Muslims aren't happy, now there's a surprise. The Uyghurs aren't happy either tell them.
It seems ASEAN is like an Asian version of the EU. Trade without any real unity or political direction.
It’s not a front line fighter so I don’t think exploring export options is that much of a problem and specially when newer jets like LCA mk2, MWF and AMCA are in active development.
But I agree with your POV too.
People keep underestimating the LCA and its design. It's much more capable than we think it is and the plane can be the spine of our future air force. Giving the Malaysians a gripen C/blk 52 class fighter is not good considering how unreliable and incompetent they are. LCA will only make export sense when a squadron of mk 2 is raised. Unfortunately we are too slow in developing the mk 2.
It's actually more in the front than all our frontline fighters. It's the frontest of all.
It was designed as a point defense fighter with some A2G capabilities added later on.
It will be deployed on Front line because we don’t have anything better then LCA , suitable for such task.
We need something like F16 for such role. Mk2/MWF is the closest thing I believe
Statement on the phone call between President Emmanuel Macron and Prime Minister Scott Morrison.
On Thursday, 28 October, President Macron had a telephone call with the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Scott Morrison.President Macron recalled that Australia’s unilateral decision to scale back the French-Australian strategic partnership by putting an end to the ocean-class submarine programme in favour of another as-yet unspecified project broke the relationship of trust between our two countries. The situation of the French businesses and their subcontractors, including Australian companies, affected by this decision will be given our utmost attention.
It is now up to the Australian Government to propose tangible actions that embody the political will of Australia’s highest authorities to redefine the basis of our bilateral relationship and continue joint action in the Indo-Pacific.
Looking ahead to the upcoming G20 in Rome and COP26 in Glasgow, the President of the French Republic encouraged the Australian Prime Minister to adopt ambitious measures commensurate with the climate challenge, in particular the ratcheting up of the nationally determined contribution, the commitment to cease production and consumption of coal at the national level and abroad, and greater Australian support to the International Solar Alliance.
Veering to the Abyss… U.S. and Allies Are Intellectually Comatose
We’ll need something like the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 when the U.S. and Soviet Union came to the brink of nuclear war in order to get peoples’ heads screwed on straight, says Michael Brenner in an interview with SCF’s Finian Cunningham.
In a stark assessment of U.S. international policy and that of its allies, Professor Michael Brenner says there is an abject failure of political leadership and strategic thinking. This is clearly seen with regard to Washington’s persistent antagonism of China and its inability to conduct meaningful dialogue and diplomacy with Beijing for resolving major issues. That is also the case with regard to Europe’s frigid attitude towards Moscow. Such crass conduct of international relations is not only self-defeating for the United States and its Western allies, it is creating the dangerous conditions for fatal miscalculation leading to war. Brenner contends that the world might have to face the brink of destruction before some level of sanity prevails in Washington and other Western capitals. It is lamentable that the lack of strategic thinking and political leadership in the United States is driving the rest of the world to the abyss.
QUESTION: U.S. President Joe Biden has repeatedly said he does not want a Cold War with China. Yet Biden has made provocative moves to antagonize Beijing, for example, his vocal support for militarily defending Taiwan against alleged aggression from the Chinese mainland. Is this deliberate “strategic ambiguity” or plain incoherence in U.S. policy towards China?
MICHAEL BRENNER: Any ascription of a coherent strategic design to the Biden administration is misplaced. There clearly isn’t any. Second key point: Biden’s control over his national security team is tenuous. For example, the day after telling China’s President Xi Jinping on the phone that he doesn’t want a “fight” with China, senior U.S. officials were meeting with Taiwan officials in Geneva to discuss the opening of a “representative” office in Washington – in violation of the 1972 accords that formed the basis of the One China Policy established in 1979 under then President Carter. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, national security advisor Jake Sullivan, Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman et al. are unanimous in their view of China as a lethal threat to American dominance and they believe that a confrontational approach is the only logical response. There is no minority view inside or outside the Biden administration. Only Biden’s domestic advisers are skeptical on strictly political grounds – war or near-war is an electoral loser.
QUESTION: Are you concerned that the U.S. is lurching towards an all-out war with China?
MICHAEL BRENNER: That is not the intent. The danger is miscalculation. Washington thinks that it can bluff the People’s Republic of China; they’re wrong. Look at Hong Kong. Washington thinks only in terms of coercion because that is the only thing they are capable of – and because winner-take-all is the only strategic concept they are mentally capable of understanding. There is not a diplomatic statesman anywhere in the Biden administration. It is the Pentagon that is cautious because all their war games tell them that the U.S. would lose in a conventional war with China.
QUESTION: Washington blames China for the deterioration in international relations, accusing Beijing of malign expansion and of domineering Asian neighbors. Are there any grounds to substantiate these American claims? Or is it blatant U.S. hypocrisy and scaremongering?
MICHAEL BRENNER: The record is clear – the balance of responsibility for deteriorating relations lies with the U.S. The only exception perhaps is over the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea where Beijing has built controversial military aircraft landing facilities. Washington’s rhetoric is relentlessly hostile to the point of insulting; and we are shredding any remaining bilateral agreement over Taiwan – the PRC’s Red Line.
QUESTION: The new military pact between the U.S., Britain and Australia known as AUKUS took international media by surprise, seemingly announced out of the blue last month. You have expressed doubts about its strategic capability, describing it as a “slapdash” arrangement. Should China or Russia be worried about this new AUKUS pact in terms of their security?
MICHAEL BRENNER: I suspect that only their military people are taking it seriously; and in practical terms, the U.S. naval base in Perth, western Australia, won’t be operational for another 25 years or so. The U.S. would like to see it as a key base where submarines armed with nuclear weapons could harbor. The Australian electorate probably has other ideas. Otherwise, it is another political gesture to achieve two ends: place an immovable obstacle in the way of cordial Sino-Australian relations, and tighten the United States’ grip on Canberra’s foreign policy in the Asia-Pacific region.
QUESTION: All three AUKUS members stand to lose economically if relations with China slump further. The economies of the U.S., Britain and Australia rely heavily on China’s vast markets, so what accounts for the self-defeating antagonism of their governments towards Beijing? Could they be so stupidly shortsighted?
MICHAEL BRENNER: Yes – just as the Europeans are in regard to Russia. There is not a strategic mind in a position of authority anywhere in the West. The United Kingdom is run by a bunch of buffoons who live in a “Jewel in the Crown” mental world. While Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison is just posturing. He will be brought up short when the economic losses inevitably hit Australia’s population. Against that, however, the big news is in Japan where Fumio Kishida, the new prime minister, has shifted the country’s attitude towards the PRC by at least 90 degrees. In a breakthrough cordial exchange with China’s President Xi last week both leaders reportedly agreed to pursue “constructive and stable relations” based on increased dialogue.
QUESTION: Do you see the U.S. eventually coming to accept the emergence of a multipolar world and desisting from its hegemonic ambitions? What needs to happen in U.S. politics for that to happen?
MICHAEL BRENNER: In the short to middle-term: No. There is neither the mind nor the political leadership. I fear that we’ll need something like the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 when the U.S. and Soviet Union came to the brink of nuclear war in order to get peoples’ heads screwed on straight. At both the elite and popular level, it is only fear of war that, on a purely pragmatic basis, will break the comatose intellectual/political state that the United States is in.
We’ll need something like the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 when the U.S. and Soviet Union came to the brink of nuclear war in order to get peoples’ heads screwed on straight, says Michael Brenner in an interview with SCF’s Finian Cunningham.
In a stark assessment of U.S. international policy and that of its allies, Professor Michael Brenner says there is an abject failure of political leadership and strategic thinking. This is clearly seen with regard to Washington’s persistent antagonism of China and its inability to conduct meaningful dialogue and diplomacy with Beijing for resolving major issues. That is also the case with regard to Europe’s frigid attitude towards Moscow. Such crass conduct of international relations is not only self-defeating for the United States and its Western allies, it is creating the dangerous conditions for fatal miscalculation leading to war. Brenner contends that the world might have to face the brink of destruction before some level of sanity prevails in Washington and other Western capitals. It is lamentable that the lack of strategic thinking and political leadership in the United States is driving the rest of the world to the abyss.
QUESTION: U.S. President Joe Biden has repeatedly said he does not want a Cold War with China. Yet Biden has made provocative moves to antagonize Beijing, for example, his vocal support for militarily defending Taiwan against alleged aggression from the Chinese mainland. Is this deliberate “strategic ambiguity” or plain incoherence in U.S. policy towards China?
MICHAEL BRENNER: Any ascription of a coherent strategic design to the Biden administration is misplaced. There clearly isn’t any. Second key point: Biden’s control over his national security team is tenuous. For example, the day after telling China’s President Xi Jinping on the phone that he doesn’t want a “fight” with China, senior U.S. officials were meeting with Taiwan officials in Geneva to discuss the opening of a “representative” office in Washington – in violation of the 1972 accords that formed the basis of the One China Policy established in 1979 under then President Carter. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, national security advisor Jake Sullivan, Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman et al. are unanimous in their view of China as a lethal threat to American dominance and they believe that a confrontational approach is the only logical response. There is no minority view inside or outside the Biden administration. Only Biden’s domestic advisers are skeptical on strictly political grounds – war or near-war is an electoral loser.
QUESTION: Are you concerned that the U.S. is lurching towards an all-out war with China?
MICHAEL BRENNER: That is not the intent. The danger is miscalculation. Washington thinks that it can bluff the People’s Republic of China; they’re wrong. Look at Hong Kong. Washington thinks only in terms of coercion because that is the only thing they are capable of – and because winner-take-all is the only strategic concept they are mentally capable of understanding. There is not a diplomatic statesman anywhere in the Biden administration. It is the Pentagon that is cautious because all their war games tell them that the U.S. would lose in a conventional war with China.
QUESTION: Washington blames China for the deterioration in international relations, accusing Beijing of malign expansion and of domineering Asian neighbors. Are there any grounds to substantiate these American claims? Or is it blatant U.S. hypocrisy and scaremongering?
MICHAEL BRENNER: The record is clear – the balance of responsibility for deteriorating relations lies with the U.S. The only exception perhaps is over the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea where Beijing has built controversial military aircraft landing facilities. Washington’s rhetoric is relentlessly hostile to the point of insulting; and we are shredding any remaining bilateral agreement over Taiwan – the PRC’s Red Line.
QUESTION: The new military pact between the U.S., Britain and Australia known as AUKUS took international media by surprise, seemingly announced out of the blue last month. You have expressed doubts about its strategic capability, describing it as a “slapdash” arrangement. Should China or Russia be worried about this new AUKUS pact in terms of their security?
MICHAEL BRENNER: I suspect that only their military people are taking it seriously; and in practical terms, the U.S. naval base in Perth, western Australia, won’t be operational for another 25 years or so. The U.S. would like to see it as a key base where submarines armed with nuclear weapons could harbor. The Australian electorate probably has other ideas. Otherwise, it is another political gesture to achieve two ends: place an immovable obstacle in the way of cordial Sino-Australian relations, and tighten the United States’ grip on Canberra’s foreign policy in the Asia-Pacific region.
QUESTION: All three AUKUS members stand to lose economically if relations with China slump further. The economies of the U.S., Britain and Australia rely heavily on China’s vast markets, so what accounts for the self-defeating antagonism of their governments towards Beijing? Could they be so stupidly shortsighted?
MICHAEL BRENNER: Yes – just as the Europeans are in regard to Russia. There is not a strategic mind in a position of authority anywhere in the West. The United Kingdom is run by a bunch of buffoons who live in a “Jewel in the Crown” mental world. While Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison is just posturing. He will be brought up short when the economic losses inevitably hit Australia’s population. Against that, however, the big news is in Japan where Fumio Kishida, the new prime minister, has shifted the country’s attitude towards the PRC by at least 90 degrees. In a breakthrough cordial exchange with China’s President Xi last week both leaders reportedly agreed to pursue “constructive and stable relations” based on increased dialogue.
QUESTION: Do you see the U.S. eventually coming to accept the emergence of a multipolar world and desisting from its hegemonic ambitions? What needs to happen in U.S. politics for that to happen?
MICHAEL BRENNER: In the short to middle-term: No. There is neither the mind nor the political leadership. I fear that we’ll need something like the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 when the U.S. and Soviet Union came to the brink of nuclear war in order to get peoples’ heads screwed on straight. At both the elite and popular level, it is only fear of war that, on a purely pragmatic basis, will break the comatose intellectual/political state that the United States is in.
He's basically saying the US should agree to any and all Chinese demands, no matter how ridiculous. And the Chinese demands are ridiculous for any sane mind to accept.
A Cuban Missile Crisis is required to put China in its place, not the other way round.
4 C’s Drive Biden Administration’s First Naval Strategic Guidance
“Expanded” posture is needed to focus on China, Navy Secretary Del Toro writes.
www.defenseone.com
The whole One China thing was a mistake used to prevent Soviet-Chinese co-operation and 40+ years after it's simply out-of-date.
And yeah, some nuclear-armed MRBMs on Taiwan is probably what's required to definitively avoid war and is ample payback for China making sure there can never be One Korea.
Australia is sensitive to the famous French tantrum. Our PM “I said g’day,” Mr Morrison said as he shook Macron's hand at the G20.
( A far too kind of a gesture. My advise would have been to tell Macron to "Suck it up sunshine and stick those price gouging subs up your arrse" )
‘We kept the US up-to-date on AUKUS plans’: Morrison
The Australian Prime Minister suggested US government officials failed to keep Joe Biden fully informed about plans to cancel the submarine contract with France.
A day after a contrite Mr Biden told Mr President Macron that the cancellation..with French company Naval Group was “clumsy” and “not done with a lot of grace”,
There was frustration within the Australian government over Mr Biden’s remarks, given the White House and others were fully appraised of the AUKUS plans and those for the French subs contract.
Mr Morison evinced a belief in Canberra that those in the White House who were aware did not sufficiently keep the President informed.
“Australia made the right decision, in our interests, to make sure we had the right submarine capability to deal with our strategic interests,” he said.
It was Australia who choose Non-nuclear Barrakuda class knowing fully well about all the shortcomings of converting a Nuclear sub to a non nuclear one. And then you guys abruptly called off the deal without prior information to French. So French anger is justified and your govt rightfully avoided further annoying them by any crap talk.Australia is sensitive to the famous French tantrum. Our PM “I said g’day,” Mr Morrison said as he shook Macron's hand at the G20.
( A far too kind of a gesture. My advise would have been to tell Macron to "Suck it up sunshine and stick those price gouging subs up your arrse" )
‘We kept the US up-to-date on AUKUS plans’: Morrison
The Australian Prime Minister suggested US government officials failed to keep Joe Biden fully informed about plans to cancel the submarine contract with France.www.afr.com
A day after a contrite Mr Biden told Mr President Macron that the cancellation..with French company Naval Group was “clumsy” and “not done with a lot of grace”,
There was frustration within the Australian government over Mr Biden’s remarks, given the White House and others were fully appraised of the AUKUS plans and those for the French subs contract.
Mr Morison evinced a belief in Canberra that those in the White House who were aware did not sufficiently keep the President informed.
“Australia made the right decision, in our interests, to make sure we had the right submarine capability to deal with our strategic interests,” he said.
Although your decision to choose Nuclear sub is correct but it should’ve been better for Australia if it had floated a tender and for design of a sub and also for consultation on its power plant (miniaturised reactor) and let the design houses complete for it. Instead you canceled the French and choose British/US option without any fair play.
Also if I’m not wrong, Australia itself has design houses and shipbuilders that regularly build good design like catamarans and big cruisers and even HDW type 200 submarines. You should’ve given them a chance to prove their capabilities.
Last edited:
Only one side of the story is being told. Australia is doing the responsible thing and not really responding to the tantrum. A honest look at the history shows that France was well aware of Australian intentions to take the exit ramp and not proceed.
Australian documents showed French submarine project was at risk for years
France should not have been surprised that Australia cancelled a submarine contract, as major concerns about delays, cost overruns and suitability had been aired officially and publicly for years, Australian politicians said.
$90b French submarine project could sink
24 Feb. 2021
A high-level study commissioned by Prime Minister Scott Morrison on the country's submarine program will examine how to end the $ 90 billion project with French shipbuilder Naval Group, owned by the government,
PM intervenes in submarine debacle
February 24, 2021
Two senior naval officers have been tasked by Prime Minister Scott Morrison to examine options for the Australian submarine fleet, in the context of current tensions with the French over the future $ 90 billion submarine program.
As Naval Group chief executive Pierre-Eric Pommelet arrives in Canberra on Wednesday for close talks with Defense Secretary Linda Reynolds and Finance Minister Simon Birmingham about the project, sources say Mr. Morrison questioned the scope of major shipbuilding programs, which cost billions of dollars.
Mr Morrison asked Vice-Admiral Jonathan Mead and Commodore Tim Brown to look at options, including offering Saab Kockums to the Dutch Navy for a conventional long-range submarine.
French President accuses PM of lying about submarine contract
French President Emmanuel Macron has accused Scott Morrison of lying about the $90 billion submarine contract that was cancelled six weeks ago.
www.abc.net.au
You might have missed the link above. France knew we were looking to cancel the sub. It was even reported in the newspaper.
$90b French submarine project could sink
24 Feb. 2021
A high-level study commissioned by Prime Minister Scott Morrison on the country's submarine program will examine how to end the $ 90 billion project with French shipbuilder Naval Group, owned by the government,
$90b French submarine project could sink
24 Feb. 2021
A high-level study commissioned by Prime Minister Scott Morrison on the country's submarine program will examine how to end the $ 90 billion project with French shipbuilder Naval Group, owned by the government,
'We didn't deface the Eiffel Tower': Australia accuses Macron of over-reacting to submarine snub
The French president accused Australia of "lying" over the cancellation of their submarine building contract prior to signing the Aukus deal
www.telegraph.co.uk
@Ashwin - This could probably do with being a sticky thread
French officials vent fury over Australian leak of Macron text message
Confidence shattered by ‘crude’ leak of president’s message to prime minister Scott Morrison, says adviser