|
Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
Interesting view in the Times today about why France was less harsh towards the U.K. on this matter.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/s...efd4159d3e470c
Quote:
Both US and UK diplomats have questioned why the French did not recall the UK ambassador — was it aimed at making Britain seem insignificant or, as those in the UK government claim, was it because the UK and French relationship is so strong?
If the French want revenge, they could seek to punish Britain in other ways. They could escalate the migrant crisis in the Channel, for example.
The French may also want to preserve their relationship with the British because America’s “tilt” towards the Pacific leaves the two European nations more reliant on each other to tackle Russia and counter-terrorism in the Middle East and Africa.
Britain and France have had a bilateral defence agreement for more than a decade.
In 2010, both countries signed two Lancaster House treaties — the first a defence and security agreement centred on closer cooperation between the countries’ armed forces and the second on cooperation on nuclear weapons security, stockpiles, and nuclear and radiological counterterrorism.
Both British and French personnel have also agreed to carry out operations together under the newly formed Combined Joint Expeditionary Force (CJEF), an Anglo-French force that can rapidly deploy more than 10,000 personnel for a range of tasks including peacekeeping and disaster relief.
“We are already side by side in so many things,” said a government source. “It is not in ours or France’s interest to militarily fall out”.
|
__________________
Thank you for calling the Abyss.
If you have called to scream, please press 1 to be transferred to the Void, or press 2 to begin your stare.
If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
|