All the way with Donald J. Albo supporting mass murder
And all complying with Paul Keating’s criticism that our governments keep seeking security from Asia when we should be seeking security within it
by Michael Pascoe | Oct 19, 2025, https://michaelwest.com.au/anthony-albaneses-donald-trump-visit/
Australia is murdering people and threatening democracy. That’s the reality of Anthony Albanese kissing Donald Trump’s ring this week, writes Michael Pascoe.
Michael Pascoe.
Let’s be clear about this. If you support a criminal gang, provide it with weapons, keep schtum about its crimes, either pay bribes or accept being extorted, you are an accessory to everything the thugs and hitmen do.
That’s us, as represented by our government bowing before Donald Trump.
When Trump exercises massive economic coercion on Brazil because that democracy’s judiciary is dealing, as it should, with an attempted coup (unlike the United States), we’re supporting him.
When Trump threatens Brazilians with further unspecified pain if they don’t vote for his preferred right-wing candidate, we’re supporting him.
“We’re all the way with Donald J, all the way with the mob that is the US administration.“
When Trump, on zero legal basis, orders suspected smugglers to be summarily executed in international waters, we’re on his side. When he leans on corporations for a piece of their action, we’re okaying it. Heck, we’re joining the conga line offering a slice.
As a Trump vassal state, we’ve moved beyond merely being America’s Deputy Dawg in the South Pacific to active backers of Trump’s global shakedown.
The “rules-based international order” was always a façade for self-interest. Now it’s a pathetic joke, high farce, darkly ironic. Just as Trump’s Supreme Court has declared him above the law, Trump has declared the United States beyond any law, a piracy state free to exploit, extort, betray, reneg and kill at will.
Ready to kiss the ring
The local media demanding for months that the Australian Prime Minister have the opportunity to play a humble fool in the White House have their wishes fulfilled this week.
Embarrassingly, our major newspapers are reporting as a good thing that Albanese will either, depending on your perspective, bribe or be willingly extorted by Trump to curry favour with the lawless mob.
Rather than support free trade and that rules-based international order thing, we are expected to act like the sycophantic American companies and “give” Trump a large gift. Another billion dollars towards America’s military capacity is just an appetiser.
More galling, the reported main aim in compromising whatever moral stance Australia might once have had is to keep alive the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine deal. We’re compromising ourselves to further compromise our military sovereignty by locking into the American military’s strategic aims. “Integration”, as the American cheerleaders in the local security and military game call it.
And all complying with Paul Keating’s criticism that our governments keep seeking security from Asia when we should be seeking security within it.
As stated here before, contrary to the perspective of nearly all Australian media, most of the world is not in the Trump or China camps. Most countries recognise the failures of both those powers and seek to tread an independent path.
Not Albanese’s ALP or whoever’s LNP. Having already surrendered sovereignty by inviting and hosting American military and espionage bases, we’re doubling down by funding the American military machine on a bipartisan basis and mutely approving Trump’s international transgressions.
There is no pride in this, only a stain. Acting without integrity, supporting a bullying criminal, we are
“accessories to everything that untrustworthy self-aggrandising joke of a US president does.”
That’s Australia, us, you and me.
Michael Pascoe
Michael Pascoe is an independent journalist and commentator with five decades of experience here and abroad in print, broadcast and online journalism. His book, The Summertime of Our Dreams, is published by Ultimo Press.
AUKUS. Deal of the century! … For the Americans
by Rex Patrick | Oct 23, 2025, https://michaelwest.com.au/aukus-deal-of-the-century-at-least-for-the-americans/
“Submarines in our time!” He didn’t say it, but Anthony Albanese might as well have, as he returned triumphantly from his meeting with Donald Trump this week.
AUKUS is indeed a fantastic deal. For the Americans, at least.
“Trump is not going to cancel AUKUS”, a well-connected industry source told MWM two weeks ago.
“AUKUS is so good for US industry – Australia is spending billions on their shipyards, and then there’s the purchase of the submarines themselves. General Dynamics Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls Industries will see tens of billions of Australian dollars flow their way, as will Lockheed Martin and Raytheon”, said the source.
“And assuming things go well, the shipyard mess in the UK will see us going from three US Virginia-class subs to five, and then likely eight. Australia will abandon the UK AUKUS-designed subs, and even more Australian money will flow into the bank accounts of US companies.”
‘They’ll be lobbying the White House to ensure this cash keeps on flowing.’
And clearly, the lobbying has worked so far. Trump has endorsed AUKUS. It’s the sort of deal he likes.
As former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull stated in the lead-up to the meeting, it wasn’t going to be in Trump’s interest to withdraw, “The AUKUS deal is a fantastic deal for the Americans, a terrible deal for Australia, so there is no way Donald Trump will walk away from it because what does he get?” he said.
Turnbull was right. He was also right in his analysis after the meeting, “warm words don’t build submarines”.
Submarine woes
The United States is not building enough Virginia-class subs. They’re not building enough for their own Navy, let alone ours. That is the determining fact sitting in the middle of the AUKUS slipway.
For more than a decade, the US Government has been trying to build two Virginia subs per year. But they haven’t been able to move the shipbuilding dial. They’re currently struggling along at 1.1 submarines per annum, not enough to meet their own demand, let alone the 2.3 boats per annum they need to hit to be able to spare a submarine or three for Australia.
The spin from US and Australian politicians is turning in the opposite direction to the analysis of the United States Congressional Research Service, the US Government Audit Office and the US Chief of Naval Operations. No matter the spin from politicians, they can’t cause a change in the engineering and construction taking place at Groton, Connecticut and Newport News, Virginia.
Trump needn’t be worried though; he won’t be the President in the early 2030s when the first Virginia Class sub can’t be delivered because doing so,
will have a detrimental effect on the US Navy’s undersea warfare capability.
The US Congress has enshrined that “America First” requirement in their AUKUS legislation, and the crunch point is already less than a decade away – too little time for the US submarine industrial base to make the enormous strides that are so easily spruiked but so difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
Eroding our sovereignty
Meanwhile, MWM’s industry source has foreshadowed the closing down of some Australian Defence companies struggling to make ends meet after Defence has cancelled a range of local programs, and is not initiating replacement work, so that they can meet the almost $10B in payments to both the US and UK governments to invest in their industry.
‘AUKUS is sending Australia into a sovereignty-eroding spiral.’
We are already tightly integrated into the US military with common hardware, common ordinance and common tactics. As the US turns its eye towards its superpower competitor, China (incidentally, our biggest trading partner), we are also seeing an expanding US military footprint on Australian soil, including:
and logistics storage in both Victoria and Queensland.
the long-standing Pine Gap joint communications and intelligence facility at Alice Springs,
the critical submarine very low frequency communications station at WA’s North West Cape,
a new mission briefing/intelligence centre and aircraft parking aprons at RAAF Darwin,
fuel storage at Darwin Port, infrastructure at RAAF Tindal near Katherine,
And there’ll be a forward staging base for US Navy Virginia-class subs out of HMAS Stirling near Perth from 2027.
US nuclear-powered, and by the early 2030s likely nuclear-armed, submarines will be using Western Australia as a strategic base for operations extending from the Gulf of Aden and Arabian Sea, the Bay of Bengal, to the South China Sea and the East China Sea and beyond.
‘All th’is is about strategic competition with China.‘
The Australian Defence Force, as it diverts money to AUKUS, will suffer in terms of independent capability. Industry will suffer. The taxpayer will suffer.
Best deal in history
Trump must be rubbing his hands together. This will play out well for the US.
Billions of Australian dollars will flow into the continental US to contribute to its submarine industry – this is a certainty. In contrast, the US will almost certainly not deliver. There is no clawback of expended money for non-delivery.
Australia’s Collins Class submarine capability will atrophy further, as will the general capabilities of the Australian Defence Force, starved of funds. More reliance on the US will see the US Navy station more subs in WA, the US Air Force stationing and staging additional air capabilities in our north, and an increase in the number of US Marines rotating through Darwin.
More than ever, Australia will be reduced to being “a suitable piece of real estate” in US war planning (to adopt the words of one of Australia’s most insightful strategic critics, the late Professor Des Ball).
Australia will have little choice but to let the US do this … and we might be pressured into much more.
‘There will be no choice but to follow the US into conflict with China.‘
We will have limited capabilities and will be left totally reliant on red, white and blue military capabilities. When Richard Marles talks of sovereign capabilities and decision-making, it’s just a political con job.
Trump will, in retirement, post on Truth Social his genius and how he suckered retired Prime Minister Albanese into what Paul Keating would call, in the view from the White House and Pentagon, the best deal in all of history.
Rex Patrick is a former Senator for South Australia and, earlier, a submariner in the armed forces. Best known as an anti-corruption and transparency crusader, Rex is also known as the “Transparency Warrior.”
Why Australia’s Rare Earth Deal Serves U.S. Interests
24 October 2025 AIMN Editorial , By Denis Hay
Australia’s rare earth deal with the US fuels its military industry, not our sovereignty. Here’s why that matters.
Introduction: Australia’s Strategic Crossroads
In October 2025, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese signed an $8.5 billion rare earth deal with the United States, promising closer economic and security ties. The agreement appears to be an opportunity to boost Australia’s resource sector. Yet beneath the surface, it reveals a deepening alignment with the US military-industrial complex through the AUKUS alliance.
As China restricts exports of key rare earth metals used in advanced weaponry, the US is turning to Australia for supply. The question is simple but profound: is the rare earth deal Australia signed a path to sovereignty, or servitude?
The Problem: How the Deal Strengthens Dependence
1. The Geopolitical Trigger – China’s Ban and US Pressure
China’s export controls on critical minerals such as gallium and germanium were a strategic response to the US using them for missile guidance systems, fighter jets, and submarines. Washington needed a reliable alternative, and Canberra complied.
Through the AUKUS alliance, Australia is being drawn into the US defence supply chain, undermining our ability to chart an independent foreign policy. Rather than investing in peaceful manufacturing and clean-energy industries, our resources are now fuelling a global arms race. (ABC News)
2. Resource Exploitation Without Return
Australia holds about 20% of the world’s rare earth reserves, yet most of our minerals are exported raw and processed overseas. This deal continues that pattern, foreign corporations’ profit while Australians bear the environmental costs. Public money is used to subsidise foreign ventures instead of funding domestic processing plants that create local jobs. (AP News)
The Impact: What Australians Are Experiencing
3. From Mining Boom to Dependency Economy
Despite decades of booms, Australia is still a “dig-and-ship” nation. The rare earth deal Australia signed solidifies our position as a key supplier of raw materials to the US military supply chain. Communities see little benefit while regional inequality and labour insecurity grow.
4. Who Really Benefits
The true winners are US defence contractors like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, who depend on steady rare earth supplies for weapons production. Under AUKUS, Australia is obliged to supply these resources for military use while receiving limited technology transfer. Once again, public money serves private foreign interests. (Politico)
Who Owns the Processors: and Who Gets the Profits
The Albanese government’s rare earth deal, which Australia signed with the United States, has been presented as a boost to local industry. Yet a closer look at who owns the companies processing these critical minerals shows the profits often flow overseas or to private shareholders, not the Australian public.
1. Iluka Resources – Eneabba, Western Australia
Iluka runs Australia’s first integrated rare-earth refinery, funded by a $1.65 billion public loan from the federal government’s Critical Minerals Facility. The project includes a “no-China” clause to satisfy US and UK defence interests. Although Iluka is ASX-listed, profits go to private and institutional investors, not the public, while its supply contracts serve foreign markets.
2. Lynas Rare Earths – Kalgoorlie and Malaysia
Lynas, another ASX-listed firm, runs processing plants in Kalgoorlie and Malaysia. It received early investment from Japan’s Sojitz and JOGMEC, who keep offtake rights. A substantial part of Lynas’s refined output is exported to Japan and US defence manufacturers, making Australia a supplier in the AUKUS alliance rather than an independent producer.
3. Arafura Rare Earths – Nolans Project, Northern Territory
Arafura promotes itself as an Australian company, but binding offtake agreements with Hyundai, Kia, Siemens Gamesa, and Traxys cover most of its planned production. This means much of its revenue will come from foreign contracts, while Australian taxpayers help fund infrastructure and environmental oversight.
4. Alpha HPA – Gladstone, Queensland
Alpha HPA’s high-purity alumina project has been hailed as a clean-tech success, supported by hundreds of millions in government loans. However, its customers are primarily offshore electronics and battery manufacturers, meaning the profits leave Australia even though public funds help build the facilities.
5. Australian Strategic Materials (ASM) – Dubbo, New South Wales
ASM’s Dubbo project has strong ties with a South Korean consortium, with potential equity and offtake arrangements already in place. While the plant is in Australia, most of the downstream manufacturing and profit realisation will occur in Asia.
The Sovereignty Gap
While several companies are headquartered in Australia and listed on the ASX, the real issue is who controls the value chain. With foreign investors and defence-aligned buyers dominating the market, Australia captures little of the long-term benefit.
Despite processing more at home, the profits and strategic control remain offshore, perpetuating the dependency model that the AUKUS alliance reinforces…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://theaimn.net/why-australias-rare-earth-deal-serves-u-s-interests/#comment-14832
Australia to make next billion-dollar AUKUS payment ‘shortly’, says minister
By Reuters, October 14, 20252 –
Australia will make a second billion-dollar payment to boost U.S. nuclear submarine shipyards soon, Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy said in Washington on Tuesday, ahead of an official visit by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese next week.
The AUKUS agreement to transfer nuclear-powered submarines to Australia is being reviewed by the Pentagon, although Australia has expressed confidence the deal, which also includes Britain, will proceed.
In its first phase, Australia has pledged 3 billion U.S. dollars to boost U.S. submarine production rates, to later allow the sale of three Virginia submarines to Canberra, with a 2025 deadline for the first $2 billion.
Defence Minister Richard Marles told reporters in Canberra on Tuesday that Australia was contributing to a Pentagon review of AUKUS and had “a sense of when this will conclude”, without disclosing the timing. https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/australia-make-next-billion-dollar-aukus-payment-shortly-says-minister-2025-10-14/
AUKUS proves why Australia is no longer a middle power with sovereignty and autonomy
If AUKUS is such a good deal for the Americans, why did Albanese fall over himself to talk it up in DC? It points towards a crisis of control.
Wanning Sun, Oct 24, 2025, https://www.crikey.com.au/2025/10/24/aukus-deal-united-states-america-australia-anthony-albanese-defence/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter
Australian media coverage of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s meeting with US President Donald Trump was teetering on the brink of euphoria.
Emerging from the cabinet room where the meeting took place, the ABC’s reporter Jane Norman appeared breathless in her account of the big moment. Even Sally Sara, host of Radio National’s Breakfast, who is usually calm and is known to ask probing questions, seemed to have abandoned her cool. She pronounced: “Well, the bonds between the United States and Australia appear tighter than ever today.’
But our prime minister didn’t rest on his laurels, even after securing various assurances from Trump. Albanese seemed to feel he needed to further convince the Americans of our nation’s commitment to their nation. As he told a roomful of US Congress members: “We’ve already contributed a billion dollars to your industrial base; there’ll be a billion dollars on its way before Christmas.”
He went on to say there would be “a further billion dollars next year because … we want to uplift your industrial capacity. … We’ll be providing a capacity for maintenance of your subs from 2027 on top of the facilities that we have already in the West.” And just to ensure his audience understood his message, he added, “It will increase your capacity to forward project.”
In other words, he wanted to drive home that AU
When asked by Sara what securing a commitment from Trump meant, the ABC’s John Lyons said: “From America’s point of view, why wouldn’t you? When a country comes along and says we will pay you $380 billion to boost your manufacturing industry in America for submarines you may one day see, of course! America loves the deal.”
But Lyons didn’t mention that while the AUKUS contract commits the US to deliver eight nuclear-powered submarines to Australia by 2032, there’s a condition: under the US legislation, the president of the day can stop the transfer if the American government believes the sale could affect its undersea capabilities, thereby undermining the national interest. To put it plainly: Australia has no way of recovering its money, even if we end up with no submarines.
If AUKUS is such a good deal for the Americans, why does our prime minister feel the need to keep talking up AUKUS to them? KUS is really in America’s national interest.
Could the Albanese government be so desperate to secure a continuous commitment because it needs to convince Australian voters it is doing its utmost to persuade America to stay the course, so that their taxpayer money won’t go down the drain? Perhaps the government believes it can’t afford to let up on the PR surrounding AUKUS in both the US and Australia, even though it isn’t certain the submarines will eventually turn up, nor that they will deter Australia’s enemies?
Australia’s news media are prone to switch from pursuing a “public interest” mandate to a “national interest” mandate when covering foreign policy. For this reason, despite Trump’s assurances this week, they will doubtlessly continue to focus on the trope of “Is AUKUS on track or is it in trouble?” They are likely to keep ignoring or downplaying critical questions such as “What does Australia get out of the AUKUS deal?” and “Will the US submarines keep us safe?”
Both past and present Labor prime ministers, as well as foreign policymakers, like to describe Australia as a middle power. This self-description is consistent with our leaders’ rhetoric of what Australia does: that it is a good global citizen, that it seeks to maintain “the existing global rules-based order”, and that it believes in multilateralism.
Although middle powers have less global influence, they nevertheless exercise agency strategically in the emerging multipolar world as great powers contest the rules of order. They gain influence by mediating between great powers through what international relations theorists call “hedging”.
Such scholars believe that hedging enables middle powers to engage with competing great powers, while avoiding alignment that limits their autonomy. Through hedging, less powerful states preserve sovereignty in a context of uncertainty by balancing engagement and resistance. Our Asian neighbours, such as India, Indonesia and Singapore, do precisely that.
Despite our leaders’ rhetoric, signing up to AUKUS seems to signal that Australia has somewhat voluntarily relinquished its capacity as a middle power to practise effective hedging.
For instance, Sydney University’s James Curran believes AUKUS could mean the US would expect Australia to join them in a potential war with China over Taiwan:
Similarly, the Lowy Institute’s Sam Roggeveen argues that Australia’s deeper alignment with the US and the hosting of US bomber capabilities at Tindal and future nuclear-submarine infrastructure raises the likelihood of Australia becoming “an important target” in a conflict with China.
Neither of the major parties has ruled in or out the possibility that Australia would join the US in a potential war. But despite Defence Minister Richard Marles’ rebuttal of criticism from AUKUS critics over the issue of sovereignty, one thing is clear: unlike many Western European and Scandinavian middle powers, Australia’s constitution implies that decisions to engage in armed conflict are made by the executive government under prerogative powers, not by parliament as a whole.
In other words, the Parliament of Australia apparently has no power to stop Australia from going to war, even though it could be consulted.
It is for these reasons that Clinton Fernandes, in the Future Operations Research Group at UNSW Canberra, believes that “rules-based international order” is a “euphemism” for the US-led imperial order, and that Australia is really a “subimperial power upholding a US-led imperial order”.
Without giving a full account of the myriad concerns raised by critics of AUKUS, let’s just say here that with AUKUS, Australia’s capacity to function as a true middle power — one that is confident of its sovereignty, autonomy and capacity to exercise agency to influence superpowers — seems gravely in doubt. And signing up to AUKUS may be another case study that supports Fendandes’s argument.
Wanning Sun, Contributor
Wanning Sun is a professor of media and cultural studies at the University of Technology, Sydney. She also serves as the deputy director of the UTS Australia-China Relations Institute. She is a fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities and a member of the Australian Research Council’s College of Experts (2020-23). She is best known in the field of China studies for her ethnography of rural-to-urban migration and social inequality in contemporary China. She writes about Chinese diaspora, diasporic Chinese media, and Australia-China relations.
US, Australia sign rare earths deal as Trump promises nuclear-powered attack submarines
Gulf News, October 21, 2025
The two leaders met at the White House to concentrate on a pair of areas — defence and critical minerals — in which Washington and Canberra are cooperating against what they view as an increasingly assertive China.
Albanese said the rare earths deal would lead to $8.5 billion in critical minerals projects in Australia and take relations to the “next level.”
The Australian premier has touted his country’s abundant critical minerals as a way to loosen China’s grip over global supplies of rare earths, which are vital for tech products.
Australia sits on deposits of lithium, cobalt and manganese as well as rare earth metals used in technologies from semiconductors to defence hardware, electric cars and wind turbines.
Investment
The Australian government said it and the US government would each invest more than $1 billion over the next six months, while the White House put the figure at $3 billion between the two countries.
Albanese had also been pushing for progress on the stalled 2021 AUKUS submarine deal between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Washington said earlier this year it was reviewing the deal for at least three Virginia-class nuclear attack subs signed under previous president Joe Biden, but Trump promised Australia would get them.
“The submarines that we’re starting to build for Australia are really moving along,” Trump told reporters as he sat alongside Albanese in the cabinet room of the White House.
“We’ve worked on this long and hard, and we’re starting that process right now. And it’s really moving along very rapidly, very well.”
‘I don’t like you either’
The AUKUS deal could cost Canberra up to $235 billion over the next 30 years. It also includes the technology to build its own vessels in the future.
Australia also had a major bust-up with France after it cancelled a multi-billion-dollar deal to buy a fleet of diesel-powered submarines from Paris and go with the AUKUS program instead.
The nuclear-powered vessels lie at the heart of Australia’s strategy of improving its long-range strike capabilities in the Pacific, particularly against China.
But the Trump administration said in June it had put AUKUS under review to ensure it aligned with his “America First agenda,” saying it needed to ensure the United States had enough of the subs.
Albanese, meanwhile, managed to ride out an awkward confrontation between Trump and Australia’s ambassador to Washington — former prime minister Kevin Rudd.
Rudd deleted a series of critical social media posts about Trump following the Republican’s election victory last year.
“I don’t like you either. I don’t. And I probably never will,” Trump said to Rudd when a reporter pointed out that the ex-premier was in the room and asked the US president whether he minded the comments.
Australians have a mostly unfavourable view of the Trump administration, polling shows, though the country relies on the United States to balance China’s expanding military clout in the Pacific region……………………https://gulfnews.com/world/americas/us-australia-sign-rare-earths-deal-as-trump-promises-nuclear-powered-attack-submarines-1.500313846
Trump’s public snub of Kevin Rudd leaves Albanese in an awkward spot.
COMMENT. It’s a sad time, when we see our Australian leader joining the rest of the world’s Western leaders, in snivelling sycophancy to America’s nasty deranged clown.
21 October 2025 AIMN Editorial, By Peter Brown, https://theaimn.net/trumps-public-snub-of-kevin-rudd-leaves-albanese-in-an-awkward-spot/
If there was ever a moment to remind Australia how unpredictable Donald Trump can be, it came this morning in Washington. During what was meant to be a routine display of alliance diplomacy, President Trump turned a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese into an uncomfortable spectacle – publicly belittling Australia’s ambassador to the United States, Kevin Rudd.
The meeting, held in the Cabinet Room and briefly opened to the media, was supposed to focus on AUKUS, trade, and critical minerals. Instead, Trump seized on past comments Rudd had made about him before taking up the ambassador’s post.
“I don’t know him,” Trump said at first when asked about Rudd. But moments later, spotting the ambassador across the room, he called out that he had said bad things. (Rudd has called him a “village idiot,” “political liability” and “traitor to the West.”)
Rudd replied calmly that his remarks were made “before I took this position, Mr President.”
Trump then delivered the line that made headlines: “I don’t like you either. And I probably never will.”
The room fell briefly silent before nervous laughter filled the gap. Albanese, sitting beside Trump, managed a polite smile – the sort that world leaders perfect for moments when diplomacy meets farce.
For the Australian delegation, it was an awkward start. The ambassador is meant to represent Australia’s interests in Washington, not become the focus of the U.S. President’s scorn. Trump’s public jab undermined the seriousness of the visit, distracting from discussions on defence cooperation and trade, and casting a shadow over what Canberra hoped would be a reaffirmation of the alliance.
While the White House described the exchange as “light-hearted,” few in the room saw it that way. The optics were unmistakable: an American president publicly dressing down an allied ambassador in front of his own prime minister.
The embarrassment for Albanese is less about the insult itself and more about what it signals. Trump’s thin-skinned, personal style of politics still dominates his diplomacy. Even close partners can be caught off guard when personality overshadows policy.
For Australia, the episode is a reminder that managing the relationship with Washington in the Trump era means managing Trump himself. Albanese will no doubt downplay the moment, emphasising the “strength and longevity” of the alliance. But the footage of Rudd’s tight smile and Trump’s barbed humour tells its own story.
In the end, the visit may still deliver the necessary outcomes on defence and trade – but it will also be remembered for the moment when the Australian ambassador became the punchline in Trump’s Oval Office show.
Chris Hedges talks with Dave about journalism, censorship and empire.
Pulitzer Prize winning war correspondent Chris Hedges sat down with Dave Milner for a lengthy discussion about his cancellation at the National Press Club of Australia, creeping fascism, ICE, and the betrayal of Palestine by Western journalists. 19 Oct 2025
Desperately seeking submariners: why keeping nuclear-powered boats afloat will be Australia’s biggest Aukus challenge.
Ben Doherty, Guardian, 21 Oct 25
A vast and highly trained workforce is needed to command, crew, supply and maintain nuclear submarines. Some say that’s impossible for Australia.
“Vice-Admiral Mead, you’re free to go home … good to see you cracking a smile.”
The head of the Australian Submarine Agency had spent a withering three hours before Senate estimates, parrying a barrage of questions about Australia’s ambitious Aukus nuclear submarine plan: interrogatives on consultants, on hundreds of millions of dollars sent to US and UK shipyards, on sclerotic boat-building on both sides of the Atlantic.
But while so much focus has been on Australia’s nuclear submarines’ arrival, their price tag and their “sovereign” status, the greatest challenge to the Aukus project, Mead told the Senate, would be finding the people to keep them afloat and at sea.
“Ensuring Australia has the workforce to deliver this program remains our biggest challenge,” he said.
If Australia’s nuclear submarines arrive on these shores – and that remains a contested question, with expert opinion ranging from an absolute yes to a certain no – will Australia be able to crew, supply and maintain them?
“It is a challenge we are continuing to meet,” Mead told senators. “Australian industry and navy personnel continue to build critical experience through targeted international placements.”
Others are less sanguine.
“The Aukus optimal pathway is a road to a quagmire,” says a former admiral and submarine commander, Peter Briggs, arguing that Australia’s small submarine arm can’t be upscaled quickly enough. “It’s not going anywhere. It will not work.”
Onshore trades, too, are perilously short. Without an additional 70,000 welders by 2030, that trade’s peak body says: “The Aukus submarine program is at serious risk of collapse.”
Mead was asked directly by senators: “Are you still confident of meeting the government’s agenda and timings?”
“Yes,” he replied, “I am.”
‘An eye-wateringly long process’
Briggs, a past president of the Submarine Institute of Australia, says the Aukus plan reads like one “designed by a political aide in a coffee shop”.
The navy’s submarine arm is approximately 850 sailors and officers (the defence department declined to give exact figures). The former chief of navy previously told parliament it needed to grow to 2,300 by the 2040s.
But Briggs estimates that to crew and support Australia’s Virginia-class, and later, Aukus-class submarines, the navy will need to more than treble its existing complement to about 2,700.
Virginias are massive submarines – nearly 8,000 tons – and carry a crew of 134, more than twice the existing Collins-class crew of 56. The Aukus submarines to be built in Adelaide will be bigger again. More tonnage, more people.
“That’s a huge increase in what is already in very scarce supply,” Briggs argues…………………………………………………………
The new generation of submariners is needed for between three and five Virginia-class submarines, then up to eight Australian-built Aukus boats.
“To get to be chief engineer of a nuclear submarine takes 16 to 18 years,” Briggs says. “It’s an eye-wateringly long process and of course you lose people along the way.
“That’s why you need a broad base, a critical mass, and Australia simply doesn’t have that right now. There is no way a navy the size of ours can manage this mix.”
Briggs does not believe the US will withdraw from Aukus: the presence of nuclear submarine bases on Australian soil is too great a prize for a superpower wanting to project power into the Pacific. But Australia’s unreadiness could lead to nuclear submarines under domestic command being delayed.
“We’ve got no warranty clause, no guarantee of anything. The cop-out could come in 2031, the US might say, ‘Look, you’re not quite ready yet, let’s push everything back three years, check in again in 2034.’ And it’s Australia that’s left exposed.”
‘Beyond frustrating, it’s dangerous’
Beyond the complexity of commanding and crewing a nuclear submarine, the vessels need a vast and highly trained workforce to keep them supplied, afloat and at sea………………………………………………………………………
“This is not just a workforce challenge,” its chief executive, Geoff Crittenden, said in a statement. “It’s a full-blown capability crisis … If we don’t address this issue now, Aukus will fail.”
Aukus represented a “perfect storm”, he said, and failure to address worker shortages was “beyond frustrating, it’s dangerous”.
“A once-in-a-generation opportunity like Aukus demands a long-term, strategic response, not just investment in ships and steel, but in people. We estimate that Australia will be at least 70,000 welders short by 2030. Without immediate action, the project is doomed to delays, cost blowouts, or worse.”…………………………………………………………………………
The first cohort won’t be Australian. “In the short term there will have to be an influx of international talent, as we train and upskill our own people.”
Tier two is a nuclearised workforce of skilled professionals – scientists, electrical and mechanical engineers, technical managers, reactor operators and health physicists – with advanced training and between seven and 10 years’ experience. The majority of a submarine crew would sit in this tier. Obbard estimates that about 5,000 tier-two workers will be needed.
Tier three is a further cohort of “nuclear-aware” workers – between 5,000 and 6,000 again – tradespeople including machinists, fitters and welders, who will require some nuclear training.
“The Aukus plan cannot work without building this workforce and the wider engineering community this workforce is drawn from.”
Does it make sense?’
Jack Dillich is uniquely placed to observe Australia’s transformation to a nuclear submarine power. A former submarine officer, he holds an advanced degree in nuclear engineering and served on the executive of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, where he was responsible for the country’s sole nuclear reactor, and as head of the regulatory branch at the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. He now teaches a nuclear course at the Australian Defence Force Academy………………………………….
[Dillich says] Australia needs to be asking, ‘Does it make sense to try to build a tiny fleet here?’ Maybe 25 years from now, Australia could have eight nuclear-propelled submarines: they would be very, very expensive.”……………………………..https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/oct/20/aukus-submarine-workforce-nuclear-powered-boats-australia
Could Australia’s trash become Donald Trump’s treasure? Turning our waste into critical minerals
21 October 2025 AIMN Editorial, UNSW Sydney
UNSW Sydney Media Release
Key facts:
- Australians generate around 20kg of e-waste per person every year
- Some of the components inside this everyday waste include critical minerals, which can be reused and recycled
- At the National Press Club in Canberra today, Professor Veena Sahajwalla called on policymakers, industry and communities to embrace our waste.
As Donald Trump and Anthony Albanese announce a new, multi-billion-dollar critical minerals pact, UNSW Professor Veena Sahajwalla will tell the National Press Club in Canberra how onshore recycling technologies can recover these critical minerals from our waste stream – making the adoption of this cutting-edge technology a strategic, economic and environmental imperative.
At the National Press Club in Canberra today, UNSW Sydney’s Scientia Professor Veena Sahajwalla called on policymakers, industry and communities to embrace a new vision for Australia’s waste. Instead of relegating waste to landfills, incinerators or stockpiles, she argued it can drive innovation, support local industries, create jobs and deliver environmental and social benefits.
“True sustainability demands we harness this potential and transform waste into a resource stream for advanced manufacturing,” Prof. Sahajwalla said.
Australians generate around 20kg of e-waste per person every year, but many of the valuable minerals inside are never recovered. Some of the components inside this everyday waste include critical minerals, which can be reused and recycled, meaning there is both a strategic as well as an economic and environmental need to adopt this technology.
Using techniques Prof. Sahajwalla has designed, those waste resources can be reused and turned into new and valuable products.
E-waste is one aspect of a waste management crisis Prof. Sahajwalla’s work seeks to remedy.
In communities across Australia, her team’s pioneering MICROfactorieTM technologies are already showing what this future looks like. In Sydney’s south-west, discarded mattresses are being turned into green ceramic tiles, supporting local manufacturing jobs and helping councils reduce waste management costs. In Taree in regional NSW, reclaimed aluminium is being reformed into new aerosol cans. While in Sydney’s north, e-waste is being remanufactured into 3D printing filament.
“Using our waste resources as feedstock develops a circular economy where supply chains are linked up and local jobs are created, with significant environmental and social benefits,” she said.
Prof. Sahajwalla is Director of UNSW’s Sustainable Materials Research and Technology (SMaRT) Centre, which is internationally recognised for pioneering the concept of ‘MICROfactories’. The SMaRT Centre is home to MICROfactories technology, turning small, modular recycling systems that transform discarded products such as mattresses, glass, textiles, and electronic waste into valuable materials and products.
Her team’s work with councils and industry partners shows how this transformation is already taking shape:
Creating tiles from waste
In her address, Prof. Sahajwalla shared details of how the Liverpool City Council in Sydney’s south-west has turned a major waste problem into a circular economy success story. When the Council realised it was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to dispose discarded mattresses it partnered with Prof. Sahajwalla’s SMaRT Centre to pilot a MICROfactorieTM to shred and re-manufacture the materials………………………………………………………………………………………………
She also outlined a vision in which MICROfactories could be established in cities, towns and regional communities across the country, each tailored to local waste streams and employment needs. In regional NSW, her team is working with the Aboriginal community in Wellington near Dubbo to use green ceramic tiles in sustainable housing projects, supported by the federal government’s Sustainable Communities and Waste Hub (SCaW).
Turning university research into real-world impact
Prof. Sahajwalla said Australia must do more to ensure university research translates into real-world impact. She called for governments to lead by example in adopting Australian-made sustainable technologies, and to reward companies that invest in local R&D.
“By and large, our professional incentives are not geared towards the long-hours it takes to actually build the machine that can make a world-saving idea a reality,” Prof. Sahajwalla said…………………………………………………………… https://theaimn.net/could-australias-trash-become-donald-trumps-treasure-turning-our-waste-into-critical-minerals/
AUKUS: Revolving door, spiralling down
Ahead of the launch of a new database on the Australian military-industrial complex, we document the farce that AUKUS has become
Michelle Fahy, Undue Influence, Oct 20, 2025
It is clear to many that AUKUS, in particular its early fulfilment stages, is becoming a debacle. In February, Defence Minister Richard Marles lauded as a ‘very unique’ arrangement Australia’s gift to the United States of $4.7 billion to bolster America’s struggling submarine output, highlighting that such an arrangement hasn’t been seen in other defence pacts globally.
Of course such an arrangement hasn’t been seen elsewhere! Most other countries wouldn’t agree to hand over this massive sum without ensuring there were provisions for a refund should the promised submarines fail to arrive.
In an inept performance in Senate Estimates in June 2024, Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead, head of the Australian Submarine Agency, woodenly refused to answer a straightforward question from Greens’ Senator David Shoebridge about whether the agreement Australia has struck with the US contains a clawback provision should the promised submarines fail to be supplied.
Mead’s performance, as recorded in Hansard, is mordantly comical:
It is thus obvious that Australia has no contractual way of recovering its money should the current or a future US President block the transfer of the submarines, as the US President is entitled to do under US legislation.
Australia is certainly ‘very unique’ in its willingness to part with almost $10 billion (the UK is getting a similar amount) in public funds with no strings attached.
Australia made the first payment of $800 million to the US in February and quietly transferred the second payment, a further $800 million, in July. It has committed to paying a total of US$2 billion ($3 billion) by the end of 2025, with the remainder to be paid over the decade to 2035‒36.
Under the AUKUS deal, both major political parties have committed to spending vast public resources with no consultation and minimal transparency and accountability.
Even though the Australian National Audit Office has exposed, in report after report, serious probity breaches in defence procurement, including unethical conduct between global weapons companies and the Australian government, these transgressions are routinely ignored. The weapons deals continue regardless.
The big winners from AUKUS so far have been nuclear submarine manufacturers in the United States and the United Kingdom. Australia has committed to providing almost $10 billion to boost the output of these companies, helping secure jobs for workers in America and the United Kingdom.
As there are no clawback provisions in either of these agreements, should President Trump ditch AUKUS, or if the submarine manufacturing capacity in the US and UK doesn’t sufficiently increase, Australian taxpayers will be picking up another multibillion-dollar defence tab with nothing to show for it. We’ve already shelled out $3.4 billion for no submarines, following former PM Scott Morrison’s shredding of the pre-AUKUS French submarine contract.
This is far from the only example of waste, misdirection and incompetence in Australia’s dealings with the global arms industry. Take the Albanese government’s engagement with global arms giant Thales. In October last year, the government signed up Thales to a further munitions manufacturing contract and a ‘strategic partnership’ in the new domestic missile-making endeavour, the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance (GWEO) enterprise.
The new deal with Thales was struck despite the fact that Thales is currently being investigated by four countries for widespread criminal activity in three separate corruption probes. …………………….https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/nothing-to-see-here-says-australia………………………………………… The Thales example illustrates how a key democratic accountability mechanism, the National Audit Office and its reports, is routinely ignored.
…………………………………………………How is it that such imbroglios occur again and again? Australian governments are highly susceptible to the ‘revolving door’ process in which politicians, the military and public servants move effortlessly between government, lobbying and the industry itself.
In what follows, no suggestion is being made of unlawful activity by any person named, nor that any of the appointments noted was unlawful.
The problem for Australia is not one of legality but of the perfectly legal influence of industry insiders within government, the lack of transparency, and the absence of management of the ‘revolving door’.
The revolving door
The ‘revolving door’ describes the movement of public officials into related private roles, and industry executives into related public roles. It is a widespread problem that undermines democracy, yet in Australia it remains unmonitored and unpoliced.
A large number of Australia’s senior government ministers and their staffers, military officers, and defence department officials move through the revolving door into paid roles with the weapons industry. Such moves are not illegal but they require a robust management framework—with rules that are enforced—to mitigate the inherent conflicts of interest. Australia’s feeble attempts at managing the revolving door have been completely ineffective
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..In the lobby
Numerous former senior politicians are now working as lobbyists for the weapons industry. Examples include: Liberals Christopher Pyne (Pyne and Partners), Joe Hockey (Bondi Partners), Arthur Sinodinos (The Asia Group) and David Johnston (TG Public Affairs); and Labor’s Kim Beazley (TG Public Affairs), Joel Fitzgibbon (CMAX Advisory), Stephen Conroy (TG Public Affairs) and Mark McGowan (Bondi Partners).
There are also plenty of former senior military officers pulling strings on behalf of weapons companies too. Examples are listed below.
The federal register of lobbyists provides some transparency, but does not cover the majority of people who lobby politicians. The register applies only to third-party lobbyists. These people operate as paid professionals, either individually or as an employee of a lobbying firm, on behalf of clients. Third party lobbyists make up just 20% of all lobbyists. The remaining 80% include, amongst others, company CEOs and people employed by corporations as ‘government relations’ advisers. This enables employees of major weapons companies to lobby politicians easily and legally, with zero transparency.
Reverse cycle: private to public
The government’s engagement with UK weapons giant BAE Systems’ local subsidiary best illustrates how this works.
The government gave former senior BAE Systems executives influential behind-the-scenes roles both before and during the tender process for Australia’s largest ever surface warship procurement, the $46 billion Hunter class frigates, a contract BAE went on to win. Few of these roles were publicly acknowledged. https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/sinking-billions-revolving-doors
BAE Systems was awarded the frigates contract by the Turnbull government in mid-2018. The names of the people appointed to an expert advisory panel to oversee the tender evaluation process were not made public. Here’s why: serious conflicts of interest…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Lockheed Martin locks on target
Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza has put the issue of the extensive influence on the Australian government of Lockheed Martin—the world’s largest arms manufacturer—under the spotlight…………https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/buck-passing-inside-the-murky-arms
Lockheed Martin utilises the revolving door heavily in the US. Until recently, it had openly adopted the same strategy in Australia. From October 2013 until the end of 2021, the board of Lockheed Martin Australia boasted multiple former senior Australian public officials: at least two at any one time, more often three, and even four during one 20-month period.
They included a roll call of defence heavies from past decades,………………………………………………………………………………………
The UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory, Francesca Albanese, released a report in July addressing the ‘economy of genocide’ in which she makes special note of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 program…………………………….
Australia’s refusal to cease the supply of parts and components into Lockheed Martin’s F-35 global supply chain places the nation at risk of being found complicit in Israel’s genocide.
Complicity in the world’s worst international crime is just one of the democracy-undermining consequences of Australia’s deep enmeshment in the US and broader Western military industrial complex.
This feature article started life as a talk to Australia’s Online Quaker Meeting mid-year. I later expanded it for ARENA Quarterly’s Spring 2025 issue, which was delivered to bookshops last week ($20). It is also online at Arena. https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/aukus-revolving-door-spiralling-down?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=297295&post_id=176534719&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
News that’s not from the nuclear-military-industrial-political-complex
Some bits of good news.
An English wind farm became a marine habitat. China’s air quality policies have swiftly reduced pollution, improved life expectancy
TOP STORIES
The Trumpanyahu Administration Is Already Sabotaging The Ceasefire. Chris Hedges: Trump’s Sham Peace Plan. Will Trump’s ceasefire plan really lead to lasting peace in the Middle East?– There’s still a long way to go.
‘WHAT WILL JESUS SAY?’- TONY BLAIR, BIG TECH AND THE ISRAEL CONNECTION.
Nobel Peace Prize winner supports Israel’s genocide & Trump’s war on Venezuela – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks9uDtd7Msc
Trump to Zelensky…’I haven’t got a weapon to spare’ – https://www.youtube.com/shorts/22IP2SaWxy8
President Trump’s radical attack on radiation safety.
Climate. Antarctica may have crossed a tipping point that leads to rising seas. Global climate crosses more dangerous tipping points, heading for ecosystem collapse.
Long nuclear articles – Birth defects in the Chernobyl Region. Nuclear Power in Canada. “Cumulative effects of radioactivity from Fukushima on the abundance and biodiversity of birds”.
AUSTRALIA.
- Trump’s Gaza peace move raises questions over AUKUS priorities.
- Australian Politicians Ignore Israel’s Brutality Against Our Citizens.
- Inside Australia’s covert F-35 parts pipeline to Israel.
- Zionists v Keane, Riemer, Kostakidis – Australia’s massive test cases for free speech. Free speech questioned as National Press Club cancels Gaza address.
- Australia Peace and Neutrality: A Path to Regional Stability.
- How overseas allies can peacefully help Americans access the truth.
- AUKUS Anxiety.
NUCLEAR ITEMS
| ART and CULTURE. The play’s the thing. “A House of Dynamite”: Battling a nuclear nightmare – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wpw2QHJNco |
| ATROCITIES. More Than 200 Bodies Dug Out of the Gaza Rubble Since Ceasefire Went Into Effect. Israeli Soldiers Torched Food, Homes, and a Critical Sewage Treatment Plant in the Wake of Ceasefire Announcement. Israel Returns Palestinian Prisoners’ Bodies With ‘Signs of Torture, Mutilation, and Execution’ Palestinians freed from Israeli prison denied reunion with families as Trump claims a ‘forever’ peace. Israel Tortured And Sexually Humiliated Greta Thunberg., |
ECONOMICS.
- UK small businesses and charities say nuclear levy could add thousands to bills.
- After robbing EU taxpayers, Zelensky uses blackmail to get inside the Bloc.
- ‘It’s going to be really bad’: Fears over AI bubble bursting grow in Silicon Valley. The Troubling Data on Data Centers.
- Nuclear stocks mixed after U.S. Army launches program to deploy small reactors.
| EDUCATION. Exposed! The University of Sheffield’s role in Britain’s nuclear weapons. |
| EMPLOYMENT. Key US nuclear agency to send 80% of workforce home as shutdown drags on. Italy’s Second General Strike for Gaza Brought 2 Million Workers into the Streets. |
| ENERGY. ‘Solar for All’ should mean just that. Why big tech’s nuclear plans could blow up. How productivity gains could slash energy demand by a quarter by 2050. |
| ENVIRONMENT. Boldness is needed to take on toxicity of nuclear power – ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/10/13/1-b1-boldness-is-needed-to-take-on-toxicity-of-nuclear-power/ |
| ETHICS and RELIGION. PATRICK LAWRENCE: Let Us Now Bury the Truth (Again). |
EVENTS.
URGENT ACTION NEEDED to Help Protect the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board! International Repair Day 2025 will focus on software obsolescence
| HEALTH. Radiation. Generational RADIATION IMPACT Project |
| HUMAN RIGHTS. The 9,100 Palestinians left behind in Israeli prisons after the ‘peace’ deal |
| LEGAL. NFLAs join European anti nuclear groups in urging appeal in taxonomy case. |
MEDIA.
- Palestinians’ Fate: Victims of Genocide While Alive, Vastly Uncounted By the Media When They Are Killed.
- From AI to TikTok to TV, This Pro-Israel Billionaire Is Expanding Power in US.
- Chicago Tribune avoids giving Donald Trump “great credit” for enabling Israeli genocide in Gaza for 9 months.
- Can Pro-Israel Billionaires Succeed by Buying More US Media Platforms?
- Media Refuse To Sign Up As Propagandists For Trump’s Pentagon.
- Our world is combustible’: Kathryn Bigelow on AI, Andy Warhol and nuclear Armageddon
OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR [and to allied technologies]. Campaigners warn of ‘dangerous experiment’ as nuclear plans face backlash.
Mainers: you have a chance to nip this Wiscasset data center idea in the bud.
They Fought Amazon’s $3.6B AI Data Center.
| SAFETY. Gravelines: the Safety Expertise Department of ASNR’s damning opinion calls into question the EPR2 – ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/?p=320225 Be prepared: Time to consider emergency planning at Llynfi nuclear site. Work to restore link to Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant begins this week, Russian official says. The UN nuclear watchdog seeks a local truce to restore power to the Zaporizhzhia plant. |
| SECRETS and LIES. How Jared Kushner Played Trump to Grease Own Pocket: Wolff. Democratic lawmakers request probe into Jared Kushner after Reuters Saudi report. Samantha Power secretly colluded with Israel to enhance UN role, leaked emails show. Nobel Peace Prize winner supports Israel’s genocide & Trump’s war on Venezuela. Grossi says progress made on restoring Zaporizhzhia power. The £1m man: why did Boris Johnson take his donor to Ukraine? |
| SPINBUSTER. Idle boasts and blatant lies: Debunking Trump’s egregious distortions in Knesset speech. Small reactors, big problems: the nuclear mirage behind AI’s energy hype. |
| TECHNOLOGY. Nuclear: Flamanville EPR unable to resolve all its technical problems. |
| WASTES. Decommissioning. The astronomic costs of decommissioning Sellafield . TEPCO weighs scrapping 2 reactors at Niigata nuclear power plant . Holtec Backs Down, Reveals Achilles’ Heel For U.S. Nuclear Resurgence. The end of support for Windows 10 is creating an e-waste disaster. |
| WAR and CONFLICT. Israeli Officials Are Openly Saying They Plan To Resume Attacks On Gaza. Israeli Defense Minister Says IDF Will Destroy Gaza Tunnels Once Hamas Releases Israeli Captives. Trump Says He’s Mulling Land Strikes On Venezuela, Confirms CIA Covert Ops. Trump’s military escalation against Venezuela repeats the Iraq War blueprint. |
| WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES. Trump downplays hopes he will supply Ukraine with US missiles after meeting with Zelenskyy. Putin and Trump, between the war of deadly Tomahawks and the peace of disarmament “START 3″ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/10/15/2-b1-putin-and-trump-between-the-war-of-deadly-tomahawks-and-the-peace-of-disarmament-start-3/ Japan Weighs Nuclear-Powered Submarines Amid Regional Tensions. |
Trump’s Gaza peace move raises questions over AUKUS priorities
More to the point for an Australian audience, the nearly AU$80 billion price tag is less than a quarter of what our Government, with the enthusiastic support of the Opposition, is planning to spend on submarines that will likely never arrive, won’t work as advertised if they do and will cost much more than we were led to believe.
So, what we could do is to scrap AUKUS because it is increasingly seen as a pointless, unrealisable, ineffective waste of money
Independent Australia, By Mark Beeson | 16 October 2025
Trump’s unexpected diplomatic win has reignited debate over Australia’s defence spending and foreign policy priorities, writes Mark Beeson.
GOOD FOR U.S. President Donald Trump!
These are words I never thought I’d utter, but when good news is in short supply, take what you can get. Stopping the genocidal slaughter in Gaza is unambiguously a good outcome, no matter who managed to engineer it.
True, it does suggest that this outcome might have been achieved months ago – even by former President Joe Biden – and thousands of lives might have been saved, but who’s counting? The big question now, of course, is whether the peace will prove durable and, even more challengingly, who will pay for the reconstruction of Gaza?
There is some comparatively good news on this front, too. Remarkably enough, it may “only” take an estimated US$50billion (about AU$77billion) to lift Gaza from the rubble. Yes, that is a lot of money, but not compared to what the $US997 billion (AU$1.5 trillion) America spent on the military in 2024.
More to the point for an Australian audience, the nearly AU$80 billion price tag is less than a quarter of what our Government, with the enthusiastic support of the Opposition, is planning to spend on submarines that will likely never arrive, won’t work as advertised if they do and will cost much more than we were led to believe.
You may be able to guess where I’m going with this and your eyes are already rolling. But before I voluntarily shred what little credibility I may have as a “serious” analyst of security policy, let me remind you that President Trump isn’t exactly famous for his grasp of strategic (or economic) reality and look what he managed to do.
At least I don’t have an ulterior motive, unless trying to avoid watching Palestinians being blown to pieces on the news every night counts.
So, what we could do is to scrap AUKUS because it is increasingly seen as a pointless, unrealisable, ineffective waste of money – not just by ageing peaceniks, either – and put the money to an unambiguously more productive purpose: rebuilding Gaza. Not only would the Palestinians be delighted (and disbelieving, no doubt), but it would do wonders for Australia’s somewhat tarnished international reputation…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/trumps-gaza-peace-move-raises-questions-over-aukus-priorities,20272
AUKUS Anxiety
“after wasting billions of dollars, Canberra could end up with shattered hopes of a defense industrial boom from production of a new class of submarines and no domestic submarine capability at all. Australia’s existing fleet of submarines is aging and requires costly, time-consuming refits to extend its service; only one of six vessels is currently operational. Replacing them will be no easier.”…………………… [Subscribers only] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/australia/aukus-anxiety
Unmet Expectations Could Fracture the U.S.-Australian Alliance
James Curran, Foreign Affairs, October 8, 2025
Australia, like many U.S. allies, is struggling to deal with President Donald Trump. At issue is the country’s national security. Although China is by far Australia’s most important trade partner, it is also the country that Australia’s national security establishment perceives as its greatest threat. Australia’s fear of China is more than a century old and runs deep through every defense strategy that Australia has developed since the signing of the Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty (ANZUS) in 1951 and the resolution of its postwar relationship with Japan later that decade. The same fear ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. [Subscribers only] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/australia/aukus-anxiety
Zionists v Keane, Riemer, Kostakidis. Australia’s massive test cases for free speech.
by Michael West | Oct 12, 2025, https://michaelwest.com.au/zionists-v-keane-riemer-kostakidis-australias-massive-test-cases-for-free-speech/?fbclid=IwY2xjawNZg3NleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFHazM4NnFGVW9VUEZ0S0xyAR7ySwD_jNr3_vorgPkT2cUqNmreGCAefd2xOE-r0WDxjuF9f0r3ZKf9jMf50A_aem_zu59pfZ3k4MYHUAsDOlS-Q
The Zionist lawsuit against Sydney Uni academics John Keane and Nick Riemer is – as is the suit against Mary Kostakidis – a mighty test case for free speech in Australia. Michael West reports.
Criticising Zionism and the state of Israel is *not* antisemitic. That is the guts of the defence in the case brought against two Sydney University academics in the Federal Court, which kicks off on Monday, 13 October.
This is a significant case for free speech in Australia. Critical even. The lawsuits, brought under Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act against academics Professor John Keane and Nick Riemer, are, in the opinion of this observer, lawfare; an attempt, as is the messy action against journalist Mary Kostakidis, to muzzle criticism of Israel and its atrocities against the Palestinians.
A mountain of costs
The interlocutory judgment in the Kostakidis trial foreshadows a long and difficult trial whose sheer costs may make it more of a contest of money than justice. More on this later.
The claim against Keane and Riemer is a similar story. It seeks to litigate the events and the myths of the Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023. And if the Judge rules that the examination of the events of October 7 is admissible, the case would have a global impact.
Clause 26 is unlikely to be true for a start.
Israel has never held an inquiry into October 7, and apparently for good reason. Wild Israeli claims of “40 babies beheaded” and “mass rapes” have been discredited – there is no forensic evidence of Israeli rape victims – and it is not known how many of the alleged “1,200 Israelis” mentioned in the claim were killed by the IDF.
Will this be tested in Court? If so, we are in for a long and expensive case.
It has been established in Israeli media and elsewhere that the Hannibal Directive was invoked that day. Under the Hannibal Directive, the IDF was ordered to prevent “at all costs” the abduction of Israeli civilians or soldiers, possibly leading to the death of a large number of Israeli civilians and IDF personnel in the area at the time.
Pictures of the carnage from that day prove the point that small arms fire from Hamas operatives could not have possibly caused so much destruction. Instead, by Apache helicopter gunships.
This is merely one disputed clause in the statement of claim and would prove costly for an Australian court to hear.
The “affected or aggrieved persons” making the Keane claim (it is not known who is funding it) – Zionist academics from Sydney University – assert they have been hurt by pro-Palestinian posts on social media; “offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the posting”.
MWM does not doubt that their feelings have been hurt. Feelings have been hurt daily on both sides since the events of October 7 and during the ensuing American/Israeli genocide in Gaza. Yet, the question should be asked … is an expensive court case testing the infamous clause 18c clause in the Racial Discrimination Act in the public interest?
Should the aggrieved persons win the case, it will have a chilling effect on free speech in Australia. And in the Kostakidis case the stakes are arguably higher.
Mary Kostakidis
This week, Justice McDonald struck out parts of the statement of claim against Kostakidis while providing another opportunity for the applicants’ amended SOC to be amended again.
Taking to X, Mary Kostakidis tweeted that 18c was a “bad law, a lengthy and costly legal case can be brought against you by anyone who claims you are motivated by racism and are responsible for their feelings. And fair comment on a matter of public interest, and journalism, may be exceptions that can be pleaded, but that has to be proven at trial. Anyone involved in public discourse, including any journalist, must prove they are not motivated by racism.”
Proving that you are not a racist, proving intent, is a tough one. “It is not logically impossible that a particular news reporter, even when acting as a news reporter, might engage in particular acts because of people’s race or ethnic or national origin,” the Judge found. “Whether there is a basis to draw that conclusion in a particular case will depend on an assessment of the evidence in that particular case”.
Attempt to shut down genocide critics
Said Kostakidis, “The attempt to shut down criticism of a genocide is morally reprehensible and dangerous. Those trying to control the narrative will not prevail”. Her case is even more tricky than those engulfing Keane and Riemer, as the Zionist Federation of Australia has cherry-picked a lot of her social media activity for its claim, including tweets about Mossad and dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
It’s a test case for social media too, as the claim against her includes retweets, posts by other people, which may or may not be deemed to be endorsing a particular view. As she told MWM, “If I retweet Smotrich (Israel’s extremist finance minister Bezalel Smotrich) does that amount to an endorsement?”
The opening round of hearings in the Keane and Riemer cases will take place before Justice Kennett in the Federal Court of Australia in Sydney on Monday and Tuesday.
A large number of Jewish colleagues have defended Keane and Riemer’s statements. They have said the complainants ‘do not speak for us as Jewish people’, and demanded that the complaint, which they describe as vexatious, be dropped.
The University of Sydney, too, is in the crosshairs, also being sued because the plaintiffs claim the Uni has ‘vicarious liability’ for the statements of the defendants Keane and Riemer, who claim that if Palestine supporters can’t say what they have said, then criticism of Israel will be outlawed under the law.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 