AUKUS News, Views, Analysis.

Lethe

Lethe

Captain
I was listening to a recent
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
with Hugh White (and a couple other voices) and at one point he offered the following:

I think that right at the heart of our challenge today is that we don't have a vision for the kind of relationship we want to have with China when China is the most powerful country in the world. Our model for the relationship we want to have with China is the relationship we used to have with China, the relationship we had under John Howard [1996-2007], when China still accepted America as the dominant power globally and in our region.
[....]
The difference between us and Singapore, or us and Vietnam, or even us and Japan, is that they understand that they're going to have to live with a powerful China, whereas the way in which I believe we have been dealing with China, in some of the very maladroit diplomacy that our government has undertaken particularly over the last 18 months, seem to me to be embedded in the same idea which is embedded in Washington, that somehow we can make China go back to what it used to be, we can make China go back to being the country that bided its time and hid its power and didn't challenge the United States, that was in [former US Secretary of State] Zoellick's famous phrase a "responsible stakeholder" in a US-led world order. That China has gone, it is never coming back.
Click to expand...

If one accepts this basic framing of a distinction between how other East Asian and South East Asian nations are responding to China's rise, and how Australia is doing so, then accounting for that distinction practically invites an examination of Australia's cultural-historical background, i.e. the White Australia Policy, the Anglosphere, the history of European imperialism and the ideologies that supported that, and so forth.
 
E

emblem21

Major
Registered Member
Lethe said:
I was listening to a recent
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
with Hugh White (and a couple other voices) and at one point he offered the following:



If one accepts this basic framing of a distinction between how other East Asian and South East Asian nations are responding to China's rise, and how Australia is doing so, then accounting for that distinction practically invites an examination of Australia's cultural-historical background, i.e. the White Australia Policy, the Anglosphere, the history of European imperialism and the ideologies that supported that, and so forth.
Click to expand...
Hmm, the only way to help educate Australia of the changing situation in the world is through force because as it is now, Australia will do everything and anything to paint anything about China as negative without proof and any set back China may have no matter how small as a victory and ultimately trying to show the world (well most nations are not stupid) that they are strong when they simply are only one DF missile away from extreme chaos. All this two and throw can only end when China strikes Australia so hard Australia will finally acknowledge just how stupid they have been acting. I can only pray that China reserves its missile for the leadership of the nation and not the common people who mostly have no interest in a war, because the leaders had the chance to prove themselves to be better people and as of now have yet to come close in doing so. America isn't going to come back to save Australia and ultimately Australia is going to have to try and get along in a part of the world where they are going to be the minority and ultimately in very bad terms with a superpower with every reason to want them dead. They have a lot of things they need to do to ensure that they can even try to speak normally with China again and they don't have much time before they become a real target for all there actions they have performed against China
 
Last edited:
W

weig2000

Captain
Lethe said:
I was listening to a recent
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
with Hugh White (and a couple other voices) and at one point he offered the following:



If one accepts this basic framing of a distinction between how other East Asian and South East Asian nations are responding to China's rise, and how Australia is doing so, then accounting for that distinction practically invites an examination of Australia's cultural-historical background, i.e. the White Australia Policy, the Anglosphere, the history of European imperialism and the ideologies that supported that, and so forth.
Click to expand...

This one, and the previous one that you forwarded, by Professor Hugh White are both very thoughtful, which is very rare among Australia's strategic thinkers. He is looking at Australia's strategic quandary both deeper and longer. Southeast Asian nations indeed provide a rather large and interesting sample group of countries with different histories of dealing with China and varied responses to the rise of China. Look in particular the case of Singapore, and how it tried to strike a balance between the US and China. Singapore has US military base, yet it appears that it has earned considerable trust from China, even if with some grudges. It's not always easy for Singapore, and they have been adjusting their approaches over the decades since it established diplomatic relationship with China in 1990. So it's a dynamic process.
 
Bellum_Romanum

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
weig2000 said:
This one, and the previous one that you forwarded, by Professor Hugh White are both very thoughtful, which is very rare among Australia's strategic thinkers. He is looking at Australia's strategic quandary both deeper and longer. Southeast Asian nations indeed provide a rather large and interesting sample group of countries with different histories of dealing with China and varied responses to the rise of China. Look in particular the case of Singapore, and how it tried to strike a balance between the US and China. Singapore has US military base, yet it appears that it has earned considerable trust from China, even if with some grudges. It's not always easy for Singapore, and they have been adjusting their approaches over the decades since it established diplomatic relationship with China in 1990. So it's a dynamic process.
Click to expand...
He's been consistently imploring the Australian academic, military, and political elites for Australia to pursue a non U.S. centric approach with respect to their China policy. But as you can see on this video, PROF. MEARSHEIMER pretty much laid down the reality for Australia which is they don't HAVE ANY CHOICE.

 
W

weig2000

Captain
Bellum_Romanum said:
He's been consistently imploring the Australian academic, military, and political elites for Australia to pursue a non U.S. centric approach with respect to their China policy. But as you can see on this video, PROF. MEARSHEIMER pretty much laid down the reality for Australia which is they don't HAVE ANY CHOICE.

Click to expand...

Mearsheimer is bluffing. Australia is not like Canada, which is overwhelmingly dependent on the US for trade. Australia doesn't really have a real security problem either.
 
Bellum_Romanum

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
weig2000 said:
Mearsheimer is bluffing. Australia is not like Canada, which is overwhelmingly dependent on the US for trade. Australia doesn't really have a real security problem either.
Click to expand...
They do now. The relationship between China and Australia will never be the same and must not return to business as usual. The notion or the very idea that despite all the deliberate provocations, slanderous accusations, and actions by Australia towards China be forgotten or chalked those all up to some kind of "friendly" competition ought to have their head examined.

China must maintain it's strategic decoupling from that country, Australia and actually weaken that country's economic prosperity for strategic purpose so that it cannot afford to spend military purchases that it'll have difficulty paying for their military wish lists and or the ability to maintain military hardwares that require expensive maintenance costs i.e. Nuclear subs, and other tech...any economic difficulties in Australia would potentially result in the country becoming politically polarized, socially and politically unstable and best of all it'll stop attracting immigrants from Asian countries who provide net economic benefit and academic excellence to Australia.
 
W

weig2000

Captain
Bellum_Romanum said:
They do now. The relationship between China and Australia will never be the same and must not return to business as usual. The notion or the very idea that despite all the deliberate provocations, slanderous accusations, and actions by Australia towards China be forgotten or chalked those all up to some kind of "friendly" competition ought to have their head examined.

China must maintain it's strategic decoupling from that country, Australia and actually weaken that country's economic prosperity for strategic purpose so that it cannot afford to spend military purchases that it'll have difficulty paying for their military wish lists and or the ability to maintain military hardwares that require expensive maintenance costs i.e. Nuclear subs, and other tech...any economic difficulties in Australia would potentially result in the country becoming politically polarized, socially and politically unstable and best of all it'll stop attracting immigrants from Asian countries who provide net economic benefit and academic excellence to Australia.
Click to expand...

I said they didn't really have a security problem. AUKUS is self-inflicted security problem by Australia. They don't have to sign up to this China containment role.
 
O

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
weig2000 said:
Singapore has US military base, yet it appears that it has earned considerable trust from China, even if with some grudges. It's not always easy for Singapore, and they have been adjusting their approaches over the decades since it established diplomatic relationship with China in 1990. So it's a dynamic process.
Click to expand...
This is offtopic but I just wanted to note something on the above:

I doubt that China will keep quiet about the US bases in Singapore when it gets stronger.

That China doesn't say it publically, it doesn't mean that deep down it accepts that. It is is merely accepting now because of the international environment where China cannot afford to make too many enemies while trying to break out of US containment

I fully expect that 20+ years later, China will seriously start pressuring Singapore to either:

1. Throw out the Americans
or
2. Allow China to also set up a base. This would be based on
"If the Americans can have one, why we cannot. Or do you imply that you accept US acting from there against China. But wouldnt that also mean that you are an indirect ally of the US?
So why do you say you neutral?
True neutrality, means that you should also allow us a base in your country, either this or throw out the Americans."

Same will apply on other nearby countries hosting US bases
 
4Runner

4Runner

Junior Member
Registered Member
4Runner said:
To me, this AUKUS drama means nothing to China. But US, AU, UK, NATO, EU, Asia will perceive what they think they are getting from this reality show.

Chinese already know that US/UK/Canada/AU/NZ are first cousins, especially when push comes to shove. There is already the five-eyes for decades. Like our social life, you only share secrets with your closest ones. Anything meaningful above five-eyes to me must be in the ballpark of becoming a 52nd state. The nuclear submarines? It actually make some sense from US/UK/AU perspectives.

Back when the AU/FR submarine deal was announced, many military technology fans like us were genuinely surprised that AU did not go with JP. This US/UK/AU deal is not what AU actually needs. It is all about what US wants under the circumstance that US has realized that it cannot win the arms race with China alone. This AUKUS deal is essentially an AU division of nuclear submarines of the US navy, period. Anyone thinks that AU wants or desires to challenge China on its own weight is down right insane, regardless of any types of submarines. The net result to China is that US just got a few more nuclear submarines without paying for them. No more, no less. So what is the difference if US simply prints more money to build a few more and station them in AU? Nothing, really. Therefore, the net effect of this AUKUS drama practically means nothing to China, given the current circumstance vis-a-vis US.

Now onto other parties.

Biden admin wins quite a few PR points as well as mitigates some budge constraints.

AU is the biggest winner. It gets the better submarines. It gets more love from US.

UK wins beautifully. It costs almost nothing. It gets more love from US. it may get a piece of the pie.

US/UK/AU could win more if they can share the development/production costs for their next generation subs.

France is the biggest loser. This is a once in a lifetime deal. France has lost a significant financial win. France has lost face. And it could be bad for Macron's reelection.

EU is embarrassed again. This deal is another evidence that EU is a second-class ally, just like Japan and Korea.

Macron is right. NATO is brain dead.

India is India again. When it comes to substances, anglos keep to themselves. QUAD is just a convenient stick to China's eyes. US is not going to share anything real with India.

Indonesia is alarmed.

Japan and Korea will always love US no matter what.

This has very little effect on Russia, if not at all.

The rest of the planet is just "meh".

Back to China, it just gains another ammunition to counter the threat theory. And it also gains anther rallying cry to counter the US containment.

Oh, last but not the least, MSM just got another news cycle.

This is just a perfect world, until some idiots destroy it.
Click to expand...
LOL, I seriously suspect that this big-time Australia politician read my message.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A relic of a bygone age? I might be, but I’m not a defeatist​

by Paul Keating on September 29, 2021

To quote some:

"
......

The US submarine decision was not just about under-sea warfare, it was about donating eight submarines paid for by us to the command of the United States, as an integral part of its Pacific fleet. Try and think of another country that would do anything this submissive.

......
"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top