The Trump/Vance agenda wants to remove military industrial spending in Europe against NATO and redeploy them in the Pacific against China.
Their 10% tariff, Project 2025, plans to militarise Immigration Police to enable mass deportation camps alongside all the moderate bits from the Handmaid’s Tale might be receiving all the attention at the moment, but it’s their focus to confront China that should be concerning the rest of us.
The Nuclear Submarines being deployed by AUKUS will serve as first strike platforms that the Chinese hawks will see as a closing window of military options they can take now.
It hasn’t been widely reported here, but Luxon’s extraordinary statement against China at NATO will immediately change things here…
Luxon’s ‘radical change in NZ’s foreign policy’ criticised by Helen Clark and Don Brash
Former Prime Minister Helen Clark and her old political rival Don Brash have teamed up to criticise Christopher Luxon, accusing him of making a surprise “radical change in NZ’s foreign policy” that could upset our biggest trading partner, China.
While in the US recently, the prime minister gave an interview to The Financial Times in which he said New Zealand would “increasingly disclose cases of Chinese espionage”.
He also said New Zealand was now “very open” to participating in AUKUS Pillar 2, a defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and United States; and talked about the New Zealand Defence Force being a “force multiplier for Australia and the US and other partners”.
… here are my thoughts on what happens now.
The Grey Zone war where China enables organised crime to flood the Pacific with cheap meth will accelerate alongside Chinese fishing militia encroachments and using their vast diaspora throughout the Pacific to begin protesting.
I think China will see NZ as the weakest member of the 5 Eyes and to show Trump they mean business, China will use its economic might to strangle our economy off as a symbolic hit job believing only muscular moves like that impress Trump.
Our products will suddenly get stopped at ports and we will get smashed economically from the fallout.
If China see a genuine threat in the Trump/Vance agenda they will want to ratchet up their Grey Zone warfare and use NZ as a symbolic 5 Eyes punching bag and will use Luxon’s words as the justification.
I hope Luxon knows what he’s doing, because he could have royally screwed the country with his comments.
“The Nuclear Submarines being deployed by AUKUS will serve as first strike platforms….” Martyn Bradbury
War Room – U.S. Army War College
https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu
It is no exaggeration to say that Sea Lines of Communication are the basis of today’s economics, with more than 90% of trade conveyed by sea (Seapower (2019), pp. 8). In his seminal work, Some Principles of Maritime Strategy, Julian S. Corbett demonstrates how in times of war commerce denial is an effective means of enforcing control….
…..While the classical and neoclassical economic notion of commerce as a pacifying force remains popular in the West, the logic of economics has always been contested….
No doubt, trade can confer mutual benefit and produce economic interdependence that increases nation-states’ cost of going to war. However, Paul Kennedy refutes this in his monumental work The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. He argues that in an age where military might is founded on economic power, trade has clear ramifications for the international balance of power. Trade has become a leading metric of economic strength and national vitality that undergirds the international distribution of political power. Consequently, as Halford Mackinder identified over a century ago, rapid shifts in economic power resulting from equally rapid and uneven economic development inevitably produces destabilizing changes in international political power.
With the relative abeyance of overt military conflict, scholars have readily identified how interstate competition has increasingly played out under the grammar of economics, or what has become known as ‘Geoeconomics.’ In a seminal essay, Edward N. Luttwak defines geoeconomics as “the admixture of the logic of conflict with the methods of commerce—or, as Clausewitz would have written, the logic of war in the grammar of commerce.” Thus, commerce is being weaponized to engender uneven economic and strategic development, accomplishing the object of war by other means. This is a clear example of Foucault’s inversion of Clausewitz’s dictum, when he states, “Political is war by other means.”
…..economics is subsumed by war’s adversarial impulse. Perhaps the most stark example is the “civil-military fusion” being incorporated into China’s grand strategic Belt Road Initiative (BRI). In other words, civil-economic are strategically integrated into the BRI as pretexts for potential military uses. The ASPI report concludes that, “The trend is toward an increasingly Chinese-dominated political, economic, technological, and strategic ecosystem in the Indo-Pacific,” which is doing more to hinder American power projection than overt military measures….
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Army War College, the U.S. Army, or the Department of Defense.
(Despite the plausible denial in the standard disclaimer that these views don’t necessarily reflect the views of th U.S. Army War College, you can guarantee that they wouldn’t be published if they didn’t.)
The most obvious use of the submarine fleet based in Australia will be to close all sea routes to China.
This is exactly the same strategy that the U.S. used against Japan before Pearl Harbour. When the U.S. cut off all Japanese sea trade to the Dutch East Indies, without access to the Indonesian oil fields, Japan’s economy especially Japan’s military industrial complex faced collapse. The Japanese launched their ‘surprise’ attack on Pearl Harbour in an effort to break the U.S. Sixth Fleet power to blockade Japanese trade. Before the war, Japan had the biggest civilian merchant marine fleet in the world, by the end of the war, US submarine warfare in the Pacific had sunk virtually all Japanese merchant vessels except for a handful of coastal tramp steamers. The slaughter was so vast and indiscriminate, that following complaints by China and the Philippines, an order had to be given to US submarine crews to check that not every Asian looking civilian vessel wasn’t one of America’s Asian allies.
https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/npswapa/extContent/wapa/guides/offensive/sec6.htm#
The unrestricted submarine warfare during the Second World War in the Pacific knew no bounds, no limits concerning the sinking of Japanese ships. Shrouded in secrecy, the “Silent Service” depended on stealth for its success….
…..by August 1944, found the “Silent Service” inflicting prohibitive losses on the Emperor’s merchant marine, scoring key successes against Japanese warships that insured victory in the Battle of the Philippine Sea, and a blockade of the home islands that was strangling the Japanese economy.
If we’re stupid enough to allow treasonous american-loving traitors to this nation like Luxon, Seymour, and Peters to continue to illegitimately exercise power on behalf of their international masters, we deserve it.
We know Clark who destroyed our Air Force and signed away our sovereignty to China is red on the inside, and Brash is a mouthpiece for a Chinese communist party backed bank.
If we don’t want to be complete helpless pawns to China we should pretty much do the opposite to whatever these two say.
Yes we are very vulnerable to being made an example off thanks to Clark, then Key and Fonterra selling our competitive advantage to China.
Undoubtedly we will all be paying a price for their craven misplaced ideological stupidity and self interest.
Comments are closed.