Saturday 7th of September 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

telling more fairy tales about AUKUS to swallow the nukular subs...

In Asian media this week: Government must persuade public on nuclear subs. Plus: Violence against women an Asian tragedy, too; Beijing, Manila clash over shoal agreement; West hastening loss of supremacy; Modi’s attacks show worry about poll; Hong Kong should promote its common law system.

 

Albanese advised to come clean on AUKUS and China – Asian Media Report    By David Armstrong 

Readers of Asian media stand a good chance of understanding more about AUKUS than those who rely on Australian news sources.

An article published in the Asian news site The Diplomat says the Albanese Government needs to make its case to the Australian public about why AUKUS matters, now and into the future: that AUKUS is aimed at dealing with the threat posed by China.

“The Australian Government has made a strategic choice to prepare for a potential conflict with China,” it says.

The article was written by Nishank Motwani, a senior defence and security analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

It says AUKUS can work as a deterrent in four ways.

First, it would let US nuclear submarines concentrate on the South China Sea while the RAN submarines could block key points further east, denying the People’s Liberation Army Navy freedom to manoeuvre.

Secondly, it would let more US and UK submarines operate continuously as they could use Australian ports for servicing without returning to their home ports.

Thirdly, US and UK submarines could operate more closely to the areas of strategic threat and arguably be more survivable, as Australia provides strategic depth.

Finally, AUKUS would lead to more significant investment in allied shipbuilding capacity.

The Albanese Government needs to engage in an honest dialogue with the Australian public, the piece says, laying out the arguments for AUKUS, while acknowledging the tradeoffs with such other priorities as healthcare, education and housing.

“To win public support the Government has to articulate what the threat to Australia is,” it says. “This must be done in way that transcends abstract arguments such as protecting sea lines of communications, which is critical but does nothing to identify the source of the threat: China.”

Disturbing wave of femicide shocks South Korea

Violence against women is an international tragedy. It is the focus of current articles about two Asian countries – South Korea and India.

The Korea Herald said a disturbing wave of murders of ex-girlfriends had sent shockwaves across the country and had thrust urgent questions into the spotlight: why are the killings occurring? And how can they be prevented?

“In South Korean society, femicide often unfolds within intimate relationships, leaving countless women in perpetual fear,” said a report in the paper.

It said that the National Police Agency reported 57,297 cases of dating violence in 2021 – triple the number in the previous year.

The Korean Women’s Hotline said 138 women were killed last year by men in intimate relationships and 311 women survived attempts on their lives.
“In Korea, a woman is killed or almost killed by a man in a close relationship with her every 19 hours,” the paper said.

It quoted the Hotline as saying: “Basically, they’re all tied to a simple reason: the woman didn’t do what the man wanted her to do.”

In India, sexual violence – up to the including rape – happened in high places and in the best of places, said an article in ucanews.com, the Catholic pan-Asian news site.

“Therefore, [they] do not ruffle feathers too much,” it said. “Political and caste leaders are assured of mass amnesia the day after they make the front pages of national newspapers.”

It said in the southern State of Karnataka the family of H D Deve Gowda, a former prime minister found itself trapped in a rape case of a kind not before seen in a country known for vicious crimes against women, especially those of helpless “Dalit” and tribal groups.

But recently a thumb drive emerged, containing 3,000 clips showing Deve Gowda’s grandson having sex with women including aspiring politicians, the family’s domestic servant and a woman in her 60s, begging for mercy.

The grandson, Prajwal Revanna, an MP, had fled the country. His father had been arrested for being complicit in the crimes.

“Rape, especially of poor and marginalised women, has been all but normalised in the country,” the article said.

Investigation needed into Spratlys dispute plan

China has produced what it says is evidence that the Philippines agreed to a “new model” for managing conflict over Ayungin (or Second Thomas) Shoal in the South China Sea.

The shoal, in the Spratly Islands, is called Ren’ai Jiao in Chinese. It is 194km west of Palawan, the Philippines, and is claimed by the Philippines, China, Taiwan and Vietnam.

The Manila Times reported a Chinese official this week presented what was said to be a recorded telephone conversation between an embassy official and Vice Admiral Alberto Carlos, chief of the Philippines’ Western Command.

According to a transcript of the alleged conversation, China’s new model had been approved by Manila’s defence hierarchy, from Defence Minister Gilberto Teodoro down.

Under the proposal, Manila would send only one Coast Guard vessel and one supply boat on resupply missions to the shoal and would give 48 hours’ notice of the trips.

But, the Chinese official said, Manila has suddenly abandoned the peaceful-management plan. Recent resupply trips have been harassed by Chinese Coast Guard ships, with crews spraying Philippine boats with water cannon.

The paper said it could not confirm that it was Admiral Carlos on the recording, as he had gone on personal leave.

The Philippines Department of Foreign Affairs warned people against falling for false narratives. But Teodoro hit out at the Chinese Embassy for violating anti-wiretapping laws.

China Daily, an official English-language newspaper, said in an editorial the main cause of current tensions between the two countries was the decision by the government of Ferdinand Marcos Jr, encouraged by Washington, to renege on the arrangements it had reached with Beijing to manage differences and prevent conflict.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian was quoted in Global Times, also an official newspaper as saying Manila had harmed its own credibility and put in jeopardy peace and stability in the South China Sea.

The Manila Times said in an editorial the Chinese embassy’s claim was alarming in the extreme. It said it believed the alleged recording was a fabrication but a full and open investigation was needed to find out the truth.

China gains from West’s Ukraine response

The West’s fixation with Russia and Ukraine could well lead to the loss of its global supremacy, according to an analysis distributed by the expert writers’ group, Project Syndicate.

The article, written by Brahma Chellaney, professor emeritus at New Delhi’s Centre for Policy Research, says the longer the West stays distracted by Russia, the better it is for China.

Chellaney’s article, published in The Japan Times, says: “China poses a far greater threat to Western interests and the rules-based order than Russia. Whereas Russia’s designs are largely confined to its neighbourhood, China has the ambition to supplant the US as the preeminent global power. It may well have the means.”

The West, Chellaney says, has desperately tried to punish Russia since its invasion of Ukraine without harming itself in the process. “It has mostly failed. Not even unprecedented sanctions have derailed Russia’s economy, let alone compelled the Kremlin to change its behaviour.

“Instead, Russia has pivoted to a war economy: It now produces nearly three times as many munitions as NATO, including more missiles than it was producing before the war began.”

No country is profiting more from the Ukraine war, and the West’s response, than China. It is getting cheap supplies of Russian oil, gas and grains and is getting away with a huge expansion of its nuclear arsenal and its conventional forces.

“Small wonder that China is quietly oiling the Kremlin’s war machine,” he says.

In key seats, BJP can only go down

Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) performed so strongly in key states in India’s 2019 national elections that it only has one way to do – down. That is the view of Shashi Tharoor, a former External Affairs Minister and senior UN official.

Writing in The Japan Times, Tharoor says losses of a handful of seats in these states would mean BJP would lose its majority.

He says Prime Minister Modi’s campaign tactics show his mounting disquiet. “His anti-Muslim dog whistles have lately escalated into direct attacks,” he says.

Tharoor is not a disinterested observer: he is an Indian National Congress MP.

But an article in The Diplomat, by author Snigdhendu Bhattacharya, notes that a lower voter turnout in the current seven-stage election could produce closer contests in some seats.

It says that to win BJP must hold the fort in the Hindi heartland – states spreading over northern, western and central areas, accounting for 42 per cent of the 543 lower house seats.

Political observers are not convinced the BJP will meet its goals, the analysis says, as it had already peaked in these regions.

Turnout in the first two phases of the election has been lower than in 2019 -and lowest in the heartland states.

“Modi, therefore, apart from warning the voters of the danger of the opposition coming to power, is routinely exhorting them to turn up at polling stations in large numbers,” it says.

A story in Singapore’s The Straits Times says political parties and their partner groups are drumming up support among the 18-million-plus Indian diaspora, with such events as car rallies, poetry readings and conferences.

Even Indians abroad who might not be eligible to vote are being courted, the story says, in the hope they might influence family members in India.

Danger in waiting for mainland instructions

Political and business leaders in Hong Kong have scrambled to embrace mainland-style language, tone and narrative about the city, says commentator Wang Xiangwei.

“All this has given rise to a distinct impression that the city is hanging on every word from Beijing and eagerly awaiting instructions on how to move forward,” he says in a column in the South China Morning Post.

“That is where Hong Kong’s biggest danger lies. No one in Beijing has any clue about how to run a capitalist city like Hong Kong. [But] if the city remains passive, mainland officials will feel emboldened to boss the city around even more.”

Wang, a mainlander, is a former chief editor of the paper. He now teaches journalism at Hong Kong’s Baptist University.

He says the irony is that Beijing has already set out clear directions for the city. In a visit there in 2022, President Xi Jinping said the one country, two systems formula would not change – and that Beijing supported Hong Kong in maintaining the common law.

“That was the first time China’s top leader had highlighted the importance of the common law,” Wang says. “But its significance has not been fully appreciated.”

He says the common law has underpinned Hong Kong’s success and its status as Asia’s financial centre. Hong Kong should stress the importance of the common law system.

Since 2021, Hong Kong has used April 15 to mark National Security Education Day.

Wang proposed Hong Kong should fix a date each year to educate people about the common law.

Raising awareness of the role of the common law would go a long way to countering fears about Hong Kong’s future.

https://johnmenadue.com/albanese-advised-to-come-clean-on-aukus-and-china-asian-media-report/

 

free assange today, mr biden...

russianium....

 

BY Dmitry Babich

 

The EU imposed sanctions on Russia’s state corporation Rosatom, which runs the country’s atomic power stations, soon after the start of the special military operation in February, 2022. And the US Senate passed on April 30 a bill to ban import of Russian uranium (HR 1042), which still awaits to be signed by president Biden into law.

One of the elements of this dangerous “decoupling” from Moscow is the refusal to buy Russian nuclear fuel, replacing it with Western-made alternatives. In recent weeks, two dangers stemming from this policy of the West became apparent.

First, feeding non-Russian fuel to Russian-made nuclear reactors in Eastern Europe could be dangerous. In 2019, when Ukrainian nuclear power stations started using fuel produced by the American company Westinghouse for political reasons, Rosatom’s CEO Alexey Likhachev explained that Russian reactors require fuel produced according to Russian standards. Adapting Russian reactors to fuel from Westinghouse is possible, but it requires cooperation, which was not welcomed by the Western side.

Russian and Soviet reactors are still operating many Europen countries, including the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Finland.

The second danger: the EU simply does not have the capacity to replace Russian fuel. If cooperation with Russia stops, Europeans will have to shut down more energy-producing nuclear reactors. After Germany’s “exit from the atom” in 2022 and a slump in generation in France and the UK, further shutdowns may lead to the deepest energy crisis in Europe in decades.

Both the Russian state corporation Rosatom and internationally known experts have recently been warning about the risks of the Western policy aimed at replacing Russian fuel and technology with less reliable Western alternatives.

 

 

“The political context should not destabilize the market processes,” Rosatom said in a statement issued on May 6. “International cooperation based on mutually advantageous and transparent market conditions is now of critical importance.”

However, on May 8, the UK unveiled another project, obviously aimed at making the use of Russian nuclear fuels “irrelevant.”

London announced that it was going to spend almost £196 million ($251 million) on building a plant that will produce high-assay, low-enriched uranium (HALEU) in north-west England. The project is supposed to boost the ailing nuclear energy sectors of the UK and France, making HALEU “the nuclear fuel of the future.”

The British were open about their project being aimed at removing competition from Russia.

 

 

“By awarding Urenco (a company producing nuclear fuel for American nuclear stations since 1971) £196 million to build the new HALEU-producing facility in Cheshire we want to wean our European allies away from overreliance on Russia for nuclear fuel,” said Andrew Bowie, Britain’s under secretary of state for nuclear and renewables.

 

This sounds laughable in the context of a steep decline in British nuclear energy output and the recent fine of €12.9 billion that the French electricity giant EDF had to pay because of construction delays and power outages in Britain and other Western countries. (Compare this to the modest investment of €228 million made in the plant in Cheshire.)

Why the decline? First, it is a consequence of the dearth of Russian nuclear fuel after sanctions were imposed. Second, the exit of Chinese investors because of the European sanctions and delays also had a negative impact.

For the EU and Britain, the decision to impose sanctions on Rosatom after February 22 could not come at a worse time.

In Germany, the last nuclear power station was shut down on April 15, 2023, adding to the energy crisis. Minister of Economy Robert Habeck (a representative of Germany’s Green party with hawkish views on Russia and great enthusiasm for renewables) is now accused of not informing the public about the perils of Germany’s “exit from the atom”. Several German media outlets published “Habeck’s papers,” showing that he knowingly aggravated the energy crisis that hit Germany in 2022-2023.

The British nuclear sector is in decline, too. Former PM Boris Johnson’s promise to make one-quarter of the nation’s energy output nuclear by 2050 is already dead. This became apparent when Hinckley Point C, a major nuclear power station project, announced a four-year delay in its construction – meaning it might only become operational in 2031. 

“China’s CGN company stopped backing overruns at Hinkley after it was removed from the plant’s sister project, Sizewell C in Suffolk, over security risks,” the Guardian reported. This is a rather euphemistic way to explain the second reason for the crisis. Chinese investors are leaving European nuclear energy sector to its own devices because of its unreliability and Western sanctions – or fear of such new sanctions coming in the future.

https://sputnikglobe.com/20240510/europe-might-see-nuclear-reactor-breakdowns-after-sanctioning-russian-fuel-1118377467.html

 

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

not bluffing....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zmlGf8K8gk

Ukraine Approaching Complete Collapse and NATO in Panic | Scott Ritter

 

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.

THESE WILL ALSO INCLUDE ODESSA, KHERSON AND KHARKIV.....

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

TRANSNISTRIA WILL BE PART OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

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

 

EASY.

 

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

 

 

rust buckets....

 

Australia, Defence and the anti-Midas touch with submarinesBY Rex Patrick

 

It was revealed at Senate Estimates this week that there’s a corrosion problem with HMAS Sheean, one of our Collins Class submarines. Former senator and submariner Rex Patrick scrapes off the rust to reveal a much more alarming problem.

Vintage plates

In South Australia, part of the government’s support for historic and classic cars, is that cars older than 25 years are eligible for vintage plates with reduced registration fees.

HMAS Sheean, currently nearing the end of a two and a half year refit at ASC, , would have qualified last month for vintage plates if it was a car. Except it’s not a car, it’s supposed to be a key defence asset intended to deter conflict or to fight and win in war should deterrence fail.

Anyone who cares about our serving submariners would reasonably question the wisdom of sending a 25-year old submarine, built on 40 year old technologies, into harm’s way (note, there are four other Collins subs that are older than Sheean).

That certainly wasn’t the original plan.

The ‘Sadim Touch’ – $10B of incompetence and counting

Fifteen years ago, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd unveiled the 2009 Defence White Paper. A key feature of his national security plan was the replacement of the 6 Collins Class submarines with 12 future submarines.

Construction of the first future submarine was to begin in 2016, in time to see it fully tested and commissioned in time for the first Collins Class submarine to retire in 2024.

But sadly for the taxpayer, almost everything our submarine procuring politicians and officials do ultimately turns into costly ruin – it’s a case of the SIDAM touch (the opposite to the MIDAS touch).

After the 2009 White Paper was released, Defence embarked on a high risk ‘son-of-Collins’ dream [2009], then a Japanese solution spearheaded by Tony Abbott [2013], then conversion of a French nuclear submarine design into a diesel-electric design [2016].

 

ZUT ALORS

 

The French ‘Attack Class’ submarine project played out from 2016 to 2021, when it was abruptly cancelled, at a cost of $4 billion dollars and 5 years.

But the $4 billion was less than half of the money being poured down the drain. Defence incompetence in not doing something that most other countries did with ease – establish or upgrade a submarine capability – meant that Defence would have to extend the life of the Collins subs.

Rewind to June 2013, Mr David Gould, then General Manager Submarines, revealed to the Senate “I think it is very likely that some of the Collins fleet will have to have some form of extension to their cycle. But how many and for how long, I really could not say at the moment.”

Over time that revelation was formalised and subsequently titled the ‘Life of Type Extension’ (LOTE) project, and the number of Collins submarines that would be extended went from 1 to 4, to 5, and now 6. And as the number of submarines requiring a life extension grew, so too did the cost.

Having spent $4 billion to not buy any submarines, they’re now allocating another $6B of taxpayer’s money to extend the life of the Collins Class. And why? 

Because Defence, in a show of grand bureaucratic incompetence, was incapable of buying new submarines.

The capability gap is here, again

On 10 June 2011, The Australian newspaper ran a front-page story with the headline ‘Not a single submarine seaworthy’. The piece by defence reporter Cameron Stewart explained that every one of the nation’s six Collins-class submarines were temporarily out of action for various reasons, the Navy could not deploy one single boat on operations. What a great deterrent!

His report was just the tip of the iceberg. From 2009 to 2012 Australia had almost no submarines available to defend itself. This was despite the fact that across those 4 years defence had spent, on-average, $410 million per annum on submarine sustainment.

Of concern, over those 4 years the annual cost for submarine maintenance had risen from $329 million per annum to $516 million per annum. This cost continued to rise as Defence, with the backing of Gillard/Rudd and then Abbott governments, threw money at the problem with the hope of improving availability.

This year Australian taxpayers are footing $769 million to keep the Collins Class submarines at sea. What’s worse is, as was revealed at Senate estimates, we are back to three submarines sitting on hard stands and we seem to be unsure of the material or operational states of the other three that are in the water.

Like vintage cars, where it’s near impossible to get parts and it becomes more costly to keep them running, and mostly just for weekend use, our Collins class submarines are heading into troubled availability waters. All aboard the submarine merry go round, the capability gap is here, again.

A submarine disaster

To summarise, Defence wasted $4 billion dollars to not buy French Attack Class submarines, is now paying $770 million a year to keep, at best, 3 submarines in the water, and plans to embark on a $6 billion LOTE program to extend the life of the Collins Class until the AUKUS submarines start arriving (assuming they do).

But even the planned $6 billion LOTE spend seems an optimistic number. Last year Defence conceded to the Senate that the refits that were to implement the LOTE program had increased from 2 to 3 years, a 50% blowout. Time is money. ASC, the Government owned shipyard with the lead on LOTE, advised the Senate this week that, despite this blowout in planned time, Defence has not sought updated costing information for 2 years. Blindness is bliss!

But to make matters even worse, the Minister for Defence now has a ‘secret report’ in his hands prepared by Gloria Valdez, a Retired Deputy Assistant Secretary of the US Navy who was tasked by the Government to conduct an ‘independent assurance activity’ of the Collins LOTE, that characterises the LOTE program as perilously risky. A 3 year LOTE refit might be but-a-dream.

Le plus ca change

But none of this is likely to change anything. Defence Minister Richard Marles and his Defence brass are operating under the ‘press-on-regardless’ philosophy referred to as ‘press-on-itis’ in accident reports. After all, it’s only your money and your security. 

Just like the decision makers that got us in the position we’re in now, all the decision makers guiding us to the new destination will be long gone and on nice public pensions before it’s obvious that the new projects have gone completely off the rails.

And besides, by the time the AUKUS submarine program starts blowing out its already bankrupting $368 billion budget, the Collins saga will look incredibly cheap by comparison.

https://michaelwest.com.au/from-collins-class-to-french-to-aukus-submarines/

 

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

hate china motto....

 

Too anti-China? Hawkish think tank fears budget cutsBY Matthew Knott

 

Prominent American politicians and military leaders have rallied behind an influential Australian think tank known for its hawkish views on the Chinese Communist Party and defence policy as the Albanese government considers overhauling government funding for national security research.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s department in February commissioned former Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade head Peter Varghese to review national security strategic policy work.

Australia’s strategic policy community has since been abuzz with speculation the review was driven in part by a desire to rein in the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a Canberra think tank established in 2001 and led by former Liberal Party staffer Justin Bassi.

Officials from the Chinese embassy in Canberra included government funding for “anti-China” research at the institute on an infamous list of 14 grievancesprovided to journalists from Nine News and this masthead in 2020.

 

Senior government ministers have bristled at some of the institute’s work, including a report released last week that accused the government of leaving the nation exposed by moving too slowly to increase defence funding.

 

In an April submission to Varghese’s review, the top members of the US House of Representatives’ committee on strategic competition between the United States and China, Republican Mike Gallagher and Democrat Raja Krishnamoorthi, said: “Thanks in part to the work of essential strategic policy think tanks like ASPI [the Australian Strategic Policy Institute], the US-Australia alliance has never been stronger.

“Now more than ever, the work of think tanks like ASPI is essential to helping policymakers respond to shared threats and to our shared values and national interests.”

Gallagher, who also served as co-chair of the Congressional Friends of Australia Caucus, has since retired from Congress but has been widely mooted as a possible senior official in a possible second Donald Trump administration.

Underlining fears the institute’s funding could be cut as a result of the review, US Lieutenant-General Stephen Sklenka said in a submission that he had found its work “particularly beneficial and needed over the past five years as a senior leader and decision-maker in the Indo-Pacific region”.

Sklenka, the deputy commander of the US Indo-Pacific Command, said the institute’s “trenchant analyses have been instrumental in providing me with greater understanding of this region and craft US operational strategies accordingly”.

“ASPI distinguishes itself not merely as a group of thinkers, but as an institute comprising national security practitioners,” Sklenka said, singling out the institute’s widely cited research on the oppression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang province for praise.

The institute receives about $8 million a year in government funding – more than half its annual budget – with most coming through a block grant from the Defence Department.

 

The institute — which publishes regular policy papers, hosts conferences and provides media commentary — raises funds from foreign governments, defence firms and other sponsors.

In its submission to the review, the institute said it should be noted that “Australian government departments and agencies have a tendency to avoid funding topics that they consider sensitive (especially if it’s a topic involving China)”.

“They should therefore be incentivised to fund research on sensitive topics (including those that might upset Australia’s trading partners, notably China),” its submission said.

“Think tanks can delve into issues beyond those considered to be politically convenient for governments of the day.”

Some of the institute’s staff, who asked to remain anonymous to speak freely, are concerned the review may recommend scaling back funding for think tanks that are not attached to universities.

Opposition home affairs spokesman James Paterson has warned that any cuts to the institute as a result of the review could be viewed as a “capitulation” to Beijing.

Asked at an Australian Strategic Policy Institute conference in Canberra this week whether the government valued frank outside advice, Defence Minister Richard Marles said: “Fearless advice is always welcome.

“That’s probably the way I would sidestep that question,” he added, drawing knowing laughter from Defence insiders in the room.

 

The Varghese review is also examining government funding for other think tanks such as the Lowy Institute, the University of Sydney’s United States Studies Centre and the Australian National University’s National Security College.

A source in the Defence community, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: “There’s a lot of chatter about what the review is about and where it’s going. There’s a lot of talk about this being an anti-ASPI thing.

“The government has been unhappy with ASPI’s performance for a while, asking whether it is meeting its charter and providing value for money.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet said the review was not aimed at any one organisation and “will consider all Commonwealth funding to non-government organisations to conduct national security-related research, education and engagement activities”.

 

“This is an independent and ongoing review that will be delivered to government for consideration,” the spokesperson said. “As such, it is not appropriate to speculate about potential findings.”

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/too-anti-china-hawkish-think-tank-fears-budget-cuts-20240607.html

 

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

aukusings....

 

AUKUS in the sky with rhinestones. What’s the scam?

    by Kim Wingerei

 

The AUKUS Forum is at it again, expanding the nuclear submarine mirage into space and beyond in the hope they can jag a slice of that lovely $368B AUKUS money. What’s the scam?

We are not sure if the hangers-on at the AUKUS forum have got themselves a piece of the submarines pie yet but the scam appears to to keep trying; the latest PR is the ‘AUKUS Guardians‘, an offshoot of the AUKUS Forum, which is forever finding new ways to ride the AUKUS gravy train, led by CEO, Michael Sharpe, aka. The Rolodex Man with his 100,000 personal LinkedIn contacts.

We have previously reported on the Forum’s support of North Queensland’s Banana Shire, the AUKUS 368 in Bathurst and getting Native Americans involved. Now it’s taking to the sky with a new initiative designed to “to bolster the resilience of space-based assets integral to the civil, commercial, and national security sectors of Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom.”

It appears we have missed this part of the official AUKUS program, but according to the website,

“AUKUS partners are dedicated to minimizing the vulnerabilities of space-based assets to military strikes and natural disasters. For example, by creating new constellations of low-Earth orbit small satellites, the partners enhance their collective resilience. This strategy reduces dependency on existing assets and strengthens the ability to withstand and adapt to challenges in space.”

As always, the AUKUS Forum is big on rhetoric and short on details. In that sense, at least, it’s true to the essential nature of the AUKUS program itself.

https://michaelwest.com.au/aukus-in-the-sky-with-rhinestones-whats-the-scam/

 

READ FROM TOP....

stupid subs....

 

Written by Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher

 

A deal to supply US-made nuclear attack submarines under the AUKUS military partnership with the UK and Australia is facing increasing pressure and doubts over fears of delays. This scenario has created alarm among the Anglo allies, especially Australia, which has nothing tangible to show in terms of results in the agreement that replaced the Australian deal to acquire French-made non-nuclear submarines with AUKUS.

“But three years later, critics argue the AUKUS partnership has made little progress. It faces questions in all three countries over when it will be able to deliver. Even supporters acknowledge that AUKUS, which is meant to link the allies for decades to come, needs to show some concrete results before the end of this year – with elections coming up in two of the three partners – if it is to succeed,” Bloomberg reported.

In addition, the US, in an attempt to make up for decades of post-Cold War production cuts, is seeking to produce nuclear submarines at a pace not seen since World War II. According to a government report cited by Bloomberg, even if it meets its planned targets, a shortage of attack submarines could emerge in the United States once it begins shipping them to Australia.

“If you fast forward 10 years, I will be shocked if the Australians have a sub. It just seems very optimistic to think that all these investments will turn out by then,” said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute cited by the outlet.

Officials in all three countries are not as pessimistic but admit that the effort has faced early obstacles. Despite the lack of pessimism from these officials, Bloomberg reported, “Further clouding the outlook is the possibility that Donald Trump, who’s been skeptical of US alliances globally, wins the White House in the fall.”

Elbridge Colby, who held a top Pentagon job in the last Trump administration and is advising on plans for a possible new one, said “the jury’s still out” on the submarine part of the deal and that “AUKUS needs to be measured by delivery for the military balance in Asia in a relevant timeframe.”

With Trump consistently leading in the polls, there is every chance he will become president in January 2025. For now, the full repercussions this could have on the AUKUS agreement are unknown, especially if it turns out that prioritizing Australia’s rapid militarization is to the detriment of the US’ immediate military needs.

Nonetheless, Bloomberg reported that “feeling the pressure for results, President Biden’s administration is preparing to roll out some initial AUKUS success stories in the next few months.”

The leaders of the US, Australia, and the United Kingdom held a virtual trilateral summit on September 15, 2021, during which they signed a new agreement to intensify military cooperation: AUKUS. Under the agreement, Washington will share its nuclear-powered submarine technology with Australia, construct the infrastructure necessary for permanent deployment in Australia, and extensively cooperate in the development of the most advanced weapons systems. The Australian military will also be equipped with American weapons, and standards for combat operations will be introduced.

AUKUS was established with the intention of stepping up efforts to militarily contain China, although the three countries have not explicitly said this. Beijing has previously stated that “the three countries, for the sake of their own geopolitical interests, completely disregard the concerns of the international communities and are walking further and further down the path of error and danger” and that the deal was a “textbook case of double standard.”

Although AUKUS has achieved no tangible results, and there are already fears about delays, the organization was only months ago mulling the idea of expansion, such as to New Zealand. This is, of course, overly ambitious considering, as Bloomberg reported, there are many issues that need to be overcome.

“Officials are mainly concerned about Australia’s ability to develop the huge industry needed to support the vessels in time, according to a person familiar with the situation,” the outlet reported.

Another issue is that the US will always prioritize its immediate needs and interests over Australia’s despite any deal signed.

“Washington surprised Canberra this spring by putting only one new Virginia-class sub in its annual budget request instead of the usual two, hoping to keep the overall cost down. The news set off a firestorm in Australia, where newspapers called it a ‘potential blow’ to AUKUS,” Bloomberg reported.

Malcolm Turnbull, who served as prime minister from 2015 to 2018 and was behind the original deal with the French before Scott Morrison controversially replaced it with AUKUS, conveyed perfectly in an op-ed the current state of affairs from Australia’s perspective: “This is really a case of us being mugged by reality. So much for Australian sovereignty.”

 

https://southfront.press/us-australia-submarine-deal-under-aukus-partnership-faces-delays/

 

SEE ALSO: https://www.mup.com.au/books/nuked-paperback-softback

Nuked

The Submarine Fiasco that Sank Australia’s Sovereignty

Andrew Fowler The spectacular fallout from Australia's duplicitous AUKUS deal 

Like all military acquisition programs worth billions of dollars, Australia's decision to buy a new submarine fleet was expected to be a torturous process. But no one could have predicted the trail of wreckage it left behind, from the boulevards of Paris to the dockyards of Adelaide, as deep inside the Australian Government a secret group conspired to overthrow the winning French bid. In this tale of treachery and intrigue, Andrew Fowler exposes the lies and deception that so outraged the President of France. Interviewing many of the main people involved and talking to sources in Paris, London, Washington and Canberra, Fowler pieces together the plot to sink the French and switch to a nuclear-powered US submarine - a botched operation that severely compromised Australia's ability to defend itself.

 

 "The essential first guide to understanding the origins of the AUKUS agreement. Deeply researched and finely crafted, this book raises important and serious questions about the failure of the Morrison and Albanese governments to undertake the most basic, essential tests of policy due diligence concerning the risks and the feasibility of Australia’s aspiration to acquire nuclear-powered submarines. A must, if sobering, read about deception, policy breakdown, misplaced ambition and an ongoing failure to inform the Australian public about what the agreement signifies and entails.”JAMES CURRAN

 

 "Andrew Fowler’s one-man Commission of Inquiry is a nuclear-armed torpedo of a book and a major service to the Australian public. There is astonishing detail in every chapter. Fowler unearths the evidence, names the names, and shows how national security, which should be a goal, is used as a cover for something more sinister.”CLINTON FERNANDES

 

 

READ FROM TOP....