Johnson/Biden: Trade Deal dead in the water

 

This reminds me of couples that go around denying that their marriages are in trouble. We have never been so happy, they say. This is before the next morning announcement indicating that they have agreed to bring their marriage to an amicable conclusion.

This was said to be a meeting about climate, but right at the beginning the British Prime Minister indicated that there is not going to be a bilateral trade agreement in the foreseable future.

Reading between lines, I reckon that the beginning was not the best of beginnings, starting with an unilateral American withdrawal that left its NATO partners buffled. After that, came the announcement of a deal regarding nuclear submarines that only benefits the USA despite the fact that UK was the middleman. On top of that, it damaged the relationship with France. A UK politician tried to rest to dimish the importance of the damage caused by saying that in the last ten years Britain and France have coordinated their military with French officers in charge of British units and Britsh officers in charge of French units and so forth. Ten years are ten years, but in politics 24 hours is a lot and much of what has happend regarding AUKUS should not be underestimated. 

The rise of energy prices due to a rise of energy consumption will not make choices any easier. If gas prices and oil prices go up, coal is a natural component of the energy mix that cannot be left behind. Joe Biden can talk about financial support to be offered to poorer countries to support towards more environmentally friendly economies, but reality tells you fossil fuels will continue to be the first choice for many for many years to come.

The choice between diesel and nuclear was a logical choice to make. Firstly, it is about not using fossiel fuels and, secondly, it is about operational capabilities. While diesel vessels depend on regular refuelling, nuclear vessels can operate continuously for at least 25 years. The decision was rational, but the way it was implemented created divisions that could have been avoided. The jobs that would have been maintained or created in France will now go to the USA. USA's submarines are all nuclear so it will not be too difficult to produce a few more. In any case, it is expected that the new submarines will become operational by the year 2030, as long as there are no delays. As a British politician explained, this is not about real military capabilities in the short term. The idea is to send a message to China about the determination to prevent a Chinese military escalation in Asia Pacific.

A journalist asked who was more of a priority in terms of talking about US/UK relations: Joe Biden or Kamala Harris? In the USA, people are already talking about the American mid-term elections due to take place in November 2022 when all 435 seats of the House of Representatives and 34 or a 100 seats in the Senate will be up for election. What happens from now until the Mid-Term Elections will determine if Biden ends or does not end as a lame duck President during his first term in office.

 

China USA: on a collision course leading to war

We just came out pretty baddly in Afghanistan after 20 years of a bloody and very expensive conflict only to surrender to the same forces that we were supposed to have defeated. 

There are quite a few ongoing conflicts, but we always seem to be looking for yet another disastrous war.

As every war is an economic business and China happens to be the biggest creditor of the USA, waging war against China might seem like a good opportunity to get rid of trillons of dollars of American debt. China is using quite a few US dollars to expand its influence across several continents. This is not just about Made in China. This is also about Made for China by China in Africa, Latin America and elsewhere.

During Trump Presidency, the emphasis was on NATO countries investing more in Defence by beefing up their contributions to NATO. Now, Biden seems to be saying 'forget about NATO, let's do something new'. AUKUS (Australia, UK, US) seems to be a more appropriate of spending US dollars and in the process boot US manufacturing (at least manufacturing of nuclear submarines in the USA. Apparently, all US military submarines are already nuclear so making a few more for Australia would not be so difficult.

The call made by Ursula von der Leyen as President of the European Commission for the EU to take a more robust approach when it comes to its own defenses seems to be part of the new realities. NATO is on the way out - ready to join the Warsaw Pakt), AUKUS is in, and the focus goes from Europe to Asia, where Japan is beginning for a stronger Western response to militarization of the Sea of China.

Ukraine will have to look for a very comfortable armchair to wait for the delivery of Western aid. Forget Middle East, forget Asia Minor, forget Europe. Some strategists in some dark hidden room might be already looking for an excuse to attack China - just in case China does not try to recover Taiwan because Taiwan is China. 

The question is: why would China want to fight a war at sea when it has all the advantages of a conflict on the continent and a massive army?

As the big boys focus their attention elsewhere - oh surprise - Argentina has gone for more fighter jets having invested more than 400 million dollars to renew its airforce. Why would Argentina needs a stronger airforce?

As the British are scaling down their military and as the attention goes elsewhere, are they planning to go for a vacation on the South Atlatic islands? During days that the Argentinian President and his vice-President that used to be the Argentinian President (Cristina Fernández de Kirchner) don't seem to be seeing eye to eye, I am sure that refloating the old plans about the Falkland Islands would be a good idea for politics sake.