Amazing? PM Albanese is the first Australian prime minister since John Curtin to push back publicly on our security against a global leader since John Curtin recognised the danger of an exploitative Britain eight decades ago. Curtin acted. Could it be that Albanese just might act too?

Last week Anthony Albanese responded to a view expressed by Elbridge Colby, a Trump nominee for a key Pentagon policy position, that Australias defence spending is too low. Albanese responded that the Australian Government determines the level of our defence spending. The same Colby had advised Japan to treble its defence spending immediately.

Colby is a key force behind Trumps reshaping of the global security landscape. He has consistently argued that China is the greatest and only threat to Americas global domination. Left unchecked global trade and commercial flows will gravitate toward and around China. China will have a scale and power to ensure that its companies are the world leaders, that its universities are the best, that its standards are met, and that its rules are followed. It will be the gatekeeper to the worlds largest market area, with unmatched scalewhich is of course key to economic development". Thereby Colby argues that China would ruin US global domination. US greatness will fade, simply by China legitimately building its economy and influence. The only way to keep America great is to confront China militarily. By building forces to mount a war around Taiwan from the first island chain. A strategy that every Australian PM since Julia Gillard has enmeshed us in progressively.

Colbys views have shaped US geostrategic planning since the first Trump administration. But his bottom-line that battling China has to be the absolute priority at the expense of all other theatres, particularly Europe, has not been taken up until now. Anyone doubting Colbys influence in the Trump administration need look no further than the current reshaping of defence burdens in Europe over Ukraine, at the heart of Colbys advocacy consistently.

America is clearing the decks to create conflict with China. It knows that it needs to marshall the resources of others and expects that Australia shares its objective against China. Why wouldnt it? Australia is expected join an attack on China which the US itself knows it cannot win militarily, played out until China is destroyed as an economic force. Of course, no timelines are posited. Whatever it takes for American pre-eminence, militarily, economically and geopolitically.

But America is risking little should its strategy fail, other than having to co-exist in a world which it no longer commands. Australia has almost everything to lose: our stature, economy, self-defences and population. It is difficult to overstate the gravitas facing Australias government existential, comparable with Curtins recall of Australian troops with similar complex, far-reaching risk. Curtin knew the time had come to stop backing a loser, given the downside.

Australia has no treaty obligations to join in an attack on China. No US territory, nor Australian, is under threat of attack. We would be fighting for Americas greatness. To prevent a world in which, in the American view, China will have a scale and power to ensure that its companies are the world leaders, that its universities are the best, that its standards are met, and that its rules are followed. It will be the gatekeeper to the worlds largest market area, with unmatched scalewhich is of course key to economic development. Its not obvious why Australia should be averse to that or even welcome it.

The way ahead hinges on one big question. Is Australias interest better served by joining America in confronting China to make America great again, when the US itself has reservations about success, or by standing aside?

The answer is obvious. But how to deal with the US is not.

The government is already receiving gratuitous advice from previous PMs, such a joined- at-the-hip Turnbull. Every PM has spent heavily for war with China, ever since Kim Beazley as ambassador to the US squired President Obama here in 2010, for PM Gillard to sell us out in the hope of a vote or two. Each putting Australias neck further in the US noose. Now the horror has dawned they blame the Trump administration. Not on my watch, is their pathetic claim. Defence experts and media who have fed off diverting attention from Americas plans for 15 years are contriving an avalanche of self-justifying opinion.

But, finally, the penny seems to have dropped, with Albanese.

Reading the tea-leaves, the governments careful words that it is open to considering a contribution to Ukraine, at a time when US is yelling that China is the priority for our forces, could be another sign to the US that we will take our own security decisions, ourselves. For the short term, given an election is in the wind, skilful diplomacy is the go. A review of the big question has to be led by the prime minister, through his department, when the way clears.

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.