On your main subject, I completely agree that discussions about international situations and strategies ought to be part of electoral campaigning (particularly important as well as challenging when such upheaval). But I wouldn't exactly expect govt, opposition or crossbenchers to "make clear what our foreign policy is" or should be - so many nuances, near-future scenarios, contingencie ->, I don't see "our foreign policy" as a single thing, more a matrix with fuzzy edges, and not every scenario is best-managed by public wargaming. Minimum we ought to get is for candidates (particularly parties) to be clear about key points and principles. I think Minister Wong does well at speaking clearly and carefully - she manages to speak to legacy media for benefit of "the Australian public" in manner that would concurrently work with international audiences. (Would that PM Albanese was as clear.)
On a side angle, I liked your reportage re responses on Bluesky to your linked post. I'm not on Bluesky but enjoyed looking through this window (lots of short snippy comments looked a bit dopamine-dependent, "aren't we all") - I hope you are happy to have dialogue here on Substack as well as on Bluesky?
On a very side angle, I liked the chandelier riff from Sia to Patrick White and back at the end :-)
Bluesky is surprisingly good for a quick take on matters; like Twitter used to be. Can often help shape ideas and give a sense of how people are thinking. Yes, a bit snippy and dopamine addled, but you can work with that, I find.
Keir Starmer's comment that 'we are at a crossroads', is an important comment Albanese should copy, but with modifications for our context. But notice that Starmer is not criticizing Trump, and he is still saying US support of European support of Ukraine is essential to a durable peace. He is being diplomatic. He is not saying out loud we need to build a new international architecture which limits greatly the influence of the US, but it is implied. He is speaking in code, and that is what the Australian Government should do. All the European official spokespeople have not been criticising Trump, but they have been making statements about what Europe needs to do, and those statements often imply they can't depend on the US anymore.
The more open statements about the need for Australia to take a more independent foreign policy stance can be made by the Independents eg see Zoe Daniel's excellent piece in the Guardian, and by independent civic society voices. And the coded responses of the Government to these statements need to be scrutinised by the public, so that is the way we get accountability.
The Ukraine Oval Office imbroglio gives lots of opportunites to implicitly criticise the US, and stand up for Australia's interests, under the cover of supporting Ukraine. But Albanese has to be quick off the mark on this. Dutton's statement just out (see below) indicating he will lobby Trump to change his mind on Ukraine is something Albanese should have said.
Dutton said 'In relation to Ukraine, the Australian view at the moment is different to the US, and my job as prime minister will be to lobby the president of the United States to reconsider his position in relation to Ukraine because I think it is in all of our collective best interest if we are able to provide support to Ukraine......
Yes, I am not expecting Albanese to criticise Trump directly in public, or any of the other things that were put to me. But Starmer's words and actions are so much stronger than anything Albanese said and we have absolutely come to the limit of it being acceptable for him to hide behind the idea that he won't do a running commentary. If the PM has any sense, he will align himself with what is happening in Europe and "send strong signals" that we are moving in X direction rather than Y.
This constant resort to what used to be called kremlinology is dangerous and anti-democratic and we deserve better. Citizens should have to guess what their leaders are hinting at. We should be helping shape the discussion.
Glad you mentioned the Zoe Daniel's piece: quite amazed (and pleased) that she went there.
Great call Tim. I sent a comment to the Guardian, in civil language, that Albo owed it to the people of Australia to reconsider the US, look at getting out of the fantasy called AUKUS and to call out what is happening in Gaza.
Trouble for Albo is…..the Greens .Labor prefers to fight us than the LNP .fortunately ,we have many decent Climate 200 coming up for us to preference over Labor and it reflects badly on Albo that he has little spine to take on the bully media and IPA who represent the same guys as Trump party which is very clear now that Gold cards for rich immigrants (mafia!) and fast track and ..away with welfare unless for the oligarchs 😤🤬🎩
First off ….Australians need to worry about cost of eggs ……then Dutton will have a brilliant solution about ….🤷🏾♀️ Then…we must worry about population eating all the eggs …Once we shift to Chinese in boats and submarines planning to capture our eggs …..we move onto the poor people who Dutton will represent by …house price increase 😩🎩👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
OMG TD - the articles you are writing go from strength to strength. As an aside, I am thinking how this is going to play out in the Stars & Stripes homeland: several decades of hegemonic US foreign poilicy on which Rep/Dem created it & were in lockstep has just been exposed by Trump. Wasn't this totally predictable & I'm going to refer to my post to yours on Saturday: 'Oh lordy lordy. We are neck deep in it. Jeffrey Sachs reminds us that.....
“It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal.” ― Henry Kissinger
Now what do we do🤯' How will the CIA deal with this - what have they scenario planned here? What about the military contractors/weapons manufacturers be thinking - surely they will stand to lose $G, unless they can supply them through the EU/UK?
I'm still trying to get my head around what Trump intends to do & what the end game is? What will he do with China? India? What about AUKUS - message appears to be don't rely/sponge off the USA. Ok what about the extensive US bases in Australia - Pine Gap, NW Cape, NT etc?
Something must come to a head in the US no? Should we start thinking about a second civil war and whose side Australia will support? Or should we just slide into the hedge like Homer Simpson
As you say: 'We are placed under a chandelier that has dislodged from the ceiling. This is no time to stand in silence and hope we can talk it into not crushing us. We must step aside.' Time Australia grew up. Maybe if we' dump the duopoly' we can have a mature & open discussion. Cheers
Thanks, Gavin. I've got a piece coming up that addresses the prospect of of internal US violence. On that, I think a recent REst is Politics podcast was useful. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4xHdUOI7ag
I look forward to your article. Re: Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart 'Rest is Politics' - yep - they are a couple of wise gentlemen - won't disagree with Rory Stewart's prognosis.
Australia has a strong hand to play with the USA. On our territory are: Pine Gap; North West Cape; HMAS Stirling where US subs can dock; and the air and marine bases in the Northern Territory. It is not a hand to play in the open but it is there to remind the USA of our importance. That said we need to increase our defence spending to create an Echidna Strategy for defence of our territory. We also need to up our defence links with the UK, New Zealand and Canada. We also need to up our diplomatic links with ASEAN and Japan, South Korea and India (carefully in India’s case$
Maybe strengthen links with NZ. Not sure why we should or would with the others
This is a good opportuitiy - perhaps the best ever - for Australia to finally start moving towards a non-aligned defence policy (a la the Echidna Strategy) & foreign policy.
Although I suspect we aren't mature enough as a country to do something like that - a bit like being too scared after 125 years to finally move out of home and go out in the world on our own. It would also require a lot of de-programming, which would be absolutely impossible without strong confident leadership and vision -- which we are also very lacking in.
So a great opportunity, but I don't think it's being nreasonable pessimistic to assume that we don't have the abiity or self-awareness to grab it.
How do you feel about the crossbench, in a minority government, being able to guide a discussion in a more useful direction? Just noting again Zoe Daniel's Guardian article yesterday as an indicator of what might be possible?
If our diplomats are good enough they don’t have to deliver it as a threat. Just note how much we appreciate having the USA asserts and facilities on our soil and how e appreciate their appreciation and their appreciation and their understanding. 😁
This is the discussion we should be having and I agree with a lot of this. Even if we all feel some things can't be said out loud (and sure) we need much stronger signals. The last thing we need is for the PM to leave a rhetorical gap, as he does on so many things, that is then filled with Dutton-says talking points.
I can see a case for breaking the news gently to an Australian public that isn't following the news closely. Some general talk about how, like marriages, alliances sometimes have problems, but we are confident everything will turn out well. But agreeing to statements like "the alliance is rock-solid" is just silly. Worse stll was Wong, saying unprompted that "the alliance has never been stronger.
I guess we will have to wait for another move by Trump, like throwing Canada out of the Five Eyes.
Yup. End of the idea of the USA. End of Light on the Hill. I'm lucky to have lived these past 60 years. The coming Brave New World isn't going to be fun.
The world's bullies are chain sawing / bombing / threatening their way into a global distopean near-future. Gaza/Ukraine/Syria/much of Africa already there.
The "Dems" in the USA foolishly think it will all go back to normal in 4 years time. Not realising that after 40 years of weakening institutions, four years of smashing & endless lies will result in US government & democracy being irretrievable - loss of essential trust & complex competancy.
Musk doesn't care He's off to Mars (please very soon). And Zuck / Bezos haven't worked out yet that in a distopean future no one needs Amazon (because no money), no-one needs FB advertising - see "no money".
Parallels to the Roman Empire are obvious (the Senate did cosplay for centuries in Imperial Rome).
Things can stay broken. See the Dark Ages. That 1,000 years post the Fall of Rome. So bad, Western Europe even forgot the world was round...
PS: Just realised Elon doesn't get his settlements on Mars either. In his distopean future, there won't be a large educated middle class generating heaps of engineers, materials scientists, technicians, physicists etc. So there's that.
Agree, Tim, the government has ignored its responsibilities to the public when it comes to defence policy.
AUKUS, for example. A decision of heart stopping magnitude taken by a tiny group in a matter of hours, and for petty partisan political reasons.
It's borderline criminal, as was the original decision from Morrison and co.
So, no argument that the government has an obligation to bring the public (and the wider defence community) into the decision-making process surrounding Australia's foreign and military stance.
After that, I hesitate to bring up the Ukraine question but it feels important to do so. My sense is had you not accepted the standard narrative about how that crisis came about and who's to blame, this article may not have been written at all.
No one is happy about the Ukraine war, not even Russia. It's a tragedy, and entirely unnecessary. Even setting aside the rights and wrongs, Ukraine could not win, the disparities in military and industrial capacity were always far too large.
For much of the world outside the west, the question of who's to blame is viewed differently. Most see Russia as having been provoked and, while wishing matters had turned out differently, some also believe Russia had little choice but to respond with force.
I won't go into all that lies behind these very different viewpoints beyond noting that Russia tried for eight years to settle the matter peacefully. All to no avail and Merkel, Hollande and Poroshenko have acknowledged that even though each signed the Minsk II Accords, implementation was never in prospect. It was just a ploy to buy time to further arm and prepare Ukraine.
Tim, I think you read too much of the MSM that you claim is full of crap. I call it propaganda and seek my information elsewhere.
Have a look at Jeffrey Sachs speech to the European parliament from February 19th, on the topic, "The Geopolitics of Peace" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9V-UtD3flY, or read Scott Hortons book on US interference (regime change) in Ukraine, "Provoked: How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine"
You say "NATO underpinned western relations since WWII". NATO was a defensive organisation set up to promote US interests in the form of arms sales and of course hegemony, and to keep the Soviets in their place.
What was the purpose of NATO following the collapse of the USSR? The Russian economy was a basket case following the arms race and the war with the CIA funded Mujahadin in Afghanistan.
Nato had nothing to do so the US coerced NATO nations to get involved in Afghanistan, then NATO was led by the USA in the attack on Libya, the capture and murder of Gadaffi and the beginning of the civil war that still rages in that once wealthy nation.
Biden and Co planned on expanding NATOs role into the Pacific, to aid the US in the planned war with China.
Keir Starmer, has said publicly, “We are at a crossroads in history today. This is not a moment for more talk. It’s time to act.”
Boris Johnson and the Yanks prevented Zelinsky signing a peace agreement with Putin in Istanbul in April 2022. The Brits, Yanks and Germans guaranteed Zelinsky their backing all the way, Biden and his handlers believed they could defeat Russia in their proxy war, destabilise Putin and bring about regime change in Russia, then break up Russia for the benefit of US corporations, just as Blackrock and others are intent on doing in Ukraine.
Do Starmer and the rest of the Europeans really want to go to war with Russia? The Brits planned and organised the Kursk offensive resulting in their Challenger tanks getting smoked and many thousands of Ukraine troops and mercenaries getting topped.
Tim, have a think about Westmoreland in Vietnam, sending BS back to the US every day regarding the state of the war. The yanks committed more and more troops and materiel to the offensive and exited in a rush when they got flogged.
They learned nothing from the experience and went into a twenty year war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, a mob that was armed and taught how to fight by the CIA. After twenty years the yanks once again left in a rush, leaving the Taliban all the materiel necessary for the storming of Kabul days later.
Jeffrey Sachs mentions the lecture he could deliver on how and why the USA, Germany's great ally, blew up the Nordstream pipeline, forcing German industrialists to seek cheap gas elsewhere. No gas available at competitive rates brought about the demise of much of German manufacturing.
Sachs retells Kissinger's truism, "to be an enemy of America is dangerous, to be a friend is fatal" western leaders should pay attention and witness US behaviour in the global south.
Putin leads Russia, a nation that was attacked by Napoleon and Hitler. Both campaigns were launched through Ukraine. In WWII 9 million Russian troops died along with 18 million civilians. The Russian people believe in the motherland and Putins job is to defend his nation.
Jeffrey Sachs talks about NATO in Ukraine placing Nuclear tipped missiles five minutes from Moscow, and questions whether the USA would allow Russia, China, or any other state to place Nuclear missiles on the Mexican or Canadian border. There would be war in minutes says Sachs.
Putin and Lavrov both warned that Ukraine must remain neutral and NATO in Ukraine was a big NIET.
Biden, Sullivan and other neocons in the administration knew that Russia was beatable and Putin was bluffing. As the war progressed the nuclear brinkmanship on the part of the USA increased, they believe a nuclear war is winnable!
Our 14-year-old boys have no concept of risk, but we hope that the maturity that comes from surviving to 25 years of age provides them with a good idea. These Americans playing war games in high places seem to have little notion of the concept of risk. That may not be so bad if a few thousand souls in Washington and Moscow were vapourised, but Annie Jacobson's book "Nuclear War: A Scenario sets out the unfolding of the apocalypse that could end our world in 72 minutes.
Throughout my 75 years the propaganda has characterised the USA as good and USSR, then Russia BAD.
Putin has never stated to the world that Russia would fight and win 7 wars in seven nations in the next five years. General Wesley Clark told of the US plan to attack 7 Muslim countries in 5 years following 9/11.
What are the western standards Albanese claims to uphold? Are the many millions of wrecked lives around the globe, directly attributable to US interference in the administration of sovereign nations, an indication of the upholding of a standard of any description, are the US practices in Haiiti, Cuba, Venezuela, even civilised.
When US Secretary of State Madeleine Allbright was asked about the half million Iraqi children who died due to US trade sanctions, she replied, "It was worth it!" Civilised?
How can we as a people justify associating with the only nation that has dropped an atomic weapon on a civilian population?
The fact that they did it a second time, to prove a concept, is evidence of the barbarity of the USA.
In our own region, US influence has led to Australia taking demonstrably improper positions in the cases of East Timor and West New Guinea, to the detriment of the indigenous folk of both those nations.
The governments position on current events in the levant follows that of the USA despite the outrageous force directed at civilian populations and infrastructure in Palestine, Lebanon and Syria.
Tim, you advocate Australias allince with Canada, New Zealand and like countries. Former UN Human Rights official Craig Mokiber, has detailed a group of settler colonial states, acting as a bloc at the UN. The group WEOG, Western European and Others, includes 20 European States plus, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel.
I agree with your argument regarding the Australian voting publics input into the nations foreign relations. Such important topics warrant informed debate, and definitely should not remain in the control of the likes of Marles, Albanese, Wong, and Dutton.
I believe, and IMHO history shows, that our leaders need to think harder about who and why Australia forms alliances with other nations, and the nature of those alliances. The might of the USA ought not be the basis for an alliance.
Appreciate the comment, Ted, and the background knowledge, but maybe don't presume what I have and haven't read. Or what knowledge I have or don't have, or where I get it. I'm quite old and have, for reasons I won't go into, some pretty close contact with these issues. Having said that, I certainly don't know everything and I am liable to draw wrong conclusions here and there, so I'm always glad to be pointed to relevant information. People doing that, like you have, is one of the joys of running this site.
fervent discussion going on here - this is very constructive. I wouldn't claim to be an authority on Trump, Australia's foreign policy etc, but while I get, I think, partially what the Trump phenomenon is about, it is the way that Trump et al. are going about it that's is alarming to say the least. The speed and the breadth of what's being targeted is breathtaking. It's almost like a return to year zero. I may have missed it but there's been no attempt to explain the reasoning for the iconoclastic volte-face other than 'draining the swamp'. Please continue the discussion. Cheers
Thank you very much!
On your main subject, I completely agree that discussions about international situations and strategies ought to be part of electoral campaigning (particularly important as well as challenging when such upheaval). But I wouldn't exactly expect govt, opposition or crossbenchers to "make clear what our foreign policy is" or should be - so many nuances, near-future scenarios, contingencie ->, I don't see "our foreign policy" as a single thing, more a matrix with fuzzy edges, and not every scenario is best-managed by public wargaming. Minimum we ought to get is for candidates (particularly parties) to be clear about key points and principles. I think Minister Wong does well at speaking clearly and carefully - she manages to speak to legacy media for benefit of "the Australian public" in manner that would concurrently work with international audiences. (Would that PM Albanese was as clear.)
On a side angle, I liked your reportage re responses on Bluesky to your linked post. I'm not on Bluesky but enjoyed looking through this window (lots of short snippy comments looked a bit dopamine-dependent, "aren't we all") - I hope you are happy to have dialogue here on Substack as well as on Bluesky?
On a very side angle, I liked the chandelier riff from Sia to Patrick White and back at the end :-)
Bluesky is surprisingly good for a quick take on matters; like Twitter used to be. Can often help shape ideas and give a sense of how people are thinking. Yes, a bit snippy and dopamine addled, but you can work with that, I find.
And yes, FP is complex and I'm not expecting a full run down: I just meant we need more clarification around our r'ship with the US. Even some guiding principles for the overall project that doesn't speficially mention the US would be good. This piece by Zoe Daniel was interesting I thought: I'm encouraged that the crossbench are making these sorts of statements. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/03/australias-key-ally-has-gone-rogue-and-trump-has-us-expertly-wedged-we-need-a-plan-b
Glad you like the chandelier stuff. That line by Rhoda blew me away when I read it 50 years ago and I often think of it.
Keir Starmer's comment that 'we are at a crossroads', is an important comment Albanese should copy, but with modifications for our context. But notice that Starmer is not criticizing Trump, and he is still saying US support of European support of Ukraine is essential to a durable peace. He is being diplomatic. He is not saying out loud we need to build a new international architecture which limits greatly the influence of the US, but it is implied. He is speaking in code, and that is what the Australian Government should do. All the European official spokespeople have not been criticising Trump, but they have been making statements about what Europe needs to do, and those statements often imply they can't depend on the US anymore.
The more open statements about the need for Australia to take a more independent foreign policy stance can be made by the Independents eg see Zoe Daniel's excellent piece in the Guardian, and by independent civic society voices. And the coded responses of the Government to these statements need to be scrutinised by the public, so that is the way we get accountability.
The Ukraine Oval Office imbroglio gives lots of opportunites to implicitly criticise the US, and stand up for Australia's interests, under the cover of supporting Ukraine. But Albanese has to be quick off the mark on this. Dutton's statement just out (see below) indicating he will lobby Trump to change his mind on Ukraine is something Albanese should have said.
Dutton said 'In relation to Ukraine, the Australian view at the moment is different to the US, and my job as prime minister will be to lobby the president of the United States to reconsider his position in relation to Ukraine because I think it is in all of our collective best interest if we are able to provide support to Ukraine......
Yes, I am not expecting Albanese to criticise Trump directly in public, or any of the other things that were put to me. But Starmer's words and actions are so much stronger than anything Albanese said and we have absolutely come to the limit of it being acceptable for him to hide behind the idea that he won't do a running commentary. If the PM has any sense, he will align himself with what is happening in Europe and "send strong signals" that we are moving in X direction rather than Y.
This constant resort to what used to be called kremlinology is dangerous and anti-democratic and we deserve better. Citizens should have to guess what their leaders are hinting at. We should be helping shape the discussion.
Glad you mentioned the Zoe Daniel's piece: quite amazed (and pleased) that she went there.
Great call Tim. I sent a comment to the Guardian, in civil language, that Albo owed it to the people of Australia to reconsider the US, look at getting out of the fantasy called AUKUS and to call out what is happening in Gaza.
Knocked on the head.
Trouble for Albo is…..the Greens .Labor prefers to fight us than the LNP .fortunately ,we have many decent Climate 200 coming up for us to preference over Labor and it reflects badly on Albo that he has little spine to take on the bully media and IPA who represent the same guys as Trump party which is very clear now that Gold cards for rich immigrants (mafia!) and fast track and ..away with welfare unless for the oligarchs 😤🤬🎩
Just dropping this here in case you hadnt see it: might be of interest
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/03/australias-key-ally-has-gone-rogue-and-trump-has-us-expertly-wedged-we-need-a-plan-b
First off ….Australians need to worry about cost of eggs ……then Dutton will have a brilliant solution about ….🤷🏾♀️ Then…we must worry about population eating all the eggs …Once we shift to Chinese in boats and submarines planning to capture our eggs …..we move onto the poor people who Dutton will represent by …house price increase 😩🎩👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
OMG TD - the articles you are writing go from strength to strength. As an aside, I am thinking how this is going to play out in the Stars & Stripes homeland: several decades of hegemonic US foreign poilicy on which Rep/Dem created it & were in lockstep has just been exposed by Trump. Wasn't this totally predictable & I'm going to refer to my post to yours on Saturday: 'Oh lordy lordy. We are neck deep in it. Jeffrey Sachs reminds us that.....
“It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal.” ― Henry Kissinger
Now what do we do🤯' How will the CIA deal with this - what have they scenario planned here? What about the military contractors/weapons manufacturers be thinking - surely they will stand to lose $G, unless they can supply them through the EU/UK?
I'm still trying to get my head around what Trump intends to do & what the end game is? What will he do with China? India? What about AUKUS - message appears to be don't rely/sponge off the USA. Ok what about the extensive US bases in Australia - Pine Gap, NW Cape, NT etc?
Something must come to a head in the US no? Should we start thinking about a second civil war and whose side Australia will support? Or should we just slide into the hedge like Homer Simpson
https://www.vulture.com/2019/06/simpsons-homer-backs-into-the-bushes-meme-gif.html
As you say: 'We are placed under a chandelier that has dislodged from the ceiling. This is no time to stand in silence and hope we can talk it into not crushing us. We must step aside.' Time Australia grew up. Maybe if we' dump the duopoly' we can have a mature & open discussion. Cheers
Thanks, Gavin. I've got a piece coming up that addresses the prospect of of internal US violence. On that, I think a recent REst is Politics podcast was useful. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4xHdUOI7ag
I look forward to your article. Re: Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart 'Rest is Politics' - yep - they are a couple of wise gentlemen - won't disagree with Rory Stewart's prognosis.
Australia has a strong hand to play with the USA. On our territory are: Pine Gap; North West Cape; HMAS Stirling where US subs can dock; and the air and marine bases in the Northern Territory. It is not a hand to play in the open but it is there to remind the USA of our importance. That said we need to increase our defence spending to create an Echidna Strategy for defence of our territory. We also need to up our defence links with the UK, New Zealand and Canada. We also need to up our diplomatic links with ASEAN and Japan, South Korea and India (carefully in India’s case$
Who's going to be the brave one to tell Trump we're going to use them as leverage in our relationship with him?
Maybe strengthen links with NZ. Not sure why we should or would with the others
This is a good opportuitiy - perhaps the best ever - for Australia to finally start moving towards a non-aligned defence policy (a la the Echidna Strategy) & foreign policy.
Although I suspect we aren't mature enough as a country to do something like that - a bit like being too scared after 125 years to finally move out of home and go out in the world on our own. It would also require a lot of de-programming, which would be absolutely impossible without strong confident leadership and vision -- which we are also very lacking in.
So a great opportunity, but I don't think it's being nreasonable pessimistic to assume that we don't have the abiity or self-awareness to grab it.
How do you feel about the crossbench, in a minority government, being able to guide a discussion in a more useful direction? Just noting again Zoe Daniel's Guardian article yesterday as an indicator of what might be possible?
If our diplomats are good enough they don’t have to deliver it as a threat. Just note how much we appreciate having the USA asserts and facilities on our soil and how e appreciate their appreciation and their appreciation and their understanding. 😁
This is the discussion we should be having and I agree with a lot of this. Even if we all feel some things can't be said out loud (and sure) we need much stronger signals. The last thing we need is for the PM to leave a rhetorical gap, as he does on so many things, that is then filled with Dutton-says talking points.
I can see a case for breaking the news gently to an Australian public that isn't following the news closely. Some general talk about how, like marriages, alliances sometimes have problems, but we are confident everything will turn out well. But agreeing to statements like "the alliance is rock-solid" is just silly. Worse stll was Wong, saying unprompted that "the alliance has never been stronger.
I guess we will have to wait for another move by Trump, like throwing Canada out of the Five Eyes.
Those comments by Wong are just the opposite of useful. Complete abrogation of duty. Marles is worse in some of the things he has said.
Yup. End of the idea of the USA. End of Light on the Hill. I'm lucky to have lived these past 60 years. The coming Brave New World isn't going to be fun.
The world's bullies are chain sawing / bombing / threatening their way into a global distopean near-future. Gaza/Ukraine/Syria/much of Africa already there.
The "Dems" in the USA foolishly think it will all go back to normal in 4 years time. Not realising that after 40 years of weakening institutions, four years of smashing & endless lies will result in US government & democracy being irretrievable - loss of essential trust & complex competancy.
Musk doesn't care He's off to Mars (please very soon). And Zuck / Bezos haven't worked out yet that in a distopean future no one needs Amazon (because no money), no-one needs FB advertising - see "no money".
And the band played...
If you want to really depress yourself, information like this is what worries me.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-orders-permanent-govt-shutdown-no-really
I really understand where you're coming from...
Parallels to the Roman Empire are obvious (the Senate did cosplay for centuries in Imperial Rome).
Things can stay broken. See the Dark Ages. That 1,000 years post the Fall of Rome. So bad, Western Europe even forgot the world was round...
PS: Just realised Elon doesn't get his settlements on Mars either. In his distopean future, there won't be a large educated middle class generating heaps of engineers, materials scientists, technicians, physicists etc. So there's that.
Glad I don't have kids.
Agree, Tim, the government has ignored its responsibilities to the public when it comes to defence policy.
AUKUS, for example. A decision of heart stopping magnitude taken by a tiny group in a matter of hours, and for petty partisan political reasons.
It's borderline criminal, as was the original decision from Morrison and co.
So, no argument that the government has an obligation to bring the public (and the wider defence community) into the decision-making process surrounding Australia's foreign and military stance.
After that, I hesitate to bring up the Ukraine question but it feels important to do so. My sense is had you not accepted the standard narrative about how that crisis came about and who's to blame, this article may not have been written at all.
No one is happy about the Ukraine war, not even Russia. It's a tragedy, and entirely unnecessary. Even setting aside the rights and wrongs, Ukraine could not win, the disparities in military and industrial capacity were always far too large.
For much of the world outside the west, the question of who's to blame is viewed differently. Most see Russia as having been provoked and, while wishing matters had turned out differently, some also believe Russia had little choice but to respond with force.
I won't go into all that lies behind these very different viewpoints beyond noting that Russia tried for eight years to settle the matter peacefully. All to no avail and Merkel, Hollande and Poroshenko have acknowledged that even though each signed the Minsk II Accords, implementation was never in prospect. It was just a ploy to buy time to further arm and prepare Ukraine.
For anyone who wants more info:
John Mearsheimer in a (prescient) 2014 talk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
Jeffery Sachs (recently) summarising the history of the conflict.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RiK6DijNLGE
As I was reading this I was thinking I would link to the Sachs' talk for you but you beat me to it!
Jeffrey Sach's address to'‘Europe needs an independent foreign policy’: Professor Jeffrey Sachs at European Parliament' is pretty good too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4c-YRPXDoM&ab_channel=ThePrint
Tim, I think you read too much of the MSM that you claim is full of crap. I call it propaganda and seek my information elsewhere.
Have a look at Jeffrey Sachs speech to the European parliament from February 19th, on the topic, "The Geopolitics of Peace" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9V-UtD3flY, or read Scott Hortons book on US interference (regime change) in Ukraine, "Provoked: How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine"
You say "NATO underpinned western relations since WWII". NATO was a defensive organisation set up to promote US interests in the form of arms sales and of course hegemony, and to keep the Soviets in their place.
What was the purpose of NATO following the collapse of the USSR? The Russian economy was a basket case following the arms race and the war with the CIA funded Mujahadin in Afghanistan.
Nato had nothing to do so the US coerced NATO nations to get involved in Afghanistan, then NATO was led by the USA in the attack on Libya, the capture and murder of Gadaffi and the beginning of the civil war that still rages in that once wealthy nation.
Biden and Co planned on expanding NATOs role into the Pacific, to aid the US in the planned war with China.
Keir Starmer, has said publicly, “We are at a crossroads in history today. This is not a moment for more talk. It’s time to act.”
Boris Johnson and the Yanks prevented Zelinsky signing a peace agreement with Putin in Istanbul in April 2022. The Brits, Yanks and Germans guaranteed Zelinsky their backing all the way, Biden and his handlers believed they could defeat Russia in their proxy war, destabilise Putin and bring about regime change in Russia, then break up Russia for the benefit of US corporations, just as Blackrock and others are intent on doing in Ukraine.
Do Starmer and the rest of the Europeans really want to go to war with Russia? The Brits planned and organised the Kursk offensive resulting in their Challenger tanks getting smoked and many thousands of Ukraine troops and mercenaries getting topped.
Tim, have a think about Westmoreland in Vietnam, sending BS back to the US every day regarding the state of the war. The yanks committed more and more troops and materiel to the offensive and exited in a rush when they got flogged.
They learned nothing from the experience and went into a twenty year war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, a mob that was armed and taught how to fight by the CIA. After twenty years the yanks once again left in a rush, leaving the Taliban all the materiel necessary for the storming of Kabul days later.
Jeffrey Sachs mentions the lecture he could deliver on how and why the USA, Germany's great ally, blew up the Nordstream pipeline, forcing German industrialists to seek cheap gas elsewhere. No gas available at competitive rates brought about the demise of much of German manufacturing.
Sachs retells Kissinger's truism, "to be an enemy of America is dangerous, to be a friend is fatal" western leaders should pay attention and witness US behaviour in the global south.
Putin leads Russia, a nation that was attacked by Napoleon and Hitler. Both campaigns were launched through Ukraine. In WWII 9 million Russian troops died along with 18 million civilians. The Russian people believe in the motherland and Putins job is to defend his nation.
Jeffrey Sachs talks about NATO in Ukraine placing Nuclear tipped missiles five minutes from Moscow, and questions whether the USA would allow Russia, China, or any other state to place Nuclear missiles on the Mexican or Canadian border. There would be war in minutes says Sachs.
Putin and Lavrov both warned that Ukraine must remain neutral and NATO in Ukraine was a big NIET.
Biden, Sullivan and other neocons in the administration knew that Russia was beatable and Putin was bluffing. As the war progressed the nuclear brinkmanship on the part of the USA increased, they believe a nuclear war is winnable!
Our 14-year-old boys have no concept of risk, but we hope that the maturity that comes from surviving to 25 years of age provides them with a good idea. These Americans playing war games in high places seem to have little notion of the concept of risk. That may not be so bad if a few thousand souls in Washington and Moscow were vapourised, but Annie Jacobson's book "Nuclear War: A Scenario sets out the unfolding of the apocalypse that could end our world in 72 minutes.
Throughout my 75 years the propaganda has characterised the USA as good and USSR, then Russia BAD.
Putin has never stated to the world that Russia would fight and win 7 wars in seven nations in the next five years. General Wesley Clark told of the US plan to attack 7 Muslim countries in 5 years following 9/11.
Have a read of this item from the National Security Archive, https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/chile/2021-09-10/australian-spies-aided-and-abetted-cia-chile, concerning ASIS involvement in Chile leading up to the coup of 9/11/1973, the overthrow of Salvadore Allende and the installation of the tyrant Pinochet.
What are the western standards Albanese claims to uphold? Are the many millions of wrecked lives around the globe, directly attributable to US interference in the administration of sovereign nations, an indication of the upholding of a standard of any description, are the US practices in Haiiti, Cuba, Venezuela, even civilised.
When US Secretary of State Madeleine Allbright was asked about the half million Iraqi children who died due to US trade sanctions, she replied, "It was worth it!" Civilised?
How can we as a people justify associating with the only nation that has dropped an atomic weapon on a civilian population?
The fact that they did it a second time, to prove a concept, is evidence of the barbarity of the USA.
In our own region, US influence has led to Australia taking demonstrably improper positions in the cases of East Timor and West New Guinea, to the detriment of the indigenous folk of both those nations.
The governments position on current events in the levant follows that of the USA despite the outrageous force directed at civilian populations and infrastructure in Palestine, Lebanon and Syria.
Tim, you advocate Australias allince with Canada, New Zealand and like countries. Former UN Human Rights official Craig Mokiber, has detailed a group of settler colonial states, acting as a bloc at the UN. The group WEOG, Western European and Others, includes 20 European States plus, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel.
I agree with your argument regarding the Australian voting publics input into the nations foreign relations. Such important topics warrant informed debate, and definitely should not remain in the control of the likes of Marles, Albanese, Wong, and Dutton.
I believe, and IMHO history shows, that our leaders need to think harder about who and why Australia forms alliances with other nations, and the nature of those alliances. The might of the USA ought not be the basis for an alliance.
Appreciate the comment, Ted, and the background knowledge, but maybe don't presume what I have and haven't read. Or what knowledge I have or don't have, or where I get it. I'm quite old and have, for reasons I won't go into, some pretty close contact with these issues. Having said that, I certainly don't know everything and I am liable to draw wrong conclusions here and there, so I'm always glad to be pointed to relevant information. People doing that, like you have, is one of the joys of running this site.
fervent discussion going on here - this is very constructive. I wouldn't claim to be an authority on Trump, Australia's foreign policy etc, but while I get, I think, partially what the Trump phenomenon is about, it is the way that Trump et al. are going about it that's is alarming to say the least. The speed and the breadth of what's being targeted is breathtaking. It's almost like a return to year zero. I may have missed it but there's been no attempt to explain the reasoning for the iconoclastic volte-face other than 'draining the swamp'. Please continue the discussion. Cheers