MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
UK and France tighten defense cooperation and military procurement
The UK and France have agreed to strengthen defense co-operation following a summit at RAF Brize Norton on Friday. A communiqué signed by UK Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Francois Hollande sets out plans for closer ties between the two countries. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesFrance manages to keep its sphere of influence in North West and Central Africa with the help of the “perfide Albion” and when it intervenes it does so intelligently and surgically, they were even welcomed in Mali and Lybia as liberators, job done and back home as it should be. If it had not being for French involvement there would be an Islamic Caliphate of AQIM by now… It makes much more sense for the European powers to focus their attention in this region rather than far beyond into Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, Yemen or Somalia who are bound to end up engulfed in the power struggle between Teheran and Riyad for each other’s version of Islam…
Feb 01st, 2014 - 05:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0#1
Feb 01st, 2014 - 07:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0The British and Americans were also welcomed as liberators by large segments of the Iraqi and Afghan populations.
The trouble was, at least in Iraq, the UK+US clearly underestimated the extent to which sectarian tensions had been suppressed under Saddam.
Normans and Brits,,,,Saxons and POPPINS,,,, Scotland and Celtic Honor!
Feb 01st, 2014 - 08:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0' ... the development of underwater vehicles capable of finding and neutralizing seabed mines'
Feb 01st, 2014 - 08:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0These should never be sold to Argentina, because they may eventually get ships that float ;-)
@3
Feb 01st, 2014 - 08:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are just a hater aren't you, nothing purposeful to say at all other than hatred, you are consumed with it. Get help mate!
Do you have any comment to make on FRENCH Guyana?????????
Procurement,
Feb 01st, 2014 - 09:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Training,
CJEF,
Marine mine ROVs,
Air Combat System,
Combined military-industrial capabilities,
Exchange programmes for pilot and engineer training,
Helicopter-launched naval anti-surface guided weapon systems,
Collaborative research and testing of nuclear weapons stockpiles,
Greater sharing of technical and scientific data,
Army equipment capability and interoperability,
Joint international peacekeeping missions,
Combined Joint Expeditionary Force,
Joint security actions in north and west Africa, controlling terrorism, drugs and arms trafficking,
Joint cover for build-time issues with aircraft carriers.
My, this was no small meeting!
It recognises that we must plan for 'Bush Wars' as well as 'Big War',
and it brings increasing harmonization of French materiel with NATO.
Well done, guys!
@6 GeoffWard
Feb 01st, 2014 - 10:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes I believe the French have finally realised that most future conflicts or 'actions' will require allies. In the past, despite it's NATO membership, the French were very stubborn and wouldn't give troops unless the overall command was French, despite the fact that most NATO operations rotate command through various countries. This was the policy of General De Gaulle, who was notoriously famous for hating the British and the US, and the fact that France was viewed a junior partner in WW2 after their surrender, despite the fact that many Frenchmen and women did fight on. Some historians voice the opinion that De Gaulle hated France being indebted to the USA or UK for any reason.
This basically meant that the French actually did very little in the way of NATO operations, and were considered rude, uncooperative and unreliable, and earned them the unjust title of 'cheese eating surrender monkeys' - harking back to the Second World War when the French Generals threw in the towel rather than fight on, despite the fact that they had an army of over 5 million soldiers.
Because the French wouldn't play with the others there was no chance to alter these perceptions from other NATO nations.
The French have some excellent equipment, and many of their troops are 1st class, especially their Foreign Legion, which are considered the Elite. I have friends who have served along side them, and they were very impressed by their professionalism, courage and fortitude.
As technology and equipment has improved, so have the defence costs. So it makes sense for allies to be familiar with each others equipment, tactics etc..., for one to have carriers (for instance) and one to be experts in another field.
The alliance between France and the UK goes back over 100 years. It's good to see the 'frostiness' in relations of the past melted away, and a new beginning of cooperation between the 2 allies.
#1 ...and the UK helped with French deployment recently in North Africa by providing RAF air transport
Feb 01st, 2014 - 11:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0@3 Brazil and shite! Argieland and diarrohea! Bolivia and sewage works! Ecuador and animal excrement! Uruguay and a fart.
Feb 01st, 2014 - 12:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@5 No “help”. Can't have criminals evading justice by “remorse”. Or that old “diminished responsibility” plea by virtue of being a brain-dead arse.
@3
Feb 01st, 2014 - 01:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A French overseas territory on your border-and you worry about the Falklands over 1000 miles away pfffft
@2 It’s very difficult to control Afghanistan while the border with Pakistan is open and terrorists are flowing in permanently back in. The same could be said about Iraq who bordered Iran and you had Al Qaeda walking in the back door too when Saddam fell. What was the NATO high command/Pentagon thinking 10 years ago???…. It’s not the first time the Americans got fooled like this, it happened in Vietnam with the Ho Chi Minh trail and Vietminh guerilla fighters that were coming in and attacking from Laos South Vietnam. The French on the other hand have substantial interests, investments and nationals living in North Africa and a good diplomatic relation that has endured even after the decolonization process so therefore are CALLED in by the local governments to aid them. Plus I also think it has paid off for the French to have a traditional independence from NATO and not giving away their troops lives to disposal of uptight generals and politicians in Washington who don’t get it.
Feb 01st, 2014 - 02:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We are willing to help the French,
Feb 01st, 2014 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0but will the French be willing to help or support us,
not likely..
I think that is a bit rich.. You were willing to follow the Americans to blindly into so many places with no question at all up to 10 years ago, and got absolutely anything from it, and that is your own fault... The French have a tradition of being independent from NATO you know this. North Africa is a real concern to the security of all Europe however the greater Middle East is not, I will agree that Spain, Italy and perhaps Germany too should fit the bills of any future conflict and upkeep of stability in this region but in what way should have France supported you, as hetmans of the Saudi Kingdom, lapdogs of Washington??
Feb 01st, 2014 - 11:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0as part of the EU it should support us if we need help,
Feb 02nd, 2014 - 10:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0we are helping them in Africa, nothing to do with us,
the yanks are a different kettle of fish,
its a fact the French aint keen on us,
all this coshing up to France is nothing more that losing power to another ,
and that is embarrassing to Cameron.
is this not true..
I’m sorry, I don’t see how it is not in the UK and other European nation’s interests to secure and contain North Africa from extrememist groups like Al Qaeda of Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) taking the oil reserves and exporting their operations across the Mediterranean, drug trafficking, allowing hoards of illegal immigrants from Sub-Saharan Africa crossing the region, counterfeiting, etc…Most of the Commonwealth countries are far too divergent and independent and are able to defend themselves on their own, and they dont call you when help is needed
Feb 02nd, 2014 - 06:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0True,
Feb 02nd, 2014 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What im saying is, with respect,
That Britain should not be there,
But if you consider this a European problem, then so be it,
But im confident that the AU can deal with it,
With French and American help,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Strategic Africa: Why the U.S. and Europe are sending in the troops
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/strategic-africa-why-the-u-s-and-europe-are-sending-in-the-troops-1.2510472
[We are already sending logistical support. ]
Central African Republic calls for UK to send troops as it falls into civil war
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/strategic-africa-why-the-u-s-and-europe-are-sending-in-the-troops-1.2510472
Personally I don’t think we should get involved
We can’t solve everybody’s problems,
And no doubt [ The Creep Effect ]
Will come in, and we may well get dragged in,
And guess what,
At first they welcome us,
Then they will distrust us,
Then they may well turn against us,
Then they may well start shooting at us,
Then we will get the blame, and accused of everything that happens,
Sorry CabezaDura2
I just think, this is one country to far..
I’m sorry but what you first said is that Britain should doubt the intentions of the French, because if you aided them in Africa they will back stab you when you need their aid elsewhere in the future.
Feb 02nd, 2014 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well my answer to that kind of remits to what I have said earlier… The French have not being involved in non sancta-intentions like Iraq 2003 onwards, so therefore they are more tolerated in these countries where she is still involved. Of course I understand what you say now. If you don’t follow the St. Thomas of Aquinas principle of a just war this is the kind of stuff that happens…And yes the ones who should be fitting most of the bill and providing the troops are Italy and Spain and maybe Portugal and Germany too...After all Al Qaeda and the extremist believe they have being robbed of the caliphate that bordered north with the Pyrenees, and they have mentioned their intentions of imposing the word of the prophet upon Ceuta and Melilla not so long ago.
I think this is a good summarized map of the whole situation from a strategic point of view
http://moroccoonthemove.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/expanding-al-qaeda-africa-terror-networ-aqim-links-with-boko-haram-al-shabaab-members-of-polisario2.png?w=1024&h=410
Regards
I would not trust any military cooperation with the french...sorry, I just don´t trust them!!!! :)
Feb 03rd, 2014 - 12:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 018) But why?? .... or are you just talking out of your arse ??
Feb 03rd, 2014 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 017,
Feb 03rd, 2014 - 05:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0thank you for that, interesting ..
a bit out of topic, but congratulations france,
Feb 03rd, 2014 - 06:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0france 26 - england 24
and it was with a converted try in the last minute.
well done.
11 CabezaDura2 (#)
Feb 03rd, 2014 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Feb 01st, 2014 - 02:47 pm
Hi Cabeza. I've been reading some of your very interesting posts. Very well thought out and also seem to be well informed. I don't agree with everything that you say but it's nice to see a different point of view that doesn't involve ranting.
In post 11 you mention the American involvment in Vietnam and how they got fooled into it. I was wondering why you did not mention France's involvment in Indochina, most of which became what we now call Vietnam? Were they not fooled too?
You say later in the same post that it has paid off for France to have independence from NATO and I wondered what you thought about their current change of heart. They appear to be taking the UKs place as 'Americas (sic) lapdog'. Or do you feel that the situation is altogether different?
22)
Feb 04th, 2014 - 12:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0True... But at a first glance comparison you can say that the first Indochinese war was more conventionally driven by the Vietnamese rebels compared to the second one against the Americans which is mostly guerilla tactics. After all the French surrender came after they were defeated in a pitched battle of Dien Bien Phu. The point is they did not fall for it again…
The Americans fell for it again twice again after Vietnam.
I don’t see the French going into the same sort of relation that Britain had in the early 2000s under Bliar with the US, they will remain ambivalent towards Israel, and won’t join in them in any venture if the UN doesn’t consent them to do so. The Americans like stability in the world and the French have managed to coincide NATO nations with their own interests in North Africa.
*19 just don´t trust anybody that eats frog legs!!!
Feb 04th, 2014 - 02:00 am - Link - Report abuse 023 CabezaDura2 (#)
Feb 04th, 2014 - 08:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Feb 04th, 2014 - 12:57 am
Good points. Thankyou.
Last year France the USA and the UK were prepared (very prepared) to wage war in support of Syrian rebels. The UK parliament vetoed UK involvement but France wanted to go ahead without. The USA backed down and no war was waged. How do you interpret this?
Well for starters David Cameron did a political miss calculation about the amount of MPs he had in Parliament; obviously the mood in Britain has changed and I can understand why…
Feb 04th, 2014 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Definitely the UK pulling out of any intervention made the Obama administration far too hesitant, so of course this gave time for Putin to outmaneuver Obama and the Russians to come to settle a diplomatic victory.
Contrary to law in the UK, Hollande & Obama didn’t a need congressional approval to begin with the strikes, which in my opinion the campaign would have being very short and swift as the excuse and objective would of being “destroy the chemical warehouses and the capability of the Assad regime to deliver them”, so the western powers would saved face no matter what happened on the ground, contrary to Lybia in 2011 it was about “defending the people of Lybia from Gaddafi’s onslaught” so that ties your intervention up to a definite outcome of Gaddafi ousting or the complete elimination of his forces. Sarkozy benefited from this campaign in 2011 and I guess Hollande has learned all to well from it.
However what there might be in the future a France that instead of falling behind the US is likely to replace them in the broader Middle East where they might be pulling out from. Hollande is trying to secure some arms contracts with the Saudi's. But I can’t know for sure if this was the reason he was so eager to attack Syria
Again Thankyou. Very carefully thought out and worded. Much of it may well be true but on the other hand much else points to a simple truism.
Feb 04th, 2014 - 05:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We're damned if we do and we are damned if we don't.
I don't know why Sarkozy did 'this' or Hollande did ' that', why Obama wanted to do something else or why Cameron wanted the same thing. All that is so much high politics and shenanigans and I never found a scrap of interest in it, it is the outcomes that pique my interest. I do know my own mind though and why I supported my Parliaments veto.
Firstly the battle lines are far more blurred in Syria than they were in Libya and I don't think that killing Syrians was ever going to save Syrian lives.
Secondly why are the Arabs pointing the finger at the west for not doing 'enough' when the Arabs are doing precisely nothing? It's their region. They should be sorting their own sh!t out shouldn't they?
Thirdly, Obama can do one. I don't care how wonderful he is or how good he is for the USA he's no bloody use to us and he's no friend of ours. If he wants our support he can bloody well sing for it. He can learn to be a little more polite, a little more diplomatic and he can learn to put his own prejudices to one side in future. Add to this the Russian view that the UK is a small insignificant country with no influence on world affairs and I rest my case. It's bollocks. If it wasn't the bombing would have gone ahead without us.
But these are only my opinions, the politicals might have something else in mind.
The Iranians and the Saudis are playing a cold war in the region but instead of having war about differing ideologies like communist vs capitalists it’s about religion Shia vs Sunni . So each other extends their power and influence in the Middle East by establishing governments of each other version of Islam…
Feb 04th, 2014 - 06:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0IMO the problem with Britain nowadays it is that it is far too politically correct yet at the same time it has cuddled up to the Americans for far too long so inevitably you will get the blame for it too. The US has become so used to being said by the UK, “yes Sir, how high??” you don’t get to be respected and they will backstab you like they have done by playing neutral on the Malvinas/Falkland islands now or how they were neutral in N. Ireland in the 1980s. You should be more like France, independent and re-engaging in your old sphere of influence i.e the Commonwealth… For example instead of having so many nationals living in Spain who is antagonistic towards you, you should have them in the Carribean, South Africa, Nigeria and India and having your presence felt politically. Giving away money in aid and accepting refugees, apologizing everywhere for your colonial past just to make your political class feel good about themselves is not going to be rewarded nor recognized in the 3rd world, it’s not stopping Al Qaeda, nor anti imperialist left wing ideology in these countries, and least to say famine, corruption, dictators, human rights abuses, trafficking, immigration, aids, colera, poverty, illiteracy, etc. Eventually what they like is winners like the French and leaders who are bad asses like Putin. Britain should be more a alpha male in the world, have a better use and understanding of politics and must play rougher, the problem is making understand to the detached politically correct constituency and media at home how the real world works..
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!