SearchRecent comments
Democracy LinksMember's Off-site Blogs |
defending the world against itself..... The Trump ascendancy has forced international economic issues and the future strategic outlook onto the Australian election agenda, even if they are at the margins. This campaign — while dominated by domestic issues, notably the cost of living — is taking place against the background of an extraordinarily volatile external situation, with major implications for Australia’s future. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Hugh White on what the next PM should tell Trump and defending Australia – without the US
To discuss these issues, we were joined on the podcast by Hugh White, emeritus professor of Strategic Studies at the Australian National University. White is one of Australia’s foremost thinkers on defence policy, China and the region. His long career includes serving as an adviser to then federal defence minister Kim Beazley. White regards US President Donald Trump as a “revolutionary figure”: I think Trump is a genuinely revolutionary character, and not just his impact on American domestic politics and economics, I also think he has a huge impact on global strategic affairs. And the reason for that is that he does have a fundamentally different view of America’s place in the world than that of what we might call a Washington establishment. Donald Trump is really a kind of an old-fashioned isolationist. That is, he believes America’s strategic focus should be on the Western hemisphere […] For example, in Ukraine he’s happy to see Russia assert itself as a great power in Eastern Europe. In Asia, I think, despite his reputation as a China hawk on economic issues, he doesn’t have any problem with China asserting itself as a great power in East Asia. He’s for these other great powers to dominate their backyards, just the way he wants America to dominate its backyard in the Western hemisphere. Yet White doesn’t believe either Labor or the Coalition is taking defence seriously in this election. It’s not being treated as a real issue in the campaign, and that’s because both sides have determined that it won’t, and what underpins that is the absolutely rock-solid bipartisanship between the two of them on every significant issue. And I think that’s a very serious problem for Australia, because at a time when our strategic circumstances are changing dramatically […] neither side has any inclination to have a serious conversation about what that means, why it’s happening, what we should be doing about it, A lot of the blame for that lies with the Labor Party, because it seems to me Labor’s political approach to the whole question of foreign affairs and defence for a very long time now has focused on minimising differences with the Coalition. While White agrees Australia needs new submarines, and quickly, he doesn’t think they should be nuclear-powered, as promised under AUKUS. He thinks we should leave AUKUS. We should have started building replacements for the [Collins-class submarine] around about 2010 or 2012. So we’re well over a decade late and I do think there’s a real risk that we’re going to lose our submarine capability altogether. But the way to solve that is not to push ahead spending billions and billions of dollars on a project which, even if it works, delivers the submarines we don’t need, and which is very unlikely to deliver any submarines at all. We’re past looking for a perfect submarine. We just need to get any submarine at all so we can keep some capability running and then once we have that running, we need to have a really focused program. We need ministers to really tell Defence what to do, focus programs to develop a follow on to the Collins-class design, because that’s the design we already know best in the world and to start building a new class of evolved Collins. After the 3 May election, when the next prime minister meets the US president to talk trade, defence and more, what should Anthony Albanese or Peter Dutton tell Trump? White says: Trump is very hard to handle. I don’t think there’s any magic formula that an Australian prime minister can utter, which makes Trump into either a more acceptable, economic partner for Australia or a more reliable strategic partner for Australia, because the forces that are driving America out of Asia are much bigger than Donald Trump. The most important thing an Australian political leader could say to Trump when he first meets him is, look, we understand where you’re coming from. We are happy to take responsibility for our own security. We don’t expect you to stay engaged in Asia to look after us in future. What we want you to do is to help us manage that transition as best we can and we’re prepared to pay for what we get.
YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.
Gus Leonisky POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.
|
User login |
yalta....
Combined might of Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill saved the world. Can we repeat the recipe?
How three men in Yalta decided the fate of the planet – and why it still matters
By Roman Shumov
Discussions about building a new global order have become increasingly frequent and urgent. Many argue that the international system established after World War II can no longer effectively prevent the tragedies and conflicts we witness today. But how exactly was this fragile system created in the first place?
Much like today, Europe became a brutal battleground in the mid-20th century. At that crucial turning point, Moscow and the Western powers were forced into negotiations, despite mutual distrust and seemingly insurmountable differences. They had little choice but to come together, stop the bloodshed, and create a new framework for global security. These uneasy compromises and agreements fundamentally shaped today’s world.
Unlikely alliesBefore WWII, the idea of an alliance between the Western powers and the Soviet Union seemed unimaginable. Western leaders dismissed Soviet attempts to contain Adolf Hitler’s aggressive ambitions, viewing the USSR as neither strong nor trustworthy enough to be a partner. Miscalculations and mutual suspicion drove both the West and the Soviets to separately strike deals with Hitler – first the Western powers in 1938, then the Soviet Union in 1939. These ill-fated decisions allowed Nazi Germany to destroy Czechoslovakia and conquer Europe step by step.
Everything changed in June 1941 when Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union, forcing Moscow into an alliance with Britain. Few believed the Soviet Union could withstand Germany’s powerful military, which had quickly defeated Western armies. Yet, Soviet forces fiercely resisted. By December, the Soviets launched a counteroffensive near Moscow, halting the German advance. Days later, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, drawing the United States fully into the war. The Anti-Hitler Coalition was now complete, united by the common goal of defeating Nazi Germany.
Despite military cooperation, deep tensions remained among the Allies, especially over territorial ambitions. Between 1939 and 1940, the USSR reclaimed territories formerly belonging to the Russian Empire – regions in eastern Poland, parts of Finland, Bessarabia (today’s Moldova), and the Baltic republics of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Although Poland and other affected nations protested, wartime priorities overshadowed these concerns. Moreover, the Allies were willing to sacrifice national sovereignty in strategically important regions – such as Iran, jointly occupied by Britain and the USSR – to ensure vital supply routes.
Strategic disputes and shiftsStalin repeatedly demanded that the Allies open a second front in Europe to relieve pressure on Soviet forces, which were sustaining tremendous losses. Frustrated by Allied focus on North Africa and Italy rather than a direct assault against Germany, Stalin nonetheless accepted substantial military aid via Lend-Lease and benefited indirectly from relentless Allied bombing of German industry.
In 1942, Allied leaders debated whether to prioritize defeating Germany in Europe or Japan in the Pacific. Winston Churchill insisted that crushing Germany would inevitably lead to Japan’s defeat. Despite America’s primary focus on the Pacific, strategic logic eventually favored Europe.
Yet the Allied path into Europe proved difficult. The British favored a strategy of encircling Germany – first via North Africa and Italy – before invading France from the north. The disastrous Dieppe raid underscored the challenge of invading France directly. Consequently, operations began in North Africa in 1942 and Italy in 1943, irritating Stalin, who criticized these campaigns as secondary. While Allied bombing weakened Germany’s war industry, Stalin continued pressing for immediate help on the Eastern Front.
In 1943, decisive Allied victories at Stalingrad and in North Africa turned the tide. Leaders now demanded Germany’s unconditional surrender, hardening German resistance but solidifying Allied resolve. Victories continued as the Soviets advanced decisively through Ukraine and Poland, while Western forces moved slowly through Italy.
In November 1943, Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin met in Tehran. The conference proved crucially productive: leaders finalized plans for the Normandy invasion to open a western front, secured Soviet commitment to join the war against Japan after Germany’s defeat, and debated Germany’s future. Churchill and Roosevelt proposed dividing Germany into several states, but Stalin insisted it remain unified.
Significant progress was also made regarding Poland. Stalin gained acceptance for the Soviet annexation of eastern Polish territories, compensating Poland with land in eastern Germany and parts of East Prussia. Most importantly, Tehran set the stage for establishing the United Nations as a mechanism to prevent future global conflicts.
Yalta and the new world orderIn February 1945, world leaders convened at the Yalta Conference in Crimea to determine the shape of the post-war world. Although Nazi Germany was still resisting fiercely, it was evident their defeat was inevitable, prompting discussions about the future global order.
The Yalta summit represented the high point of an unlikely and uneasy alliance between vastly different countries, yet its outcome provided the foundation for decades of relative stability.
Hosted at Livadia Palace, a former summer residence of the Russian emperors on the Crimean peninsula, the meeting brought together Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin. Each leader had distinct objectives: Roosevelt aimed to secure America’s dominant position in the post-war world; Churchill sought to preserve Britain’s empire; and Stalin wanted to guarantee Soviet security and advance the interests of international socialism. Despite these stark differences, they sought common ground.
A key issue was the fate of the Far East. Stalin agreed to join the war against Japan once Germany was defeated but laid down firm conditions, demanding territory from Japan and recognition of Soviet interests in China. Though each leader conducted behind-the-scenes negotiations without informing the others, agreements regarding Asia were ultimately reached. In Europe, they decided Germany would be divided into occupation zones administered by the USSR and the Allies – the latter further split into American, British, and later French sectors.
The Allies planned Germany’s total demilitarization, denazification, and reparations payments, including forced labor. Poland fell within the Soviet sphere of influence; despite strong protests by Poland’s exiled government, the USSR gained territories in eastern Poland, compensating the Poles with German lands to the west, including parts of East Prussia, Pomerania, and Silesia. Although Stalin considered a coalition Polish government including diverse political factions, he already had a clear plan for Soviet control there. In contrast, Western and Southern Europe remained firmly in the Allied sphere.
The future structure of the United Nations was also extensively discussed at Yalta. Debates were intense and focused on maximizing each country’s influence. Stalin initially proposed separate UN representation for every Soviet republic, while Roosevelt envisioned a Security Council without veto powers. Ultimately, they agreed upon establishing the UN and a Security Council with veto power for major states, dedicated to preserving global peace and stability.
While Yalta did not achieve perfect justice, it set the stage for a world divided into spheres of influence – causing forced migrations, suffering, and political repression. Just as the Soviet Union brutally crushed Polish resistance, Britain harshly suppressed communist movements in Greece. Border changes forced millions from their homes: Germans were expelled from areas they had inhabited for centuries, Poles were displaced from Ukraine, and Ukrainians from Poland.
Nevertheless, at that moment in history, no better alternatives seemed viable. The Yalta agreements demonstrated that negotiation was possible, outlining a global structure that lasted nearly half a century. Today, the UN still functions, and its creation at Yalta reminds us that, despite deep differences, compromise and cooperation remain possible paths forward.
https://www.rt.com/russia/615248-from-yalta-to-today/?ysclid=m9jcbkk774600567958
READ FROM TOP.
YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.
Gus Leonisky
POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.