>>45037
>Taiwan?
I said "sovereign country". Taiwan in is: 1, not a sovereign country according to international recognition; 2, as mentioned, a wholly chinese affair ("chinese" meaning also "taiwanese"); 3, an extremely delicate subject with potentially great geopolitical and security implications, think for example of something like Tasmania for some reason starting to get ideas of independence and countries outside of Australia's influence encouraging them, selling them some weapons, and conducting """freedom of navigation""" exercises in the bass strait lmao
"1 china 2 systems" implies that taiwan is china too, and when the west plays with taiwan independence they are knowingly threatening china. I gave already examples of such playing or threats, here is more: Lithuania (an exemplary sycophantic US "ally") recently upgraded a quasi-diplomatic trade mission to the island, and now the US is said to be mulling over the same move. Step by step it is the empire that is encroaching into one of china's more vital interest, not the other way around. The very fact that the USG still officially upholds the "1 china" policy, as you pointed out, shows the dangerously incongruous behavior
>We don't have almost constant war
The US has been almost constantly at war, and her allies and vassals soon follow her, and soon enough war follows them back. I don't think Australia is an exception, although by virtue of being one of the most remote provinces, perhaps you have not seen so much of the "culturally-enriching" results of the wars "following you back" into oceania. Lucky you (although, Brenton Tarrant probably thought otherwise)
>the way that China is going about it that is the issue here.
What alternative did the "pivot to Asia-pacific" give them? Since then it has been an explicit goal for the US to suppress China's rise. I already prompted you to spell out your "much better ways to go about it"
>AUKUS probably was extreme and will have ramifications down
Nothing is free is consequences, but many did expect extreme measures: the USG launching a "preemptive war" before its global status becomes undeniably challenged (by any country) has been long in the cards, and widely discussed wrt to China since the first forecasts showing them eventually overtaking the US as the world leading economy
Next, I suppose more deployments to Japan might come (and not because Japan itself would need them, having already one of the largest naval forces in the world)
>due to the behaviour of China.
You are just restating your position. I already countered this so you can re-read my reply if you want