Paul Keating says the AUKUS defence pact is “act of sublimation” to the US. Richard Marles thinks the plan has a parallel in the Labor luminary’s time as PM.
Here’s the problem we have. By most accounts the only reason the green light hasn’t been given to Ukraine for wider use of the Storm Shadow missile (UK weapon) in their defense against Russia, is because of a US veto. A veto they apparrently only have due to a single component for the weapon coming from the US.
If this is the case, and the US is using their military technology supply chain as leverage with its allies in this way, then Keating is right, and Australians should be concerned about a critical arm of our defense structure being open to that risk.
There is however other possibilities, such as, UK wishing to talk the talk, but not walk the walk on wider military support. In other words essentially agreeing with the US about the risks of escalation, but wanting to be quiet about that fact.
Yeah I have also reached that conclusion, we are essentially a usa protectorate. I think they (and conservative political factions in aus) got a scare with the idea of properly integrating into APAC, so aukus is a way to further entrench the usa military domination of Australia.
The gov owns fighters it can’t use without their navy, it will own subs that need their approval for use they can maybe not deliver if they don’t like the direction of aus politics, they own land for secret surveillance shit, they spy on our citizens via five eyes, they test surveillance tech in our legal system (https://www.afp.gov.au/news-centre/media-release/afp-operation-kraken-charges-alleged-head-global-organised-crime-app), they get port expansion in Darwin for their Navy.
Let alone all the fucky legal hold they have on us via secretly negotated trade deals.
Here’s the problem we have. By most accounts the only reason the green light hasn’t been given to Ukraine for wider use of the Storm Shadow missile (UK weapon) in their defense against Russia, is because of a US veto. A veto they apparrently only have due to a single component for the weapon coming from the US.
If this is the case, and the US is using their military technology supply chain as leverage with its allies in this way, then Keating is right, and Australians should be concerned about a critical arm of our defense structure being open to that risk.
There is however other possibilities, such as, UK wishing to talk the talk, but not walk the walk on wider military support. In other words essentially agreeing with the US about the risks of escalation, but wanting to be quiet about that fact.
Over time, I’ve just stopped thinking about Australia being a sovereign state. That’s about the only way to make sense of many things.
Maybe those sovereign citizen folk have the right idea 🤣
Yeah I have also reached that conclusion, we are essentially a usa protectorate. I think they (and conservative political factions in aus) got a scare with the idea of properly integrating into APAC, so aukus is a way to further entrench the usa military domination of Australia.
The gov owns fighters it can’t use without their navy, it will own subs that need their approval for use they can maybe not deliver if they don’t like the direction of aus politics, they own land for secret surveillance shit, they spy on our citizens via five eyes, they test surveillance tech in our legal system (https://www.afp.gov.au/news-centre/media-release/afp-operation-kraken-charges-alleged-head-global-organised-crime-app), they get port expansion in Darwin for their Navy.
Let alone all the fucky legal hold they have on us via secretly negotated trade deals.
It sucks :(