Terrence Peterson

France is a major military player in the Indo-Pacific, where it aims to offer a 'third way' between the US and China. France also has territories in the region. So France endeavors to be (and to some extent is) a major player in the region. 2/

The announcement of Aukus, negotiated while France was kept in the dark, offers a major challenge to France's role ad a global military power, which since 1962 has depended on the type of equip+assist contracts it had signed with AU. Note: this was a 50yr contract! 3/

The broader context is also important. France was cut out unilaterally right as negotiations over a European defense union are set to kick off. France and Germany will lead this union, and this is a major blow to French military prestige 4/

The historical context matters too: France considers itself (and is) an Ally within NATO on par with the US and GB. And there's a long history going back to 1944 of those two powers dismissing France as an equal and acting bilaterally. The anglo-ness of Aukus is sure to sting 5/

So given all these factors, France really must respond and respond big. Withdrawing Ambassadors carries major symbolic power, and it's aimed at much at Europe and France's Pacific partners as the US and Australia 6/

It's a way to reassert French prestige and France's claim to the region. France has other major allies there, like Japan, who are also tied closely to the US. France has to go big, or it'll be forced to go home. FR's intl power depends on its defense diplomacy as arms sales 7/

So in sum: this is all about messaging and prestige: reasserting French prestige for Europe and for its Indo-Pacific partners, reasserting France's claim to be an equal to the Aukus powers, and reasserting France's role as a global military power 8/8.