Bharat Rakshak

Also, chetak Chatham House and Asia Policy journal had Australians whining about the power vacuum in the Indian Ocean for quite some time. In retrospect looks like preparing the field for this decision so to speak.
BTW SSN needs very high-quality personnel that 25m Aussie won't have.
So it's another boondoggle.
Someone is doing word cloud analysis of these reports.

What is going to prevent a revised version of the MTCR? After all India has everything she needs. MTCR is impotent.

AUKUS is first step to nuclearize Aussies. Bet a nuclear sub will be leased for "training"

That's a great analysis by arshyam!
This will help China as well with the G2 accommodation already under way under Xiden - this will be a 3-way pincer, 2 sides on the north and one in the south to squeeze us in. And considering Britshits were involved can only mean it is anti-India as their loins are firmly under the Chinese literally and figuratively and they have not thought better of us in the last 200 years.

NRao wrote:What is going to prevent a revised version of the MTCR? After all India has everything she needs. MTCR is impotent.

AUKUS is first step to nuclearize Aussies. Bet a nuclear sub will be leased for "training"

ameriki's aukus alliance has sidelined quad partners India and Japan by literally reducing their roles to that of a service provider or contractor.

Look at the QUAD and how India figures in it.

The japs will not fight because of their constitutional constraints.

The aussies are a joke.

India has to fight because it is her backyard that all these folks are trampling about in.

The cheeni are not experienced enough to mount a sustained naval campaign and neither can they sustain it for long, so far away from their repair facilities.

Hence, they will approach India via ladakh and the pakis and now with the taliban too

It is only the amerikis who can sustain credible naval operations in the area but they won't.

After afghanistan and bye-den, what is it that can be expected from the amerikis and who is going be foolish enough to trust them to follow through on promises and commitments, both implied, as well as, expectations.

What exactly is the QUAD and how much of a military component does it actually comprise of that has been defined or spelt out in clear and unambiguous terms. Where has it been defined

The britshits are irrelevant, and late entrants as they are, crashing the party like uncultured boors, they have no significant military or economic muscle to matter either way.

After brexit and their utter irrelevance in afghanistan, they are showboating with their shiny new aircraft carrier and basking in the reflected ameriki glory not realizing that uncle sam's rather rusty halo has slipped badly.

why are they even in the UNSC when India has undoubtedly superior credentials to replace them

The colonial construct is slowly surfacing again, and the white man is ganging up against the natives.

And the QUAD has all the characteristics of a kitty party with prima donna ameriki pimping as the hostess with the mostest.

chetak wrote:

NRao wrote:
why are they even in the UNSC when India has undoubtedly superior credentials to replace them

Indeed India has better credentials than 3 of the P5 !!

https://nsc.crawford.anu.edu.au/departm ... ic-rubicon



An op-ed by Professor Rory Medcalf, Head of the ANU National Security College and author of Contest for the Indo-Pacific
17 September 2021
The Morrison government has acted swiftly to regain just a fraction of the military edge that Beijing has been acquiring for years.

There comes a time in the world of policy when the old martial allusions are apt, not trite. Australia has crossed a strategic Rubicon, bitten the bullet, nailed its colours to the mast.

Amid accelerating concern about China’s coercive power, the government yesterday announced multiple momentous steps to shape our security for a generation or more.

We will now augment our formal American alliance with a tight alignment with the UK in a tripartite grouping called AUKUS, launched in a virtual meeting of the three leaders. All acronyms are ungainly at first, but we had best get used to this one: it may well become as familiar as ANZUS.

The initial priority of AUKUS will be to pool established US and British expertise and technology to develop a nuclear-powered submarine fleet for Australia – a costly and formidable deterrent force, more usually the domain of a major power than a middling one.

This new triple near-alliance is based on capability, convergent interest and, above all, trust. It will be easy enough to caricature as an outmoded ‘‘Anglosphere’’ but bear in mind that these are three of the world’s most multicultural democracies, informed by a shared recognition that preserving liberal principles globally will require deterring coercion here in the Indo-Pacific.

Accordingly, the trio have hinted at a larger commitment to one another: a merger of our military, industrial and scientific capabilities to protect shared interests in an unforgiving century.

This will extend to critical technologies like cyber, artificial intelligence and quantum computing – commanding heights that China is seeking to dominate for security ends.

And almost as an aside, the government has confirmed plans to acquire serious strike weapons – missiles to hold sea, air and land targets at risk at ranges of hundreds of kilometres. These will be reinforced by research into cutting-edge ‘‘hypersonic’’ missiles and a national enterprise to manufacture missiles on Australian soil.

chetak wrote: ameriki's aukus alliance has sidelined quad partners India and Japan by literally reducing their roles to that of a service provider or contractor.
Look at the QUAD and how India figures in it.
The japs will not fight because of their constitutional constraints.
The aussies are a joke.
India has to fight because it is her backyard that all these folks are trampling about in.
The cheeni are not experienced enough to mount a sustained naval campaign and neither can they sustain it for long, so far away from their repair facilities.
Hence, they will approach India via ladakh and the pakis and now with the taliban too
It is only the amerikis who can sustain credible naval operations in the area but they won't.
After afghanistan and bye-den, what is it that can be expected from the amerikis and who is going be foolish enough to trust them to follow through on promises and commitments, both implied, as well as, expectations.
What exactly is the QUAD and how much of a military component does it actually comprise of that has been defined or spelt out in clear and unambiguous terms. Where has it been defined
The britshits are irrelevant, and late entrants as they are, crashing the party like uncultured boors, they have no significant military or economic muscle to matter either way.
After brexit and their utter irrelevance in afghanistan, they are showboating with their shiny new aircraft carrier and basking in the reflected ameriki glory not realizing that uncle sam's rather rusty halo has slipped badly.
why are they even in the UNSC when India has undoubtedly superior credentials to replace them
The colonial construct is slowly surfacing again, and the white man is ganging up against the natives.
And the QUAD has all the characteristics of a kitty party with prima donna ameriki pimping as the hostess with the mostest.

Chetakji,
It is not true that the others have nothing to lose and only India has the largest stake in the game.
The US might have to give up its position to China as the top dog. It is more probable that they will be replaced by a group of nations, the way things are going. No more $ run world economy. Both the UK and France are not really relevant in Asia anymore.They are still in the UNSC as victors of WWII, now in the distant past. Australia, if it looses the coming conflict, may become Mandarin speaking, like Tibet or Xinjiang, as a Chinese "autonomous" province. Japan too will not be happy under a Chinese dominated Asia/World.
In the past it was India that provided security to the British Raaj. British Indian army, with Indian soldiers whose lives were put on line for cheap, but always led by British officers, who took care of British interests. This kept the peace in the Empire. Only this setup is acceptable to Australia and other Gora Nations.They do not trust India and its army led by Indian officers and backed by the Indian government. In the meantime, it is OK to be a service provider or contractor. India can not play a more significant role, if they do not want it to. However, Khan may change his tune once the band starts to play.
Gautam

ramana wrote:BTW SSN needs very high-quality personnel that 25m Aussie won't have.

The recruitment pool is not limited to Australian citizens. Personnel from Commonwealth countries with relevant experience can serve in the Australian Navy.
Link

Someone posted on SM: The reason France was left out of the alliance is that would make the alliance FAUK-US, and they couldn't allow such a message to be sent to China.

vera_k wrote:

ramana wrote:BTW SSN needs very high-quality personnel that 25m Aussie won't have.

The recruitment pool is not limited to Australian citizens. Personnel from Commonwealth countries with relevant experience can serve in the Australian Navy.
Link

Veraji and Ramanji;
A noob pooch: what should be India's stand be if they are asked to lend Naval Officers to run Aus SSN's as we have the experience Chakra etc. or even not asked but the Officers are enticed with Pay/Naturalization yada, yada??
Should we 'Guard the Brood' so to speak!!

Naah, the retired USN and RN personal can also be a useful pool to man the aus sub fleet.

It is not true that the others have nothing to lose and only India has the largest stake in the game.
The US might have to give up its position to China as the top dog. It is more probable that they will be replaced by a group of nations, the way things are going.

US is quickly calibrating its ambitions and is readjusting itself as one of the group of nations. This is not just the only way forward but the smartest way forward. In effect China is being forced to militarily, diplomatically and economically compete against a group of nations instead of One nation i.e. USA. China will soon outcompete USA in many arenas but to try to take down USA, Japan, Australia, India, France, Germany et al will effectively ensure that they are economically, diplomatically and militarily stretched.

Only time will tell if what I said is true. But given the fact that each of the individual countries cannot out bid China means that collectives are the way forward.

AUKUS appears to be the anglo-saxons ganging up again as happened in ww2. It ties up the Chinese in SE Asia. But nuclear subs v conventional sub as the main tool seems fanciful, if China does first strike, as Japan did in ww2. This also appears to be a bailout of Australia as the Chinese cutbacks on ores n beef have hurt them. Its more lije beffing up a bantam weight boxer in the hope he lands a few blows and US gsins tine. Britain has tagged along dutifully and the french have been told to stick to europe n africa

Pushkar, why you say makes sense only if the PRC is confronted by an alliance of smaller power's that are backed up by the US.

If PRC developed the ability to fight the US alone. Then by default they will have the ability to fight any of the nation's at its periphery. Unless a mutual defence agreement exists which is guaranteed by the US.

Only in that circumstance will the PRC have a pause. Or else they can steam roll such a peripheral state.

The question in all this is the reliability of the US guarantee.

Pratyush wrote:Pushkar, why you say makes sense only if the PRC is confronted by an alliance of smaller power's that are backed up by the US.

If PRC developed the ability to fight the US alone. Then by default they will have the ability to fight any of the nation's at its periphery. Unless a mutual defence agreement exists which is guaranteed by the US.

Only in that circumstance will the PRC have a pause. Or else they can steam roll such a peripheral state.

The question in all this is the reliability of the US guarantee.

i think it's like pawns go first..smaller nations or even teh regional nations like aus, india will be make the scapegoats before khan and his minions like UK, france come to save the day..that looks to be teh plan. these subs are likely to have american and british crew..and give america the ears at the cost of aussie money and people..

BTW, I wonder what is the UK's role in AUKUS ? The nuclear tech in all probability will come from US, the US is the one present in the SE Asia and other than having Diego Garcia (which they may lose quite soon), what is their role in this ?

^ They do have some tech input in the SSNs. e.g the pump-jet propulsor used in Virginia class is developed by BAE

ArjunPandit wrote:i think it's like pawns go first..smaller nations or even teh regional nations like aus, india will be make the scapegoats

Some of the claims in this thread are mystifying....comparing a small country of 25 million to a 1.4 billion country with 7X the economic size.

m_saini wrote:^ They do have some tech input in the SSNs. e.g the pump-jet propulsor used in Virginia class is developed by BAE

UK is a joke...just reduced to a middleman or a small-time influencer at this point. Even VIP Underwears say this freely:

https://www.politico.eu/article/france- ... tary-pact/

After Australia axed its submarine contract with France’s Naval Group, worth more than €50 billion, Paris recalled its ambassadors to Australia and the U.S. in protest — but not the French envoy to the U.K.

Le Drian explained France’s decision by hinting that London had merely been a bystander in the military deal and therefore was not worth Paris’ wrath. “We know their constant opportunism,” he said, referring to the U.K.

I'm not taking sides with any of these guys. Let them backstab each other for all we care. Instead of putting great stock into (possible) worst-case scenarios in the guise of "strategic understanding", we should be taking this as an endorsement of our arrival (and of course the presence of the China threat as well). The GOI has its own long-term plans and isn't about to change them because of these incidents. Any shifts in alliances etc will obviously be taken note of and accordingly factored in.

If PRC developed the ability to fight the US alone. Then by default they will have the ability to fight any of the nation's at its periphery. Unless a mutual defence agreement exists which is guaranteed by the US.

Only in that circumstance will the PRC have a pause. Or else they can steam roll such a peripheral state.

The question in all this is the reliability of the US guarantee.

The regional defence coalitions are already falling in place due to the lack of reliability of US as a net security provider. Japan knows that and is working with India on it. France is very aware of it and again collaborating with India UAE and Japan to ensure that its French Overseas territories are secure.

I think we would be naive to assume that countries look at a declining power like US as a glue that holds the coalition together.

NRao wrote:Australia looking forward to active bilateral cooperation with India in space sector, say officials

goody

the aussies will provide the gravity and India will provide all the rest in this "active bilateral cooperation".


should tell these freeloading aholes to take a hike

chetak wrote:

NRao wrote:Australia looking forward to active bilateral cooperation with India in space sector, say officials

goody

the aussies will provide the gravity and India will provide all the rest in this "active bilateral cooperation".


should tell these freeloading aholes to take a hike

HAHAHAHAHHA! Aaah chetak saar you never disappoint!! Your sense of dark and honest humor is ageing like a fine wine onlee!

The aussies as of now and probably for the next decade or two have really zilch to add for ISRO. However maybe we could use this to set up some tracking stations etc allowing us some further testing and tracking capabilities. Alternatively you could utilize Kangaroo investors and funds for Indian space start ups. Obviously keeping a very much arms length type transaction.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-58635393
Aukus: Australia's big gamble on the US over China
Frances Mao, BBC News, Sydney, 9/22/2021
By signing the Aukus pact last week, Australia revealed where it stands in the world: It is taking the side of the US over China.
It's a definitive move for a country in the Asia-Pacific region, experts say.
The security deal with the US (and the UK) gives Australia a huge defence upgrade from the world's most powerful military.
But it's a gift with strings attached. And there is debate over whether such a decision - made without public consultation - will play out in Australia's national interests.
Shift from the middle ground
As China has grown in power, it has begun to challenge US dominance in the Asia-Pacific region.
China has built the world's largest navy and has become increasingly assertive over contested areas such as the South China Sea.
Australia had long maintained it didn't have to choose between the two powers, but in recent years its attitude towards Beijing has hardened.
China has been suspected of interfering in Australian politics and of cyber attacks on key institutions.
Tensions were further inflamed last year when Australia called for an investigation into the origins of the coronavirus. A flurry of Chinese sanctions against Australian exports followed.
That was Australia's "a-ha" moment, says John Blaxland, an international security professor at the Australian National University.
"What happened was the dawning realisation that all these things that had preceded weren't benign," he says. "We were talking about a country that had become surprisingly hostile."
Australia realised it needed to improve its defences - and quickly.
The main advantage
On that front, Aukus is a big coup for the country. The pact will give Australia access to nuclear-powered submarines and long-range missiles from US technology.
This "super-enables an otherwise pedestrian middle-ranking military capability of little consequence beyond its border", says Prof Blaxland.
In the event of conflict, Australia would also for the first time have the ability to strike adversaries from a distance.
"This is about giving the Australian Defence Force a capable edge in a region where the capability of our own defence force when matched against China is going backwards," said Richard Maude, a former top Australian security official and now policy director at Asia Society Australia.
.......
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/16/australi ... index.html
Australia's decades-long balancing act between the US and China is over. It chose Washington
CNN Digital Expansion 2017. Ben Westcott
Analysis by Ben Westcott, CNN, Fri September 17, 2021
For more than 20 years, Australia tried to maintain good relations with both the United States and China.
It was good for trade and peaceful regional relations. But on Thursday, with the announcement of a new security deal with the United States and the United Kingdom, which will see Australia eventually field nuclear-powered submarines, Canberra made its position clear -- it has chosen Washington over Beijing.
By choosing sides, some experts say Australia has unnecessarily antagonized China, the country's largest trading partner, while at the same time making itself overly reliant on the US for protection should tensions escalate in the Indo-Pacific.
In recent years, Prime Minister Scott Morrison has moved to embrace the US more closely as a security partner, building a personal relationship with former President Donald Trump and attempting to do the same with his successor.
At the same time, relations between Canberra and Beijing have been slowly unraveling, a spiral which only worsened after the start of the Covid-19 pandemic amid questions over the virus's origins.
On Thursday, China reacted angrily to the new security deal with Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijan saying the blame for deteriorating relations "rests entirely with the Australian side."
Yun Jiang, editor of the China Neican newsletter and researcher at the Australian National University, said the deal was the "final nail in the coffin" of Australia's relationship with China, effectively eliminating any chance for rapprochement, at least in the short term.
"Until there is a new equilibrium in the international balance of power, I think the relationship is going to be tense," she said.
Going nuclear
Morrison joined US President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Thursday morning, Australia time, to announce the new policy. The plan, which Biden called "historic," doesn't explicitly mention China but is clearly directed at Beijing.
Under the agreement, named AUKUS, the three countries will hold meetings to coordinate on cyber issues, advanced technologies and defense to help them better meet modern-day security challenges.
And the US and UK will help Australia build and maintain nuclear-powered submarines, a major boost for Canberra's military arsenal, although Morrison said the ships may not join the fleet until 2040.
In a press conference following the announcement, the Australian leader described the deal as a "forever partnership."
"A forever partnership for a new time between the oldest and most trusted of friends. A forever partnership that will enable Australia to protect our national security interests, to keep Australians safe," he said.
The same day Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lijan said Australia should "seriously consider whether to view China as a partner or a threat."
Australia's past success in balancing its relationships with the US and China guaranteed the country's security and economic prosperity under successive governments.
.....
Gautam
Added later: Most Westerners conveniently choose to forget that both Australia and Japan embraced China only after the US did so. After Nixon's famous trip, and the relaxation on the curbs against China, Japan started investing in China, and Australia started exporting raw materials there. While profit may have been the prime motive, neither countries moved in that direction without a nod from the Khan. Today they are hobnobbing with India, only after the US relaxed its curbs on India.

KL Dubey wrote:
UK is a joke...just reduced to a middleman or a small-time influencer at this point. Even VIP Underwears say this freely:

https://www.politico.eu/article/france- ... tary-pact/

Le Drian explained France’s decision by hinting that London had merely been a bystander in the military deal and therefore was not worth Paris’ wrath. “We know their constant opportunism,” he said, referring to the U.K.

I don’t think France wants to lose another huge contract by needlessly antagonising the UK government:

Sizewell C: Government in talks to fund £20bn nuclear plant

L'opportunisme est réciproque.

Plus, the UK and the Royal Navy do have a lot of nuclear submarine experience (good and bad), which Australia could learn from.

g.sarkar wrote:https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-58635393
Aukus: Australia's big gamble on the US over China
In a press conference following the announcement, the Australian leader described the deal as a "forever partnership."
"A forever partnership for a new time between the oldest and most....

Calling this a "forever partnership" shows the naivete/desperation of these kangaroos.

eklavya wrote:I don’t think France wants to lose another huge contract by needlessly antagonising the UK government:

UK has decided to throw in its lot with USA. It is not necessarily antagonism of France. If canceling the Hinkley deal is part of that, there is probably nothing the VIPs can do. As I understand, the Chinese are also part of the deal and they are about to be kicked out. If that's the case, the whole deal might just collapse.

I would not at all be surprised if the project is later given to USA (Westinghouse).

SSN and long range missiles from US are like borrowed peacock feathers on a crow.
Such stuff needs to be developed indigenously.
Already they plan to man their Submarine with foreign sailors. You can't run such critical weapons with borrowed personnel.

ramana wrote:SSN and long range missiles from US are like borrowed peacock feathers on a crow.
Such stuff needs to be developed indigenously.
Already they plan to man their Submarine with foreign sailors. You can't run such critical weapons with borrowed personnel.

Sir, a country with 26 million population (who generally have a laid-back lifestyle) can hardly be expected to be military, industrial or scientific powerhouse. They are a sports powerhouse, let us accept that.

AUKUS is basically a way for the US to bring a large geographical area under their own orbit, and where they cannot be pointed to as foreigners or "outside parties". For all practical purposes, US, UK and Aussie subs are fungible now. An Aussie sub is a platform with US strategic interest but will be given the status of a local player by various littoral states in south-east asia.

Ramanaji,
Australia with a population of just 26 million approximately, is very sparsely populated and rich due to its mineral wealth. It has been protected by the UK and the US in the past and currently. It is not possible for them to produce or man modern weapons the way other nations are able to. UK and the US do not expect it to either. The West will have to defend it for its mineral wealth and space. During WWII, Australia was afraid of Japanese occupation. This fear left a long history of Japanese hatred. If the present situation with China continues, you can expect incidences of China hatred to be seen. Clearly, if the West were to lose the next war, they will also have to give up Australia. Australia can avoid this by allowing large scale immigration, but then it will loose its white English speaking identity that it so much values.
Gautam

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -dominance
Automakers Look to Hedge Against China Rare Earth Dominance
Elisabeth Behrman, September 22, 2021
European automakers are in discussions with Australian rare earths explorer Arafura Resources Ltd. about sourcing elements that help power electric cars from outside China, which dominates global supply.
The miner is developing the A$1 billion ($728 million) Nolans project in Australia’s Northern Territory that will cover as much as 10% of global demand for the type of rare earths used in permanent magnets for electric motors. Crucially, Arafura plans to process ores close to its site, ensuring direct oversight of the treatment of toxic waste products at the project it bought in 2001.
“We have engagement with European manufacturers to directly supply them with material,” Chief Financial Officer Peter Sherrington said in an interview, adding that he expects to ink deals before the end of the year because talks are advancing to volumes and price. New rules on sustainability and traceability “have opened carmakers’ minds up to the need of this.”
.....
Gautam

^^Same old. Extracting the mineral wealth that belongs to the natives and exporting it.

yensoy wrote:

ramana wrote:SSN and long range missiles from US are like borrowed peacock feathers on a crow.
Such stuff needs to be developed indigenously.
Already they plan to man their Submarine with foreign sailors. You can't run such critical weapons with borrowed personnel.

Sir, a country with 26 million population (who generally have a laid-back lifestyle) can hardly be expected to be military, industrial or scientific powerhouse. They are a sports powerhouse, let us accept that.

AUKUS is basically a way for the US to bring a large geographical area under their own orbit, and where they cannot be pointed to as foreigners or "outside parties". For all practical purposes, US, UK and Aussie subs are fungible now. An Aussie sub is a platform with US strategic interest but will be given the status of a local player by various littoral states in south-east asia.

Think of Diego Garcia in North Indian Ocean and Australia in Southern Indian Ocean are US naval bases.
Distances to Bay of Bengal from Perth is 2800 nm and to South China Sea is 4000 nm.

Target is India's rise and claim its to counter China!

https://www.smh.com.au/business/markets ... 58vkf.html
China may be forced to lift Australia coal ban as power crisis worsens
Bloomberg News, September 29, 2021
China’s power crisis looks set to spur it to import more coal from a wider range of producers, putting it into competition with European and Indian buyers that are also snapping up more of the dirtiest fossil fuel.
More than two-thirds of China’s electricity comes from coal-fired plants and, while more than 90 per cent of the fuel it uses is mined locally, it’s difficult to raise local output at short notice. Looking offshore is the easier option, but that’s been complicated somewhat by Beijing’s decision to ban imports from Australia - the world’s second-biggest exporter - late last year.
It isn’t easy to ramp up local coal supply, given the low investment in new mines in recent years, Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Michelle Leung said in a note. Over-mining is also strongly prohibited amid safety concerns, she said.
Instead, China is likely to try and increase purchases from traditional sources. Jilin province will seek more coal from Indonesia, Russia and Mongolia to ensure power supply and heating, Governor Han Jun said in a statement.
Asia’s largest economy could also look farther afield to coal exporters like South Africa, Colombia, the US and Canada, putting it into competition with buyers in other parts of the world and adding more impetus to global price rallies. European electricity producers are snapping up coal as a shortage of natural gas forces utilities to burn it to cope with their own power crunch, while India is also running low on inventories of the fuel.
“Given the coal shortage in the country, we can expect China to ramp up its buying activity and most of it is likely to come from south-east Asian markets due to proximity,” said Abhinav Gupta, a dry cargo research analyst at Braemar ACM Shipbroking. “Most of these coal producers are at peak capacity, which may tighten the coal market and push up prices.”
Beijing could, of course, decide to ease the ban on Australian coal imports, although that may not be politically palatable. BI’s Leung doesn’t think it’s likely, although Ralph Leszczynski, head of research at shipbroker Banchero Costa & Co, reckons it’s a possibility. “Soon the Chinese government might be forced into easing the ban on Australian coal, as that would allow more coal to be imported and ease some pressure on domestic coal prices,” he said.
.....
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/south-as ... nese-ports
Asia / South Asia
India snaps up cheap Australian coal sitting at Chinese ports as stockpiles plunge
*China is battling a crippling energy crunch that’s set to get worse as winter sets in, yet it will not touch coal from Australia due to diplomatic tensions
*Indian firms have bought nearly 2 million tons of Australian thermal coal, sources said, as supplies at power plants near their lowest in four years
Bloomberg, Published: 1 Oct, 2021
India is buying Australian coal that has been stranded inside China for months, according to people who have made the purchases, spotlighting how geopolitics is complicating Beijing’s battle against an energy supply crisis.
The fuel is being bought at a US$12-$15 a ton discount to fresh shipments from Australia and is some of the cheapest thermal coal relative to its quality on the market, said the sources, who asked not to be identified because they were not authorised to speak with the press.
Indian cement makers and sponge iron plants are among buyers that are using the supplies to bridge domestic shortfalls.
The development reflects the extent to which China-Australia relations have soured: China is battling a crippling energy crunch that is set to get worse as winter sets in, and yet it will not touch coal from Australia due to a geopolitical squabble.
Indian firms have bought nearly 2 million tons of Australian thermal coal that has been sitting in warehouses at the Chinese ports, the people said.
......
Gautam

Hahaha. Every word is true. And it just reinforces the point that she does not have to live in fear of her life. Even in Australia.

Try that in China.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/austr ... f9a9f8a41d
Australian exports to China defy trade sanctions
Richard Wood, Oct 14, 2021
The value of Australian exports to China continues to surge, despite Beijing targeting them with trade sanctions.
New Chinese government trade data showed that high commodity prices are fuelling the boom in value of exports to the economic superpower, the Australian Financial Review reports.
Chinese imports from Australia jumped 50 per cent year-on-year to $20.36 billion in September.
Exports from China to Australia climbed nearly 24 per cent year-on-year to about $8 billion.
Australian exports to China - including wine, coal, seafood and barley - have been hit by trade sanctions over the past 18 months.
They were triggered by the Morrison Government's call for an international investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and the introduction of foreign interference laws.
The rising value of Australia's exports to China has been largely driven by a jump in commodity prices.
But demand for iron ore from Chinese companies and state-run enterprises is declining.
The figures were released after a Chinese media outlet warned Australia to expect more trade sanctions amid the fallout of a speech by former prime minister Tony Abbott.
.....
Gautam

https://youtu.be/wtsMdhV02MA

To be seen in conjunction with the recent FTA and formation of the Indian overseas mineral exploration consortium.

Please post any Australian analysis of the FTA signed with India.
Thanks.