Trump and Putin are doing a ‘two-step' with each other amid Russia-Ukraine War
'If Trump is riding, let's say, riding high – I think that's all very possible,' Dr Melkonian told Sky News Australia.
'A lot is going to depend on what's happening in the Ukraine and the Middle East.
'Trump and Putin are doing a two-step with each other … I think the US is going to end up sending a lot more arms into the Ukraine.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Australia needs a new China strategy: America's promised pivot to Asia is unlikely
The ceasefire between Israel and Iran, should it last, is a resoundingly positive development. But regional peace in its current form, after Israeli offensives in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Iran, cannot be sustained in the long run without continuous American involvement. This has serious implications for America's longstanding commitment to disentangle itself from Middle Eastern affairs and shift focus firmly to the Pacific and its only peer superpower competitor: China. Successive Australian governments have staked their plans to navigate the growing superpower rivalry in our region upon promises of an American laser-focus on the Pacific that is unlikely to ever truly materialise. Just as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese prepares to meet President Xi Jinping in China this month, the ongoing role of the US in reshaping the balance of power in the Middle East in Israel's favour should have leaders and policymakers here questioning the viability of an American 'Pivot to Asia' that never arrives. For Australians, the stakes couldn't be higher. The pivot was first announced in November 2011, when then US president Barack Obama addressed the Australian Parliament. In response to the disastrous Bush-era campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama declared: 'After a decade in which we fought two wars that cost us dearly, in blood and treasure, the United States is turning our attention to the vast potential of the Asia-Pacific region.' Loading Obama promised to refocus the US-Australia partnership around maintaining a strategic balance as China's power expanded, while emphasising peaceful and co-operative relations in areas of mutual benefit, such as trade, diplomacy, climate and non-proliferation. Australia has doggedly upheld its end of the bargain, providing bases for American forces, joining new US-centred alliances and security pacts, such as the Quad and AUKUS, and signing onto exorbitant arms-procurement programs. But in the 14 years since a US president addressed our parliament, precious little of America's own commitments to the pivot have come to pass. The economic arm of the pivot was strangled in the cradle when President Trump formally abandoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership on the first day of his presidency in 2016. American commitment to diplomacy, multilateral institutionalism and regional trust-building have followed a similar trajectory. But the Trump administration retained a supposedly iron-clad commitment to abandon the neoconservative model of foreign interventions and begin to focus squarely on the challenges posed by a rising China. Trump's consistent stated opposition to these wars was one of the most popular ingredients in his early political success. Arguably the most critical moment in Trump's nascent election campaign occurred a week before the 2016 South Carolina Primary, when he decried the Iraq War as a 'big fat mistake' and called out the Republican establishment for lying about weapons of mass destruction. Trump went on to win South Carolina, and Jeb Bush, once the frontrunner, abandoned his campaign.
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
Australia needs a new China strategy: America's promised pivot to Asia is unlikely
The ceasefire between Israel and Iran, should it last, is a resoundingly positive development. But regional peace in its current form, after Israeli offensives in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Iran, cannot be sustained in the long run without continuous American involvement. This has serious implications for America's longstanding commitment to disentangle itself from Middle Eastern affairs and shift focus firmly to the Pacific and its only peer superpower competitor: China. Successive Australian governments have staked their plans to navigate the growing superpower rivalry in our region upon promises of an American laser-focus on the Pacific that is unlikely to ever truly materialise. Just as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese prepares to meet President Xi Jinping in China this month, the ongoing role of the US in reshaping the balance of power in the Middle East in Israel's favour should have leaders and policymakers here questioning the viability of an American 'Pivot to Asia' that never arrives. For Australians, the stakes couldn't be higher. The pivot was first announced in November 2011, when then US president Barack Obama addressed the Australian Parliament. In response to the disastrous Bush-era campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama declared: 'After a decade in which we fought two wars that cost us dearly, in blood and treasure, the United States is turning our attention to the vast potential of the Asia-Pacific region.' Loading Obama promised to refocus the US-Australia partnership around maintaining a strategic balance as China's power expanded, while emphasising peaceful and co-operative relations in areas of mutual benefit, such as trade, diplomacy, climate and non-proliferation. Australia has doggedly upheld its end of the bargain, providing bases for American forces, joining new US-centred alliances and security pacts, such as the Quad and AUKUS, and signing onto exorbitant arms-procurement programs. But in the 14 years since a US president addressed our parliament, precious little of America's own commitments to the pivot have come to pass. The economic arm of the pivot was strangled in the cradle when President Trump formally abandoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership on the first day of his presidency in 2016. American commitment to diplomacy, multilateral institutionalism and regional trust-building have followed a similar trajectory. But the Trump administration retained a supposedly iron-clad commitment to abandon the neoconservative model of foreign interventions and begin to focus squarely on the challenges posed by a rising China. Trump's consistent stated opposition to these wars was one of the most popular ingredients in his early political success. Arguably the most critical moment in Trump's nascent election campaign occurred a week before the 2016 South Carolina Primary, when he decried the Iraq War as a 'big fat mistake' and called out the Republican establishment for lying about weapons of mass destruction. Trump went on to win South Carolina, and Jeb Bush, once the frontrunner, abandoned his campaign.
News.com.au
2 hours ago
- News.com.au
Nuclear nightmare that is lurking on Australia's doorstep
Is Australia sleeping on a nuclear nightmare? That's what our leading North Korean experts claim. With all eyes on the Middle East's boiling tensions, there's been a blind spot: the nuclear threat looming much closer to home. North Korea is arming up. Thanks to its new deal with Russia, the rogue state is rapidly modernising its nuclear arsenal. Kim Jong-un now has the power to blow up half the planet. And not so long back, he painted a nuclear target on Australia's back. But is such an attack likely? Even possible? Or just more propaganda? However credible his threat, the Supreme Leader has been knocking back US President Donald Trump's invitation to discuss denuclearisation. And the strikes on Iran haven't helped. It's fuelling fears Australia could be dragged into war with one of the world's largest armies. 'Most likely war' Professor Peter Hayes, the founder of the international Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability, believes North Korea is the gravest military threat facing Australia. 'It's the most likely war prospect Australia faces,' Professor Hayes tells 'This is not hypothetical, this is here and now and it's our most dangerous regional military contingency.' 'I don't think we really have any realistic or plausible plans to deal with it.' Professor Hayes has travelled to North Korea seven times to help bring security to the region. While North Korea has missiles that could reach Australia, Professor Hayes says its unlikely to waste its weapons on us when there's limited benefit. Instead, the risk lies with an implosion of inter-Korean tensions. 'All it would take is an incident like a hostage or assassination attempt and they're off to the races,' says Professor Hayes. In such a case, our proximity would mean we're the first one to get the call. 'As part of the UN Command, Australia would be called upon almost certainly from day one to support the efforts.' Australia would be obligated to send air and sea support, pulling us into striking distance of Kim's formidable arsenal of mass destruction. And havoc would be wrought back home. 'One of the first targets of the North would be the South Korean oil refineries where Australia imports about one third of its refined product.' 'This would drive prices extremely high and cut off our supply. We'd feel it very quickly.' 'Korea is much more important than is generally understood by the Australian public and policymakers.' Go the distance Time and again, we've underestimated North Korea. We thought they'd never survive global sanctions. We thought they'd never acquire a nuclear arsenal. And now, we think they don't know how to use it. 'It's one thing having missiles that go up and down, but that's completely different to having deliverables over intercontinental range,' says Professor Hayes. But thanks to an old friend, they may have recently found the missing pieces. In exchange for providing troops in Russia's war against Ukraine, North Korea is believed to be seeking Russian missile and space technology. Professor Hayes says Pyongyang's newly strengthened ties with Moscow are helping 'fill in the blanks' of their capabilities – including warhead delivery. 'If the Russians were helping them address that problem, that would be extremely valuable,' he says. 'However it would also be extremely provocative to do that with regard to Washington and Tokyo and Beijing.' 'None of them would look kindly on Russia doing that, and so for that reason, I think they probably aren't.' 'Legitimate target' Professor Clive Williams is a former Australian Army Military Intelligence officer who now directs Canberra's Terrorism Research Centre. Professor Williams, an expert on North Korea who travelled to the secretive state in 2015, agrees it's unlikely we'll see a scenario where North Korea would bomb Australia directly. But there's at least one reason they would want to. 'The regime has always felt threatened by the US,' Professor Clive tells 'While a direct missile strike on Australian soil is unlikely, North Korea may see US strategic military facilities in Australia such as Pine Gap as a legitimate target.' Pine Gap, a US-Australian defence facility located near Alice Springs, is a critical factor in US wars. Professor Clive believes the recent strikes on Iran's nuclear program would embolden the Kim regime to cling to its nuclear arsenal. 'The bombing of Iran would have underlined to Kim the need for nuclear weapons as a deterrent.' Despite speculation the regime would be starved into submission without access to international trading, North Korea is stronger than ever. It's estimated to now have around 50 nuclear warheads and enough fissile material for as many as 90. This includes new solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM). If launched with nuclear warheads, these could cause widespread destruction. The Hwasong-15, North Korea's furthest-reaching ICBM, could travel about 13,000km, putting most of the world within range. Including all of Australia. They have also tested hypersonic missiles, which can fly at several times the speed of sound and at low altitude to escape radar detection. As well as others launched from submarines. That's not to mention boasting the world's fourth-largest military, with nearly 1.3 million. Lastly, this army is becoming more mobile. 'They're more mobile, survivable, and capable,' says Professor Clive. 'We've always underestimated their capacity to innovate under sanctions, especially in areas like nuclear technology.' 'It just goes to show what can be done if a nation's resources are focused on a perceived threat.' Chequered history Australia and North Korea share a hostile history. We're still officially at war with the rogue state, despite most of the fighting ending with the signing of an armistice back in July 1953. And in 2017, things looked like they could fire up again. At the time, the regime threatened nuclear retaliation after we announced North Korea would be subject to further Australian sanctions. North Korea's state-run KCNA news agency quoted a foreign ministry spokesman at the time with the following thinly-veiled threat. 'If Australia persists in following the US moves to isolate and stifle the DPRK and remains a shock brigade of the US master, this will be a suicidal act of coming within the range of the nuclear strike of the strategic force of the DPRK. However likely such an attack is, there's no reason to think we're no longer a target. Prospect of peace Despite the alarming prospect of war, there's still hope for peace. While Australia has the power to play a key role in the latter outcome, Professor Hayes claims we're not doing enough for diplomacy. 'If you're pitch perfect with perfect timing, you can move the world. That's what middle powers should be doing,' he says. 'We don't seem to want to do that very much, at least not in relation to Korea.' 'This is perhaps the saddest aspect of Australian policy.' Professor Clive believes reunification is in fact in the North's sights. 'The North seems to believe it will eventually reintegrate with the South,' he says. 'But only on the North's terms,' says Professor Clive. Whatever outcome the future holds, Australia will be heavily impacted.
