Trump Admin going out there on Taiwan

[TheGreatOz]

Lol, Australia is a signatory to the mutual aid agreement with Taiwan. Or didn't you know that?

Heh, funny. Australia has no explicit commitment to join in a war over Taiwan and resists pressure to make one. Our posture is strategic ambiguity, which we adopt to humour the US and prevent being dragged into a war that is against our interests. It's a big debate in Australian politics. Or didn't you know that?

 

[ishtat]

Lol, Australia is a signatory to the mutual aid agreement with Taiwan. Or didn't you know that?

Australia is likely to ignore that agreement and it would almost certainly be following the US in that respect. I anticipate that the US would not take any military action on Taiwan's behalf and incidentally I believe that when push comes to shove abandonment of Taiwan by the USA is in the USA's fundamental interest. Taiwan is just not important enough.

 

[HisArpy]

Australia is likely to ignore that agreement and it would almost certainly be following the US in that respect. I anticipate that the US would not take any military action on Taiwan's behalf and incidentally I believe that when push comes to shove abandonment of Taiwan by the USA is in the USA's fundamental interest. Taiwan is just not important enough.

So you believe Austrailia's national morals aren't any better than the national morals of the US?

To me that kind of says that their "air of superiority" is as fake as everything else going on these days. It certainly doesn't stand the honor test.

 

[HisArpy]

Heh, funny. Australia has no explicit commitment to join in a war over Taiwan and resists pressure to make one. Our posture is strategic ambiguity, which we adopt to humour the US and prevent being dragged into a war that is against our interests. It's a big debate in Australian politics. Or didn't you know that?

I know that Australia is part of the AUKUS pact regarding defense of the S. Pacific and that any refusal to aid Taiwan if invaded by China would go very hard on the Aussies. I suspect that most in power in Australia understand what that means, and it ain't good for Australia.

I also know that stupid people will do almost anything to deny reality just to be contrary.

So your "explanation," like all things dummkopf, says a whole lotta nothing while attempting to make you look clued up. Because the world isn't as simpleton as your mind.

 

[TheGreatOz]

I know that Australia is part of the AUKUS pact regarding defense of the S. Pacific and that any refusal to aid Taiwan if invaded by China would go very hard on the Aussies. I suspect that most in power in Australia understand what that means, and it ain't good for Australia.

I also know that stupid people will do almost anything to deny reality just to be contrary.

So your "explanation," like all things dummkopf, says a whole lotta nothing while attempting to make you look clued up. Because the world isn't as simpleton as your mind.

AUKUS is one of the most hotly debated topics in Australia. It's very controversial here but whatever its merits and otherwise it does not commit Australia to take part in a war for Taiwan.

There is currently a push by the US government to now impose a pre commitment upon us. This we are currently quite rightly resisting because it is not in our national interests to be forced into a conflict with a superpower that is also our most important economic partner (much more important to us than the US). It serves American interests not ours. This is a big current debate here and is widely perceived as meddling and bullying by the Trump administration (which is very unpopular here).

You should at least be aware of these basic elements of the debate here if you want to bluster about it. It just makes you look like a cretin otherwise.

 

[Lazaran]

I believe that when push comes to shove abandonment of Taiwan by the USA is in the USA's fundamental interest. Taiwan is just not important enough.

Um, the entire world economy is currently hinging on advanced computer chips.

Taiwan is a lynchpin.

The U..S. would either defend Taiwan or destroy Taiwan to keep the Chinese from appropriating the chip making technology / infrastructure; full stop.

I doubt the powers that be would even give TACO a choice in the matter.

If China started to make a serious military move on Taiwan, and TACO didn’t immediately marshal U.S. and allied coalition forces to Taiwan’s defense, TACO would be “25th-ed” in a flash, and an individual with less bone spurs and more backbone would make the call.





We. Told. Them. So.

 

[HisArpy]

AUKUS is one of the most hotly debated topics in Australia. It's very controversial here but whatever its merits and otherwise it does not commit Australia to take part in a war for Taiwan.

There is currently a push by the US government to now impose a pre commitment upon us. This we are currently quite rightly resisting because it is not in our national interests to be forced into a conflict with a superpower that is also our most important economic partner (much more important to us than the US). It serves American interests not ours. This is a big current debate here and is widely perceived as meddling and bullying by the Trump administration (which is very unpopular here).

You should at least be aware of these basic elements of the debate here if you want to bluster about it. It just makes you look like a cretin otherwise.

Right, that's why I mentioned AUKUS (when you, an Aussie, didn't)... because I'm "not aware" of what's going on.

Basically, you just fucked up trying to make yourself look smarter than you really are. Which is par for the course with Liberals.

 

[TheGreatOz]

Um, the entire world economy is currently hinging on advanced computer chips.

Taiwan is a lynchpin.

The U..S. would either defend Taiwan or destroy Taiwan to keep the Chinese from appropriating the chip making technology / infrastructure; full stop.

I doubt the powers that be would even give TACO a choice in the matter.

If China started to make a serious military move on Taiwan, and TACO didn’t immediately marshal U.S. and allied coalition forces to Taiwan’s defense, TACO would be “25th-ed” in a flash, and an individual with less bone spurs and more backbone would make the call.





We. Told. Them. So.

I'll leave aside the inflation of importance of the chip issue for a moment. For now let's just call that the case for why the US and allies should intervene.

But the strategic sense for intervention in a war isn't based on whether a case can be argued for it. It's based on whether it can be won, what are the costs of victory, what are the implications of those costs, and what are the implications of defeat.

The US isn't used to being defeated in war but its a very plausible outcome over Taiwan. The military and organisations like RAND have studied and gamed this scenario extensively and the US can lose and even when it wins US losses are always heavy. The trajectory of both likelihood of outright defeat and the scale of losses is worsening. If you've never read any of the reports or RAND studies you should, they are sobering reading.

This is the basic rationale that lies behind the strategic ambiguity of will we or won't we intervene that the US has long adopted. You keep your options open because you dont want to encourage a takeover but you are afraid to make a definite commitment to a war that is very dangerous for you. If this was not the case you would simply declare like you have in the case of Western Europe that say a Russian attack will bring immediate and massive response.

The only peer competitor the US has ever fought is Germany in WW2. Since then you have fought the third world. You have never fought a peer competitor three times your size. You propose to do this in your peer competitor's back yard where Chinese advantages are maximised.

Just reverse this scenario for a moment. Imagine you are a nation fighting the US. Do you really think your best chances are to fight right off the coast of New York? Is that wise or is it maximising the chances of US victory?

"Taiwan is like two feet from China. We are eight thousand miles away. If they invade, there isn’t a fucking thing we can do about it."

Do you know who said that? It was Donald Trump.

There's a lot of bluster on this topic. Sometimes bluster is useful in international politics. It might deter a war. When the rubber hits the road though, the decision to join a war for Taiwan won't and shouldn't be automatic like you suggest. It will be based on a cold hard strategic analysis of can we win, what will it cost and what does it mean for us if we lose.

 

[dmallord]

Right, that's why I mentioned AUKUS (when you, an Aussie, didn't)... because I'm "not aware" of what's going on.

Basically, you just fucked up trying to make yourself look smarter than you really are. Which is par for the course with Liberals.

Armpity, don't go tryin to pat yourself on the back too hard for being a true dumbfuck. You don't look smarter than anyone in Aussieland by a long shot.

 

[adlon]

Heh, funny. Australia has no explicit commitment to join in a war over Taiwan and resists pressure to make one. Our posture is strategic ambiguity, which we adopt to humour the US and prevent being dragged into a war that is against our interests. It's a big debate in Australian politics. Or didn't you know that?

Is not really even "strategic ambiguity". The PM clearly stated this week that Australia's position is for the status quo, which since 1972 recognises only one China the PRC, and does not recognise Taiwan as a country or state independent from China.

 

[Lazaran]

I'll leave aside the inflation of importance of the chip issue for a moment. For now let's just call that the case for why the US and allies should intervene.

But the strategic sense for intervention in a war isn't based on whether a case can be argued for it. It's based on whether it can be won, what are the costs of victory, what are the implications of those costs, and what are the implications of defeat.

The US isn't used to being defeated in war but its a very plausible outcome over Taiwan. The military and organisations like RAND have studied and gamed this scenario extensively and the US can lose and even when it wins US losses are always heavy. The trajectory of both likelihood of outright defeat and the scale of losses is worsening. If you've never read any of the reports or RAND studies you should, they are sobering reading.

This is the basic rationale that lies behind the strategic ambiguity of will we or won't we intervene that the US has long adopted. You keep your options open because you dont want to encourage a takeover but you are afraid to make a definite commitment to a war that is very dangerous for you. If this was not the case you would simply declare like you have in the case of Western Europe that say a Russian attack will bring immediate and massive response.

The only peer competitor the US has ever fought is Germany in WW2. Since then you have fought the third world. You have never fought a peer competitor three times your size. You propose to do this in your peer competitor's back yard where Chinese advantages are maximised.

Just reverse this scenario for a moment. Imagine you are a nation fighting the US. Do you really think your best chances are to fight right off the coast of New York? Is that wise or is it maximising the chances of US victory?

"Taiwan is like two feet from China. We are eight thousand miles away. If they invade, there isn’t a fucking thing we can do about it."

Do you know who said that? It was Donald Trump.

There's a lot of bluster on this topic. Sometimes bluster is useful in international politics. It might deter a war. When the rubber hits the road though, the decision to join a war for Taiwan won't and shouldn't be automatic like you suggest. It will be based on a cold hard strategic analysis of can we win, what will it cost and what does it mean for us if we lose.

Um, the hypothetical is that CHINA will start a war over Taiwan…

My response included TWO possible U.S. responses: The first being an all out defense of Taiwan (which the U.S. should PRESENT as its likely FIRST response), and the second being the destruction of all chip related technology / infrastructure in Taiwan.



Also:

DonOld is a doddering dotard that says all sorts of stupid shit.



The U.S. military is NOT “eight thousand miles away” (there are a fuckton of U.S. & allied military assets in the region (military bases, Navy vessels, offensive & defensive equipment, etc). So if China DID decide to invade, there sure as fuck IS something the U.S. could “do about it” (it has been wargamed to death, and the U.S. comes out on top within 7 days every time).

And the U.S. would know about any ACTUAL invasion well in advance, so China’s "Modern Navy" & "Modern Airforce" would be facing a PREPARED U.S. military that is playing defense (it is ALWAYS faaaaar easier to play defense when it comes to modern warfare).

Side note:

I suspect if things ever got to the point where an ACTUAL head to head battle between China and the U.S. was enjoined, the U.S. would break out some warfare capabilities that no one even knows about or thinks is battlefield ready (see: anti- drone / anti - missile directed energy weapons, tactical EMP weapons, advanced sea-mines, integrated & autonomous AI weapons systems, etc, etc,).



And finally:

Yes, “The day after” WOULD SUCK regardless, but it sure as hell would suck every bit as much and MOAR for China as it would for the U.S. (the rest of the world, including / especially Australia, wouldn’t be spared in the least).

That ^ is why the western alliances forged by ACTUAL LEADERS (not DonOld) should continue to present a united front (even if it’s mostly just a front from some of the members) as a deterrent to China, etc.





We. Told. Them. So.

 

[HisArpy]

Is not really even "strategic ambiguity". The PM clearly stated this week that Australia's position is for the status quo, which since 1972 recognises only one China the PRC, and does not recognise Taiwan as a country or state independent from China.

I think this is the political/strategic position of the entire world. No one really cares about Taiwan other than they manufacture the computer chips that are in everything and NOBODY wants China in direct control of that.

 

[adlon]

I think this is the political/strategic position of the entire world. No one really cares about Taiwan other than they manufacture the computer chips that are in everything and NOBODY wants China in direct control of that.

I'd take China over that absolute shambles the yanks have going on at the moment.

China wants to make money the USA at the moment have no idea what they want on a day to day basis, but thats what they voted for.

 

[TheGreatOz]

Chips is a fairly flimsy rationale beefed up to gen up support for a war

The argument is that chips are a critical factor in the world economy and control of Taiwan would place them in the hands of China. It sounds superficially plausible however:

- many critical global industries are already controlled by China and the sun still rises so there's a 'so what' factor there

- further to the above what do you think the Chinese are going to do with chips if they control Taiwan. Eat them? Build bridges out of them? Their entire economy revolves around selling things. Does it matter if we buy them from China just as we do everything else? No.

- but most importantly China cannot actually even get full control of the world's chip supply through occupation of Taiwan. Why? Because the Taiwanese chip making capability is itself critically dependent upon imports particularly from Western Europe and these can easily be turned off if China doesn't play nice after taking Taiwan. Bear in mind the Chinese desire for Taiwan has fuck all to even do with chips, its a long standing desire that pre-dates the chip industry. China would take a deal that gave it Taiwan and saw the entire industry relocated to the US in a heartbeat.

- if you have a strategic vulnerability that isn't dependent upon possession of finite or geographically limited resources then its temporary as you can solve it (ie build factories elsewhere, its not like there is anything magical about Taiwan and chips can only be built there)

- none of the chip rationale affects the strategic circumstances that make the US likely to lose a war over Taiwan. Just off the coast of China is the worst possible place to fight a war with China.

Interesting to note that some comments about refer to invasion. Why do you think the most obvious and easily defeated strategy would be the only and immediate go to for the Chinese? Why do you think they won't say isolate Taiwan and send a few US carriers to the bottom first, eliminate Kadena, suppress Taiwanese air defences and cut off supply to Taiwan before they would consider invasion?

What makes you think the early fighting isn't the US trying to force through convoys to keep Taiwan open? Its a bit naive to think China will just play lets sail blithely across the Strait and cross our fingers and hope. Never assume your enemy will just play shooting gallery target for you.

China has been thinking and planning for this eventuality. It's also in the driver's seat, it's in the position to choose go or no go. It won't choose go unless it is confident it can win. That confidence might be misplaced but its existence should be sobering to you.

 

[HisArpy]

I'd take China over that absolute shambles the yanks have going on at the moment.

China wants to make money the USA at the moment have no idea what they want on a day to day basis, but thats what they voted for.

Contrarian sour grapes gets you nowhere on this board. China isn't anyone's "friend" regardless of what you think of another country's politics.

 

[HisArpy]

Chips is a fairly flimsy rationale beefed up to gen up support for a war

The argument is that chips are a critical factor in the world economy and control of Taiwan would place them in the hands of China. It sounds superficially plausible however:

- many critical global industries are already controlled by China and the sun still rises so there's a 'so what' factor there

- further to the above what do you think the Chinese are going to do with chips if they control Taiwan. Eat them? Build bridges out of them? Their entire economy revolves around selling things. Does it matter if we buy them from China just as we do everything else? No.

- but most importantly China cannot actually even get full control of the world's chip supply through occupation of Taiwan. Why? Because the Taiwanese chip making capability is itself critically dependent upon imports particularly from Western Europe and these can easily be turned off if China doesn't play nice after taking Taiwan. Bear in mind the Chinese desire for Taiwan has fuck all to even do with chips, its a long standing desire that pre-dates the chip industry. China would take a deal that gave it Taiwan and saw the entire industry relocated to the US in a heartbeat.

- if you have a strategic vulnerability that isn't dependent upon possession of finite or geographically limited resources then its temporary as you can solve it (ie build factories elsewhere, its not like there is anything magical about Taiwan and chips can only be built there)

- none of the chip rationale affects the strategic circumstances that make the US likely to lose a war over Taiwan. Just off the coast of China is the worst possible place to fight a war with China.

Interesting to note that some comments about refer to invasion. Why do you think the most obvious and easily defeated strategy would be the only and immediate go to for the Chinese? Why do you think they won't say isolate Taiwan and send a few US carriers to the bottom first, eliminate Kadena, suppress Taiwanese air defences and cut off supply to Taiwan before they would consider invasion?

What makes you think the early fighting isn't the US trying to force through convoys to keep Taiwan open? Its a bit naive to think China will just play lets sail blithely across the Strait and cross our fingers and hope. Never assume your enemy will just play shooting gallery target for you.

China has been thinking and planning for this eventuality. It's also in the driver's seat, it's in the position to choose go or no go. It won't choose go unless it is confident it can win. That confidence might be misplaced but its existence should be sobering to you.

China has its "Belt and Road Initiative" in which they seek global control and conquest. Allowing them to invade and capture Taiwan so that they have the power to control vital hardware for computers and other infrastructure is fucking dumb. Doing it because "Trump!!!" is even dumber.

 

[ll74]

China has its "Belt and Road Initiative" in which they seek global control and conquest. Allowing them to invade and capture Taiwan so that they have the power to control vital hardware for computers and other infrastructure is fucking dumb. Doing it because "Trump!!!" is even dumber.

If only Africa was viewed this way.

 

[Pad_Foot]

China has been making friends and new trade partners.
The US has been doing the opposite.
They are watching’rump TACO to Putin for years now.
Who is diving into war with US? NATO?

We could have the entire Pacific Rim behind us. Putin and Xi had ‘rump destroy that treaty prospect in hi first round

We COULD be starting to make chips here now. DOGE tore that up. Now? We wait for Taiwan to jump into their trillion dollar promise to shift chip production here. Was it a trillion dollar promise? If it wasn’t?? ‘Rump certainly rounded it up. And that’s happening when?? Can we make TACO into something to do with the dealmaker’s penchant for counting chickens that others whisper up his butt. He enjoys the feel of all those eggs and his science says they will all hatch as full grown roosters.

Trump Ass Chickens Out? No..
Trump Accepts Chicken Offerings

 

[HisArpy]

China has been making friends and new trade partners.
The US has been doing the opposite.
They are watching’rump TACO to Putin for years now.
Who is diving into war with US? NATO?

We could have the entire Pacific Rim behind us. Putin and Xi had ‘rump destroy that treaty prospect in hi first round

We COULD be starting to make chips here now. DOGE tore that up. Now? We wait for Taiwan to jump into their trillion dollar promise to shift chip production here. Was it a trillion dollar promise? If it wasn’t?? ‘Rump certainly rounded it up. And that’s happening when?? Can we make TACO into something to do with the dealmaker’s penchant for counting chickens that others whisper up his butt. He enjoys the feel of all those eggs and his science says they will all hatch as full grown roosters.

Trump Ass Chickens Out? No..
Trump Accepts Chicken Offerings

If this is what you truly believe, no wonder you turned out the way you did.

 

[adlon]

Contrarian sour grapes gets you nowhere on this board. China isn't anyone's "friend" regardless of what you think of another country's politics.

No sour grapes here, just the ability to see the China, USA, Australia relationships for what they are.
China is Australia's largest and most successful trading partner.
China is no threat to Australia economically, politically or militarily.
The USA at this time however, is a confused mess of proposed tariffs that change on a weekly basis fuelling instability.
Australia is extending its trade with Asia and Europe in particular as the USA market is too unstable.
You don't want our beef, which by the way is the safest in terms of biosecurity, fine, we just increased our export of beef to China, no loss there.
You dont want Australian Cooper and iron ore, fine, there's plenty of other markets.

I personally don't give a damn about the current politics of the USA that's a mess you folks created for yourself.

It's just to put it simply, the piss poor and confused economic and diplomatic policy that the USA is currently running won't actually affect Australia that much, but give it a couple of years and we'll see how much of a mess the USA is in.

Enjoy the Billions$ you will be paying in extra taxes, oops sorry tariffs, got to call them because for some reason a certain section of Americans just can't or refuse to accept that tariffs are taxes paid by the inhabitants of the USA.

 

[Lazaran]

Chips is a fairly flimsy rationale beefed up to gen up support for a war

The argument is that chips are a critical factor in the world economy and control of Taiwan would place them in the hands of China. It sounds superficially plausible however:

- many critical global industries are already controlled by China and the sun still rises so there's a 'so what' factor there

- further to the above what do you think the Chinese are going to do with chips if they control Taiwan. Eat them? Build bridges out of them? Their entire economy revolves around selling things. Does it matter if we buy them from China just as we do everything else? No.

- but most importantly China cannot actually even get full control of the world's chip supply through occupation of Taiwan. Why? Because the Taiwanese chip making capability is itself critically dependent upon imports particularly from Western Europe and these can easily be turned off if China doesn't play nice after taking Taiwan. Bear in mind the Chinese desire for Taiwan has fuck all to even do with chips, its a long standing desire that pre-dates the chip industry. China would take a deal that gave it Taiwan and saw the entire industry relocated to the US in a heartbeat.

- if you have a strategic vulnerability that isn't dependent upon possession of finite or geographically limited resources then its temporary as you can solve it (ie build factories elsewhere, its not like there is anything magical about Taiwan and chips can only be built there)

- none of the chip rationale affects the strategic circumstances that make the US likely to lose a war over Taiwan. Just off the coast of China is the worst possible place to fight a war with China.

Interesting to note that some comments about refer to invasion. Why do you think the most obvious and easily defeated strategy would be the only and immediate go to for the Chinese? Why do you think they won't say isolate Taiwan and send a few US carriers to the bottom first, eliminate Kadena, suppress Taiwanese air defences and cut off supply to Taiwan before they would consider invasion?

What makes you think the early fighting isn't the US trying to force through convoys to keep Taiwan open? Its a bit naive to think China will just play lets sail blithely across the Strait and cross our fingers and hope. Never assume your enemy will just play shooting gallery target for you.

China has been thinking and planning for this eventuality. It's also in the driver's seat, it's in the position to choose go or no go. It won't choose go unless it is confident it can win. That confidence might be misplaced but its existence should be sobering to you.

No sour grapes here, just the ability to see the China, USA, Australia relationships for what they are.
China is Australia's largest and most successful trading partner.
China is no threat to Australia economically, politically or militarily.
The USA at this time however, is a confused mess of proposed tariffs that change on a weekly basis fuelling instability.
Australia is extending its trade with Asia and Europe in particular as the USA market is too unstable.
You don't want our beef, which by the way is the safest in terms of biosecurity, fine, we just increased our export of beef to China, no loss there.
You dont want Australian Cooper and iron ore, fine, there's plenty of other markets.

I personally don't give a damn about the current politics of the USA that's a mess you folks created for yourself.

It's just to put it simply, the piss poor and confused economic and diplomatic policy that the USA is currently running won't actually affect Australia that much, but give it a couple of years and we'll see how much of a mess the USA is in.

Enjoy the Billions$ you will be paying in extra taxes, oops sorry tariffs, got to call them because for some reason a certain section of Americans just can't or refuse to accept that tariffs are taxes paid by the inhabitants of the USA.

I understand where both of you are coming from, but I honestly feel you’re being naive & short sighted.

DonOld will NOT always be calling the shots in the U.S. (he has about another year to do Putin’s work).

Meanwhile, ceding near TOTAL control of ANOTHER key industry to China will only strengthen their grip on the world.

If Australians haven’t learned from the Chinese Navy’s water cannon attacks, rammings, etc, on the Philippine Coast Guard, etc, and the dangerous behavior of the Chinese Air Force that an empowered & emboldened China is an unacceptable risk / danger to the free world, then I don’t know what else to say…



We. Told. Them. So.

 

[HisArpy]

No sour grapes here, just the ability to see the China, USA, Australia relationships for what they are.
China is Australia's largest and most successful trading partner.
China is no threat to Australia economically, politically or militarily.
The USA at this time however, is a confused mess of proposed tariffs that change on a weekly basis fuelling instability.
Australia is extending its trade with Asia and Europe in particular as the USA market is too unstable.
You don't want our beef, which by the way is the safest in terms of biosecurity, fine, we just increased our export of beef to China, no loss there.
You dont want Australian Cooper and iron ore, fine, there's plenty of other markets.

I personally don't give a damn about the current politics of the USA that's a mess you folks created for yourself.

It's just to put it simply, the piss poor and confused economic and diplomatic policy that the USA is currently running won't actually affect Australia that much, but give it a couple of years and we'll see how much of a mess the USA is in.

Enjoy the Billions$ you will be paying in extra taxes, oops sorry tariffs, got to call them because for some reason a certain section of Americans just can't or refuse to accept that tariffs are taxes paid by the inhabitants of the USA.

Good luck in your alternate reality.

 

[adlon]

Good luck in your alternate reality.

Alternate reality, isn't that new name for the USA?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Taiwan is far more important to US interests than Ukraine. I’m pleased that Europe has figured that out.

 

[TheGreatOz]

I understand where both of you are coming from, but I honestly feel you’re being naive & short sighted.

DonOld will NOT always be calling the shots in the U.S. (he has about another year to do Putin’s work).

Meanwhile, ceding near TOTAL control of ANOTHER key industry to China will only strengthen their grip on the world.

If Australians haven’t learned from the Chinese Navy’s water cannon attacks, rammings, etc, on the Philippine Coast Guard, etc, and the dangerous behavior of the Chinese Air Force that an empowered & emboldened China is an unacceptable risk / danger to the free world, then I don’t know what else to say…



We. Told. Them. So.

I'm not just directing this to you personally but a general observation. As the top dog Americans aren't great from seeing the world from other, smaller countries perspectives. In particular you are bad at seeing this in terms of anything other than how you perceive it from an angle of great power competition, a strategic angle if you like.

Imagine you are not a great power though and have limited ability to direct world affairs. Imagine you are Australia.

Our interests and American interests are not the same. We have just rebuffed your demands that we commit to war for Taiwan and we're right to do so.

We dont say "fuck off" to a friend that would not be diplomatic. Instead we politely decline the demand and send our Prime Minister on a lovefest to China spruiking trade and Australian-Chinese friendship as we have just done. He was right to do so. It was a very successfull trip. I mean we dont say "fuck off" but the message is clear.

Our interests and American interests are not the same. The job of Australia's leaders is to advance Australia's interests. The US is our main security partner, China is our main economic partner. So for a country like Australia we seek to balance our interests.

You might or might not know the importance of the Chinese-Australian trade. It's on a colossal scale. It dwarfs US-Australia trade. If we ceased trading with the US, it would be inconvenient, if we ceased trading with China, entire industries and Australian living standards would collapse.

Our biggest role in any war between the US and China has already been performed. We built the Chinese war machine. That's Australian steel and aluminium that built all those ships, aircraft and weapons that will be used to sink American ships.

If you lose your war with China, once it's over we will go back to selling them more. If you win it, the same. Because that's in our interest.

We will of course denounce any Chinese attack on Taiwan. Stern words and sanctions will follow. We'll allow you to use your existing bases, easy for us since you're already there.

You might be angry if you dont get more but you'll get over it, life goes on. You were angry with the French when they didn't play ball with you over Iraq. You wanted them to get down on their knees and lick your ballsack like the United Kingdom did. Later on most of you realised that France had been your better friend in that scenario all along and tried to prevent a colossal mistake.