Not Really The News...

... if one asks me, because it was clear from the inception that the US will not give up fat juicy submarine construction contracts for AUKUS project:

Amid heightened tensions with China, the administration of US President Joe Biden is looking to expedite the production of nuclear-powered submarines for Australia by building “the first few” vessels on US soil, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday. According to unnamed Western officials, the potential agreement on the matter seeks to provide Canberra with a number of nuclear subs by the mid-2030s, while also laying the groundwork for long-term production of the vessels in Australia itself. The move is reportedly being mulled by senior officials from the US, Australia, and UK. All three nations are members of AUKUS, a security pact that was announced in September 2021. Besides promoting “a free and open Indo-Pacific,” it also envisages providing Australia with conventionally-armed and nuclear-powered submarines, thus significantly boosting its naval capabilities.

It IS boosting of naval capabilities but, as WSJ reports in a classic chutzpah move:

Meanwhile, the proposal is said to have its own issues. The US would reportedly need to spend billions of dollars to expand submarine production capabilities on American soil, although Australia is supposedly expected to contribute to these efforts.

You see? Not only Australia will buy those subs, she will help to build shipbuilding capacity. They say 2030 is a the target date, we'll see about that, considering a horrendous economic dynamics in the Western world, but then again--who knows at this stage. In funny news, however, this stands out. As RIAFAN reports:

Пентагон разработал для ВСУ стратегию боевых действий в Запорожской области. План наступления будет «самоубийственным» для Вооруженных сил Украины, считает председатель движения «Мы вместе с Россией» Владимир Рогов.Предложенная США стратегия подразумевает форсирование Днепра с помощью высадки десанта и наведения понтонных переправ, сообщил порталу «Украина.ру» собеседник. Эти атаки обернутся для Украины тысячами смертей, что понимают и украинские военные, считает Рогов. «Но военные прекрасно понимают, что это самоубийство. Поэтому их армия всячески уже сейчас пытается от этого отойти», — подчеркнул он.

Translation: The Pentagon has developed a military strategy for the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Zaporozhye region. The offensive plan would be “suicidal” for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, said Volodymyr Rogov, chairman of the “We are with Russia” movement. The strategy proposed by the United States involves forcing the Dnieper with the help of landings and pontoon crossings, the interlocutor told the Ukraina.ru portal. These attacks will result in thousands of deaths for Ukraine, which the Ukrainian military understands, Rogov believes. “But the military is well aware that this is suicide. Therefore, their army is already trying in every possible way to move away from this, ”he stressed.

That sounds about right, considering Pentagon's "stellar" operational experiences and seeing who represents it today in the public realm, ranging from BSer  admiral Kirby to people of Keane or Petraeus' military "qualities", it is totally conceivable to expect shit like that being viewed as a viable "strategy". Recall Bismark's quip (allegedly he stated that):

“Never fight with Russian. On your every stratagem they answer unpredictable stupidity.”

Should Bismark have been alive today and could observe the last 80 years of the development of "strategies", especially by NATO, he surely would have rephrased his quote and you all know how. In general, the VSU C2-ed by the US was busy last few months with what Douglas Macgregor terms as the "impaling of Ukraine reserves" on Russian troops. So, you get the picture. In the end, as I repeat this ad nauseam, one has to know what REAL war and operational planning against top notch opponent is--the experience Pentagon simply doesn't have. But that issue of the military school of thought and how it develops had many volumes written about by people who, unlike me, commanded real armies and army groups in strategic level operations or campaigns. 

Now with 300,000 Russians being mobilized, the picture of the larger objectives for Russia begins to emerge and this is a very bad news for NATO and its leader--the United States. The whole "rules based order", a euphemism for the American hegemony, is being disassembled as I type this. We may discuss here the actual meaning of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, but there is very little doubt that the way United Nations operates today is indicative of a totally paralyzed structure corrupted by the West top-bottom and as such must be either reformed or completely abolished. But this is the task for real global shakers and movers led by Russia. Meanwhile, referenda in former Ukraine continue despite Kiev regime and its sponsors from D.C. and Brussels doing all they can to kill as many civilians as possible in the act of intimidation, but that is not having any effect on proceedings. 

In two days more than 45% of voters in LNR and 55% in DNR have voted and there are still three days left, Zaporozhie saw 35% attendance (in Russian). I am sure the work on establishing a permanent military infrastructure in newly emerging military district of Russia in new four subject is already in progress, and that means a solid second echelon and allocation of reserves when the time for Nikolaev and Odessa comes. This is your primer for Saturday. 

Will China Learn?

Vladimir Putin was explicit a couple of days ago, couldn't get more straight that this, I'll remind you, him verbatim:

 I repeat: the rise in gas prices in Europe was the result of a shortage of electricity, and not vice versa. And there is no need, as they say, to shift from a sore head to a healthy one, as we say, as some of our partners try to do. Sometimes you listen to what is being said about this, and you are surprised, it’s just amazing, as if they don’t see the numbers - I’ll say more about this - they don’t see the reality, they just cover up their own mistakes. Over the past decade, step by step, systemic flaws have been laid in European energy. It was they who led to a large-scale market crisis in Europe. Let me remind you that as long as the leading positions were atomic and gas generation, there were no such crises, there was nowhere for them to come from. I will add that today, thank God, such problems in Russia are unimaginable. A long-term approach to the development of the fuel and energy complex allows us to provide electricity prices for the population and enterprises at the lowest level in Europe. For comparison: the average price of electricity in Russia in terms of euros is about 20 euros per megawatt-hour, in Lithuania - 256, in Germany and France - 300, in the UK - 320.

Yet, as Reuters reports two days ago: 

BEIJING (Reuters) - China's energy crisis deepened on Friday as cold weather swept into much of the country and power plants scrambled to stock up on coal, sending prices of the fuel to record highs. Electricity demand to heat homes and offices is expected to soar this week as strong cold winds move down from northern China. Forecasters predict average temperatures in some central and eastern regions could fall by as much as 16 degrees Celsius in the next 2-3 days. Shortages of coal, high fuel prices and booming post-pandemic industrial demand have sparked widespread power shortages in the world's second-largest economy. Rationing has already been in place in at least 17 of mainland China's more than 30 regions since September, forcing some factories to suspend production and disrupting supply chains.

Obviously, the author of the piece, granted her Indian origin (Shivani Singh) and, evidently, experience in reporting on Hollywood, still cannot reconcile herself to the fact that China's economy dwarfs US economy, not to speak of others, and is the largest economy in the world by far. But we will forgive her ignorance and concentrate on the essence and here is where China's economic disproportions begin to manifest themselves. Yes, China's economy is monstrous but that where the problem is--it grew too fast too much dragging with itself all ills of an explosive development including inability to resolve her energy needs in a proper way. Here is Reutres'  map of severe power outages in China for the end of this September. 

If that wasn't bad enough, Chinese made this statement:

China will strive to achieve carbon peaks by 2030, Vice Premier Han Zheng said in a video message at the Russian Energy Week International Forum, according to state-run news agency Xinhua late on Thursday. He also said that China and Russia are important forces leading the energy transition and they should cooperate and ensure smooth progress of major oil and gas pipeline and nuclear power projects.

Well, there is certainly transition by Russia which develops nuclear technologies and power as if there is no tomorrow, same goes with Russia developing her already immense natural gas pumping and processing infrastructure, including really becoming a shipbuilding superpower. Not only Russia builds those massive LNG carriers, but have you seen what Russia builds in Arctic now? It is a monstrous shipyard in Belokamenka which will build concrete floating LNG and oil processing plants. World barely talks about it, but the scale of the thing is gigantic: 

A variety of buildings, facilities, and dock make up a new skyline like the Russian north has never seen before. Once a sleepy village, the Belokamenka (Russian for “the White stone”) is nowadays the busiest industrial construction site anywhere in the circumpolar north. Over 100 companies are involved in creating what will be the LNG  Construction Center, operated by Russian private natural gas producer Novatek. Few of the workers are from Murmansk. Some are from China, many are from Central Asian former Soviet republics, and some are from southern Russia. Although far from completed, work on fabricating the gravity-based structure for the liquefaction facility for Train 1 as part of Arctic LNG 2 project has already started in the main dock. The giant modular structures with the high-tech factories will, when ready, be towed from Belokamenka across the Barents- and Kara Seas to the coast of the Gydan Peninsula in Ob Bay in Siberia. Here, the production of liquified natural gas (LNG) will start in 2023. A year later, in 2024, Train 2 will start production, while the final Train 3 is set to start operation in 2026. Each of the three trains will have a production capacity of 6,6 million tons per year. The gas supply to the plants comes from Novatek’s Geofizicheskoye and Salmanovskoye fields.

You see? 

So, yes, Russia is preparing energy transition, alright, but not the one totalitarian "Green" cult has in mind. You know why? Here are Chinese coal futures: 

Oh baby, almost three-fold growth since February last year. I am sure "investors" are happy. I need a pop-corn at this stage. That is why I always talk with caveat about China's superpowerdom--it has to come with the balancing act between what is needed and what is possible. But then again, allow me to remind my other table I compiled recently. Remember?

Repeat after me: modern economy, which means productive industries, is energy, economy is energy... Solar and wind are good for wet dreams of EU and US politicos, real world which doesn't want to see its people going hungry, cold (or hot), without proper sanitation, without proper transportation, documentation, conflation, taxation, sedation, playstation, workstation, citation, representation... well, I got carried away here a bit, but you get my idea--all that requires an enormous amount of energy. Because Human Civilization and Energy are one and the same. Remember Kardashev and his famous scale? 

What's the deal with those Russians, they love their energy. But then again, who is Kardashev with his illustrious career in astrophysics and astronomy. What does he really know? Ask Greta Thunberg, she'll tell you, with the help of Al Gore, a political shyster with degree in... journalism. Even Wiki notes: 

Gore was an avid reader who fell in love with scientific and mathematical theories, but he did not do well in science classes and avoided taking math. During his first two years, his grades placed him in the lower one-fifth of his class. During his sophomore year, he reportedly spent much of his time watching television, shooting pool and occasionally smoking marijuana. In his junior and senior years, he became more involved with his studies, earning As and Bs. In his senior year, he took a class with oceanographer and global warming theorist Roger Revelle, who sparked Gore's interest in global warming and other environmental issues. Gore earned an A on his thesis, "The Impact of Television on the Conduct of the Presidency, 1947–1969", and graduated with an A.B. cum laude in June 1969.

A perfect, really match made in heaven, combination of "solid" (pseudo) science and publicity stunts. Evidently Chinese followed this primrose path. Boy, are they paying now and there is nothing funny about it. But that is one of the great exhibits of reasons for why the AUKUS was conceived and why the United States is so interested in interdicting China's Indian Ocean SLOCs which supply huge amounts of energy to China. Such an interdiction will assure a collapse of China's economy. Well, Russia, like a good neighbor is always there (sorry State Farm Insurance for using your slogan). It is a huge game, it is not just about managing Western World's departure and, hopefully, its soft landing. It is not even about multipolarity which is a fait accompli for years now. No, it is about the future of human civilization and a real transition towards more just, freer and promising world. We, as humanity, still have to expand into space on a permanent basis and start mining for its riches. Remember that other Russian who said this:

The Earth is the cradle of humanity, but mankind cannot stay in the cradle forever.

But that is exactly what Western "elites" want us to do--arrest real development. But then again, intellectually they are pygmies (am I non-PC towards pygmies?), so they don't know any better.   

MOSCOW, May 22. /TASS/. The first mission of Russia’s nuclear-powered transport and energy module, Zeus, will last 50 months, Roscosmos Executive Director for Long-Term Programs and Science Alexander Bloshenko told reporters on Saturday. "The combined duration of the mission is 50 months," he said during the New Knowledge forum. He went on to say that the first flight has been scheduled for 2030. "Together with the Russian Academy of Sciences, were are now making calculations about this flight’s ballistics and payload," he said. According to Bloshenko, the space tug will first approach the Moon, where a spacecraft will separate from it. After that, it will head to Venus to perform a gravity assist maneuver and deliver another spacecraft. Then, it will depart towards Jupiter and one of its satellites.

I wonder if we can build wind generators at Venus--I heard it blows there big time. But I am sure Greta, Al Gore and New York Times will have objections to that, after all--those poor Venusians, wink, wink.

Yeah, Good Luck With That.

France, as was anticipated, started to complain and take "actions". 

French shipbuilder Naval Group has said it will send a “detailed and calculated proposal” to Australia after Canberra canned a $40 billion submarine deal in favor of a new pact with the US and UK, much to France’s dismay. On Wednesday, Naval Group CEO Pierre Eric Pommellet told France’s Le Figaro newspaper that Australia would be receiving a bill for the submarine contract which was cancelled last week. Pommellet said a “detailed and calculated proposal” would be sent to Canberra in the next “few weeks” which sets out the money it expects Australia to cough up for cancelling the 2016 deal. The shipbuilder chief said that such an eventuality had been planned for by the French firm.The bill will supposedly cover costs already incurred as well as those to come, with some “linked to demobilization of infrastructure and IT as well as the redeployment of employees,” he said, adding that the company will assert its rights.

Any chance of me getting on the French legal team which will be dealing with this issue? I expect a financial bonanza for lawyers in this matter. But, on the other hand, one has to keep in mind that at this level, same as was with hapless Mistrals' deal (awarded to France by Russia for "mediation" after Russian-Georgian War of 080808), geopolitics and operational realities play as large, if not larger, role as financial considerations, however important $40 billion are. As I continue to stress for the last week: we still don't have all facts on our hands in terms of American-Australian intentions and I want to underscore--we are merely speculating for now. If lease comes through, things will become much clearer. Some are even suggesting the possibility of US converted Ohio-class SSGNs leased out to Australia. I doubt it, but I could be wrong. Obviously with a single Ohio-class SSGN packing 154 TLAMs this is a concern for China. But then again--I stress it--for now it is mostly a speculation. 

 

I personally lean towards SSNs on SLOCs, but we just have to wait and see. As for French grievances, well, what can I say--geopolitical weight of players is too different, not in France's favor, for France to have any reasonable chances on substantial compensation, not to speak of a wounded national pride. Thanks to Larch for pointing this out. 

HELSINKI, Finland (AP) — The top U.S. military officer met with his Russian counterpart Wednesday, against the backdrop of U.S. struggles to get military basing rights and other counterterrorism support in countries bordering Afghanistan — a move Moscow has flatly opposed. The meeting in the Finnish capital, Helsinki, between Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Chief of the Russian General Staff Gen. Valery Gerasimov comes at a crucial time in the wake of the military withdrawal from Afghanistan. Without troops on the ground, the U.S. needs to forge more basing, intelligence sharing and other agreements to help monitor al-Qaida and Islamic State militants in Afghanistan to ensure they are not regrouping and posing a threat to America and its allies. Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, said in July, however, that Moscow warned the U.S. that any deployment of American troops in countries neighboring Afghanistan “is unacceptable.” He said Russia told the U.S. “in a direct and straightforward way that it would change a lot of things not only in our perceptions of what’s going on in that important region, but also in our relations with the United States.”

As I am on record for years--I feel better when Russian and American militaries speak to each-other. Russia, obviously, is not going to allow US troops to be stationed in all those Stans, but I want to stress another tremendously important point: there IS a very real threat of Jihad and terrorism which should not be discounted against the background of the US escape from Afghanistan. We can only speculate (yet again) on a complexity of this issue, but it is an established fact that exchange between Russia and US regarding these matters exists and it is steady. Well, the United States can only blame itself for this development, with special thanks to Zbig, who due to him being a rather fanatical Russophobe and a pseudo-scholar thought that the United States can manage Political Islam it helped to create and fund. We all know how American political "science" works in real life, ask Fukuyama, late Huntington or present day Mearsheimer who got lost completely in their ignorance of the outside world.  But then again, it is a defining feature of American "academe" and elites. The proof, as it is known, is in the pudding, or as Hegel stated--practice is the criterion of the truth. Those who are not brainwashed are well aware of this truth.    

In related news, Russia continues to build and launch those pesky missile corvettes capable of carrying anything from 3M14M and 3M54M to Zircon, like there is no tomorrow. The latest one, two days ago was launched in Kerch, at Zaliv wharf. 

This one is named Askold after the famous Russian cruiser of Russo-Japanese war and of Gallipoli fame. It (she) still has to have navalized Pantsir and other systems installed. Can you imagine a ceremony at Zaliv when first project 23900 LHD will be launched? I hope to live to see this. I am sure HIMSELF will be present for this occasion. I am also in a desperate anticipation of Admiral Nakhimov getting more publicity and getting ready for sea trials in 2023. I cannot recognize this world anymore. The changes in the last 5 years are stunning and historic in scale and scope.

Some Explanations.

 Some explanations by me talking into camera. 

FYI, definition of Navalism.

Russia Is Game.

Nikolai Patrushev already expressed himself (that means Russia's leadership position) on this AUKUS thing.  RT reports:

A new geopolitical deal that will see the US and UK team up with Australia to station nuclear submarines deep down in the Pacific Ocean is a hostile step aimed not only at Beijing, but at Moscow too, a top Russian official claims. Nikolay Patrushev, the secretary of Russia's Security Council, told the Argumenty i Fakty newspaper on Tuesday that the pact between the three nations, known as AUKUS, will inevitably be yet another military bloc aimed at containing and confronting the two strongest non-Western powers.According to the interview, Patrushev compared the pact to QUAD, a strategic dialogue format between the US, India, Japan, and Australia, designed to strengthen Washington's position across Asia. According to him, the group is “a military-political bloc with a pronounced pro-American character.”“Just the other day, another military bloc was formed in the region – the American-British-Australian AUKUS, which pursues the same goals,” the top official went on. According to him, the new deal, which will see London and Washington hand over the technical know-how for Canberra to develop and deploy nuclear-powered submarines, is a threat to “the entire security architecture in Asia.”

Of course, it is a threat and Russia, being Asian power, I am sure, will aid China in this matter but for now we can only speculate what will Russia do specifically. As I stated before, the immediate focus is on pr. 971 Schuka (NATO Akula-class) SSNs, many of which are being upgraded to SSGNs. China has cash, a lot of it, Russia has technology and it is totally conceivable to see China seeking Russia's assistance in developing advanced SSNs. What forms will it take? We will see soon enough. I will address some tactical and operational issues re: Indian Ocean SLOCs later--here, China, indeed, faces odds stacked against her, since the US Navy can support, at least initially, guerre de course of submarines, including through deployment of CBGs, which will preclude effective actions of China's ASW/Patrol aviation. Base in Pakistan (Gwadar) thus could get a serious boost in turning it into a full blown Chinese naval base and that will help address a serious vulnerability of Indian Ocean SLOCs which for China have an existential importance. 

Meanwhile, refresh your memory with this piece from more than 3 year ago:

Harry J. Kazianis Really Needs A Muscle Relaxant-II, Or China The Omnipotent. 

The issue is NOT new. 

It Is Only Natural.

Let's throw away emotions and feelings and recall what I stated in my video and in discussion several days ago: 

Repeating Russian (Soviet)-India model of lease of nukes, about which I speak in my video. US Navy will have Block I Virginias reaching their 20-years service life equator by 2025 and do not forget that there are still plenty of Los Angeles-class which reached their 30 years service life. Plenty of goodies to go around.

Thanks to Bernhard of Moon of Alabama who does, as usual, an excellent job of monitoring media and analyzing facts, I personally became aware of this by the way of MoA from The Guardian:

The short-term leasing of nuclear-powered submarines from the UK or the US is being considered by the Morrison government but the Coalition insists nuclear weapons won’t be based in Australia.  

Let's take a look on what is at stake here.

1. This is an intensity of a marine traffic in the region around China.

 

As you can see, any kind of nukes (SSNs) based in Australia have an excellent and fast access to SLOCs both in Indian Ocean and into the deep areas of South China Sea. Operations on SLOCs are as old as navies themselves. China, obviously, depends on SLOCs and even 2-3 additional (Australian) SSNs with Harpoons and torpedoes on permanent patrol in the areas of interest can wreck a havoc on the flow of resources for China. They will also attract serious Chinese resources in terms of ASW. I am not going to discuss now purely tactical and operational issues, but in the minds of US planners this all makes sense.

2. Now, to the mechanics of all that. This is Chakra of Indian Navy. 

USSR/Russia and India have been at this "lease" thing since 1980s, with the first SSGN of project 670 officially joining the Indian Navy in 1988. So, nothing new, really, in leasing out state-of-the-art nukes to someone. If Russia and India can do that, US and Australia, who ARE brethren nations, certainly can. So, not really surprising in learning that the US will lease subs to Australia. In fact, emotions aside, it is the only natural way to increase the submarine force against China in such a way that it strains Chinese and PLAN's resources and, in case of war, helps to shut down SLOC's which are still crucial for China. Pure navalism, folks. 

3. Let's take a look at what is available in a short term. Granted, the Australian crews are getting ready or are already in training for running US nukes. I can tell you immediately--do not forget good ol' Los Angeles-class SSNs. Many of them are either in conservation, reserve or are about to be moved there. There are currently, if to believe WiKi 28 active Los Angeles class SSNs and 1 expecting decommissioning. SSNs 768 through 773 are reaching their 30 year old age but are still active and who knows what their fate will be with at least 8 Virginia-class SSNs being either under construction or announced. Those Los Angeles subs will need to go somewhere and this time it might not be to the scrap yard. Couple of early Los Angeles class subs SSN 719 and 723 are also planned for recycle in 2022. 

So, there are options. It doesn't make France's life easier, for sure, but purely on the military merit, from the shores of Potomac it makes perfect sense. I have to admit, all things considered, it does make at least some sense. Of course, such an approach does not guarantee a success for a number of reasons, but keep in mind that anything based in Perth, as an example, becomes impervious to Chinese medium-range ballistic missiles because neither DF-21 nor DF-17 fly at 5,800 kilometers even when launched from China's south-most point. So, this is another key to this decision. The main issue, however, is this--does the United States think that it can control possible conventional conflict with China that it does not accelerate to a nuclear threshold? That is a huge question to ponder. And yes, China's nuclear subs are not as good as American ones, it is a hard cold fact. What will China do? Ask this question: what will Russia do?  Believe me, it is no less important, if not more. Recall few years back my reaction:

And here is the news, PLAN, for now, doesn't have submarine force which is even remotely competitive both in numbers and quality with the US Navy's submarine force. All bravado on both sides apart, US submarines in the Pacific are overwhelmingly superior to PLAN's nuclear subs (SSKs are a separate issue). Currently the US Navy operates 32 Los Angeles-class + 3 Sea Wolf-class + 15 Virginia-class SSNs = 50 SSNs ALL of whom, including older L.A. class SSNs are superior to anything PLAN can deploy in terms of nukes, which is roughly 9 nuclear subs, only 6 of which could be considered relatively modern (Type 093). Period. Yes, PLAN does deploy a substantial number of conventional SSKs, but again, this fleet of subs is good only for a relatively short distance deployments in defense of own littoral. We are talking here about overwhelming advantage US Navy enjoys over any PLAN's surface or nuclear power submarine force beyond the First Island Chain. I am not even talking here about remote segments of SLOCs. Yes, Chinese are improving, yes, they are gaining both capability (such as destroying US aircraft carriers) and some operational experience, but it takes much more than that to command the seas. I will also avoid describing some info (very reliable one), I just mention it, that testifies against Chinese tactical and operational maturity, for now--I underscore that, for now. But namely for now PLAN, for all US Navy's huge institutional problems, is not a real competitor in one domain, which today defines command of the seas--underwater. US submarine force is simply better, much better and that's the reality, which Admiral Lou should have considered and James Holmes remembered when trying to respond to Chinese naval officer.

And don't tell me that I didn't warn you;)) I sure did, wink, wink. It was only natural for the United States to start leveraging its one of a few remaining and significant advantages in combat technology, submarines, and I am sure people in Beijing and Moscow expected it. I am sure Moscow did. 

Oh, No, No, No, No...

Ria publishes today the review of Le Figaro's article (in fact there are several of them, which is expected, given the circumstances) regarding this whole CLUSTERFAUKUS which discusses this whole issue. But Ria concentrates not on the article but on more than 1200 comments to it (in Russian). One of very many comments by French readers states this:  Une seule solution claquer la porte de l'OTAN ! Even without the translation it is obvious that he (or she) calls on slamming the door on NATO. Others call for distancing from Anglo-Saxondom and removing sanctions on Russia and joining her in whatever form. Well, I have some bad news for French audience of Le Figaro--Russia is not your rebound flick to ease the pain from being dumped by a long time lover who, in addition, promised to get married after many years of engagement. No, no, no, no, this is not how it works. As one Russian commenter summarized the overwhelmingly dominant sentiment on Ria's discussion board:

А оно нам надо? С такими друзьями никаких врагов не надо...  

Translation: Do we really need it? Who needs enemies with such friends...

Exactly. This is how overwhelming majority of Russians thinks today. 

1. Current France and current Russia have zero commonalities culturally and in terms of values cannot be further apart. France since long ago is a playground for alternative lifestyle, multiculturalism (a euphemism for Islamization) and suicidal cultural practices. French intellectual "elites" are much larger in scale likeness of what in Russia is a marginalized freak-show of Russian "liberals" and fifth column. Why would Russia, then, have any interest in "expanding" on these policies by associating herself in any way with a country which only nominally is France, while in reality is a ticking demographic and cultural time bomb? Russia, in French mind, is a backward country which builds Christian cathedrals, declares marriage between the man and the woman sacred in her Constitution, Russians are nationalists and do not allow LGBTQ ideology to roam freely. Russian also shoot to kill terrorists and feel no compunction about it.

2. Russians did not elect Macron, French people did. There are always consequences to actions. Russians hate globalists, French, evidently, make them their Presidents time after time. Each nation deserves the government it elects. If the French government is bad (well, it is--it is utterly globalist, neoliberal and anti-national) it is France's problems and in terms of possibility for any common political approach between Russia and France in case of France deciding to seek rapprochement with Russia (granted, Russia is interested, which I doubt)--well, probability of such an arrangement is approaching if not zero, at least a trivial value. 

3. Removing sanctions from Russia by France changes absolutely nothing because Russia is not suffering from those sanctions at all and if somebody in France still thinks that removing sanctions is a valuable political and economic gesture, they better study what modern Russia is. Here is how France is "important" for Russia economically. 

Come on people, let's be serious, yes--some Airbus planes, some Renault, some other French stuff, but in a larger scheme of things France barely registers for Russia as an economic partner but the main question is not even this.

4. I understand that French ego is badly hurt currently, but this too will pass and France will soon forget about Russia and will crawl back to her master, where she belongs because France cannot act otherwise--it is not in France's nature. Cultural, political and military DNA of France has been damaged since De Gaulle's departure so much that France my generation used to know is simply not there anymore. 

So, I don't think Russia is interested in any way in France's maneuvering and posturing at this time because Russia has a much much bigger fish to fry and she really doesn't care about being picked up on the rebound, especially by a date which, as Tolstoy noted: "A Frenchman is self-assured because he regards himself personally, both in mind and body, as irresistibly attractive to men and women."  Obviously, France's elites somehow missed this tectonic shift in global power-balance which was ongoing for the last 15 years at least, and did not recognize the fact that France is not that important for a titanic power struggle in the China-Russia-Anglo-Saxon triangle. France traded remnants of her sovereignty in in 2009 by reintegrating into NATO fully and she is not leaving NATO. For that, one has to have a set of balls--a doubtful proposition for current French political class. There are many politicians in France, zero statesmen. But that is the problem of the combined West, not just of France.

P.S. Among numerous comments in Le Figaro I stumbled upon one which proposed that, maybe, Putin will fork money for these French subs. LOL. This is an exhibit A of "irresistibly attractive" syndrome, which is similar to American exceptionalism. Evidently the reader who posted this has zero awareness of Russia's SSK and SSN/SSGN/SSBN programs which dwarf in scale and scope anything France ever did in this field. I hope he posted it in jest. I doubt though.    

This Issue Is Not Going Away.

Well, then I might as well address it. I am talking about this whole AUKUS affair and France losing huge contact on submarines for Royal Australian Navy. At this stage I am not interested in technical minutiae of this whole scandal, because it is useless anyway to concentrate on technical details of something which may change many times before, and if, it comes to fruition. I am, however, as always, interested in fundamental factors defining the framework. Le Drian and anyone in France' political top can express their frustration and play geopolitical games whatever they want, such as running to India:

On Friday, France recalled its ambassadors from Washington and Canberra after Australia scrapped a major submarine program with France in favor of acquiring nuclear-powered submarines with the help of the US and UK. Paris furiously protested the new arrangement between Australia, the US and UK, known as AUKUS. Le Drian called the ditching of French-Australian submarine program “a stab in the back.”

It still doesn't change the fact that in the times of a severe, terminal crisis of Pax Americana and Western liberalism, France is not a global superpower and is only important as an attachment to the Anglo-Saxon world which is in a desperate fight for its survival as one of the global power poles. Simple as that. France is simply not that important for this existential struggle. In the end, D.C. and London care about themselves first, however distorted and delusional this care is, and Paris is viewed merely as a "food" and will be consumed if necessity and opportunity arise. You all may counter that France has her own nuclear deterrent, she has Renault and is the home for Airbus, she has her own space program etc. Right. It all is present, but let's not forget the definition, not West's political pseudo science BS, of global power. Right, the definition is Jeffrey Barnett's (not to be mistaken with Corelli Barnett) 14 points and allow me to remind you what they are. Barnett listed them in the US Army War College quarterly Parameteres in 1994.  No matter how France's achievements are considered, some of them with well deserved respect, France simply does not dominate any of those 14 points. 

France does not dominate access to space, US, Russia, China and India do, France doesn't control Sea Lanes of Communications (SLOC), the United States, China and Russia do, France certainly does not provide the majority of the finished goods, China does and France certainly does not dominate the high-tech weapons industry, US and Russia do. Even if to imagine that tomorrow Marine Nationale will add two other nuclear powered aircraft carriers to its order of battle, this still will not make France a global power. Militarily and economically France is a second tier power, which surrendered part of her sovereignty to supranational organizations such as NATO and EU and thus fails in the most important criterion defining global or superpower--fully independent and protected global policies. France also is not capable to create and maintain any kind of meaningful alliance on her own. The United States and Russia can, while China, due to her economic and demographic enormity, is an alliance in and of herself. Plus China and Russia DO have alliance between each-other. 

So, in this case, being a second tier regional power, France cannot expect her interests to be seriously considered when one talks about such immense, financially, projects as AUKUS. Alliances are created not only against someone but also for an exclusive access to capitals and markets, especially weapons markets, within those alliances. In this particular case France is an outsider and no matter what hyperbole frustrated French politicians use describing "betrayal" of France by Anglo-Saxons, it is what it is. Scott Ritter may well be right when describing this AUKUS thingy as: this is a story of geopolitically driven military procurement gone mad. But when one considers US' economic state which can only be described as FUBAR or clusterfuck, all means are good for maintaining a cash flow and France was simply removed on the road to this cash flow. Simple as that. Desperate times, desperate measures. Truism, really. 

So, no matter how much we discuss technical details of this whole circus, some lessons from it are already obvious and here I subscribe to every word in Ritter's conclusion:

But the fact remains that the US has no meaningful military counter to China, the UK is not capable of sustaining any credible military presence in the Pacific, and Australia cannot afford to acquire and operate a force of eight nuclear-powered attack submarines. The Australian nuclear submarine project is a dangerous joke that only further exacerbates the existing geopolitical crisis with China by injecting a military dimension which will never see the light of day. 

This whole AUKUS thing, as I already stated previously, is a great indicator of a waning power of the United States, which in desperate attempts to preserve the remnants of her once self-proclaimed global hegemony, will go to any length, hopefully, short of nuclear war, and if it takes to humiliate and "sacrifice" France, so be it. Western Europe should get ready to be, as I wrote for many years (I quote one from 2 years ago):

Macron makes one mistake here. Well, several mistakes, actually. For starters "Pushing Russia from Europe" was not a "strategic mistake"--that was the plan and main objective of Washington, headed then by Obama and being continuously implemented now by Trump Administration. Moreover, "pushing Russia" out is not just about Russia, but by implication about Europe itself. Europe as it exists today is of no interest to Russia in any metaphysical sense, except for purely economic interest as a market, but majority of Russians are counting their blessings now because of this "pushing out" largely succeeding. Europe, meanwhile, is a sacrificial lamb for the United States, which, in a desperate attempt to save herself, will demolish Europe economically because European elites are a pathetic parody on a required political leadership, some of them are outright imbeciles, not to mention that vast swathes of them are effectively products of the American selection. So, no--let Europe deal with the US, or vice-versa, and keep Russia out of it. 

So, don't tell me that I didn't warn you. Oh, come on, the United States needs to eat too. The moment France reintegrated into NATO fully in 2009, a process championed by then President Sarkozy, it was all over for France. Too bad they didn't see it coming. Well, they see it now. As they say: better late than never. Tolstoy saw it long time ago:

A Frenchman is self-assured because he regards himself personally, both in mind and body, as irresistibly attractive to men and women. An Englishman is self-assured, as being a citizen of the best-organized state in the world, and therefore as an Englishman always knows what he should do and knows that all he does as an Englishman is undoubtedly correct. An Italian is self-assured because he is excitable and easily forgets himself and other people. A Russian is self-assured just because he knows nothing and does not want to know anything, since he does not believe that anything can be known. The German’s self-assurance is worst of all, stronger and more repulsive than any other, because he imagines that he knows the truth—science—which he himself has invented but which is for him the absolute truth. 

Well, what can I say. It is the 21st Century and France learned absolutely nothing since her last Titan and Hero departed in 1969. Or, rather, was forced out by what many still consider a color revolution organized by the US. Time to face consequences.  

Meanwhile Russia continues to build those missile corvettes as if there is no tomorrow, the latest one, Grad (Hail), was floated out at Zelenodolsk yesterday (video in Russian). 

With new 4,500 kilometer range 3M14M coming up, these ships can pretty much strike anything in Europe from some river or lake deep within Russia's territory. Just in case. In other rfelated news:

TEHRAN (Iran News) – Moscow Signs Deal With Tehran to Boost Aircraft Sales.The Russian Federal Air Transport Agency (Rosaviatsia) and the Civil Aviation Organization of the Islamic Republic of Iran signed a Memorandum of Understanding on September 6, 2021, intended to “create favorable conditions for the approval of the standard design of Russian civil aviation equipment when exported to Iran.” The agreement is the result of negotiations that took place between the two aviation authorities in June 2021, Rosaviatsia explained in a statement.

Iran will get a large number of fully Russified SSJ-100Rs. MS-21 is in line, once Russia satisfies her internal commercial aviation needs.