What President Donald Trump has been saying about his friends and our allies recently clearly suggests that both the AUKUS arrangement (it is not a treaty), along with last month’s down payment of some $US500k, has been and will prove to be a terrible mistake.

With AUKUS we have thrown all our eggs into one basket. With what assurance, as opposed to expectation, of a return? Nor is it clear as to purpose once a military stalemate is between the US and China.

The political folly of this project was apparent when first raised by the previous Coalition Government, without a squeak from the Labor Party which feared being wedged; it was then just months short of government. A classic case of being surprised when chooks come home to roost.

Most attention about the alliance lately has been on the alleged relative decline of US military power, and concern over whether in that condition it could come to our assistance should a Chinese threat turn into a reality.

The reality we now face in the light of President Trump’s statements is that they may not turn up at all – unless of course we had traded away our mineral and other wealth on US terms (“thank you for your service” as we say to departing troops).

The mistaken fear that the US might not turn up at all is grounded on a view that the US has retreated again into isolationism as it did in the 1930s – a decade that has clearly influenced Trump, but not for that reason.

The US under Trump is clearly interventionist — where he might have seen opportunities were this the 1930s — not to keep the peace, but to make or threaten war in anticipation of its spoils whether doing so with, or for, a partner state, by causing diplomatic disruption, as is now occurring in the once established trading order or stringing along outside of it with an ally until the ally concedes.

Allies with concomitant commitments would now be left in profound disarray, whether as one or all. So much for the GATT.

How far can this approach be allowed to go down the trail of history without there being a profound reaction? The strength of that reaction would depend on whether the US has stood on the toes of another great or would-be great power. Given Trump’s predilections, one might assume that his actions and policies would not have seriously disrupted, but rather reinforced the interests of the Russian Federation; but would have caused serious unease with China.

Read between the lines to discern the outcome for Ukraine, the Baltic states, and most of Eastern Europe. Needless to say the UK, the EU, even Japan would be marginalised. The rest for all intents and purposes will not be players in the power game.

Where do such situations end, unless the plug is pulled at key stages (e.g. a subsequent US election), before Trump has entrenched himself or his supporters in power despite constitutional prohibitions)?

The answer lies in history, with the Peloponnesian Wars – an uncomfortable thought for both the US and China.

Which of those two might in time prevail? One appears to have superior air and marine forces; the other superior land forces. But with hypersonic missiles and lateral technologies in the mix one wouldn’t know. These are levellers. Neither is likely to risk striking first (MAD). So back we go to a Cold War as we knew in the 1960s.

Meanwhile both powers would be required to maintain their forces on a high state of alert – leaving the rest of us on constant edge fearing that a global Gaza could be just around the corner. Which wouldn’t make it possible for life, as we have known it, to be restored for decades, if at all.

Thank you President Trump!

https://johnmenadue.com/trump-has-ruled-out-allies-implying-too-that-with-aukus-we-have-bought-a-pig-in-a-poke/

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.