re: Prime Minister of France: US lying about Australian defense pact.

Let's call this what it is, a transfer of our best nuclear technology to China via Australia.

China owns Australia even more than they own the democrats. As hard as this may be for some to swallow it is the truth.

quote:

---

Oh no, we can’t have an ally that thinks for themselves and won’t blindly follow all of our foolhardy imperial adventures that create more problems than they solve.

---

My point isn’t that the Iraq War was good. (It’s wasn’t.) My point was that we’ve pissed off the French before. (And even went to war against them in the Quasi War.) My point is that once the French PM has done the requisite grandstanding to placate his pissed off constituents, the US and France will smooth this over and it will be forgotten about in a few years, just like every other issue we’ve had with them.

quote:

---

Biden is great isn't he

---

Since when is upsetting France a negative reflection of a President?

Australia seeks best defense against China's south sea prowess, and France does not offer it...free market, no?

I say yes.

quote:

---

If Trump had done this, the PT would be living it up, talking about The Art of the Deal, how great it is to have a president who is America First, and asking everyone if they are tired of winning yet.

---

Probably true. But this cuts both ways.

quote:

---

Instead, he's (Biden) managed to piss off our closest ally (Britain) in regards to how we handled the withdrawal from Afghanistan and our oldest ally (France) in regards to this new agreement between ourselves, the British and Australia.

---

You know who Biden will never piss off? China.

quote:

---

If Trump had done this

---

If you weren't an idiot you wouldn't make shite up.

If he wasn’t biased he wouldn’t make shite up

Multiple Trump supporters on this thread have acknowledged that they would have cheered Trump had he made this move. But sure, I’m just horribly biased

quote:

---

Well, over the past 30 years, there has been a struggle between the old Gaullist school of foreign relations and a younger group that was more open to firmer relationships with the Anglosphere. More express defense pacts, other than NATO, were a result of the younger school beginning to win out in some ways. The proposed deal with Australia was also part of one of these pacts. Our interest in promoting this younger school was wanting France’s help with things such as European immigration issues, terrorism, particularly in Africa, and a more firm stance against China.

---

This is a good summary of the factional divide in French politics, but there is also an aspect related to Alstom SA and their nuclear turbine technology, a bribery charge by the US, and the acquisition of that specific division by GE in 2014 at a fairly low price. The French felt hard done by then, and the stipulation that these new subs are nuclear adds to their internal suspicion that the US acted less than honestly with regard to the Alstom case. The timescale involved between all these events suggests little civilian involvement and is more indicative of how security apparatuses in these countries interact.

Whether it is in the interests of each of these individual countries is a different story. The 'countering China' reasoning seems it is going to be a popular excuse for the governments to justify spending on military hardware, but given the strategy of Chinese investments in Australia and other key regions, countering with just military contracts doesn't seem like it would work long-term.