Washington and London rob Canberra of innocence
The situation in world politics is heating up. Contradictions between allies, mutual claims, unsubstantiated accusations, rattling weapons and so on, so on, so on. Americans say one thing, think another, do a third. The British remembered about the bygone greatness of the sea power and the world hegemon and allow themselves to do bad things even to their allied neighbors.
NATO pretends to maintain solidity and strength. At the same time, NATO member Turkey at the official level is already making territorial claims not only to those countries that fell under the alliance, like Georgia or Ukraine, but also to the member states of the bloc: Cyprus and Greece.
Another member of the alliance, Poland, practically demands the transfer of the main strike power to its territory. Moreover, it calls on the military to take away the Kaliningrad region from Russia.
Russia, China and a number of other countries are looking at this “from the other side of the street” and doing their job. Moscow is strengthening its defenses and showing NATO its readiness not only to defend itself, but also to strike back.
China, in its usual style, looks at all this with detachment and increases its own economic power, develops modern industry and strengthens its own independence from Western technologies.
Probably the main news last week - this is the creation of a new military alliance of the United States, Australia and Britain, as well as the break by Australia of a multibillion-dollar contract with France for the construction of several submarines. The Americans have made sure that now Australian billions will go to the United States or Britain. It is with these countries that Canberra is now friends.
Some analysts rub their hands together, predicting the collapse of NATO. France, like an offended girl, demonstratively refuses to talk to Americans, British and Australians.
But the question arises, where will France "go from the submarine"?
Who, besides NATO, can provide the French with a position, if not a primary ally of the United States, but a secondary one for sure?
The French have done enough shit to the countries opposing the alliance, and now these states are unlikely to agree to cooperate with Paris. It will not work to play once again the independence and strength of our own army, as it happened under General de Gaulle.
Refusal of NATO membership will lead to a decrease in the country's political status.
The principle "who dines a girl, he dances her" also works in politics.
Australia decided to strip political innocence
What do we know about Australia?
The majority of readers' perception of this country is formed by the famous film "Crocodile Dundee". A huge country-continent, with a small population, which absolutely does not care about the rest of the world. A sort of world outskirts. Not particularly useful to anyone and not particularly disturbing to anyone. At the same time, Australians are quite happy and prosperous for the most part.
Indeed, until recently, this was exactly the case. Australia lived its own life, not particularly interested in European and even world political collisions. There are no enemies nearby who would threaten the country. Friends too. All events take place somewhere far away. Australians are used to living outside of world politics, as it were.
On the one hand, this fact plays a negative role in the light of taking part in solving world problems. On the other hand, Australia successfully copes with many of its own.
The greatest achievement of such a government policy is stability in politics, the lives of ordinary people and the country's position in the world.
Today Australia is a really comfortable country to live in. 13th economy in the world with a population of only about 26 million people (54th in the world). Australians have achieved a lot in almost every area of life. Excellent medicine, education, social conquest ...
Australia has no enemies, and therefore Australia's army and defense forces are small and designed specifically for defense. The ground forces are about 45-46 thousand people, the navy has about 16 thousand people and the air force - about 17 and a half thousand people.
It is possible, of course, to perceive this state as some kind of world "khatoskrainik", but, I think, it is, rather, a world political "virgin". A country that has not saluted its many boyfriends and is a quiet member of the family - the British Commonwealth of Nations. At the same time, the Australian Union participates in many international organizations. Including G 20.
The entry of the Australian Union into the military alliance AUKUS (with the United States and Britain) means that the country will be deprived of its "innocent girl" status. Australia gets not only close friends, but also a "close enemy" - China.
Why is the new submarine contract changing the attitude of the world powers towards the AU?
It would seem, what does the world community care about some kind of contract for the production of submarines in some country?
It is clear that France was offended. And for what?
When the contract for the production of the Mistrals was terminated, Paris did not take offense. The client, in this case the customer of the PL, has the right to choose what he needs.
It is worth figuring out why Canberra ordered a submarine in France at all?
The answer is simple enough. Boats could provide protection of the Australian coast from attack. For a continental country, washed by the ocean from all sides, this is important.
Barracuda Shortfin boats are diesel-electric and therefore have a limited range.
Submarines of this type cannot compete with submarines in terms of speed. And many other things from the "filling" of the submarine are significantly inferior to the equipment of the nuclear submarine. What is normal combat duty for a nuclear submarine is impossible in principle for a submarine. Fuel, life support systems, weapons, etc. do not allow.
What have the US and Britain proposed?
The offer was precisely from the series "which you cannot refuse." A nuclear submarine with a full range of the most modern weapons and other "beauties".
From dirt to Kings. Australia is one of the few countries with a nuclear submarine ...
That sounds.
True, it is not yet clear who and what is going to build for the Australians?
Too different proposals from the United States and Britain. Everything is extremely closed. This secrecy creates an additional background for the imagination of analysts and experts.
Why do the Americans and the British need it?
Alas, concern for the safety of Australians has nothing to do with it. On the contrary, the appearance of nuclear submarines as part of the Australian Navy will lead to a decision by the opposing side to change target designations for missiles with nuclear weapons towards Australian territory.
Canberra is just a puppet in the hands of the Americans and the British. The main target of Washington and London is Beijing. The tactics of the Americans and the British are always distinguished by their predictability, the desire to repeat what has already led to a positive result.
And what do the West consider a “great victory for democracy”?
The collapse of the USSR, which led to the arms race. A monster that was destroyed by huge arms costs. At least, this is the point of view that dominates in the West.
China is more and more confident in its actions on the seas. The PRC fleet is already threatening US dominance in the region. At the same time, the overwhelming superiority of the American fleet, leveled by the proximity of the territory of the PRC, from which it is possible to strike at the US ships. And the ally in the person of Japan binds the United States hand and foot.
But there is Australia!
China's industry is increasingly demanding energy. Oil is the lifeblood of industry. And supplies of cheap oil can only be carried out across the Indian Ocean.
This is where American interest lies.
China has only two routes to this ocean. Either through the Strait of Malacca or past Australia. The Australians, having a nuclear sub, easily enter the Indian Ocean and block the strait. And the fact that Chinese ships will go under the coastal batteries of the Australian army is not considered at all.
Will there be enough nuclear submarines for the Australians?
Quite if China does not increase the quantity and quality by the time the contract ends. 8 modern nuclear submarines against 9 Chinese ones, with much worse characteristics. In addition, a certain number of boats will be from the British and American navies. So the allies will also outnumber the Chinese.
So, in the person of the Commonwealth of Australia, China gets a very serious enemy of regional importance, which can cause serious troubles in a special period. Hence follows the logical decision that the Chinese will have to start building new submarines, increase their stockpiles of nuclear weapons and deploy missiles to strike at Australia.
The Australians, on the other hand, receive the threat of nuclear strikes on their own territory, which will force them to build a serious missile defense system. Which also costs a lot.
And only the United States and Britain wash their hands. They will "gladly share their anti-missile weapons" for a fee.
A bluff to be believed
The beautiful picture is pictured above. Almost a win-win for the AUKUS unit.
China, whether it wants it or not, will have to respond to such a serious threat. Today, there are not many ways by which hydrocarbons can be delivered to the PRC. And all these paths can be destroyed in a short time.
And other adversaries of the United States, Russia and Iran, should think a hundred times before paving the way for new supply routes to China. Or spend serious money on the creation of an anti-missile defense system in the area of pipelines.
And all this can be achieved for little money, which the Australians will also pay.
If not for one thing but ...
This operation was very crudely concocted. Or designed for perfect amateurs. And the Chinese are not Europeans either. How many times have they surprised the world with their solutions to the tasks set for China?
Perhaps, for example, none of the serious analysts will say unequivocally: is China an ally or an adversary?
Yes, situationally, the PRC can be anyone, but in a strategic perspective it is a "state in itself" and "for itself."
First, let's remember what the US and British navies have in terms of multipurpose nuclear submarines?
In service with Britain today is the nuclear submarine "Astyut", and in service with the US Navy - the nuclear submarine "Virginia". It is clear that the British nuclear submarine is a priori worse than the American one.
But both of these boats are superior not only to the old Chinese “Project 091” (3 units), but also to the newer “Project 093” (6 units). Let me remind you that Australia was offered 8 modern nuclear submarines until 2030. Eight modern nuclear submarines against nine clearly outdated nuclear submarines ...
Now for the questions.
When and where can these submarines be built?
British shipyards cannot handle orders even for their own fleet. The Americans have been building Virginias for themselves for 5 years.
The Australian Adelaide that the Australian media is shouting about?
And what about the components that even their shipyards lack? And the experts who are literally worth their weight in gold?
Experts have already calculated the capabilities of the shipyard in Adelaide. During the construction of a ready-made and proven project, such as "Virginia", the creation of 8 nuclear submarines will take a minimum, with ideal supplies and logistics, the presence of highly qualified specialists and other greenhouse conditions, 14 years! That is, it is simply physically impossible to ensure the fulfillment of the contract by 2030.
Maybe we are talking about a completely new nuclear submarine?
There are no reports of any new project in the American press. But in the British one - there is. No details, but the boat is really different from the existing one. Only the problems of the new project began a long time ago, and the British cannot yet solve them. Therefore, it is doubtful that Britain will be able to meet the contract by 2030.
The calculations described above were naturally made by experts from all interested countries. And the conclusions were made. For example, Australian Defense Minister Peter Dutton said that the Australian government would not wait. The submarine will be leased.
Who? And who can give "Astyuta" and "Virginia"?
Only the United States and Britain.
I don't understand why there was a rush to announce the formation of a new military bloc and advertise the Australian nuclear submarine, if the plans are not feasible a priori?
Scare China?
It is doubtful that Beijing will be scared.
And the fact that Canberra will receive an answer is not even discussed. Not military, but tough. And by the time the nuclear submarine appears, completely different issues will be relevant. Although, everything can be.
The Chinese, I repeat, know how to surprise.
Some conclusions
Considering the new knot tied by the Americans and the British is quite difficult.
At first glance, it is obvious that the United States has decided to send Europe to float freely. Washington understands that the situation has gone too far, and the likelihood of a military conflict is high enough. The Americans do not want to take part in a possible war.
On the other hand, there are huge investments made in the European economy that need to be returned. A serious military bloc, which today is the strongest in the world. Well-established connections in business, politics, culture and other areas ...
The shift of emphasis to the east indicates that Beijing has become the main enemy for Washington and London.
It is China that is economically destroying the entire system of interstate relations built in the postwar years. The goal of the Anglo-Saxons is the Chinese economy. Moreover, Russia, having a military advantage, nevertheless does not express a desire to solve problems by military means.
I am amazed at the sums used by the politicians of the new alliance. Hundreds of billions to complete a mythical task. Such investments are possible only in one case, if there is confidence that they will return.
How can I get my money back?
I think there is no need to explain. I don’t want to become a messenger of trouble, but it smells of conflict strongly.
One more thing.
I don't understand the logic of the Australian government. By entering into a deal with such a powerful state as the United States, Australia will lose some of its sovereignty. At least in the area of relations with China. The country is quite successful and without commitments to Washington.
What was the reason for such a change in the orientation of the state?
So, I repeat, the most interesting knot is being tightened ...
As strange as it may sound, international relations began to resemble a card game of poker. Everyone is bluffing ...
Let's see how Beijing responds in the coming days ...
Information