Comments by "William Davis" (@williamdavis9562) on "Australia scraps French submarine deal" video.

@natashagupta4691 I don't think people will be flocking to some Indian dude's channel for rational insight on geopolitics.
10
@captainkide575 In the world of international politics that is no way to treat a "powerful ally" something from Australia's point of view France is not. Australia is completely and utterly nervous about Chinese aggression in the region and obviously France isn't a nation which can protect it. They saw an opportunity to get more protection from the United States and they took it. I doubt it was a difficult decision considering the deal with France was supposed to be 30 billion and ballooned to 90 billion and the time frames changed. France has a habit of pulling this bait and switch tactic and smaller nations which it can then bully into paying. We've seen them do it multiple times to many countries such as Egypt and Greece. Australia on the other hand had other options and refused to be robbed by the French. Complete and utter miscalculation by the French on this issue. It goes back to a simple point which if not addressed will lead to France being embarrassed more and more on the international stage. You can't be a third rate power but still do business under the assumption you're a first rate power. If so, these things will continue to happen.
6
@Carrots, as the Chinese threat (from the Aussie point of view) got more real. It wouldn't make much sense to ally yourself so heavily with a nearly powerless third rate power like France.
4
@sharefactor To be fair he's taken a lot more seriously than Macron who over the past few years has been an international whipping boy. Everywhere the guy turns he gets slapped, literally and figuratively.
2
@davesprivatelounge It's risky pending on who you burn. There isn't too much of a downside for OZ pissing off Paris is there? Aside from causing a hissy fit what exactly can the French do?
2
The words capable and French military should never be used in the same sentence.
2
@NPJGlobal I'd imagine they'd both agree with me on the state of modern France and it's military prowess.
2
@Sevan59 Australia dumped the French deal because a much better deal came along.
2
@johnalexander5789 France won't interfere if this happens unless America is there to carry the burden of the operation. Greece will again be left to her own devices. France won't mind as it will be busy counting the billions of euros worth of equipment it sold Greece.
1
@a.b.6233 Many nations no longer believe the NATO pact to intervene will be observed.
1
@mrworldwide7387 One doesn't need to be a Turk to realize the Greeks are playing with fire in the Eastern Med sea.
1
France will be France, they'll throw a hissy fit and then realize no one cares. They pulled their ambassador from America, American strategists probably rolled their eyes.
1
@Altrantis You literally sound like a lawyer working for the arms industry who was making these subs lol Also this wasn't about France selling or not selling the Aussies Nuclear subs. The Aussies had 101 reasons to scuttle the deal and go with someone else and they did it.
1
@MyOrangeString Not when they're done by a delusional government which believes it has 100x more weight than it actually does. How many moves by the regime in Paris over the past 5 years that literally made everyone simply roll their eyes? Reminds me of last year when the French Navy was sent into the eastern Med Sea in a show of force meant to intimidate. The opposite happened and their navy had to leave the area with their tails tucked between their legs. As I said in an earlier comment, you can't be a third rate power and try to act like a first rate power. All it will do is embarrass you.
1
@Kgi135, within 25 years the French will be pushed out of all these areas.
1
France: Third rate power which believes and behaves like a first rate power. This behavior puts them in a position to be embarrassed again and again. Australia was right to push them out and bring the Americans in. France cannot, in anyway, shape or form help defend Australia.
1
@Altrantis Paper tiger perhaps? The simple reality is it doesn't have the ability to project power. Don't think people forgot the Libya operation already. France wanted to take the lead in that operation, after a week it's military was exhausted and America who was "leading from behind" as Obama said had to step in and do the job because the French military simply wasn't up to the task. 4th largest military? Perhaps but who cares how large it is when it can't get a job done?
1
France might turn a bigger profit if they sold India toilet bowls. God knows they need them.
1
@wertyuiopasd6281 Yea and that third party offered a better deal.
1
@MrRikouz If it wasn't a better deal It's doubtful they'd go with it. Not to mention doing a deal with a global power is always better for your security than doing a deal with a third rate power which has no ability to project any sort of power that far from it's shores. You can have an emotional meltdown over this but pulling out a deal with France which is a country known to screw nations over in military deals can't be a bad thing. Second rate equipment at huge cost isn't usually a good way to go.
1
@MrRikouz Australia has no means with which to defend itself. Australia is in an area with expanding Chinese influence which it simply cannot withstand. Obviously it's going to buy defense and it's going to have dependence on others. Who the hell do you think Australia is?
1
@MrRikouz I don't doubt that Australia is a country known for incompetent decision makers. But that doesn't change the fact that Australia must go with a deal where protection from a superpower comes with it. China will eventually gobble you guys up, it's that simple.
1
@MrRikouz Trying to appease China would have been one way to go, I won't argue against that policy. But Australian leaders seemed too proud to bow to China and went the other route. And if you're going to go the other route, America is really the only option here. Not France who can barely defend itself let alone Australia.
1
@MrRikouz If Australia wanted the go the route of being protected, it would make sense to pick the United States over France no? Also France doesn't have the ability to defend itself, many of their X generals have come out and said France only has about 4 days worth of munitions in a war. 500000 nukes isn't going to solve that problem. This isn't any sort of phobia, this is a case of reality. A simple reality for what ever reason you seem to have trouble accepting.
1
@MrRikouz If the Aussies are hell bent on "buying" protection. Better to pay a high price for American protection than paying a high price for French protection which will never come.
1
@saucesriracha3763 I'm not from France or any nation France has a problem with, why would I be bias. France by the public admission of their own army officials only has enough arms to fight for about 4 days. We saw how their military crumbled when they took the lead in the invasion of Libya (a weak nation) and America had to step in and finish the job because the French military's capabilities collapsed after 3 days. Bias is simply not looking a the reality of a situation. Join us in reality my friend.
1
@maxscania I don't think they even need to make an argument. They found a better deal which they believe is in the best defense interests of their nation and they took it. I'm actually quite shocked they even considered making such a large deal with France in the first place.
1
@maxscania Which part of making an arms deal along with a geopolitical commitment to a nation which can't project power in your region didn't you understand? This isn't a rocket science my man.
1
@maxscania I think you're quite confused as to what exactly you were originally responding to. You might want to scroll up to the comment you actually responded to. And yes, it is embarrassing for you but a type of embarrassment you're incapable of comprehending.
1
@maxscania You do realize I replied to your comment and not the OP's right? My reply to you had nothing to do with the original post's views. In fact the point was the original post's views are irrelevant. "@Mo Z I don't think they even need to make an argument. They found a better deal which they believe is in the best defense interests of their nation and they took it. I'm actually quite shocked they even considered making such a large deal with France in the first place." You actually responded to this post above by me with complete and utter nonsense. I'm hoping English is your second language and this is why there is such a huge disconnect with what I'm saying and what you're replying to. It's either an English problem on your part or you're so irrational that continuing this conversation with you would be insanity on my part.
1
@maxscania Don't apologize for being harsh. Apologize for being stupid.
1