Realized for three

The United States continues to engage in a strategic siege against China in East Asia. They already had a format for the military-political containment of the PRC - the so-called QUAD (consisting of the USA, Australia, Japan and India), and now a new, "more Anglo-Saxon" format has been added to this format. The United States, Australia and the United Kingdom announced the creation of AUKUS (Australia - United Kingdom - United States), in which they intend to cooperate on political issues, engage in defense research and together provide regional security. That is, to put it simply, for three to actively contain China. Much more active than, for example, doing within the same QUAD.

So, the first joint action of the format was the intention to supply the Australians with nuclear submarines, which, in particular, will have to sail in the waters of the South China Sea.

For the sake of this delivery, Australia has abandoned the contract with France for the supply of conventional submarines, which has already angered Paris.

For many, the question arises: why do they think for three?

Why not take other states into the collective?

The same India, Japan, France, Germany and other American partners?

The answer is very simple: the States took those in whom they are confident.

So, after leaving the European Union, Britain aimed at restoring global greatness, and, according to London, this can only be done in the rut of American foreign policy.

Therefore, the British will strictly observe party discipline.

There will be no problems with the Australians either. Yes, China was and remains the country's main trading partner, but Canberra now feels itself as a cat, on which Beijing is working out new principles of relations with "white" countries. So, since 2020, China has imposed a whole bunch of sanctions on Australia due to the fact that the Australian government behaved "disrespectfully" towards China - in particular, it joined the American demands to investigate the involvement of the Chinese in the emergence of the coronavirus epidemic.

But as for France (and other leading EU countries), their loyalty raises questions. Yes, Paris and Berlin join various alarmist statements against China, but they are in no hurry to translate words into economic consequences. Moreover, in 2020, the EU agreed with China to sign a large-scale trade and investment agreement, and only under strong pressure from the United States in 2021, its entry into force was actually frozen. However, neither this, nor the inclinations to impose sanctions against the PRC for the "genocide of the Uighurs" did not make Old Europe an enemy of China. Moreover, the European Indo-Pacific Strategy states that although the EU will promote its values ​​in the region, it also wants to “develop a multilateral agreement with China; jointly tackle common challenges; cooperate in mattersof common interest; and invite China to play its role in ensuring peace and economic development in the Indo-Pacific region. "

That is, to put it simply, the EU adheres to an inclusive approach, rather than trying to put together an anti-Chinese bloc.

India has about the same approach.

New Delhi has a host of contradictions with China (including the disputed territory), but at the same time refrains from actively participating in any conflict events.

It is enough for the Indian authorities to have guarantees of their security.

As for the Japanese, they (as follows from their Taiwanese policy) are ready to participate in almost any anti-Chinese initiative, but they were not invited to AUKUS anyway.

Largely because the United States nevertheless created this specific format for Great Britain.

In order to formalize the participation of London (which has long spoken from anti-Chinese positions) in its scheme of containing the PRC and to give it its own project - which will most likely become AUKUS.

Thus, the United States and Great Britain become the unconditional beneficiaries of the format. Washington is strengthening the system of deterring the PRC (after all, unlike Trump, Biden does not use an emotional and forceful push, but precisely encirclement and strangulation), and Great Britain gets a chance to regain its status as a great power. In the struggle, it acquires its right - and if the struggle against Russia turned out to be unsuccessful, then it may work out with China.

In theory, of course, France may also be the winner. Yes, she lost a multi-billion dollar contract, but this loss was supposed to be a sobering slap in the face for the French elites. Living evidence that the United States would easily sacrifice the interests of its ally (and it was not only about the sale of submarines, but also about strengthening the French positions in the South Pacific) for the sake of its own foreign policy projects. Evidence, after which the French elites had to go on an autonomous voyage, towards greater independence in foreign policy. However, something tells that they will not leave - they will simply be afraid.

Among the losers, of course, is China itself, whose aggressive foreign policy behavior in recent months prompted, according to some, the same Australia to join the American-British initiative. “Xi Jinping can only blame himself for what happened. His belligerent behavior ... became a real boomerang that hit him, "writes the Taipei Times. In fact, Beijing found itself in the standard trap of a superpower - it is forced to respond to constant aggressive steps from the Americans (from pressure on the observance of the rights of the Uyghurs and ending with constant American-Japanese provocations on the Taiwan issue), but at the same time its answers are immediately interpreted as acts of aggression. Russia understands this - we have been "interacting" with the West for a long time using this scheme.

As for the interests of Russia, AUKUS fully corresponds to them.

The more the United States puts pressure on China, the more countries engage in containing the Celestial Empire, the more Beijing will value Moscow's good attitude, as well as trade with it (for example, Russia can replace Australia in supplying a number of minerals and ores to the Chinese market).

Therefore, formally, the Russian authorities criticize America for whipping up tensions, but in fact, they probably only applaud.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.