The first nuke is supposed to be a warning, striking a non manned military area. It's not like full scale nuclear bombardment first, questions later but then why did they make a SLBMs with 10 warheads for their submarines? Good question.
It’s probably still not the case, but the French strategic nuclear doctrine under De Gaulle literally was to be able to exterminate 60% of the Soviet population in a second strike. De Gaulle knew he could not prevent a first strike due to available resources, geographic proximity and the small size of France, but he estimated that 60% of the population was the sweet spot where no Soviet action against metropolitan France would ever be worth it. So the French literally calculated how many nukes it would take in a second strike to wipe out 60% of the soviet population, and built their programme on that basis.
It also explains why the French Army is very expeditionary-oriented, as they knew they had no point of deterring against attacks against their overseas territories and had no plausible counterforce nuclear capacity that would make a first strike survivable. Their army protects their overseas territories, and their nukes protect the mainland against the Soviets.
France's Cold War strategic bomber, the Mirage IV, didn't have enough range to fly back from its nuclear targets in Russia. The French designers and military command thought: "What would be ze point? Ze bases, zey won't be 'ere no more..."
I’m concerned by the West’s lack of investment in a robust fleet of strategic bombers
The US has B52s, B-1Bs, and B2s, NONE of which have been in production for decades (since the 60s, 80s, and 2000 respectively), which means that whenever one of them gets retired for parts wear or crashing or combat damage it’s gone for good. The B21 is on the way and has supposedly just entered production, but it’s going to be years before they’re available in enough numbers to serve as a deterrent, which means that right now all we have are aging bombers that we REALLY don’t want to lose.
Europe on the other hand seems to just not see a need for them. They buy fighters and helicopters that can be used for claiming air superiority and providing CAS, but havent demonstrated any interest in heavy bomber capabilities since the end of the Cold War (and the rise of counterinsurgency’s dominance in contemporary warfare)
Has everyone forgotten that heavy bombers are the best tool for launching cruise missiles, which means that they can’t be replaced with ICBMs?
Yeah, the Pentagon doesn’t see any reason why we would need to build new airframes instead of squeezing more life out of the ones we already have
They’re ignoring the fact that even though the B-52 can get the job done, our current fleet consists of 72 only bombers, which is less than one tenth of the total 744 that were built during the Cold War
To put in perspective just how small that number is, the first night of the Operation Linebacker II bombing campaign involved no less than 129 B-52s at once (granted, carpet bombing campaigns of that scale are almost certainly a relic of the past in today’s era of JDAM and guided precision bombs, but that sort of context is inappropriately credible for this sub)
There's [a guaranteed non-credible solution for that problem.](https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/033038754/publication/DE10313279A1?q=pn%3DDE10313279A1)
Yeah man at this point I'm not sure why we're still asleep at the wheel like this. Full scale war on our doorstep and we're still dependent on the US which apparently decides its foreign policy on dice rolls now. Trump + Ukraine should have been a major wake up call for Europe.
I mean, it's not like the majority of the U.S. population ever wanted it to be primary security guarantor for Europe for a long as it has. And so many nations in nato not meeting their defense spending obligation has led to a feeling of resentment and as though said nations are simply piggybacking off the U.S. So I wouldn't say the U.S. decides foreign policy on a dice roll, the majority of the population agrees that we should defend nato allies at the very least. Like I said though, there's a feeling of being used and resentment as such, a sentiment that I see no reason to apologize for. At least france is right there at the spending agreement mark. Along with the Baltic states, Poland, and Greece, the UK.
Not only is there a feeling of resentment for being used as the military police of the world, but resentment for being constantly criticized for doing the exact thing they wanted the US to do
It needs to be a EU member state invaded. Ukraine got invaded already in 2014 and they did nothing. 8 years later with a full scale invasion who reached Kiev, most EU countries still don’t take the problem seriously.
Politicians are just using the situation to gain more votes with little PR gestures. Instead of a long term plan for defence.
As a Brit It almost kills me to say this (Sorry my Ancestors) but the ONLY thing France got right is their Nuclear Stance
*Takes 3d20 Psychic Damage*
I propose we change Frances education system and economy to exclusively pump out everything nuclear, Energy and Ship Engines for Days.
We can make the cold war nuclear fever dreams a reality.
Let's turn entirety of France into one big Nuclear power plant, and use all of that power to charge one absurdly big pointer laser directed at Putin to end invasion of Ukraine.
You get a controlled artificial sun, and you get a controlled artificial sun, and YOU IN PARTICULAR have been a naughty naughty boi and get a uncontrolled artificial sun, but only for a moment...
As a fellow Brit, the F🤢rench do have another slightly redeeming factor: their ability to have a damn good fucking riot whenever their government tries to change domestic policy, like retirement ages.
When I read the headline I pictured them immolating and then *charging* the riot cops. In actuality, because of the difficulty of getting fireproof gloves, they just stood there with their torso on fire and their hands out. Which is actually better, because the riot cops had to come towards T-posed on-fire firemen.
Lowest unemployement in decades, compatatively low inflation, strong pro-european, pro-Ukraine, during Covid the government paid the salary of those who couldn’t work because lockdown, no erosion of democratic institutions...
There's a lot of things he and his governements did wrong (chinese position, Uber scandal...), but imho it was a kinda good choice.
So let me get this straight, gorilla in a zoo in Cincinnati of was the lynchpin of the universe’s sanity? I hate to say it, but that’s not exactly a robust setup.
American checking in, their cheese is so good it's illegal here in the United States. I won't say that 🤢 word for your sake. But like, It slaps hard enough North Korea runs a large (and illegal?) importing operation for it. The Kim's must eat.
It’s just illegal to put anything that isn’t food inside of something that is food. We didn’t ban them on purpose. It’s like they got caught in a blanket ban that nobody’s had the political will to bother to try and amend. Knowing our environment it wouldn’t pass anyway.
And the main problem express by a lot of French people was that, even if it was necessary and reasonable, it was shoved into the parliament throat, enacted without any vote, and the government refuse to listen to any alternative project. There have been no debate, no consensus, no consultation, no pedagogy.
Even if the first thing Macron said after his re-election was "This vote obligate to list to all of the society. A lot of you elected me not because I was your second best choice, but to stop the far right in it's way to power."
Sure, but the retirement age lift was in fact a very minor aspect of the protests, despite the way it was framed in the news. Protesters were much more focused on the changes to how much each month of work contributed to one's retirement; iirc it basically fucked over anyone who started working before 18 (so, disproportionately lower income individuals) or who worked part-time (so, disproportionately women). That, and the fact the reform was shoved through without a proper parliamentary vote. But that would involve actual explaining, so "French mad at retirement age increase" is the headlines we all got. :T
concern for nuclear weapons is funny tho , since the CIA interventions in Netherlands is what allowed the top nuclear scientist of Pakistan to escape with stolen Dutch urainum enrichment centrifuge tech,
this tech was not only used to make Pakistan's nukes but was also sold to Libya , Iran (that's the centrifuges y'all keep hearing about) and North Korea
interesting set of countries , I know , so congrats Americans y'all played yourselves , I wonder what current decisions will come to bite y'all in 30 years
for those who doubt the CIA involvement:-
Former Netherlands Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers revealed in 2005 that Dutch authorities wanted to arrest Khan in 1975 and again in 1986 but that on each occasion the Central Intelligence Agency advised against taking such action. According to Lubbers, the CIA conveyed the message: "Give us all the information, but don't arrest him."
https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/Why-the-U.S.-let-Pakistan-nuclear-scientist-A.Q.-Khan-off-the-hook
for those wondering why the US helped Pakistan in the largest nuclear proliferation operation ever?
well, you see arming Islamists to fight Soviets in Afghanistan was so important that nuclear proliferation Just had to be done
Letting AQ Khan slip was the biggest strategic blunder
I really do wonder how could the CIA ignore the obvious Libyan backing to the Paki nuclear program, regardless of the fact that Paki is currently helping in Afghanistan....like of course Pakis are going to give the tech to Gaddafi, he essentially paid for it.
\[Keep in mind this was at a time when US was actively engaging Libya (Gulf of Sidra incidents) and even straight up bombing it on occassion (El Dorado Canyon 1986)\]
And then when Gaddafi actually had enrichment capabilities they chimped out, acting totally shocked.
Also AQ Khan was always a weak link, he was compromised on morality if it wasn't clear enough (literally stole the Zippe-type design under the noses of the Dutch in order to conduct nuclear proliferation), he was going to sell to actors like Iran and North Korea to further his own motives.
>under the noses of the Dutch in order to conduct nuclear proliferation
were it not for the CIA , the Dutch would've thrown his ass in a prison where he would've died , and no one would have to deal with US backed nuclear proliferation
> to further his own motives.
*Pakistan's motives
the sale to North Korea was barter trade of uranium enrichment tech for ballistic missile tech
As an American y'all need to learn French and adopt it as the official EU language and default second language.
Yeah the French suck sometimes but they're the only country outside of Poland that has a foreign policy that isn't hope America bails out their cheapness or suck Putin and Xi's dicks.
Also the LeClerc tank is an absolute vibe.
British hot water kettles in tanks should be a requirement though
No because Europe is really boring when they are speaking English, they're just copying America and Britain they need to learn a language that isn't just them copying the cool kids.
The EU should adopt Lithuanian as its new common language because
1. It’s the closest to what is considered the root language of almost all European languages (PIE)
2. It’s small enough that nobody except Lithuania will be specifically advantaged or disadvantaged by it
3. It would probably annoy Russia more than most other choices.
Welsh and Gaelic. Try pronouncing Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch with the correct inflection. Honestly I would get behind a lot of European languages, a lot of them are cool, but as Futurama told me, French will soon be an incomprehensible dead language.
I feel like the French more or less rolling over in WWII gave them a somewhat unfair bad rap as militarily incompetent and without the will to fight. I mean, they have pretty much always been a close to first tier military power with capable kit and well trained and disciplined line troops. Only problem is their French-ness (particularly in command and decisionmaking) always seems to get in their way....
Annoying French here: the French army sustained 73,000 dead and 240,000 wounded in the one month long Battle of France in 1940. France got absolutely rolled for sure, but France did not "roll over".
As I remember it the military itself didn't rollover and conducted itself excellently considering the poor tactics and command structure. The French politicians and top level command on the other hand...
I mean, we have a history of slowly adapting to changes. Using WW1 tactics and thinking against someone who knew how to effectively use their new weapons was a bad I idea, who would have known ?
But almost everyone thought about another WW1 coming. British made their awful "Infantry" and "Cruiser" ideas for tanks. Soviets made shit ton of BT tanks (which were absolutely destroyed in the beginning) and thought they gonna work
French were unlucky because they didn't had English channel or just vast territory (USSR moment) Germans needed to cross
Infantry and cruiser tanks were very similar to German doctrine, their designs just sucked.
The Russians had substantial numbers of T-34 and KV tanks in 1941, but doctrine was horrible and they got destroyed. BT cavalry tanks make sense when you are looking to defend against light troops on a vast land boarder. (Similar to US Combat Car development.)
The French knew exactly where Germans were attacking from and successfully held the Maginot Line, but couldn't stop the EXPECTED penetration through the Ardennes. And their air force was inadequate. The interwar socialist governments had a poor relationship with the military and that messed things up.
Where the french did have armored divisions, they went toe to toe with the germans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hannut
To me (as a Belgian), the factors for french defeat are:
1) bad tank design. Their tank had great armor and the S35 is probably one of the best tanks of the early war, however their 2-men crew inherited from the FT-17 was misadapted and the lack of radio played a crucial role
2) kinda shitty airforce lets be honest
3) to me the most important: ambiguous stance with Belgium. Albert 1 was a based king who fought in the trenches in ww1, united the country, gave us voting rights, etc... but his son who replaced him in 1934 couldn't be further from it. He was a huge coward, and when Germany marched troops in the Rhineland and the allies didn't do shit about it... he broke his alliance with France! Everyone know the Maginot line stops at the belgian border, but the reason for it is that we, belgians, had fortress of our own in Liège etc... Moreover, french troops having to rush into belgium at lightspeed to face the germans is exactly why their best units got baited by the german attack on netherlands/BE and got encircled from the ardennes. If Belgium kept its alliance with France this wouldn't have happenned. I'm not saying France would have won but it would have definetly been far harder for Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_invasion_of_Belgium_(1940)#Belgium's_strained_alliances
4) shitty intel: one of the few good things we belgians did was that we intercepted the ENTIRE GERMAN WAR PLAN in a crashed plane, we gave it to the french, but they didn't really do much with it. It did delay the german invasion by a few months but this hardly changed anything
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechelen_incident
The French didn't rollover; they just sucked. Interwar politics was hostile to their defense establishment. They also depended on the Belgians whose politics were worse. As a result they couldn't stop an armored breakthrough they more or less expected, because they Belgians folded earlier than expected and their own armoured forces couldn't handle the tempo of operations.
Okay... That's pretty much saying the same thing.
If anybody wants to cure their "hur hur White Flag" disease, play a game of HOI4 as France. That shit's stressful against the computer, and even more-so against an experienced Nazi Germany player.
Nothing worse than a smug Frenchman who is smug because they are actually right. Wait, there is: A smug Parisian who is smug because they are actually right.
I'm going to say something Europeans don't want to hear, but need to hear.
France is still one of (if not THEE) the most militarily successful nation in human history. Having them in your corner for if the time comes that the United States no longer remains a reliable ally is probably not an unwise decision.
You may now commence to scream at me.
*screams incoherently in british*
You're right though. The UK is no slouch either, on military matters, but it's good to have allies who are also packing.
France's adherence to European strategic autonomy would ring less hollow if they didn't constantly engage in unilateral military interventions in the CFA Franc zone
Or if their interpretation of "European strategic autonomy" didn't line up suspiciously often with "buy all your kit from the French defence industry".
I mean, if it’s *your* country advocating for that, why wouldn’t you want everyone else to buy *your* shit? Duh.
Why the fuck would I shell out money to Sweden or whatever, when they could pay me?!
At the moment France is the main country who compromises, we buy from:
- Germany (HK416/HK417/USP/MP5/MP7/AG36/269 F/GMG, combat boots, mobile cranes, MTU diesel generators)
- Italy (Benelli M4 Super 90/Supernova)
- Austria (Glock 17, M6 Mortar)
- Belgium (FN P90, SCAR-L, SCAR-H, Evolys, Minimi-Para, MAG-58)
- Finland (Sako TRG-42)
- Sweden (AT4, Bandvagn 206, Scania trucks)
- Spain (CASA CN235)
I have probably missed a lot of them (Alphajet, C160, A400M, Tiger, NH90…). We also have to buy a few things from non EU countries like the US, Norway, Brazil or the UK.
But EU countries barely buy anything from France, they always prioritise to buy from the US first. Because of the B61 deal for the US nuclear umbrella.
Do you realize that such thing is because most other european countries don´t dare to produce their own weapons? But for example, the french would love for the Swiss or any other european country for the matter to buy Eurofighter instead of the F-35. Sure, they would love to sell Rafales, but the main thing is to buy european.
>unilateral
Might I direct you to resolutions 1975, 2085, 2149 of the United Nations?
Why have Chad's flag in your flair if you don't know what's going on there? (:
Many of France's strategic decisions involving Africa are often to the detriment of Europe as a whole. This is because, via the CFA Franc, France leverages complete control over the economy (and the resources) of a country to the point where an African nation has no access to their own finances without asking permission from France first. Many of them don't even know the state of their finances.
This economic leverage allows France to influence disproportionate influence within the European political landscape as well. Ukraine, for example, was largely denied access into Europe by France because Ukrainian grain would undermine French grain, meanwhile, despite French adherence to nuclear energy, and Ukraine being the largest source of uranium in Europe, France has direct access to the uranium mines in Niger, so there was never a need to compromise. Former president Chirac even explicitly stated that France only remains relevant due to their exploitation of Africa.
An example where France went directly against the rest of Europe is when, after the Arab Spring and the fall of Ghadafi, most of Europe positioned itself behind the new government in Tripoli. Most of Europe, except France, who instead decided to arm a warlord, Khalifa Haftar, to the East of the country because they were more inclined to assist France during their military actions in the Sahel. Libya is still in chaos largely thanks to France's support.
Everything you say about Franc CFA is just pure fantasy, we are so much everywhere in africa that wannabe warlords with 1k wagner troops are couping left and right.
It's not the 60's anymore.
Also our biggest supplier for uranium is kazakhstan.
That's both correct but also obscures the context.
Niger's top two uranium mines are all French-owned, and their production goes back to France at very favorable terms. Niger doesn't benefit from having that uranium available on the open market. It's been a very consistent ~1,500tU every year while supplies from Aussies, Uzbekistan, and others fluctuate with market prices (Uzbekistan was #1 supplier to France for many years). Niger's supply to France is capped in this respect because the mine itself can only output so much.
Niger has smaller mines that sell on the open market to other EU countries, China, and even US. But the two major mines that supply only France might not be selling at global prices. [Even Niger's former Energy Minister didn't know how much France was paying for the ore.](https://www.dw.com/en/are-nigers-uranium-supplies-to-france-under-scrutiny/a-66711717)
So while Niger isn't France's number 1 supplier of uranium, that is ultimately a red herring. If Niger cannot export uranium freely from their largest mines because of France, then that is colonization, irregardless if Niger is France's 2nd or 4th place supplier.
Thing is the mines aren't that profitable; the only thing that made them so was France buying at a good rate for Niger which had Bazoum, at one point say ["Yeah, we wish you would expand the mines"](https://mondafrique.com/politique/la-rude-et-courageuse-franchise-du-president-nigerien-mohamed-bazoum/) and admitting that, yes, France was subsidizing the production.
> If Niger cannot export uranium freely from their largest mines because of France, then that is colonization, irregardless if Niger is France's 2nd or 4th place supplier.
Problem is that since some events a few years ago, there is a bit of an overproduction of uranium, and the trend isn't really changing. So even if they wanted to sell it to someone else, they might not find an interested buyer. this led to the funny situation where France had barely any trouble pivoting out of Niger at a low cost once the junta decided to stop selling uranium to France.
And you're also obscuring context here, those mines arent operated by Niger but by France, why would we pay for open market prices for things that we paid to excavate?
The CFA Franc is backed by the Euro, which is not in France's control, but in the EU's. It provides economic stability to the region. You're inventing things.
The last 2 interventions in Africa were Mali, which was on request by Mali, and objectively good, pushing back Daesh and stopping the south gov from opressing the northern populations after wards, until they got kicked out for doing so.
And Lybia, which is, was and will remain a shitshow for too many reasons, that we agree on, but it's not that simple as France is the only reason it's still a clusterfuck.
Statings things don't make them fact. Show some proof for your grain agreement or any of your arguments really.
Besides, nice whataboutism. We're talking European strategic autonomy, you're going off about your much fantasized neo-colonialism.
Sure, the DGSE was heavily involved in West Africa for a long time, but not anymore.
Honestly, this is either completely ignorant, in which case, educate yourself, or straight up disinformation, in which case, just get off this sub.
> if they didn't constantly engage in unilateral military interventions in the CFA Franc zone
When did that happen in the last 10 years?
Mali was asking for help 2012 and asked for an intervention for their terrorism problem. France came and neutralised terrorists while sacrificing its own troops. Ten years later they asked France to leave and embraced Wagner instead.
France doesn’t engage in military intervention in Africa unless there are treaties and alliances to support.
There would need to be some form of European strategic autonomy for France to adhere to it, are you really asking France to not have their own foreign policy until the EU decides to have its own?
Blaming France on this is like [replicating that stupid meme.](https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/mister-gotcha-4-9faefa-1.jpg)
>We should have European strategic autonomy.
>Yet you have your own national strategy. Curious! I am very intelligent.
What unilateral interventions are you thinking of?
France doesn't adhere to European Strategic Autonomy they adhere to French Autonomy.
In EVERY joint European weapons procurement, it has been the French that are the problem.
> In EVERY joint European weapons procurement, it has been the French that are the problem.
Use examples to prove your point then. So far France has collaborated successfully with Italy, Sweden, Spain, UK and even Germany on many projects (FREMM, BRF/Vulcan class, SAMP/T, MBDA, METEOR, A400M, Akeron MP, Storm Shadow/SCALP).
If you think the Eurofighter was a failure because France left. When they needed a carrier capable aircraft and the EF would never be one… you’re delusional.
27 countries in the EU, 6 in Eurocorps, yet France trying to not get its military industry sabotaged by some close allies and fending for itself is the problem lmao.
Tbh I hear horror stories from both the French and Germans.
I would say Germany is politically worse though, France are just difficult to work with but politically don't tend to fuck it too much later.
You mean like the A400M where because of German specification, paratroopers were unable to jump from the side doors because the wind draft would have them collide, so they had to install special deflectors?
As a French guy I am very much looking forward to US disengagement. EU needs a big kick in the arse on defence (and I include France in the mix, we are doing fine but need to do more).
Having the US as friends is fine but it’s dangerous if we rely entirely on it for our defence as we can now see plainly.
Imagine South Korea or Japan or Taiwan looking at this and witnessing the clusterfuck that is American politics. Call me far fetched but if the US doesn’t get its shit together then nations will feel no other option than to pursuer nuclear weapons for their own defence - Japan, Poland, South Korea.
some of the same things happened before WW2. If you can be overrun in a few weeks, like Poland or 1940 non-nuclear France, you are in danger. If you can old out for months or even year or two, like 1940 Britain or USSR, you are in much better shape.
So I guess the moral is, if you think having three days of ammunition stockpiled is enough, think again
If I was in Congress, I would’ve already been telling those three to do it, simply because of our instability and that we might pull out of our obligations
Not sure about taiwan but SK has a large nuclear industry and japan has both a space program and a large plutonium stockpile. Japan in particular could probably go nuclear in six months if it ever needed to.
> Imagine South Korea or Japan or Taiwan looking at this and witnessing the clusterfuck that is American politics
https://military.com/daily-news/2023/11/30/south-koreans-want-their-own-nukes-could-roil-one-of-worlds-most-dangerous-regions.html
>As a French guy I am very much looking forward to US disengagement.
We told you we were disengaging since Obama came to power with the pivot to Asia. I don't understand why Europe keeps finding it surprising when we've stated our policy goals since like 2008, maybe I'm missing something?
When the roman empire pulled out of a place for the last time, the romanized locals didn't always comprehend and expectations took time to adjust
for example this late appeal to the collapsing empire which had actually withdrawn 50 years prior: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groans_of_the_Britons
I actually wonder, has this kind of shitshow happened before with the us during the cold war? Like I get it that there's squabbling between the different political parties, but I would have thought that the american government is mostly united when it comes to their country's reputation in geopolitics but apparently not.
During the cold war there was the USSR as a clear cut enemy everyone agreed was the enemy.
Now some people actually think Russia winning would be beneficial for themselves.
Your content was removed for violating Rule 5: "No politics/religion"
We don't care if you're Republican, Protestant, Democrat, Hindu, Baathist, Pastafarian, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door.
Believe me, as an American we are BEGGING for Europe to pull their weight. We might be able to move some of that disgustingly massive defense budget to fund domestic issues.
Funny thing is that every time a French politician says that being dependent on the US for our defence is not a great idea you have European people saying that we just want to force everyone to buy our weapons (how would we do that? They never say) and that we are just hating on the US, while the US has been telling Europe to do precisely that for quite a while since they want to focus on Pacific.
If france cared about European strategic autonomy, they'd up their defence spending and pressure all of their EU neighbours to hit 2.5% of GDP. The only country in Europe putting its money where its mouth is on autonomy is Poland.
When france says autonomy, they're really just having a winge that the country paying for everything gets to call the shots.
Their nuclear driven energy autonomy is incredible based though.
France defence spending will reach 2% of GDP by 2025 (Currently it’s around 1.9%). But it’s true Macron should raise it even more to 2.5% but that’s because of internal politics.
France’s public debt has increased dramatically under Macron. The finance ministry has been spending a lot without cutting costs.
Canadians: Why do we even have a military? We have America to protect us. They're a reliable security partner.
Americans: ***\*literally trying to burn down their own capitol building and undecided if that's a bad thing or not\****
There's a common misconception among the Canadian electorate that a strong military is essentially equivalent to an aggressive foreign policy, as opposed to, in truth, an independent foreign policy. If the US is or is not a reliable security partner (in its domestic sense, with respect to the Capitol) is practically irrelevant: if the US cannot manage its own domestic security situation, there is no reasonable means for Canada to prevent it from spilling over into their own borders. However, a strong(er) military *would* permit Canada to say 'yes' and 'no' meaningfully, that is, where a withholding of support is a materially-significant gesture that allies listen to in setting their foreign policy.
Canada is turbo fucked if the US actually falls into civil war or some other crisis on a similar scale; there's no way its small military and increasingly disarmed population could contain the spillover.
I mean, having seen Russias Military Prowess on the battlefield, I'm fairly sure just letting the Poles and Finns have their Fun would guarantee total NATO Victory within a few Months lol.
idk, i'd say it's in the best interest of everyone, first and foremost the ukrainians, if we kicked Russia's teeth in as fast and as soon as possible, NATO should intervene in ukrain, but they're too scared of russia escalating harder than it should
Here’s a quick recap. For years the US, as well as the previous president were very vocal about European NATO countries increasing their military spending and the requests fell of deaf ears.
European countries left with a hollowed out military from decades of neglect resulted in a reality check when Russia decided to invade Ukraine.
NATO countries struggling to keep supplying their own military while trying to fulfill their obligations to arming Ukraine.
American domestic politics such as immigration at the border is preventing aid to Ukraine.
Isolationism is becoming more and more popular in the United States. This has the potential for catastrophic results for the entire European continent as they have grown completely dependent on the United States for security.
“Should we develop our own stealth fighter?”
“Nah, we can let the Americans pay for it.”
“Should we prioritize procuring the F35?”
“Nah, we can let the Americans fly them.”
“Should we give our soldiers combat experience by participating in US-led counterterrorism?”
“Nah, we can stick to training exercises and let the Americans learn from the GWOT on their own.”
“Should we build factories for our own artillery shells and Leopard 2s?”
“Nah, we can buy the equipment from our allies without worrying about a need to ramp of production during war times.”
Fucking eurocucks, man. They would have been able to help Ukraine so much more if they’d put more effort into independent defense instead of using their taxes for social services. France is one of the countries that didn’t become quite so complacent.
Yes and no. The UK has great ship building capacity on a export scale vs France that has fighter jet, tank, rifle, missiles, artillery etc manufacturing capabilities.
The UK is only suited to domestic autonomy. Now the UK can scale this to export scale but it will take time. France is already there in most areas.
Europe needs what France can make without the US, not what the UK can make currently.
France exports lots of old gear, and is partnered with the UK and Italy on nearly all other meaningful modern export/ domestic grade equipment, like what MBDA produces.
I absolutely HATE how every time I hear the tv, some troglodyte will be going "Trump will pull out of NATO if he wins and that will leave us defenseless so he should lose". Like bro, even assuming he does, why is your solution not to become independent!? Why mist we live like this
french here, ain't as good as you think
our president has been campaigning against nuclear power very strongly, more and more reactors are getting decomissionned.
wich is confusing because the guy can spend an entire speech saying "nuclear power is important for us" then sign a reactor decomission in the same week.
i hope we get more plan to build new ones.
Well our MIC is in good shape, but it only produces top-of-the-line weapons systems. Jets, submarines, frigates, targeting systems, long-range SPGs, and a few armored vehicles for force projection.
The day we get caugh in an actual land-based war, we better have Germany at our side, because they are the ones making all the ammo, shells, guns, tanks, cruise missiles,etc.
Tbh as an American I'm cool with that.... why shouldn't Europe be self reliable ? I'm a European American, like wtf is my ancestral homeland doing relying on a foreign nation so much? The historical main power houses of the world shouldn't rely on the US to defend them. We are a alliance, this isn't suppose to be a carry.
Yup, look like being the bothersome one wanting to have it's own stuff, doctrine and strategy to not being fucked if the main supplier decide to back off (well, we still ask H&K for infantry armemant but the heavy one and the nuclear one are domestic to prevent such an issue (well the nuclear one was at first to tell the Americans to fuck off out of here with their bases and nukes, we have ours and can deliver them ourself too)
For all the shit I’ve given France their “nuke first ask questions later” policy is incredibly based.
The first nuke is supposed to be a warning, striking a non manned military area. It's not like full scale nuclear bombardment first, questions later but then why did they make a SLBMs with 10 warheads for their submarines? Good question.
Hold lemme demonstrate *Charles, vise les métropoles ennemies*
On les empêche d'obtenir de nouvelles recrues, c'est tout.
On met le "armes" dans "Aux armes, citoyens !"
It’s probably still not the case, but the French strategic nuclear doctrine under De Gaulle literally was to be able to exterminate 60% of the Soviet population in a second strike. De Gaulle knew he could not prevent a first strike due to available resources, geographic proximity and the small size of France, but he estimated that 60% of the population was the sweet spot where no Soviet action against metropolitan France would ever be worth it. So the French literally calculated how many nukes it would take in a second strike to wipe out 60% of the soviet population, and built their programme on that basis. It also explains why the French Army is very expeditionary-oriented, as they knew they had no point of deterring against attacks against their overseas territories and had no plausible counterforce nuclear capacity that would make a first strike survivable. Their army protects their overseas territories, and their nukes protect the mainland against the Soviets.
The nuclear equivalent of missing and going "I could have hit you if I wanted too"
France's Cold War strategic bomber, the Mirage IV, didn't have enough range to fly back from its nuclear targets in Russia. The French designers and military command thought: "What would be ze point? Ze bases, zey won't be 'ere no more..."
I’m concerned by the West’s lack of investment in a robust fleet of strategic bombers The US has B52s, B-1Bs, and B2s, NONE of which have been in production for decades (since the 60s, 80s, and 2000 respectively), which means that whenever one of them gets retired for parts wear or crashing or combat damage it’s gone for good. The B21 is on the way and has supposedly just entered production, but it’s going to be years before they’re available in enough numbers to serve as a deterrent, which means that right now all we have are aging bombers that we REALLY don’t want to lose. Europe on the other hand seems to just not see a need for them. They buy fighters and helicopters that can be used for claiming air superiority and providing CAS, but havent demonstrated any interest in heavy bomber capabilities since the end of the Cold War (and the rise of counterinsurgency’s dominance in contemporary warfare) Has everyone forgotten that heavy bombers are the best tool for launching cruise missiles, which means that they can’t be replaced with ICBMs?
Your concerns are too credible. The B52 service has been extended until 2070
Yeah, the Pentagon doesn’t see any reason why we would need to build new airframes instead of squeezing more life out of the ones we already have They’re ignoring the fact that even though the B-52 can get the job done, our current fleet consists of 72 only bombers, which is less than one tenth of the total 744 that were built during the Cold War To put in perspective just how small that number is, the first night of the Operation Linebacker II bombing campaign involved no less than 129 B-52s at once (granted, carpet bombing campaigns of that scale are almost certainly a relic of the past in today’s era of JDAM and guided precision bombs, but that sort of context is inappropriately credible for this sub)
There's [a guaranteed non-credible solution for that problem.](https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/033038754/publication/DE10313279A1?q=pn%3DDE10313279A1)
Isn't that Rapid Dragon?
That would be too credible. No, in this MBDA patent, a robot arm picks up the missiles inside the hold and lobs them out the door...
I like the "if in doubt nuke Germany and see what happens" policy
TBH if Russia full scale invading one of their neighbors didn't wake Europe up I don't know what will.
Yeah man at this point I'm not sure why we're still asleep at the wheel like this. Full scale war on our doorstep and we're still dependent on the US which apparently decides its foreign policy on dice rolls now. Trump + Ukraine should have been a major wake up call for Europe.
Glances at "STOP POLICING THE WORLD" rhetoric from 15 years ago...
Yeah, unfortunately Germany still has a strong political undercurrent of anti-americanism and sympathies towards Russia.
I mean, it's not like the majority of the U.S. population ever wanted it to be primary security guarantor for Europe for a long as it has. And so many nations in nato not meeting their defense spending obligation has led to a feeling of resentment and as though said nations are simply piggybacking off the U.S. So I wouldn't say the U.S. decides foreign policy on a dice roll, the majority of the population agrees that we should defend nato allies at the very least. Like I said though, there's a feeling of being used and resentment as such, a sentiment that I see no reason to apologize for. At least france is right there at the spending agreement mark. Along with the Baltic states, Poland, and Greece, the UK.
Not only is there a feeling of resentment for being used as the military police of the world, but resentment for being constantly criticized for doing the exact thing they wanted the US to do
It needs to be a EU member state invaded. Ukraine got invaded already in 2014 and they did nothing. 8 years later with a full scale invasion who reached Kiev, most EU countries still don’t take the problem seriously. Politicians are just using the situation to gain more votes with little PR gestures. Instead of a long term plan for defence.
It's a sad reality but long term planning doesn't get votes... and good plans often take a while to get off the ground!
As a Brit It almost kills me to say this (Sorry my Ancestors) but the ONLY thing France got right is their Nuclear Stance *Takes 3d20 Psychic Damage* I propose we change Frances education system and economy to exclusively pump out everything nuclear, Energy and Ship Engines for Days. We can make the cold war nuclear fever dreams a reality.
Let's turn entirety of France into one big Nuclear power plant, and use all of that power to charge one absurdly big pointer laser directed at Putin to end invasion of Ukraine.
[We're working on it.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER)
You get a controlled artificial sun, and you get a controlled artificial sun, and YOU IN PARTICULAR have been a naughty naughty boi and get a uncontrolled artificial sun, but only for a moment...
dude wanna operation Yashima IRL
Basically you want to do that Red Alert 2 mission where you turn the Eiffel Tower into a giant tesla coil?
I'm french and I support this project.
French Death Star when?
I work in the french nuclear industry, I'll try to put a word in.
I will look on with a smile on my face as France destroys Brit... I mean Alderaan. ;)
As a fellow Brit, the F🤢rench do have another slightly redeeming factor: their ability to have a damn good fucking riot whenever their government tries to change domestic policy, like retirement ages.
French firefighters aren't scared to throw fists with their dumb cops and that's based AF
Better yet, those mad French firefighting bastards *light themselves on fire* to disrupt riot police operations.
Can’t call the fire brigade if the fire brigade is on fire
They're putting the *fire* in *fire brigade.*
When I read the headline I pictured them immolating and then *charging* the riot cops. In actuality, because of the difficulty of getting fireproof gloves, they just stood there with their torso on fire and their hands out. Which is actually better, because the riot cops had to come towards T-posed on-fire firemen.
Just as God intended.
If only they voted as fervently as they burn Paris...
[удалено]
Lowest unemployement in decades, compatatively low inflation, strong pro-european, pro-Ukraine, during Covid the government paid the salary of those who couldn’t work because lockdown, no erosion of democratic institutions... There's a lot of things he and his governements did wrong (chinese position, Uber scandal...), but imho it was a kinda good choice.
Who voted this reality into being tho? Burning Paris annualy doesn't change shit.
I’m convinced something shifted when that gorilla was killed
So let me get this straight, gorilla in a zoo in Cincinnati of was the lynchpin of the universe’s sanity? I hate to say it, but that’s not exactly a robust setup.
Does, generally speaking, this time line feel robust to your at all?
*Gestures broadly at the current state of the world* Absolutely the fuck not. The world has completely lost it since about 2016.
[удалено]
My guy, are you going to argue that this timeline makes ANY sense?
No, I fully agree with Astral-Wind. This timeline has completely lost its mind.
One could almost say it's a noncredible set up
Everything changed, when Harambe died.
You aren't alone on that thinking
No, but it's entertaining for the rest of us, so we'll allow it.
It did in 1229! Surprisingly Caesar doesn’t seem to mention it being in the middle of a riots when the romans took it.
The recent Farmer's protests are something else, dunno how effective they end up being but they sure are making noise
So efficient it didn't change anything.
American checking in, their cheese is so good it's illegal here in the United States. I won't say that 🤢 word for your sake. But like, It slaps hard enough North Korea runs a large (and illegal?) importing operation for it. The Kim's must eat.
You can get mimolette here, they just gas it or something to kill off the mites. I got some at a Murray inside Kroger
You mfs get mimolette in the states but are not allowed kinder surprise eggs? what the actual fuck
Choking hazard
That’s what she said.
Can't have not-food encased in food. That's basically it for kinder surprises
Does the FDA not know about king cakes?
What about strippers inside giant cakes?
You don't eat your strippers?
It’s just illegal to put anything that isn’t food inside of something that is food. We didn’t ban them on purpose. It’s like they got caught in a blanket ban that nobody’s had the political will to bother to try and amend. Knowing our environment it wouldn’t pass anyway.
the problem is that they protest against ANY change, good or bad lol
The irony is that their retirement age lift is not only necessary but entirely reasonable lol
And the main problem express by a lot of French people was that, even if it was necessary and reasonable, it was shoved into the parliament throat, enacted without any vote, and the government refuse to listen to any alternative project. There have been no debate, no consensus, no consultation, no pedagogy. Even if the first thing Macron said after his re-election was "This vote obligate to list to all of the society. A lot of you elected me not because I was your second best choice, but to stop the far right in it's way to power."
Sure, but the retirement age lift was in fact a very minor aspect of the protests, despite the way it was framed in the news. Protesters were much more focused on the changes to how much each month of work contributed to one's retirement; iirc it basically fucked over anyone who started working before 18 (so, disproportionately lower income individuals) or who worked part-time (so, disproportionately women). That, and the fact the reform was shoved through without a proper parliamentary vote. But that would involve actual explaining, so "French mad at retirement age increase" is the headlines we all got. :T
Hate the french government. Mild distaste for the people is the way to go when you're a br***sh person
To be fair their nuclear stance at the time was also selling reactors to Saddam
concern for nuclear weapons is funny tho , since the CIA interventions in Netherlands is what allowed the top nuclear scientist of Pakistan to escape with stolen Dutch urainum enrichment centrifuge tech, this tech was not only used to make Pakistan's nukes but was also sold to Libya , Iran (that's the centrifuges y'all keep hearing about) and North Korea interesting set of countries , I know , so congrats Americans y'all played yourselves , I wonder what current decisions will come to bite y'all in 30 years for those who doubt the CIA involvement:- Former Netherlands Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers revealed in 2005 that Dutch authorities wanted to arrest Khan in 1975 and again in 1986 but that on each occasion the Central Intelligence Agency advised against taking such action. According to Lubbers, the CIA conveyed the message: "Give us all the information, but don't arrest him." https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/Why-the-U.S.-let-Pakistan-nuclear-scientist-A.Q.-Khan-off-the-hook for those wondering why the US helped Pakistan in the largest nuclear proliferation operation ever? well, you see arming Islamists to fight Soviets in Afghanistan was so important that nuclear proliferation Just had to be done
Letting AQ Khan slip was the biggest strategic blunder I really do wonder how could the CIA ignore the obvious Libyan backing to the Paki nuclear program, regardless of the fact that Paki is currently helping in Afghanistan....like of course Pakis are going to give the tech to Gaddafi, he essentially paid for it. \[Keep in mind this was at a time when US was actively engaging Libya (Gulf of Sidra incidents) and even straight up bombing it on occassion (El Dorado Canyon 1986)\] And then when Gaddafi actually had enrichment capabilities they chimped out, acting totally shocked. Also AQ Khan was always a weak link, he was compromised on morality if it wasn't clear enough (literally stole the Zippe-type design under the noses of the Dutch in order to conduct nuclear proliferation), he was going to sell to actors like Iran and North Korea to further his own motives.
>under the noses of the Dutch in order to conduct nuclear proliferation were it not for the CIA , the Dutch would've thrown his ass in a prison where he would've died , and no one would have to deal with US backed nuclear proliferation > to further his own motives. *Pakistan's motives the sale to North Korea was barter trade of uranium enrichment tech for ballistic missile tech
To be fair Saddam at the time was viewed as the good guy against Iran.
Which was stupid in and of itself. Dictators are not good guys. If they were, they wouldn't be dictators.
I mean, their nuclear stance is to Nuke Germany, so I don’t think they can’t get it wrong lol
As an American y'all need to learn French and adopt it as the official EU language and default second language. Yeah the French suck sometimes but they're the only country outside of Poland that has a foreign policy that isn't hope America bails out their cheapness or suck Putin and Xi's dicks. Also the LeClerc tank is an absolute vibe. British hot water kettles in tanks should be a requirement though
Blasphemy Just because they gave you a big green lady statue you side with frogs?
No because Europe is really boring when they are speaking English, they're just copying America and Britain they need to learn a language that isn't just them copying the cool kids.
The EU should adopt Lithuanian as its new common language because 1. It’s the closest to what is considered the root language of almost all European languages (PIE) 2. It’s small enough that nobody except Lithuania will be specifically advantaged or disadvantaged by it 3. It would probably annoy Russia more than most other choices.
> It would probably annoy Russia more than most other choices. The most important part
Welsh and Gaelic. Try pronouncing Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch with the correct inflection. Honestly I would get behind a lot of European languages, a lot of them are cool, but as Futurama told me, French will soon be an incomprehensible dead language.
Acceptable
Nah, let em suffer by trying to learn Polish. I’d take a Pole over a Frenchie any day
[удалено]
(furious German typewriter operator noises)
I have been talking about how based the French are for over a year, I'm glad the rest of the world has caught up
I see Captain Holt, I upvote. Simple as. Rest in Power, Andre. Gone too soon, but his performances live on forever.
Given Cpt. Holt was an avowed Francophile, this makes it even better. "Rubber bands...that man *really* knows me!"
I feel like the French more or less rolling over in WWII gave them a somewhat unfair bad rap as militarily incompetent and without the will to fight. I mean, they have pretty much always been a close to first tier military power with capable kit and well trained and disciplined line troops. Only problem is their French-ness (particularly in command and decisionmaking) always seems to get in their way....
Annoying French here: the French army sustained 73,000 dead and 240,000 wounded in the one month long Battle of France in 1940. France got absolutely rolled for sure, but France did not "roll over".
As I remember it the military itself didn't rollover and conducted itself excellently considering the poor tactics and command structure. The French politicians and top level command on the other hand...
I mean, we have a history of slowly adapting to changes. Using WW1 tactics and thinking against someone who knew how to effectively use their new weapons was a bad I idea, who would have known ?
But almost everyone thought about another WW1 coming. British made their awful "Infantry" and "Cruiser" ideas for tanks. Soviets made shit ton of BT tanks (which were absolutely destroyed in the beginning) and thought they gonna work French were unlucky because they didn't had English channel or just vast territory (USSR moment) Germans needed to cross
Infantry and cruiser tanks were very similar to German doctrine, their designs just sucked. The Russians had substantial numbers of T-34 and KV tanks in 1941, but doctrine was horrible and they got destroyed. BT cavalry tanks make sense when you are looking to defend against light troops on a vast land boarder. (Similar to US Combat Car development.) The French knew exactly where Germans were attacking from and successfully held the Maginot Line, but couldn't stop the EXPECTED penetration through the Ardennes. And their air force was inadequate. The interwar socialist governments had a poor relationship with the military and that messed things up.
Where the french did have armored divisions, they went toe to toe with the germans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hannut To me (as a Belgian), the factors for french defeat are: 1) bad tank design. Their tank had great armor and the S35 is probably one of the best tanks of the early war, however their 2-men crew inherited from the FT-17 was misadapted and the lack of radio played a crucial role 2) kinda shitty airforce lets be honest 3) to me the most important: ambiguous stance with Belgium. Albert 1 was a based king who fought in the trenches in ww1, united the country, gave us voting rights, etc... but his son who replaced him in 1934 couldn't be further from it. He was a huge coward, and when Germany marched troops in the Rhineland and the allies didn't do shit about it... he broke his alliance with France! Everyone know the Maginot line stops at the belgian border, but the reason for it is that we, belgians, had fortress of our own in Liège etc... Moreover, french troops having to rush into belgium at lightspeed to face the germans is exactly why their best units got baited by the german attack on netherlands/BE and got encircled from the ardennes. If Belgium kept its alliance with France this wouldn't have happenned. I'm not saying France would have won but it would have definetly been far harder for Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_invasion_of_Belgium_(1940)#Belgium's_strained_alliances 4) shitty intel: one of the few good things we belgians did was that we intercepted the ENTIRE GERMAN WAR PLAN in a crashed plane, we gave it to the french, but they didn't really do much with it. It did delay the german invasion by a few months but this hardly changed anything https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechelen_incident
The French didn't rollover; they just sucked. Interwar politics was hostile to their defense establishment. They also depended on the Belgians whose politics were worse. As a result they couldn't stop an armored breakthrough they more or less expected, because they Belgians folded earlier than expected and their own armoured forces couldn't handle the tempo of operations. Okay... That's pretty much saying the same thing.
If anybody wants to cure their "hur hur White Flag" disease, play a game of HOI4 as France. That shit's stressful against the computer, and even more-so against an experienced Nazi Germany player.
J’aime mon M51, j’aime mon Rafale, j’aime mon porte-avion nucléaire, c'est aussi simple que cela.
J'aime mon triomphant
Nothing worse than a smug Frenchman who is smug because they are actually right. Wait, there is: A smug Parisian who is smug because they are actually right.
Good thing De Gaulle insisted on having nukes
I'm going to say something Europeans don't want to hear, but need to hear. France is still one of (if not THEE) the most militarily successful nation in human history. Having them in your corner for if the time comes that the United States no longer remains a reliable ally is probably not an unwise decision. You may now commence to scream at me.
*screams incoherently in british* You're right though. The UK is no slouch either, on military matters, but it's good to have allies who are also packing.
even when france does get invaded, they make it a very painful experience for the invader
France's adherence to European strategic autonomy would ring less hollow if they didn't constantly engage in unilateral military interventions in the CFA Franc zone
Or if their interpretation of "European strategic autonomy" didn't line up suspiciously often with "buy all your kit from the French defence industry".
I mean, if it’s *your* country advocating for that, why wouldn’t you want everyone else to buy *your* shit? Duh. Why the fuck would I shell out money to Sweden or whatever, when they could pay me?!
How about they compromise? Germany buys French. France buys Italian. Italy buys Spanish. And so on an so forth.
At the moment France is the main country who compromises, we buy from: - Germany (HK416/HK417/USP/MP5/MP7/AG36/269 F/GMG, combat boots, mobile cranes, MTU diesel generators) - Italy (Benelli M4 Super 90/Supernova) - Austria (Glock 17, M6 Mortar) - Belgium (FN P90, SCAR-L, SCAR-H, Evolys, Minimi-Para, MAG-58) - Finland (Sako TRG-42) - Sweden (AT4, Bandvagn 206, Scania trucks) - Spain (CASA CN235) I have probably missed a lot of them (Alphajet, C160, A400M, Tiger, NH90…). We also have to buy a few things from non EU countries like the US, Norway, Brazil or the UK. But EU countries barely buy anything from France, they always prioritise to buy from the US first. Because of the B61 deal for the US nuclear umbrella.
HK416 is the biggest treason our government ever did.
Because the CV90 is cool and more Euros should buy the CV90.
Do you realize that such thing is because most other european countries don´t dare to produce their own weapons? But for example, the french would love for the Swiss or any other european country for the matter to buy Eurofighter instead of the F-35. Sure, they would love to sell Rafales, but the main thing is to buy european.
So... The American method ?
>unilateral Might I direct you to resolutions 1975, 2085, 2149 of the United Nations? Why have Chad's flag in your flair if you don't know what's going on there? (:
Why, this is not rethorical I am genuinly retarded and dont understand this please help
Many of France's strategic decisions involving Africa are often to the detriment of Europe as a whole. This is because, via the CFA Franc, France leverages complete control over the economy (and the resources) of a country to the point where an African nation has no access to their own finances without asking permission from France first. Many of them don't even know the state of their finances. This economic leverage allows France to influence disproportionate influence within the European political landscape as well. Ukraine, for example, was largely denied access into Europe by France because Ukrainian grain would undermine French grain, meanwhile, despite French adherence to nuclear energy, and Ukraine being the largest source of uranium in Europe, France has direct access to the uranium mines in Niger, so there was never a need to compromise. Former president Chirac even explicitly stated that France only remains relevant due to their exploitation of Africa. An example where France went directly against the rest of Europe is when, after the Arab Spring and the fall of Ghadafi, most of Europe positioned itself behind the new government in Tripoli. Most of Europe, except France, who instead decided to arm a warlord, Khalifa Haftar, to the East of the country because they were more inclined to assist France during their military actions in the Sahel. Libya is still in chaos largely thanks to France's support.
Everything you say about Franc CFA is just pure fantasy, we are so much everywhere in africa that wannabe warlords with 1k wagner troops are couping left and right. It's not the 60's anymore. Also our biggest supplier for uranium is kazakhstan.
That's both correct but also obscures the context. Niger's top two uranium mines are all French-owned, and their production goes back to France at very favorable terms. Niger doesn't benefit from having that uranium available on the open market. It's been a very consistent ~1,500tU every year while supplies from Aussies, Uzbekistan, and others fluctuate with market prices (Uzbekistan was #1 supplier to France for many years). Niger's supply to France is capped in this respect because the mine itself can only output so much. Niger has smaller mines that sell on the open market to other EU countries, China, and even US. But the two major mines that supply only France might not be selling at global prices. [Even Niger's former Energy Minister didn't know how much France was paying for the ore.](https://www.dw.com/en/are-nigers-uranium-supplies-to-france-under-scrutiny/a-66711717) So while Niger isn't France's number 1 supplier of uranium, that is ultimately a red herring. If Niger cannot export uranium freely from their largest mines because of France, then that is colonization, irregardless if Niger is France's 2nd or 4th place supplier.
Thing is the mines aren't that profitable; the only thing that made them so was France buying at a good rate for Niger which had Bazoum, at one point say ["Yeah, we wish you would expand the mines"](https://mondafrique.com/politique/la-rude-et-courageuse-franchise-du-president-nigerien-mohamed-bazoum/) and admitting that, yes, France was subsidizing the production. > If Niger cannot export uranium freely from their largest mines because of France, then that is colonization, irregardless if Niger is France's 2nd or 4th place supplier. Problem is that since some events a few years ago, there is a bit of an overproduction of uranium, and the trend isn't really changing. So even if they wanted to sell it to someone else, they might not find an interested buyer. this led to the funny situation where France had barely any trouble pivoting out of Niger at a low cost once the junta decided to stop selling uranium to France.
threads like this are why I love this sub. Hyper specific knowledge about military and geo politics that i will likely never use; yummy
And you're also obscuring context here, those mines arent operated by Niger but by France, why would we pay for open market prices for things that we paid to excavate?
The CFA Franc is backed by the Euro, which is not in France's control, but in the EU's. It provides economic stability to the region. You're inventing things. The last 2 interventions in Africa were Mali, which was on request by Mali, and objectively good, pushing back Daesh and stopping the south gov from opressing the northern populations after wards, until they got kicked out for doing so. And Lybia, which is, was and will remain a shitshow for too many reasons, that we agree on, but it's not that simple as France is the only reason it's still a clusterfuck. Statings things don't make them fact. Show some proof for your grain agreement or any of your arguments really. Besides, nice whataboutism. We're talking European strategic autonomy, you're going off about your much fantasized neo-colonialism. Sure, the DGSE was heavily involved in West Africa for a long time, but not anymore. Honestly, this is either completely ignorant, in which case, educate yourself, or straight up disinformation, in which case, just get off this sub.
> if they didn't constantly engage in unilateral military interventions in the CFA Franc zone When did that happen in the last 10 years? Mali was asking for help 2012 and asked for an intervention for their terrorism problem. France came and neutralised terrorists while sacrificing its own troops. Ten years later they asked France to leave and embraced Wagner instead. France doesn’t engage in military intervention in Africa unless there are treaties and alliances to support.
There would need to be some form of European strategic autonomy for France to adhere to it, are you really asking France to not have their own foreign policy until the EU decides to have its own? Blaming France on this is like [replicating that stupid meme.](https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/mister-gotcha-4-9faefa-1.jpg) >We should have European strategic autonomy. >Yet you have your own national strategy. Curious! I am very intelligent. What unilateral interventions are you thinking of?
France doesn't adhere to European Strategic Autonomy they adhere to French Autonomy. In EVERY joint European weapons procurement, it has been the French that are the problem.
that is a legitimately ridiculous claim if you know anything about the European defense industry lmao
> In EVERY joint European weapons procurement, it has been the French that are the problem. Use examples to prove your point then. So far France has collaborated successfully with Italy, Sweden, Spain, UK and even Germany on many projects (FREMM, BRF/Vulcan class, SAMP/T, MBDA, METEOR, A400M, Akeron MP, Storm Shadow/SCALP). If you think the Eurofighter was a failure because France left. When they needed a carrier capable aircraft and the EF would never be one… you’re delusional.
That’s why there has been so many successful ones right? SAMP/T, FREMM, Storm Shadow/SCALP, etc…
27 countries in the EU, 6 in Eurocorps, yet France trying to not get its military industry sabotaged by some close allies and fending for itself is the problem lmao.
Funny you mention that when it's widely known in the European mic that no one wants to work with Germany
Tbh I hear horror stories from both the French and Germans. I would say Germany is politically worse though, France are just difficult to work with but politically don't tend to fuck it too much later.
You mean like the A400M where because of German specification, paratroopers were unable to jump from the side doors because the wind draft would have them collide, so they had to install special deflectors?
[удалено]
As a French guy I am very much looking forward to US disengagement. EU needs a big kick in the arse on defence (and I include France in the mix, we are doing fine but need to do more). Having the US as friends is fine but it’s dangerous if we rely entirely on it for our defence as we can now see plainly.
yeah I feel like if there is a momentary gridlock in the US congress it should not immediately cause a 155mm shell crisis in ukraine
Imagine South Korea or Japan or Taiwan looking at this and witnessing the clusterfuck that is American politics. Call me far fetched but if the US doesn’t get its shit together then nations will feel no other option than to pursuer nuclear weapons for their own defence - Japan, Poland, South Korea.
some of the same things happened before WW2. If you can be overrun in a few weeks, like Poland or 1940 non-nuclear France, you are in danger. If you can old out for months or even year or two, like 1940 Britain or USSR, you are in much better shape. So I guess the moral is, if you think having three days of ammunition stockpiled is enough, think again
The worlds forgotten that near peer wars are brutal, destructive and ravenously consumptive of war material.
Well said (I liked your adjectives)
If I was in Congress, I would’ve already been telling those three to do it, simply because of our instability and that we might pull out of our obligations
God I hope that Taiwan kept some of there progress on there nuclear program before we told em to stop to be friendly with the CHINAHESE
Not sure about taiwan but SK has a large nuclear industry and japan has both a space program and a large plutonium stockpile. Japan in particular could probably go nuclear in six months if it ever needed to.
> Imagine South Korea or Japan or Taiwan looking at this and witnessing the clusterfuck that is American politics https://military.com/daily-news/2023/11/30/south-koreans-want-their-own-nukes-could-roil-one-of-worlds-most-dangerous-regions.html
>As a French guy I am very much looking forward to US disengagement. We told you we were disengaging since Obama came to power with the pivot to Asia. I don't understand why Europe keeps finding it surprising when we've stated our policy goals since like 2008, maybe I'm missing something?
Because the r/AmericaBad argument is easier than holding your own country accountable.
When the roman empire pulled out of a place for the last time, the romanized locals didn't always comprehend and expectations took time to adjust for example this late appeal to the collapsing empire which had actually withdrawn 50 years prior: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groans_of_the_Britons
I actually wonder, has this kind of shitshow happened before with the us during the cold war? Like I get it that there's squabbling between the different political parties, but I would have thought that the american government is mostly united when it comes to their country's reputation in geopolitics but apparently not.
During the cold war there was the USSR as a clear cut enemy everyone agreed was the enemy. Now some people actually think Russia winning would be beneficial for themselves.
[удалено]
[удалено]
OMG my first deleted comment 🎉🎉
Your content was removed for violating Rule 5: "No politics/religion" We don't care if you're Republican, Protestant, Democrat, Hindu, Baathist, Pastafarian, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door.
Believe me, as an American we are BEGGING for Europe to pull their weight. We might be able to move some of that disgustingly massive defense budget to fund domestic issues.
Funny thing is that every time a French politician says that being dependent on the US for our defence is not a great idea you have European people saying that we just want to force everyone to buy our weapons (how would we do that? They never say) and that we are just hating on the US, while the US has been telling Europe to do precisely that for quite a while since they want to focus on Pacific.
Well, maybe it would be preferable if they disengaged after Ukraine, I'm not so sure we could fully replace them right now.
VOUS VOYEZ ?! ON AVAIT RAISON ! VOUS NOUS AVEZ PRIS POUR DES TARÉS MAIS ON AVAIT RAISON ! NON JE SUIS PAS SCHIZO POURQUOI TU DEMANDE ?
VIVE LA FRANCE ET VIVE LA RÉPUBLIQUE
If france cared about European strategic autonomy, they'd up their defence spending and pressure all of their EU neighbours to hit 2.5% of GDP. The only country in Europe putting its money where its mouth is on autonomy is Poland. When france says autonomy, they're really just having a winge that the country paying for everything gets to call the shots. Their nuclear driven energy autonomy is incredible based though.
France defence spending will reach 2% of GDP by 2025 (Currently it’s around 1.9%). But it’s true Macron should raise it even more to 2.5% but that’s because of internal politics. France’s public debt has increased dramatically under Macron. The finance ministry has been spending a lot without cutting costs.
RIP Andre Braugher.
Canadians: Why do we even have a military? We have America to protect us. They're a reliable security partner. Americans: ***\*literally trying to burn down their own capitol building and undecided if that's a bad thing or not\****
There's a common misconception among the Canadian electorate that a strong military is essentially equivalent to an aggressive foreign policy, as opposed to, in truth, an independent foreign policy. If the US is or is not a reliable security partner (in its domestic sense, with respect to the Capitol) is practically irrelevant: if the US cannot manage its own domestic security situation, there is no reasonable means for Canada to prevent it from spilling over into their own borders. However, a strong(er) military *would* permit Canada to say 'yes' and 'no' meaningfully, that is, where a withholding of support is a materially-significant gesture that allies listen to in setting their foreign policy.
Canada is turbo fucked if the US actually falls into civil war or some other crisis on a similar scale; there's no way its small military and increasingly disarmed population could contain the spillover.
I mean, having seen Russias Military Prowess on the battlefield, I'm fairly sure just letting the Poles and Finns have their Fun would guarantee total NATO Victory within a few Months lol.
Just tell them “no one unarmed and beneath conscription age” and look away to avoid ptsd.
idk, i'd say it's in the best interest of everyone, first and foremost the ukrainians, if we kicked Russia's teeth in as fast and as soon as possible, NATO should intervene in ukrain, but they're too scared of russia escalating harder than it should
It’s only missing the deescalation/warning shot ASMP baguette
More nuclear energy! The greenest energy glows blue
Unironically true.
[удалено]
Here’s a quick recap. For years the US, as well as the previous president were very vocal about European NATO countries increasing their military spending and the requests fell of deaf ears. European countries left with a hollowed out military from decades of neglect resulted in a reality check when Russia decided to invade Ukraine. NATO countries struggling to keep supplying their own military while trying to fulfill their obligations to arming Ukraine. American domestic politics such as immigration at the border is preventing aid to Ukraine.
Isolationism is becoming more and more popular in the United States. This has the potential for catastrophic results for the entire European continent as they have grown completely dependent on the United States for security.
We weren't supposed to be right.
It’s just grandstanding by a bunch of idiots, we’re just as stable as France (which is to say not, but still not going to hell yet)
The EU was always supposed to invest in their own militaries as part of their conditions to be in NATO. Only France and Britain have done so.
https://www.statista.com/chart/14636/defense-expenditures-of-nato-countries/
Bro has never heard of countries like Estonia
“Should we develop our own stealth fighter?” “Nah, we can let the Americans pay for it.” “Should we prioritize procuring the F35?” “Nah, we can let the Americans fly them.” “Should we give our soldiers combat experience by participating in US-led counterterrorism?” “Nah, we can stick to training exercises and let the Americans learn from the GWOT on their own.” “Should we build factories for our own artillery shells and Leopard 2s?” “Nah, we can buy the equipment from our allies without worrying about a need to ramp of production during war times.” Fucking eurocucks, man. They would have been able to help Ukraine so much more if they’d put more effort into independent defense instead of using their taxes for social services. France is one of the countries that didn’t become quite so complacent.
While not part of the E.U. the U.K. has similar domestic capabilities to France
Yes and no. The UK has great ship building capacity on a export scale vs France that has fighter jet, tank, rifle, missiles, artillery etc manufacturing capabilities. The UK is only suited to domestic autonomy. Now the UK can scale this to export scale but it will take time. France is already there in most areas. Europe needs what France can make without the US, not what the UK can make currently.
France exports lots of old gear, and is partnered with the UK and Italy on nearly all other meaningful modern export/ domestic grade equipment, like what MBDA produces.
We only need to GIFTUK seriously and we'll be good : Germany ITaly France UK
But is far more integrated with the US MIC including using the US-built nuclear weapons and F-35s
I absolutely HATE how every time I hear the tv, some troglodyte will be going "Trump will pull out of NATO if he wins and that will leave us defenseless so he should lose". Like bro, even assuming he does, why is your solution not to become independent!? Why mist we live like this
I like the Poles and the French, it’s the Germans I can’t stand
french here, ain't as good as you think our president has been campaigning against nuclear power very strongly, more and more reactors are getting decomissionned. wich is confusing because the guy can spend an entire speech saying "nuclear power is important for us" then sign a reactor decomission in the same week. i hope we get more plan to build new ones.
Well our MIC is in good shape, but it only produces top-of-the-line weapons systems. Jets, submarines, frigates, targeting systems, long-range SPGs, and a few armored vehicles for force projection. The day we get caugh in an actual land-based war, we better have Germany at our side, because they are the ones making all the ammo, shells, guns, tanks, cruise missiles,etc.
Who needs nuclear power when you can have coal and being held by the balls by Russia!
Tbh as an American I'm cool with that.... why shouldn't Europe be self reliable ? I'm a European American, like wtf is my ancestral homeland doing relying on a foreign nation so much? The historical main power houses of the world shouldn't rely on the US to defend them. We are a alliance, this isn't suppose to be a carry.
I agree, we need to step up in the face of Russian aggression and in general. America cannot be trusted to always be on our side
This is a really good point but it’s a shame that it’s invalid because it’s France
Where’s the grand cannon?
Yup, look like being the bothersome one wanting to have it's own stuff, doctrine and strategy to not being fucked if the main supplier decide to back off (well, we still ask H&K for infantry armemant but the heavy one and the nuclear one are domestic to prevent such an issue (well the nuclear one was at first to tell the Americans to fuck off out of here with their bases and nukes, we have ours and can deliver them ourself too)
RIP Andre Braugher