The US National Defense Strategy signals a softer, more pragmatic approach to China. Australia’s silence on the shift exposes how detached its defence posture has become from both reality and its own national interests.

Released in the final week of January, the 34-page National Defense Strategy paper declares, “President Trump seeks a stable peace, fair trade, and respectful relations with China, and he has shown that he is willing to engage President Xi Jinping directly to achieve those goals.”

In a very un-Trumplike way, it is actually a clear minded approach. America cannot do a Venezuela; kick down Xi’s door and depose his government. Dealing with that reality is more likely to yield results than pursuing an aggressive policy of China containment.

The strategy declares, “Consistent with the President’s approach, DoW [Department of War] will therefore seek and open a wider range of military-to-military communications with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) with a focus on supporting strategic stability with Beijing as well as deconfliction and de-escalation, more generally.”

It is a stark departure from Australia’s military posture towards our biggest trading partner and yet again proof that while Australia aligns its strategic interests directly with the US, the US is free to pursue its interests alone. Nobody from the Australian government has even acknowledged, let alone commented on the newly stated US posture.

The only announcement to come out of Australia’s Department of Defence on the day the US report was released was that our government is injecting $17 million into Defence Industry Development Grants. And that is newsworthy? Every 40 minutes the Australian Defence Department spends $17 million.

It’s been a decade since Australia’s last Defence White Paper was released, and it seems over that time defence policy has been shaped by government news releases and anti-China think tank propaganda.

It beggars belief that Australia would commit to hundreds of billions of dollars in additional defence spending – clearly aimed at China – without a comprehensive analysis as to what the realistic threat actually is.

The only commentary from Australia has come from the US government-funded Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) and the US Studies Centre. ASPI’s Malcolm Davis proclaimed, “The US NDS should be a clear signal to Australia’s defence policy community that a steady-as-she-goes approach is no longer enough. Australia must do more, spend more and risk more to work with the US and its allies.”

Dulce et decorum est – it’s the old ASPI lie that we should be willing to sacrifice the lives of our young men and women in order to enrich the coffers of its death merchant benefactors.

Thanks to AUKUS it is hard to see how Australia isn’t already spending more and risking more. There’s the economic risk of pouring $368 billion into submarines that won’t arrive. A further risk of US nuclear-armed bombers stationed in the Northern Territory and nuclear armed submarines using HMAS Stirling as a West Australian base painting a target on Australia’s back. Then the risk of putting off our biggest and most important trading partner.

Yes, China has become more assertive and the skirting of Australia’s waters by its warships is a concern, however, these recent actions are not unprovoked. For decades Australian naval vessels and RAAF surveillance aircraft have been operating in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait.

One of the legitimate challenges for Australian policy-makers is the unpredictability of US president Donald Trump.

While the US Defence Strategy reads more like a press release than a considered policy document, that is the reality for at least the next three years under Trump. While Trump is not likely to manoeuvre himself into a third presidential term, there’s nothing to say he won’t be succeeded by another MAGA Republican who’ll continue on a similar course.

Reading between the lines, Australia must appreciate that US decoupling with China has far more serious consequences for both those nations than a China Trade Ban 2.0 with Australia, along the lines of the bans on Australian exports in the Covid period.

Clinging to America’s coattails is not foreign policy and refusing to even acknowledge a significant shift in US policy highlights the predicament faced by our policymakers – we are so set on the present course that we willingly risk our most important trading relationship while ignoring the possibility of warming relations between our biggest economic and strategic partners.

In the introduction to the strategy paper, US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth says, “We will deter China in the Indo-Pacific through strength, not confrontation.”

Without the US, Australia has no strength and, better trade relations aside, Australia’s strategic policy towards China is built on confrontation. There’s a lesson in that; one that our leaders will not learn.