American allies in all parts of the world are worried and ready to believe these conversations. Therefore, the Biden administration must prove that the chaos in Afghanistan was an "accident" at the very end, and the operation as a whole pursued a different, higher goal - to shift the focus to a more important goal than the Taliban and various gangs operating there. This big goal, of course, is China.
In pursuit of domestic political goals, the Democrats are trying to blame the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan on Trump, who reached an agreement with the Taliban to withdraw, but the decision was actually made by the United States itself as a political and military structure, and who was the president there is not so important. Therefore, Biden was not going to abandon the "Trump" withdrawal from Afghanistan, because this decision was made precisely with the aim of shifting the focus to China. So Biden in this sense is not much different from Trump, and Trump, in turn, is from Obama. Let me remind you that Barack Obama laid the foundation for this American geopolitical pivot towards Asia and the Pacific ten years ago.
But what Obama succeeded in, and his two successors are succeeding more and more difficultly, is to consolidate partners and allies. Of course, we are talking about large and important allies - those with whom the United States form the so-called Western world in every sense: military, political, economic and socio-cultural. Small countries are not so important, because, in general, they have no choice but to obey the decisions of the strong, but the more important are countries such as UK, France and Germany.
Under Trump, these allies began to scatter in different directions. Trump had a rather bad relationship with British Prime Minister Theresa May and, a little better, with her successor Boris Johnson. Trump did not find a common language with Merkel, and his relationship with Macron was not idyllic, although the French president tried, at least at first, to ignore Donald Trump's "original style" as the American president.
Today we can say that the UK is, as always, the most loyal to the United States, but perhaps this is just a picture presented by the current administration. In fact, after Brexit, Britain was faced with a dilemma, and it had to put almost all the cards on a close alliance with the United States. In such an alliance, one has to play the role of a subordinate, despite one's own illusions about the "great revival" (empire?). Although the UK remained in the EU, it could be one of the leaders, but now this prospect is in the past.
Emmanuel Macron realized that Trump defies his charm and is serious when he talks about "America first." Then, from a mediator, the French president turned into a rebel and at the end of 2019 announced the "brain death" of NATO. The front line of this Cold War ran across the Atlantic exactly until the change of power in Washington. France and Germany greeted Biden's victory with enthusiasm, but in reality they simply rejoiced at the opportunity to "return to the old."
But since things like leaving Afghanistan and switching to China (and its surroundings) happen regardless of who is in power, everyone should have understood that there would be no return to the old. More recently, France has realized this. And this realization will cost her almost 40 billion US dollars.
Of course, I mean the unexpectedly announced new agreement, on the basis of which the United States and Britain will build eight nuclear submarines. Immediately after the announcement, Australia terminated the contract with France, which had been negotiated since 2016. Of course, the Australian side justifies itself by the fact that it has received a more interesting proposal and that it is still about nuclear, not traditional submarines. In addition, the French proposal was far from ideal and not very profitable. Firstly, the total costs were growing all the time, and secondly, France planned to build the first submarines only by 2034. This is too late for Australia, as the boats it currently has will only last until 2030.
Yes, this decision can be justified by the fact that "this is only business", but Paris is unlikely to be satisfied with this ... And it is not satisfied. France decided to recall its ambassadors from Washington and Canberra, saying that the Americans "stabbed her in the back."
A telephone conversation between the French and Indian Foreign Ministers immediately took place. They said they will develop their own strategic partnership in the Indo-Pacific region. "We will act and take concrete steps to defend a genuine multinational international order," said French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian.
Is France going to create some kind of alternative to the AUKUS alliance? Even if it has such ideas, it is unlikely that it will be able to implement them, at least with India, which itself is a very close ally of the United States. But we will see how relations between Washington and New Delhi will develop. Recently, the Indian authorities started talking about the purchase of Russian S-500 complexes, and this, undoubtedly, will serve as a pretext for a conflict with the Biden administration. In addition, India is a member of BRICS, but it is difficult to say what prospects this organization has.
Of course, France's statement of a "multinational order" is reminiscent of Russian President Vladimir Putin's words about "multipolar world".
Will the United States be able to offer France something so that it does not go on a "solo voyage" and, perhaps, does not leave NATO once again, as it once did under Charles de Gaulle? Or, perhaps, Washington will decide that it does not need it and that it is better to expand the concept of "to hell with the EU" and fully focus only on those who are ready today and immediately to work to prevent China from becoming the strongest power in the world?
America understands that China is not paving its "new silk road" to Europe to be greeted there with cold disdain. Europe wants to cooperate with China, and America is running out of ways to prevent this, at least in Europe itself, and therefore it is now moving directly "to the scene."
Of course, this is a rather dangerous and even insane plan, because in the end, it can lead to a war with China, and this is what should be of particular concern to the people of Australia today. Australia has long struggled to balance between its strong attachment to the Western world and China, a strong power in its geographic part of the world. Now Australia is putting itself at the disposal of the United States, obsessed with fears that someday China will overtake them. It's not just about nuclear submarines. They are just an overture to something more. AUKUS is a new alliance with its own specific goals, and Australia has just announced that it will give US troops more access to its territory.
Australians are also worried that nuclear submarines may be the Trojan horse for the proliferation of nuclear technology in their country, which they have resisted for decades. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has already told Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison that New Zealand does not want nuclear submarines (if built) in its waters. Let me remind you that New Zealand declared itself a nuclear-free zone back in 1984.
In the near future, the emphasis will continue to be on submarines and the anger of the French, who were left without $ 40 billion, but the matter here is much more serious than submarines, and we are talking about creating a new danger zone, which, perhaps, is gradually being prepared for a terrible conflict.
Read the original text at Advance