Planet Rugby Forum

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

« Les Etats-Unis n’ont pas d’allié plus proche et plus fiable que l’Australie »

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

ChipSpike wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:33 pm

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

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."

Flyin Ryan wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:56 pm

ChipSpike wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:33 pm

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


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."

It's been one side effect of China's aggressive posture in the South China Sea is it has made all countries look to the U.S. as a potential partner or aid to counter.

I do believe the next semi-major conflict in the world on the horizon is something off the coast of east Asia that will involve China. My gut says not Taiwan just because that might be too brazen to force a reaction. The best conflict is one where you have an underlying pretense (sovereignty in the South China Sea), against a country you can win relatively quickly, and one you don't believe anyone is coming to help your adversary (Duterte-led Philippines? although I saw Manny Pacquiao might run for president).

ChipSpike wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:33 pm

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

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."