[mytailorisrich]

d) stand its ground independently, invest in its military to have the capability it needs, work with AUKUS if and when it is in its interests to do so. This includes taking a more 'non-aligned' stance on China, but that'd not be historically new (France was the first Western country to recognise the PRC and De Gaulle even advised Kennedy to do it sooner than later).

[inglor_cz]

French vital interests are in Africa, not in Pacific. And the strategic situation in Sahel isn't good. Given that military budgets are always strained, it makes sense to concentrate on the core challenges and leaving the Pacific be.

[mytailorisrich]

France has strategic interests in Africa. And it has also vital interests in the Pacific because it actually has territories in the region.

France has the largest maritime EEZ in the world, owning 8% of the global EEZ areas. A lot of that is due to its territories in the Pacific and Indian Ocean. New Caledonia also has 25% of the world's nickel reserve. Defending your national territory is a vital interest.

Saying that it "should leave the Pacific be" is exactly what the US and Australia want (hence France being excluded from AUKUS), and exactly what it should not do.

[inglor_cz]

You got me. I was only thinking about the territories themselves (arguably not crucially important) and forgot about the maritime EEZs that come with them. These seem to be rather important.

(Though probably not "vital" in the same sense as suppression of jihadism is. A massive growth of jihadism in North Africa could destabilize peace in France itself, while loss of Pacific territories would only be painful economically.)

[mytailorisrich]

Jihadism in Africa is an issue for Europe and the West as a whole so others can be involved.

No-one is going to help you preserve your own territory, quite the opposite. National territory is always a vital interest.