Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

All things Rugby
Post Reply
User avatar
TheFrog
Posts: 14826
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by TheFrog »

Trying to think beyond the emotions, dicks waving attitudes on here.

I think what happens highlights a new accelerating trend of the post 1989 era. The NATO alliance is dying and the secret agreement between Australia, the UK and the US highlights (just like Trump's unilateral decision to withdraw from Afghansistan without converting with its allies - which drew many complaints including from the UK) that new alliances may be more opportunistic in nature. A new balance is being drawn.

For France, of course, it is a slap in the face and once they finish sulking, they need to adapt. France is not relevant once the big boys talk (i.e. the US, China and Russia). France only has a role to play when (1) the big boys are not interested in the issue or (2) when acting in tow of one of the big boys. Another thing this highlights is the failure of French intelligence to read this move and see it coming.

Europe, beyond France, are also learning that the game is changing. Russia's invasion of Crimea proved that NATO was rather toothless. Again, US unilateral decisions such as Afghanistan, or the way Trump tolerated Erdogan's behavior in the Mediterranean, highlight that Europe is not relevant when the big boys have higher priorities.

How does Europe react to that? I am not sure. I do not believe that Europe will manage to develop an integrated defense. There are two many diverging geopolitical views. Between Eastern states who want to remain very close to the US and other countries who may be tempted by a more autonomous course, the divide is important. Then comes the question of who pays, and who supplies the death meat. I am not confident that the recent events will trigger a European alignment.

What I see happening is the same thing as AUKUS. Countries will look for opportunistic alliances to secure their security and business opportunities.

And here, I am wondering where Germany and Russia will go. The two will become very connected over gaz supply. Germany also has a lot of business interests in China and may not be comfortable with the Us confrontational approach.

I think this is where we could see the biggest shift.

And of course, once again, France is likely not to be relevant unless they manage to strengthen their ties with Germany.
User avatar
TheFrog
Posts: 14826
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by TheFrog »

By the way, what have the Canadian and NZ reactions been?

They are traditional partners of the Aussies and the US in the region and evidently were not invited.
DAC_
Posts: 4189
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2020 8:28 pm

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by DAC_ »

Europe, beyond France, are also learning that the game is changing. Russia's invasion of Crimea proved that NATO was rather toothless
Why?

What business was it of NATO?
La soule
Posts: 10550
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by La soule »

TheFrog wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:52 pm Trying to think beyond the emotions, dicks waving attitudes on here.
And there you go. You killed the thread.
DAC_
Posts: 4189
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2020 8:28 pm

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by DAC_ »

TheFrog wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:52 pm Trying to think beyond the emotions, dicks waving attitudes on here.

I think what happens highlights a new accelerating trend of the post 1989 era. The NATO alliance is dying and the secret agreement between Australia, the UK and the US highlights (just like Trump's unilateral decision to withdraw from Afghansistan without converting with its allies - which drew many complaints including from the UK) that new alliances may be more opportunistic in nature. A new balance is being drawn.

For France, of course, it is a slap in the face and once they finish sulking, they need to adapt. France is not relevant once the big boys talk (i.e. the US, China and Russia). France only has a role to play when (1) the big boys are not interested in the issue or (2) when acting in tow of one of the big boys. Another thing this highlights is the failure of French intelligence to read this move and see it coming.

Europe, beyond France, are also learning that the game is changing. Russia's invasion of Crimea proved that NATO was rather toothless. Again, US unilateral decisions such as Afghanistan, or the way Trump tolerated Erdogan's behavior in the Mediterranean, highlight that Europe is not relevant when the big boys have higher priorities.

How does Europe react to that? I am not sure. I do not believe that Europe will manage to develop an integrated defense. There are two many diverging geopolitical views. Between Eastern states who want to remain very close to the US and other countries who may be tempted by a more autonomous course, the divide is important. Then comes the question of who pays, and who supplies the death meat. I am not confident that the recent events will trigger a European alignment.

What I see happening is the same thing as AUKUS. Countries will look for opportunistic alliances to secure their security and business opportunities.

And here, I am wondering where Germany and Russia will go. The two will become very connected over gaz supply. Germany also has a lot of business interests in China and may not be comfortable with the Us confrontational approach.

I think this is where we could see the biggest shift.

And of course, once again, France is likely not to be relevant unless they manage to strengthen their ties with Germany.
At least the Germans can't give you Das Boot.

Sorry. :lol:
You can call me Bill
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2021 12:10 pm

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by You can call me Bill »

TheFrog wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:10 pm By the way, what have the Canadian and NZ reactions been?

They are traditional partners of the Aussies and the US in the region and evidently were not invited.
I should think that Canada's had its fill of falling out with China for a bit.
User avatar
danny_fitz
Posts: 12765
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Mostly London........Mostly

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by danny_fitz »

TheFrog wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:52 pm Trying to think beyond the emotions, dicks waving attitudes on here.

I think what happens highlights a new accelerating trend of the post 1989 era. The NATO alliance is dying and the secret agreement between Australia, the UK and the US highlights (just like Trump's unilateral decision to withdraw from Afghansistan without converting with its allies - which drew many complaints including from the UK) that new alliances may be more opportunistic in nature. A new balance is being drawn.

For France, of course, it is a slap in the face and once they finish sulking, they need to adapt. France is not relevant once the big boys talk (i.e. the US, China and Russia). France only has a role to play when (1) the big boys are not interested in the issue or (2) when acting in tow of one of the big boys. Another thing this highlights is the failure of French intelligence to read this move and see it coming.

Europe, beyond France, are also learning that the game is changing. Russia's invasion of Crimea proved that NATO was rather toothless. Again, US unilateral decisions such as Afghanistan, or the way Trump tolerated Erdogan's behavior in the Mediterranean, highlight that Europe is not relevant when the big boys have higher priorities.

How does Europe react to that? I am not sure. I do not believe that Europe will manage to develop an integrated defense. There are two many diverging geopolitical views. Between Eastern states who want to remain very close to the US and other countries who may be tempted by a more autonomous course, the divide is important. Then comes the question of who pays, and who supplies the death meat. I am not confident that the recent events will trigger a European alignment.

What I see happening is the same thing as AUKUS. Countries will look for opportunistic alliances to secure their security and business opportunities.

And here, I am wondering where Germany and Russia will go. The two will become very connected over gaz supply. Germany also has a lot of business interests in China and may not be comfortable with the Us confrontational approach.

I think this is where we could see the biggest shift.

And of course, once again, France is likely not to be relevant unless they manage to strengthen their ties with Germany.

Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact II
User avatar
AlanBengio
Posts: 2800
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Italia

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by AlanBengio »

TBH the more I think about it, the more I am convinced this pact is useless (as I reported before, I am not expert and I draw conclusions just for a chat with you fellas)

- Firstly, France was treated very badly from our prime allied and especially Australia (and that is undeniable - who says otherwise is denying truth)

- The pact will obviously make the western block less strong (not the contrary)

- Then: was that really necessary? I mean - how many wars (conventional or proxy ones) had China fought since 1949? And how many had US and allied fought since then? Last conventional war China fought was in Vietnam - and they were beaten up fairly well by the Vietnamese, who just came out of a conflict with USA. Experience is paramount in all fields of life - especially wars. This just to point out that US military power is no match for China - US is fighting endlessly since 1949 (including few conventional wars and invasions of sovereign states we could say). US : they "know their war". What China really know instead? How to shelter Indians at high altitude?

- The point above is reported just to repeat this pact is useless, as China already was not really a threat before

- Economics: Australia lost the biggest economic partner it has in the area (and they lost it by initiative). Not so wise IMO

- Nuclear subs: (in relation to engines) they are yesterday technology - type 212/214 submarines technology is the future IMO

- the program will requires years and money to implement. This set up a clock counting for China increasing danger of a war - not decreasing it (if they are really planning a move, they will do it very soon. If they do nothing, probably it is because they would not have done nothing even before the pact. But now a countdown suddenly started for China; we never know)

My second two cents coins chat over the topic
Dozy
Posts: 2883
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2021 1:17 pm

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by Dozy »

AlanBengio wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 5:38 pm TBH the more I think about it, the more I am convinced this pact is useless (as I reported before, I am not expert and I draw conclusions just for a chat with you fellas)

- Firstly, France was treated very badly from our prime allied and especially Australia (and that is undeniable - who says otherwise is denying truth)

- The pact will obviously make the western block less strong (not the contrary)

- Then: was that really necessary? I mean - how many wars (conventional or proxy ones) had China fought since 1949? And how many had US and allied fought since then? Last conventional war China fought was in Vietnam - and they were beaten up fairly well by the Vietnamese, who just came out of a conflict with USA. Experience is paramount in all fields of life - especially wars. This just to point out that US military power is no match for China - US is fighting endlessly since 1949 (including few conventional wars and invasions of sovereign states we could say). US : they "know their war". What China really know instead? How to shelter Indians at high altitude?

- The point above is reported just to repeat this pact is useless, as China already was not really a threat before

- Economics: Australia lost the biggest economic partner it has in the area (and they lost it by initiative). Not so wise IMO

- Nuclear subs: (in relation to engines) they are yesterday technology - type 212/214 submarines technology is the future IMO

- the program will requires years and money to implement. This set up a clock counting for China increasing danger of a war - not decreasing it (if they are really planning a move, they will do it very soon. If they do nothing, probably it is because they would not have done nothing even before the pact. But now a countdown suddenly started for China; we never know)

My second two cents coins chat over the topic
Some decent points and some wrong ones. Vietnam were not war mongering nation before serving the Us their asses in a plate.

The US doesn’t win wars, they do make enemies and only have relationships through coercion. Much of the world has woken up to that. They are not a force for good, not at all.

The Australian trade disagreements with China will only see one loser, Australia. It’s for the history books this one. Seriously dumb move. They seem to justify it now through national hate and thinly veiled racism. This will make it much worse in the whole region for them.

Yes you are a right that this has given the likes of China and others the heads up. China can outspend and out produce rivals in churning out the subs, ships, ICBMs, whatever you like…could out produce the US and it’s allies combined.
Dozy
Posts: 2883
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2021 1:17 pm

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by Dozy »

New AUKUS nuclear bloc won't just battle China, it will take West into confrontation with Russia too, Moscow's security chief says

Nikolay Patrushev, the secretary of Russia's Security Council, told the Argumenty i Fakty newspaper on Tuesday that the pact between the three nations, known as AUKUS, will inevitably be yet another military bloc aimed at containing and confronting the two strongest non-Western powers.

According to the interview, Patrushev compared the pact to QUAD, a strategic dialogue format between the US, India, Japan, and Australia, designed to strengthen Washington's position across Asia. According to him, the group is “a military-political bloc with a pronounced pro-American character.”

https://www.rt.com/russia/535435-aukus- ... 9f9e18d765
Magpie26
Posts: 2776
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Switzerland

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by Magpie26 »

TheFrog wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:52 pm Trying to think beyond the emotions, dicks waving attitudes on here.

I think what happens highlights a new accelerating trend of the post 1989 era. The NATO alliance is dying and the secret agreement between Australia, the UK and the US highlights (just like Trump's unilateral decision to withdraw from Afghansistan without converting with its allies - which drew many complaints including from the UK) that new alliances may be more opportunistic in nature. A new balance is being drawn.

For France, of course, it is a slap in the face and once they finish sulking, they need to adapt. France is not relevant once the big boys talk (i.e. the US, China and Russia). France only has a role to play when (1) the big boys are not interested in the issue or (2) when acting in tow of one of the big boys. Another thing this highlights is the failure of French intelligence to read this move and see it coming.

Europe, beyond France, are also learning that the game is changing. Russia's invasion of Crimea proved that NATO was rather toothless. Again, US unilateral decisions such as Afghanistan, or the way Trump tolerated Erdogan's behavior in the Mediterranean, highlight that Europe is not relevant when the big boys have higher priorities.

How does Europe react to that? I am not sure. I do not believe that Europe will manage to develop an integrated defense. There are two many diverging geopolitical views. Between Eastern states who want to remain very close to the US and other countries who may be tempted by a more autonomous course, the divide is important. Then comes the question of who pays, and who supplies the death meat. I am not confident that the recent events will trigger a European alignment.

What I see happening is the same thing as AUKUS. Countries will look for opportunistic alliances to secure their security and business opportunities.

And here, I am wondering where Germany and Russia will go. The two will become very connected over gaz supply. Germany also has a lot of business interests in China and may not be comfortable with the Us confrontational approach.

I think this is where we could see the biggest shift.

And of course, once again, France is likely not to be relevant unless they manage to strengthen their ties with Germany.
A lot of very good points The Frog. :thumbup:

Only thing I would add is that I don't see the relevance of NATO and Crimea. That wasn't NATO responsibility as far as I know.

Also as you mention the Eastern countries are so linked/dependant on US support they will never support EU over NATO.
I also don't see the real link to France and Germany. Germany for all its military is primarily a defensive organisation and politically there is no will to change this.

Realistically the only two countries in Europe able to project power to some extent are France and UK and they are key to creating a European force but at the moment closer cooperation looks very unlikely.
User avatar
message #2527204
Posts: 16974
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Ultracrepidaria

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by message #2527204 »

AlanBengio wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 5:38 pm TBH the more I think about it, the more I am convinced this pact is useless (as I reported before, I am not expert and I draw conclusions just for a chat with you fellas)

- Firstly, France was treated very badly from our prime allied and especially Australia (and that is undeniable - who says otherwise is denying truth)

- The pact will obviously make the western block less strong (not the contrary)

- Then: was that really necessary? I mean - how many wars (conventional or proxy ones) had China fought since 1949? And how many had US and allied fought since then? Last conventional war China fought was in Vietnam - and they were beaten up fairly well by the Vietnamese, who just came out of a conflict with USA. Experience is paramount in all fields of life - especially wars. This just to point out that US military power is no match for China - US is fighting endlessly since 1949 (including few conventional wars and invasions of sovereign states we could say). US : they "know their war". What China really know instead? How to shelter Indians at high altitude?

- The point above is reported just to repeat this pact is useless, as China already was not really a threat before

- Economics: Australia lost the biggest economic partner it has in the area (and they lost it by initiative). Not so wise IMO

- Nuclear subs: (in relation to engines) they are yesterday technology - type 212/214 submarines technology is the future IMO

- the program will requires years and money to implement. This set up a clock counting for China increasing danger of a war - not decreasing it (if they are really planning a move, they will do it very soon. If they do nothing, probably it is because they would not have done nothing even before the pact. But now a countdown suddenly started for China; we never know)

My second two cents coins chat over the topic
- Economics: Australia lost the biggest economic partner it has in the area (and they lost it by initiative). Not so wise IMO
Who's lost what?
La soule
Posts: 10550
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by La soule »

Magpie26 wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:24 am
TheFrog wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:52 pm Trying to think beyond the emotions, dicks waving attitudes on here.

I think what happens highlights a new accelerating trend of the post 1989 era. The NATO alliance is dying and the secret agreement between Australia, the UK and the US highlights (just like Trump's unilateral decision to withdraw from Afghansistan without converting with its allies - which drew many complaints including from the UK) that new alliances may be more opportunistic in nature. A new balance is being drawn.

For France, of course, it is a slap in the face and once they finish sulking, they need to adapt. France is not relevant once the big boys talk (i.e. the US, China and Russia). France only has a role to play when (1) the big boys are not interested in the issue or (2) when acting in tow of one of the big boys. Another thing this highlights is the failure of French intelligence to read this move and see it coming.

Europe, beyond France, are also learning that the game is changing. Russia's invasion of Crimea proved that NATO was rather toothless. Again, US unilateral decisions such as Afghanistan, or the way Trump tolerated Erdogan's behavior in the Mediterranean, highlight that Europe is not relevant when the big boys have higher priorities.

How does Europe react to that? I am not sure. I do not believe that Europe will manage to develop an integrated defense. There are two many diverging geopolitical views. Between Eastern states who want to remain very close to the US and other countries who may be tempted by a more autonomous course, the divide is important. Then comes the question of who pays, and who supplies the death meat. I am not confident that the recent events will trigger a European alignment.

What I see happening is the same thing as AUKUS. Countries will look for opportunistic alliances to secure their security and business opportunities.

And here, I am wondering where Germany and Russia will go. The two will become very connected over gaz supply. Germany also has a lot of business interests in China and may not be comfortable with the Us confrontational approach.

I think this is where we could see the biggest shift.

And of course, once again, France is likely not to be relevant unless they manage to strengthen their ties with Germany.
A lot of very good points The Frog. :thumbup:

Only thing I would add is that I don't see the relevance of NATO and Crimea. That wasn't NATO responsibility as far as I know.

Also as you mention the Eastern countries are so linked/dependant on US support they will never support EU over NATO.
I also don't see the real link to France and Germany. Germany for all its military is primarily a defensive organisation and politically there is no will to change this.

Realistically the only two countries in Europe able to project power to some extent are France and UK and they are key to creating a European force but at the moment closer cooperation looks very unlikely.
That's all we need really.

I can see why the Germans would not be overly keen to patrol the Sahel region.

That statement from Biden was interesting:
« Les Etats-Unis n’ont pas d’allié plus proche et plus fiable que l’Australie »
He obviously said it in English but it kind of gives an idea about the importance of the Brits in the pecking order.
Magpie26
Posts: 2776
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Switzerland

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by Magpie26 »

La soule wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:01 pm
Magpie26 wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:24 am
TheFrog wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:52 pm Trying to think beyond the emotions, dicks waving attitudes on here.

I think what happens highlights a new accelerating trend of the post 1989 era. The NATO alliance is dying and the secret agreement between Australia, the UK and the US highlights (just like Trump's unilateral decision to withdraw from Afghansistan without converting with its allies - which drew many complaints including from the UK) that new alliances may be more opportunistic in nature. A new balance is being drawn.

For France, of course, it is a slap in the face and once they finish sulking, they need to adapt. France is not relevant once the big boys talk (i.e. the US, China and Russia). France only has a role to play when (1) the big boys are not interested in the issue or (2) when acting in tow of one of the big boys. Another thing this highlights is the failure of French intelligence to read this move and see it coming.

Europe, beyond France, are also learning that the game is changing. Russia's invasion of Crimea proved that NATO was rather toothless. Again, US unilateral decisions such as Afghanistan, or the way Trump tolerated Erdogan's behavior in the Mediterranean, highlight that Europe is not relevant when the big boys have higher priorities.

How does Europe react to that? I am not sure. I do not believe that Europe will manage to develop an integrated defense. There are two many diverging geopolitical views. Between Eastern states who want to remain very close to the US and other countries who may be tempted by a more autonomous course, the divide is important. Then comes the question of who pays, and who supplies the death meat. I am not confident that the recent events will trigger a European alignment.

What I see happening is the same thing as AUKUS. Countries will look for opportunistic alliances to secure their security and business opportunities.

And here, I am wondering where Germany and Russia will go. The two will become very connected over gaz supply. Germany also has a lot of business interests in China and may not be comfortable with the Us confrontational approach.

I think this is where we could see the biggest shift.

And of course, once again, France is likely not to be relevant unless they manage to strengthen their ties with Germany.
A lot of very good points The Frog. :thumbup:

Only thing I would add is that I don't see the relevance of NATO and Crimea. That wasn't NATO responsibility as far as I know.

Also as you mention the Eastern countries are so linked/dependant on US support they will never support EU over NATO.
I also don't see the real link to France and Germany. Germany for all its military is primarily a defensive organisation and politically there is no will to change this.

Realistically the only two countries in Europe able to project power to some extent are France and UK and they are key to creating a European force but at the moment closer cooperation looks very unlikely.
That's all we need really.

I can see why the Germans would not be overly keen to patrol the Sahel region.

That statement from Biden was interesting:
« Les Etats-Unis n’ont pas d’allié plus proche et plus fiable que l’Australie »
He obviously said it in English but it kind of gives an idea about the importance of the Brits in the pecking order.
Then what changes....it will only be seen as a French force operating in different regions and Germany primarily there to defend is self. Hardly a European force.
(I know Germany have been more engaged in overseas roles but only after very considered review....Hardly what an European force is really looking for)

Australia has been very supportive of US, no doubt, and can understand why he sees them as a key ally though it does seem to put them above more than just the Brits :P
Last edited by Magpie26 on Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
usermame
Posts: 5298
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Te Ika a Maui

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by usermame »

TheFrog wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:10 pm By the way, what have the Canadian and NZ reactions been?

They are traditional partners of the Aussies and the US in the region and evidently were not invited.
Personally, I'm thankful for that small mercy.
La soule
Posts: 10550
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by La soule »

Magpie26 wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:32 pm
La soule wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:01 pm
Magpie26 wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:24 am
TheFrog wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:52 pm Trying to think beyond the emotions, dicks waving attitudes on here.

I think what happens highlights a new accelerating trend of the post 1989 era. The NATO alliance is dying and the secret agreement between Australia, the UK and the US highlights (just like Trump's unilateral decision to withdraw from Afghansistan without converting with its allies - which drew many complaints including from the UK) that new alliances may be more opportunistic in nature. A new balance is being drawn.

For France, of course, it is a slap in the face and once they finish sulking, they need to adapt. France is not relevant once the big boys talk (i.e. the US, China and Russia). France only has a role to play when (1) the big boys are not interested in the issue or (2) when acting in tow of one of the big boys. Another thing this highlights is the failure of French intelligence to read this move and see it coming.

Europe, beyond France, are also learning that the game is changing. Russia's invasion of Crimea proved that NATO was rather toothless. Again, US unilateral decisions such as Afghanistan, or the way Trump tolerated Erdogan's behavior in the Mediterranean, highlight that Europe is not relevant when the big boys have higher priorities.

How does Europe react to that? I am not sure. I do not believe that Europe will manage to develop an integrated defense. There are two many diverging geopolitical views. Between Eastern states who want to remain very close to the US and other countries who may be tempted by a more autonomous course, the divide is important. Then comes the question of who pays, and who supplies the death meat. I am not confident that the recent events will trigger a European alignment.

What I see happening is the same thing as AUKUS. Countries will look for opportunistic alliances to secure their security and business opportunities.

And here, I am wondering where Germany and Russia will go. The two will become very connected over gaz supply. Germany also has a lot of business interests in China and may not be comfortable with the Us confrontational approach.

I think this is where we could see the biggest shift.

And of course, once again, France is likely not to be relevant unless they manage to strengthen their ties with Germany.
A lot of very good points The Frog. :thumbup:

Only thing I would add is that I don't see the relevance of NATO and Crimea. That wasn't NATO responsibility as far as I know.

Also as you mention the Eastern countries are so linked/dependant on US support they will never support EU over NATO.
I also don't see the real link to France and Germany. Germany for all its military is primarily a defensive organisation and politically there is no will to change this.

Realistically the only two countries in Europe able to project power to some extent are France and UK and they are key to creating a European force but at the moment closer cooperation looks very unlikely.
That's all we need really.

I can see why the Germans would not be overly keen to patrol the Sahel region.

That statement from Biden was interesting:
« Les Etats-Unis n’ont pas d’allié plus proche et plus fiable que l’Australie »
He obviously said it in English but it kind of gives an idea about the importance of the Brits in the pecking order.
Then what changes....it will only be seen as a French force operating in different regions and Germany primarily there to defend is self. Hardly a European force.
(I know Germany have been more engaged in overseas roles but only after very considered review....Hardly what an European force is really looking for)

Australia has been very supportive of US, no doubt, and can understand why he sees them as a key ally though it does seem to but then above more than just the Brits :P
It is a massive change. Defence capabilities need to gets much, much bigger than they are today to be completely independent. It will require investment, technology and brains.

It is a big project.

You are right. We clearly are not seen as close allies to the US. It is what it is.
User avatar
terryfinch
Posts: 5912
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by terryfinch »

La soule wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:53 pm
Magpie26 wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:32 pm
La soule wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:01 pm
Magpie26 wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:24 am
TheFrog wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:52 pm Trying to think beyond the emotions, dicks waving attitudes on here.

I think what happens highlights a new accelerating trend of the post 1989 era. The NATO alliance is dying and the secret agreement between Australia, the UK and the US highlights (just like Trump's unilateral decision to withdraw from Afghansistan without converting with its allies - which drew many complaints including from the UK) that new alliances may be more opportunistic in nature. A new balance is being drawn.

For France, of course, it is a slap in the face and once they finish sulking, they need to adapt. France is not relevant once the big boys talk (i.e. the US, China and Russia). France only has a role to play when (1) the big boys are not interested in the issue or (2) when acting in tow of one of the big boys. Another thing this highlights is the failure of French intelligence to read this move and see it coming.

Europe, beyond France, are also learning that the game is changing. Russia's invasion of Crimea proved that NATO was rather toothless. Again, US unilateral decisions such as Afghanistan, or the way Trump tolerated Erdogan's behavior in the Mediterranean, highlight that Europe is not relevant when the big boys have higher priorities.

How does Europe react to that? I am not sure. I do not believe that Europe will manage to develop an integrated defense. There are two many diverging geopolitical views. Between Eastern states who want to remain very close to the US and other countries who may be tempted by a more autonomous course, the divide is important. Then comes the question of who pays, and who supplies the death meat. I am not confident that the recent events will trigger a European alignment.

What I see happening is the same thing as AUKUS. Countries will look for opportunistic alliances to secure their security and business opportunities.

And here, I am wondering where Germany and Russia will go. The two will become very connected over gaz supply. Germany also has a lot of business interests in China and may not be comfortable with the Us confrontational approach.

I think this is where we could see the biggest shift.

And of course, once again, France is likely not to be relevant unless they manage to strengthen their ties with Germany.
A lot of very good points The Frog. :thumbup:

Only thing I would add is that I don't see the relevance of NATO and Crimea. That wasn't NATO responsibility as far as I know.

Also as you mention the Eastern countries are so linked/dependant on US support they will never support EU over NATO.
I also don't see the real link to France and Germany. Germany for all its military is primarily a defensive organisation and politically there is no will to change this.

Realistically the only two countries in Europe able to project power to some extent are France and UK and they are key to creating a European force but at the moment closer cooperation looks very unlikely.
That's all we need really.

I can see why the Germans would not be overly keen to patrol the Sahel region.

That statement from Biden was interesting:
« Les Etats-Unis n’ont pas d’allié plus proche et plus fiable que l’Australie »
He obviously said it in English but it kind of gives an idea about the importance of the Brits in the pecking order.
Then what changes....it will only be seen as a French force operating in different regions and Germany primarily there to defend is self. Hardly a European force.
(I know Germany have been more engaged in overseas roles but only after very considered review....Hardly what an European force is really looking for)

Australia has been very supportive of US, no doubt, and can understand why he sees them as a key ally though it does seem to but then above more than just the Brits :P
It is a massive change. Defence capabilities need to gets much, much bigger than they are today to be completely independent. It will require investment, technology and brains.

It is a big project.

You are right. We clearly are not seen as close allies to the US. It is what it is.
I see Macron now keen to give up France’s seat on the UN Security Council to EU. Will the French really stomach that? Le Pen will destroy him.
La soule
Posts: 10550
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by La soule »

terryfinch wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 2:37 pm
La soule wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:53 pm
Magpie26 wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:32 pm
La soule wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:01 pm
Magpie26 wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:24 am

A lot of very good points The Frog. :thumbup:

Only thing I would add is that I don't see the relevance of NATO and Crimea. That wasn't NATO responsibility as far as I know.

Also as you mention the Eastern countries are so linked/dependant on US support they will never support EU over NATO.
I also don't see the real link to France and Germany. Germany for all its military is primarily a defensive organisation and politically there is no will to change this.

Realistically the only two countries in Europe able to project power to some extent are France and UK and they are key to creating a European force but at the moment closer cooperation looks very unlikely.
That's all we need really.

I can see why the Germans would not be overly keen to patrol the Sahel region.

That statement from Biden was interesting:
« Les Etats-Unis n’ont pas d’allié plus proche et plus fiable que l’Australie »
He obviously said it in English but it kind of gives an idea about the importance of the Brits in the pecking order.
Then what changes....it will only be seen as a French force operating in different regions and Germany primarily there to defend is self. Hardly a European force.
(I know Germany have been more engaged in overseas roles but only after very considered review....Hardly what an European force is really looking for)

Australia has been very supportive of US, no doubt, and can understand why he sees them as a key ally though it does seem to but then above more than just the Brits :P
It is a massive change. Defence capabilities need to gets much, much bigger than they are today to be completely independent. It will require investment, technology and brains.

It is a big project.

You are right. We clearly are not seen as close allies to the US. It is what it is.
I see Macron now keen to give up France’s seat on the UN Security Council to EU. Will the French really stomach that?
Le Pen will destroy him
.
Have you reach your climax already?
Magpie26
Posts: 2776
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Switzerland

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by Magpie26 »

It's hard to think where his head is on that.
Has no one told him while the EU has observer status, it has no right to vote, that is reserved for member states.

So he wants to give up a veto vote to a non voting organisation........Not sure that has been well thought through.
User avatar
message #2527204
Posts: 16974
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Ultracrepidaria

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by message #2527204 »

Magpie26 wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 2:50 pm It's hard to think where his head is on that.
Has no one told him while the EU has observer status, it has no right to vote, that is reserved for member states.

So he wants to give up a veto vote to a non voting organisation........Not sure that has been well thought through.
He wants (and expects) the security council to tell him to fvck off. Then he can play all butt hurt.
User avatar
AlanBengio
Posts: 2800
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Italia

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by AlanBengio »

message #2527204 wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:56 am
AlanBengio wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 5:38 pm TBH the more I think about it, the more I am convinced this pact is useless (as I reported before, I am not expert and I draw conclusions just for a chat with you fellas)

- Firstly, France was treated very badly from our prime allied and especially Australia (and that is undeniable - who says otherwise is denying truth)

- The pact will obviously make the western block less strong (not the contrary)

- Then: was that really necessary? I mean - how many wars (conventional or proxy ones) had China fought since 1949? And how many had US and allied fought since then? Last conventional war China fought was in Vietnam - and they were beaten up fairly well by the Vietnamese, who just came out of a conflict with USA. Experience is paramount in all fields of life - especially wars. This just to point out that US military power is no match for China - US is fighting endlessly since 1949 (including few conventional wars and invasions of sovereign states we could say). US : they "know their war". What China really know instead? How to shelter Indians at high altitude?

- The point above is reported just to repeat this pact is useless, as China already was not really a threat before

- Economics: Australia lost the biggest economic partner it has in the area (and they lost it by initiative). Not so wise IMO

- Nuclear subs: (in relation to engines) they are yesterday technology - type 212/214 submarines technology is the future IMO

- the program will requires years and money to implement. This set up a clock counting for China increasing danger of a war - not decreasing it (if they are really planning a move, they will do it very soon. If they do nothing, probably it is because they would not have done nothing even before the pact. But now a countdown suddenly started for China; we never know)

My second two cents coins chat over the topic
- Economics: Australia lost the biggest economic partner it has in the area (and they lost it by initiative). Not so wise IMO
Who's lost what?
Australia lost China, despite your (misplaced) sarcasm
Unless you really want to maintain that this will not affect trades between the two parties. Australia already lost 3billion last year (small loss) over minor row with China; you really think all this fuss will not provoke more damage this year and next one?
User avatar
message #2527204
Posts: 16974
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Ultracrepidaria

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by message #2527204 »

AlanBengio wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:10 pm
message #2527204 wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:56 am
AlanBengio wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 5:38 pm TBH the more I think about it, the more I am convinced this pact is useless (as I reported before, I am not expert and I draw conclusions just for a chat with you fellas)

- Firstly, France was treated very badly from our prime allied and especially Australia (and that is undeniable - who says otherwise is denying truth)

- The pact will obviously make the western block less strong (not the contrary)

- Then: was that really necessary? I mean - how many wars (conventional or proxy ones) had China fought since 1949? And how many had US and allied fought since then? Last conventional war China fought was in Vietnam - and they were beaten up fairly well by the Vietnamese, who just came out of a conflict with USA. Experience is paramount in all fields of life - especially wars. This just to point out that US military power is no match for China - US is fighting endlessly since 1949 (including few conventional wars and invasions of sovereign states we could say). US : they "know their war". What China really know instead? How to shelter Indians at high altitude?

- The point above is reported just to repeat this pact is useless, as China already was not really a threat before

- Economics: Australia lost the biggest economic partner it has in the area (and they lost it by initiative). Not so wise IMO

- Nuclear subs: (in relation to engines) they are yesterday technology - type 212/214 submarines technology is the future IMO

- the program will requires years and money to implement. This set up a clock counting for China increasing danger of a war - not decreasing it (if they are really planning a move, they will do it very soon. If they do nothing, probably it is because they would not have done nothing even before the pact. But now a countdown suddenly started for China; we never know)

My second two cents coins chat over the topic
- Economics: Australia lost the biggest economic partner it has in the area (and they lost it by initiative). Not so wise IMO
Who's lost what?
Australia lost China, despite your (misplaced) sarcasm
Unless you really want to maintain that this will not affect trades between the two parties. Australia already lost 3billion last year (small loss) over minor row with China; you really think all this fuss will not provoke more damage this year and next one?
China is dependent on Aus for raw materials, they're hardly going to 'provoke more damage' by replacing an order for shit submarines with an order for decent ones.
You can call me Bill
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2021 12:10 pm

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by You can call me Bill »

La soule wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:01 pm
Magpie26 wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:24 am
TheFrog wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:52 pm Trying to think beyond the emotions, dicks waving attitudes on here.

I think what happens highlights a new accelerating trend of the post 1989 era. The NATO alliance is dying and the secret agreement between Australia, the UK and the US highlights (just like Trump's unilateral decision to withdraw from Afghansistan without converting with its allies - which drew many complaints including from the UK) that new alliances may be more opportunistic in nature. A new balance is being drawn.

For France, of course, it is a slap in the face and once they finish sulking, they need to adapt. France is not relevant once the big boys talk (i.e. the US, China and Russia). France only has a role to play when (1) the big boys are not interested in the issue or (2) when acting in tow of one of the big boys. Another thing this highlights is the failure of French intelligence to read this move and see it coming.

Europe, beyond France, are also learning that the game is changing. Russia's invasion of Crimea proved that NATO was rather toothless. Again, US unilateral decisions such as Afghanistan, or the way Trump tolerated Erdogan's behavior in the Mediterranean, highlight that Europe is not relevant when the big boys have higher priorities.

How does Europe react to that? I am not sure. I do not believe that Europe will manage to develop an integrated defense. There are two many diverging geopolitical views. Between Eastern states who want to remain very close to the US and other countries who may be tempted by a more autonomous course, the divide is important. Then comes the question of who pays, and who supplies the death meat. I am not confident that the recent events will trigger a European alignment.

What I see happening is the same thing as AUKUS. Countries will look for opportunistic alliances to secure their security and business opportunities.

And here, I am wondering where Germany and Russia will go. The two will become very connected over gaz supply. Germany also has a lot of business interests in China and may not be comfortable with the Us confrontational approach.

I think this is where we could see the biggest shift.

And of course, once again, France is likely not to be relevant unless they manage to strengthen their ties with Germany.
A lot of very good points The Frog. :thumbup:

Only thing I would add is that I don't see the relevance of NATO and Crimea. That wasn't NATO responsibility as far as I know.

Also as you mention the Eastern countries are so linked/dependant on US support they will never support EU over NATO.
I also don't see the real link to France and Germany. Germany for all its military is primarily a defensive organisation and politically there is no will to change this.

Realistically the only two countries in Europe able to project power to some extent are France and UK and they are key to creating a European force but at the moment closer cooperation looks very unlikely.
That's all we need really.

I can see why the Germans would not be overly keen to patrol the Sahel region.

That statement from Biden was interesting:
« Les Etats-Unis n’ont pas d’allié plus proche et plus fiable que l’Australie »
He obviously said it in English but it kind of gives an idea about the importance of the Brits in the pecking order.
Yeah, somewhere above the French.
ChipSpike
Posts: 2763
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:10 am

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by ChipSpike »

AlanBengio wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:10 pm
message #2527204 wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:56 am
AlanBengio wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 5:38 pm TBH the more I think about it, the more I am convinced this pact is useless (as I reported before, I am not expert and I draw conclusions just for a chat with you fellas)

- Firstly, France was treated very badly from our prime allied and especially Australia (and that is undeniable - who says otherwise is denying truth)

- The pact will obviously make the western block less strong (not the contrary)

- Then: was that really necessary? I mean - how many wars (conventional or proxy ones) had China fought since 1949? And how many had US and allied fought since then? Last conventional war China fought was in Vietnam - and they were beaten up fairly well by the Vietnamese, who just came out of a conflict with USA. Experience is paramount in all fields of life - especially wars. This just to point out that US military power is no match for China - US is fighting endlessly since 1949 (including few conventional wars and invasions of sovereign states we could say). US : they "know their war". What China really know instead? How to shelter Indians at high altitude?

- The point above is reported just to repeat this pact is useless, as China already was not really a threat before

- Economics: Australia lost the biggest economic partner it has in the area (and they lost it by initiative). Not so wise IMO

- Nuclear subs: (in relation to engines) they are yesterday technology - type 212/214 submarines technology is the future IMO

- the program will requires years and money to implement. This set up a clock counting for China increasing danger of a war - not decreasing it (if they are really planning a move, they will do it very soon. If they do nothing, probably it is because they would not have done nothing even before the pact. But now a countdown suddenly started for China; we never know)

My second two cents coins chat over the topic
- Economics: Australia lost the biggest economic partner it has in the area (and they lost it by initiative). Not so wise IMO
Who's lost what?
Australia lost China, despite your (misplaced) sarcasm
Unless you really want to maintain that this will not affect trades between the two parties. Australia already lost 3billion last year (small loss) over minor row with China; you really think all this fuss will not provoke more damage this year and next one?
Thats not at all shown by the Aus export statistics.

https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/exports-to-china
User avatar
message #2527204
Posts: 16974
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Ultracrepidaria

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by message #2527204 »

You can call me Bill wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:43 pm
La soule wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:01 pm
Magpie26 wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:24 am
TheFrog wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:52 pm Trying to think beyond the emotions, dicks waving attitudes on here.

I think what happens highlights a new accelerating trend of the post 1989 era. The NATO alliance is dying and the secret agreement between Australia, the UK and the US highlights (just like Trump's unilateral decision to withdraw from Afghansistan without converting with its allies - which drew many complaints including from the UK) that new alliances may be more opportunistic in nature. A new balance is being drawn.

For France, of course, it is a slap in the face and once they finish sulking, they need to adapt. France is not relevant once the big boys talk (i.e. the US, China and Russia). France only has a role to play when (1) the big boys are not interested in the issue or (2) when acting in tow of one of the big boys. Another thing this highlights is the failure of French intelligence to read this move and see it coming.

Europe, beyond France, are also learning that the game is changing. Russia's invasion of Crimea proved that NATO was rather toothless. Again, US unilateral decisions such as Afghanistan, or the way Trump tolerated Erdogan's behavior in the Mediterranean, highlight that Europe is not relevant when the big boys have higher priorities.

How does Europe react to that? I am not sure. I do not believe that Europe will manage to develop an integrated defense. There are two many diverging geopolitical views. Between Eastern states who want to remain very close to the US and other countries who may be tempted by a more autonomous course, the divide is important. Then comes the question of who pays, and who supplies the death meat. I am not confident that the recent events will trigger a European alignment.

What I see happening is the same thing as AUKUS. Countries will look for opportunistic alliances to secure their security and business opportunities.

And here, I am wondering where Germany and Russia will go. The two will become very connected over gaz supply. Germany also has a lot of business interests in China and may not be comfortable with the Us confrontational approach.

I think this is where we could see the biggest shift.

And of course, once again, France is likely not to be relevant unless they manage to strengthen their ties with Germany.
A lot of very good points The Frog. :thumbup:

Only thing I would add is that I don't see the relevance of NATO and Crimea. That wasn't NATO responsibility as far as I know.

Also as you mention the Eastern countries are so linked/dependant on US support they will never support EU over NATO.
I also don't see the real link to France and Germany. Germany for all its military is primarily a defensive organisation and politically there is no will to change this.

Realistically the only two countries in Europe able to project power to some extent are France and UK and they are key to creating a European force but at the moment closer cooperation looks very unlikely.
That's all we need really.

I can see why the Germans would not be overly keen to patrol the Sahel region.

That statement from Biden was interesting:
« Les Etats-Unis n’ont pas d’allié plus proche et plus fiable que l’Australie »
He obviously said it in English but it kind of gives an idea about the importance of the Brits in the pecking order.
Yeah, somewhere above the French.
Both the yanks and ozzies look to the mother country for their lead.
bimboman
Posts: 75499
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by bimboman »

I see Macron now keen to give up France’s seat on the UN Security Council to EU. Will the French really stomach that? Le Pen will destroy him.

Can see Germans be allowed the attached nuclear powers by treaty?
La soule
Posts: 10550
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by La soule »

message #2527204 wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 2:53 pm
Magpie26 wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 2:50 pm It's hard to think where his head is on that.
Has no one told him while the EU has observer status, it has no right to vote, that is reserved for member states.

So he wants to give up a veto vote to a non voting organisation........Not sure that has been well thought through.
He wants (and expects) the security council to tell him to fvck off. Then he can play all butt hurt.
Got a link to that great story?
User avatar
message #2527204
Posts: 16974
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Ultracrepidaria

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by message #2527204 »

La soule wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:04 pm
message #2527204 wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 2:53 pm
Magpie26 wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 2:50 pm It's hard to think where his head is on that.
Has no one told him while the EU has observer status, it has no right to vote, that is reserved for member states.

So he wants to give up a veto vote to a non voting organisation........Not sure that has been well thought through.
He wants (and expects) the security council to tell him to fvck off. Then he can play all butt hurt.
Got a link to that great story?
Nah. He probably made it up.
I only saw a few tears back that vice reich-chancellor Shultz demanding that France give it up to the EU because the EU would only have one permanent member after Brexit. If I recall, Macron was furious at the time. But times change.
Dozy
Posts: 2883
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2021 1:17 pm

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by Dozy »

ChipSpike wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:46 pm
AlanBengio wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:10 pm
message #2527204 wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:56 am
AlanBengio wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 5:38 pm TBH the more I think about it, the more I am convinced this pact is useless (as I reported before, I am not expert and I draw conclusions just for a chat with you fellas)

- Firstly, France was treated very badly from our prime allied and especially Australia (and that is undeniable - who says otherwise is denying truth)

- The pact will obviously make the western block less strong (not the contrary)

- Then: was that really necessary? I mean - how many wars (conventional or proxy ones) had China fought since 1949? And how many had US and allied fought since then? Last conventional war China fought was in Vietnam - and they were beaten up fairly well by the Vietnamese, who just came out of a conflict with USA. Experience is paramount in all fields of life - especially wars. This just to point out that US military power is no match for China - US is fighting endlessly since 1949 (including few conventional wars and invasions of sovereign states we could say). US : they "know their war". What China really know instead? How to shelter Indians at high altitude?

- The point above is reported just to repeat this pact is useless, as China already was not really a threat before

- Economics: Australia lost the biggest economic partner it has in the area (and they lost it by initiative). Not so wise IMO

- Nuclear subs: (in relation to engines) they are yesterday technology - type 212/214 submarines technology is the future IMO

- the program will requires years and money to implement. This set up a clock counting for China increasing danger of a war - not decreasing it (if they are really planning a move, they will do it very soon. If they do nothing, probably it is because they would not have done nothing even before the pact. But now a countdown suddenly started for China; we never know)

My second two cents coins chat over the topic
- Economics: Australia lost the biggest economic partner it has in the area (and they lost it by initiative). Not so wise IMO
Who's lost what?
Australia lost China, despite your (misplaced) sarcasm
Unless you really want to maintain that this will not affect trades between the two parties. Australia already lost 3billion last year (small loss) over minor row with China; you really think all this fuss will not provoke more damage this year and next one?
Thats not at all shown by the Aus export statistics.

https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/exports-to-china
Book marked.

Aussie will not do well from this. Evergrande will also hurt bad.
bimboman
Posts: 75499
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by bimboman »

Australia lost China, despite your (misplaced) sarcasm
Unless you really want to maintain that this will not affect trades between the two parties. Australia already lost 3billion last year (small loss) over minor row with China; you really think all this fuss will not provoke more damage this year and next one?
They’re not partners. Everybody is basically China’s adversary.
Dozy
Posts: 2883
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2021 1:17 pm

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by Dozy »

bimboman wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:19 pm
Australia lost China, despite your (misplaced) sarcasm
Unless you really want to maintain that this will not affect trades between the two parties. Australia already lost 3billion last year (small loss) over minor row with China; you really think all this fuss will not provoke more damage this year and next one?
They’re not partners. Everybody is basically China’s adversary.
Everybody as in just the west?
bimboman
Posts: 75499
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by bimboman »

Dozy wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:22 pm
bimboman wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:19 pm
Australia lost China, despite your (misplaced) sarcasm
Unless you really want to maintain that this will not affect trades between the two parties. Australia already lost 3billion last year (small loss) over minor row with China; you really think all this fuss will not provoke more damage this year and next one?
They’re not partners. Everybody is basically China’s adversary.
Everybody as in just the west?

No, everybody. Japan, Korea, India in particular. Southern pacific nations will be fodder.
Flyin Ryan
Posts: 11409
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Indiana

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by Flyin Ryan »

Don't get why Canada wasn't part of it, then it could have the much better sounding acronym of CAUKUS
Flyin Ryan
Posts: 11409
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Indiana

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by Flyin Ryan »

bimboman wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:25 pm
Dozy wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:22 pm
bimboman wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:19 pm
Australia lost China, despite your (misplaced) sarcasm
Unless you really want to maintain that this will not affect trades between the two parties. Australia already lost 3billion last year (small loss) over minor row with China; you really think all this fuss will not provoke more damage this year and next one?
They’re not partners. Everybody is basically China’s adversary.
Everybody as in just the west?

No, everybody. Japan, Korea, India in particular. Southern pacific nations will be fodder.
Yeah, pretty much. All states there see the Chinese as the state most likely to go to war with them. Vietnam's defense strategy for example is heavily China-focused.
Flyin Ryan
Posts: 11409
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Indiana

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by Flyin Ryan »

TheFrog wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:10 pm By the way, what have the Canadian and NZ reactions been?
Well, the weekend prior to calling the election, the Trudeau administration agreed to an overdue update of NORAD capabilities.
Dozy
Posts: 2883
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2021 1:17 pm

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by Dozy »

bimboman wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:25 pm
Dozy wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:22 pm
bimboman wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:19 pm
Australia lost China, despite your (misplaced) sarcasm
Unless you really want to maintain that this will not affect trades between the two parties. Australia already lost 3billion last year (small loss) over minor row with China; you really think all this fuss will not provoke more damage this year and next one?
They’re not partners. Everybody is basically China’s adversary.
Everybody as in just the west?

No, everybody. Japan, Korea, India in particular. Southern pacific nations will be fodder.
you need to climb out of whatever rabbit holes you get your info from.

Korea refused to join the quad, all the pressure and refused to join the quad. They know it's not in their interests.

India will continue to play a game between their western buddies and buddies in Moscow. The fact is they want to form their own path and don't fully trust anyone.

Japan, well they know how much they are hated in the region so have no choice to get behind the US. Parts of China are far more open to the Japanese than some of their other neighbours.

AUKUS is out of need. The rallying call throughout the region may be one of the biggest failures in history. They were left with the old white guys club.
Dozy
Posts: 2883
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2021 1:17 pm

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by Dozy »

Flyin Ryan wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:29 pm
bimboman wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:25 pm
Dozy wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:22 pm
bimboman wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:19 pm
Australia lost China, despite your (misplaced) sarcasm
Unless you really want to maintain that this will not affect trades between the two parties. Australia already lost 3billion last year (small loss) over minor row with China; you really think all this fuss will not provoke more damage this year and next one?
They’re not partners. Everybody is basically China’s adversary.
Everybody as in just the west?

No, everybody. Japan, Korea, India in particular. Southern pacific nations will be fodder.
Yeah, pretty much. All states there see the Chinese as the state most likely to go to war with them. Vietnam's defence strategy for example is heavily China-focused.
Wut?

do you live in some sort of parallel universive?

Did you watch, see, read or review any of the fairly emphatic statements out of Hanoi of late.
Flyin Ryan
Posts: 11409
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Indiana

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by Flyin Ryan »

TheFrog wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:52 pm Trying to think beyond the emotions, dicks waving attitudes on here.

I think what happens highlights a new accelerating trend of the post 1989 era. The NATO alliance is dying and the secret agreement between Australia, the UK and the US highlights (just like Trump's unilateral decision to withdraw from Afghansistan without converting with its allies - which drew many complaints including from the UK) that new alliances may be more opportunistic in nature. A new balance is being drawn.
How is this secret or any different from what goes on in most geopolitical affairs? It's not like that's ever been this honest highly moral business. Countries look out for themselves, even in the midst of allies.

If this along with Afghanistan like I've said before results in Europe ceasing to being children about their own defense instead of say ridiculing the U.S. for being warmongers and then pleading for us to handle Libya for them when we had no geopolitical interest in the matter at all, I'm all in favor.
Europe, beyond France, are also learning that the game is changing. Russia's invasion of Crimea proved that NATO was rather toothless.
Putin played a blinder there in my opinion just up taking land without firing a shot. NATO could've doubled down and deployed immediately onto the peninsula just being bodyguards protecting key Ukrainian civic functions and politicians to continue performing their roles (at Ukrainian request of course), but they chose not to or dilly-dallied too long.
Again, US unilateral decisions such as Afghanistan, or the way Trump tolerated Erdogan's behavior in the Mediterranean, highlight that Europe is not relevant when the big boys have higher priorities.
Y'all made a deal with Erdogan too to stop the flow of Syrian refugees into Europe I remember.
How does Europe react to that? I am not sure. I do not believe that Europe will manage to develop an integrated defense. There are two many diverging geopolitical views. Between Eastern states who want to remain very close to the US and other countries who may be tempted by a more autonomous course, the divide is important.
The western and central states can alleviate the eastern states' concerns by forming a defense that will be Russia-focused and they believed would really deploy push came to shove. The problem with the EU as currently constructed is I don't think the Baltics believe the Irish and Cypriots and Spanish, etc. will lift a finger if they're invaded.
Then comes the question of who pays, and who supplies the death meat. I am not confident that the recent events will trigger a European alignment.
My rolling my eyes at most people discussing military affairs that are not professionals in that line of work is they think the military composes no one but infantry. Not sure whether to blame Hollywood or everyone thinking it's World War II and war consists of digging trenches. There's maybe 10% of the U.S. active military that are ever in active danger of getting shot at and killed. There's plenty of functions a country can do while not being infantry, especially in today's very technologically-advanced warfare.
What I see happening is the same thing as AUKUS. Countries will look for opportunistic alliances to secure their security and business opportunities.
So what's the opportunistic alliance securing eastern Europe then?
And here, I am wondering where Germany and Russia will go. The two will become very connected over gaz supply. Germany also has a lot of business interests in China and may not be comfortable with the Us confrontational approach.

I think this is where we could see the biggest shift.
So Germany turns a blind eye to its east? How do you think the EU will be moving forward in such a point of view?
Last edited by Flyin Ryan on Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
ChipSpike
Posts: 2763
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:10 am

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by ChipSpike »

Dozy wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:45 pm
Flyin Ryan wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:29 pm
bimboman wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:25 pm
Dozy wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:22 pm
bimboman wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:19 pm

They’re not partners. Everybody is basically China’s adversary.
Everybody as in just the west?

No, everybody. Japan, Korea, India in particular. Southern pacific nations will be fodder.
Yeah, pretty much. All states there see the Chinese as the state most likely to go to war with them. Vietnam's defence strategy for example is heavily China-focused.
Wut?

do you live in some sort of parallel universive?

Did you watch, see, read or review any of the fairly emphatic statements out of Hanoi of late.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/unlikely- ... artnership

"The current depth and breadth of the U.S.-Vietnam partnership was not a foregone conclusion. It is the result of decades of hard work and perseverance from both sides. Positive trends in the relationship today can be traced to collaborative efforts to resolve legacies of war, as well as shared threat perceptions regarding China."
bimboman
Posts: 75499
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Boris, Joe and Scott - AUKUS

Post by bimboman »

Dozy agrees they all are adversaries of China.


:thumbup:
Post Reply