AUKUS: Is this the start of WWIII?

[Grave_n_idle]

Definitely reason to doubt Japan joining us - Trumps' international policy with Pacific Rim nations was just so ridiculously awful that he managed to do the unthinkable and drive China and Japan into pledging deeper ties and trade back in 2018. I don't know if Biden has done enough to change any Pacific Rim opinions. Best case scenario, countries like Japan and South Korea just assume we're unreliable in the long-term but hope it's going to average out better. Worst case, they pick the stability of a next-door neighbor in an increasingly divided marketplace.

yeah, they should have plenty of reason to doubt the longterm stability of american democracy, what with the republican minority killing off its own to grab power once more

it fucking sucks

I don't necessarily think American democracy is about to implode (although you're not wrong, there's some concerted self-sabotage going on right now) but the polar-swings-as-foreign-policy approach is not reassuring to allies.

[Antipatros]

As some people here may know, Australia, United States and the United Kingdom publicly announced that they have created a new military alliance in response to tensions with China. Do you think that by publicly announcing this military alliance, they have lit the spark that will start world war 3? In my opinion, I think that this going to create another cold war because I believe that Russia will decide to support China by creating a new alliance which will result in other communist countries showing their support to China.

AUKUS has effectively been a thing for a long time -- this just represents a strengthening of ties. All three countries already have interlocking defense and security agreements with one another. There are also other countries in the region that separately have defense agreements with these three countries (New Zealand, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Thailand, and Malaysia)

What I'm waiting for is someone like India entering into a collective defense agreement with America and/or Britain. That would be a big regional change.

[Diahon]

a second trump admin, or really, any republican admin at this point in time, is in effect an implosion -- think de facto isolationism as foreign policy, as republicans solidify their renewed hold on power domestically through means reminiscent of the worst of the argentinian backslide

and that's the best-case scenario, with the worst-case scenario always at the ready, thanks to the united states' surfeit of military power, which will shortly be put in the wrong hands -- again -- unless democrats do something about it

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

If there is a third world war, the European Union must be neutral.

[Diahon]

As some people here may know, Australia, United States and the United Kingdom publicly announced that they have created a new military alliance in response to tensions with China. Do you think that by publicly announcing this military alliance, they have lit the spark that will start world war 3? In my opinion, I think that this going to create another cold war because I believe that Russia will decide to support China by creating a new alliance which will result in other communist countries showing their support to China.

AUKUS has effectively been a thing for a long time -- this just represents a strengthening of ties. All three countries already have interlocking defense and security agreements with one another. There are also other countries in the region that separately have defense agreements with these three countries (New Zealand, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Phillipines, Thailand, and Malaysia)

What I'm waiting for is someone like India entering into a collective defense agreement with America and/or Britain. That would be a big regional change.

discount the philippines from that list -- while our military has made token efforts to pump some life into the postwar alliance between manila and washington, the fact of the matter is that duts holds all the cards, and those cards have been sold to the ccp for some time

[Free Metropolitan France]

I want to address this concern that The United States cannot declare its complete support for India. Although, USA and India are very close partners it cannot reveal it completely. Because the USA can't afford to lose a nuclear-armed country (Pakistan) to Chinese influence completely. Pakistan's role in War on terror and Afghanistan are the reasons it cannot accelerate itself to India solely.

[Grave_n_idle]

As some people here may know, Australia, United States and the United Kingdom publicly announced that they have created a new military alliance in response to tensions with China. Do you think that by publicly announcing this military alliance, they have lit the spark that will start world war 3? In my opinion, I think that this going to create another cold war because I believe that Russia will decide to support China by creating a new alliance which will result in other communist countries showing their support to China.

AUKUS has effectively been a thing for a long time -- this just represents a strengthening of ties. All three countries already have interlocking defense and security agreements with one another. There are also other countries in the region that separately have defense agreements with these three countries (New Zealand, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Phillipines, Thailand, and Malaysia)

What I'm waiting for is someone like India entering into a collective defense agreement with America and/or Britain. That would be a big regional change.

There's no real incentive for India to enter that kind of agreement, especially with the US - given how America has treated India over the last 40 years. It's probably more likely that India would side with China if China would make some accommodations on disputed border territory - and it would be in China's interest to do just that, given the length of the border and the perceived need for containment of 'nationalist' Islam.

[Free Metropolitan France]

China and India could've been allies if it weren't for the expansionist desires of China. China is cosier with Pakistan. Because both have one enemy: India. ''The enemy of my enemy is my friend.''

[Antipatros]

AUKUS has effectively been a thing for a long time -- this just represents a strengthening of ties. All three countries already have interlocking defense and security agreements with one another. There are also other countries in the region that separately have defense agreements with these three countries (New Zealand, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Phillipines, Thailand, and Malaysia)

What I'm waiting for is someone like India entering into a collective defense agreement with America and/or Britain. That would be a big regional change.

discount the philippines from that list -- while our military has made token efforts to pump some life into the postwar alliance between manila and washington, the fact of the matter is that duts holds all the cards, and those cards have been sold to the ccp for some time

I can only hope that Duterte is a temporary aberration, and that the Philippines rights itself over time.

I want to address this concern that The United States cannot declare its complete support for India. Although, USA and India are very close partners it cannot reveal it completely. Because the USA can't afford to lose a nuclear-armed country (Pakistan) to Chinese influence completely. Pakistan's role in War on terror and Afghanistan are the reasons it cannot accelerate itself to India solely.

That is true. I've gotten the sense that the US has swung more towards India in recent years, as frustrations with Pakistan have mounted and the War in Afghanistan has wound down.

The other issue complicating things is India's worsening human rights record under Modi. The US is capable of looking the other way a lot of the time (see many of the Gulf States), but it is an issue.

[Grave_n_idle]

I want to address this concern that The United States cannot declare its complete support for India. Although, USA and India are very close partners it cannot reveal it completely. Because the USA can't afford to lose a nuclear-armed country (Pakistan) to Chinese influence completely. Pakistan's role in War on terror and Afghanistan are the reasons it cannot accelerate itself to India solely.

The US and India are not close partners. The US has exerted force to control India over the last four decades because having a tame India was useful in late-Cold War politics in Afghanistan, and then the rise of 'nationalist' Islam in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.

With US troops now out of Afghanistan, and Pakistan no longer necessary as a strategic foothold - the US can now afford to be a little more responsive to India, but that doesn't make the US and India close.

[Helliniki Katastasis]

a second trump admin, or really, any republican admin at this point in time, is in effect an implosion -- think de facto isolationism as foreign policy, as republicans solidify their renewed hold on power domestically through means reminiscent of the worst of the argentinian backslide

and that's the best-case scenario, with the worst-case scenario always at the ready, thanks to the united states' surfeit of military power, which will shortly be put in the wrong hands -- again -- unless democrats do something about it

I guarantee you, as a Republican, none if my fellow Repubs would allow that, and neither would I. Everyone (minus wackos in the far left and the GQP folks) believes in democracy and would do anything to preserve it. Your fear mongering based on assumptions and lies doesn't help.

[Free Metropolitan France]

I want to address this concern that The United States cannot declare its complete support for India. Although, USA and India are very close partners it cannot reveal it completely. Because the USA can't afford to lose a nuclear-armed country (Pakistan) to Chinese influence completely. Pakistan's role in War on terror and Afghanistan are the reasons it cannot accelerate itself to India solely.

That is true. I've gotten the sense that the US has swung more towards India in recent years, as frustrations with Pakistan have mounted and the War in Afghanistan has wound down.

The other issue complicating things is India's worsening human rights record under Modi. The US is capable of looking the other way a lot of the time (see many of the Gulf States), but it is an issue.

Yeah, this is true. Pakistan has proved to be a double-edged sword for the West and particularly for The United States. The United States has come to this conclusion: You cannot rely on someone who takes money from you one hand and deliver it to your enemy from the other.
Like we have seen in Afghanistan. And America is expert to look the other way while ignoring human rights when its self-interests are at risk. Saudi Arabia, Egypt you name it.

[Free Metropolitan France]

I want to address this concern that The United States cannot declare its complete support for India. Although, USA and India are very close partners it cannot reveal it completely. Because the USA can't afford to lose a nuclear-armed country (Pakistan) to Chinese influence completely. Pakistan's role in War on terror and Afghanistan are the reasons it cannot accelerate itself to India solely.

The US and India are not close partners. The US has exerted force to control India over the last four decades because having a tame India was useful in late-Cold War politics in Afghanistan, and then the rise of 'nationalist' Islam in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.

With US troops now out of Afghanistan, and Pakistan no longer necessary as a strategic foothold - the US can now afford to be a little more responsive to India, but that doesn't make the US and India close.

It's true. Pakistan was an ally of the US in the Cold War while India was close to USSR. So the relations weren't great between the two. But now both have common objective: ''Stop China''.

[Yama to hitobito]

"They're should help the people in their own countries, Covid-19, Economy, Jobs and Housing"


Not Wasted Trillions Dollars like USA ,


AUXUS Is "Axis Pact" against China , DPRK and Russia.

[Antipatros]

The other possible route is that the US expands ties with various Southeast Asian countries, like Vietnam or Indonesia.

Africa and the Mideast are also important to the discussion.

[Diahon]

a second trump admin, or really, any republican admin at this point in time, is in effect an implosion -- think de facto isolationism as foreign policy, as republicans solidify their renewed hold on power domestically through means reminiscent of the worst of the argentinian backslide

and that's the best-case scenario, with the worst-case scenario always at the ready, thanks to the united states' surfeit of military power, which will shortly be put in the wrong hands -- again -- unless democrats do something about it

I guarantee you, as a Republican, none if my fellow Repubs would allow that, and neither would I. Everyone (minus wackos in the far left and the GQP folks) believes in democracy and would do anything to preserve it. Your fear mongering based on assumptions and lies doesn't help.

i saw the last four years under that mass-murdering motherfucker you guys have the gall to call a leader

i saw last year

you tell me i lie? well, would to the myriad fucking gods do i wish i were

[Free Metropolitan France]

The other possible route is that the US expands ties with various Southeast Asian countries, like Vietnam or Indonesia.

Africa and the Mideast are also important to the discussion.

Russian influence in Africa is on an upward trajectory. Russia is challenging France and America in Africa. Not to forget Russia has signed new military agreements with African nations in the last few days. Russia deployed its own election observers while the European union removed their own ones.

[Antipatros]

I guarantee you, as a Republican, none if my fellow Repubs would allow that, and neither would I. Everyone (minus wackos in the far left and the GQP folks) believes in democracy and would do anything to preserve it. Your fear mongering based on assumptions and lies doesn't help.

i saw the last four years under that mass-murdering motherfucker you guys have the gall to call a leader

i saw last year

you tell me i lie? well, would to the myriad fucking gods do i wish i were

Most of the Republicans in DC are interventionists and China hawks. I would say that most Republican voters are China hawks too, despite many of them also believing in the whole "America First" narrative.

Being at the very least suspicious of China seems to be one of the few unifying narratives in US politics. China's image in America has really suffered over time.

[Free Metropolitan France]

i saw the last four years under that mass-murdering motherfucker you guys have the gall to call a leader

i saw last year

you tell me i lie? well, would to the myriad fucking gods do i wish i were

Most of the Republicans in DC are interventionists and China hawks. I would say that most Republican voters are China hawks too, despite many of them also believing in the whole "America First" narrative.

Being at the very least suspicious of China seems to be one of the few unifying narratives in US politics. China's image in America has really suffered over time.

Since the death Of Osama Bin laden Trump has given China the image of ''Public Enemy no.1'' Trump was a disaster for America as well as for the whole world. Well, that's what happens when you listen too much to FOX.

[Grave_n_idle]

The US and India are not close partners. The US has exerted force to control India over the last four decades because having a tame India was useful in late-Cold War politics in Afghanistan, and then the rise of 'nationalist' Islam in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.

With US troops now out of Afghanistan, and Pakistan no longer necessary as a strategic foothold - the US can now afford to be a little more responsive to India, but that doesn't make the US and India close.

It's true. Pakistan was an ally of the US in the Cold War while India was close to USSR. So the relations weren't great between the two. But now both have common objective: ''Stop China''.

They don't really have that common objective, though, do they.

I mean, the US has got a lot tied up in opposing China's political expansion, but India's conflict with China is almost all territorial.

Moreover, while the US has major ideological opposition to China, Marxism and Maoism are intrinsic in Indian society - indeed, the LEADERSHIP of Kerala is currently Marxist, and multiple state assemblies have Marxist membership.

All China really needs to do is show some serious flexibility on disputed territory.

[Free Metropolitan France]

It's true. Pakistan was an ally of the US in the Cold War while India was close to USSR. So the relations weren't great between the two. But now both have common objective: ''Stop China''.

They don't really have that common objective, though, do they.

I mean, the US has got a lot tied up in opposing China's political expansion, but India's conflict with China is almost all territorial.

Moreover, while the US has major ideological opposition to China, Marxism and Maoism are intrinsic in Indian society - indeed, the LEADERSHIP of Kerala is currently Marxist, and multiple state assemblies have Marxist membership.

All China really needs to do is show some serious flexibility on disputed territory.

I couldn't agree more. China-US rivalry is deep and complex while China-India rivalry is limited to the territorial dispute of Ladakh and others. You made a good point. There are many communist parties in China some of them even hold leadership positions in some states.

[Kerwa]

Suggestion: it´s the military force behind the Five Eyes (close co-operation between their military and civilian secret services, a.k.a. alphabet agencies).

NZ dropped out, so now it’s four eyes. Which is funny.

[Antipatros]

If I had to guess, the most likely course for India will be to balance relations with the US, Europe, Russia, and China. If we're being objective, that is probably the best path for India in the long term.

The only real constant in Indian foreign relations has been frosty relations with Pakistan.

[Torrocca]

Anglo countries and acting like world police while they do raw, unfettered imperialism. Name a more iconic duo.

[The New California Republic]

AUKUS: Is this the start of WWIII?

No.