---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead, China has so far pursued narrower, rather technical lines of attack on AUKUS, related to the eight nuclear-propelled submarines that Australia is to buy from America. China’s ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, a nuclear watchdog, accused America of undermining non-proliferation work by transferring nuclear know-how and weapons-grade uranium to Australia, saying this would make it harder to stop Iran and North Korea from seeking similar technologies. The foreign ministry in Beijing added some tut-tutting about countries forming small cliques. By the standards of recent America-bashing in China, such grumbles barely count as throat-clearing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is the right strategy for China, focusing on the threat to the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, which is the common concern of the international community, and on the very exclusive, racially-based nature ("blood and history") of this Anglo clique, which creates discomfort among very large community of nations, including the US's "friends and allies."
Let this whole business of AUKUS take its time to play out; it's increasingly clear that it's not a well thought-out idea and has begun to backfire. China will quietly assess the situation and its aftermath, and then decide what its response will be. AUKUS is a long term threat, not some short-term challenges. Make no mistake, it will have far-reaching ramifications. I expect it'll impact China's strategic deterrence strategy, defense strategy and possibly, alliance strategy.