Australia scraps French submarine deal

[@CaspianReport]

Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC, iOS or Android: 💥 con.onelink.me/kZW6/CaspianReport Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days!

[@357-swagnumultramagax9]

Yes.

[@jeremycompton3010]

You credibility is damaged with this clip. You cant get anything right. Did you get your information from your local news paper, or were you writing fiction?

[@jon_s]

Thank you very much for the neatly compiled comprehensive report

[@LordEmperorHyperion]

@@Ninja4ssasin and you are ignorant to be frank these subs are Nucleared Powered Subs not Ballistic Missiles subs which you are confused over the difference, this has nothing to do with Iran the fact is Iran wants nuclear power not for the needs of their own people but to be a nuclear terrorist, your info is incomplete and Australia won't be another nuclear power even if it did that's going to take years to harness nuclear power technology.

[@saltyfish3781]

@@LordEmperorHyperion the concerns is Australia are not only buying the Nuclear Powered Submarines itself, but the deal also includes several Tomahawk Missiles packages which can be easily armed with nuclear warheads.

[@benjamindavidovichwaals2899]

The real reason France was not included because it would be called FUKUS instead of aukus

[@EricChien95]

Is that also why Canada is not in it cause it will be called CAUKUS

[@sherrattpemberton6089]

got a good laugh out of that one

[@tanerduman7213]

😂

[@yamakawa511]

No, that would have been them playing with themselves. Y

[@yogesh41048]

😂

[@JAY-gy1vg]

Its such a shame that Mainstream media cant deliver such quality content even after having so much funds at their disposal

[@lk8300]

That's because it's run by the rich and the politicians are buddies :) tax payer funded but that tax money is put into government represented propaganda for the masses to consume. There is no country borders or races at war there is only the rich versus the poor and they use their power and resources through the institutions and media to not only turn people and races against each other but also dumbing down the population Edit: the rich have always made the decisions and that has been the case for eons. Today is absolutely no different and we are turning back to old medieval ways of lords nobles and us the muddy peasants. The working class is obselete as machines can now do most of our jobs and this has been planned for a long time. After the reset happens there will be only one way of thinking and the past will very likely be erased. Technology that we see as making our lives easier is infact going to replace us.

[@JAY-gy1vg]

@@lk8300Agree to you to a certain extent but people have always been fighting even in absence of crony capitalist

[@Atamv]

They cater to the dumb masses who wont understand words like "geopolitics".

[@franzneubauer6877]

@@lk8300 who do you think funds this channel?

[@cormacsugrue7135]

I thought a few of them covered it well.

[@Doochos]

A deal is a deal... until a better one comes along. Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #16.

[@tauceti8341]

most excellent

[@22marioyj19]

Delays aren’t part of the deal though especially with how times are now 🤷‍♀️

[@DavidSmith-kd8mw]

Was the deal violated? Didn't it have a withdrawal with penalty clause that was exercised? I imagine that if the original deal with the original price and original time table were still in effect the Australians might have decided to continue with France.

[@22marioyj19]

@@aratirao9007 no one asked

[@isee7668]

And naturally this contract had various get-out clauses, one of which the Aussies activated. The original deal was very bad for Australia, which was the fault of crooked/facile Aussie politicians mostly. It took some balls for the next guys to cancel and get an upgrade elsewhere.

[@ichhalt9844]

"Paris and Canberra" *shows picture of Sydney*

[@xmaniac99]

Well I guess a picture of a Kangaroo pooping on the Eiffel tower would have been more interesting

[@FOLIPE]

@@xmaniac99 Should have shown Beijing and Berlin

[@tbirdparis]

To be fair, if he showed a picture of Canberra, most people would probably be scratching their heads wondering why he put a random picture of a valley full of trees and some barely visible houses...

[@jaymobiggety9903]

We knew what he meant. At least he turned the Australian footage upright so we didn't have to turn our phones upside down.

[@CosmicValkyrie]

People wont recognize Canberra anyway.

[@carrots112]

I think Australia chose France in 2016 was because Australia doesn't want to anger China. But since then China and Australia relation worsen so what's the point

[@sarahcollins190]

Well Scomo did a fine job of pissing off China all because he wanted to be Trump's lap dog.

[@yc2673]

France or Germany was the better option for Australia. Quite neutral, very good technologies. They could have bought nuclear powered subs from France, but they prefered diesel because they would have had a complete hand on these. Now they bought submarines they are unnable to maintain and will have to embark US atomic engineers on board. They had the choice between sovereignty and tactical alignment they chose alignment.

[@wingedarr0w]

@@sarahcollins190 That is literally his job. Australia is weak and vulnerable. The Australian PM's job is to go and suck up to whoever is in power and get us protection. Scomo is doing a great job of sucking up to Trump, and then now sucking up to Biden.

[@godfreytomlinson2282]

@@sarahcollins190 The deal was just made. Trump is no longer president so Scomo is trying to be Biden's lapdog maybe???

[@lk8300]

@Heath Inglis China and Japan aren't friends either

[@customerservice3109]

From an Oz perspective, this is a very good summary video, with all the major issues covered. I would add that the clincher to the deal was the willingness of the US to share this technology with Oz (they simply weren't willing to share before Xi came along) and the ability of the US/UK subs to remain fueled for the entirety of their lifetime, unlike the French barracuda. This was critical as Oz does not have a local nuclear industry and is in no position to refuel them..yet. I do believe this is a toe in the door for an Australian nuclear industry, which is a good thing, but otherwise too politically difficult to introduce directly. The subs are a trojan horse to kick start this industry.

[@steelcrown7130]

Too right!

[@Freshbott2]

We already have a nuclear industry though in terms of uranium for export and isotopes used in medicine and research. I don't think it'll open the door for a local nuclear energy industry because the costs are so high, if we were willing to spend the money to develop it even with technology transfers we would have already spent a 10th of that to just import the equipment directly from and one of 7 or so countries that can already do it. Renewables are falling in cost and nuclear just isn't really

[@customerservice3109]

@@Freshbott2 I think in the long term we will go nuclear in the broader sense of nationwide energy generation, as costs decline and the technology of small reactors make it more feasible. This will be in conjunction with renewables, not as an either / or.

[@drgeorgek]

Agree

[@steinwaldmadchen]

My concern however, is the lack of forward planning inside Canberra. Xi is there since 2013, and QUAD as a union against China is not a new idea - Abe raised that since late 2000s. Between now and then, Aussie switched from Japanese Soryu to French Barracuda (diesel version in specific) to potential US subs. While I don’t denind the necessary of nuclear subs, why did you guys back and forth like this? So when Chinese building subs like wrapping dumplings, and Japanese building Soryu successors, you guys are still stuck with the 6 Collins.

[@avengerXable]

a deal is a deal except when it's not - quote of the decade

[@emilv.3693]

I feel like this quote will define alot of things in the coming years

[@EatMyShortsAU]

Well there were exit clauses AU$90B+ is a lot for a country of 25m..

[@kirkc9643]

There was NO contractual agreement to build the submarines.

[@johnsack6819]

Lock her up! The clintons are good people.

[@nicosmind3]

If you don't deliver your product to the customer on time (years late) your customer owes you nothing as you've broken your contract

[@TeunisD]

You also predicted a tightening in ties between UK, AUS, USA and CAN. Although the latter was not relevant in this specific engagement, it does again show the new Atlantic alliance with a reduced relevance for Europe, which seems to become more regional in importance to keep Russia blocked. Indonesia however really blocks Australia in the sense that for efficient trade, it need good ties to Jakarta. It would be great to have an in-depth video about Indenoesia btw.

[@tadoshka5170]

Yes that would be a nice video since there had been a growth of an anti-China feeling in Indonesia since the pandemic and the revelation of China's treatment of Uyghur people.

[@magnacarta9364]

Canada with black face is pro EU.

[@tengkualiff]

Yep it has to make ammends to what AUS did to IND before

[@nexu6517]

@@tadoshka5170 While that is true, Indonesia still has not taken a side. China is a big player in Indonesia's infrastructure, particularly in the recent high speed railway projects

[@kaptenhiu5623]

@@tadoshka5170 hahaha Indonesian navy is weak and irrelevant to be discussed. It doesn't even included in this video. In the event of war between China and the western allies, both China and the Western navy can neutralize Indonesian navy in a short time.

[@samsam828]

Plot twist: they never wanted the French sub and tricked the Chinese into wasting time studying the wrong sub😂

[@mwngtombing4970]

🤣🤣🤣

[@thepunisher3640]

They don't call Australian's "shitposting champions" for nothing!

[@slslbbn4096]

The Chinese now have casus belli to include our Australian cities into a limited nuclear strike zone now in any conflict with Taiwan Previously we could have profited immensely from trade with China but somehow we ended up with the American puppet Abbott who betrayed Australian economic and security interests and offered ourselves as targets for Chinese reprisals while enjoying none/little of the economic benefits. We are a de facto puppet state. It took me a while but I have come to that realization with much disappointment.

[@adiabeticturtle2463]

@@slslbbn4096 everyone who’s an ‘ally’ of the USA is just a puppet state and has been for a long time.

[@that_pizza_drive6687]

@@slslbbn4096 De-facto puppet state to whom? Previously we've practically been a Puppet State to China as they quite literally been putting tariffs on everything from Barley to Beef, hell they downright banned certain products such as wood, lobsters and wine every-time we do something that the CCP even slightly dislikes. And just because 'They Can' doesn't mean they will, every nuclear-capable country knows this. Hell if China does give us nukes America and UK will do the same, not to mention how China will literally lose practically all of it's coal and iron even it dared to do so

[@dyanreoliveira4764]

Another factor that is all too often forgotten is the fact that historically the Australian Defence Force has had difficulty integrating French weapons systems in to a defence force which primarily uses American equipment. The Army‘s French Tiger helicopters have proven themselves to be a lemon and are in the process of being replaced by Apaches, the old Mirages of decades ago had difficulty using American sidewinders, and until recently the RAN had issues procuring the French submarines. All 3 services have had negative experiences with French systems, and in the current global climate, the Australian Defence Force would want equipment it can rely upon. After all, what’s the point of a multi-billion dollar military investment if what was procured can’t work?

[@zamzamazawarma928]

Sure, but what's the point of taking a multi-billion dollar engagement if you already know that what is procured won't work?

[@lutherblissett9070]

@@zamzamazawarma928 Consulting fees are a peach

[@404Dannyboy]

@@zamzamazawarma928 Politics. A lot of this has to do with internal Australian politics.

[@user-aymanzone]

@@404Dannyboy Thanks for that insight because I had same question. Maybe there something more on that in youtube. Why buy French in the first place. Maybe because Australia wants multiple countries to support it's fleet in the future and to show the world it will buy weapons aggressively?

[@c7zr179]

@@josephr7529 Cost, I assume. Cheaper models.

[@johnxina987]

John cena: “You can’t see me” John xina: “You can’t xi Taiwan as a country”

[@syedabishosainrizvi7817]

ayo you guys wilding 😂🤣🤣 the dps

[@sevenhecks]

cool comment bro

[@DatsWhatXiSaid]

Oh, wow, that's the most impressive one* that I've seen in a while. *comment

[@PerryKobalt]

*Bro You are Popular Now in Discord and 4Chan as well wtf*

[@homtanks7259]

John Xena the trans Amazon hybrid

[@PMI551]

“In a world of intricate power plays where self interest sits at the core, it’s hard to tell who has your back from who has it long enough just to stab you in it” Well said.

[@carlrodalegrado4104]

There are permanent Allies or Enemies only permanent interests.

[@QuantumAscension1]

I feel like that pretty much sums up the China-Russia "alliance"

[@dongster529]

@@QuantumAscension1 Any smart leader knows not to trust the US from it's track record of betraying its promises every 4-8 years. China's issue is that it will keep its promises but will also bully you economically if you are dependent too much on them and Russia is about the most realpolitik playing nation globally, so there is really no trust with them, only careful treaties.

[@unnecessaryapostrophe4047]

@@dongster529 China does not live up to its promises.

[@dongster529]

​@@unnecessaryapostrophe4047 Still more reliable than a manic-personality type govt like the US that's gets a free pass to break their promises every 4-8 years. Look what happened to the Kurds, Ukrainians, Syrians, Afghans in recent years, even the French aren't spared. A smart leader will fence sit between the 2 of them since you can't really trust either and you get to be in a better negotiation spot.

[@ChineseKiwi]

My boi Shirvan pronounces Canberra correctly!

[@miliba]

can bruh

[@ChrisJohannsen]

He doesn't, though.

[@donmartini112]

Cranberry

[@trexkiro9200]

CAN BEH RAH

[@steelcrown7130]

He certainly does! It's an Anglicisation of the local Aboriginal tribe, the Ngambri, not the Ngam-Berry.

[@prometheus7387]

"A deal is a deal, until it's not." Wise words.

[@graemesydney38]

A deal is a deal is a contract. There's a frigging contract with an out clause and a exit price - $330mil. Let the French sue if they think they have a case (they won't, they'll lose.)

[@interdictr3657]

@@graemesydney38 indeed.

[@Anderson-f4t6c]

_Just because you're correct doesn't mean you're right_

[@elephantman2112]

@@graemesydney38 They're entitled to compensation under the terms of the deal, so they probably won't have to sue. Australia will just buy their way out.

[@graemesydney38]

@@elephantman2112 I know. So why are they screaming their tits off about been backstabbed etc etc.? The answer is that its all political theatre intended for French domestic consumption. But the stupidity of it is that the French tizzy attack will cause damage in other areas both to Australia and France. And on that theme the French are threatening to double down using their influence in the EU etc. The French have the vindictiveness of a female with the memory of a guy.

[@Ozymandias1]

"Contracts are like hearts. They are made to be broken." -- Michael Keaton as Ray Kroc in The Founder

[@Gudha_Ismintis]

good film

[@aratirao9007]

◻️ SERCH ADITYA RATHORE-HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE CONTENT LIKE CASPIAN REPORT

[@mdmfad]

@@hansymillery8309 that's how the wind changes direction when it comes to politics and wars

[@KamikazeMedias]

France: YOU BACKSTABBED ME, BRITAIN! Poland: First time?

[@bubblegumKUSH]

Kek

[@Ligma-Balls-69]

@@bubblegumKUSH cake

[@warrcoww6717]

Bit dramatic innit France, I’d hardly call it a backstab

[@Ligma-Balls-69]

@@warrcoww6717 more of a cock shot

[@travistucker1033]

Perfidious Albion stricks again.

[@TheApsodist]

Have waited for your take on this!

[@overworlder]

Pro-government press in Australia has argued it would have been better to reduce the French order to 6 subs to fill the gap between old subs retiring and the Aukus subs arriving. That would have given the French something too.

[@michelle5for]

That Fella from Downunder has bruised knees after a week in the US

[@overworlder]

The US and Australia have been close allies since 1941.

[@iangrantham8300]

Defence policy is NOT about "giving" for the heck of it..it is about WHAT YOU NEED!

[@overworlder]

@@iangrantham8300 - Don’t shout. Greg Sheridan doubts we’ll see any nuclear subs in 2040 and probably not for years after either. Keeping a reduced Naval Group contract going would see those subs delivered from 2030. And defence might be about contracts but foreign affairs is about relationships. Pissing France off was completely unnecessary even gratuitous. Why humiliate a friend for no reason.

[@mayoite160]

@@overworlder yup. France could - and should - have been handled better, even if the deal was a bad idea and incompatible with other hardware. Scotty From Marketing has made a habit of governing via press conference and isn't exactly known for being diplomatic - to Australia's detriment. He freely admitted that he only thought of telling Macron the night before the announcement. France has 550,000 civilians in the Pacific (compared to Britain's 11,000)

[@jonseilim4321]

France and Germany has no appetite for confronting China or Russia

[@tobene]

Yeah no shit, do you want a third world war? It's easy to be confrontational when you are an ocean away.

[@dan7564]

I think they do care about Russia, it's on their doorstep, China has no land borders into Europe though and it feels far away from them.

[@MyOrangeString]

I think it's just not in the interest of those countries. Confronting China, France stands to lose prized possessions in the Pacific for no good reason. And Russia provides Europe with gas, let's not forget about that. I'll add that Russia isn't really threatening Europe like the USSR used to.

[@IanGerritsen]

@@tobene No one in the west wants a world war, some of us just know we need to be prepared to fight it though, which in itself might deter it from happening. The anglosphere bailed out Europe twice, they'd better be there when it's not on their doorstep this time. Germany please be on the right side for once in your god damn life too.

[@antoine9098]

And i think this move of Australia and anglosphere will not help to bring France in this conflict with China. Nothing to gain and all to lose with no solid allies and no interest to do it for France.

[@verylongname8161]

I can feel east timor crying in the background

[@Passonator11]

*jokingly* who?

[@sabrinarodrigues629]

East Timor got its maritime border fixed and is now at ease with Australia

[@osmundo23]

“It’s hard to tell who has your back from who has it long enough just to stab you in it” - Geopolitics in a nutshell!

[@scottyates5758]

Plenty of dead Australians in French war cemeteries, none of them in ours. As a nation Australia has had the French back plenty of times.

[@diollinebranderson6553]

the aussues have every right to do so because the deal with France isnt becoming good

[@gabilax2745]

@@diollinebranderson6553 As said in the video, the problem is not the break up of the deal, there will be compensations and Paris has signed a contract to build frigates to Greece and is confident to give nuclear powered submarines to India so its military industry is not at risk. No the problem is that France see's itself as a Indo-Pacific nation and that the new AUKUS which are supposed to be allies didn't even talked to them about creating a new alliance.

[@johney3734]

@@scottyates5758 yes we did not betray France... we backed out of a business deal.... why is the French government selling any thing!!!!! you should not be able to break alliances as a bargaining chip in business deals... the French did betray us we have sent boys to die in there land 2 times and one time helped to liberate them!!!!! to them that matters less than this deal

[@bxzidffbxzidff]

​@@johney3734 "we backed out of a business deal" By officially announcing a new one before even cancelling it. What form of cancellation is that? Not a diplomatic one at least. Even better, it was announced the day before the EU was to publish its long-planned Indo-Pacific policy. Truly great timing to show how little Morrison want more allies than the ones he already had

[@brycegreen1992]

Fun fact. The original deal was to buy Japanese subs but politics got in the way and Australia ended up getting the French subs. The Japanese where not upset. Instead they laughed at Australia saying "good luck with the french"

[@benoitbvg2888]

...and yet in like 50 years of having 80% of our electricity being nuclear, we haven't had one single major accident...

[@ionutbz1]

@Alfred Weber 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@jonseilim4321]

@@benoitbvg2888 That nuclear burn damn

[@szurketaltos2693]

@@noah000 it would've been fine if Japan didn't cut corners on the backup systems.

[@trezapoioiuy]

Way to show the world how reliable Australia is. Will they get the American subs or who will get the contract next?

[@ironside210]

In 14 minutes, this is a well-reasoned and realistic synopsis of the situation. Well done!

[@astrumespanol]

Nice to see you talking about this

[@anneeq008]

This isn't really your subject area.....

[@Darshanvd]

Spammer

[@nizarb.arsantaka2740]

@@anneeq008 exactly lol

[@skeletonwguitar4383]

Idk is this the real space big brain man from somewhere in Europe? He seems... awfully suspicious

[@boio_]

Una sorpresa verte aquí

[@johnalexander5789]

Do one on the Greek French strategic/military alliance. There is now a mutual military assistance pact in case of an attack from a third country

[@a.b.6233]

It's called NATO alliance and it's been in place for quite some time now.

[@GAndreC]

The Baguette are not known for upholding those deals for long once push comes to shove but more likely to do so than the fish and chips. Historically speaking the Iberians and the lands of vodka have been far more likely to stay to fulfill deal obligations than the rest of Europe even long after it became an economic detriment.

[@johnalexander5789]

@@a.b.6233 Do your research. Greece signed a deal with France which includes the sale of warships to Greece, but more importantly on the Agreements 2nd article states that should one of the 2 countries face attack or invasion by a 3rd country, the other country will automatically provide military assistance

[@johnalexander5789]

@@GAndreC That's something we won't know unless Greece faces a Turkish attack in the future.

[@a.b.6233]

@@johnalexander5789 And isn't that what NATO is all about? An attack on one partner nation means an attack on all the others?

[@lolwutasddfdfk]

As the French proverb goes: never trust the anglos

[@francois853]

and never trust the French to deliver on time.

[@ZucIsCuk]

More like: always raise the white flag.

[@francois853]

@@hansymillery8309 I'm neither an American nor an Anglo so I don't really care 😂 i do find the need of many to bash them somewhat pathetic though. This whole business is just the French whining because the Aussies exercised an exit clause in their agreement. Which both nations agreed to... Since I don't know the details of any F-35 contracts signed by the US, who did they sign an agreement with to provide them with F-35s? Did they withdraw from said agreement using a mechanism of the contract or did they simply abandon the agreement?

[@francois853]

@@hermes6910 Sure, they delayed signing contracts for the next phase when the French couldn't address their concerns. At the end of the day both signed the deal with those exit clauses and the Aussies did what they thought was best for them. Such is business.

[@francois853]

@@hermes6910 There are always two sides to every story and each one will claim theirs is the real one. There were multiple issues over the lifetime of this contract including cybersecurity concerns, cost overruns, the French not being able to meet original deadlines due to redesign requirements(construction of the first sub would only start in 2023), the Australian local labour requirement being reduced from a 90% to 60% with the French fighting back against even that requirement, the Aussies being offered a better deal for better subs as well as the new alliance, etc. The Aussies will obviously need to pay for any work that has already been done but they aren't inextricably bound to the deal, that's why it has exit clauses... Morrisons handling of the issue may be less than stellar but they absolutely had the right to cancel the deal and those who use this as an excuse to bash Anglos are nothing but a bunch of whiney babies.

[@TheCurlsCrazy]

Barracuda class subs are nuclear-powerd. But the Australians wanted a disel-powerd sub. The main point is the reactor-tech in the barracudas, they have to refuel every 10 years

[@davehall44]

AFAIK it removes the need for weapons grade uranium as fuel.

[@devashisdas5024]

LEU powered nuclear submarine Barracuda, has less maintainance & fuel cost. Cause it can use the civilian & commercially available & economic u-235 fuel rods into its nuclear reactor. Barracuda's design is maintainance friendly than other nuclear submarines. When a Barracuda sub will return to its port to remove its spent fuel rods it will take just a week to get these out & install fresh fuel rods inside it. Whereas, others in similar class, take months if not years to get the works done. They have to get the whole superstructure halfed & then remove the reactor < remove the spent rods < fill in new rods & do the rest. Australia could have bought the French nuclear capable version of Barracuda. After the AUKUS tension escalation with France vs. anglosphere happened, the French president Macron directly called the Indian Prime Minister Modi. The French president is rumoured to be offering the Indian PM with France's latest Barracuda class submarine for India’s six domestic SSN construction project. I hope India cancel the ongoing 6 SSK program under Project - 75i. And include this number to SSN program adding a total of 12 SSNs, that are aided with French technology.

[@damienroberts934]

I'm not sure the French were willing to give Aus nuke sub tech? Might be wrong dunno.

[@devashisdas5024]

@@damienroberts934 France & Australia, both are nuclear suppliers group i.e. NSG members. Transferring a non-weapon grade uranium powered nuclear submarine design between two members of NSG, are relatively easier to do. If Australia wanted it may have a French designed nuclear submarine being built in Australian dry dock. But Australia chose other option.

[@damienroberts934]

@@devashisdas5024 Unknown I think. Doubt the French would provide nuke subs to Aust back in 2015.

[@AlexC-ou4ju]

Funny thing ia that hours before cancelling australia sent France a note saying they were 'extremely satisfied' with the process.

[@TonyRule]

Happy with the process, but not the price and delivery.

[@AlexC-ou4ju]

@@TonyRule I mean there was clearly some confusion/overreaching on the Aussie side ' British defence sources argued that it was left to the Australians to break the news to the French, but it seemed there were divisions in Canberra about the best way of going about it. “Some Australians wanted to ring up one week and say we’re so sorry, we’re putting out the diesel submarine contract, and ring up the next week and say we just want you to know that we found a better submarine and it’s British,” the defence source said. “There was another school of thought that said: don’t do it like that. They’ll see through it and it will be worse because it will look duplicitous.” In the end, neither side won. The French were not told before details began to leak to the Australian and US media on Wednesday morning.'

[@trezapoioiuy]

“Should we tell them?” “Nah it’s just France lol”. Time for Europe to show its not “just France” or “just Italy” or whatever.

[@AlexC-ou4ju]

@@trezapoioiuy I mean "Aukus: Australia-EU trade talks delayed as row deepens" BBC headline from 4 hours ago.

[@trezapoioiuy]

@@AlexC-ou4ju That's how things have to be.

[@ljbd8891]

"A deal is a deal until it is not" The best intro line ever in the context of geopolitics

[@KaiObelisk]

Australia made the right choice but they did it in the wrong way. Transparency with France would have avoided a lot of this. Yes, there would have been anger and disappointment from the French, but not to the current scale.

[@cormacsugrue7135]

Avoided a lot of what? The only party that has a problem is France and as you said they were going to be angry either way.

[@noahl6581]

@@cormacsugrue7135 Sure, however careful and transparent mediation is much more effective in relations.

[@jacobcuntington2540]

This is true but when you fire someone you don't want to fk around chatting about it

[@trezapoioiuy]

@@cormacsugrue7135 that’s the thing “the only one that has a problem is France and who cares”. Europe has to show that the one that you get a problem with is not just France or another country like that. It’s Europe. Then “the only one that has a problem with it is the EU” and maybe it sounds differently when you’re trying to get a trade deal with your 3rd trade market, maybe you deal with it a bit more transparently.

[@wahyuindrasto]

EXACTLY. The French knew they were going to be dumped. They just didn't expect it to be that fast and NOT be told about it either. Had they been told beforehand they would've been performatively mad; now they're pissed-off angry.

[@Justineexy]

7:18 Bruh, those Chinese "generals" are loving that M4 lol.

[@FATHOLLYWOODB123]

There looking at quality American products, not like that cheap shit China creates ;)

[@konfunable]

I don't think they are Chinese. More probably Korean or Taiwanese.

[@shatteredstar2149]

@@konfunable they're Chinese. Two of them have the rank of Major General on their shoulder

[@shiveshsingh3169]

@Kong Jun Jie Hello here too. How's life going?

[@opai1821]

@Kong Jun Jie because even a century old musket today can kill people . and its in number .

[@SizzleCorndog]

This feels like the irl equivalent of canceling a treaty early in something like a total war game and everyone then hates you

[@coronavirus5050]

After the termination of the Contract, The French have offered 6 Baracuda Class Nuclear SSNs to New Delhi. They are expected to sign a deal soon. India has previously tried to acquire Nuclear Subs from US but they gave repeatedly declined the request. India currently has 3 Indigeneously built SSBN nuclear subs. It is beneficial to both as French gain the much needed ally in the chinese sphere while India got their hands on the nuclear subs they have been trying to get for a long time.

[@lamalien2276]

India and France make better sense as allies, India has the $$$ and France has the experience.

[@josephleonard6695]

@Alfred Weber In India's case, better than none

[@aratirao9007]

@@lamalien2276 🔸 SERCH ADITYA RATHORE-HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE CONTENT LIKE CASPIAN REPORT

[@NPJGlobal]

@Alfred Weber The Barracuda submarines are some of the stealthiest submarines in the world, what are you talking about

[@whatwhat3432523]

@Alfred Weber How exactly? You cant just say they are inferior, reasons please?

[@Raul_Menendez]

"A deal is a deal until..." "Oi mate, wot oim gonna do wots call a pro gamur move"

[@countbinfaceglobalpresiden7926]

With jokes like that i think your gonna be the first target of the aussie nuclear subs buddy! Obvious /s

[@stephenharvey4138]

@@countbinfaceglobalpresiden7926 Yeah, nah, yeah.

[@godlovesyou1995]

France broke the deal by being both overdue and overbudget

[@abb5596]

0:45 "Paris is not happy, Beijing is concerned" I love it when a plan comes together

[@trueseeing]

France pushed up the price over 50% on their initial agreement, then added delays on top, for tech that isn't even top of the line. Let them throw a hissy fit, they pushed it too far.

[@maxscania]

Really?? That is your best argument? U want to blame it on technical issues???

[@Multi407D]

@@maxscania You are not entitled to military contracts, deal with it. If your product is more expensive and inferior, your customer will move on.

[@trueseeing]

A deal is made worthless by multiple critical flaws and deceptive practice and you just describe it as 'technical issues'. I'll build you a house. Oops it costs double. And I'll build it 3 years from now. Oh and it won't actually protect you from the elements that you bought it for. Just technical issues why are you changing builders?

[@maxscania]

@@trueseeing it is not about deal or no deal, it is about the bigger picture ... both should be discussed between the "partners" prior to the announcement... so blaming it alone in technical issues ... that is not a good argument.

[@maxscania]

@@Multi407D they couldn't analyze 5 or 10 years in the future??? How stupid they must be?

[@razeezar]

It was a bad deal (with France) that Australia should have never signed to begin with.

[@davesprivatelounge]

True, but reneging on a deal is a risky move. Let's see if it pays off

[@dan7564]

It made way more sense to buy the japanese subs. But japan didn't want to hand over their technology and wanted to build the subs themselves. I think the reason Australia is so keen to build them themselves is so they can learn how to maintain them properly in the process and replace spare parts themselves in case they get cut off during war time.

[@Minchya]

And the man who signed us up has the gaul to criticize !!

[@azahel542]

@andrew koi min wong yeah, the australian exigences are what made the deal so expensive to begin with.

[@IanGerritsen]

@@davesprivatelounge A buyout was built into the contract. Nothing was reneged on. It was cancelled (justifiably) using the option to do so.

[@rr_tanveer]

"A deal is a deal except when its not" lol great intro

[@muhammadhamza4684]

"In a world of intricate powerplays where self interest sits at the core its hard to tell who has your back from who has it long enough just to stab you in it"

[@davesprivatelounge]

Words to live by

[@RJT80]

Nobody got stabbed in the back. The cost overruns and timetable slips worried Australia enough to begin seriously questioning the deal last year. France should have seen the writing on the wall and negotiated a price cut, but they couldn't. Their defense industries submarine construction infrastructure is inefficient and people have known this for years now. And nobody will be getting stabbed in the back in the Pacific. The US will have to fight that war as will most of it's allies. Sitting it out is not an option. Neither is defeat. Only a win or a negotiated peace will be sufficient. The latter being the far more likely outcome between nuclear powers but a tremendous amount of damage done to the world economy and possibly even the Pacific itself.

[@snedzy1506]

Sounds like my business life

[@rimacalid6557]

@@snedzy1506 you sound British

[@snedzy1506]

@@rimacalid6557 Aussie mate but it seems like kind of a western thing... societal in nature

[@DensetsuVII]

7:50 "Disinterest is not a word in Washington's vocabulary" Okay, Mr. Washington, for the spelling-bee championship your word is 'disinterest'. "Disinterest - I-N-T-E-R-V-E-N..."

[@DomiAngel]

History doesn't happen in a vacuum. USA leaving the middle east means France is taking a huge role in the Mediterranean and AUKUS accelerated this. The USA in an attempt to appease France removed pressures on the Greek government to buy warships from them. France made a great offer to Greece and they signed a deal for 3+1 Frigates and 3+1 Corvettes along with parts and future maintenance. They also signed a defense agreement which binds each of the two countries to defend the other if one is attacked.

[@holthrain3985]

Can you argue a little more please ? This POV is interesting but I'm not sure I understand what you mean about it. The US option for the Greek corvette was arguably bad (converted landing ships, I mean even US military experts don't want to hear about them) so it makes sense France was a good option from the start (remember that in the case of corvettes, the USA bought franco-italian FREMM ships not so long ago from Italy). And I don't either understand which defense agreements you talk about, is it between France and Greece ? Both countries are in NATO and EU so they already have not one but two complete defense agreement that binds them, so it doesn't make sense. That said, exercises will certainly be multiplied to improve interoperability between both armies. I agree with your first sentence. It looks like the US is completely looking away from the Mediterranean sea. Cheers.

[@dasbubba841]

@@holthrain3985 I think the "defense agreement" was more in reference to Greece's EEZ dispute with Turkey. As the US pivots to the Asia-Pacific region, they gave more influence in the Mediterranean to France.

[@DomiAngel]

@@holthrain3985 It is true that the French offers were vastly superior in terms of the ship's capabilities and armaments according to the needs of the Hellenic Navy but the United States used its immense influence to pressure Greece to choose their warship and missile package. This fact caused Greece to postpone the decision on which warships to buy for many months. Then AUKUS cause grievances between France and the US so in order to appease the French the US stopped pressuring Greece thereby letting them chose the French offer without any negative repercussions. Now about mutual defence agreement France and Greece signed. Some consider it complimentary to NATO. The key caveat is that Greece is threatened by Turkey which is a NATO ally. This complicates the NATO response if these two countries were to engage in armed conflict. This agreement allows France to defend Greece in case of a Turkish attack quickly and swiftly without having to wait for NATO to decide on a course of action. Hope I explained it adequately.

[@SoundsSilver]

Yes but that’s in the context of a possible future war between Turkey and Greece.

[@holthrain3985]

@@DomiAngel Great answer, thanks ! In France's POV, the Greek/Turkish tensions make it evident that NATO logics are completely outdated. So in the case of mutual defense agreements, one should look at the mecanisms included in the European Union to better understand what is happening for those countries. There are already mutual defense pacts included in here. I hope more people from english-speaking countries would understand this "braindead NATO" point of view. It's as if Russia joined NATO while still picking a aggressive stance with Britain/Baltic countries/Poland. What's the point of a defensive alliance when the main probable opponent in the region is part of this alliance ?

[@InquisitorXav]

as a french I find this situation hilarious. We did something similar to Russia a few years ago. My government is made of a bunch of hyprocritical crybabies

[@meneither3834]

Non ça avait rien à voir.

[@InquisitorXav]

@@meneither3834 Une rupture de contrat c'est une rupture de contrat, les éléments connexe je m'en cogne.

[@antoine9098]

Le contexte à prendre en compte, la Russie c'est pas l'Australie on a pas les même relations entre d'un côté un adversaire et de l'autre un potentiel allié.

[@InquisitorXav]

​@@antoine9098 Comme je l'ai déjà dit le contexte je m'en cogne. Quand on rompt un contrat signé on a pas le droit de se plaindre quand ça nous arrive en retour.

[@meneither3834]

@@InquisitorXav La géopolitique c'est pas ton truc on dirais.

[@naveenveeravalli3478]

I think the most important nuance that majority of the media failed to report is the issue of service and maintenance that Shrivan rightly pointed out. I think it is very safe to cast doubts on France's willingness to provide the above services to Aussies if an out n' out conflict breaks out, but as an Indian we are very thankful to the French for the Rafale deal but also for setting up operations and the necessary technology transfer so we can maintain these jets ourselves in the future.

[@shreygupta9179]

France has always been a rather solid ally to india. Hell I wish they had won the colonial conflict in india instead of the Brits.

[@naveenveeravalli3478]

@@shreygupta9179 Nah man.... It doesn't matter who the colonizer is, it's always gonna suck. If you think France would have been a better colonial power than Britain, than just look at their history in Africa, Arab world and most significantly in Haiti. Heck why talk about something that happened 50 years ago just look up the involvement of Sarkozy's govt. during the Arab springs. This is not a diss against France ..... just saying that historically human beings have always misused a position of power for their own agenda and greed

[@kirkc9643]

@@naveenveeravalli3478 plus if the French had won, us Aussies wouldn't have the opportunity to kick your arses at cricket :-P

[@interdictr3657]

@@shreygupta9179 The grass is always greener on the other side, probably wouldn't have been significantly different

[@naveenveeravalli3478]

@@kirkc9643 I still have the sweet memories of the Gabba test in my mind even though I haven't watched cricket in a long time also might I remind you that you guys no longer have Ricky leading your team but we still have kick ass talent coming through. Tides have changed my friend.... but we always love a good showdown between India and the Aussies.😜

[@CraneArmy]

this project, did not fail quickly. There have been problems and plenty of "sketchy, but technically not illegal" things happening with it since before the contract was signed, and covering it without talking about naval group incurring 10 years of delays 5 years from the start of the contract seems like a miss. the french govt has every right and reason to be upset about how it played out, as does australia which nobody wants to talk about, but the french should not be surprised.

[@yamakawa511]

Absolutely, the contract should have never been signed in the first place (Not that this says anything good about the Australian defence procurement process).Y

[@ZUGTFO]

Damn good break down of the issues. True journalism, far superior to the MSM. Well done!

[@chiquicat1]

What’s the ‘MSM’?

[@teal4168]

@@chiquicat1 mainstream media. The acronym is often used as a pejorative based off the popular perception that the industry is prone to obfuscation, reporting only on things that affirm their agenda, or downright lies. This is of course nonsense, at least when the industry is viewed as a whole. It is unfortunate that those who espouse these beliefs are unable to appreciate the irony that in shying away from professional journalism they have turned to either less accurate or sometimes far less salubrious sources.

[@alv4049]

@@teal4168 Professional journalism and mainstream media are not the same. Plenty of independent and professional media out there. MSM has steadily been losing credibility due to the biggest redistribution of information with the ever increasing reach of the internet. The idea that MSM doesn't try to mold news to fit their respective agendas is demonstrably false.

[@teal4168]

@@alv4049 I think you may have misread my comment, while any one editorial may shape things to fit a narrative the industry when viewed in aggregate does not.

[@alv4049]

@@teal4168 @Teal This is simply not true. MSM is only divided among binary partisan lines. As an example, the ongoing Ethiopian conflict is demonstrably being misrepresented on contrasting outlets like Fox News and CNN - who together make up the bulk of cable news. This is neither new, nor surprising.

[@Daniel-sz6gf]

I would be more worried for the French to keep up the supply of munitions in the time of war even if they were willing. They ran out of supplies in the Libyan civil war.

[@Minchya]

They refused to supply parts for our Mirage fighters during the Vietnam war.

[@benghazi4216]

Why is that a problem when the Australians demanded that Lockheed Martin did the weapon systems in this French sub deal?

[@benghazi4216]

@@Minchya Many countries objected to that ridiculous slaughter of civilians the US perpetrated in Vietnam, and for what?..

[@stephanvelines7006]

Australia mandated that the French submarines be converted to US weapons technology. Therefore weapon supplies would have been US obligations. I hope you can imagine now were the increasing project costs came from.

[@garrangery8180]

@@benghazi4216 Bitch France was the country that got the US involved in Vietnam in the first place. On top of that, put yourself in Australia's boots; if and when the war with China starts France decides not to take a strong stance, what'll stop them from just not giving them the spare parts? whether its moral or not doesn't matter, its in Australia's best interests to go for the deal with the fewest liabilities.

[@Heptagonalghost]

Thank you Shirvan, great video. Unfortunately the New Zealand government will never be able to mediate between AUKUS and the CCP due to the infiltration they have allowed into their midst from the communist party of China. Greed and shortsighted policies have blinded their eyes. Also many New Zealand voters, like the current government, are geopolitically inept to see the past, present and future patterns in a way that reflects the true reality of the geopolitical landscape. The warning signs through mainstream media are that the current NZ Prime Minister refers to any criticism of the Chinese government as zenophobia or dismisses such criticism as conspiracy theory - not directly always, but through suggestive language and deflection. Her voters are largely subscribed to this narrative.

[@TheRezro]

Until that is part of greater game. We need to remember that in opposition to Russia. US and China fight over shared interests. It is not dick measuring. It is a peacock dance.

[@johnhazelgrove1616]

A couple of points: The contract between France and Australia was writted with exit gates at each stage; Australia chose to use the legitimate exit for various reasons - delays, substantial cost over runs, a leaking of the plans by Naval, the sub builder: The contract is a business issue, and will be resolved: The meeting with Indonesia was cancelled for other reasons days before the new sub deal / AUKUS was announced: New Zealand has not participated in ANZUS since they chose to ban nuclear ships in their waters; And New Zealand is seen as too close / too reliant on China, but NZ would certainly need Australian support in the event of any military action against them: Biden had approached France and Germany to join the AUKUS pact, and both declined. Macron thought he would be leading a regional allince, not falling in behind the US / UK - an ultimate humiliation following Brexit: Finally, China has reacted in no uncertain terms, with a spokesman declaring that Australia has now lost the 'privelage' of not being a nuclear target; the bellicose threats from China over the last 18 months have put Australia into a very difficult position - be passive and accept the threats, or strengthen our borders and provide some regional protection: Australia has already started talks with the US re leasing nuclear powered subs until the new fleet is ready.

[@natashagupta4691]

⬜ SERCH ADITYA RATHORE-HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE CONTENT LIKE CASPIAN REPORT

[@williamdavis9562]

@@natashagupta4691 I don't think people will be flocking to some Indian dude's channel for rational insight on geopolitics.

[@thilomanten8701]

Your politicians have far more strategic wisdom than our Ctrl+C --》 Ctrl+V Phd-thesis politicians. They are a bunch of cowards. Go Oz, boxing kangaroo.

[@captainkide575]

Do you have the source about Biden aproaching Germany/France please ? i'd like to read more on it Also for the rupture of the contract the problem for us (the french) was not the breaking of the contract itself but the fact that it was done in a secret way and that a few weeks before, Aussies were still talking about the french deal, it"s clearly not a way to treat an "ally"

[@lucascottle2345]

The part about new Zealand is incredibly wrong, in fact Australia China trade is 25% of Australias total while nz China trade is 23%. more land in Australia is owned by Chinese citizens and companies than anywhere else in the five eyes. New Zealand has always taken a be as neutral as possible while still remaining in the west stance the cold War. Our forgein policy is Co operate with Australia in South pacific and address issues outside of it through multilateral bodies such as the UN. Australia and the US have known and accepted this since the 1960s despite what the Australian press would tell you. Trumps withdrawal from the TPPA literally forced aus and nz into china's economic orbit, the military pact is one thing, but money talks loudest, its not stupid of nz to lay low until a new stable export partner arises in their home region

[@TD1021-]

Shirvan and everyone that puts work into these videos we salute you. There's so many interesting things in geopolitics that alot of us don't know about or don't know the details of em and yall knock it out the park every single video. Everything's well researched and presented in a professional manner. Just wanted to say thank you and keep up the great work. Chicago supports Caspian Report 💪🤜🤛👏

[@jayr.7209]

Relax

[@miguelk4198]

Wouldn't have hurt to tell the French before the press conference

[@tobiasL1991]

Exactly, it's so incredibly brazen, it's almost on purpose...

[@feelsweirdman2699]

@@tobiasL1991 of course it is

[@aespa690]

Thank you for these videos explaining current events in a clear and nonbiased manner better then any "journalism" outlet

[@tupaicindjeke275]

I feel like Anton Petrov from “What da Math” and Shirvan are secretly the same person.

[@interdictr3657]

2 channels I love!

[@kosmicheskiprah]

Thanks to you, now I know who he is. Although Anton, being Bulgarian, has a more Eastern European accent compared to Shirvan.

[@tupaicindjeke275]

@@interdictr3657 They are both great

[@tupaicindjeke275]

@@kosmicheskiprah awesome. They sound the same. They are both extremely smart

[@aldaron1021]

There are not the same person, people from Slavic nations sound relatively the same but if you from one ( like myself) you know the difference. I think the name Caspian Report comes from the Caspian Sea so I believe since the name Shirvan is common in Azerbaijan which is a country that borders the Caspian Sea this is the most likely place the author of this channel is from. This would explain his vast knowledge of the region and Russia as well. Also Shirvan is not a Bulgarian name.

[@djitidjiti6703]

This is good for France. They wanted better defences in the French Pacific, and they now have it in Australian and US co-operation, while still being able to sit on the fence regarding China. Europe will never have Australia's back, but it can hopefully rely on the US. Japan, India, SK and ASEAN all want China to reined in, but are scared of being left on their own - hopefully AUKUS is the beginning of a multilateral Asia-Pacific alliance against China. New Zealand are concerned about China, but know that maintaining good trade ties helps NZ more than any attempt at patrolling the Pacific would - this was Australia's strategy until the South China Sea started becoming an issue. New Zealand exports more goods to China, but their economy and society have deep links to Australia, and if Australia's economy tanks so does New Zealand's. Also, correcting your history a little, Australia wasn't just a staging ground for the US Pacific campaign in WW2 - it was a major combatant, participating in the defence of British and Dutch territories, conducting raids into the occupied Dutch East Indies, and having its mainland attacked by Japanese bombers and submarines. Before the US launched its first ground offensive against Japan, the Guadalcanal campaign, Australia was already defending against and then pushing back Japanese forces in the New Guinea campaign.

[@interrobangings]

whaaat? the eu let Australia into Eurovision, of COURSE they have their back! /s

[@dasbubba841]

@@interrobangings No quite true. Europe has, for a long time, lacked serious hard power and a will to use it. Examples include Yugoslavia and Kosovo, and more recently with Iran. The US is a more firm and consistent ally when it comes to China than the EU.

[@tritium1998]

Long essay short: it's just the USA reining in those little countries more with bases and equipment that they can't make themselves.

[@dasbubba841]

@Deep Claymore No one in the US wants a war with Iran. Iran is actually quite useful as a boogeyman to keep Israel and Saudi Arabia in line, and to prevent them from going at each others' throats. Iran is of little direct threat to US interests, besides some shenanigans in Iraq.

[@msh5705]

Never have I seen a review of a game in such a serious tone, and I really love it

[@Kaif08610]

Indonesia has the most to lose from this deal. Any conflict between China - Australia/The West will impact Indonesia as it is sandwiched between the two sides and will be in the middle of a shooting match.

[@ibnu9969]

True, but Indonesia can choose to play both sides to at least profit a little from it

[@benghazi4216]

Indonesia, and the countries closer to China has the most to win from this deal. Look at the 9 dash line. The CCP wants territory, and it's not going to be Australian or American territory that is going to be taken. And the stronger the opposing force in the region, the harder for CCP to make aggressive moves.

[@customerservice3109]

Indonesian is quietly satisfied from this deal. They are very worried about China too. But the Oz subs will help protect Indonesian waters without the Indos having to pay any extra.

[@fendysuryanto]

By any means, Indonesia ussually doesn't consider Australia nor China as a good news. One has bad track record for "trust" as a partner, another one is parking their Coast Guard ship at Indonesian EEZ for the so called traditional fishing ground.

[@iamgreat1234]

Indonesia will support Western block since a strong China is bad for Indonesia

[@e3498-v7l]

Better scrap the deal than sell obsolete subs for scrap metal.

[@tonyhawk94]

The barracuda class are more modern than the Virginia that the US sold (first delivery in 1999)

[@t--w5203]

I love this channel not only for its thoughtful insight, but the very rare to see civil discussion in the comments

[@natashagupta4691]

🔴 SERCH ADITYA RATHORE-HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE CONTENT LIKE CASPIAN REPORT

[@voisinage17]

Well, it was always obvious this deal wasn't going to work out, seeing as pump-jet submarines can only stay underwater for 20 minutes. Signed, Pauline Hanson

[@Ni999]

The RN's Astute class and the US Virginia class are the most-discussed nuclear replacements for the RAN - and both run pump jets. I really enjoyed Pauline's performance on the subject so my question is, do I need to reserve a seat to watch her head explode when it comes up this time? I don't want to miss it and it is coming - the day after the split with France was announced, someone from the party there explained that it was time to accept nuclear powered subs with propellers because it was common knowledge that pump jets take too much power. Not kidding. I wish Australia and the RAN all the best but I am stocking up on popcorn for the next pump jet show.

[@SpottoBotto]

🤣

[@ianthomas7863]

Yes, Pauline!!, a real submarine building engineer. Australia we have the expertise 🤣🤣😂🤣😂

[@Garcwyn]

A very convoluted deal so the US can have the infrastructure and refuelling capabilities in Australia given that Guam is too small and Hawaii too far away from China. This is what this deal is all about. Having American nuclear subs bases down under

[@red94mr28]

Get a clue, dude. Japan is way closer to China than Australia and the US Seventh Fleet is based in Sasebo, Japan. Guam is too small? Lol, the naval bases at Guam are enormous. It is the home port for USN 688 class fast attack nuclear submarines USS Key West (SSN-722), USS Oklahoma City (SSN-723), USS Topeka (SSN-754), USS Asheville (SSN-758)

[@thecatalyst6212]

@@red94mr28 it also has facilities to dock supercarriers for short periods of time

[@red94mr28]

@@thecatalyst6212 Yeah, makes sense since Guam is enormous due to its very strategic location. OP was just FOS.

[@TwilightStormshi]

Always a pleasure to watch a CaspianReport video. Your research and clean analysis of global trends make for informative and persuasive summaries of geopolitical events.

[@spaced___x]

,,Canberra torpedoed the deal" Double facts.

[@IbrahimIbrahim-bw5ko]

France would probably do the same. "Countries have no friends, they have interests" Carles de Gaulle. France has other options or opportunities. France is a smart country that can be tricky at times times and relies on former colonies for raw matetrials at relatively cheap price. Remember when Italian deputy prime minister Luigi di Maio accused the French of exploiting Africa as "France has never stopped colonising tens of African states." He even called on the European Union to impose sanctions on France for its policies in Africa. Just saying

[@sharefactor]

Be advised that Luigi di Maio can not be taken seriously. He is a politician from a populist movement.

[@rimacalid6557]

@@sharefactor he's not the only one who said that neither the first in EU.

[@rimacalid6557]

Are you Israeli Ibrahim?

[@kenfelix8703]

Just because one snake calls any other snake . There sill all snakes

[@lawrenceweston922]

I have ZERO sympathy for France and by extension Europe and Japan; they tow the US line 100% of the time in regards to foreign affairs. I have zero sympathy for France or Europe or even Japan.

[@markbentley6994]

Excellent analysis that goes far beyond that provided by the mainstream media.

[@smorcrux426]

There's one thing I don't understand: how are french interests any different than American or Australian ones? All of those countries want the same thing: to counter Chinese influence in that entire region.

[@priyanks91]

IMO, Europe has relatively been quieter to China's ascension, compared to US, Aus, India etc. So, while the French might want to really just make money from the deal and have counter Chinese influence somewhat, US would go all guns blazing to completely block China, even if it means losing money or proliferating the tech.

[@abadyr_]

Well ask that to the Australians. They wanted France to make the Baracuda diesel powered instead of nuclear powered. Then they went and cut a deal with the USA for nuclear subs, and did not tell the French about it.

[@npmnpm5501]

France doesnt have the leverage geopolitically. Its still Germanys little brother. PLus what makes great alliances are culture and language and the Anglosaxon heritage of Can/US/UK/AU will have less friction. Remember the Liberal values of freedom and property are in stark contrast to those of France (check analysis on french revolution)

[@watze8245]

That may be so but France sees itself as a would be power and wants to have more controle in the region which means trying to dislodge the US in the region. Which evidently failed with the cancellation of the submarine contract.

[@smorcrux426]

@@priyanks91 France had a lot of pacific holdings, and a very large stake in that region of the world. Ngl I don't think they would be lenient about China.

[@captiannemo1587]

"A contract is a contract is a contract... but only between Ferengi."

[@Hans-qi3wq]

Nobody provides context so simply and beautifully as Caspian Report.

[@CH3353N1NJ45]

Australia "torpedoed" the Deal, underrated pun.

[@eldraino9933]

I’m an Australian and believe the French sub deal was a stinker - Australia’s main problem militarily will be China and China would have had little problem detecting and dealing with these diesel/electric units. Now we’re looking at much more capable American Virginia or British Astute class attack subs which along with crucial nuclear power, also have a very lethal land attack capability as well as anti shipping. Make sure you know that our friends in Indonesia are quietly very pleased with Australia’s decision and they are just being careful not to create tension with the Chinese government. Australia is a wealthy country and we can afford an $80-90 billion submarine program. From a geostrategic point of view, the most important aspect of AUKUS is the ability to deny the Chinese navy AND its merchant marine from blue water access and the big part of this is to empower the British Royal Navy to be there in the Atlantic, protecting the Americans Asian flank leaving the Americans to concentrate their naval assets to the all important Pacific theatre whilst the Indian Ocean is sorted by the Australians, the Indians and a smaller American component. The Chinese will be very upset with AUKUS because it effectively cuts out their ability to enter the Atlantic without having to deal with the very capable and very lethal British Royal Navy. The Atlantic is very important for the Chinese because they source almost half of their oil via Atlantic ports. Australia had no choice but to do this. The previous Australian prime minister had no idea what he was doing when he started with the French sub idea. He was very incompetent and his decision had to be reversed. My personal opinion was that the Australian Navy go the whole hog and get 6 British nuclear attack subs and 4 of the forthcoming state of the art British Dreadnought class nuclear missile (SLBM) subs then try and bring Indonesia into a nuclear pact with Australia. Indonesia would be sold 4 Dreadnought class units as well - giving the Chinese military a massive headache.

[@싸넬동지-7성담배]

Australian main problem is the American-like paranoia. The funniest part is civilians like you supporting this shit, because who's money do you think your government is using ? If there's a drought of any kind of goods who do you think will be the first to crumble, certainly not your elites.

[@FirstTakahashi]

Australia chose to destroy its economic ties with China by citing national security concerns one after another. Little did they know, when trade with Australia reduce, China replace them with US. The Aussies effectively did its US Master's bidding while hurting its own economy. Now with AUKUS that 90 billion is going to US while Aussies know none the wiser.

[@kenfelix8703]

Dress it how you like a snake is a snake. In 20 years Australia will have 9 new subs China will have 240 . Yeah just admit to being a back stabbing snake.🇬🇧USA

[@primoyz5608]

Fat paragraph 😂

[@OleOlson]

This channel is consistently great. Happy I found it years ago, keeps me informed about international politics and geopolitics better than any US media does.

[@magnushem8734]

Greetings from Sweden. I hope that EU will maintain a good relationship and trade with Australia. If France thinks that Australia breached the contract, then the contract should be reviewed by an independent court.

[@trezapoioiuy]

I think we should have France’s back. Today someone fucked with France and if we let that go, tomorrow they’ll know they can also fuck with Finland or any other country. If the reaction is more coherent, people will be less likely to fuck with Europe that they’d be to fuck with “x small country”. It’s possible to back from a deal, but to do it in that way shows complete absence of consideration. They could have dealt with it in many different ways and this one was the worst one.

[@IanGerritsen]

@@trezapoioiuy France knew for 2 years Australia wasn't happy with the progress but didn't improve it at all. Given they were happy to make Australia wait months for deliverables, what's the problem with them waiting to learn the deal is cancelled?

[@benghazi4216]

@Johnny Rep Stupidity times ten. Stop thinking like a child.

[@benghazi4216]

@@IanGerritsen Do you really think that kind of childish reasoning have any place in international business? If I behaved like Australia at my job, my counter parts would sue me in a heartbeat, and rightfully so. And all those arguments seem shallow since Australia will have to wait a decade More now, pay a lot more, and not having anywhere close to 60% of the contract value made domestically. Australia even has to refit their already built infrastructure for these nuclear subs. I will say like Australia's previous PM; This was a hatchet job by Morris.

[@jamoblair7245]

@@benghazi4216 Nah Maclolm Turnbull made a shitty deal

[@gregparrott]

The 'Caspian Reports' are generally excellent. However this one adds little detail to what has already been broadly covered I gave it a 'Thumbs Up', but I hope there might be a sequel on 'AUKUS' that goes beyond what was presented here.

[@DavidKD2050]

And factually wrong on some points such as Australia needing to develop an indigenous nuclear industry. The whole point of the sub deal is that they DON’T need to do so because technology has now reached a point where the subs have a sealed reactor never needing to be refueled. Please correct me if wrong.

[@gregparrott]

@@DavidKD2050 That is what has ben represented - no supporting nuclear equipment or facilities. I'm no nuclear expert. But it would not surprise me if there's a little 'fine print' on this, such as specialized test equipment, components for dealing with potential emergencies, etc.

[@DavidKD2050]

@@gregparrott personally I hope that it is just the opening for modern nuclear that in my opinion Australia needs. A bunch of the as yet non existent sealed mini nuclear reactors along with decent charging infrastructure for car charging and Australia can drastically reduce its oil imports and in one fowl swoop improve the balance of payments, reduce emissions, and last but not least get rid of the most dangerously exposed aspect of its defense, to stream of tankers. With an ever growing Chinese navy it would be very easy to starve Australia of oil in short order. And hello NZ, you are just crumbs once Australia falls. Wake up.

[@gregparrott]

@@DavidKD2050 I may be wrong, but as I understand it, these reactors ALREADY exist on one of the U.S. classes of submarines. They are supposedly a 'proven' design. What you suggested about Australia adopting nuclear power makes sense from the standpoint of dependency on imported oil. But from what I understand of Australian politics, that is way too radical to be accepted anytime soon. An interim alternative would be for Australia to use its coal reserves as a backup and develop means to convert coal into gas via. a coal 'gasification' process. I looked up New Zealand's naval and air defense forces - You're 100% right. They're pathetic

[@DavidKD2050]

@@gregparrott yes the sealed reactor on the subs exist which is why it was politically doable for Australia to go down the nuke path. Domestically however not yet as far as I know.

[@SteepSix]

"Would France be willing to risk its neck for Australia? Not likely!"... Herein stands the core reasoning behind Canberra's decision to pivot toward a UK/US dominated security strategy. To whom would we turn to for help in the event of Chinese aggression? France? Not likely! I know we pissed off the French, but what choice did we have? AUKUS is the only logical solution to the developing geopolitical challenges for Australia. Regionally, Japan and India, along with South Korea and Thailand, are our best options for a capable and stable alliance. NZ is basically useless to that end, and itself should have considered more carefully the invitation to Australian Federation in 1900. Had it accepted that invitation, Australia would itself now be a serious regional power of which New Zealand would be a part. So, Dear France, so sorry, but should it come down to it then we simply cannot afford to be unsure about the support we must needs turn to for help, and we need much better hardware than you have. You know we will always be friends, and there will ever be a place in our hearts for you, it's just that at this stage of our lives we need more from a relationship like this - and we know your heart is turned towards your little Union there in Europa. Don't be angry with us, but be happy for us. At least, we will always have Paris... Forever your loving friend, Australia.

[@naveenveeravalli3478]

was waiting for your take on this issue!!!

[@amindamok]

It's hard to blame Australia for its decision. The reality is China and Australia have been at odds for a hot minute now. With the US and, quite frankly nearly everyone one else (including Russia even though they wont publicly admit it), wants to slow China's expansion as much as possible. This deal is definitely ruffled a lot of feathers which means its having the effect it was intended to. China can claim that this move will escalate military buildups in the region and it probably will. However, their own military build up is what has caused this deal to exist in the first place. China's build up is designed to expand their territory though threat of aggression or even actual aggression. I suppose with all the economic trouble China is having lately we will see just how committed they are to continued military growth.

[@navaratnamratnajothi6552]

TKNR.FRANCE SHOULD ENTER MOST OF FROM TREATIES AND HAVE LONG TERM relationship between INDIA and FRANCE.

[@despapitoxaa6331]

France snatched Au-Jp submarine deal before this. SMH.

[@yc2673]

No it was German-Aus deal

[@Axel_Roffi]

And it was not a deal as it was not signed...

[@benghazi4216]

BS. Australia chose the French OVER the Japanese.

[@clementl.9566]

Japan should not even be allowed to build weapons after what it did during WW2. The same goes for Germany and Italy.

[@stephanvelines7006]

@@clementl.9566 may I encourage you to buy a new calendar. The 1940s have passed

[@fufufafafufufafa]

Paris: is not happy Beijjng: is concerned Jakarta: relaxing and enjoying martabak (with some cigs of course)

[@obsidianstatue]

This AUKUS is really being overblown in its importance. 1) the submarines won't be ready until 2040s. By then the power balance in the Asia Pacific will be shifted way towards China, and the Chinese navy by then would have 8 to 10 aircraft carriers and a vast undersea fleet of nuclear and conventional submarines. 2) So by 2040, what Australia could buy, will simply be a rounding error in the great power competition between China and the US. And who knows if UK would even exist in its current form by then As Scotland is already not happy with Brexit, could seek independence especially if a crisis of some kind hits Europe. The recent fuel shortages in UK is just a hint on how vulnerable modern society can be.

[@pablodelsegundo9502]

Yes- between potential Scottish independence and reunited Ireland, no telling what Britain might look like in 20yrs.

[@noaccount4]

1. By 2040, one third of China will be above the age of 60. This contraction in the workforce means that Chinese projections of economic growth based off of their current young workforce may be optimistic; if so, then it puts into question whether China will be able to afford such an ambitious naval expansion program. 2. Force bolstering from regional alliances is a key part of US strategy for containing China at a reasonable price. China is struggling to match the quality AND quantity of the US Navy. Matching the quality and quantity of the US Navy + the Japanese Maritime Self Defence Force + the Australian Royal Navy + the Republic of Korea Navy is not possible. Doing this whilst also keeping in check India, Indonesia & Taiwan shows just how effective this strategy is at encouraging Chinese overextension. 3. I agree with you about the UK, but whether the UK exists in 30 years or not doesn't really matter all that much in this case. I think even in the event of a naval war between the USA and China, the UK is very unlikely to get involved. When asked whether the AUKUS alliance would result in the UK joining such a war, the PM was very non-committal, refusing to give an affirmation or rejection. Such a lukewarm sentiment combined with the UK having lots to lose and nothing to gain from joining such a pacific war suggest the UK is interested in the political advantages of a pact, but not interested in the political obligations of a pact. Thus even if the UK is alive in 30 years, the Royal Navy is unlikely to get involved in actual war.

[@obsidianstatue]

​@@noaccount4 1) You seem to neglect the existence and the already happening 4th industrial revolution, where automation is the key. economic growth comes from productivity growth. You also are assuming Chinese population growth is linear with no government intervention. Trust me the Chinese government will do everything to ensure the survival of the Chinese people WITHOUT mass migration. Some early proposals have already been put out to the public to feel the water, such as tying your retirement pensions to the number of children you've raised into adulthood and your children becoming functioning tax payers, their taxes will be calculated as a proportion of your pension. The more well educated children you have in adulthood, the more retirement pension you get. Policies that have already been implemented such as banning for profit extra tuitions, restricting pay to win online gaming, popping the real estate bubble to curb the real estate prices. All points towards long term policies that lowers the cost of raising a child. In terms of social engineering, Never underestimate the power and capabilities of the Chinese government. 2) If you're worrying about China's aging population then you're oblivious of the fact that South Korea literally has the LOWEST birth rate in the world, in fact they are the only country in the world to have a below 1 birth rate per women, with the fertility rate of 0.86. South Korea as a nation of only 50 million people is seriously at danger of becoming extinct by the end of this century. Unless they open up mass immigration. Japan is not fairing that well either. But at least they have a larger population base, to not become extinct as a viable nation state. Taiwan won't even survival in its current form by 2040. India is struggling to keep up the the 4th industrial revolution where automation is the key, this means unless India becomes a manufacturing superpower within this decade, they will miss the train COMPLETELY. and their massive and unskilled population will be outcompeted by robots in other countries. It is said, China is probably the last major economy to have become fully industrialized through human labor, from the end of this decade in 2030s, automation will cut off that development path for most countries.

[@noaccount4]

@@obsidianstatue 1. Using data from the International Federation of Robots, South Korea has 855 industrial robots per 10,000 workers employed in manufacturing, Japan has 364, Germany 346, Sweden 277, USA 228, Italy 212, Belgium 211, Spain 191 with China coming in 9th at 187. China has a long, long way to go before it can reduce its reliance on human labour for manufacturing output. Will it get there in 20 years? Who knows? I can only make a best assessment that China will have to overcome some very daunting demographic challenges with no obvious solution in sight. I also have doubts over the ability for the Chinese government to induce a population boom, because they need to and have failed to address the issues of paternity/maternity cover and the cost of raising children having drastically increased in China. Until they are capable of making it so that parents do not have to choose between career or family, and are capable of funding for their kids, this pressure will be insurmountable. 2. It is perhaps a bit too apocalyptic to assume a nation of tens of millions could go "extinct." When I think of a country going extinct I think of a country of 50 people like the Pitcairn Islands, not a country with tens of millions of people. The likes of Japan or China could both have five generations of population decline and still come out as amongst the most populated countries in the world, China especially. The issue isn't one of having enough people, but rather the cycle of productive labour & the dual costs & loss of all workers entering retirement. Nations like Japan, Germany and South Korea have been coping with their aging populations through things like automation, AI and other novel technologies. But if China's population declines before they develop a high-income economy like Japan, Germany or SK, the burden it will place on their young populations will be immense, especially if the youth of China don't even stand to gain any windfall inheritance like their peers in Japan or Germany. All of these things will contribute to an erosion of China's tax base in a manner which will not affect China's rivals across the South China Sea & the Pacific Ocean, all of whom have already made the complete transition in their economies from victorian era industrial works to high end services & manufacturing a long time ago. I think in the long term China will probably succeed over the next 40 years in accomplishing this, but

[@kgil135]

No mention of the oil fields surrounding Madagascar? Or in southeast Ethiopia? or the refinery in Kenya? or the French military bases surrounding Madagascar? We are seeing this deal differently.

[@williamdavis9562]

@Kgi135, within 25 years the French will be pushed out of all these areas.

[@sampolisky1109]

CASPIAN REPORT = BEST YT CHANNEL 🤯🤯

[@jenkomagic]

A contract is a contract, and the French could not meet the milestone's as agreed

[@yasedky]

What is the milestone

[@bryanb2886]

and of course they blame the US for their own French failures.

[@Frencho9]

We met them all good riddance and good luck with you nuclear subs that will come 20 years late and be crewed by USA sailors. Australia’s don’t have any know how on Nuclear tech. Basically will be USN subs based in Australia you don’t have the manpower for SSNs. India a nuclear power still can’t have their own SSN and leases an Akula from Russia that is serviced in Russia and the reactor core is only manned by Russians. Not a sovereign vessel and weapon system.

[@Quickshot0]

It's likely that this deal will continue the sense started during the Obama presidency and that became more urgent during the Trump presidency, that Europe can count on less attention and support from the USA in future. That they have their own more immediate concerns and that Europe will come after. So once again this has led to calls that the EU needs to further develop its own strategic autonomy. And yeah, that's happened before with only limited changes from it. But even a lot of small changes eventually will amount to a larger one. So it is likely that this will fuel another step or two along this path.

[@yamanawrooz5132]

Two days and already counting 3.1K comments not short one sentence but long comments. The level of engagement in your videos is really amazing. You deserve it because you put a lot of effort to creat high quality content.

[@unnaturalselection8330]

The Aussies negotiated a better deal with a more advanced ally; that's just good statesmanship. If the French wanted into the Anglo-Alliance, Australia is cashing in on, they needed to be far more constant allies. You go your own way, you develop your own tech. This isn't a new thing in the world and the French know this.

[@katarishigusimokirochepona6611]

The French do develop their own tech...They even offered Oz nuke subs. Oz asked for conventional (diesel).

[@JAimeLesGensBien]

Australia's decision is not irrational indeed. But French proclaimed fury has (ambiguous) internal interests and external legitimacy. If Australia decides it can't trust France, and apparently does so *without any diplomatic smoothing*, it does imply that France should also *trust Australia a bit less* in the future, and be less prepared to take risks for her. Recalling ambassadors and freezing trade talks serve in projecting more an image of independent player (as France or as the UE) not to be messed with. Nonetheless, if a real Cold War erupts, they will still be on the *same broad side*.

[@unnaturalselection8330]

@@katarishigusimokirochepona6611 It's just a fact that not all nuclear subs are created equal. The US and Russia have far better/more quiet models. If the Australian military are going to both spend the money and take on the risk of operation, the American subs are the way to go.

[@trezapoioiuy]

Maybe acting like they didn’t consider European countries like little shits to just step on would have made changing deal look different.

[@katarishigusimokirochepona6611]

@@unnaturalselection8330 The French social/governance system is full of flaws and their dirigiste economy is an embarrassment. Nevertheless, this is not how you treat an ally. It's like dumping the bride at the wedding in order to take up a hotter girl you just met on her offer of a one-night stand and then doing her, right there, in public, in front of both sets of family and guests. The French are humiliated. Oz and Murica look classless. There had to have been a better way to achieve the same result (change of contract, shift of priorities). There is a moral dimension to alliances and for once the French are in the right. If I'm a third party, on the fence, I'm now going to be much more circumspect about the depth and breadth of my commitment to partners like Oz and the US. If this is how a legit major power like France gets treated, one can only imagine the manhandling Singapore, Czechia, Indonesia or Japan would get. So it's not about subs, it's about relationships. Allies, by definition, help each other even when it's not convenient. Allies communicate and cooperate. Sure, it's not the same as interpersonal dynamics but there's a surprising amount of overlap. And a surprising amount of both peace and conflict is rooted in respect and dignity -- or lack thereof.

[@lexas1]

.'..Australia torpedoed the deal...' 😂 My choice for metaphor of the year.

[@zeppkfw]

Thank you for being being unbiased. You understand the views of both sides. I hope you never change this is a very rare trait nowadays.

[@Joker-yw9hl]

I can understand French frustration but they have to understand that Australia's defence cannot wait, let alone have a price hike and without using Australian workforce as promised. AUKUS works best for Australia, the US and the UK. Heard rumours the Australian subs will be similar to the Astute class

[@erwanmarie8756]

The new subs will be ready in about 20 years, so Australia will wait no matter what...

[@Joker-yw9hl]

@Alfred Weber I see what you mean, though I think it was incredibly important on the Australian side to have them made domestically for employment and know-how, so that plays its part too. The timeline is long though, but that's also why they couldn't wait any longer on the French

[@charlesferdinand422]

I love that the Americans and the British threw the French under the proverbial bus to stop the Chinese. 😂

[@bespe5189]

The rejecting of the French deal was more about Australia kowtowing to US's foreign policy objectives. The Australian Government and the Australian intelligence agencies are tethered to the US via Pine Gap, the joint operated spy base. The submarines offered by the US are decades away, however, part of the new agreement is a closer entwined US/AUS Navy. Which undoubtedly means Australia playing host to more US forces, which is domestically very unpopular.

[@JohnSmith-dg9gg]

France has now announced it will partner with Greece for new subs. It's a match made in heaven, the people who can't deliver meet the people who can't pay!

[@hallroney]

“Torpedo the deal” lol i see what u did there

[@turnleft8645]

This man produces better content than 90% of news channels

[@asterixky]

Australia will still have to pay over $1 billion to France for breach of contract. That's a pretty penny for the Australian tax payer.

[@HotPlates.]

Almost as much as we paid for Dan Andrews cancellation of the east west link in Melbourne…

[@asterixky]

@@HotPlates. But just heard of a new contract between France and Australia. Maybe, not all is lost after all.

[@The_Desert_Tiger]

Meh, they got 2 billion for doing nothing over the last 4-5 years.

[@zacharydavis4398]

I am a little confused, prior to US offering the Submarine deal to Australia, the French has been a key factor in redirecting the German procurement of the billions of euros worth of F-35 jets in an attempt to redirect those billions of euros towards French incentives(i.i. Franco-German Industrial cooperation, etc which even as an American i cant say that i think France pushing those funds towards boosting a French-German industrial cooperation is necessarily a negative thing, a stronger Europe is great for all the allies). But I am not sure why the French, directly after taking a key/crucial part in nixing the German F-35 procurement deal with the US, would have this reaction when the US decides to offer a submarine deal to Australia that better serves Australia national security as a whole and its international capabilities. If the French redirect billions of euros away from an American procurement deal to potentially better serve the French-German economy, why are they not as accepting with the US takes a key part in redirecting billions of dollars away from the French procurement deal with Australia to better serve the needs of Australia and the surrounding region (Long term)? This is simply a question that is open for discussion to everyone, that i would love to know. Also Caspian Report, if you have time, i would love to hear your teams opinion on all the above as well. I am just a little confused at the moment, especially considering the French began attempting to redirect the German F-35 procurement deal with the US before the US decided to begin redirecting the French-Australia submarine procurement deal towards US submarines.. Is it just me, or is anyone else confused? Just wondering.. it might just be me and that is cool too, i just want to hear the perspectives (ideally of any of you who are French and German, but I would also love to hear the perspectives of everyone/anyone else around the world who would want to share their opinons/perspectives on the aforementioned matter at hand. Thanks

[@alexdsp9468]

I can't speak for all of France but the biggest impact seems to be how the deal was made. I get that diesel subs might not be enough and that they need nuclear subs so the previous agreement had to go. But France also has nuclear subs. They could have told France that they wanted to change the deal and asked for an offer from France and then compare it to the US one. But they didn't do that and firmed a new agreement without involving the current partner. Being in competition is fair but the behaviour was inacceptable for allied countries. For the Germany F-35 situation, France promotes a sustainable European defense force as Trump proved that overdepending on the US can be dangerous. For security reasons, it's better if countries producing your weapons, ammunitions and upgrades to your defense system have common interest and issues with you. Russia Agression and destabilisation, Wars in the Middle East and the migration waves are common issues for European states so it's easier to agree on strategic issues (even more due to the common market).

[@Longlius]

​@@alexdsp9468 In this case then, the US and Australia have much more in common, being primarily maritime powers and having a shared anglo settler culture. So it's still roughly the same situation as the European realignment you described above.

[@asdafkgmify]

In short France sees itself as an equal to America not (as it actually is) a minor/middle power. Its reaction is emotional not rational due to this perception. As an Aussie I think this deal was handled badly but France will get over it. Its only option in the Pacific is China or USA led alliances.

[@aratirao9007]

🔳 SERCH ADITYA RATHORE-HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE CONTENT LIKE CASPIAN REPORT

[@8wayz2shine]

Germany has a lot of political wrangling when it comes to a defense budget and the F-35 deal was too expensive to begin with for them. Even the Franco-German proposed solution is not yet voted fully by the german Bundestag mainly because Airbus is situated predominantly in France. There are other issues to contend with. It is a far stretch to say that France was the reason for scrapping the US deal. Regarding the Aussie deal, it was not the deal itself that was important but the way France was sidelined. Neither Australia, nor the USA had the decency to inform them that a counter-offer was made. They are allies after all. The sheer arrogance the US had of thinking everyone will play by its rules just because they have the biggest military. Another nuance is that Macron and the french foreign affairs ministry expected a different behavior from the Biden administration, compared to the previous, Trump one. It is fair to say that the new administration is worse in their foreign affairs than the Trump one. So the USA in the space of one month first had the disastrous handling of Afghanistan and then the handling of this deal.

[@ProfessorBecks]

Thank you for this video, by far the most lucid description of the aukus agreement I have seen to date.

[@wojciechp]

FAUKUS? AFUKUS? ... Ah, how about FUKUSA I'm sure french would love that name

[@GAndreC]

That’s why François is not part of the treaty because it would make for a goofy name

[@benjamindavidovichwaals2899]

😂😂😂

[@haroldasraz]

"The country is an island". Well, Australia is such a big part of the Australinea continent that the "island" definition is slightly stretched. Though technically true, you can not think of it just like any other island.

[@urbandiscipline8858]

Australia is a Chinese land.

[@armchairemperor4777]

Love your work my friend, much respect from NZ

[@quantum.decoherence]

Critically forgot to mention that Beijing said that Australia is now a legitimate nuclear target, as US subs could be covertly fitted with nukes

[@k4ir0s]

That's fine. It's not like China doesn't already have nukes ready. North Korea is pretty much a Chinese puppet state that allows China to develop nukes through them.

[@foorack]

@@k4ir0s China does not need North Korea for nuclear development, it's rather the opposite. And China had nukes long begot NK did.

[@stephenjenkins7971]

As if Aus wasn't a nuclear target prior to that lol

[@conburd3338]

They would have been anyway lol

[@elmohead]

@@k4ir0s and now malaysia and indonesia are asking the recipe for nukes from china. bolstering their relationship while accelerating nuclear arms race in the region.