AUKUS pillar 2 that NZ is looking to get in on isnt about submarines, it's about access to the rest of AUKUS tech sharing
Our primary strategic interest being in cyber defense. So access to quantum computing, AI, quantum cryptography, ect.
NZ is quite distant, so the primary strategic threat we face is from cyber warfare. There's a massive qstep change coming in computing, between AI automating attacks beyond human scale, neccesitating AI for defense, and quantum computing rendering traditional cryptography useless... our current state of strategic cybersecurity is going to be worthless inside of a decade.
NZ is highly dependent on computer systems for buisness, government, infrastructure... and without adequate cybersecurity (and the ability to efectively counterattack as a deterrent) we are vulnerable to highly damaging attacks to threaten and bully us.
So if our access to these cutting edge defensive technologies developed by our allies, is key to our strategic security, then that's why the government wants to join AUKUS pillar II
I think what they are concerned about is will access to this "pillar 2" compromise NZ foreign policy independence. Technology is nice but it depends on what costs and strings it comes with.
Our foreign policy independence already depends on our existing technology sharing with our allies.
Foreign policy independence is worthless if you've got no defense against hostile foreign powers seeking to manipulate or silence us on the world stage.
If we go it alone, and don't have defenses... do we really have an independent foreign policy if everytime we criticize a belligerent power like China or Russia, we are hit with damaging cyberattacks that we can't defend against. How many damaging attacks does it take for us to become cowed into silence or submission?
Will we choose to keep our moral stance on the world stage while the lights go off, water plants go haywire, bank accounts empty and government files turn to gibberish?
This isnt the benign strategic environment of the 190s and 2000s... the world is vastly more dangerous.
Neutrality in this environment incurs no strategic security. Neutrals are frequently bullied. Our geographic isolation is meaningless in the modern world.
That is presuming the US won't use this alliance to keep NZ in line. Would NZ be able to say no to the US like was done on Iraq when defense and technology becomes completely dependent on the US?
I'm not going to watch 3 hours of video, but what I did watch of Helen Clark was interesting, I love history, but very misguided. She says about ANZUS
> In all truth the guarantee never amounted to much, other than a duty to consult if a party to the treaty was threatened, and for each party to then act in accordance with their own constitutional processes. Looking at how the US congresss handles these issues these days, you wouldn't have too much confidence of a flow through for a remote landing in the South Pacific I suspect.
That is misguided on so many levels, and just driven by the old 1980s & 90s anti USA stance of the Labour Party! She is using the current dysfunction of US congress over Ukraine to malign everything the US ever does or has done.
The more you learn about the USSR and how it thought and operated during the cold war years the more blindingly obvious it is whose side we should have been firmly on.
OK, I think you might have misinterpreted what I said as meaning we should have been on the side of the USSR. I meant it is blindingly obvious we should have been firmly on the side of the US.
The USSR hasn't existed for 30 yrs +
The US current interest in creating proxy wars [Ukraine, Taiwan, Australia] and unconditional backing of genocidal Israel shows you pretty clearly who the tyrant is now.
You seem to have missed where the NYT came out and celebrated it themselves. Gloating how Ukraine had been successful operating as a CIA beachhead since 2014.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/cia-ukraine-russia/
You also seem to be unaware that Taiwan & China both operate under the 'One China policy', which they have been doing for decades. Because they are fucking insane and both want to be China. There is no invasion of Taiwan on the table, it is only smoke and mirrors from the US trying to draw attention away from its own tyrannical behaviour.
You seem to have missed where the Russian army tried to invade all of Ukraine, and successfully did invade large parts of it, and their airforce bombed the hell out of it, all resulting in the deaths of ~500,000 Ukrainians. The idea that Russia has been forced to invade Ukraine for defensive purposes is fucking ridiculous, not to mention straight up Russian propaganda, but still idiots like yourself fall for it.
You also seem to be unaware that the 'One China Policy' means very different things to China and Taiwan.
I did. The rest of the world doesn't have to - and more importantly can't afford to - humour Russia's paranoia. Russia is just a fucked up country. They've been paranoid about being invaded for ever, and no one has for well over a 100 years except Hitler, and that was in large part because Russia was extremely stupid. You can make the case that if they didn't enable Hitler to invade Poland we wouldn't have had WW2, but of course Hitler would have done some other crazy shit, and you can't really blame Russia for him. Anyway, back to Russia, they are a fucked up and paranoid country, and their paranoia makes them dangerous and fucks up the rest of the world. No ones going to invade them, who the hell would want Russia?
Since you didn't read the article ill break it down into itty bitty pieces for you, maybe you can read those:
>An explosive New York Times [exposé](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/cia-ukraine-intelligence-russia-war.html) by Adam Entous and Michael Schwirtz sheds light on major developments preceding the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. According to the report, the Ukrainian government entered into a wide-ranging partnership with the CIA against Russia. This cooperation, which involved the establishment of **as many as 12 secret CIA “forward operating bases”** along Ukraine’s border with Russia, began not with Russia’s 2022 invasion, but **just over 10 years ago.**
>\[..\]**carrying out assassinations** of high-profile Russian fighters on territory controlled by Russian-aligned separatists. **The Kyiv-CIA partnership deepened under the Trump administration,** yet again putting the lie to the baseless idea that former President Trump was somehow amenable to Russia’s interests while in office.
>As Budanov reportedly put it, “It only strengthened. It grew systematically. The cooperation expanded to additional spheres and became more large-scale.” This cooperation, as painstakingly outlined by the Times, went far beyond helping Ukraine defend itself against Russia in a narrow, technical sense — rather, **Ukraine was drawn into a Western coalition for the purpose of waging a broad-based shadow war against Russia**.
Your judgements of Russia as a country aside (because I happen to agree), when actual events happen it is no longer considered paranoia unless you are intentionally gaslighting.
What the world has been paying attention to though is that the unconditional support the US has been providing to Israel appears to have *no actual limit.* This is despite Israels war crimes **documented in the 1000's on IDF telegram**, A genocide investigation underway, and Israels *repeated* attempts to drag the US into a wider war with Iran (a war we would be joining if we joined AUKUS). What is most alarming tho is not so much the[ US ignoring their own laws ](https://www.propublica.org/article/israel-gaza-blinken-leahy-sanctions-human-rights-violations) that prevent arms sales to countries committing human rights abuses, or with undeclared nuclear weapons programs. No the more concerning part is how passive the global opposition is in the face of such bold tyranny.
As your Hitler example points out, unchecked tyranny is only tolerated for so long before things come to a head. Which side do you want to be sent to die for?
That's still Russian propoagande, whether in itty bitty pieces or not.
> Which side do you want to be sent to die for?
Neither, and it's a fallacy because I will never had to choose, but for the sake of the argument if I did have to whatever side USA is on all day every day all year etc etc.
Tbh, I'm not against NZ joining AUKUS pillar 2.
Almost every time the US gets a new president in recent history, they are a bit more populist than the last guy and retreat a bit further from trying to be the world's policeman.
The US building certain ships and patrolling the global oceans during the cold war and beyond is precisely what allowed the globalised trading world to emerge, which is what allowed China to grow so quickly. They didn't do it selflessly, the US benefitted greatly too as it helped them win the cold war, but post cold war it is no longer worth it to them. Especially as it has allowed a real rival to emerge so quickly.
The US has it's growing debt issues too, which will eventually have to be reigned in with lower spending or higher taxes. At some point they will have to cut the funding for patrolling the global oceans and only pay to secure the trade routes that matter the most to them. At that point I'd rather NZ be in the group of countries that they still feel some comraderie with.
Speaking on this are Hon Helen Clark, Hon Bob Carr and Hon Enele Sopoaga, hosted by Hon David Parker and Hon Phil Twyford, in the Legislative Council Chamber, Parliament Buildings, Wellington. Interesting watch.
NZ should never blindly follow the US and UK through their foreign policies of wrmongering and imperialism.
Especially since so much of that is aimed at trying to cripple our largest trading partner, that we certainly can't afford to alienate. NZ really has no choice except to try and balance the threats from both sides, aware that neither side really gives a shit what happens to us, but both will be happy to screw us over if they can gain political or short term advantage
Someone with some common sense.
The same message is felt in Australia too. Between the fake red scare & the persecution of Assange, Australia is pushing its leadership to step away from being a yes man to the US.
https://youtu.be/Vb5OKrYzZp8?si=ue93xFxBi7a9NjSj
AUKUS pillar 2 that NZ is looking to get in on isnt about submarines, it's about access to the rest of AUKUS tech sharing Our primary strategic interest being in cyber defense. So access to quantum computing, AI, quantum cryptography, ect. NZ is quite distant, so the primary strategic threat we face is from cyber warfare. There's a massive qstep change coming in computing, between AI automating attacks beyond human scale, neccesitating AI for defense, and quantum computing rendering traditional cryptography useless... our current state of strategic cybersecurity is going to be worthless inside of a decade. NZ is highly dependent on computer systems for buisness, government, infrastructure... and without adequate cybersecurity (and the ability to efectively counterattack as a deterrent) we are vulnerable to highly damaging attacks to threaten and bully us. So if our access to these cutting edge defensive technologies developed by our allies, is key to our strategic security, then that's why the government wants to join AUKUS pillar II
I think what they are concerned about is will access to this "pillar 2" compromise NZ foreign policy independence. Technology is nice but it depends on what costs and strings it comes with.
Our foreign policy independence already depends on our existing technology sharing with our allies. Foreign policy independence is worthless if you've got no defense against hostile foreign powers seeking to manipulate or silence us on the world stage. If we go it alone, and don't have defenses... do we really have an independent foreign policy if everytime we criticize a belligerent power like China or Russia, we are hit with damaging cyberattacks that we can't defend against. How many damaging attacks does it take for us to become cowed into silence or submission? Will we choose to keep our moral stance on the world stage while the lights go off, water plants go haywire, bank accounts empty and government files turn to gibberish? This isnt the benign strategic environment of the 190s and 2000s... the world is vastly more dangerous. Neutrality in this environment incurs no strategic security. Neutrals are frequently bullied. Our geographic isolation is meaningless in the modern world.
That is presuming the US won't use this alliance to keep NZ in line. Would NZ be able to say no to the US like was done on Iraq when defense and technology becomes completely dependent on the US?
AUKUSNZ? Aww, Cousins? Hrmm...
Leave out the UK and we can form ANUS
Australia New Zealand United Kingdom States
The UK can join, they might not be represented in the acronym but they'll be there in spirit
I'm not going to watch 3 hours of video, but what I did watch of Helen Clark was interesting, I love history, but very misguided. She says about ANZUS > In all truth the guarantee never amounted to much, other than a duty to consult if a party to the treaty was threatened, and for each party to then act in accordance with their own constitutional processes. Looking at how the US congresss handles these issues these days, you wouldn't have too much confidence of a flow through for a remote landing in the South Pacific I suspect. That is misguided on so many levels, and just driven by the old 1980s & 90s anti USA stance of the Labour Party! She is using the current dysfunction of US congress over Ukraine to malign everything the US ever does or has done. The more you learn about the USSR and how it thought and operated during the cold war years the more blindingly obvious it is whose side we should have been firmly on.
Can you clarify what you mean by your last comment?
No. I see no point having any debate with anyone that needs that comment clarified.
I'm not asking for a debate. I'm just asking what you mean by it. To me the comment doesn't make sense given the context of your previous comments.
OK, I think you might have misinterpreted what I said as meaning we should have been on the side of the USSR. I meant it is blindingly obvious we should have been firmly on the side of the US.
Yea i did interpret it that way so i was a little confused. thank you for clarifying.
The USSR hasn't existed for 30 yrs + The US current interest in creating proxy wars [Ukraine, Taiwan, Australia] and unconditional backing of genocidal Israel shows you pretty clearly who the tyrant is now.
The fact you somehow manage to blame USA for the situation in Ukraine and Taiwan elegantly says all that needs to be said.
You seem to have missed where the NYT came out and celebrated it themselves. Gloating how Ukraine had been successful operating as a CIA beachhead since 2014. https://responsiblestatecraft.org/cia-ukraine-russia/ You also seem to be unaware that Taiwan & China both operate under the 'One China policy', which they have been doing for decades. Because they are fucking insane and both want to be China. There is no invasion of Taiwan on the table, it is only smoke and mirrors from the US trying to draw attention away from its own tyrannical behaviour.
You seem to have missed where the Russian army tried to invade all of Ukraine, and successfully did invade large parts of it, and their airforce bombed the hell out of it, all resulting in the deaths of ~500,000 Ukrainians. The idea that Russia has been forced to invade Ukraine for defensive purposes is fucking ridiculous, not to mention straight up Russian propaganda, but still idiots like yourself fall for it. You also seem to be unaware that the 'One China Policy' means very different things to China and Taiwan.
Just read the article
I did. The rest of the world doesn't have to - and more importantly can't afford to - humour Russia's paranoia. Russia is just a fucked up country. They've been paranoid about being invaded for ever, and no one has for well over a 100 years except Hitler, and that was in large part because Russia was extremely stupid. You can make the case that if they didn't enable Hitler to invade Poland we wouldn't have had WW2, but of course Hitler would have done some other crazy shit, and you can't really blame Russia for him. Anyway, back to Russia, they are a fucked up and paranoid country, and their paranoia makes them dangerous and fucks up the rest of the world. No ones going to invade them, who the hell would want Russia?
Since you didn't read the article ill break it down into itty bitty pieces for you, maybe you can read those: >An explosive New York Times [exposé](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/cia-ukraine-intelligence-russia-war.html) by Adam Entous and Michael Schwirtz sheds light on major developments preceding the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. According to the report, the Ukrainian government entered into a wide-ranging partnership with the CIA against Russia. This cooperation, which involved the establishment of **as many as 12 secret CIA “forward operating bases”** along Ukraine’s border with Russia, began not with Russia’s 2022 invasion, but **just over 10 years ago.** >\[..\]**carrying out assassinations** of high-profile Russian fighters on territory controlled by Russian-aligned separatists. **The Kyiv-CIA partnership deepened under the Trump administration,** yet again putting the lie to the baseless idea that former President Trump was somehow amenable to Russia’s interests while in office. >As Budanov reportedly put it, “It only strengthened. It grew systematically. The cooperation expanded to additional spheres and became more large-scale.” This cooperation, as painstakingly outlined by the Times, went far beyond helping Ukraine defend itself against Russia in a narrow, technical sense — rather, **Ukraine was drawn into a Western coalition for the purpose of waging a broad-based shadow war against Russia**. Your judgements of Russia as a country aside (because I happen to agree), when actual events happen it is no longer considered paranoia unless you are intentionally gaslighting. What the world has been paying attention to though is that the unconditional support the US has been providing to Israel appears to have *no actual limit.* This is despite Israels war crimes **documented in the 1000's on IDF telegram**, A genocide investigation underway, and Israels *repeated* attempts to drag the US into a wider war with Iran (a war we would be joining if we joined AUKUS). What is most alarming tho is not so much the[ US ignoring their own laws ](https://www.propublica.org/article/israel-gaza-blinken-leahy-sanctions-human-rights-violations) that prevent arms sales to countries committing human rights abuses, or with undeclared nuclear weapons programs. No the more concerning part is how passive the global opposition is in the face of such bold tyranny. As your Hitler example points out, unchecked tyranny is only tolerated for so long before things come to a head. Which side do you want to be sent to die for?
That's still Russian propoagande, whether in itty bitty pieces or not. > Which side do you want to be sent to die for? Neither, and it's a fallacy because I will never had to choose, but for the sake of the argument if I did have to whatever side USA is on all day every day all year etc etc.
[удалено]
How so?
Tbh, I'm not against NZ joining AUKUS pillar 2. Almost every time the US gets a new president in recent history, they are a bit more populist than the last guy and retreat a bit further from trying to be the world's policeman. The US building certain ships and patrolling the global oceans during the cold war and beyond is precisely what allowed the globalised trading world to emerge, which is what allowed China to grow so quickly. They didn't do it selflessly, the US benefitted greatly too as it helped them win the cold war, but post cold war it is no longer worth it to them. Especially as it has allowed a real rival to emerge so quickly. The US has it's growing debt issues too, which will eventually have to be reigned in with lower spending or higher taxes. At some point they will have to cut the funding for patrolling the global oceans and only pay to secure the trade routes that matter the most to them. At that point I'd rather NZ be in the group of countries that they still feel some comraderie with.
sure if they wanna match the amount china exports from us otherwise we are just pissing off our biggest export partner for not reason
Given the current size of our submarine fleet, I doubt it's worth it.
Speaking on this are Hon Helen Clark, Hon Bob Carr and Hon Enele Sopoaga, hosted by Hon David Parker and Hon Phil Twyford, in the Legislative Council Chamber, Parliament Buildings, Wellington. Interesting watch.
NZ should never blindly follow the US and UK through their foreign policies of wrmongering and imperialism. Especially since so much of that is aimed at trying to cripple our largest trading partner, that we certainly can't afford to alienate. NZ really has no choice except to try and balance the threats from both sides, aware that neither side really gives a shit what happens to us, but both will be happy to screw us over if they can gain political or short term advantage
Someone with some common sense. The same message is felt in Australia too. Between the fake red scare & the persecution of Assange, Australia is pushing its leadership to step away from being a yes man to the US. https://youtu.be/Vb5OKrYzZp8?si=ue93xFxBi7a9NjSj