• Russia
  • Military strategy
  • YouTube Channel
  • About
    ▲
    • Privacy Policy
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Romeo Squared

Defense with a Baltic edge

  • Russia
  • Military strategy
  • YouTube Channel
  • About
    • Privacy Policy

The argument that AUKUS is a weak security deal between Australia and two unreliable allies

2021-12-20 By Anders Puck Nielsen 2 Comments

Sam Roggeveen has a razor sharp critique of the new AUKUS security framework in War on the Rocks.

In fact, I have only become more skeptical of AUKUS since it was announced by Prime Ministers Scott Morrison and Boris Johnson, and President Joe Biden. I argued at the time that these were the wrong submarines for Australia’s needs, and that the AUKUS deal raised Australia’s reliance on an increasingly unreliable ally.

Ouch. But it is a valid concern. The United States has not exactly exuded trustworthiness over the last years, and this is not the time for American partners to concentrate more eggs in one basket.

Roggeveen’s arguments can be boiled down to three points:

  1. It is far from certain that Australia will ever get the nuclear submarines that are so central to the deal. It is such an ambitious project that a myriad of things could go wrong.
  2. AUKUS is a weak signal of American commitment to security in the Indo-Pacific. They run no risk whatsoever but get a beneficial arms deal out of it.
  3. Having nuclear submarines gives Australia strategic assets that they may have to commit in a conflict, even if they don’t want to. It will be really hard to decline an American demand to deploy these submarines if the United States gets into a crisis with China.

All of Roggeveen’s arguments trace back to the assumption that the United States cannot be trusted. This is the sole difference from Shoebridge’s five “nots” of AUKUS that I linked to the other day. It says something profound about the state of international politics that Australian and European scholars now base their arguments on assumptions about whether or not the United States is a trustworthy partner.

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit

Related

Filed Under: Military strategy and politics Tagged With: Australia, United Kingdom, USA

Anders Puck Nielsen is the writer of the Romeo Squared blog. He is a military analyst at the Center for Maritime Operations at the Royal Danish Defense College.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. jon livesey says

    2021-12-20 at 23:28

    It says something profound? It only says that they have no better arguments. If your best argument against AUKUS is that it might involve Australia in a conflict involving its principal ally, then why have allies, or submarines at all?

    Reply
    • D Ashfield says

      2022-07-21 at 15:12

      I believe the point of contention is not whether Australia should be expected to aid it’s principal allies (we should), but rather that we are increasingly unsure what manner of state we are allying ourselves with.

      Reply
< Previous
Next >

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Primary Sidebar

Follow blog

Follow blog on Twitter
Follow blog on Facebook

Featured

Russia’s A2/AD strategy is a myth

It is time to let go of the idea of impenetrable A2/AD bubbles. Russia does not have the technical capabilities to do it, and politically it is hard to see why they would even want to. We need to start thinking about Russia’s missiles as a layered defense system instead. That is the point of this conference paper.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Romeo Squared