This certainly makes a change from the other commentators on the Internet who claim to be experts on Australia but actually know nothing about Australia. The only things I would add are that the AUKUS technology transfer agreement is also designed to make Australia a more self reliant partner for the US in the Indo-Pacific (Nuclear propulsion technology is just the start) and that some say that the US has benefited more over the years from the secret bases on Australian territory such as Pine Gap and North West Cape than Australia has. On that theme, France is so stretched worldwide that she benefits more from the signed "Australia/France Strategic Partnership" in terms of meeting her commitments to her million plus citizens in the South Pacific than Australia does. Perhaps you could do a video on Britain's return to the Indo-Pacific under Boris Johnson's Global Britain which has a lot to do with the British enthusiasm for AUKUS. Johnson believes that the decision to withdraw from East of Suez five decades ago was a mistake. "East of Suez" was also not well received in Australia by the right of centre government of the day.
Guy, thank you so much for bringing up those very important points. I think they will enrich the discussion with the community. I mostly agree with you. The US wants Australia to be more self-reliant and more capable to assist its forces. Thus, its critical to build-up solid capabilities in the region. IMO SUBS in particular will be significant for two reasons. Intelligence and special forces related operations and the control of allied and adversary SLOCs. On a side note, I read an interview with a NATO official some time ago, and he argued that US tech might be still off-limits and that the new subs might be based on the UK Dreadnought class. Good point on France. That'll definitely be a topic for a next video. I guess, is not only an Indo-Pacific rebound for Johnson's UK but for Europe in general, however much less committed. It is to be seen whether Johnson's Global Britain is a bluff or he'll find the resources and the support to back up his wager.
SSNs for Australia don't really make it more independant - without nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, we can never be independant against some of the nations in our region. What having SSNs does for Australia is demonstrates our commitment to carring our share of the load, finanicial, military and naval. That's something the US was not happy about for decades with it's NATO partners. That means the US doesn't have to have quite as many SSNs in this region and opens up additional operating bases and possibly access to yards to refit US vessels, as well as basing for land and air forces.
@@1337flite That's a great analysis. Also, for the US is important to have repairs and refitting facilities in the southern Pacific. As of now, I think Guam and a couple other bases are capable of performing those works.
Thank you so much, Jeremy! It's quite tricky to talk about topics that usually take tomes to just barely scratch the surface, so it makes me really happy and relieved to read your comment. It sometimes happens that I find useful info or to remember about on-point facts only after publishing though!
Speaking as an Australian, this was an excellent summary of our strategic posture. Very well done! Looking forward to future videos on this subject and other Indo-Pacific powers.
What so many people miss who comment on this Aukus deal, is that all three parties, the Us, Uk & Australia are more focused on the future of cooperation between each other. And the shared values and shared cultural ties . Yes this deal opens the Nuclear door for Australia in more than just submarines. But this is because of the shared values and close cultural ties and decades of very close military cooperation. This deal has very little to do about French submarines, other than to acknowledge that they did not meet the future security needs of Australia. This deal has been 75 years in the making. To be honest, Iam quite surprised it took so long for it to come into being. I suppose it was truly a byproduct of Brexit. As it would have been much more difficult with the UK still a part of Europe. Some people are surprised that the US would trust the Aussies with Nuclear tech. The more surprising aspect for me as a American is why we would not. The United States does not have any better or more trustworthy ally than Australia. We have other close friends such as Britain, Canada, Europe etc. but the Australian people are essentially the as close as any country to the US & UK. It makes perfect sense to me that your cousin, who has fought and died at your side for over 100 years has more than earned the right to be trusted with some of your most sensitive military technology . This AUKUS deal is just formalizing what the enlisted men from all three countries have always known. Who better to support you and watch your back than your close cousins . Who have long shown there commitment to support you for so long. I hope the French people understand, this deal is certainly not meant as any slight against them. They also are very close and very trusted allies going back to our begging. But in the pacific, giving the Aussies US/UK nuclear submarine tech will allow them to help protect all of our extended families. And let’s be honest, unless the French we’re offering length of life propulsion tech like the US/UK has in there submarines. The Australian gov could not afford it. Australia does not currently have a domestic nuclear program. Perhaps one day they will. But for now, having US /UK reactor tech allows them to run nuclear submarines without needing a nuclear program at home. I truly believe that in the future when The French government gets over their anger about loosing out on the last deal. They will realize that with Australia having nuclear subs, will GREATLY help keep the French security issue in check also. Australia would NOT be able to afford to have nuclear submarines WITHOUT using the US/UK nuclear propulsion systems. This deal was THE ONLY option for Australia in the Strategic sense. I hope ALL PARTIES involved understand this. WELCOME to the clubhouse MATES !!!!!
I believe you have an overly naive and chummy outlook on this matter. Sure the US, UK, and Australia are close in a lot of ways that make Aukus seem like a no Brainer, but we're not that close either. We're a lot closer culturally and historically with the UK (and Europe) than with the US yet the UK and Euro are on the complete opposite side of the planet and have essentially nothing to do with the goings on in our indo pacific region. We have partnered with the US in their major incursions over the past century (but this is more and more been recognized locally as a shitty arrangement because the US War machine is self serving) - the SSN deal is frankly another shitty deal the US have roped us into. Almost all the real material benefits go to the US, we don't get a nuclear industry, we don't benefit from shipbuilding industry, we get boats in exchange for payment which need to be serviced by US technicians at ongoing cost. Then we're expected to contribute these boats to the US' foreign policy agenda in the south China sea (which is not what we want SSNs for in the first place; we only want nuclear engines because our maritime territory is so vast). SSNs are in fact inferior compared to smaller AIP diesel electric subs especially in the theater of the south China sea. - on top of that we have to wait 20 years for delivery of these boats in the meantime the US is generous enough to offer us leases on old SSNs which were otherwise slated for decommissioning 🤨 to say nothing of how monumentally pissed our regional neighbours will be if down the road there's an accident in the already crowded China sea waters and one of our nuke boats contaminates their fishing waters while we're busy playing world police with America - 20 years from now China will most likely have well & truly taken the crown of the largest economy in the world, and a lot of their long-term foreign investment plans will be nearing completion or already delivering. It's not in our best interests to fight the inevitable change, we don't need to handcuff ourselves to the Yanks- with the state of their economy they'd fuck us any chance they get over China and they already have stolen from our trade. We're an Eastern economy, and the first (and the last) place ALL the Asian climate refugees will be fleeing to
Excellent analysis. As a dual Aussie/Anerican citizen who has spent half my life living/educated/working in both Oz and the States, I could have ghost written your comments. Well done, good buddy/mate!
@@garryjones7893- I fear you miss the point. What we might wish the world would become is not the same thing as what the world is likely to become. America has always been an unreliable ally, remember Suez in 1956! Now, having embarked down a path to fratricidal conflict, they are less reliable than ever. I hate to say this, but the sooner we kow tow to China, the safer we are likely to be.
France was salty becaude it was a big contract to create jobs and enhance its economy. Moreover, France did ask Australia many times if they didnt' prefer nuclear subs and it was always no. Then just like you said, Australia found that the French subs were not good for future conflict. It made the deliveries and program very late thus increasing the price (France would not gain more than the initial 9 billion). Then the night before the AUKUS pact is signed, which is more AUS pact (We see you opportunistic UK that would be even more useless than France in the Indo-pacific), Australia break the contract with France. Not letting a chance for France to even understand why. Tbh it was not very "professionnal" from Australia and not a good way to treat one of your allies AND regional neighbours.
the likely hood of the french coming to the aid of australia is why Australia walked away.. i do not give two fks about the french im glad we cancelled the deal
Australian. Usually most foreign made videos on Australia are full of mistakes. This one was excellent. Subbed, liked, followed and notifications set to all. Great work.
@@Shilo-fc3xm i wrote this to original poster we can support Australia militarily. We are wealthy enough to do it, but we would have to re start our manufacturing sector, re introduce tarriffs and stop mass immigration . I would be happy to do this. Australia needs to be capable to defend itself if the US fails in western pacific against China. Your statment from 5:02 to 5:14 is wrong. There was no exchange. As a British people, Australia defended empire. That simple. Not a matter of deals and exchanges. US partnership totally different to British The problem is a global world order we can do without. It should be multi polar. These American values you talk about, are not those of the average American or Australian. It's greedy free traders who if anything have sent Australia backwards. It's the fault of the USA this is happening. USA took manufacturing offshore and made China strong. Fools! Now we're all paying for it Trade and commerce and foreign students have destroyed the future of Australia. We used to have free education and you could get to university on merit, now we have to pay and all place taken by wealthy foreign students We need about 30 conventional subs forward deployed in Malaysia, Singapore, Port Blair, and Brunei. Much more effective than 8 nuke boats that can't even manouvre in the shallows, although we should still have nuke boats, a mixed fleet Ir is an absolute disgrace that this situation has emerged via greed of largely USA free trading hegemony, China who in principle has a right to get involved for a share, and if China wins, we get the same thing only worse Personally I would like to see the British empire reform, Canada, Australia, NZ and UK as a trading block as per the EU, and I don't care what USA or China think
@@alanbstard4 I appreciate the points you make and agree with most and am happy, even grateful to be corrected on the rest. Thank you for doing so. Sincerely appreciated. I'm about to read it again. Just so you can see we're on the same page, this is one of perhaps fifteen posts I have made on Quora on this particular issue. I bowed to your guidance, not because I lack the capacity to argue my point but because I suspect you may be right. "They are talking about the spread of American-styled capitalism, broad-scale shallow consumerism, cultural indoctrination (and inundation), our willingness to follow them down whatever rabbit hole they decide to plunge themselves into and our support of the American Federal Reserve and by extension, Petrodollar. Australia has a population of 25 million people. Not enough to defend itself against its most prominent threats. Way I see it, this leaves us with three choices. 1) Grow our population rapidly at the cost of our existing narrative and ecological sustainability. 2) Continue to pay in kind for the protection of the US defense umbrella at the cost of our dignity and autonomy. 3) Explore the options available to us through a CANZUK styled union with Britain, Canada and New Zealand. “CANZUK is the anacronym for Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. As a trading and free movement concept, it has existed since the end of World War Two. CANZUK is currently gaining momentum on the back of BREXIT. Aside from being the only union in the world that would use a common language it also shares values, history, proven trust, loyalty, the same moral and ethical ideologies and political and legal systems. That alone would make it both unique and extremely powerful. (By contrast, the European Union (as just one example) has 24 different languages, eleven different legal and political systems, varying degrees of systemic corruption, stability, and affluence ranging from dirt poor to extremely wealthy, 28 not only different but often opposing moral, ethical, social and cultural ideologies and 3000 years of the most brutal wars ever fought in human history.) Further, CANZUK would also be the fourth-largest economy on the planet, the fourth largest military, the largest union by area, as well as enable us all to get out from underneath the Chinese trade monopoly and the Americans without souring that relationship and give us back our autonomy and dignity.”
Great analysis 👍 It's good to hear someone actually taking AUKUS geopolitics seriously, rather than the usual "Australia's just hiding behind its white friends again, ugh cringe! " or how the media has lapped up Macron's strongman routine when Australia cancelled the contract. Great work, you put journalists to shame!
Kutonarch! Thanks for the kind comment! I don't know if I deserve such praise, but it feels good nonetheless!😳 What you say is true, there has been a lot of oversimplification and generalization concerning AUKUS, and the linked deal for the subs. What appeared on mainstream news outlets was the coverage of what happened, so France getting pissed and the fact of acquiring nuclear vessels and not the diesel ones. Not many went on the whys of such decision. IMO, that's not really informative and useful to have people critically understand why their representatives made those specific choices. Paraphrasing a famous maxim, you might not think about geopolitics, but geopolitics thinks about you.
A lot forget or do not know of Frances cancellation on being a part of the Euro fighter, what is worse is they also tried getting one other country to pul out of that deal and join thier's. Was better suited for them and they should see it is Australia's best choice too.
@@micksmith-vt5yi True! Well, apparently they did a great Job with the Rafale, the jet they built instead of the Eurofighter. France's industry is pretty strong, but perhaps there were other considerations involved in the final decision.
AUKUS was also accelerated by the fact that Canada and NZ are increasingly being seen as untrustworthy partners in the existing 5-eyes alliance. Both Canada and NZ pander to Chinese interests (i.e. the connection between the Trudeau family and China is well established). Thus, as Chinese belligerence and capability grow (esp. around cyber), they are being viewed as critical flaws in the ability of western democracy's to mount a defense and thus, pose the greatest national security risk to Australia, UK, US.
@@SuperSnickerS19of88 All I hear day and night is “China Bad”, I could not even name one pro China English Channel, so I am really not sure what disinformation you are referring to? Perhaps you have been watching too much CPP state media?
@@SuperSnickerS19of88 I don’t know, I can not even hear anything from China. Why don’t you name one, since you are such a expert on “Chinese disinformation” ?
Dude you are a absolute rising star on geopolitical RUclips. I love how you focus on Asia as to me it is by far the most interesting geopolitical region. Can't wait to see your channel hopefully grow over the coming months and years.
Thanks, Devin!❤️ Is so interesting and so under covered in the West! Can't wait to do more on the channel! If you have any suggestions or topics you would like to see on the channel, pls let me know!
@@Kamome163 I think a interesting topic would be the growing conflict of interest between Russia and China in Central Asia and how Sino-Russo could become worse with time as one country is on the rise and looking to expand their influence all throughout the region while the other is having major political issues both internal and external has a crumbling economy has terrible demographics(Not that China doesn't have demographics problems of their own) and as time progresses is going to have more and more trouble exerting influence in central and east Asia. Sorry for the long comment lol😅
@@devintaylor1420 Devin, thanks for the suggestions. That's definitely a topic worth looking into! There's actually lots of people who oversimplify sino-russian relations as fundamental allies. Which they are not. ish. That's a great topic! Thanks again!
That'll be a major draw for the US, that 40% of Antarctica, all those minerals, to be protected against other powers that also have navies. An annex of the American Lake. We could just leave the penguins alone but that's not likely, is it. Better some UN monitoring force of Antarctica as a world park. Just thinking aloud -
That 40% Australian Antarctic deal must have been calculated before anyone thought of it as anything but Penguins and Ice. Like the Middle East is just sand and Camels.
A succinct and clearly presented overview of Australia's strategic position, its background and current realities. Thank you for fine work. I look forward to more of this standard.
New Zealand policy makers mean very little. Their main concern is reduce the military down to nothing, kiss up to the Chinese, and roll over and show your belly to any threat... Or bludge off the security provided by your allies while you keep bringing up how you pulled your weight 70 years ago.
@@andrewjohnwilliams6951 Which new boats are these? And are you saying we are pulling our weight in defence spending cos I would certainly call BS on that. Oh and who relies on us??
Absolutely love your content Franck, thank you for the high quality video once again. Can't wait to see what video comes next in the Indo-Pacific! Maybe in the future one could be on Taiwan's defensive capabilities/strategy for delaying the PRC for as long as possible until the US/Quad and potentially others came to their assistance. Back to the video, I wonder why Australia doesn't have more security treaties with neighbors in the Indo-Pacific, like Japan or South Korea for example.
Thanks bud! Well, speaking of which the next one will be on Taiwan, but it'll focus on why the PRC won;t invade it! But IMO it'll be pretty interesting for future videos to analyze Taiwan capabilities. I think Australia has inked a strategic partnership[ with both, but of course, is not on the same level as an alliance. I guess for Australia not showing herself being too much against China, as a full alliance with Japan would sign, is also part of its strategy.
Great analysis, it would’ve been good to see Australia’s minor outlying islands included in the map (i.e. cocos/keeling, Christmas, Macquarie, heard & mac, Antarctica). Also Australia’s eez includes the coral sea islands and extends further north toward Timor. Whilst these are minor, they do present geopolitical contention for Canberra
Love your videos friend. I'm Australian, and I am very intrigued to see whether we purchase the US Virginia class (block 5's) or the UK Astute class. Both are technological marvels, but vastly different at the same time. I personally think we will choose Astute class - smaller boat, smaller crews, etc.
Thank you for the kind comment! I agree, I believe those subs will be based on UK's astute or perhaps the dreadnought projects. Let's see what will happen!
Another great perspective! Thank you :) Australia's situation is tricky. Internal issue such as population is setting the country up for even wider power limitation in the future. The current acquired military technology and the time it will take to actually come into operational use + the alliance network all seems like patchwork at best. (Well, this is my own view on it. Apologies if mine didnt match up to other viewers) :)
Jeff, thank you for sharing your comment! Agree, the situation is quite tricky and the new frigates and subs will take decades to be operational. Plus the political debate is also quite heightened on these issues. No apologies, on the opposite this channel welcomes those who have different views! Otherwise, we couldn't learn a thing, don't you agree?
@@Kamome163 I totally agree and appreciate your openness! I will contribute as much as I can coz your work is great and many viewers can learn about what makes this world function and how it could turn out. Many may get political and upset but, only a few can see things as it is. Even less, change the geographic limitations that can reshape the world. Cheers!
@@mynameisChizzle That's great to hear that, and it is just brilliant to have people like you in the Kamome community! That's quite the truth, but that's also why I think it's important to talk about these topics from an objective perspective, providing facts and sources. I think this can help more to critically understand why countries behave they way they do. Plus, that's also a great exercise for me to put into practice things I learned and to understand more the world we live in.
I agree, Jeff. I hope and pray that Australia's somewhat leftist, current government wakes up completely to the threat that China's ambitions pose to the rest of the Pacific region, and indeed, the entire world. Taking firearms out of Australian citizens' hands some years back was not a good strategic move, in hindsight.
Small cool thing; Thank you for pronouncing ASEAN right. So many channels literally do not seem to do their proper research, and call ASEAN as "A-sian", instead of "Ah-See-Un". Keep up the in-depth research, as well as addicting maps.😄
Wow for someone with so little content already delivered your take is so accurate & concise. I can see the beginnings of a major new voice representing Geo politics without obvious political influence that can speak of facts without deferring to the hidden masters actually pulling the strings which in their amateur ways are patently obvious. I've subscribed & thank you
Looking forward to seeing this channel to explode. These videos set in Asia and Australia are awesome. Something cool would be a series where it establishes the 2 main sides of the ideological and economic war of china v USA. And the sides and difficulties both sides face. A video on India similar to this would also be awesome to.
Really excellent commentary on my own country's maritime strategy: this video should be required viewing for every Federal parliamentarian. I was remined of a recent comment by a noted Australian strategic commentator at UNSW: ( I paraphrase) that Australia has a 'one punch' navy which totally lacks any resilience'. Unfortunately this is true, and you have made the point in your video commenting on the inability of a nation with only 25 million population to sustain a large fleet. With only 46 vessels of all types, the RAN is pretty small- I think from memory that the JapaneseMaritime Self Defence Forces have...145? I think that a lot of people have trouble conceiving of Australia being a large country, but actually a very small nation. The other thought from the defence commentator was that one should view Australia like a human body , but with all of its arteries lying outside it: these are the long external SLOC's which we are totally reliant on, but cannot secure. Again, another key point you made in your video. So: well done, and i'll certainly be subscribed and tuned in to your channel fron now on!
@@Kamome163 After the Fall of Singapore, Churchill tried to block the Australian Divisions in North Africa from returning home, insisting Europe(Britain) came first. Then when the soldiers were in transit, again Churchill interfered and tried to get them sent to India instead, to defend a rich colony at the expense of their homeland. Australians came out of the whole WW2 affair quite bitter and ready to throw all in with the US.
Well stated. As an Aussie, I believe we should embrace nuclear power and create our own nuclear industry. This to eventually be more independent and be able to stand on our own for the most part and be a more supportive Allie to the US and UK. We do have a very capable amphibious capability but I would like to have a air support capability. We should have LO3 and LO4 as F35B carriers, 8 to 12 planes per ship and wing drone capability. Also we should have at lease 12 subs.
Australia with our current population could not hope to defend ourselves alone. But thank God we are starting to take positive steps. Our acquisitions may seem small in comparison to what we may face, but with the obtaining of the intellectual property with the weapons systems we are not limited in the quantity we may choose to build. With Aukus we will soon see our own missile production in country here, our airbases are being upgraded some lengthened to handle strategic bombers. 1.4.billion dollars has been approved to build new army barracks.and the list goes on and on. Currently defence spending is around 42.6 billion dollars annually and this is rising, our defence force may be small at present but the new tech is top notch.
You have a good point there, Ken. Australia is developing its military industry, partnering with top-notch military firms. Boeing, BAE, Lockhee.. etc. This will greatly benefit Australia armed forces and domestic industry
I was surprised (and perhaps should not have been) that Australia ranks 11th in the world on military spending. That's far from superpower level, but it's pretty respectable. My understanding is that the French sub contract was terminated in large part because they simply were not doing the job. Two years into the contract nothing had been built, and from what I've heard some of the Australia contractors were flabbergasted on the French disregard for getting any actual work done. The termination was done according to the terms of the contract, so it was not "broken" as such, as the French narrative would have us believe. Australia's relationship with China is something of a sad story. After decades of increasingly friendly relations, China was treating Australia more and more as a subject power rather than as a potential ally. That was never going to fly; we've learned that China was only ever a fair-weather friend, not to be trusted in the long term. It turns out that if China doesn't want our trade, there's no shortage of other countries willing to fill that gap. The Chinese narrative on this is of course very different, but from where I'm sitting it looks like China is objecting to Australia blocking exactly the sorts of interventions which it explicitly bans going in the other direction. Then it places transparently politically motivated unilateral trade blocks, while still trying to join the trans-Pacific free trade treaty... Eh. Five years ago I would have counted China as a cautious ally. Lesson learnt.
Ronny, Thanks for your comment. That's so true, up until five-ten years ago, China and Chinese in general were considered as close partners, now the situation pretty much reversed.
There is not much difference in spending from No 11 to No 4/5....it is interesting to not though, that this time n 2022, with their new comittments, Australia may actually be in 3rd position if India falters with their spending comittments, which is def on the cards! The times are changing fast.
It's a shame that Australian media didn't convey this information as well as you did. While tearing up that sub deal was a pretty shitty way to treat our French allies, I understand that Australia had no choice but to go all in with the US. The French won't be here to bail us Aussies out if WW3 kicks off. Great video mate!
Frogs are frogs mate. Jesus, Churchill had to shell the French fleet at anchor in harbor in WWII cause it wouldn't come over to its Allies. Frogs are frogs mate.
The French submarine deal was bad from day one, but the pullout was spectacularly badly handled. At the very least the Australian prime minister owed the French president a phone call before publicly announced it. It needlessly pissed off two nuclearpowers.
Id also argue for the Nuclear submarines. It is about global strike power, strategically into our region. We have not had this capability since the retirement of the F1-11's
Australia is paying for the opportunity to become pawns of the US. This is not independent strike power. Australia will be entirely beholden to the US. Before doing anything, it has to beg permission from the US. Imagine that in 2050, Australia don't need these nuclear subs anymore. The new government wants to get rid of them. Sell them. Again, go beg permission from mother first. This was the whole reason for the French sub deal that eventually failed. The insistence on local manufacture, technology trade. So that Australia does not get too dependent on the manufacturer. Like Argentina.
With regards to petroleum Australia has some reserves of it’s own. Enough to make all the plastic and plane flying they need. For say road/rail vehicles they have more than enough gas resources for these which can easily be run on LPG.
Thank you! That would be a tough sanction on oz universities too though. Chinese students bring a crazy amount of money to Australia's higher education system
@@Kamome163 They also bring a lot of stress to Australia’s non Chinese students as their English skills are crap My sister is totally non-racists. Chinese student caused her course to be set back. Why on earth is Australia teaching the bloody children of a country it’s likely to go to war with instead of its own bloody citizens!?!
@@Kamome163 basically universities do this stupid thing nowadays whereby everybody passes together. It’s this new ‘equality of outcome’ business. So when half the students in the class aren’t fluent in English it means that you don’t pass until everyone passes. This is the problem with taking students from China en masse ‘just’ because they’re paying big bucks. Because Chinese students are where these uni’s are getting their money from they come down on the side of the Chinese students. Essentially Western uni’s have been bought and paid for by the CCP. As you already know on top of masses of Chinese students the CCP send money to these uni’s. Many Western uni’s are liabilities.Excuse me for sounding so p*ssed off. This stuff just gets to me sometimes 😬 anyway thank you for creating and uploading these videos. You’re doing a great job!
If France can’t fight a war in the Pacific, the UK isn’t much different. All Putin has to do is a little sabre rattling and the RN has to stay in the Atlantic. While the UK handed over defence of Australia to the US after the fall of Singapore, Britain continued to provide tanks, aircraft, other war material and production licenses to Australia. I expect the British role in Aukus will be much the same.
Michael, that's true, the UK doesn't have that reach nor capabilities. I agree with your analysis, the UK will pretty much provide weapons and technology to Australia, however differently than with France, even during war times
France has more troops in the Pacific than the entire NZ armed forces. France also permanently bases warships in the Pacific- the only European country to do so - the UK has has no forces in Pacific since it withdrew from Hong Kong . The French routinely participate in Australian/US military exercises. Oh the largest Air Force in South east Asia is Singapore which bases most of its training command in Western Australian and maintains military equipment in Queensland to rotate troops through for frequent military exercises.
@@FlyxPat perhaps But equally the French might redeploy there not insubstantial armed forces to protect their Citizens in the Pacific. The French have maintained this force for over a century In comparison the UK withdrew their Pacific fleet in 1970. What are the chances we could rely on the Poms.
@@russellmiles2861 Does NZ still have an armed force? Last time I've read about NZ armed forces were news that NZ airforce decided to ditch all fighter jets and turned their frigates to fisheries patrol vessels.
This only reinforces the fact that Australia should in addition to is ANZUS and AUKUS, build a strong relationship with China and maintain in a such a way that is highly benecial to both sides. This only increases the cost of actions that go against any of Australia's commerce security.
Learn FROM HISTORY - The only way to currently deal with China is to sho them strength, they dont respect you if you say YES thats ok! And THAT approach is DANGEROUS!
Totally mate.@@iangrantham8300 you reply as if that is something I don't agree with, just because it wasn't the focus of my post. That's the problem with many people their bias is stronger than they know, especially on Australia China Relations.
@@Soundmaster91 No sound thingi, there is cause and effect, our reality is that we need to take care of ourselves and that China is dangerous...full STOP!
@@iangrantham8300 exactly, this only reinforces the fact that Australia should in addition to is ANZUS and AUKUS, build a strong relationship with China and maintain in a such a way that is highly benecial to both sides. This only increases the cost of actions that go against any of Australia's commerce security.
You cant build a relationship with the Devil..even ordinary Chinese citizens in China are getting worried about the erosion of the meagre rights they had...things are getting worse for them and China has nearly exhusted any friends by its bellicose, bullying ways and it is THEM that needs to mend fences, especially by implemending reforms like suubscribing to UNCLOS, Like the treaty they had with the British over Hong Kong, Like giving back to the countries from which they have stole it the various reefs and shoals on which they have created artificial islands etc etc etc....You can't do business with a liar!
Something that is never mentioned in the media about the French sub deal is just how difficult the French were being about the whole deal. I work in manufacturing in Adelaide, indeed there are parts I have made floating around on Collins boats. Word in manufacturing circles is there are very few potential Austrailian manufacturing partners with Naval Group (the French Consortium) who are unhappy to see the back of the French. Rumors and innuendo suggest the French were doing everything they could to get as much work as possible back to France (there fore more money goes there too) this was causing more and more delays to the final design and requirements for infrastructure etc here. Now I am not saying the French were being duplicitous and rumors are just that, but I suspect that there is a lot more behind the projects cancellation than us just having the option on a nuclear powered boat. The French subs were after all nuclear powered boats, redesigned at our request to be conventionally powered and one could assume it would not have been hard (easier in fact) to go down the French Nuclear path if desired. People also bleat about the capability gap with the UK/US subs. We weren't getting the French ones any sooner either and number 12 would have been delivered about the same time as number one would be retiring (12 was loosely scheduled for about 2060+). My bet is the whole French deal was going to fall in a heap with or without the AUKUS option. It is difficult for we the general public to get good information on Military and Commercial interests, but the general vibe I get from industry is we will get better subs sooner with AUKUS than we would have with the French option. Only the powers that make these decisions really Know for sure and I doubt they'll tell us anytime soon.
Scott, thank you so much for the rich insight into the industry! Well, the French are quite notorious for protecting their workforce in France so that comes to no surprise. Something similar happened in India too, however, I’m not sure if that's applicable to Australia's case. For sure, Australia is trying to build up its military-industrial complex, by pushing on technologically advanced projects with partner countries. I.e. Loyal wingman with Boeing, Type 26 frigates with BAE, F-35 with Lockheed, and the list goes on. From what I've heard around, the new subs will be based on the new UK dreadnought class sub. And it makes sense for the UK to share more work with the Australian industry, in spite of the UK shift from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
French tried doing the same with euro fighter, arguing whole time that they should build the engines. after 2 years of this they broke the deal and also tried taking another country with them to build theirs. french seem greedy over allies.
I think there is a consistent mis-interretation of Australias ally choices as purely strategic, culture plays a big role, there is no way that the UK, the USA, new zealand or Canada would allow foreign invasion of Australia, despite the fact that they don't see a huge ammount of benefit from these efforts in their economies. Blood is thicker than water.
I contend it is the West in general that would support Australia as another Western country. And frankly no one is ever going to invade us as they feel the US might send a nuclear armed ICBM in their direction. This is how Australian has long ensured its security: by being part of the Western nuclear alliance. We see that we are free while the rest of the world is free and prosperous. Hence we tend to deploy many modest expeditionary forces around the Globe in support of Western interest even if they mean little to us.
@@russellmiles2861 I think you over-estimate the west in general - germany would wring its hands, cry a little and maybe send some war material. France would perhaps help, but I rather suspect they would want something out of it, and the rest of europe either doesn't have the will, doesn't have the ability, or both. The english speaking world largely stands alone if under threat. War is changing, anti-missile systems are getting to the point that they offer credible anti-nuclear protection (certainly against conventional icbms), and cyber-war is rapidly blurring the edges of what it means to be under attack.
Your comment is right on the money. Australia is a world away from the UK and there is no economic incentive to protect it. And yet if the call for assistance came we would march through hell and back or die trying if need be. That's something the CCP can never understand.
@@alex29443 France would not want anything in return. They have territories and a million citizen next to Australia. If Australia is taken, it means for France they lose their numerous pacific territories as well.
@@XR190190 You might be right, and of course all help is welcome, but the half-million frech citizens in the pacific (which is pretty large in terms of overseas territories) kind of pales next to the reality that the queen is still the head of state in Australia and the USA likes Australia almost more than itself. Not to mention the 1.2 million UK citizens in Australia and the fact that Australia is majority british descended.
Wonder what is the opinion on media outlets such as 60 minutes Australia have in driving Australia's current and future geopolitical posture by exposing China's designs to more and more Australians.
Thank you for the comment, Deng! I guess the influence of media outlets on the population sentiment is quite significant, not sure if there's any data for Australia on that though.
Excellent work. Perhaps Australia's strategic interest would be better served by moving more towards Asia than the US. I can’t help but thinking that it won’t end that well for the US in the longer run, of say, 20 years as Asia totally comes to dominate trade in much of the world. Let more and more Chinese into the country, I’d say.
@@Kamome163 i hope so. as someone living in ASEAN, the last thing we want is to get caught in between the fight of US vs China. we just want to live in peace.
There are three questionable assumptions that underpin this slick marketing presentation: 1. The assumption of America’s democratic values. Domestically, American democracy is a teetering mess. Internationally, its values are Gollum like: neo imperialism that fluctuates between the pure Gollum ‘because I wants it” and the Sméagol like message that Gollum tells itself “it will be good for country X, if we takes it from them”. It’s ability to engage in cognitive dissonance over human rights and values concerning China now on the one hand, yet be oblivious to the human rights records of allies like Saudi Arabia on the other is staggering. The fact is that both American and to a lesser extent British democratic is being challenged by internal populist movements which have the potential to undermine each country’s strategic posture and long term international commitments. Australia needs to diversify its base of alliances, not narrow them to one former pacific power and another waning power. 2. The assumption that America’s interests automatically align with Australia’s. When Australia recently suffered trade punishment at the hands of the ChiComms, the beneficiaries of that were mainly American exporters. In an environment where two superpowers are clearly leaning into each other in a contest for East Asian preeminence Australia’s interests actually most closely align with its immediate neighbours: Indonesia, greater ASEAN, the Pacific Islands and … France. By all means, Australia should be part of a broader alliance headed by America, but Australia needs to be as skeptical of American interests as it clearly does of the ChiComms. 3. The assumption that it is Australia’s strategic interests to get involved directly in a kinetic war in North East Asia, specifically in defence of Taiwan and hence Australia doesn’t have the same strategic interests of say France is simply preposterous. In any kinetic war in North Asia the interests of France are most closely aligned: to firstly deter the spread of the conflict to the adjacent geographical areas where each country has possessions - French Polynesia and New Caledonia for the French and the Australian continent. Moreover, as part of wider western alliance both countries has strategic interests to DENY those strategic sea lanes to the ChiComms, whilst simultaneously permitting the western allies alliance continued access to those sea lane around those choke points. A combined ASEAN-Australian-French A2/AD network stretching across the broader Indo-Pacific makes far more sense as a defence spine for Australia than AUKUS does. In fact it would complement the objectives of America and its north Asian allies (Japan, Korea and Taiwan) because it would protect the southern flank (not to mention the key communications assets on continental Australia) in the event of a North Asian conflict. In terms of an overarching foreign policy that underpins its defence posture Australia needs more alliances, not just closer and deeper ones with fewer countries. It’s immediate neighbours are the first order priority and beyond that being part of institutions like the G20 (where Australia sits at the table not just with allies, but the important potential adversaries) and a ‘global NATO’ (roping in not just America and Britain, but north Asian allies and Western Europe) is a far more sensible position to take. As for submarines? The domestic order book for both American and British subs is such that they can’t build boats for Australia for over a decade. It will take that long to get a domestic nuclear industry up to speed before Australia can build them (even with BAE or Electric boat as the prime contractor). So Australia is … stuffed on the No.1 defence asset it needs in the changing geo-strategic environment UNLESS IT LOOKS OUTSIDE AUKUS in the interim. Lo and behold: France has the most modern and best suited SSN available. Because it is only committed to building two replacement SSBN boats per decade at Cherbourg it can also build Australia two Barracuda SSNs this decade and next while Australia gets up to speed to start building our own. With the AUKUS pivot Australia resembles the late Western Roman Emperor Valentinian who when he slew his greatest general Flavius Aetius in a rage of jealousy, someone at court was heard to remark: “Whether well or not, I do not know. But know that you have cut off your right hand with your left”. AUKUS has left Australia with a 20 year capability gap, and hitched to the wrong horse.
Contol of the choke points is just as much a Chinese worry as it is Australia’s, If the Malacca, Sunda and Java Straits are mined or Blockaded,Chinas economy dies just as much as Australia. Indonesia is the key,something we have long recognised in Australia.
Mark, that's absolutely true. No wonder Indonesia sits at the centre of the Indo-Pacific region. Indonesia will be the topic of third next video. Be sure to subscribe to not miss it out. As you said, China also heavily relies, much more than Australia, on Indonesian choke point. There's a past video on that here ruclips.net/video/PJReTyTbbZ4/видео.html
Only quibble is I could’ve sworn it’s nearly guaranteed the 8 boats are British, not American in origin as said in the video, but the Americans are beefing up the infrastructure, great video though, I always appreciate source citations
Nice video. China made its first economic attack on Australia in 2020 by banning barley, beef, cotton, lamb, lobsters, timber, wine and most critically coal. Australia simply found other markets and China has now resumed coal imports from Australia after having an energy crisis in 2022.
I know Australia imports oil from Singapore, but I thought Australia had 6 refineries still in existence. I realise the capacity of those is small, and one in Korea would encapsulate that capacity, but is it really so vulnerable?
It depends on the type of oil being refined. I think most of the oil refined domestically comes from Australia, while most of the oil refined in Singapore comes from the Middle East. We have oil in Australia but not enough to cover our needs.
@@Bobbyjonesyrrr good point. I guess local industry looking for big discoveries to sustain local industry. Probably not going to happen. Just buy EVs and solar panels.
I love the videos, but the loud random sounds are obnoxious. Its happened a few times during this one and it was louder than the person speaking. Other than that, keep up the great work !
If we were in fact “planning” to go to war, yes you would be correct. It is in fact Australia taking steps to be able to defend effectively our interests (our continued freedom to undertake worldwide trade) should the need arise. That’s why it is known as a “defence policy”.
Thanks. Interesting analysis and very good graphics, though the background 'music' was rather too loud. FYI, Brisbane is pronounced Brizb'n, not Briz-bane.
Your videos are so good bro. Do you have any university qualifications? Your in-depth analysis puts some of my strategic studies professors to shame hahah !
Thank you so much Samuel!🥹 I have a BA in Political Science with minor in IR and a Master in Strategic Studies! I’m glad to see a fellow ‘strategist’ here 🤩💪
I don't really think there was a chance of Australia "crumbling" in WW2, although it is not the narrative often taught in the US. US supplies were certainly very useful and the US Navy was required to defeat the Japanese Empire however, for such a young country, the output of Australia's war economy was seriously impressive. Australia is very different to the UK. Australia is a massively food surplus nation, it produces its own steel, energy (and can even produce fuel). Australian industry grew quickly since federation and Australia even produced very capable tanks of an indigenous design which the first in the world to feature a fully cast hull and turret. A very capable fighter was designed and foreign aircraft were manufactured. Australia manufactured small arms and imported some, just as with Navy vessels. In fact, Australia had the fourth largest air force in the world, along with more pilots volunteering in Britain. Perhaps, the biggest boon of the US in Australia's war effort came once the Japanese had been driven back - American equipment was cheap and quick to field (US tanks were adopted for this reason). The Japanese quickly realised that an invasion of Australia was unfeasible and they stood no chance of establishing the air superiority needed to curtail Australia's defensive actions. The Japanese Empire was stretched and at the limits of its supply lines. Even when Northern Australia's coastline was threatened, there was still the vast coastline of the Southern Ocean that provided relative security for her fleets to gather beyond any real Japanese threat if nescessary. Even as their finest forces were redistributed, the bulk of their forces had to remain across East Asia, South East Asia and the Pacific Islands whilst also trying to contain India's strategic value. US participation in the war allowed Australia to be more aggressive, and to do so sooner, as the two countries' navies, air forces and armies worked together pooling resources in places like Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. Ultimately, even if the lines of communication between the US and the ANZAC countries were cut, I presume that the US forces would still pose a threat to the Japanese and wouldn't have suddenly surrendered. Heck, Pearl Harbour could have wiped the Americains out and they still would have built a new Pacific Fleet. No president could popularly surrender American territory, so Australia wouldn't be alone for long.
That's a great analysis. I completely agree. Japanese were interest in controlling the Southern Pacific, in order to control their Sea Lines from Japan to SOuth East Asia. Thus their expansion to the Solomon and Port MacArthur. Japanese lost the submarine warfare with the Americans. By 1943 more than 55% of their supply ships were being sunk by US subs. Thus their strategy of cutting US supply lines to Australia was also drastically weakened. Australia was critical for the Pacific War.
Even if a Japanese invasion wasn't feasible in the huge landgrab of 42/43, without support of the US and with the collapse of the British Australia would have fallen under some form of coercive relationship. Which, over time could have slowly degenerated into something a lot worse with Japanese consolidation of their conquests and naval dominance.
This certainly makes a change from the other commentators on the Internet who claim to be experts on Australia but actually know nothing about Australia.
The only things I would add are that the AUKUS technology transfer agreement is also designed to make Australia a more self reliant partner for the US in the Indo-Pacific (Nuclear propulsion technology is just the start) and that some say that the US has benefited more over the years from the secret bases on Australian territory such as Pine Gap and North West Cape than Australia has.
On that theme, France is so stretched worldwide that she benefits more from the signed "Australia/France Strategic Partnership" in terms of meeting her commitments to her million plus citizens in the South Pacific than Australia does.
Perhaps you could do a video on Britain's return to the Indo-Pacific under Boris Johnson's Global Britain which has a lot to do with the British enthusiasm for AUKUS. Johnson believes that the decision to withdraw from East of Suez five decades ago was a mistake. "East of Suez" was also not well received in Australia by the right of centre government of the day.
Guy, thank you so much for bringing up those very important points. I think they will enrich the discussion with the community.
I mostly agree with you. The US wants Australia to be more self-reliant and more capable to assist its forces. Thus, its critical to build-up solid capabilities in the region. IMO SUBS in particular will be significant for two reasons. Intelligence and special forces related operations and the control of allied and adversary SLOCs.
On a side note, I read an interview with a NATO official some time ago, and he argued that US tech might be still off-limits and that the new subs might be based on the UK Dreadnought class.
Good point on France.
That'll definitely be a topic for a next video. I guess, is not only an Indo-Pacific rebound for Johnson's UK but for Europe in general, however much less committed. It is to be seen whether Johnson's Global Britain is a bluff or he'll find the resources and the support to back up his wager.
@@Kamome163 GREAT JOB MATE
@@JIMDEZWAV Jim! Cheers mate🙌
SSNs for Australia don't really make it more independant - without nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, we can never be independant against some of the nations in our region.
What having SSNs does for Australia is demonstrates our commitment to carring our share of the load, finanicial, military and naval. That's something the US was not happy about for decades with it's NATO partners.
That means the US doesn't have to have quite as many SSNs in this region and opens up additional operating bases and possibly access to yards to refit US vessels, as well as basing for land and air forces.
@@1337flite That's a great analysis. Also, for the US is important to have repairs and refitting facilities in the southern Pacific. As of now, I think Guam and a couple other bases are capable of performing those works.
Incredible work, as always. I'm continually amazed in your ability to succinctly summarise such complex subjects, without losing important content.
Thank you so much, Jeremy! It's quite tricky to talk about topics that usually take tomes to just barely scratch the surface, so it makes me really happy and relieved to read your comment. It sometimes happens that I find useful info or to remember about on-point facts only after publishing though!
it's rubbish
Fantastic analysis. I'm not used to hearing foreigners describe Australia's situation with such clarity and understanding. Great job.
Cheers, mate!❤️
Speaking as an Australian, this was an excellent summary of our strategic posture. Very well done!
Looking forward to future videos on this subject and other Indo-Pacific powers.
it's nonsense
What so many people miss who comment on this Aukus deal, is that all three parties, the Us, Uk & Australia are more focused on the future of cooperation between each other. And the shared values and shared cultural ties . Yes this deal opens the Nuclear door for Australia in more than just submarines. But this is because of the shared values and close cultural ties and decades of very close military cooperation.
This deal has very little to do about French submarines, other than to acknowledge that they did not meet the future security needs of Australia.
This deal has been 75 years in the making. To be honest, Iam quite surprised it took so long for it to come into being. I suppose it was truly a byproduct of Brexit. As it would have been much more difficult with the UK still a part of Europe.
Some people are surprised that the US would trust the Aussies with Nuclear tech. The more surprising aspect for me as a American is why we would not.
The United States does not have any better or more trustworthy ally than Australia. We have other close friends such as Britain, Canada, Europe etc. but the Australian people are essentially the as close as any country to the US & UK.
It makes perfect sense to me that your cousin, who has fought and died at your side for over 100 years has more than earned the right to be trusted with some of your most sensitive military technology .
This AUKUS deal is just formalizing what the enlisted men from all three countries have always known.
Who better to support you and watch your back than your close cousins . Who have long shown there commitment to support you for so long.
I hope the French people understand, this deal is certainly not meant as any slight against them.
They also are very close and very trusted allies going back to our begging.
But in the pacific, giving the Aussies US/UK nuclear submarine tech will allow them to help protect all of our extended families.
And let’s be honest, unless the French we’re offering length of life propulsion tech like the US/UK has in there submarines. The Australian gov could not afford it. Australia does not currently have a domestic nuclear program.
Perhaps one day they will. But for now, having US /UK reactor tech allows them to run nuclear submarines without needing a nuclear program at home.
I truly believe that in the future when The French government gets over their anger about loosing out on the last deal. They will realize that with Australia having nuclear subs, will GREATLY help keep the French security issue in check also.
Australia would NOT be able to afford to have nuclear submarines WITHOUT using the US/UK nuclear propulsion systems.
This deal was THE ONLY option for Australia in the Strategic sense.
I hope ALL PARTIES involved understand this.
WELCOME to the clubhouse MATES !!!!!
I believe you have an overly naive and chummy outlook on this matter. Sure the US, UK, and Australia are close in a lot of ways that make Aukus seem like a no Brainer, but we're not that close either.
We're a lot closer culturally and historically with the UK (and Europe) than with the US yet the UK and Euro are on the complete opposite side of the planet and have essentially nothing to do with the goings on in our indo pacific region. We have partnered with the US in their major incursions over the past century (but this is more and more been recognized locally as a shitty arrangement because the US War machine is self serving) - the SSN deal is frankly another shitty deal the US have roped us into. Almost all the real material benefits go to the US, we don't get a nuclear industry, we don't benefit from shipbuilding industry, we get boats in exchange for payment which need to be serviced by US technicians at ongoing cost. Then we're expected to contribute these boats to the US' foreign policy agenda in the south China sea (which is not what we want SSNs for in the first place; we only want nuclear engines because our maritime territory is so vast). SSNs are in fact inferior compared to smaller AIP diesel electric subs especially in the theater of the south China sea. - on top of that we have to wait 20 years for delivery of these boats in the meantime the US is generous enough to offer us leases on old SSNs which were otherwise slated for decommissioning 🤨 to say nothing of how monumentally pissed our regional neighbours will be if down the road there's an accident in the already crowded China sea waters and one of our nuke boats contaminates their fishing waters while we're busy playing world police with America - 20 years from now China will most likely have well & truly taken the crown of the largest economy in the world, and a lot of their long-term foreign investment plans will be nearing completion or already delivering. It's not in our best interests to fight the inevitable change, we don't need to handcuff ourselves to the Yanks- with the state of their economy they'd fuck us any chance they get over China and they already have stolen from our trade.
We're an Eastern economy, and the first (and the last) place ALL the Asian climate refugees will be fleeing to
Excellent analysis. As a dual Aussie/Anerican citizen who has spent half my life living/educated/working in both Oz and the States, I could have ghost written your comments. Well done, good buddy/mate!
@@garryjones7893- I fear you miss the point. What we might wish the world would become is not the same thing as what the world is likely to become.
America has always been an unreliable ally, remember Suez in 1956! Now, having embarked down a path to fratricidal conflict, they are less reliable than ever.
I hate to say this, but the sooner we kow tow to China, the safer we are likely to be.
France was salty becaude it was a big contract to create jobs and enhance its economy. Moreover, France did ask Australia many times if they didnt' prefer nuclear subs and it was always no. Then just like you said, Australia found that the French subs were not good for future conflict. It made the deliveries and program very late thus increasing the price (France would not gain more than the initial 9 billion). Then the night before the AUKUS pact is signed, which is more AUS pact (We see you opportunistic UK that would be even more useless than France in the Indo-pacific), Australia break the contract with France. Not letting a chance for France to even understand why.
Tbh it was not very "professionnal" from Australia and not a good way to treat one of your allies AND regional neighbours.
the likely hood of the french coming to the aid of australia is why Australia walked away.. i do not give two fks about the french im glad we cancelled the deal
Australian.
Usually most foreign made videos on Australia are full of mistakes.
This one was excellent.
Subbed, liked, followed and notifications set to all.
Great work.
Thank you so much Shilo!
this one is full of mistakes
@@alanbstard4 I'm well educated, informed and at least relatively intelligent.
I disagree.
State your issue.
@@Shilo-fc3xm i wrote this to original poster
we can support Australia militarily. We are wealthy enough to do it, but we would have to re start our manufacturing sector, re introduce tarriffs and stop mass immigration . I would be happy to do this. Australia needs to be capable to defend itself if the US fails in western pacific against China. Your statment from 5:02 to 5:14 is wrong. There was no exchange. As a British people, Australia defended empire. That simple. Not a matter of deals and exchanges. US partnership totally different to British
The problem is a global world order we can do without. It should be multi polar. These American values you talk about, are not those of the average American or Australian. It's greedy free traders who if anything have sent Australia backwards. It's the fault of the USA this is happening. USA took manufacturing offshore and made China strong. Fools! Now we're all paying for it
Trade and commerce and foreign students have destroyed the future of Australia. We used to have free education and you could get to university on merit, now we have to pay and all place taken by wealthy foreign students
We need about 30 conventional subs forward deployed in Malaysia, Singapore, Port Blair, and Brunei. Much more effective than 8 nuke boats that can't even manouvre in the shallows, although we should still have nuke boats, a mixed fleet
Ir is an absolute disgrace that this situation has emerged via greed of largely USA free trading hegemony, China who in principle has a right to get involved for a share, and if China wins, we get the same thing only worse
Personally I would like to see the British empire reform, Canada, Australia, NZ and UK as a trading block as per the EU, and I don't care what USA or China think
@@alanbstard4 I appreciate the points you make and agree with most and am happy, even grateful to be corrected on the rest. Thank you for doing so. Sincerely appreciated. I'm about to read it again.
Just so you can see we're on the same page, this is one of perhaps fifteen posts I have made on Quora on this particular issue.
I bowed to your guidance, not because I lack the capacity to argue my point but because I suspect you may be right.
"They are talking about the spread of American-styled capitalism, broad-scale shallow consumerism, cultural indoctrination (and inundation), our willingness to follow them down whatever rabbit hole they decide to plunge themselves into and our support of the American Federal Reserve and by extension, Petrodollar.
Australia has a population of 25 million people.
Not enough to defend itself against its most prominent threats.
Way I see it, this leaves us with three choices.
1) Grow our population rapidly at the cost of our existing narrative and ecological sustainability.
2) Continue to pay in kind for the protection of the US defense umbrella at the cost of our dignity and autonomy.
3) Explore the options available to us through a CANZUK styled union with Britain, Canada and New Zealand.
“CANZUK is the anacronym for Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
As a trading and free movement concept, it has existed since the end of World War Two.
CANZUK is currently gaining momentum on the back of BREXIT.
Aside from being the only union in the world that would use a common language it also shares values, history, proven trust, loyalty, the same moral and ethical ideologies and political and legal systems.
That alone would make it both unique and extremely powerful.
(By contrast, the European Union (as just one example) has 24 different languages, eleven different legal and political systems, varying degrees of systemic corruption, stability, and affluence ranging from dirt poor to extremely wealthy, 28 not only different but often opposing moral, ethical, social and cultural ideologies and 3000 years of the most brutal wars ever fought in human history.)
Further, CANZUK would also be the fourth-largest economy on the planet, the fourth largest military, the largest union by area, as well as enable us all to get out from underneath the Chinese trade monopoly and the Americans without souring that relationship and give us back our autonomy and dignity.”
Great analysis 👍
It's good to hear someone actually taking AUKUS geopolitics seriously, rather than the usual "Australia's just hiding behind its white friends again, ugh cringe! " or how the media has lapped up Macron's strongman routine when Australia cancelled the contract.
Great work, you put journalists to shame!
Kutonarch! Thanks for the kind comment! I don't know if I deserve such praise, but it feels good nonetheless!😳
What you say is true, there has been a lot of oversimplification and generalization concerning AUKUS, and the linked deal for the subs. What appeared on mainstream news outlets was the coverage of what happened, so France getting pissed and the fact of acquiring nuclear vessels and not the diesel ones. Not many went on the whys of such decision. IMO, that's not really informative and useful to have people critically understand why their representatives made those specific choices. Paraphrasing a famous maxim, you might not think about geopolitics, but geopolitics thinks about you.
A lot forget or do not know of Frances cancellation on being a part of the Euro fighter, what is worse is they also tried getting one other country to pul out of that deal and join thier's.
Was better suited for them and they should see it is Australia's best choice too.
@@micksmith-vt5yi True! Well, apparently they did a great Job with the Rafale, the jet they built instead of the Eurofighter. France's industry is pretty strong, but perhaps there were other considerations involved in the final decision.
@@Kamome163 yea they built a good plane and also wanted a aircraft carrier capable one. But they did some controversial things too.
@@micksmith-vt5yi Aboslutely true
AUKUS was also accelerated by the fact that Canada and NZ are increasingly being seen as untrustworthy partners in the existing 5-eyes alliance. Both Canada and NZ pander to Chinese interests (i.e. the connection between the Trudeau family and China is well established). Thus, as Chinese belligerence and capability grow (esp. around cyber), they are being viewed as critical flaws in the ability of western democracy's to mount a defense and thus, pose the greatest national security risk to Australia, UK, US.
I did not know that
Chinese disinformation has done its job i see.
@@SuperSnickerS19of88 All I hear day and night is “China Bad”, I could not even name one pro China English Channel, so I am really not sure what disinformation you are referring to? Perhaps you have been watching too much CPP state media?
@@watchman835 name a pro west channel from CCP?
@@SuperSnickerS19of88 I don’t know, I can not even hear anything from China. Why don’t you name one, since you are such a expert on “Chinese disinformation” ?
Dude you are a absolute rising star on geopolitical RUclips. I love how you focus on Asia as to me it is by far the most interesting geopolitical region. Can't wait to see your channel hopefully grow over the coming months and years.
Thanks, Devin!❤️ Is so interesting and so under covered in the West! Can't wait to do more on the channel! If you have any suggestions or topics you would like to see on the channel, pls let me know!
@@Kamome163 I think a interesting topic would be the growing conflict of interest between Russia and China in Central Asia and how Sino-Russo could become worse with time as one country is on the rise and looking to expand their influence all throughout the region while the other is having major political issues both internal and external has a crumbling economy has terrible demographics(Not that China doesn't have demographics problems of their own) and as time progresses is going to have more and more trouble exerting influence in central and east Asia. Sorry for the long comment lol😅
@@devintaylor1420 Devin, thanks for the suggestions. That's definitely a topic worth looking into! There's actually lots of people who oversimplify sino-russian relations as fundamental allies. Which they are not. ish. That's a great topic! Thanks again!
This channel is going to be huge, I'm glad to have been here at the start
I'm glad to have people like you in the community since the start of the channel!❤️
Incredible work. Thank you!
Keep up the good work man!! 👏
Thanks, Capt.! Happy to see you first in the comment again! 🥇
@@Kamome163 No problem :D
Australia has a 40% claim to the Antarctic not 20% otherwise great video, really well laid out
Oh boy, you're right! Thank you for spotting that!
That'll be a major draw for the US, that 40% of Antarctica, all those minerals, to be protected against other powers that also have navies. An annex of the American Lake. We could just leave the penguins alone but that's not likely, is it. Better some UN monitoring force of Antarctica as a world park. Just thinking aloud -
I was thinking the same.. hmm no sure it was bout 40%.. Anyways, even that is under threat from the PRC and Russia.
That 40% Australian Antarctic deal must have been calculated before anyone thought of it as anything but Penguins and Ice. Like the Middle East is just sand and Camels.
A succinct and clearly presented overview of Australia's strategic position, its background and current realities. Thank you for fine work. I look forward to more of this standard.
Good analysis of Australia's maritime foreign policy. Useful for NZ policymakers, journalists, academics and members of the public.
Thank you so much, Andrew!
New Zealand policy makers mean very little. Their main concern is reduce the military down to nothing, kiss up to the Chinese, and roll over and show your belly to any threat... Or bludge off the security provided by your allies while you keep bringing up how you pulled your weight 70 years ago.
@@robertjohnston8531 Bs new Zealand does pretty good we already getting new boats n technology seems every one else relies on NZ really
NZ is the good neighbour, the friend between -
@@andrewjohnwilliams6951 Which new boats are these? And are you saying we are pulling our weight in defence spending cos I would certainly call BS on that. Oh and who relies on us??
Absolutely love your content Franck, thank you for the high quality video once again. Can't wait to see what video comes next in the Indo-Pacific! Maybe in the future one could be on Taiwan's defensive capabilities/strategy for delaying the PRC for as long as possible until the US/Quad and potentially others came to their assistance.
Back to the video, I wonder why Australia doesn't have more security treaties with neighbors in the Indo-Pacific, like Japan or South Korea for example.
Thanks bud! Well, speaking of which the next one will be on Taiwan, but it'll focus on why the PRC won;t invade it! But IMO it'll be pretty interesting for future videos to analyze Taiwan capabilities.
I think Australia has inked a strategic partnership[ with both, but of course, is not on the same level as an alliance. I guess for Australia not showing herself being too much against China, as a full alliance with Japan would sign, is also part of its strategy.
Great analysis, it would’ve been good to see Australia’s minor outlying islands included in the map (i.e. cocos/keeling, Christmas, Macquarie, heard & mac, Antarctica). Also Australia’s eez includes the coral sea islands and extends further north toward Timor. Whilst these are minor, they do present geopolitical contention for Canberra
Anon, thanks for the heads up! I'll bear that in mind in a future video on southern Pacific geopolitics
Love your videos friend. I'm Australian, and I am very intrigued to see whether we purchase the US Virginia class (block 5's) or the UK Astute class. Both are technological marvels, but vastly different at the same time. I personally think we will choose Astute class - smaller boat, smaller crews, etc.
Thank you for the kind comment! I agree, I believe those subs will be based on UK's astute or perhaps the dreadnought projects. Let's see what will happen!
Crew recruiment is a huge a problem, it's already difficult with Collin class so Virginia class would add so much more headache for the RAN.
@@tonyvu2011 So true!
Not to mention, that it is bit more modern, tailored for smaller navy and British have production capacity soon to be released.
@@Kamome163 Interested in your thinking behind your expectation that Australia will purchase UK subs, not US.
Another great perspective! Thank you :)
Australia's situation is tricky. Internal issue such as population is setting the country up for even wider power limitation in the future. The current acquired military technology and the time it will take to actually come into operational use + the alliance network all seems like patchwork at best. (Well, this is my own view on it. Apologies if mine didnt match up to other viewers) :)
Jeff, thank you for sharing your comment! Agree, the situation is quite tricky and the new frigates and subs will take decades to be operational. Plus the political debate is also quite heightened on these issues.
No apologies, on the opposite this channel welcomes those who have different views! Otherwise, we couldn't learn a thing, don't you agree?
@@Kamome163 I totally agree and appreciate your openness! I will contribute as much as I can coz your work is great and many viewers can learn about what makes this world function and how it could turn out.
Many may get political and upset but, only a few can see things as it is. Even less, change the geographic limitations that can reshape the world.
Cheers!
@@mynameisChizzle That's great to hear that, and it is just brilliant to have people like you in the Kamome community!
That's quite the truth, but that's also why I think it's important to talk about these topics from an objective perspective, providing facts and sources. I think this can help more to critically understand why countries behave they way they do. Plus, that's also a great exercise for me to put into practice things I learned and to understand more the world we live in.
It is quite tricky and it is why Australia Has been destined to be a middle/regional power
I agree, Jeff. I hope and pray that Australia's somewhat leftist, current government wakes up completely to the threat that China's ambitions pose to the rest of the Pacific region, and indeed, the entire world. Taking firearms out of Australian citizens' hands some years back was not a good strategic move, in hindsight.
Small cool thing;
Thank you for pronouncing ASEAN right. So many channels literally do not seem to do their proper research, and call ASEAN as "A-sian", instead of "Ah-See-Un".
Keep up the in-depth research, as well as addicting maps.😄
Thank you so much!! That's so true, it is kinda disappointing to hear the spelling of such important institutions badly pronounced.
I will! 🙌😉
Wow for someone with so little content already delivered your take is so accurate & concise. I can see the beginnings of a major new voice representing Geo politics without obvious political influence that can speak of facts without deferring to the hidden masters actually pulling the strings which in their amateur ways are patently obvious. I've subscribed & thank you
Thank you so much, susser!
.
I just subscribed. I like the relaxed flow of narrative. I Have had enough of sensationalizing boring news.
.
Looking forward to seeing this channel to explode. These videos set in Asia and Australia are awesome. Something cool would be a series where it establishes the 2 main sides of the ideological and economic war of china v USA. And the sides and difficulties both sides face.
A video on India similar to this would also be awesome to.
Thank you so much! There's definitely good material for a series, and India deserves an in-depth analysis of its own!
Great analysis. However, I'd dare say those trade figures have drastically changed since 2020 (even as early as 2019)
The video is so informative and explains the problems so well.
Thanks you so much Tony!
If this channel continues to make top quality and informative videos.. your gna pass a million subs in no time.
The explanation on China's grey activities is very enlightening. Kudos!
I joined at 36k can’t wait to see this channel’s growth
Really excellent commentary on my own country's maritime strategy: this video should be required viewing for every Federal parliamentarian. I was remined of a recent comment by a noted Australian strategic commentator at UNSW: ( I paraphrase) that Australia has a 'one punch' navy which totally lacks any resilience'. Unfortunately this is true, and you have made the point in your video commenting on the inability of a nation with only 25 million population to sustain a large fleet. With only 46 vessels of all types, the RAN is pretty small- I think from memory that the JapaneseMaritime Self Defence Forces have...145? I think that a lot of people have trouble conceiving of Australia being a large country, but actually a very small nation. The other thought from the defence commentator was that one should view Australia like a human body , but with all of its arteries lying outside it: these are the long external SLOC's which we are totally reliant on, but cannot secure. Again, another key point you made in your video. So: well done, and i'll certainly be subscribed and tuned in to your channel fron now on!
Very good. England has deserted Australia once. And will do it again circumstances prevailing...never forget!
Steve! Do you mean the abandonment of the east of Suez policy?
@@Kamome163 After the Fall of Singapore, Churchill tried to block the Australian Divisions in North Africa from returning home, insisting Europe(Britain) came first. Then when the soldiers were in transit, again Churchill interfered and tried to get them sent to India instead, to defend a rich colony at the expense of their homeland. Australians came out of the whole WW2 affair quite bitter and ready to throw all in with the US.
I must say this video is well balanced & very clear, without the rhetoric.
Thank you so much, Steve
Well stated. As an Aussie, I believe we should embrace nuclear power and create our own nuclear industry. This to eventually be more independent and be able to stand on our own for the most part and be a more supportive Allie to the US and UK. We do have a very capable amphibious capability but I would like to have a air support capability. We should have LO3 and LO4 as F35B carriers, 8 to 12 planes per ship and wing drone capability. Also we should have at lease 12 subs.
Yeah and the neighbours would start their own nuclear program. Id iot.
Fckin US' lapdog.
I hope the USA doesn't get another president who doesn't understand the importance of alliances and geopolitics.
Hahahahahha that's a hope I think the majority of the world shares🤣
Enjoying this channel a lot, keep it up.
❤️
Australia with our current population could not hope to defend ourselves alone. But thank God we are starting to take positive steps. Our acquisitions may seem small in comparison to what we may face, but with the obtaining of the intellectual property with the weapons systems we are not limited in the quantity we may choose to build. With Aukus we will soon see our own missile production in country here, our airbases are being upgraded some lengthened to handle strategic bombers. 1.4.billion dollars has been approved to build new army barracks.and the list goes on and on. Currently defence spending is around 42.6 billion dollars annually and this is rising, our defence force may be small at present but the new tech is top notch.
You have a good point there, Ken. Australia is developing its military industry, partnering with top-notch military firms. Boeing, BAE, Lockhee.. etc. This will greatly benefit Australia armed forces and domestic industry
just dont make a mess in indonesia.
Great work man keep up the videos these provide streamline information with such detail that blows my mind love from india 😘
Thank you for the kind comment and the love Raghav! Here some back for you😘
I was surprised (and perhaps should not have been) that Australia ranks 11th in the world on military spending. That's far from superpower level, but it's pretty respectable.
My understanding is that the French sub contract was terminated in large part because they simply were not doing the job. Two years into the contract nothing had been built, and from what I've heard some of the Australia contractors were flabbergasted on the French disregard for getting any actual work done. The termination was done according to the terms of the contract, so it was not "broken" as such, as the French narrative would have us believe.
Australia's relationship with China is something of a sad story. After decades of increasingly friendly relations, China was treating Australia more and more as a subject power rather than as a potential ally. That was never going to fly; we've learned that China was only ever a fair-weather friend, not to be trusted in the long term. It turns out that if China doesn't want our trade, there's no shortage of other countries willing to fill that gap.
The Chinese narrative on this is of course very different, but from where I'm sitting it looks like China is objecting to Australia blocking exactly the sorts of interventions which it explicitly bans going in the other direction. Then it places transparently politically motivated unilateral trade blocks, while still trying to join the trans-Pacific free trade treaty...
Eh. Five years ago I would have counted China as a cautious ally. Lesson learnt.
Ronny, Thanks for your comment. That's so true, up until five-ten years ago, China and Chinese in general were considered as close partners, now the situation pretty much reversed.
There is not much difference in spending from No 11 to No 4/5....it is interesting to not though, that this time n 2022, with their new comittments, Australia may actually be in 3rd position if India falters with their spending comittments, which is def on the cards! The times are changing fast.
It's a shame that Australian media didn't convey this information as well as you did. While tearing up that sub deal was a pretty shitty way to treat our French allies, I understand that Australia had no choice but to go all in with the US. The French won't be here to bail us Aussies out if WW3 kicks off.
Great video mate!
Frogs are frogs mate. Jesus, Churchill had to shell the French fleet at anchor in harbor in WWII cause it wouldn't come over to its Allies. Frogs are frogs mate.
Thanks, Dean!
I'm not trying to be rude but the French have never been official allies of Australia.
The French submarine deal was bad from day one, but the pullout was spectacularly badly handled. At the very least the Australian prime minister owed the French president a phone call before publicly announced it. It needlessly pissed off two nuclearpowers.
Was actually really good! I look forward to more. Subbed.
Good analysis, much appreciated.
Thanks, Owen!
Excellence in this report.
You gained a subscriber great content and quality.
Thank you for another informative and accurate video, Kamome! I hope that your future work will go into a bit more detail though. 😀
I understand that it’s a minimum of 8 submarines and they will be made here ,, we may buy a couple for training and to fill a capability gap
Id also argue for the Nuclear submarines. It is about global strike power, strategically into our region. We have not had this capability since the retirement of the F1-11's
Super hornets with LRASM and Growlers give the RAAF more capability then the F-111 ever did. I'm a big fan of the F-111 by the way.
Australia is paying for the opportunity to become pawns of the US. This is not independent strike power. Australia will be entirely beholden to the US. Before doing anything, it has to beg permission from the US. Imagine that in 2050, Australia don't need these nuclear subs anymore. The new government wants to get rid of them. Sell them. Again, go beg permission from mother first. This was the whole reason for the French sub deal that eventually failed. The insistence on local manufacture, technology trade. So that Australia does not get too dependent on the manufacturer. Like Argentina.
Well the difference not mentioned is that with the French subs Australia could’ve built their own
i have a feeling this channel might be the next caspian report......
at least by the quality of the work so far..... :D
Interesting video! But please tune down the background music...
With regards to petroleum Australia has some reserves of it’s own. Enough to make all the plastic and plane flying they need. For say road/rail vehicles they have more than enough gas resources for these which can easily be run on LPG.
That;s a great point
Like Caspian Report, an excellent source on Geopolitics.
Definitely a keeper👌
One of Australia’s sanctions on China should be not accepting Chinese students into Australian Universities. Great video btw!
Thank you! That would be a tough sanction on oz universities too though. Chinese students bring a crazy amount of money to Australia's higher education system
@@Kamome163 They also bring a lot of stress to Australia’s non Chinese students as their English skills are crap My sister is totally non-racists. Chinese student caused her course to be set back. Why on earth is Australia teaching the bloody children of a country it’s likely to go to war with instead of its own bloody citizens!?!
@@noodlyappendage6729 Oh my, I'm sorry to hear that. If I may, what happened that they had to set her course back?
@@Kamome163 basically universities do this stupid thing nowadays whereby everybody passes together. It’s this new ‘equality of outcome’ business. So when half the students in the class aren’t fluent in English it means that you don’t pass until everyone passes. This is the problem with taking students from China en masse ‘just’ because they’re paying big bucks. Because Chinese students are where these uni’s are getting their money from they come down on the side of the Chinese students. Essentially Western uni’s have been bought and paid for by the CCP. As you already know on top of masses of Chinese students the CCP send money to these uni’s. Many Western uni’s are liabilities.Excuse me for sounding so p*ssed off. This stuff just gets to me sometimes 😬 anyway thank you for creating and uploading these videos. You’re doing a great job!
Awesome. Keep up the great work
Thank you, Andrew!! Please, be sure to check my other videos too😉
Great video. From a fellow Aussie!
Cheers mate!
Bloody well done, awesome video 👍🏼
Cheers mate!
Excellent.
Do for the Philippines please. How the archipelago is more important than ever.
Bisa! I will🙌
Very nice breakdown.
Awsome work! Keep up man! My salute from Brazil.
Luiz, muito obrigado🙌
If France can’t fight a war in the Pacific, the UK isn’t much different.
All Putin has to do is a little sabre rattling and the RN has to stay in the Atlantic.
While the UK handed over defence of Australia to the US after the fall of Singapore, Britain continued to provide tanks, aircraft, other war material and production licenses to Australia. I expect the British role in Aukus will be much the same.
Michael, that's true, the UK doesn't have that reach nor capabilities. I agree with your analysis, the UK will pretty much provide weapons and technology to Australia, however differently than with France, even during war times
France has more troops in the Pacific than the entire NZ armed forces. France also permanently bases warships in the Pacific- the only European country to do so - the UK has has no forces in Pacific since it withdrew from Hong Kong . The French routinely participate in Australian/US military exercises. Oh the largest Air Force in South east Asia is Singapore which bases most of its training command in Western Australian and maintains military equipment in Queensland to rotate troops through for frequent military exercises.
@@russellmiles2861 - Doesn't matter if it all has to be recalled to France if there's war in Europe.
@@FlyxPat perhaps
But equally the French might redeploy there not insubstantial armed forces to protect their Citizens in the Pacific. The French have maintained this force for over a century
In comparison the UK withdrew their Pacific fleet in 1970. What are the chances we could rely on the Poms.
@@russellmiles2861 Does NZ still have an armed force? Last time I've read about NZ armed forces were news that NZ airforce decided to ditch all fighter jets and turned their frigates to fisheries patrol vessels.
This only reinforces the fact that Australia should in addition to is ANZUS and AUKUS, build a strong relationship with China and maintain in a such a way that is highly benecial to both sides. This only increases the cost of actions that go against any of Australia's commerce security.
Learn FROM HISTORY - The only way to currently deal with China is to sho them strength, they dont respect you if you say YES thats ok! And THAT approach is DANGEROUS!
Totally mate.@@iangrantham8300 you reply as if that is something I don't agree with, just because it wasn't the focus of my post. That's the problem with many people their bias is stronger than they know, especially on Australia China Relations.
@@Soundmaster91 No sound thingi, there is cause and effect, our reality is that we need to take care of ourselves and that China is dangerous...full STOP!
@@iangrantham8300 exactly, this only reinforces the fact that Australia should in addition to is ANZUS and AUKUS, build a strong relationship with China and maintain in a such a way that is highly benecial to both sides. This only increases the cost of actions that go against any of Australia's commerce security.
You cant build a relationship with the Devil..even ordinary Chinese citizens in China are getting worried about the erosion of the meagre rights they had...things are getting worse for them and China has nearly exhusted any friends by its bellicose, bullying ways and it is THEM that needs to mend fences, especially by implemending reforms like suubscribing to UNCLOS, Like the treaty they had with the British over Hong Kong, Like giving back to the countries from which they have stole it the various reefs and shoals on which they have created artificial islands etc etc etc....You can't do business with a liar!
This was very well done
Thanks, Aaron!
Something that is never mentioned in the media about the French sub deal is just how difficult the French were being about the whole deal. I work in manufacturing in Adelaide, indeed there are parts I have made floating around on Collins boats. Word in manufacturing circles is there are very few potential Austrailian manufacturing partners with Naval Group (the French Consortium) who are unhappy to see the back of the French. Rumors and innuendo suggest the French were doing everything they could to get as much work as possible back to France (there fore more money goes there too) this was causing more and more delays to the final design and requirements for infrastructure etc here. Now I am not saying the French were being duplicitous and rumors are just that, but I suspect that there is a lot more behind the projects cancellation than us just having the option on a nuclear powered boat. The French subs were after all nuclear powered boats, redesigned at our request to be conventionally powered and one could assume it would not have been hard (easier in fact) to go down the French Nuclear path if desired. People also bleat about the capability gap with the UK/US subs. We weren't getting the French ones any sooner either and number 12 would have been delivered about the same time as number one would be retiring (12 was loosely scheduled for about 2060+). My bet is the whole French deal was going to fall in a heap with or without the AUKUS option. It is difficult for we the general public to get good information on Military and Commercial interests, but the general vibe I get from industry is we will get better subs sooner with AUKUS than we would have with the French option. Only the powers that make these decisions really Know for sure and I doubt they'll tell us anytime soon.
Scott, thank you so much for the rich insight into the industry!
Well, the French are quite notorious for protecting their workforce in France so that comes to no surprise. Something similar happened in India too, however, I’m not sure if that's applicable to Australia's case.
For sure, Australia is trying to build up its military-industrial complex, by pushing on technologically advanced projects with partner countries. I.e. Loyal wingman with Boeing, Type 26 frigates with BAE, F-35 with Lockheed, and the list goes on.
From what I've heard around, the new subs will be based on the new UK dreadnought class sub. And it makes sense for the UK to share more work with the Australian industry, in spite of the UK shift from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
French tried doing the same with euro fighter, arguing whole time that they should build the engines. after 2 years of this they broke the deal and also tried taking another country with them to build theirs. french seem greedy over allies.
I think there is a consistent mis-interretation of Australias ally choices as purely strategic, culture plays a big role, there is no way that the UK, the USA, new zealand or Canada would allow foreign invasion of Australia, despite the fact that they don't see a huge ammount of benefit from these efforts in their economies. Blood is thicker than water.
I contend it is the West in general that would support Australia as another Western country. And frankly no one is ever going to invade us as they feel the US might send a nuclear armed ICBM in their direction. This is how Australian has long ensured its security: by being part of the Western nuclear alliance. We see that we are free while the rest of the world is free and prosperous. Hence we tend to deploy many modest expeditionary forces around the Globe in support of Western interest even if they mean little to us.
@@russellmiles2861 I think you over-estimate the west in general - germany would wring its hands, cry a little and maybe send some war material. France would perhaps help, but I rather suspect they would want something out of it, and the rest of europe either doesn't have the will, doesn't have the ability, or both. The english speaking world largely stands alone if under threat.
War is changing, anti-missile systems are getting to the point that they offer credible anti-nuclear protection (certainly against conventional icbms), and cyber-war is rapidly blurring the edges of what it means to be under attack.
Your comment is right on the money. Australia is a world away from the UK and there is no economic incentive to protect it. And yet if the call for assistance came we would march through hell and back or die trying if need be. That's something the CCP can never understand.
@@alex29443 France would not want anything in return. They have territories and a million citizen next to Australia. If Australia is taken, it means for France they lose their numerous pacific territories as well.
@@XR190190 You might be right, and of course all help is welcome, but the half-million frech citizens in the pacific (which is pretty large in terms of overseas territories) kind of pales next to the reality that the queen is still the head of state in Australia and the USA likes Australia almost more than itself. Not to mention the 1.2 million UK citizens in Australia and the fact that Australia is majority british descended.
Thanks for the enlightenment regarding this topic :)
Glad you liked it!
Major new development is that China seems to be planning to build a military base in the Solomon Islands....
Very educational, thank you
Wonder what is the opinion on media outlets such as 60 minutes Australia have in driving Australia's current and future geopolitical posture by exposing China's designs to more and more Australians.
Thank you for the comment, Deng! I guess the influence of media outlets on the population sentiment is quite significant, not sure if there's any data for Australia on that though.
Awesome video!
Excellent work. Perhaps Australia's strategic interest would be better served by moving more towards Asia than the US. I can’t help but thinking that it won’t end that well for the US in the longer run, of say, 20 years as Asia totally comes to dominate trade in much of the world. Let more and more Chinese into the country, I’d say.
Christopher, perhaps more than China, ASEAN might be a good partner
Right, just Cosy up more to a communist dictatorship.
ASEAN is a weak organization and nothing like the EU. China has no real friends in Asia.
@@Kamome163 i hope so. as someone living in ASEAN, the last thing we want is to get caught in between the fight of US vs China. we just want to live in peace.
Solid video
There are three questionable assumptions that underpin this slick marketing presentation:
1. The assumption of America’s democratic values. Domestically, American democracy is a teetering mess. Internationally, its values are Gollum like: neo imperialism that fluctuates between the pure Gollum ‘because I wants it” and the Sméagol like message that Gollum tells itself “it will be good for country X, if we takes it from them”. It’s ability to engage in cognitive dissonance over human rights and values concerning China now on the one hand, yet be oblivious to the human rights records of allies like Saudi Arabia on the other is staggering. The fact is that both American and to a lesser extent British democratic is being challenged by internal populist movements which have the potential to undermine each country’s strategic posture and long term international commitments. Australia needs to diversify its base of alliances, not narrow them to one former pacific power and another waning power.
2. The assumption that America’s interests automatically align with Australia’s. When Australia recently suffered trade punishment at the hands of the ChiComms, the beneficiaries of that were mainly American exporters. In an environment where two superpowers are clearly leaning into each other in a contest for East Asian preeminence Australia’s interests actually most closely align with its immediate neighbours: Indonesia, greater ASEAN, the Pacific Islands and … France. By all means, Australia should be part of a broader alliance headed by America, but Australia needs to be as skeptical of American interests as it clearly does of the ChiComms.
3. The assumption that it is Australia’s strategic interests to get involved directly in a kinetic war in North East Asia, specifically in defence of Taiwan and hence Australia doesn’t have the same strategic interests of say France is simply preposterous. In any kinetic war in North Asia the interests of France are most closely aligned: to firstly deter the spread of the conflict to the adjacent geographical areas where each country has possessions - French Polynesia and New Caledonia for the French and the Australian continent. Moreover, as part of wider western alliance both countries has strategic interests to DENY those strategic sea lanes to the ChiComms, whilst simultaneously permitting the western allies alliance continued access to those sea lane around those choke points.
A combined ASEAN-Australian-French A2/AD network stretching across the broader Indo-Pacific makes far more sense as a defence spine for Australia than AUKUS does. In fact it would complement the objectives of America and its north Asian allies (Japan, Korea and Taiwan) because it would protect the southern flank (not to mention the key communications assets on continental Australia) in the event of a North Asian conflict.
In terms of an overarching foreign policy that underpins its defence posture Australia needs more alliances, not just closer and deeper ones with fewer countries. It’s immediate neighbours are the first order priority and beyond that being part of institutions like the G20 (where Australia sits at the table not just with allies, but the important potential adversaries) and a ‘global NATO’ (roping in not just America and Britain, but north Asian allies and Western Europe) is a far more sensible position to take.
As for submarines? The domestic order book for both American and British subs is such that they can’t build boats for Australia for over a decade. It will take that long to get a domestic nuclear industry up to speed before Australia can build them (even with BAE or Electric boat as the prime contractor). So Australia is … stuffed on the No.1 defence asset it needs in the changing geo-strategic environment UNLESS IT LOOKS OUTSIDE AUKUS in the interim. Lo and behold: France has the most modern and best suited SSN available. Because it is only committed to building two replacement SSBN boats per decade at Cherbourg it can also build Australia two Barracuda SSNs this decade and next while Australia gets up to speed to start building our own.
With the AUKUS pivot Australia resembles the late Western Roman Emperor Valentinian who when he slew his greatest general Flavius Aetius in a rage of jealousy, someone at court was heard to remark: “Whether well or not, I do not know. But know that you have cut off your right hand with your left”. AUKUS has left Australia with a 20 year capability gap, and hitched to the wrong horse.
Such an underrated channel!
6:19: They were welcomed by tea, whiskey and VegeMite LOL 😂😂
Hahahaha it kinda gives more context
@@Kamome163 Reminds me of my first bite of Vegemite.. wasn't my best day 😆
Contol of the choke points is just as much a Chinese worry as it is Australia’s, If the Malacca, Sunda and Java Straits are mined or Blockaded,Chinas economy dies just as much as Australia. Indonesia is the key,something we have long recognised in Australia.
Mark, that's absolutely true. No wonder Indonesia sits at the centre of the Indo-Pacific region. Indonesia will be the topic of third next video. Be sure to subscribe to not miss it out.
As you said, China also heavily relies, much more than Australia, on Indonesian choke point. There's a past video on that here ruclips.net/video/PJReTyTbbZ4/видео.html
@@Kamome163 Thank you for the reply and the link
Thanks for explaining
Great vids
Great video as always!
Thank you so much, Thunder!⚡️
Only quibble is I could’ve sworn it’s nearly guaranteed the 8 boats are British, not American in origin as said in the video, but the Americans are beefing up the infrastructure, great video though, I always appreciate source citations
Nice video. China made its first economic attack on Australia in 2020 by banning barley, beef, cotton, lamb, lobsters, timber, wine and most critically coal. Australia simply found other markets and China has now resumed coal imports from Australia after having an energy crisis in 2022.
Sounds more like power projection to another's backyard.
🤣
Any hints on what topic we can look forward to next?
I may point out, the the government stated "at least eight" meaning we can get a lot more yet but well see how eventuates and costs
Good point!
I know Australia imports oil from Singapore, but I thought Australia had 6 refineries still in existence. I realise the capacity of those is small, and one in Korea would encapsulate that capacity, but is it really so vulnerable?
It depends on the type of oil being refined. I think most of the oil refined domestically comes from Australia, while most of the oil refined in Singapore comes from the Middle East. We have oil in Australia but not enough to cover our needs.
@@Bobbyjonesyrrr good point. I guess local industry looking for big discoveries to sustain local industry. Probably not going to happen. Just buy EVs and solar panels.
Does oz have 3 months of diesel reserves in the NT? Or is it still in the USA?
Maritime strategy is good by I think they needs a better trading strategy.
That's a great point. Actually, both Australia and China heavily relies on export for their GDP growth.
They both need each other.
Greatest video ever,smart and loved 🌍💓🇺🇲👍🗾💓
Great content. My only suggestion would be to consider changing the music. Caspian Report makes similar videos and has been using that tune for years.
Oh I see! Thanks for the heads-up! Any suggestion?
Strike me pink, if that drongo didnt give Tassie a pass. Rough end of the pineapple, i reckon.
What video editing platform do you use? I love it! I think it would be great for my schoolwork
Australia needs to protect its trade routes from its biggest trading partner?
I love the videos, but the loud random sounds are obnoxious. Its happened a few times during this one and it was louder than the person speaking.
Other than that, keep up the great work !
thank you.
Thank you too!
Very informative
Thanks Tony!
Australian here , our current defence policy is ridiculous . Our plan to goto war with our main trading partner to protect our trade is so stupid.
If we were in fact “planning” to go to war, yes you would be correct. It is in fact Australia taking steps to be able to defend effectively our interests (our continued freedom to undertake worldwide trade) should the need arise. That’s why it is known as a “defence policy”.
Thanks. Interesting analysis and very good graphics, though the background 'music' was rather too loud. FYI, Brisbane is pronounced Brizb'n, not Briz-bane.
We're not an Island 😣
Bal Pow, thank you for the feedback! I will bring the volume down in the next videos! And sorry for butchering Brisbane pronunciation!
Michael! Yes I know, I included island to make non-aussie viewers understand just how big Australia is.
@@Kamome163 No problem -- Aussies use rather counterintuitive pronunciation.
@@balpow Totally agree
Awesome content! Subbed ;-)
Your videos are so good bro. Do you have any university qualifications? Your in-depth analysis puts some of my strategic studies professors to shame hahah !
Thank you so much Samuel!🥹 I have a BA in Political Science with minor in IR and a Master in Strategic Studies! I’m glad to see a fellow ‘strategist’ here 🤩💪
@@Kamome163 Ahh awesome man that's what I am doing as well ! I hope you don't mind if I reference your work from time to time ;)
@@samueljeffries8671 I don’t know if I’m worthy of that 😂 but you can find the bibliography and sources used in the description of each video👍
Great video
❤️
Nice!
I don't really think there was a chance of Australia "crumbling" in WW2, although it is not the narrative often taught in the US. US supplies were certainly very useful and the US Navy was required to defeat the Japanese Empire however, for such a young country, the output of Australia's war economy was seriously impressive.
Australia is very different to the UK. Australia is a massively food surplus nation, it produces its own steel, energy (and can even produce fuel). Australian industry grew quickly since federation and Australia even produced very capable tanks of an indigenous design which the first in the world to feature a fully cast hull and turret.
A very capable fighter was designed and foreign aircraft were manufactured. Australia manufactured small arms and imported some, just as with Navy vessels. In fact, Australia had the fourth largest air force in the world, along with more pilots volunteering in Britain. Perhaps, the biggest boon of the US in Australia's war effort came once the Japanese had been driven back - American equipment was cheap and quick to field (US tanks were adopted for this reason).
The Japanese quickly realised that an invasion of Australia was unfeasible and they stood no chance of establishing the air superiority needed to curtail Australia's defensive actions.
The Japanese Empire was stretched and at the limits of its supply lines. Even when Northern Australia's coastline was threatened, there was still the vast coastline of the Southern Ocean that provided relative security for her fleets to gather beyond any real Japanese threat if nescessary.
Even as their finest forces were redistributed, the bulk of their forces had to remain across East Asia, South East Asia and the Pacific Islands whilst also trying to contain India's strategic value.
US participation in the war allowed Australia to be more aggressive, and to do so sooner, as the two countries' navies, air forces and armies worked together pooling resources in places like Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. Ultimately, even if the lines of communication between the US and the ANZAC countries were cut, I presume that the US forces would still pose a threat to the Japanese and wouldn't have suddenly surrendered.
Heck, Pearl Harbour could have wiped the Americains out and they still would have built a new Pacific Fleet. No president could popularly surrender American territory, so Australia wouldn't be alone for long.
That's a great analysis. I completely agree. Japanese were interest in controlling the Southern Pacific, in order to control their Sea Lines from Japan to SOuth East Asia. Thus their expansion to the Solomon and Port MacArthur.
Japanese lost the submarine warfare with the Americans. By 1943 more than 55% of their supply ships were being sunk by US subs. Thus their strategy of cutting US supply lines to Australia was also drastically weakened. Australia was critical for the Pacific War.
Even if a Japanese invasion wasn't feasible in the huge landgrab of 42/43, without support of the US and with the collapse of the British Australia would have fallen under some form of coercive relationship. Which, over time could have slowly degenerated into something a lot worse with Japanese consolidation of their conquests and naval dominance.