I know one of my conclusions in here contradicts my NATO capitulation thesis: do I or do I not believe Belarus will be used as a 'Ukraine' against Poland, Lithuania, or other Baltic states? Are the nuclear weapons a 'deterrent'? Or are they for ambiguous offensive scenarios against a weakened NATO? I wish I could keep perfect integrity, but I discover as I write. Eventually I'll collect my notes, and revise into a proper book. Thanks for reading.
In his recent talk in Australia, professor John Mearsheimer suggested that despite years of economic prosperity derived from its relationship with China, Australia is about to face a choice between prosperity (China) and security (the US). “If you are not with us, you are against us”.
An interesting question was asked: “What about Australian neutrality, preferably with the nuclear deterrent?” This was a part of a broader question that perhaps major powers would not be able to dictate to their former alíes to the extent they used to: @44:41 https://youtu.be/cAFX0qRcJJs
It's an understandable question. I have to first wonder, what is neutrality? Not getting involved is not neutrality. Neutrality expects itself to be respected, when conflict inherently means one of the belligerents has been disrespected. Neutrality when one benefits from the standards of the commons, is a form of free-riding/cowardice that often ends poorly. Neutrality is like a soft-surrender. Most of the time, it's not going to play out like Switzerland. 'Hey France, you're the hegemon? Fine. Oh never mind, hi Germany, what's up? Oh France again? Yeah man, long time no see.' I think it plays out more like Korea in the 16th century. Thinks it's so smart staying out of the way of China, Jurchens, and Japan. Then it gets clobbered by all 3. Realists like Yi Sun Shin and Yu Songyong were screaming for the need to finance the Pibenyosa (border security committee) and meanwhile the idiots in Seoul were sayin stupid things like, "Oh, the Japanese have guns? Well it's not like they can hit the target every time, can they?" A literati is literally recorded saying this in court when the matter of Japanese war preparations came up.
So again, what is sovereignty? Control of trade. Control of borders. Control of laws. Control of national interests. Ability to enforce international agreements. Where is Australia by those metrics? Can it control the sea around it? The Chinese navy is stronger. Good thing it has a relationship with the Japanese-Korean axis. Would it fight for them? Like if Tsushima was under attack? Would they object if Japan took back the Kurils and fought over Sakhalin in a counterattack? Or would that be 'escalatory,' even if it helped finish the war? Australia needs its natural allies. There's a long history of Aussies in SF and California. I have a cultural bond with them and I'd like to think the feeling is mutual. Likewise, they have this bond with NZ and UK and Canada. So it is diplomacy that protects Australian trade. And is it supposed to trade bilaterally with China until China decides to change the rules? What will Australian recourse be? Launch the nukes? No. Australian neutrality makes no sense to me. Combined with Anglophone powers and you'd have to be crazy to attack the place. By itself? Strong, but not invulnerable. How about control of laws? Bilaterally, from what I've read, it seems that China has increasing undue influence on Australian lawmakers.
To the more general question of a 'constellation' of powers (from the video clip), I don't think that's any more durable than a Hanseatic league. As soon as bigger powers came on the scene with a different sense of beneficial 'commons' neutrality, they lost. Why should the Dutch have been able to outcompete them? There's some circularity to my answer, which I think I can solve by saying there are primary guarantors and secondary guarantors of sovereignty. As part of UK/ANZAC Australia is a primary guarantor. Those nuclear subs they're getting really messes with Chinese strategic calculus. They get them from the US/UK because of cultural ties. If Australia teamed up with a bric-a-brac of 'neutrals' with nothing else in common, but a desire for minimum pain and maximum pleasure, they will not fight for commons. We've already seen that with this joke people call 'international law.' Who in the 'constellation' of powers fought for that thing? Even though small trading powers benefit from the international order. And delusional countries like Saudi Arabia that can't even defend its own oil facilities from Yemeni insurgents or own the technological knowledge-base that its resource economy depends upon, these delusional countries are going to be the first to be conquered. Does MBS run Saudi Arabia like he's aware of this risk? Not at all.
Hope that helped. You've also given me an idea for another essay. Thanks for that too. Salute!
I tend to agree, leaving the French out in the cold in the submarine deal was a clear indication who’s side Australia is on. The Austrian type of neutrality for Australia is nothing more than a wishful thinking.
I know one of my conclusions in here contradicts my NATO capitulation thesis: do I or do I not believe Belarus will be used as a 'Ukraine' against Poland, Lithuania, or other Baltic states? Are the nuclear weapons a 'deterrent'? Or are they for ambiguous offensive scenarios against a weakened NATO? I wish I could keep perfect integrity, but I discover as I write. Eventually I'll collect my notes, and revise into a proper book. Thanks for reading.
In his recent talk in Australia, professor John Mearsheimer suggested that despite years of economic prosperity derived from its relationship with China, Australia is about to face a choice between prosperity (China) and security (the US). “If you are not with us, you are against us”.
An interesting question was asked: “What about Australian neutrality, preferably with the nuclear deterrent?” This was a part of a broader question that perhaps major powers would not be able to dictate to their former alíes to the extent they used to: @44:41 https://youtu.be/cAFX0qRcJJs
What’s your take on that?
It's an understandable question. I have to first wonder, what is neutrality? Not getting involved is not neutrality. Neutrality expects itself to be respected, when conflict inherently means one of the belligerents has been disrespected. Neutrality when one benefits from the standards of the commons, is a form of free-riding/cowardice that often ends poorly. Neutrality is like a soft-surrender. Most of the time, it's not going to play out like Switzerland. 'Hey France, you're the hegemon? Fine. Oh never mind, hi Germany, what's up? Oh France again? Yeah man, long time no see.' I think it plays out more like Korea in the 16th century. Thinks it's so smart staying out of the way of China, Jurchens, and Japan. Then it gets clobbered by all 3. Realists like Yi Sun Shin and Yu Songyong were screaming for the need to finance the Pibenyosa (border security committee) and meanwhile the idiots in Seoul were sayin stupid things like, "Oh, the Japanese have guns? Well it's not like they can hit the target every time, can they?" A literati is literally recorded saying this in court when the matter of Japanese war preparations came up.
So again, what is sovereignty? Control of trade. Control of borders. Control of laws. Control of national interests. Ability to enforce international agreements. Where is Australia by those metrics? Can it control the sea around it? The Chinese navy is stronger. Good thing it has a relationship with the Japanese-Korean axis. Would it fight for them? Like if Tsushima was under attack? Would they object if Japan took back the Kurils and fought over Sakhalin in a counterattack? Or would that be 'escalatory,' even if it helped finish the war? Australia needs its natural allies. There's a long history of Aussies in SF and California. I have a cultural bond with them and I'd like to think the feeling is mutual. Likewise, they have this bond with NZ and UK and Canada. So it is diplomacy that protects Australian trade. And is it supposed to trade bilaterally with China until China decides to change the rules? What will Australian recourse be? Launch the nukes? No. Australian neutrality makes no sense to me. Combined with Anglophone powers and you'd have to be crazy to attack the place. By itself? Strong, but not invulnerable. How about control of laws? Bilaterally, from what I've read, it seems that China has increasing undue influence on Australian lawmakers.
To the more general question of a 'constellation' of powers (from the video clip), I don't think that's any more durable than a Hanseatic league. As soon as bigger powers came on the scene with a different sense of beneficial 'commons' neutrality, they lost. Why should the Dutch have been able to outcompete them? There's some circularity to my answer, which I think I can solve by saying there are primary guarantors and secondary guarantors of sovereignty. As part of UK/ANZAC Australia is a primary guarantor. Those nuclear subs they're getting really messes with Chinese strategic calculus. They get them from the US/UK because of cultural ties. If Australia teamed up with a bric-a-brac of 'neutrals' with nothing else in common, but a desire for minimum pain and maximum pleasure, they will not fight for commons. We've already seen that with this joke people call 'international law.' Who in the 'constellation' of powers fought for that thing? Even though small trading powers benefit from the international order. And delusional countries like Saudi Arabia that can't even defend its own oil facilities from Yemeni insurgents or own the technological knowledge-base that its resource economy depends upon, these delusional countries are going to be the first to be conquered. Does MBS run Saudi Arabia like he's aware of this risk? Not at all.
Hope that helped. You've also given me an idea for another essay. Thanks for that too. Salute!
I tend to agree, leaving the French out in the cold in the submarine deal was a clear indication who’s side Australia is on. The Austrian type of neutrality for Australia is nothing more than a wishful thinking.
Thank you for your reply.