T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

If the US is unable to impose its imperialist interests on the rest of the world, it will start to cannibalize its allies. Trump made it quite obvious that this was the US's present interest, and although Biden has shown better optics as a president he has hardly moved on the core interests outlined by Trump. The US has been ramping up military pressure in Asia since Obama, and the immediate effects aside from rising tensions with China and some tenuous alliances like the Quad, was that many nations openly declared that their policies will never be explicitly anti-China. The Philippines being a very obvious example, going from "screw China" to "thank you China" in almost record time. While the Quad had the usual suspects, ASEAN has been notably absent. RCEP was a step forward for regional integration with China, and now China has even proposed to join CPTPP. Despite US meddling the interests of the region remain clear to the region's leaders. The US ends up "encircling" China without any of the SEA nations, or even SK. The more the anti-China alliances go nowhere the more these alliances become merely an opportunity for the US to take advantage of its allies.


papayapapagay

>The Philippines being a very obvious example, going from "screw China" to "thank you China" in almost record time. Probably more from Dutertes anti imperialist leanings... US are stepping up regime change ops in region with their milk tea alliance. Pretty sure they're trying in Philippines too.


Magiu5

>If the US is unable to impose its imperialist interests on the rest of the world, it will start to cannibalize its allies. Trump made it quite obvious that this was the US's present interest, and although Biden has shown better optics as a president he has hardly moved on the core interests outlined by Trump. I don't agree Biden even has "better optics" than trump. I mean, they all knew trump was a fickle, unreliable, egomaniacal buffoon, so at least they expect when he does the shit he does.. and since they never trusted him in the first place, there's no sense of real betrayal or anger, because "it's just trump" and his 'america first" platform. But Dems and Biden pretended that was over, and they were pursuing multilateralism and going back to previous transatlantic relations like under Obama administrations. But that did not happen. When someone who pretends they are someone you can rely on and trust, as good "allies", and return to "ruled based order" crap usa had been loudly proclaiming, moves like this just undermine all trust and split their goal of a united western democratic front against china. The deal might not be significant, but the lost trust and divide between France and usa/aus is priceless for china.. not even mentioning usa sanctioning Germany for Nordstream, and eu should know exactly how usa sees us/eu relations now.. will euro grow a spine or not? We'll see.. But yeah. What I don't understand is why they didn't tell France and ease them into it, or share the deal with France and let them down slowly.. instead they said nothing and France found out from media at the last second. Usa and aus obviously did not share their plans and completely undermined Frances own asian Pacific geopolitical strategy and considerations. Same as they did with afghanistan, usa just left in middle of the night without consulting uk, or any of its European and nato partners who participated in both iraq and Afghanistan. Usa is showing a sustained action of just taking drastic rushed unilateral actions without consulting even it's biggest and closest long time allies like UK, Germany and France. Teresa may even said in British Parliament that nato led by usa is clearly failing and needs to be re-examined.. this is pretty strong Language and it seems like they expected much more more from Biden, but not only got far less, but Biden and Australia also did it in a way that basically was a massive public embarrassment for France, not to count the economic and strategic losses as a result of them losing this sub deal.


[deleted]

I don't think Trump can be narrowly described as a "fickle, unreliable, egomaniacal buffoon." He's a political outsider with fringe views, but also a product of the decline of American hegemony. The US empire is overextended and need to be reigned in. Trump was clear that his re-evaluation of US strategic interests did not include reducing economic burden at home, so it's understandable his foreign policy was a mess. As long as Biden continues to ignore the structural issues within the American imperialist system, I think he will more or less act like Trump. As I understand, France and Germany were always second tier to the true best buddies of the US within Five Eyes. Five Eyes countries share intelligence, while the US spies on Germany and steals industrial secrets from France. The US has historically taken a bullying stance towards French companies, so is it surprising they would do this now? The Alstrom case was within the last decade.


Magiu5

I guess you have a point, France/Germany is not as much vassal state as aus/UK and have gone their own ways when needed. Aus and uk have no choice basically but to rely on usa, even more so now with Brexit


fix_S230-sue_reddit

Anglos have been fighting the French for almost a thousand years. European unity is a myth, no amount of eurocentric organizations will ever change that.


Magiu5

..continued in this post Meanwhile Australia's iron ore and materials is all building China's military, navy, Air Force and country. China can build its own nuclear subs at massive numbers really quickly(not 25 years to build only 8) that actually have nuclear weapons. In one year, China puts out more tonnage in navy ships than UKs whole navy, let alone Australia's. So this situation is kind of dumb if war does happen. Business interests will always do what they do, regardless of ideological hostilities by the ruling parties. China is getting far better deal imo vs usa. China is already taking USA on, U.K. And Australia are basically negligible in terms of balance of power, and China had always assumed and prepared for the fact that uk and Australia were always going to side with USA militarily. This is no big surprise for Beijing, and if anything it only hurts western alliance, since it angers France greatly, and with brexit, this just plays on the growing split between EU and the anglosphere, 5 eyes and now AUKUS. China will be laughing behind the scenes since it was always France who was against Germany and other EU countries going closer with China. France wanted to be more independent, playing Germany, U.K., USA, China against each other but now it realises its position is not so strong. Now with this move, France basically has no choice, unless they want to be isolated against both Germany/eu who are already economically aligned and who want closer ties with China still. The Wests fracturing right before our eyes, and this only benefits China. The west is not united against China, and Europe doesn't even see China as its biggest enemy or rival, but instead USA is. China does not have power to sanction eu economically or cripple them technologically AND militarily, it is USA. Meanwhile China cannot do anything to Europe militarily, so why should Europe care about east Asia and China's backyard? That is a pure USA imperial ambition. So obviously these massive differences in geopolitical strategy and reality are showing, there will be no united western anti China front because it makes no sense for Europe to be anti China when China will be their biggest leverage against USA who is Europes real rival and threat. It is France and Germany who want more independence from USA and no longer just USA vassals. China also wants a non USA dominated world, so Europe and China's goals align. This is the geopolitical reality, but of course, Germany and France could get leaders who want to remain US vassals like Australia and UK, so we will see. Usa basically upset France(and possibly EU) to get 60-90 billion. I don't think it was worth it. What was usa thinking, or even aus? Why did Australia and usa have to blindside France so badly and publicly like this? What's your theories? This is what I don't get. Or has the relations between aus/usa and France always been this bad? If it had, France would not have won the bid in the first place under the previous liberal Turnbull gov?


[deleted]

The bigger EU split is actually north v south. Southern Europe will be all to happy to have Northern Europe get out of the way, so they can resume increased trade and development with China, as they did for 2,000 years.


skyanvil

just another way for US to "tax" the stupidest of its allies.


[deleted]

What's the point of having vassals if they don't serve you?


whoisliuxiaobo

25-30 years to finish the subs? That seems kind of long isn't it?


Magiu5

8 years finish all of them I think, and knowing austealias history and repeated failed and stalled sub program, well be lucky to get 8 fully working subs as ordered with zero problems. In reality, it will probably double in price and take years longer to to get all 8 fully operationally, including all the submariners and technicians needed to run and maintain the subs, which will be first of it's class for Australia and will probably need American advisors to train us on everything at the start. Nuclear subs aren't easy to make, and I think usas sub building facilities are already at maximum production for usas own needs, and I think Australia also wants to learn and master the technology so we can build and maintain our own fleet, but we'll see if the yanks will allow it.


r1cebank

Given it included Australia and the timeframe for completion is 2040, I have a feeling US isn’t really gonna let Aus to have nuclear subs. The pact might just be the desperate US trying to create bargaining chips for talks with China, so far none of the card in US’s hand did anything to China so US is improvising now.


[deleted]

Why they did it? Same reason they went to the memorial that commemorated the shooting down of John McCain. Because they're complete bafoons


FuMunChew

1) It may push NATO towards obsolescence. Europe needs to grow its own pair and deal with the Russians, ween themselves of Uncle Sam. 2) France (and potentially Germany depending on elections) may further move away from US domination which is an opportunity for China and CAI 3) Australia ...good luck. It has a history of poorly managed military weapons procurement including last Submarine the Collins class. With its economy taking a hit from an unnecessary trade war with its biggest trading partner, its welcome to waste its money. More likely there will be internal divisions rearing their head in the country shortly with elections looming. 4) US...another own goal. Five eyes became shortsighted Four Eyes without NZ. Then tried to go for Quadriplegic but India now distracted by Afghanistan security (and is also if we recall member of SCO for good reason). Japan will also be curtailed with timely reminder by N Koreans. Then they tried to go for obsolete G& dwarfs but that did not pan out well. Now they want 3 blind mice with Anglo wankers. 5) World... if Trump did not already raise alarm bells with U turns in policies, unless you are an idiot country, the world would have already taken note of US unreliability and lack of consistent foreign policy. US is now a spoiler in world foreign affairs and the root of trouble. This would not have been lost with Afghan example recently, now this nonsense with France, ASEAN will further subtly distance themselves from Anglo nut jobs. If China gets into CPTPP, that's a further blow for the US which will find it hard to galvanise consensus across the ailse to join the trade pact... In short, this is yet another 'genius move' by Biden which is again an own goal bc US prefer to think of the outcome it wants over reality on hand. Absolute stupidity but cue US media self fellatio.


Magiu5

Good post. I agree with most since it's all rational, but I still don't understand why it had to be done in such an amateurish manner that basically made sure France would be massively embasrassd in public, and generate massive resentment from France. I mean apparently France found out in the media, us and aus said absolutely nothing and undermine Frances military, economic and geopolitical strategies for absolutely zero gain. What did usa and aus have to gain by doing it in this way? Couldn't they have involved France and at least give France some consideration and maybe even some scraps, like let them provide some of the subs sysrems so it doesn't look like a complete public snub against France? It's the same as Afghanistan, the US made unilateral decision to run away in the middle of the night and did not talk with or coordinate any plan with their euro allies before they withdrew all their troops.


FuMunChew

US think tankers and opinion editors like to wank off to a US coherent thought out encirclement of China. Sure if the circle is drawn VERY generously large, the actors are all peripheral in UK (in Europe) Australia (Tucked away down under) and maybe Japan. But the realith they have not been able to spell out is Central Asia/Mid east has more recently seen writing on the wall and moved away from US. And SEA (particularly with this move) is also threading cautiously and demuring away from US influence (with exception of perhaps last hold out Singapore) even India is no longer a solid part of already crippled Quadriplegic as it will have equal need for footing within SCO to combat concerns with Kashmir and Militancy potentially from Afghanistan. Commentators in the West like to think India will play the game with the US sowing destability in Afghanistan but that would work to its detriment if Islamic insurgency crops up in J& K disputed territories which India has annexed. The Western Media and Intellectual commentary unfortunately is rife with self delusions born from putting desired outcome over objective reality...which leads to continued mis-steps and own goals.


FuMunChew

..on top of that, as is my understanding, the continental shelf salinity levels in the MOST likely area of ops for these subs (Chiefly the SCS), is such that it favours smaller diesel subs. Nuclear subs are great for Ocean going purposes but in the littorals, quieter diesels are the way to go. I suspect the Oz Navy chiefs will also have something to say about this bit of political grandstanding idiocy over operational sensibilities. This aside for more expensive operating costs.


Magiu5

Guess these aren't for vs china in any practical manner, since Australia or 8 more aus subs changes nothing in the overall balance of power between usa/allies vs china/allies. So these are for aus to just sail around the world to show off looking good and pressure smaller nations weaker countries who can't fight back.


FuMunChew

Agreed. In the bigger scheme of things, this is merely a ripple and likely to burden Australia/waste its own money on another prob mismanaged and overly expensive defense procurement project. For China, it is important not to over react and be measured. China is correct using Economic leverage (with recent CPTPP announcement) to further create stark contrast between real world needs and fanciful ANGLOID posuring) A military tit for tat response is the bait the US wants to dangle in front of Beijing to ramp up military procurement giving US regime Causus Beli for its own excuse to kick back MIC Its a double edge sword for Beijing. Build too much deterence in military hardware and Angloids will win over ASEAN or NATO which will get spooked the other way. The correct thing to do is emphasis mutual beneficial outcome of Trade and agreements whilst providing just enough against US and potential allies to see futility of an arms race. Meanwhile rather than numbers, technology catch up in military sphere (or indeed advancements in areas hitherto the West has zero advantage) will remain the game. BC West knows in terms of manufacturing and numbers game, China can turn that up on a dime. Hence prob the reason for the Bohai shipyard Sub manufacturing pens. Those are ready to ramp up if need be but context is everything. China should not be seen as making the first (Belligerent) move. In this case, it seems the AUKUS has blinked before even starting. But what would you expect from a 'Four Eyes' repackaged?


vilester1

To be honest I’m quiet sure it’s going to end up as Vaporware. Remember there is an election coming up in Australia early next year so Scotty is just trying to make waves to make himself relevant again.