#aukus

[twitterexile]

DonaldTrump R*PED a 13 year old

Keep talking, keep sharing. 

[thebushtelegraph]

So the US and UK are going to park nuclear subs near where I live.

I live in one of the most isolated regions in the world. Is anywhere safe nowadays? Real question cos I am going wherever that is.

I despise everything about AUKUS.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-will-have-access-western-australia-nuclear-submarine-shipyard-minister-says-2025-09-14/

[ralnorthedegenerate-blog]

Keating says US Aukus review could ‘save Australia from itself’ as Morrison urges against overinterpreting move

Former PM Malcolm Turnbull and former foreign minister Bob Carr say Australia must seize chance to urgently review its defence needs

The famous Vader quote springs to mind here. "I am altering the deal, pray I do not alter it further"

Its frustrating to watch this poisoned chalice be imbibed by imbeciles, after being told time and time again that we as citizens did not want this, nor wanted $300B of additional spending on security assets that wouldn't be in service till the next ice age…

Considering that one side can just choose to 'Not' deliver what was agreed on or alter the terms and arrangements, seems like it was always a one sided deal and not something a government that takes its role as custodian and protector seriously, should have ever acknowledged but here we are…

The timeline for construction considering; the manufacturing issues within the US, its own defense requirements, and the fact that- oh I don't know- the current administration is sparking a civil conflict, just might raise some concerns in Canberra that we, like our fascinations with Nuclear power, will not be able to see it deployed until 2040-50 if we even see it at all. And even then, it is becoming increasingly likely that instead of a sovereign capability in our ports, we will instead have subs for hire, paying for both the construction and prolonged MLM scheme to even have them in our country, let alone the costs to run them.

Art of the deal I guess…

But I want to delve a bit deeper here.

Why are we doing this?

It is clear as day that this deal doesn't stack up for Australia so why bother? Considering the possible cost blowouts, timeline delays, and host of other vendors we could have approached for this- it seems like we chose the worst option, the highest price and longest wait.

Australia is (and pardon my use of the severely overstated trope line) in a 'unique' position.

More than anything, as an island nation, we require a navy to both secure our waters and our trade routes. "Against what" you might ask, well China of course… And if the irony isn't lost on you there, congratulations!

But to be fair, we have seen a build up of key indo-asia specific regional players and both their defense asset deployment and rhetoric. This was clear a few months ago from this post's date, when a Chinese Navy flotilla navigated the international water boarder around Australia. And being fair yet again, we do this as well and in the ever prolonged dick waving that is the flexing of military might, this hardly qualifies as a reason to spend on its own.

But since we have also seen a use of military to posture around Taiwan and Indonesia, as well as a large effort to procure deals with our surrounding neighbors through gifts or funds for infrastructure, we are becoming increasingly worried about their force projection into Oceania, and in this context, it makes sense that Australia would want to make sure one of our key components in our Naval defense doctrine is top of the line, and readily available.

But there in lies a problem- we need it now, not in decades- now. So cutting the deal with the French made the delay even greater, and we still had to pay them for the contract breach, which absolutely should be added onto the final cost of this deal, as it was part of what we had to initially pay for something we never even got.

Thanks conservatives…

So why go with the US option?

America is our closest defense partner, and has been for decades. The information and tech we share is akin to America/Canada, as is befitting a country that holds the same values of democratic rule (e.g a slow decent into autocracy and the death of the utopic ideal) So it does make sense to go with them when it comes to arms and equipment, both because of the aforementioned defense ties and large scale production of quality defense products.

You could buy 100 T-90s, or 10 Abrams, And in every situation, you buy 10 Abrams, because they are that fucking good. American military industrial complex?

I find it rather simple.

But that doesn't extend to all facets of military production, especially when it comes to ship building. The US is lagging behind on its own capabilities, and without investment into this sector from the current administration (who are much to busy golfing, leaking classified information to our enemies and imprisoning and deporting toddlers to worry about such things) it will continue to decline and both ours and America's capabilities will not meet required targets.

And this hasn't been a recent issue, this was an issue for years prior the Aukus arrangement, we knew about it and one of the requirements under Biden and now Trump, was an increased spending in ship building sectors to help meet demand. But this has not happened, and now we are in this position where we have to continue to fund the creation of subs that do not have the capacity to be created yet.

So again, to summarize; The subs will not be built on time, for a huge cost, will most likely not be ours should they arrive, or could not be built at all and we will have no recourse to claim that money back, due to the current administrations aversion to taking responsibility.

Why then do we persist in this funding folly?

To answer that, we must return to our old friend of rhetorical affirmation…

"What do you think will happen, when we pull out of a multi-billion dollar pay check for America under the worlds most egotistical topee?"

The retaliation for what will, it absolutely will, be seen as a betrayal if Australia removes itself from the deal will be catastrophic, especially so if we think we don't need to pay a cent afterwards.

If we decided today, that we didn't want to spend anymore on this clown car of developmental woes, we would be raked over the coals by the current administration through both economic and diplomatic means. Because that is how the current Trump admin operates when it comes to those it deems bad, and I don't think I need to point to anywhere as an example, because 'everywhere' is a fucking example at this point.

And if we don't affirm a change to the deal that would, as previously mentioned, reduce our naval capacity to a subscription to OnlySubs- the same result would be on the table, just with more whining from Mr.Art Deal.

Now, under Biden, this deal still wasn't great- the same issues just without the whole fascism stuff going on. But since in the last 4 years, global politics has shifted dramatically, we are now in an even worse position, still holding the chalice.

So what are our options now?

We can choose to go down the path of divestiture, which would pretty much spell out martyr in bright green and gold letters for the world to see, this will greatly impact Australia, especially for lower and middle class, who will have to bare the brunt of another sharp cost of living rise, should America demand its dues through economic strangleholds.

We have the option of simply paying off the debt using defense spending, but that is political suicide. To do it twice for the same capability is insane and will just mean that the conservatives will return to power again sooner, as they 'love' pointing out the center parties budget blowouts, even when they are the ones that orchestrated them… And then the problems with the rise of fascism in the west will continue to grow here.

We can continue to pay into the scheme, until the administration changes in… Oh god 4 fucking years, ITS ONLY BEEN 5 MONTHS WHAT THE FUCK…. Which again is not really a solution either, as we are basically throwing money into a high risk, low reward investment portfolio that can be audited at any time.

None of these options are good for Australia.

But that is the point of a poisoned chalice after all…

So who do we blame?

Oh that one is easy.

It is former disgraced Prime Minister: Scott Shitshimself Morrison seen here at Trump's inauguration party.

(First time putting an image in a tumblr post mid text so if it doesn't format correct, I blame me)

He is currently advocating that we should keep the deal, because of course he his- its his deal and it enriches America at a time where it needs a lot of money extorted from its allies to fund all the state sponsored kidnapping and military birthday parades.

He is also on Trumps shortlist for ambassador to Australia, not that it his choice, ousting the current Kevin Rudd, who has been tirelessly fighting against right wing propaganda here and abroad, while navigating the collective interests of both countries and has been doing this for years since leaving the PM's office.

I could go on for hours about how slimy this man is, but for my own sanity, I will refrain.

(ok I won't for a second because I feel like some context for sliminess is needed, umm- he tried to be a king… No I'm not kidding- he swore himself into multiple ministries in secret to hoard power under the guise of Covid measures, which is something you should not be able to do, then lied about how many portfolios he undertook from his other ministers. Basically, the PM can't just snap his fingers and order things, doesn't work like that, we have ministers who are the heads of departments and make decisions, so he was able to go over their heads and veto what they try to do without them knowing until the decision is finalized and no one could tell him he can't because he is technically the minister for that department. He is a slimy piece of power hungry shit, he's also a member of Hillsong and dear god that should speak volumes about the type of religious man he is(n't) )

He is the reason we are in this position in the first place and all valid criticism of his actions should be placed squarely at his feet. So the fact that he can be asked without a hint of irony about the taste of the poison he so kindly left us with, is fucking wild to me.

And if you ever see him in public, please tell him he is a cunt.

So what now?

Get up and start calling your local members, tell them you don't want this.

Make yourself heard on online platforms.

Advocate for the divestiture, tell people about it-

Yes its hard, some people do not either understand the ramifications of this deal and some people switch off of politics all together but doing nothing at all, results in nothing.

The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.

And while I do understand that it shouldn't be up to us to do all this…

I turn once again to rhetorical affirmation…

"Who else will?"

[fireangel]

Hey USA, Fuck you 🖕

[sublimeobservationarcade]

Treasonous Trump’s America Is No Longer A Reliable Ally

Australia is faced with the reality of treasonous Trump’s America is no longer a reliable ally. Switching sides during a war is not the behaviour of the America we have come to know and rely on. The latest withdrawal of US support for Ukraine in its fight to resist the illegal invasion by Russia makes a mockery of the last 3 years. It also condemns the unwise decision by the Morrison government…

Treasonous Trump’s America Is No Longer A Reliable Ally

[cheshire-cat-talks]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Adam Bandt (@adambandt)

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Mike Luckovich ::

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

February 10, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

FEB 11, 2024

A key story that got missed yesterday was that the Senate voted 64–19 to allow a bill that includes $95.34 billion in aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan to advance a step forward. In terms of domestic politics, this appears to be an attempt by those who controlled the Republican Party before Trump to push back against Trump and the MAGA Republicans. 

MAGA lawmakers had demanded border security measures be added to a national security supplemental bill that provided this international aid, as well as humanitarian aid to Gaza, but to their apparent surprise, a bipartisan group of lawmakers actually hammered out that border piece. Trump immediately demanded an end to the bill and MAGA obliged on Wednesday, forcing the rest of the party to join them in killing the national security supplemental bill. House Republicans then promptly tried to pass a measure that provided funding for Israel alone.

At stake behind this fight is not only control of the Republican Party, but also the role of the U.S. in the world—and, for that matter, its standing. And much of that fight comes down to Ukraine’s attempt to resist Russia’s invasions of 2014 and 2022. 

Russian president Vladimir Putin is intent on dismantling the rules-based international order of norms and values developed after World War II. Under this system, international organizations such as the United Nations provide places to resolve international disputes, prevent territorial wars, and end no-holds-barred slaughter through a series of agreements, including the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the U.N. Genocide Convention, and the Geneva Conventions on the laws of war. 

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, deliberate targeting of civilian populations, and war crimes are his way of thumbing his nose at the established order and demanding a different one, in which men like him dominate the globe. 

Trump’s ties to Russia are deep and well documented, including by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which was dominated by Republicans when it concluded that Trump’s 2016 campaign team had worked with Russian operatives. In November 2022, in the New York Times Magazine, Jim Rutenberg pulled together testimony given both to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation and the Senate Intelligence Committee, transcripts from the impeachment hearings, and recent memoirs. 

Rutenberg showed that in 2016, Russian operatives had presented to Trump advisor and later campaign manager Paul Manafort a plan “for the creation of an autonomous republic in Ukraine’s east, giving Putin effective control of the country’s industrial heartland, where Kremlin-armed, -funded, and -directed ‘separatists’ were waging a two-year-old shadow war that had left nearly 10,000 dead.” 

But they were concerned that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) might stand in their way. Formed in 1947 to stand against Soviet expansion and now standing against Russian aggression, NATO is a collective security alliance of 31 states that have agreed to consider an attack on any member to be an attack on all.

In exchange for weakening NATO, undermining the U.S. stance in favor of Ukraine in its attempt to throw off the Russians who had invaded in 2014, and removing U.S. sanctions from Russian entities, Russian operatives were willing to put their finger on the scales to help Trump win the White House. 

When he was in office, Trump did, in fact, try to weaken NATO—as well as other international organizations like the World Health Organization—and promised he would pull the U.S. out of NATO in a second term, effectively killing it. Rutenberg noted that Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine looks a lot like an attempt to achieve the plan it suggested in 2016. But because there was a different president in the U.S., that invasion did not yield the results Putin expected. 

President Joe Biden stepped into office more knowledgeable on foreign affairs than any president since Dwight Eisenhower, who took office in 1953. Biden recognized that democracy was on the ropes around the globe as authoritarian leaders set out to dismantle the rules-based international order. He also knew that the greatest strength of the U.S. is its alliances. In the months after he took office, Biden focused on shoring up NATO, with the result that when Russia invaded Ukraine again in February 2022, a NATO coalition held together to support Ukraine.

By 2024, far from falling apart, NATO was stronger than ever with the addition of Finland. Sweden, too, is expected to join shortly. 

But far more than simply shore up the old system, the Biden administration has built on the stability of the rules-based order to make it more democratic, encouraging more peoples, nations, and groups to participate more fully in it. In September 2023, Secretary of State Antony Blinken explained to an audience at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies that the end of the Cold War made people think that the world would inevitably become more peaceful and stable as countries cooperated and emphasized democracy and human rights. 

But now, Blinken said, that era is over. After decades of relative stability, authoritarian powers have risen to challenge the rules-based international order, throwing away the ideas of national sovereignty and human rights. As wealth becomes more and more concentrated, people are losing faith in that international order as well as in democracy itself. In a world increasingly under pressure from authoritarians who are trying to enrich themselves and stay in power, he said, the administration is trying to defend fair competition, international law, and human rights. 

Historically, though, the U.S. drive to spread democracy has often failed to rise above the old system of colonialism, with the U.S. and other western countries dictating to less prosperous countries. The administration has tried to avoid this trap by advancing a new form of international cooperation that creates partnerships and alignments of interested countries to solve discrete issues. These interest-based alignments, which administration officials refer to as “diplomatic variable geometry,” promise to preserve U.S. global influence and perhaps an international rules-based order but will also mean alliances with nations whose own interests align with those of the U.S. only on certain issues.  

In the past three years, the U.S. has created a new security partnership with Australia and the United Kingdom, known as AUKUS, and held a historic, first-ever trilateral leaders’ summit at Camp David with Japan and the Republic of Korea. It has built new partnerships with nations in the Indo-Pacific region, as well as with Latin American and Caribbean countries, to address issues of immigration; two days ago the Trilateral Fentanyl Committee met for the fourth time in Mexico. This new system includes a wider range of voices at the table—backing the membership of the African Union in the Group of 20 (G20) economic forum, for example—advancing a form of cooperation in which every international problem is addressed by a group of partner nations that have a stake in the outcome. 

At the same time, the U.S. recognizes that wealthier countries need to step up to help poorer countries develop their own economies rather than mine them for resources. Together with G7 partners, the U.S. has committed to deliver $600 billion in new investments to develop infrastructure across the globe—for example, creating a band of development across Africa.

Biden’s is a bold new approach to global affairs, based on national rights to self-determination and working finally to bring an end to colonialism. 

The fight over U.S. aid to Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and the other countries with which we have made partnerships is not about saving money—most of the funds for Ukraine are actually spent in the U.S.—or about protecting the U.S. border, as MAGA Republicans demonstrated when they killed the border security bill. It is about whether the globe will move into the 21st century, with all its threats of climate change, disease, and migration, with ways for nations to cooperate, or whether we will be at the mercy of global authoritarians. 

Trump’s 2024 campaign website calls for “fundamentally reevaluating NATO’s purpose and NATO’s mission,” and in a campaign speech in South Carolina today, he made it clear what that means. Trump has long misrepresented the financial obligations of NATO countries, and today he suggested that the U.S. would not protect other NATO countries that were “delinquent” if they were attacked by Russia. “In fact,” he said, “I would encourage [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want.”

—

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[m-ushroomtale]

.

🍿???