Only idiots believe the US is protecting Australia from China      By Caitlin Johnstone

 

The Economist has taken a keen interest in Australia lately, which if you know anything about The Economist is something you never want to see happen to your country. Two articles published in the last few days by the notorious propaganda outlet have celebrated the fact that Australia appears to be the most likely nation to follow the United States into a hot war with China as it enmeshes itself further and further with the US war machine.

In “How Joe Biden is transforming America’s Asian alliances,” The Economist writes the following:

“Meanwhile, the ‘unbreakable’ defence relationship with Australia is deepening, following the AUKUS agreement struck in March, amid a flurry of equipment deals and military exercises. Should war break out with China, the Aussies seem the most willing to fight at America’s side. Australian land, sea and air bases are expanding to receive more American forces. Under the AUKUS deal, Australia is gaining its own long-range weapons, such as nuclear-powered (but not nuclear-armed) submarines to be developed jointly with America and Britain. The three partners want to work on other military technologies, from hypersonic missiles to underwater drones.

“Taken together the ‘latticework’ of security agreements, shows how America’s long-heralded pivot to Asia is accelerating.”

In “Australia is becoming America’s military launch-pad into Asia,” The Economist elaborates upon this war partnership with tumescent enthusiasm, calling it a “mateship” and likening it to a “marriage”, and calling for a rollback of US restrictions on sharing military technology with Australia.

“If America ever goes to war with China, American officials say the Aussies would be the likeliest allies to be fighting with them,” The Economist gushes, adding, “Australia’s geographical advantage is that it lies in what strategists call a Goldilocks zone: well-placed to help America to project power into Asia, but beyond the range of most of China’s weapons. It is also large, which helps America scatter its forces to avoid giving China easy targets.”

The Economist cites White House “Asia Tsar” Kurt Campbell reportedly saying of Australia, “We have them locked in now for the next 40 years.”

“Equally, though, Australia may have America locked in for the same duration,” The Economist hastens to add.

Well gosh, that’s a relief.

“How the world sees us,” tweeted former Australian foreign minister Bob Carr when sharing the Economist article.

“Historians will be absolutely baffled by what’s happening in Australia right now: normally countries never voluntarily relinquish their sovereignty and worsen their own security position out of their own accord. They normally have to lose a war and be forced to do so,” commentator Arnaud Bertrand added to Carr’s quip.

As much as it pains me to admit it, The Economist is absolutely correct. The Australian government has been showing every indication that it is fully willing to charge into a hot war with its top trading partner to please its masters in Washington, both before and after the US puppet regime in Canberra changed hands last year.

This sycophantic war-readiness was humorously mocked on Chinese state media back in 2021 by Impact Asia Capital co-founder Charles Liu, who said he didn’t think the US will actually fight a war with China over Taiwan, but the Australians might be stupid enough to fight it for them.

“US is not going to fight over Taiwan,” Liu said. “It’s not going to conduct a war over Taiwan. They may try to get Japanese to do it, but Japanese won’t be so stupid to do it. The only stupid ones who might get involved are the Australians, sorry.”

He had nothing to be sorry about; he was right. Australians are being very, very stupid, and not just our government. A recent Lowy Institute poll found that eight in ten Australians believe the nation’s alliance with the United States is important for Australia’s security, despite three-quarters also saying they believe the alliance makes Australia more likely to be drawn into a war in Asia.

That’s just plain stupid. A war with China is the absolute worst case security scenario for Australia; anything that makes war with China more likely is making us less secure. Making bad decisions which hurt your own interests is what stupid people do.

That’s not to say Australians are naturally dimwitted; we’re actually pretty clever as far as populations go. What’s making us stupid in this case is the fact that our nation has the most concentrated media ownership in the western world, a massive chunk of which is owned by longtime US empire asset Rupert Murdoch. This propaganda-conducive information environment has been distorting Australia’s understanding of the world so pervasively in recent years that on more than one occasion I’ve had total strangers start babbling at me about the dangers of China completely out of nowhere within minutes of striking up conversation with them.

This artificially manipulated information ecosystem has made Australians so pants-on-head idiotic that they think the US empire is filling their country up with war machinery because it loves them and wants to protect them from the Chinese. That’s as stupid as it gets.

The single biggest lie being circulated in Australia right now is that our government is militarising against China as a defensive measure. China has literally zero history of invading and occupying countries on the other side of the planet. You know who does have a very extensive history of doing that? The United States. The military superpower that Australia’s military is becoming increasingly intertwined with. The belief that we’re intertwining ourselves with the world’s most aggressive, destructive and war-horny military force as a defensive measure to protect ourselves against that military force’s top rival (who hasn’t dropped a bomb in decades) is transparently false, and only a complete idiot would believe it.

We’re not militarising to defend ourselves against a future attack by China, we’re militarising in preparation for a future US-led attack on the Chinese military. We’re militarising in preparation to involve ourselves in an unresolved civil war between Chinese people that has nothing to do with us. China has been sorting out its own affairs for millennia and has managed to do so just fine without the help of white people running in firing military explosives at them, and Taiwan is no exception.

The imperial media talk nonstop about how the People’s Republic of China is preparing to seize control of Taiwan using military force, without ever mentioning the fact that that’s exactly what the US empire is doing. The US empire is preparing to wrest Taiwan away from China to facilitate its long-term agenda to balkanise, weaken and subjugate its top rival.

Only a complete blithering imbecile would believe any part of this is being done defensively. It’s being done to secure unipolar planetary domination for the world’s most powerful and destructive government, and only an absolute moron would agree to risk their own country’s security and economic interests to help facilitate it.

 

First published by Caitlin Johnstone from Caitlin’s Newsletter August 24, 2023

https://johnmenadue.com/only-idiots-believe-the-us-is-protecting-australia-from-china/

 

-------------------------

 

The US military has launched a program to develop “drone swarm” technology, the Pentagon’s number-two official has said, suggesting the new systems are intended for a future conflict with China.

Speaking at a National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) conference in Washington, DC on Monday, Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks outlined the weapons program, dubbed “Replicator,”which aims to deploy thousands of UAVs simultaneously on the land, sea and air.

The official said that while the US military still benefits from systems that are “large, exquisite, expensive and few,” it has been slower to adopt platforms which are “small, smart, cheap and many,” such as small, easily-produced drones. She argued that the Chinese military has superior “mass” over US forces – “more ships; more missiles; more people” – and stressed the need to overcome that advantage with innovative weapons systems.

”We’ll counter the [People’s Liberation Army’s] mass with mass of our own, but ours will be harder to plan for, harder to hit, and harder to beat,” Hicks said, adding that while Beijing was “relatively slow and lumbering” during the Cold War, it has since developed forces to “blunt the operational advantages we’ve enjoyed for decades.”

To reclaim those advantages, Hicks said the Replicator program would work to field “multiple thousands” of UAVs across several domains, hoping to complete the project within two years. 

Though Hicks shared few other details about the initiative, Admiral John Aquilino, who leads the US Indo-Pacific Command, said the drones would be helpful in a future conflict with the People’s Republic, as they could strike a large number of targets spread over a wide area.

“Here's a metric for me: 1,000 targets for 24 hours,” Aquilino said, adding that his command has worked with DARPA to create systems that will collect and integrate targeting data for an entire theater faster than before, through a program named “Assault Breaker II.” 

The components in INDOPACOM have been experimenting now for the last five to 10 years with many of those unmanned capabilities. Those will be an asymmetric advantage. So operational concepts that we are working through are going to help amplify our advantages in this theater…there's a term, hellscape, that we use,” the admiral continued, referring to a potential war with China.

Earlier this year, the US, UK and Australian militaries held a joint “capabilities trial” to show off new AI-powered drone systems, which were deployed as a “collaborative swarm to detect and track military targets,” according to the Pentagon. While it is unclear exactly how artificial intelligence will factor into the Replicator program, the three allies have placed increasing focus on Beijing in the Indo-Pacific, vowing to develop and deploy new military capabilities in the region to counter China.

 

https://www.rt.com/news/582067-pentagon-drone-swarm-china/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.................................

 

 

BY SCOTT RITTER

 

Recently the armed forces of Ukraine have come under criticism from their Western military partners for carrying out operations in support of the ongoing counteroffensive in a manner which deviates from the operational theory of combined arms warfare.
Combined arms warfare integrates the capabilities inherent in separate combat arms (infantry, artillery, armor, air, electronic warfare, etc.) into a singular effort that complements one another, thereby increasing the lethality and efficiency of operations. The theory of combined arms warfare that served as the foundation for the training of Ukrainian forces by NATO in the lead up to the current counteroffensive is founded in present day US and NATO doctrine which emphasizes fundamental principles and tactics, techniques, and procedures which, when properly implemented, are designed to achieve the desired result.

According to the media statements attributed to US and NATO military officers who had been involved in the training of Ukrainian forces, the Ukrainian army has failed to implement the tactics they had been instructed on, which emphasized a combined arms approach that used firepower to suppress Russian defenses while armored units advanced aggressively, seeking to combine shock and mass to break through prepared defensive positions. According to these western officers, the Ukrainians have proven “casualty averse”, allowing the loss of manpower and equipment in the face of Russian resistance to break up their attacks, dooming the counteroffensive to failure.

The Ukrainians, on the other hand, contend that the combined arms training they received was based upon doctrinal principals, such as the necessity of adequate air support, which Ukraine was never able to implement, dooming the counteroffensive to failure from the start, and forcing Ukraine to adapt to the realities of the battlefield by ditching the combined arms approach in favor of an infantry-focused battle. The fact that these new tactics have produced a prodigious number of Ukrainian casualties contradicts the notion that Ukraine is casualty averse.

The tragic reality is that neither approach to warfare has enabled Ukraine to achieve the ambitious goals and objectives it has set out for itself when launching the counteroffensive, namely the breaching of the Russian defenses leading to the severing of the land bridge connecting Crimea to Russia. While Ukraine, with the support of its NATO allies, has accrued sufficient military capacity to engage in concerted military operations against Russia since the counteroffensive began in early June, the reality is that this effort is unsustainable. In short, Ukraine has reached the end of its tether. While the tactical situation along the line of contact with Russia fluctuates daily, and Ukraine has been able to achieve some limited success in certain areas, the cost that comes with these successes has been so high that Ukraine lacks not only the ability to exploit these successes, but is in danger of not being able to maintain a military presence along the entirety of the frontline sufficient to hold back any concerted Russian offensive operations.

 

The collapse of Ukrainian military cohesion along the line of contact with Russia is occurring even as the last vestige of the Ukrainian counteroffensive bleeds itself white in the fields of Zaporozhye. Because of battlefield losses suffered by Ukraine in the months leading up to the initiation of the June counteroffensive (mainly, but not exclusively, in the Battle for Artemovsk), Ukrainian forces were stretched thin as units were reshuffled along the front to replace those that had been depleted in battle. As the counteroffensive floundered, military resources were withdrawn from other sectors of the front to make up for the losses.

This thinning of the Ukrainian lines provided opportunities for the Russian forces, leading to major advances in the vicinity of Kupyansk. As Ukrainian losses continue, this thinning will only become more prevalent, creating gaps in the Ukrainian defenses which can be exploited by a Russian military which has upwards of 200,000 well-trained, well-equipped reserves which have yet to be committed into the battle. This cause-effect relationship will continue, since Ukraine has no more reserves available to replace battlefield losses which will continue to accrue all along the line of contact. Eventually, the Ukrainian posture will be unsustainable, and the Ukrainian high command will be confronted with the reality that they will need to order a general retreat to more defensive positions—perhaps as far back as the right bank of the Dnepr River—or face the inevitability of the total destruction of their army.
Ukraine’s fate was sealed long before its counteroffensive was ground down by Russia’s defenses. The roots of Ukraine’s military debacle can be found on the NATO training grounds where Ukrainian soldiers were misled into believing that the training they were receiving would give them NATO-like capability on the battlefield. But the lexicon of combined arms warfare, unless attached to doctrinally-sound principles, tactics, techniques, and procedures, is just a collection of words devoid of meaning and substance.

The fundamental idea behind combined arms warfare is that one can demand more of each individual combat arm because the inherent weaknesses present are shielded by the complementary capabilities of the others which, when acting in concert, serve as an overall force multiplier, where the collective is greater than the sum of all the individual components. However, if the shield is missing due to inadequate application of doctrinal fundamentals (such as proceeding void of any air cover), then the effect is simply the same as feeding raw meat into a meatgrinder. NATO knew prior to the Ukrainian counteroffensive that the training was inadequate to the task, and yet the training officers not only remained silent as the Ukrainians they instructed were led down the path of their inevitable demise, but rubbed salt into the Ukrainian wounds by claiming that the fault was on the part of the student, not the teacher.

As the Special Military Operation reaches its terminal phase, marked by the collapse of cohesion on the part of a Ukrainian military depleted in battle and unable to adequately reinforce itself, one must reflect on how the situation had deteriorated to this point for a nation, Ukraine, which had been the benefactory of billions of dollars of assistance. While the determination and skill of the Russian military played a major part in shaping the present events on the battlefield, the fact that the Ukrainians were thrown into a battle they were neither organized or trained to wage played a huge role in the scope and scale of the meatgrinder that consumed them.
And for this Ukraine can blame—and Russia thank—NATO.

https://sputnikglobe.com/20230830/scott-ritter-ukraines-fate-sealed-long-before-failing-counteroffensive-1112990937.html

 

GUS:

ANY MILITARY ADVICE ON HOW TO DEFEAT THE RUSSIANS HERE, THERE AND EVERYWHERE WOULD BE USELESS EVEN IF IT WAS THE BEST ADVICE IN THE WORLD... CONSIDER THAT ON ITS MOST RECENT WARS, THE AMERICAN EMPIRE — FOLLOWING ITS BEST ADVICE — WAS DEFEATED BY MINOWS. 

BAR SOME EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, THE RUSSIANS CANNOT BE DEFEATED IN UKRAINE. SUCH DEFEAT IS OUT OF THE QUESTION. NATO DEFEATING RUSSIA? EVEN ORBAN SAYING THIS SOUNDED LIKE HE DID NOT BELIEVE IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT BELIEVABLE, BUT HE SAID IT FOR THE SAKE OF PROTECTING HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH NATO... IT'S A BIT LIKE COL (RET.) TONY SHAEFFER ALWAYS CLAIMING AT LEAST ONCE IN HIS INTERVIEW WITH JUDGE NAPOLITANO THAT "PUTIN IS A THUG"... IT TAKE A THUG TO KNOW ONE, ONE COULD SAY... BUT THE REALITY IS THAT ONE CANNOT ENTERTAIN RECOGNITION OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF RUSSIA AND OF PUTIN IN THIS CONFLICT — WITHOUT BEING BOOTED OFF THE YouTube NETWORK. 

WATCH THE INTERVIEW OF TUCKER ON X WITH VICTOR ORBAN...

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

 

 

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

 

EASY.

 

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

 

 

by Al manar

The former French ambassador to the United States, Gérard Orr [sic: his name is Gerard Araud], felt that "all signs indicate that the future of humanity will be played out elsewhere».

In an article he wrote in the British newspaper The Telegraph, he stated : "Deceived Europe can't see it's over“, adding:”We Europeans are still convinced of the central role of our small continent, not only in the history of humanity, but in shaping the world today. We think of ourselves. We are noble, strong and of goodwill".

He then added that the period of true European power was actually "just a historic step“, recalling that ”European domination of the world took place between 1815 and 1945, but from then until today we have been directly behind the United States".

He pointed out that "until 1750, China's GDP was greater than that of any country in Europe".

Thus in New Delhi and Beijing, we were considered start-ups during our hegemony", but the economic rebalancing that has been taking place for several decades between Europe and Asia is now perceived as "just a return to the long-standing historical basics".

According to Gérard Araud, for the United States, the growth potential and the major challenges lie in Asia and, therefore, “it makes sense for Washington to focus on this continent".

And to continue: Washington also considers that Russia is a "regional power and a source of annoyance", but Russia is "not the center of Washington's attention" emphasizing "Instead, Washington seeks to end the war in Ukraine as quickly as possible to deal with the real threat: China.".

Orr asked:Are we Europeans able to prove that we are still important, that we are not a marginal tourist destination?»

And to answer:I doubt it, and for a very specific reason. As a Frenchman who has seen his country gradually lose its strength alongside its demographic decline, I firmly believe that demography is destiny».

He stated: “On this basis, Europe faces an “unprecedented” situation. Its total population should decrease by 5% between 2010 and 2050, but by 17% among 25-64 year olds. Indeed, the average lifespan of Europeans is 42 years, compared to 38 years in the United States. This increases on average by 0,2 years per year».

Orr explained that this would lead to "weaker demand and therefore less growth and less dynamic societies. In more precise terms, it threatens the European model, based on a difficult compromise between the welfare state and economic reality.».

Orr also predicted that "the number of Europeans over 80 would only quadruple in the decades to come", explaining that "aging means ever-increasing expenditure on health and personal assistance».

And so, the demographic crisis, in turn, “will tear our societies apart between people of working age and pensioners, in a context where the latter enjoy a standard of living that the former often do not hope to achievenoted Orr.

«The most serious thing is that the Europeans are going to fight over the issue of immigration. Experts are very clear in their assessment: there is no alternative to overcoming demographic decline in Europe other than immigration“, underlined the former ambassador of France.

And he felt that immigration from the old continent "is not particularly welcome, because we are losing highly educated young people, who are mainly going to the United States, where they will have better opportunities, whether in research, in academia or in the private sector".

At the end of his article, he concluded:All signs indicate that Europe is turning in on itself, and it is certain that the future of humanity will be decided elsewhere".

source: Al manar

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW