JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial

[cradleandshoot]

A democratic representative has introduced a bill to abolish the US Space Farce. https://www.kron4.com/news/new-federal- ... ace-force/

What?? They didn't like those fancy new uniforms they came up with for the space rangers? I could have seen them being all the rage for Halloween costumes.

I was hoping for these uniforms.

I like em..

[youthathletics]

OS - the Australians decided when they went originally with the French boats to NOT go nuclear according to some things I read a few days ago. I think the US proposal has differing amounts of support for the nuclear infrastructure.

The Aussies AFAIK don't want nuclear weapons in any case.

When you reference reading "go nuclear" did that mean nuc propulsion or nuc weapons ?

The subs are going to be constructed in Australia. The French may not have been able or willing to export the technology to build & support nuc propulsion for subs. It's a BIG DEAL that the US is willing to share that tech with the Aussies, as we did with the UK & France in the '60's.

The magnitude of the infrastructure needed leads to speculation that patrolling US subs may make extended port visits for maint in Australia, similar to the arrangement the US had with the UK for our sub base at Holy Loch, Scotland which was co-located with their sub base as Faslane.

Having a second US sub base in W Pac, in addition to Guam, is a big strategic asset.

Apparently, the Aussies switched & opted to go for nuc propulsion in response to China's recent bullying.
France's Comme si, comme sa attitude toward China was not good enough in this case.

https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacifi ... ne-dispute
Analysts say that – regardless of France’s outrage – the bottom line is that Sino-Australian relations have deteriorated considerably since the Franco-Australian agreement was made in 2016.

The deal Canberra signed in 2016 for France’s mainly state-owned Naval Group to supply 12 submarines for the Royal Australian Navy was a boon for the French defence industry. Worth €31 billion when it was signed, the deal is now estimated at €56 billion ($66 billion).

It no longer looked like such a great deal for Australia. Concerned about China’s increasingly bellicose foreign policy, Canberra feared that France’s conventional electric-diesel submarines were inadequate for its needs.

‘China surprised us all’

Consequently, Australia got the ball rolling in March – reaching out to its British ally to ask for help in persuading the US to hand over technology it had only ever shared with the UK.

“What’s driven Australia’s decision is a reassessment of its strategic environment, primarily because of China’s behaviour over the past few years as Beijing has really stepped up its assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific region and changed perceptions about the level of potential hazard,” said Brendan Sargeant, Australia’s associate secretary of defence from 2013 to 2017, now head of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at Australian National University. “It’s a different environment from what it was five years ago – and the rate of change has gone faster than any of our assessments; China under President Xi Jinping has surprised us all.”

“It’s not that the French submarines are bad, it’s that looking into the future, the nuclear option makes much more sense, because with them Australia can sustain operations over long distances and long periods of time – and will be capable of responding to the growth in Chinese capabilities,” Sargeant explained.

The range of the US nuclear submarines is an especially important advantage for Australia, Sargeant continued, because they would have to travel far from their bases to patrol the Indo-Pacific: “It’s difficult to base submarines north of Stirling [a naval base on the southern part of Australia’s West Coast] – the water is too shallow and the tidal ranges are enormous – so submarines will have to go a long way to patrol deep into the Indian Ocean or in the north of Asia, and that would have pushed against the edges of conventional submarine technology.”

‘Scepticism towards Paris’

This Australian paradigm shift from warily engaging with China to preparing for potential confrontation mirrors the same change of thinking in Washington and London. By contrast, France has maintained a more ambiguous China policy – signing on to the official EU line that China is simultaneously a partner, competitor and rival.

Emmanuel Macron has endorsed a divergent position from the growing Anglophone consensus. Calls to “join all together against China” create a “scenario of the highest possible conflictuality” and are “counter-productive”, the French president said in February at a discussion broadcast by the Washington DC think-tank the Atlantic Council.

“France has a more cautious approach towards China, whereas what America wants is for countries to join together collectively and balance against China,” noted Shashank Joshi, defence editor of The Economist.

Macron gave concrete form to this stance when he backed German Chancellor Angela Merkel in forming the “Comprehensive Agreement on Trade” with China unveiled in December 2020.

While the deal would handsomely benefit influential businesses like German car companies, critics accused Macron and Merkel of naively trusting China’s commitments on technology transfers and the use of forced labour. Across the Atlantic, the incoming Biden administration was disappointed that the EU had effectively rebuffed its requests for consultation about European economic relations with China.

Then the Chinese government’s actions made the “Comprehensive Agreement” politically unsustainable in May, when it imposed sanctions on several MEPs and European researchers specialising in China – prompting the EU Parliament to suspend the deal.

“In Washington, that episode contributed to a scepticism towards Paris,” said Robert Singh, a professor of American politics at Birkbeck, University of London. “France is very much seen as too soft on China – at a time when the US is clearly concerned that too many states on every continent are being suckered by China’s economic statecraft into positions where US security alliances are likely to be endangered.”

“So to see France do what it did with that trade deal was very disappointing to the Biden administration,” Singh continued. “My impression is that the US won’t care very much that it has outraged France with this Australian submarine deal.”

‘The better partner’

If Joe Biden mentions his chagrin over France’s China policy in the phone call with Macron expected over the next few days, Macron could very well point to France's actions in response to Beijing’s threats against Western allies in the Indo-Pacific.

France conducts naval patrols of the Taiwan Strait at least once a year to support freedom of navigation – and even deployed, in February, a nuclear submarine to the South China Sea, almost all of which Beijing controversially claims.

Describing France as soft on China would be “unfair”, Joshi said – suggesting that “ambivalent” would be more accurate.

But it seems ambivalence is not good enough for the US – or indeed for Australia. Not only was French submarine technology less attractive for Canberra in the context of Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific, but France’s geo-strategic approach also made it a less attractive partner than the US, said Richard Whitman, a professor of politics and international relations at the University of Kent.

“The US thinks about how to contain China. And Australia too is in the position of thinking about how one contains, as opposed to how one accommodates; that’s the fundamental difference with France,” Whitman said. “As a consequence, the US looks like the better partner – when France was always a second-order partner that could supplement rather than replace anything the US might have to offer.”

Saw this today, for your reading pleasure. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/th ... np1taskbar

[cradleandshoot]

OS - the Australians decided when they went originally with the French boats to NOT go nuclear according to some things I read a few days ago. I think the US proposal has differing amounts of support for the nuclear infrastructure.

The Aussies AFAIK don't want nuclear weapons in any case.

When you reference reading "go nuclear" did that mean nuc propulsion or nuc weapons ?

The subs are going to be constructed in Australia. The French may not have been able or willing to export the technology to build & support nuc propulsion for subs. It's a BIG DEAL that the US is willing to share that tech with the Aussies, as we did with the UK & France in the '60's.

The magnitude of the infrastructure needed leads to speculation that patrolling US subs may make extended port visits for maint in Australia, similar to the arrangement the US had with the UK for our sub base at Holy Loch, Scotland which was co-located with their sub base as Faslane.

Having a second US sub base in W Pac, in addition to Guam, is a big strategic asset.

Apparently, the Aussies switched & opted to go for nuc propulsion in response to China's recent bullying.
France's Comme si, comme sa attitude toward China was not good enough in this case.

https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacifi ... ne-dispute
Analysts say that – regardless of France’s outrage – the bottom line is that Sino-Australian relations have deteriorated considerably since the Franco-Australian agreement was made in 2016.

The deal Canberra signed in 2016 for France’s mainly state-owned Naval Group to supply 12 submarines for the Royal Australian Navy was a boon for the French defence industry. Worth €31 billion when it was signed, the deal is now estimated at €56 billion ($66 billion).

It no longer looked like such a great deal for Australia. Concerned about China’s increasingly bellicose foreign policy, Canberra feared that France’s conventional electric-diesel submarines were inadequate for its needs.

‘China surprised us all’

Consequently, Australia got the ball rolling in March – reaching out to its British ally to ask for help in persuading the US to hand over technology it had only ever shared with the UK.

“What’s driven Australia’s decision is a reassessment of its strategic environment, primarily because of China’s behaviour over the past few years as Beijing has really stepped up its assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific region and changed perceptions about the level of potential hazard,” said Brendan Sargeant, Australia’s associate secretary of defence from 2013 to 2017, now head of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at Australian National University. “It’s a different environment from what it was five years ago – and the rate of change has gone faster than any of our assessments; China under President Xi Jinping has surprised us all.”

“It’s not that the French submarines are bad, it’s that looking into the future, the nuclear option makes much more sense, because with them Australia can sustain operations over long distances and long periods of time – and will be capable of responding to the growth in Chinese capabilities,” Sargeant explained.

The range of the US nuclear submarines is an especially important advantage for Australia, Sargeant continued, because they would have to travel far from their bases to patrol the Indo-Pacific: “It’s difficult to base submarines north of Stirling [a naval base on the southern part of Australia’s West Coast] – the water is too shallow and the tidal ranges are enormous – so submarines will have to go a long way to patrol deep into the Indian Ocean or in the north of Asia, and that would have pushed against the edges of conventional submarine technology.”

‘Scepticism towards Paris’

This Australian paradigm shift from warily engaging with China to preparing for potential confrontation mirrors the same change of thinking in Washington and London. By contrast, France has maintained a more ambiguous China policy – signing on to the official EU line that China is simultaneously a partner, competitor and rival.

Emmanuel Macron has endorsed a divergent position from the growing Anglophone consensus. Calls to “join all together against China” create a “scenario of the highest possible conflictuality” and are “counter-productive”, the French president said in February at a discussion broadcast by the Washington DC think-tank the Atlantic Council.

“France has a more cautious approach towards China, whereas what America wants is for countries to join together collectively and balance against China,” noted Shashank Joshi, defence editor of The Economist.

Macron gave concrete form to this stance when he backed German Chancellor Angela Merkel in forming the “Comprehensive Agreement on Trade” with China unveiled in December 2020.

While the deal would handsomely benefit influential businesses like German car companies, critics accused Macron and Merkel of naively trusting China’s commitments on technology transfers and the use of forced labour. Across the Atlantic, the incoming Biden administration was disappointed that the EU had effectively rebuffed its requests for consultation about European economic relations with China.

Then the Chinese government’s actions made the “Comprehensive Agreement” politically unsustainable in May, when it imposed sanctions on several MEPs and European researchers specialising in China – prompting the EU Parliament to suspend the deal.

“In Washington, that episode contributed to a scepticism towards Paris,” said Robert Singh, a professor of American politics at Birkbeck, University of London. “France is very much seen as too soft on China – at a time when the US is clearly concerned that too many states on every continent are being suckered by China’s economic statecraft into positions where US security alliances are likely to be endangered.”

“So to see France do what it did with that trade deal was very disappointing to the Biden administration,” Singh continued. “My impression is that the US won’t care very much that it has outraged France with this Australian submarine deal.”

‘The better partner’

If Joe Biden mentions his chagrin over France’s China policy in the phone call with Macron expected over the next few days, Macron could very well point to France's actions in response to Beijing’s threats against Western allies in the Indo-Pacific.

France conducts naval patrols of the Taiwan Strait at least once a year to support freedom of navigation – and even deployed, in February, a nuclear submarine to the South China Sea, almost all of which Beijing controversially claims.

Describing France as soft on China would be “unfair”, Joshi said – suggesting that “ambivalent” would be more accurate.

But it seems ambivalence is not good enough for the US – or indeed for Australia. Not only was French submarine technology less attractive for Canberra in the context of Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific, but France’s geo-strategic approach also made it a less attractive partner than the US, said Richard Whitman, a professor of politics and international relations at the University of Kent.

“The US thinks about how to contain China. And Australia too is in the position of thinking about how one contains, as opposed to how one accommodates; that’s the fundamental difference with France,” Whitman said. “As a consequence, the US looks like the better partner – when France was always a second-order partner that could supplement rather than replace anything the US might have to offer.”

Saw this today, for your reading pleasure. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/th ... np1taskbar

So Bidens advisors were advertised on this forum to be head and shoulders above the trump crew? The bar for POTUS advisers must be getting lower by the day. I wonder why Jen.. I will circle back to that .. Sake hasn't circled back to answer this yet?

[old salt]

Apparently, the Aussies switched & opted to go for nuc propulsion in response to China's recent bullying.
France's Comme si, comme sa attitude toward China was not good enough in this case.
https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacifi ... ne-dispute

Saw this today, for your reading pleasure. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/th ... np1taskbar

Thanks YA. Several informative links in that article.
Re the diplomacy -- https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2021/0 ... ct/185560/
Biden Just Gave France Something More Valuable than a Submarine Contract
The White House endorsement of European defense apart from NATO is worth more than a $66 billion deal with Australia.

[MDlaxfan76]

Apparently, the Aussies switched & opted to go for nuc propulsion in response to China's recent bullying.
France's Comme si, comme sa attitude toward China was not good enough in this case.
https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacifi ... ne-dispute

Saw this today, for your reading pleasure. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/th ... np1taskbar

Thanks YA. Several informative links in that article.
Re the diplomacy -- https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2021/0 ... ct/185560/
Biden Just Gave France Something More Valuable than a Submarine Contract
The White House endorsement of European defense apart from NATO is worth more than a $66 billion deal with Australia.

Ahhh, those Euroburghers are finally going to step up and shoulder more of the burden...?

[old salt]

Apparently, the Aussies switched & opted to go for nuc propulsion in response to China's recent bullying.
France's Comme si, comme sa attitude toward China was not good enough in this case.
https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacifi ... ne-dispute

Saw this today, for your reading pleasure. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/th ... np1taskbar

Thanks YA. Several informative links in that article.
Re the diplomacy -- https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2021/0 ... ct/185560/
Biden Just Gave France Something More Valuable than a Submarine Contract
The White House endorsement of European defense apart from NATO is worth more than a $66 billion deal with Australia.

Ahhh, those Euroburghers are finally going to step up and shoulder more of the burden...?

i hope so, ...but I'm not betting on it. I've been longing for them to return to the level of burden sharing they shouldered during the Cold War when I had the privilege of serving alongside & amongst them. We'll see if it equates to an armored division in the field, alongside ours in Poland & the Baltics, or just more parades & toasts.

[MDlaxfan76]

Apparently, the Aussies switched & opted to go for nuc propulsion in response to China's recent bullying.
France's Comme si, comme sa attitude toward China was not good enough in this case.
https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacifi ... ne-dispute

Saw this today, for your reading pleasure. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/th ... np1taskbar

Thanks YA. Several informative links in that article.
Re the diplomacy -- https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2021/0 ... ct/185560/
Biden Just Gave France Something More Valuable than a Submarine Contract
The White House endorsement of European defense apart from NATO is worth more than a $66 billion deal with Australia.

Ahhh, those Euroburghers are finally going to step up and shoulder more of the burden...?

i hope so, ...but I'm not betting on it. I've been longing for them to return to the level of burden sharing they shouldered during the Cold War when I had the privilege of serving alongside & amongst them. We'll see if it equates to an armored division in the field, alongside ours in Poland & the Baltics, or just more parades & toasts.

So...Biden's giving up zippo then?
Sounds pretty brilliant.

[old salt]

Apparently, the Aussies switched & opted to go for nuc propulsion in response to China's recent bullying.
France's Comme si, comme sa attitude toward China was not good enough in this case.
https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacifi ... ne-dispute

Saw this today, for your reading pleasure. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/th ... np1taskbar

Thanks YA. Several informative links in that article.
Re the diplomacy -- https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2021/0 ... ct/185560/
Biden Just Gave France Something More Valuable than a Submarine Contract
The White House endorsement of European defense apart from NATO is worth more than a $66 billion deal with Australia.

Ahhh, those Euroburghers are finally going to step up and shoulder more of the burden...?

i hope so, ...but I'm not betting on it. I've been longing for them to return to the level of burden sharing they shouldered during the Cold War when I had the privilege of serving alongside & amongst them. We'll see if it equates to an armored division in the field, alongside ours in Poland & the Baltics, or just more parades & toasts.

So...Biden's giving up zippo then?
Sounds pretty brilliant.

Nothing to give up. It's just lip service. Any US President has little influence in this regard. Such change is determined by what each EU nation decides is in their best interests, ...as dictated from Berlin. The EUros are hesitant to follow Macron down this road because it exposes how dependent they are on the US & there's no will to develop what's needed to go forward without the US.

[MDlaxfan76]

Apparently, the Aussies switched & opted to go for nuc propulsion in response to China's recent bullying.
France's Comme si, comme sa attitude toward China was not good enough in this case.
https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacifi ... ne-dispute

Saw this today, for your reading pleasure. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/th ... np1taskbar

Thanks YA. Several informative links in that article.
Re the diplomacy -- https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2021/0 ... ct/185560/
Biden Just Gave France Something More Valuable than a Submarine Contract
The White House endorsement of European defense apart from NATO is worth more than a $66 billion deal with Australia.

Ahhh, those Euroburghers are finally going to step up and shoulder more of the burden...?

i hope so, ...but I'm not betting on it. I've been longing for them to return to the level of burden sharing they shouldered during the Cold War when I had the privilege of serving alongside & amongst them. We'll see if it equates to an armored division in the field, alongside ours in Poland & the Baltics, or just more parades & toasts.

So...Biden's giving up zippo then?
Sounds pretty brilliant.

Nothing to give up. It's just lip service. Any US President has little influence in this regard. Such change is determined by what each EU nation decides is in their best interests, ...as dictated from Berlin.

Sure, however the point of that article was that Biden had "given up" something important, strategic, valuable, in exchange for Macron chilling on the submarine sale controversy.

Doesn't sound like you think he gave anything up, just threw a little jiu jitsu and everyone's making nice again.

[old salt]

Apparently, the Aussies switched & opted to go for nuc propulsion in response to China's recent bullying.
France's Comme si, comme sa attitude toward China was not good enough in this case.
https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacifi ... ne-dispute

Saw this today, for your reading pleasure. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/th ... np1taskbar

Thanks YA. Several informative links in that article.
Re the diplomacy -- https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2021/0 ... ct/185560/
Biden Just Gave France Something More Valuable than a Submarine Contract
The White House endorsement of European defense apart from NATO is worth more than a $66 billion deal with Australia.

Ahhh, those Euroburghers are finally going to step up and shoulder more of the burden...?

i hope so, ...but I'm not betting on it. I've been longing for them to return to the level of burden sharing they shouldered during the Cold War when I had the privilege of serving alongside & amongst them. We'll see if it equates to an armored division in the field, alongside ours in Poland & the Baltics, or just more parades & toasts.

So...Biden's giving up zippo then?
Sounds pretty brilliant.

Nothing to give up. It's just lip service. Any US President has little influence in this regard. Such change is determined by what each EU nation decides is in their best interests, ...as dictated from Berlin.

Sure, however the point of that article was that Biden had "given up" something important, strategic, valuable, in exchange for Macron chilling on the submarine sale controversy.

Doesn't sound like you think he gave anything up, just threw a little jiu jitsu and everyone's making nice again.

From the article :
So let’s take this for what it’s worth, no more or less. The Biden White House’s one-line acknowledgement that a European defense capability that is separate but complementary to NATO is “important” was buried in a diplomatic readout of a private conversation. That is hardly a ringing endorsement. But it’s new, and rest assured Paris will use those words to continue making their case. Macron can now say he moved Biden further toward Paris’s position. And Biden can say he’s open to European defense evolution. Both can say they still love NATO. But none of us yet knows how far Biden is really to go down this path with Macron, if at all.

They won’t have too much time to lurk behind vagaries. Biden and Macron agreed to meet in late October. If we don’t know more by then whether these world leaders are serious about creating a new European defense and security autonomy, that’s the question I would ask first.

Face saving rhetoric to soothe wounded Gallic pride. French elections soon. It allows Macron to divert attention from the economic loss & humiliation in losing a big contract. It supports his aspiration to promote himself as the leader of the EU. That does not mean the rest of the EU is ready to follow him.

The rest of the EU is more careful in what they ask for than Macron & France are. They realize this would make it easier for US isolationists to promote reducing our NATO commitment.

[MDlaxfan76]

Apparently, the Aussies switched & opted to go for nuc propulsion in response to China's recent bullying.
France's Comme si, comme sa attitude toward China was not good enough in this case.
https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacifi ... ne-dispute

Saw this today, for your reading pleasure. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/th ... np1taskbar

Thanks YA. Several informative links in that article.
Re the diplomacy -- https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2021/0 ... ct/185560/
Biden Just Gave France Something More Valuable than a Submarine Contract
The White House endorsement of European defense apart from NATO is worth more than a $66 billion deal with Australia.

Ahhh, those Euroburghers are finally going to step up and shoulder more of the burden...?

i hope so, ...but I'm not betting on it. I've been longing for them to return to the level of burden sharing they shouldered during the Cold War when I had the privilege of serving alongside & amongst them. We'll see if it equates to an armored division in the field, alongside ours in Poland & the Baltics, or just more parades & toasts.

So...Biden's giving up zippo then?
Sounds pretty brilliant.

Nothing to give up. It's just lip service. Any US President has little influence in this regard. Such change is determined by what each EU nation decides is in their best interests, ...as dictated from Berlin.

Sure, however the point of that article was that Biden had "given up" something important, strategic, valuable, in exchange for Macron chilling on the submarine sale controversy.

Doesn't sound like you think he gave anything up, just threw a little jiu jitsu and everyone's making nice again.

From the article :
So let’s take this for what it’s worth, no more or less. The Biden White House’s one-line acknowledgement that a European defense capability that is separate but complementary to NATO is “important” was buried in a diplomatic readout of a private conversation. That is hardly a ringing endorsement. But it’s new, and rest assured Paris will use those words to continue making their case. Macron can now say he moved Biden further toward Paris’s position. And Biden can say he’s open to European defense evolution. Both can say they still love NATO. But none of us yet knows how far Biden is really to go down this path with Macron, if at all.

They won’t have too much time to lurk behind vagaries. Biden and Macron agreed to meet in late October. If we don’t know more by then whether these world leaders are serious about creating a new European defense and security autonomy, that’s the question I would ask first.

Face saving rhetoric to soothe wounded Gallic pride. French elections soon. It allows Macron to divert attention from the economic loss & humiliation in losing a big contract. It supports his aspiration to promote himself as the leader of the EU. That does not mean the rest of the EU is ready to follow him.

The rest of the EU is more careful in what they ask for than Macron & France are. They realize this would make it easier for US isolationists to promote reducing our NATO commitment.

Makes sense. Which is why I said it sounds like Biden's diplomacy worked and the opening headline and paragraph that Biden had given Macron something worth much more than the submarine contract was merely clickbait.

[old salt]

Apparently, the Aussies switched & opted to go for nuc propulsion in response to China's recent bullying.
France's Comme si, comme sa attitude toward China was not good enough in this case.
https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacifi ... ne-dispute

Saw this today, for your reading pleasure. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/th ... np1taskbar

Thanks YA. Several informative links in that article.
Re the diplomacy -- https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2021/0 ... ct/185560/
Biden Just Gave France Something More Valuable than a Submarine Contract
The White House endorsement of European defense apart from NATO is worth more than a $66 billion deal with Australia.

Ahhh, those Euroburghers are finally going to step up and shoulder more of the burden...?

i hope so, ...but I'm not betting on it. I've been longing for them to return to the level of burden sharing they shouldered during the Cold War when I had the privilege of serving alongside & amongst them. We'll see if it equates to an armored division in the field, alongside ours in Poland & the Baltics, or just more parades & toasts.

So...Biden's giving up zippo then?
Sounds pretty brilliant.

Nothing to give up. It's just lip service. Any US President has little influence in this regard. Such change is determined by what each EU nation decides is in their best interests, ...as dictated from Berlin.

Sure, however the point of that article was that Biden had "given up" something important, strategic, valuable, in exchange for Macron chilling on the submarine sale controversy.

Doesn't sound like you think he gave anything up, just threw a little jiu jitsu and everyone's making nice again.

From the article :
So let’s take this for what it’s worth, no more or less. The Biden White House’s one-line acknowledgement that a European defense capability that is separate but complementary to NATO is “important” was buried in a diplomatic readout of a private conversation. That is hardly a ringing endorsement. But it’s new, and rest assured Paris will use those words to continue making their case. Macron can now say he moved Biden further toward Paris’s position. And Biden can say he’s open to European defense evolution. Both can say they still love NATO. But none of us yet knows how far Biden is really to go down this path with Macron, if at all.

They won’t have too much time to lurk behind vagaries. Biden and Macron agreed to meet in late October. If we don’t know more by then whether these world leaders are serious about creating a new European defense and security autonomy, that’s the question I would ask first.

Face saving rhetoric to soothe wounded Gallic pride. French elections soon. It allows Macron to divert attention from the economic loss & humiliation in losing a big contract. It supports his aspiration to promote himself as the leader of the EU. That does not mean the rest of the EU is ready to follow him.

The rest of the EU is more careful in what they ask for than Macron & France are. They realize this would make it easier for US isolationists to promote reducing our NATO commitment.

Makes sense. Which is why I said it sounds like Biden's diplomacy worked and the opening headline and paragraph that Biden had given Macron something worth much more than the submarine contract was merely clickbait.

I don't know if it's clickbait or not. That's the editor of Defense One. He's well connected within the Pentagon. Maybe DoD's worried something may come of this. I disagree with the CW on this. A more assertive EU does not bother me if it makes them more capable NATO members.

[Kismet]

Salty's hero was taking graft WHILE he was National Security Advisor. Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad discovered internal audit documents revealing more unreported payments in wild scheme for Arab power plants - all while serving in the WH

https://www.spytalk.co/p/flynn-secretly ... -in-middle

"Disgraced former Donald Trump National Security Adviser and Army general Michael Flynn was paid a previously unreported $200,000 for work on a controversial plan to bring nuclear power to the Middle East involving Russian and other foreign business interests, according to a report this weekend by the respected Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad."

Surprise.....he lied about it.

[old salt]

Salty's hero was taking graft WHILE he was National Security Advisor. Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad discovered internal audit documents revealing more unreported payments in wild scheme for Arab power plants - all while serving in the WH

https://www.spytalk.co/p/flynn-secretly ... -in-middle

"Disgraced former Donald Trump National Security Adviser and Army general Michael Flynn was paid a previously unreported $200,000 for work on a controversial plan to bring nuclear power to the Middle East involving Russian and other foreign business interests, according to a report this weekend by the respected Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad."

Surprise.....he lied about it.

Calm down there Jimmy Olsen. The payments were in 2014-15 to his consulting firm. Before he even met Trump & well before his return to govt service in 2017. Unreported to whom ?

[old salt]

More ops down under, thanks to AUKUS.

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2021/1 ... ll/185865/

When France joins, they'll have to call it FUKUSA.

[old salt]

S Korea's future aircraft carrier.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/03/asia/sou ... index.html

[old salt]

Busy times in WestPac ...no wonder the Chinese are getting nervous ...& flying an unprecedented number & size of airstrikes, penetrating Taiwan's air defense zone. ...phone call for General Milley on the red phone.

https://news.usni.org/2021/10/07/breaki ... more-88989

Attack Submarine USS Connecticut Suffers Underwater Collision in South China Sea

...a U.S. nuclear attack submarine hit an unknown underwater object in the South China Sea, USNI News has learned.

The Seawolf-class nuclear attack submarine USS Connecticut (SSN-22) suffered an underwater collision while operating in international waters on Oct. 2 and is returning to port in U.S. 7th Fleet, a U.S. Pacific Fleet spokesman confirmed to USNI News on Thursday.

“The Seawolf-class fast-attack submarine USS Connecticut (SSN-22) struck an object while submerged on the afternoon of Oct. 2, while operating in international waters in the Indo-Pacific region. The safety of the crew remains the Navy’s top priority. There are no life-threatening injuries,”

“The submarine remains in a safe and stable condition. USS Connecticut’s nuclear propulsion plant and spaces were not affected and remain fully operational. The extent of damage to the remainder of the submarine is being assessed. The U.S. Navy has not requested assistance. The incident will be investigated.”

A defense official told USNI News about 11 sailors were hurt in the incident with moderate to minor injuries. The attack boat is now headed to Guam and is expected to pull in within the next day, the official said. The underwater strike occurred in the South China Sea and the attack boat has been making its way to Guam on the surface since Saturday, a defense official confirmed to USNI News.

The Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton, Wash., based submarine deployed on May 27 for the Pacific, the Navy announced at the time. The service has released photographs of the submarine operating in the Western Pacific with port calls in Japan in late July and August.

Connecticut is one of three Sea Wolf-class boats, a late Cold War attack submarine designed to hunt the most complex Soviet submarines in deep blue water. Along with USS Sea Wolf (SSN-21) and USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23), Connecticut is among the Navy’s most capable and sensitive attack boats.

https://news.usni.org/2021/10/07/biden- ... xpert-says
Biden Administration Should Make Guam’s Defense Center of Indo-Pacific Strategy, Expert Says

The defense of Guam should be the centerpiece of the Biden administration’s focus on countering threats from China in the Indo-Pacific, an expert on missile defense said Wednesday.

“Make the main thing the main thing,” Thomas Karako, director of the missile defense project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said. He stressed the island’s strategic importance to American presence and operations in the region.

The U.S. territory provides major support for Navy submarines operating in the Pacific, an air base capable of sustaining Air Force strategic bombers and a Coast Guard headquarters and several cutters.

“There are going to be some things like an island you cannot hide,” he said during a Heritage Foundation online forum. “Indo-Pacific commanders have been pounding the table” to come up with an acceptable missile defense plan for Guam for several years, he added.

Kathleen Hicks in a recent appearance underlined the increased threat facing Guam and Hawaii from China’s continued military expansion; but so far, there has been no congressionally- accepted plan for the island’s defense.

The former head of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, Adm. Phil Davidson, has advocated for the Aegis Ashore ballistic missile defense system to defend Guam from Chinese missiles. Davidson included the system in a list of priorities he sent to Congress about the Indo-Pacific.

To defend Guam against new hypersonic and updated cruise missiles or an “old-fashioned ballistics’” attack from China or North Korea, Karako said the threats have to be identified. Defending Guam would require working with mature technologies, providing integrated air and missile defense systems for the island, and having these systems be interoperable among the services and with allies.

In the past, Vice Adm. Jon Hill, director of the Missile Defense Agency, has told Congress that a hybrid system – using Aegis systems either ashore or afloat coupled with the Army’s Theater High Altitude Area Defense system, could meet the need.

Brad Roberts, director of the Center for Global Security Research at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said “we need [in missile defense] the ability [to] prevent limited attacks” to stop China, Russia or a rogue state from using blackmailing to get its way in a crisis.

“We don’t need Astrodome” missile defense for the whole United States because an all-out attack is unlikely, he said. But protection for key areas like Guam and nuclear command and control centers are necessary.

The role of missile defense in the past has been to outpace rogue states like North Korea in posing threats to the U.S. homeland and providing allies in Europe and the Pacific security against regional attacks by Russia, China, North Korea or Iran.

But Pyongyang’s continued advances in weapons and missile technology has accelerated the need for the U.S. Missile Defense Review the Biden administration is conducting. Beijing and Moscow will likely carefully study the review once it’s released.

https://news.usni.org/2021/10/04/u-s-u- ... rn-pacific
U.S., U.K. Aircraft Carriers Drill with Japanese Big Deck Warship in the Western Pacific

KUALA LUMPUR – Two U.S. carrier strike groups drilled with the United Kingdom’s Carrier Strike Group 21 (CSG21) and a Japanese big-deck warship over the weekend in a major naval exercise in the waters off the southeast of Okinawa, Japan.

The exercise involved six different navies – the U.S Navy, the U.K. Royal Navy, the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, the Royal Netherlands Navy, the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal New Zealand Navy – making up a total of 17 surface ships, which included four aircraft carriers.

The exercise enhanced JMSDF tactical skills and interoperability with the participating navies, the JMSDF said in a news release on Monday. Anti-submarine warfare, air defense warfare, tactical movement and communications training were carried out for the exercise, according to the JMSDF.

“In addition to the two carrier strike groups of the U.S. Navy, I feel very honored to be able to train with the Royal Navy’s most advanced carrier strike group, which is an extremely valuable experience,” JMSDF Escort Flotilla 2 commander Rear Adm. Konno Yasushige said in the English-language JMSDF news release.
“This training, which brings together three CSG, embodies the strong will of the participating countries to realize a Free and Open Indo-Pacific, the JMSDF will work closely with allied and friendly navies, which share the same objectives, to respond to global challenges and defend maritime order based on the rule of law.”

This was the Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group’s fourth exercise with allies and partners since entering U.S. 7th Fleet, CSG commander Rear Adm. Dan Martin said in the release.

U.K. CSG21 commander Commodore Steve Moorhouse said the British CSG “offers the largest 5th Generation air wing afloat today and working with our close allies to develop operating procedures and capabilities while concurrently showcasing the agility of land and carrier-based aviation in the Indo-Pacific demonstrates our commitment to the region.”

JMSDF ships taking part in the exercise included destroyer helicopter carrier JS Ise (DDH-182), with destroyers JS Kirishima (DDG-174) and JS Yamagiri (DD-152). The Reagan CSG included carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) and cruiser USS Shiloh (CG-67), while the Vinson CSG featured carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70), guided-missile cruiser USS Lake Champlain (CG-57) and guided-missile destroyer USS Chafee (DDG-90).

The U.K. CSG21 ships involved included carrier Queen Elizabeth (R08), destroyer HMS Defender (D36), frigate HMS Kent (F78), replenishment ships RFA Fort Victoria (A387) and RFA Tidespring (A136), American destroyer USS The Sullivans (DDG-68), and Dutch frigate HNLMS Evertsen (F805). Rounding out the participants were the RCN frigate HCMS Winnipeg (FFH338) and RNZN frigate HMNZS Te Kaha (F77).

Two of the JMSDF’s other three destroyer helicopter carriers are also underway now with JS Izumo (DDH-183), which is in the midst of a post refit trial. The refit is the first phase of work enabling it to operate F-35B Lighting II Joint Strike Fighters. US Marines F-35Bs are currently embarked on Izumo to assist in the trials, while Izumo’s sister ship JS Kaga (DDH-184) and destroyer JS Murasame (DD101) are in Colombo, Sri Lanka for a port visit until Monday as part of the JMSDF Indo-Pacific Deployment 2021 (IPD21) task group.

The main body of the UK CSG 21 is now on its way to Singapore for an exercise with the Republic of Singapore Navy, based on a social media posting by the CSG21 commander.

Meanwhile, other elements of the CSG21 group are operating in the South China Sea. Frigate HMS Richmond (F239) carried out a passing exercise (PASSEX) with the Vietnam Navy frigate Đinh Tiên Hoàng (HQ-011) on Monday as it left Vietnam following a port call. The PASSEX is the first-ever at-sea naval activity between the two navies.

Richmond is expected to head to Singapore to take part in the Five Power Defence Arrangement (FPDA) exercise Bersama Gold 21, which will take place Oct. 8 through 18 off the coasts of Malaysia and Singapore. Meanwhile, destroyer HMS Diamond (D34), which had been forced to drop out of CSG21 in July following engine troubles, is now also in the South China Sea and conducting a three-day exercise with the Australian Defence Force (ADF) Indo-Pacific Endeavour Deployment 21 (IPE21) task group. The task group includes Royal Australian Navy LPD HMAS Canberra (L02), frigate HMAS Anzac (FFH150) and replenishment ship HMAS Sirius (O266).

After it drills with Diamond, the IPE21 task group is also heading to Singapore to take part in the Bersama Gold exercise. Diamond is then expected to re-join the main body of CSG21.

https://news.usni.org/2021/10/05/video- ... since-wwii
VIDEO: Japan’s Largest Warship Launches U.S. Marine F-35s; First Fighters to Fly from Japanese Ship Since WWII

KUALA LUMPUR – Two Marine Corps F-35B Lighting II Joint Strike Fighters took off and landed on Japan’s largest warship, JS Izumo (DDH-183), on Oct.3, marking the first time that fixed-wing aircraft have operated off a Japanese warship since World War II.

The two F-35Bs from the “Bats” of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 242 flew from Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Japan, to operate on Izumo to test modifications to the big deck warship so the short takeoff, vertical landing (STOVL) version of the F-35 can operate from the ship.

“This verification is the first time for an F-35B fighter to land on a [Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force] vessel, and Japan is working to improve its capabilities in the maritime and air domains by steadily upgrading the Izumo-class destroyer in order to acquire the ability to operate STOVL aircraft,” reads a Tuesday statement from the JMSDF.

Izumo completed the first of a two-stage modification in June that will enable it to operate the F-35, with the first stage adding heat resistant coating to the flight deck and marking flight lines for F-35B operations. Izumo’s final conversion work will take place in Fiscal Year 2025, while sister ship JS Kaga (DDH-184) will receive the full modifications in FY 2022. The second stage of Izumo’s conversion and the full stage of Kaga’s conversion will involve a change of the shape of the ships’ bows, along with interior reconfiguration that will allow them to embark and fully operate F-35s.

The modification of Izumo and Kaga are paired with a planned JSDF buy of 42 F-35Bs to operate from the two ships. The first of the JSDF F-35Bs are set to arrive in FY 2023 and Marine F-35s are expected to continue operating off the two ships as Japan acclimates itself to using the fighters. The JMSDF has already conducted a series of engagements and exchanges in relation to F-35B operations with the U.K. Carrier Strike Group 21 (CSG21) while it was in Japan in early September.

The Japanese Ministry of Defence in the past had downplayed the future operations of F-35s from Izumo and Kaga, saying the fighters would deploy on the ships when necessary due to the sensitivities over whether the capability would push Japan over the boundaries of its constitutional limitations on possessing offensive capabilities. Operation of Japanese F-35Bs would also mark the first time since World War II that Japan would operate its own fighter aircraft off its naval vessels. Kaga is the namesake of a prominent WWII aircraft carrier.

Retired JMSDF senior officers have been quoted in the Japanese press in the past as stating the threat posed by China’s increasing military capabilities necessitated a move to have fleet air defense aircraft. Given the limitations of the Izumo-class, there have been calls to develop a new domestic carrier-class. However, there are lingering questions about whether developing a new carrier class would align with Japan’s pacifist stance.

Meanwhile, Kaga and destroyer JS Murasame (DD101), which are deployed as part of the JMSDF Indo-Pacific Deployment 2021 (IPD21) task group, conducted a training exercise on Monday with the Sri Lanka Navy’s patrol vessel SLNS Sagara (P-622) in the waters around Colombo after the two ships concluded a port call in the city that began last week.

[seacoaster]

What is the most likely cause of the damage to the Connecticut?

[Kismet]

Likely possibility, a geographic undersea feature, a fixed object. In order to maintain detection our subs usually only use their passive sonar and that system would not detect such an object. Passive sonar only detects noise-making things. South China Sea is a very busy place both on and below the surface so passive sonar would be pretty busy in terms of detection anyway.

As I understand it, our subs do not use active sonar except under certain circumstances, because that noise would allow the sub to be detected and tracked. Active sonar would likely have detected the feature.

Likely will know more now that the sub has made port in Guam to physically assess the damage perhaps in drydock.

Excellent piece in The Drive

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... underwater
"Why Multi-Billion Dollar Nuclear Submarines Still Run Into Things Underwater
A veteran submariner explains the challenges crews face navigating complex undersea environments that they can't even see."

[youthathletics]

Unknown object my ass...