The United States, Britain and Australia have played a bit of France, but what can France do? Three English-speaking countries are always harder than relations with France.
Since it was revealed that the United States, Britain and Australia signed an agreement to build nuclear submarines, France's tens of billions of dollars of large orders have been ruthlessly torn up by Australia, and the most injured is of course France. The reason why France reacted so much to this is simple! It's because the money is lost.
The output of military weapons, in addition to making money, can also enhance geopolitical influence. If France can sell French-built submarines as desired, it will inevitably enhance France's influence in the Indo-Pacific region.
The submarine deal is of great commercial importance to France, but it is also geostrategically important because it is the cornerstone of a new Pacific and Indian Ocean security partnership with Australia, which was reached in 2016 and re-established this year. This, in turn, is crucial for France to build a "blueprint" for an Indo-Pacific strategy that will make it the most important European player in the region.
And all of this has been stirred up by the United States. The French top level has frequently spoken out, and the practice of the United States and Britain is treachery. Speaking of perfidy, On the issue of the delivery of Russia's Northwest Wind class amphibious assault ship, France also played Russia that year.
Is France a "die-hard fan" of the United States? For nearly four years, he has been saying that NATO is "brain dead", that Europe can no longer rely on the United States to defend European interests, that France has always emphasized the formation of an EU coalition, how can the United States agree to such a thing?
The Frenchization of the United States on the issue of the United States, Britain and Australia is also to reduce France's international influence, and the United States is nothing more than to make France realize that it cannot become a world power like the United States.
France wanted to strengthen its role in the Pacific region, and he wanted Europe to have its own say in regional issues. However, once this tendency is there, or even when it is put into practice, France will really dare to withdraw from NATO. De Gaulle withdrew from NATO because he wanted France to become a world power, and he struggled for nearly a decade to withdraw from NATO.
Why did de Gaulle withdraw from NATO?
De Gaulle announced France's withdrawal from NATO in 1966, but it all started in 1958. At that time, De Gaulle believed that NATO was a master-slave relationship, and the United States played a leading role in NATO's military alliance. De Gaulle wrote to U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower and British Prime Minister McMillan at the time to establish a tripartite council at NATO to strengthen France's role as the United States and Britain among nato allies.
However, de Gaulle's offer was rejected.
As a result, de Gaulle began to develop An independent French defensive capability, withdrawing The French Mediterranean Fleet from NATO headquarters in March 1959 and prohibiting NATO countries from deploying nuclear weapons to France in June. By the early 1960s, France had its own nuclear weapons.
By March 1966, de Gaulle, believing the time was ripe, announced the separation of all French forces from NATO control and demanded that U.S. and other NATO member forces leave France. But de Gaulle did not do anything, saying France remained an ally of NATO.
Does Macron dare to withdraw from NATO? Seven reasons to analyze the impossibility of France's withdrawal from NATO.
(1), the United States, Britain and Australia, the most important thing is to let France lose money, and the defense cooperation is not too big, France at this time to propose to withdraw from NATO reasons are not sufficient;
(2) Although France has always had criticism of NATO, but with the military support of the United States, France has not lost anything;
(3) France's departure from NATO will inevitably engage in European defense integration, but the current attitude is that there are not many countries that support France;
(4) If France really withdraws from NATO, the United States will definitely attack the European defense issue, and how many of France's little brothers dare to confront the United States? Most other European countries are reluctant to face the consequences of a quarrel with the United States, which has no islands in the Pacific or Indian Oceans.
(5) France does not have the ability to build a European coalition that can reach the level of NATO, at least in terms of who leads the question, and there are still contradictions between Germany and Germany;
(6) It doesn't make sense for France to withdraw from NATO alone, unless it can bring Germany in, but where does Germany have the heart to talk about it now? Germany is busy with elections.
(7) Judging from the current polls, the French people do not necessarily support France's withdrawal from NATO.
So, Macron has no means to fight back in the face of the perfidy of the United States, Britain and Australia?
Of course, it is difficult to do good things, and it is always easy to do bad things.
First of all, it can humiliate Britain, and the relationship between Britain and the United States is difficult to talk about on an equal footing, and Britain is a "follower" role. However, the British willingly accepted the role;
Second, illegal immigration can be pushed to the UK, adding to the pressure on the UK;
Third, create difficulties during Brexit;
Fourth, continue to attack NATO, calling NATO "brain dead" and increasing Europe's distrust of NATO;
Fifth, ties with Russia could be strengthened, and some military cooperation could even be announced to send a signal of discontent to the United States.
Why did Australia get into a stalemate with France and choose the United States and Britain?
Compared with France, the Attitude of the United States and the United Kingdom on regional issues, especially in the Asia-Pacific region, is obviously more in Line with Australia's interests, and the deterrent power of nuclear submarines is obviously more important than that of conventionally powered submarines.
(1), the current use of nuclear submarines in the world is also one of the few countries, if Australia can have nuclear submarines to Australia's status improvement itself is good, coupled with the united States and Britain support, which is of great benefit to enhance Australia's military strength, Australia naturally to give priority to the United States and Britain.
(2) The interests of Australia and the United States and britain are closer, especially the United States, the United States has a strong sense of presence in the world, but France is not, so Australia chooses to hold the thigh of the United States.
(3) Rather than offend the United States and Britain, Australia is obviously more willing to choose to offend France, because the cost of offending France is very low. Losing some liquidated damages, but offending the United States and Britain, Australia is well aware of its consequences. Of course, the most important thing in choosing to cooperate with the United States and Britain is that the cake of the United States and Britain is big enough and fragrant.
Is it really a good thing for Australia to have a nuclear submarine?
Once Australia has nuclear submarines, it will inevitably impact the regional balance of power. The advantage for Australia is that it has a stronger long-range attack capability, but there will be more countries targeting Australia.
Of course, by the time Australia has nuclear submarines, I am afraid that at least 10 years later, the regional balance of power at that time will not be broken because of a few australian nuclear submarines. Moreover, whether this plan can be smoothly implemented or not, at present, the eight characters have not been skimmed.