It is an interesting position we are in here, I suspect we will do the usual thing and walk the middle road. Australia, is part of the Commonwealth, huge trade partner with Asia and allies with the US. Why not throw Canada into the mix some more.

This setup is why I call this place an equal opportunist whore. If we can do business with you, we will. I also call it the worlds largest Mining town, but that just acknowledging the reality of the place a little.

As much as many are going against the US, I don't think there is much constitution at the top here to make such a bold move. We will just be pottering around down here hoping all the bad stuff passes us by as nobody notices us.

I'm Australian and am increasingly ok with this approach. I'm growing slowly out of a protectionist mindset, toward one of cautious, and considered collaboration. Singapore follows this approach and it has worked well for them so far.

You'd be surprised at how many equal opportunist whores there are on earth. These are the countries that I believe Mark Carney referred to when he said "middle powers".

It is simply the most rational choice for countries who wish to thrive to play all sides, taking none and survive the disruptions.

India does the same. They try to be friendly (or at least on business terms) with as many countries as they can and stay out of global conflicts as much as possible. They were buying oil from Russia well after the Russia-Ukraine war started. It also worked well for India as they were able to get rock bottom prices.

From a purely economic standpoint, this would make sense. Not sure what to feel about the ethics of it though - at least part of the Russian war bill was footed by the money India paid for Russian oil. One can argue the Ukraine's problems are not India's problems. One could also argue it would be nice to not fund shitty wars, even a little, even indirectly.

Geopolitics is a complex subject I suppose, for a layman like me.

But there's also no fundamental need for a bold move either. Country relationships are almost entirely based on trade. It's 'nice' when there are ideology and policy overlaps, but they would get overlooked if there were serious trade disputes (although it's less likely to happen as it's easier to form trade agreements with the like-minded).

The relationship with the US is deteriorating entirely due to trade. The Iran war is an example of this because it completely fucks international and internal logistics. I don't think Australia, politically, cares if the US bomb Iran or even commit war crimes there, but the fact it affects trade (via oil prices and all the ripple effects of that) is the reason for at least preparation of an 'exit relationship' stance (and, of course, the other trade circus sideshows Trump is putting on, vis a vis tariffs).

I'm not sure Australia does much trade with Russia, hence Australia can support Ukraine until the cows come home, without risking trade margins.

Which is exactly the sensible plan.

I want a government which does the cost effective thing, not one which tries to make statements with bold headlines.

I want boring government policy which sensibly hedges against future risk in correct appreciation of our unbelievably fortunate geopolitical luck.