I've taken the liberty of adding a question mark at the end of this video's title. I hope I will be right in my scepticism because to me a second Trump term would be unthinkable (and not only because Australia would be a big loser under his presidency) although, according to Niall Ferguson, "it makes a lot of sense because nobody else articulated the dissatisfaction of those people who were losing out economically and in other ways from globalisation than Trump did."
"... making sure that the people in the Pentagon prioritise war readiness not DEI ..." We in the West have convulsed ourselves in so much useless left-wing "diversity, equity, and inclusion" that we have lost sight of our real problems and the real dangers in today's world.
This video is only days old, and for a counter measure, I've added the following very prescient video which is now already five years old.
And here's comes the kicker for Australia [1:22:38] (underlining added by me): "President Trump has not exactly been reassuring to traditional US allies and the Alliance system. It was a great source of concern for both General McMaster, his former national security adviser, and General Mattis, his former defense secretary. They've gone, and I think one has to worry a little bit about how firm the resolve of the United States would be towards any of its allies in the face of a conflict, so when you put those two things together Australia can hardly be complacent about its security. Look, let's just do some basic history here: history is mostly the history of empires; it's not actually the history of nation-states and it's mostly the history of conflict, not the history of peace. You get peaceful periods, no question; we've been in a relatively peaceful time since the end of the Cold War, but to assume that this will continue indefinitely would be to ignore the lessons of history. Another obvious lesson of history which has been true throughout the centuries is that if you want peace prepare for war and vice versa. If you want war, act like it'll never come, allow your defense capability to atrophy. For an enormous island that is thinly populated in relative terms compared with Asia and that has a vast store of natural resources, for such an island to be ill-defended seems like the most spectacular historical folly, in particular, when it is in relatively close proximity to a one-party state with obviously imperial ambitions. It's quite a long way away from its principal ally. That China has imperial ambitions is obvious. The more Chinese leaders in their speeches say, 'Oh, China never does conquest', the more I'm like to say, 'Seriously?' You really got to make that argument? I mean the Ching Empire was taking great chunks of Russia just over a century ago, so let's get real here. This is not a good situation. It was okay during the Chimerica era when the Chinese were like, okay, it's no problem we'll just sell you stuff cheaply and underpay our workers and lend you money, it's cool. We'll buy Australian stuff, not a problem, at market price, how much do you want? That was all fine but anybody who thought that that was gonna last indefinitely was dreaming because the whole point of Chimerica was that it was a temporary illusory relationship and that at some point China wouldn't need it anymore, and the Chinese are kind of getting to the point where they don't need us anymore and the bets that we placed from the Clinton-era that they would liberalize or that the internet would somehow turn them into a democracy, all that's gone. China's actually gone in the opposite direction; politically, Xi Jinping has increased the central control of the party and is reimposing doctrinal orthodoxy. He's cutting out such free speech as had developed in China's public square. I mean, how many more flashing red lights do you need? So I think this is kind of getting to the point of urgent and what I see in Australian politics is a debate that if it was going on in a regional council in Scotland would seem parochial. The parochialism is stunning. True, a considerable efforts been made by the intelligence and national security community in this country to awaken people to the potential threat Australia faces but is Australia in any way prepared from a naval point of view for Chinese acts of aggression? No way! So I think this is a moment of truth; actually, I said yesterday that we were entering a new Cold War and we should stop pretending otherwise. And this cold war will be very different from the last cold war. It will be fought in different ways; it will be an arms race for everything from artificial intelligence to quantum computing more than for clear weapons or rockets to the moon, and the battlefields will be different when you consider what China's Belt and Road initiative has become. It is nothing less than a global policy; it's far extended beyond the original concept that was essentially a Central Asian Indian Ocean concept and has become global, and the search for commodities is not a trivial part of what is involved and pass some level are about acquiring commodities at below market prices that's kind of what empires are or at least not trusting to the market to deliver you the commodities so it's better during the reader statement own the mines, control the supply chain, and not be at the mercy of the market or the mercy of a navy which China currently is to the US Navy, so we need to clearly understand the historical logic of China's expansion. To have security, China cannot be dependent on imported commodities and market prices. When you think about what that implies for Australia, it's really quite scary because Australia is a prize. Australia's a hugely attractive place from a Chinese vantage point and not just as a vacation destination or place to study and learn English and I'm stunned by the lack of awareness of the strategic vulnerability of Australia when everything should be screaming to you prepare. I think we'd all agree that it's extremely sobering. It's worth noting that Australia only became a nation in 1901. The federal government at that time read what was happening in Europe better. I think than the Europeans did realized trouble was coming and in 1907, just six years after we became a nation, they ordered what could be described as a Tier 2 Navy from the Brits. It arrived here just five years later. By way of contrast, in 2009 it was decided and generally agreed as a matter of national urgency, we needed 12 new state-of-the-art submarines. By the time the first one is delivered it'll be 25 years from that decision at the earliest. That is the length of time that elapsed between the beginning of the First World War and the end of the Second World War. I believe that's a very very timely warning to us all. On this question of the technological race you've been talking about AI. There's a debate going on about whether in fact the Americans might not have lost out already to the Chinese in that race but to feed into a specific we're starting to understand the extraordinary control the Chinese Communists are now exercising over there people including the deployment of very sophisticated technology to monitor their people this horrendous ideas it seems to me of the Social Credit system which is obviously a great user and deployer of technology seems chilling how should we understand it well you're probably all familiar with what's happening in China which is that the the Internet has enabled the Chinese governments have access to data about its citizens without parallel in the history of authoritarian regimes and with the deployment of surveillance technology cameras and facial recognition technology the government is edging towards having real-time coverage of its populations"
I could listen to this chap all day long. And if you, like I, cannot get enough of Niall Ferguson, read his book "The Square and the Tower":
My favourite is "The Great Degeneration"
