@@maxdavis7722 the eu and nato are already treated as less important in the eyes of the us and uk, in 2022 france already has plans to increase military spending, and excluding any eu member state from aukus made the eu look weak, especially since france already had plans to make an aukus style alliance with australia but those plans were cancelled the day aukus was announced
@@ZippyzzzReal I dunno how true it is to say that the US and the UK are moving away from nato. It seemed to me they just wanted other nato members to catch up to the agreed standard.
@@maxdavis7722 they’re not moving away from nato but they are not taking the eu member states as serious as they take each other, or as serious as they take south korea or australia
@@ZippyzzzReal why would we? The vast majority of EU states don’t do their part and the EU as a whole seems to work on the idea of being insular. What has the EU done to be taken seriously?
When will Canzuk unite, that is all I want before I die. I just want a union between my own home of New Zealand and our anglosphere friends.
Uhh, you mean like the British Empire used to be? Probably never because the colonies decided to split and govern themselves. You're still technically united under Queen Lizzie.
@@kavky We're more far more alike than we are different, each of those four countries are tolerant, diverse and prosperous democracies who's majorities share the same language, similar cultures and very similar histories from the days our countries were founded.
A Union between Britain and her three settler colonies (Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and perhaps a lot of pacific islands is far more probable in my eyes on those grounds than anyone else.
Now it’s the time
For a glance at what possible first practical steps towards a European army could look like, look no further than the I. German/Dutch Corps, which exists since 1995.
Why wasn't the EU included in AUKUS? Is it a matter of the EU not having enough funds to do both? Or a difference in goals?
3 cultural similar English speaking countries will get more done than 12+ culturally and linguistically different countries. Also all three governments are willing to endure China’s wrath unlike some European countries. So I hope my explanation was clear as too why the whole of the EU wasn’t included
The priorities of the US are shifting, basically. In what we might call the "Second Cold War", they no longer see Europe and Russia as the next major battlefield and are instead looking at China and the surrounding region. Australia is essentially the new Britain in this era; an Anglo-Sphere country with a more than compliant right-wing that can be built into a permanent and powerful ruling government, from which the United States can begin setting up its primary base of operations in the region.
Europe is simply no longer as relevant on the world stage; for all the talk of being a world power, the EU is a second-rate one. That's not to deride it - in many ways, not being the biggest player is better - but nobody in Europe is up in the highest league with the US, China and Russia.
In the same vein, there was little reason to include Britain in the pact. That being said, when you start to consider how involved the UK has been in the development of military technologies for both the US and Australia (F-35 and Global Combat Ship, respectively), it does begin to make sense.
The EU wasn't included because there is no EU military, There's nothing to negotiate with the EU in terms of military deals.
The EU parliament is slowly developing more and more control over the countries that make up the EU, but internationally the EU is still nothing more then a trade bloc they are irreverent in term's of a military alliance.
Additionally even if the EU was relevant militarily they still wouldn't be included because the French develop and sell their own nuclear propulsion systems, The Yank's nuclear tech will never be sold to competitors.
The E.U Is a clusterfuck in and of itself, it would be a massive headache in AUKUS
@@86pp73 Apart from the fact it's quite likely to be British or British derived submarines Australia will get.
I never got the thing with EU army why would a East european country who is already in NATO. Want to commit to a EU army when, A: it confuses the command structure with NATO. B: why give commitments to the EU army when often they are already a small army and made commitments to NATO. C: What happens when EU army and NATO goals are not aligned? Who do you follow? (I say this because Macron went to China and said Taiwan is not important, who is going to a major shareholder of a EU army. While NATO believe both Ukraine and Taiwan are important).
I kinda doubt europe will actually get serious about military cause for the last like 3 decades theve basically relied on the united states for everything
PRC does not have the largest navy
Pool floaties aren’t exactly a water craft of interest
exactly. PRC *technically* has the largest navy. But that is pure quantity over quality. Most of them are repurposed destroyers. If you want a better grasp of Chinese naval power vs. US, compare the amount of aircraft carriers they have: last I checked, China has 3, US has 15. Yes China has the extensive coastal missile "defense" system (I put that in quotation marks cause it's obvious the system is built to facilitate future offensive campaigns in Taiwan, Korea, South China Sea etc.), but they have no real way of projecting power outside of their immediate backyard.
@@orangedalmatian Does China even have a coast guard or is it all rolled into one
Would definitely explain why there’s so many menial ships and gunboats
@@ComfortsSpecter I couldn't say. it is interesting though.
@@orangedalmatian They're working on it. Fast. Be interesting to see what size the PLAN will be in 10 years...
@@adrien5834 tbh I doubt peace will last that long, but what do I know.
Based anglosphere
Admittedly still do not see why the UK is involved beyond being in dire need of close allies after Brexit. Sure, just like France they have some island chains there but overall one would consider getting involved in the Pacific a strategic overreach for modern Britain.
Sure, nice for Australia and the US also likes it, just not quite clear how this is of any net value for Britain beyond the possibility of some uncommitted side effects elsewhere.
The chances for a trade deal with the US might increase, but there is also not reason for the US to really do anything based off that,
Man, what happened to CANZUK?
The deal has been dead for 6 months.....anyone reading public statements from the Australian government can see. French are either deceptive or have the worst ambassador and foreign affairs department in the world.
You're not wrong, but I don't think it was as clear that the United States was going to provide an attractive enough counter offer. I actually think that's where the biggest retaliation from the French comes from.
@@massivecent3729 France didn't screw Australia around.France initially offered nuclear power engine submarines, Australia insisted that they be remade to be non nuclear. While France was having to redo redesign these submarines (tech sharing was also part of the deal)
Then Australia went to get nuclear submarines from the US
@@jdlc903 you do realize american nuclear submarines are like the most prized naval tech in the world right? The only country the us ever shared nuclear submarine tech with was Britain in the 1970s
@@BeaverChainsaw they are not more prized than French nuclear submarines
As a US mil member, I hope Europe becomes more integrated and independent of the US and able to promote our mutually shared values. Whatever our differences, I think NATO shows that we can and do work well together snd that we all make strong friends 🇺🇸🇪🇺🇫🇷
I realize I'm very late to the party here, but I wanted to do some maths on the pure spending level of the EU for defense that would be reasonably needed to be a meaningful military force globally.
Obviously there's no doubt that the EU and Europe as a whole has massively benefitted from US defense in NATO, with the vast majority of NATO countries (many of whom are in EU and are the largest countries in the EU both in population and in economic terms) not spending their 'required' amount while the US spends, of course, the most of any nation on defense.
The EU as a whole lacks loads of infrastructure needed to build and maintain a modern military including shipyards, weapons and ammo manufacturing capabilities, military bases, and the whole host of generic supplies needed from clothing to food to research capabilities. Often this is dubbed a 'military-industrial complex' and requires intense organization, resources, and funding. Practically every single nation with a meaningful military (the big three being Russia, China, and the USA) having one. Europe as of now doesn't and the initial funding needed to build that infrastructure and the corresponding relationships would be large, but I'll discount that in this analysis.
Currently, the tax revenue of all EU member states is $7.3 trillion. For perspective, the US federal government tax revenue is almost 4 trillion dollars. This is a bit deceptive, however, as many EU nation states themselves act more similarly to US states rather than nations in terms of their size and spending. Including federal, state, and local taxes, total US tax revenue is $5.4 trillion.
It's unsurprising that the EU overall brings in more in revenue than the US, but it's not like the EU is seeing massive surpluses every year. Each of these countries spends that money on massive institutions like single-payer healthcare. Should the US federal government introduce single-payer healthcare, revenue would become more equitable.
In order for the EU to build a military, taxes either need to go up or revenue needs to go down. How much money would be needed to build a military, say, half as capable as the US military? Again, excluding the rather large innovation gap between the US and the EU in military terms, let's simply look at how much money the EU would need to raise and coordinate towards defense. This year the US Congress approved $788 billion in military spending, approximately 10% of spending. Obviously this is only a part of the reason for US debt, but looking at overall revenue, the US has quite a bit of wiggle room to increase taxes in the long term.
If the EU wanted to spend half as much as the US, this would amount to an estimated $400 billion every year. How much does the EU spend already? Around $200 billion. So it would be quite feasible for the EU to spend half as much with relatively mild tax increases or cuts in spending. Again, I haven't factored the relatively immense initial costs of building a military-industrial complex, which would truly total in trillions of dollars and would take decades to complete.
There are numerous other issues with an EU defense budget, however. Failures to meaningfully collaborate militarily, the lack of a unified military-industrial complex, and inter-state industrial competition are only a few of the numerous hurdles. The EU has unique problems that no traditional country has in building a meaningful military force. The fact of the matter is that there is no individual EU nation state that has the capability to truly build a world-class military without entirely changing its budgetary identity. The only meaningful path for the EU is more shared spending, significantly increased collaboration, and a unified military branch of the EU, ideally one that any other, if any, EU militaries are subordinate to. The political capital needed to create such a system, I'm worried, is still a ways off.
Ngl that a pretty good looking flag
Stop referring to the EU as Europe. It only accounts for half of all European states.
Has anybody asked why isn’t Canada on this? I feel like they must feel betrayed by their besties :(
Maybe a bit too close to France eh lol
Good ting France drooped out of AUKUS our it would have been FAUKUS.
Do you think the EU, China and Russia could possibly move closer together as the former British Commonwealth tightens together (India, USA, UK, Australia, etc) while excluding the EU more?
The EU, China and Russia are fundamentally very ideologically opposed, it wouldn’t really make any sense to support the move.
I think the Anglosphere has much more in common regarding values and economics with the EU than China or Russia, coming from a Brit.
india is not part of the anglo sphere tho they buy as much russia military equipement as western one (especially french)
@@CptFoupoudav People here do like Russia very much because of the historic support by Russia but India is very much anti China so that can be a reason for more cooperation
India…? India doesn’t like the Anglo sphere
USA isn't part of The commonwealth.
While being former territories plays part in Five Eyes alliance, it's completely led by US and could include Japan later on.
Commonwealth as a org is bound to become either defunct or led by India since it's the biggest economy within that group.
Alao that Nuclear sub deal was so dumb. We need subs yesterday not in 10, 20 years. We need to buy prebuilt subs not build our own.
Australia is not making a deal with US for purchase of submarines.
US agrees not to to torpedo any arrangements that involve nuclear tech/patents/transfers.
As Australia would probably prefer Astute class submarines due to smaller crew size, it will likely mostly UK firms that will benefit of building these subs at some point in the future.
Correct because American Submarines have larger crews, many more of them and carry nukes. - which the Ausies say they will not do.
@@stephenchapel2058 holdon.. there is a difference between nuke carrying subs and being a nuclear submarine. Australia is not buying the former. and not all US submarines have nukes onboard, only the Ohio class. Also the Vanguard class UK subs carry nukes for that matter.
Yes that’s what I was saying, they only need our reactor tech, not the weaponry.. By the way just this week the Australian gov,t announced that they were no longer going to maintain their European mfg helicopters which did everything but fly but were going to switch to Blackhawks.
@@stephenchapel2058 I see. Good for the US industry altough the numbers will barely make a dent. I do believe they'll buy astutes as the production run is scheduled to end within a decade or so and the US can barely produce enough Virginias for its own need. However could you imagine they'd put a us reactor in an astute or just buy of the shelf? I read the collins class will get a refit to extend its service life lol
@@markusz4447 My understanding is submarine reactors are optimised for the hull they are fitted in so if they go for Astutes they would probably have British Rolls Royce reactors, turbines etc.
So, they are not friends 🤔?
Yes please defend yourselves we would love to shift our focus more to the indopacific to contain China and you guys can handle Russia
Why is NZ not included in AUKUS?
Because of their labor prime minister who has socialist sympathies. How can she allow NZ to join an alliance formed to deter Chinese aggression?
NZ has a long-standing nuclear-free policy on their soil and thus the nuclear subs wouldn't be able to enter their water
doesnt mean there wont be other points of cooperations in future
Maybe economicaly too dependent on china + NZ doesn't need substantial military hardware, they are too far away from anything and protected by Australia and probably UK anyways.
@@markusz4447 Truth is that the politics in New Zealand caused a little but impactful lasting scar which still hasn’t disappeared, it is the reason why New Zealand won’t get in bed with Australia or American anytime. Though relations are getting warmer, there’s still a scar
@@williamsherman1942 and what did they do to cause that?
glad Scott morrison isn't the prime minister anymore
Why couldn't we get France the flankens Islands Fiji then it can be FUKUS
For the Australian gov, to change its mind and decide that it's better to have more powerful submarines is OK. But it's not a surprise to see a budget go from ~$50 to ~$90 billion when the specifications are changed, in addition to inflation. In an ideal world, more powerful or even nuclear-powered submarines would have been required from the start. But in an ideal world, Australia would have the means to build its own submarines (at least conventional) and surface ships...
The US always wants it both ways, Europeans need to be wary of the interests of the country. At the same time that they form their private club that excludes the EU and promotes its own defence industry, the country has always been adamantly opposed to the construction of a defence organisation under the EU umbrella that would exclude NATO and, therefore, the USA. Macron, amongst many others, is not wrong in calling for the need for the EU to reduce its inter(dependence) on foreign countries, the US and the UK.
I honestly think Australia will go with the Astute class, the UK sub. It is smaller, but requires less manning than US submarines do.
Would they even be sacrificing anything to get the smaller one? Though one thing that does need to be remembered is that the UK and Australia have very strong historical ties and are quite friendly, the Astute class require less manpower and less maintenance due to their smaller size.
I hate Australia as is my birthright as a New Zealander but my country really needs to get it together and realize Nuclear is nowhere near as dangerous as people claim.
@@RhelrahneTheIdiot They would likely be losing some weapons capabilities and other classified equipment, but the astute class is nothing to sneeze at.
Maintenence is less about the size of the sub and more about its design and equipment requirements. Of which i am unfamiliar with on the Astute since I was a USN submariner, not an RN one.
@@nathancochran4694 Its only natural for them to strip classified equipment to be fair, my point though is the UK and Aus have a closer relationship which might influence their decision simply out of who they like more
@@RhelrahneTheIdiot I doubt that AUS is going to choose based on who they 'like' more, as thats rather trivial compared to the operational needs of their navy and the budget of their government.
I also would say they could probably lease a few Los Angeles class subs from the US, to begin operating these types of subs as well as to begin training the officers and sailors on reactor operations.
The first aukus nuclear submarine will exist only in cgi when China would have already invaded Taïwan.
woah you said macron the way the french say macron, you're like a really cultured and intellectual guy
You are loved
4:04 no thanks, you can keep the values for yourself
cool David
Euros coming out of the US? 1:06
Bro, the EU is primarily led by Germany and then France. Poland is making their way up there by growing their military to the largest in the EU.
France and Germany are equal partners in the EU due to France’s military might (nukes, aircraft carriers, and large ground army) and Germany’s economic might (massive trade surplus, balanced budgets prior to COVID, and large industrial capacity). Poland’s relevance is exaggerated due to their reliance on EU money (Poland receives over 10,000 Euros per citizen from the EU, four times more than Hungary receives per person).
Compared to France, Germany doesn't give a fuck about defense
@@tictac2therevenge291 cause we have a bunch of military bases in Germany. Our tax payer money is being wasted protecting the EU and they don’t even follow the status quo any more. We are better off having a defense pact with all the anglophone countries instead.
@@tictac2therevenge291 this aged well I see
@@drpepper3838 was I wrong 3 months ago?
I'd just like to point out how you called AUS, USA, and the UK Anglo-Saxon countries. They're not, we're not. Saxons today are a tiny minority that are completely unknown, its much better to just say Anglo's.
English speaking countries are called Anglo-Saxon
@@augth No they're not. its Anglo.
Wher's the "Z" guy?
That's quite a ridiculous claim saying china has the largest naval force. Probably by headcount, definitely not by aircraft carriers or destroyers.