Yesterday, France launched with success a military communication satellite called SYRACUSE IV. This is an important milestone in France's space defense strategy. A short 𧡠to explain why π
Syracuse IV will provide secure communications to French armed forces regardless of the distance. This satellite will be part of a constellation of 3, replacing the existing system (Syracuse III) in place since 2007.
This constellation will have a bandwidth 3 times higher than the previous generation and will connect together more than 400 ground stations.
These ground stations will equip the infantry, vehicles (4 to 5 times more than in the past), frigates, submarines and for the first time aircrafts (starting with the MRTT aircraft).
This cutting-edge satellite incorporates protection against potential threats from Earth and from the outer space (cyber-attack, electromagnetic aggression) *and* capabilities to detect any approach by orbital debris or another satellite.
This satellite is the result of a significant investment of France. Under its military planning law for 2019-2025, France is spending 4.3 billion β¬ to renew its military space assets.
Syracuse IV is also illustrative of the strength of the French defense industry. This satellite was developed and produced by French companies (Airbus, Thales) in close collaboration with military and civilian agencies.
What should we expect from the Macron-Biden meeting later this week in Rome? In this @TheNatlInterest piece, I try to put into perspective the ongoing diplomatic row between Paris and Washington over #AUKUS. A short 𧡠on the main takeaways π nationalinterest.org/feature/aukus-β¦
If you think that the π«π·πΊπΈ diplomatic tensions over AUKUS are only a bilateral matter over the loss of a submarine contract, then youβre mistaken.
The AUKUS crisis is actually revealing of a larger trend in the transatlantic relationship, with Washington increasingly focusing on its competition with China sometimes at the risk of overlooking Europe's role and interests.
French foreign minister @JY_LeDrian testified yesterday at a French Senate hearing on the implications of #AUKUS. An important discussion with French Senators which will be followed by other hearings. A 𧡠on the main highlights π
First, minister Le Drian presented in detail the Franco-Australian Future Submarine Program. An intergovernmental agreement was signed in December 2016 and then a Strategic Partnering Agreement in February 2019.
The production was supposed to start in 2023 and the first submarine to be delivered by 2033/2034. Le Drian noted that the program included an industrial partnership with the U.S. with Lockheed Martin in charge of the weapon system.
This piece by @AlbertoNardelli tackles an important topic (European technological sovereignty) but is mixing up very different issues in a misleading way. A short π§΅π bloomberg.com/news/articles/β¦
First, the article dismisses, without any true counterpoint, the arguments in favor of greater technological independence and resilience.
This not about internal quarrels within the EU institutions, nor about a French lone crusade for a protectionist European economy.
"If the goal was to build a unified and capable coalition of countries to deter aggression from π¨π³ and defend a free, open and inclusive Indo-Pacific, alienating and excluding π«π· was incredibly short-sighted". π― piece by @Brad_L_Bowman & @MarkCMontgomery defenseone.com/ideas/2021/09/β¦
"France brings both the desire and ability to help defend these common interests with Washington. From a military perspective, the French are more present and active in the Indo-Pacific than any other European power."
"In formulating AUKUS, the Biden admin should have taken these realities into account and found a way to include France in the agreement. That would have been respectful of the centuries-long U.S.-France alliance and would have advanced shared interests in the Indo-Pacific."
[Thread] So, President Biden and President Macron finally talked after days of severe diplomatic tensions between Washington and Paris. A few thoughts on the outcome of this much expected conversation and the next steps.
First, the fact that the White House took the initiative of this call and that President Biden himself recognized that things could have been handled differently is positive in itself and was a first essential step to restore a dialogue with France.
With hindsight, Paris was right to take these strong diplomatic moves, often described as over the top, to make the Biden administration understand the gravity of the crisis (which was not the case at all at first).
As outlined in this @POLITICOEurope piece by @RymMomtaz, President Macron expects two things from his call with President Biden.
First, a recognition by Washington that its decision not to consult Paris "raises questions of trust". politico.eu/article/macronβ¦
Second, the initiation of a "solid process over time and at a high level to create the conditions to restore trust through actions and concrete measures, not just words".
Paris will notably ask the πΊπΈ to recognize (1) "the strategic importance of π«π· and πͺπΊ engagement in the Indo-Pacific", (2) "the necessity of reinforcing European sovereignty"; (3) a "common commitment in the fight against terrorism".