In which the pond can only cope with a natter by "Ned", followed by a blather by the bromancer ...

 

Day after day the Epstein files affair rages in the USA, to the endless delight of the pond.

Day after day, the reptiles at the lizard Oz act as if they're ostriches. Scan this morning's edition and see if you can find a mention ...

If they'd just step out of the hive mind for more than a nanosecond, what fun they'd find ...

It's happening live, and it's also in The Graudian in How the Trump administratiion's handling of the Epstein files became a vehicle for QAnon, and over at Vanity Fair, Donald Trump Loses His Grip on the Base, and even the reptiles at news.com.au paid attention.

Reptiles paying attention to The Bulwark?

The fun was endless, with a dinkum westie lad helping out...

Will the Senate Actually Confirm Trump’s Hooters-Obsessed Nominee?
The restaurant chain known for their, er, breasts won’t comment on Nick Adams, their now-famous customer recently picked to become ambassador to Malaysia. But some lawmakers did.

Go Ashfield!

The cartoonists were having a field day...

And then there were the logarithms that turned the pond on to the many videos featuring the burning of their made in China MAGA hats by MAGAts ...

Be still, conspiracy-addled thumping heart, it's time for drudgery, it's time to check out the usual motley Wednesday bunch assembled over on the extreme far right ...

Sheesh, that's the best they can do?

What on earth is the point of this nonsense?

Trump’s turn towards Ukraine is better late than never
We can probably thank European leaders for this turn of events: they counselled Zelensky to massage Trump’s ego by playing nice and thanking the US profusely for its support at every turn.
By Mark Edele

... when elsewhere on the very same page you could read this?

UKRAINE WAR
Trump warns Zelensky against striking Moscow
After asking Zelensky if Kyiv could hit Moscow, Donald Trump now says the US isn’t planning to provide long-range missiles to Ukraine, as he swings from pressure on one side to the other.
By Matthew Luxmoore, Yaroslav Trofimov and Alexander Ward

You might as well have faith in a pair of flip flops or in the gyrations of a yo yo. 

You can trust his moods no longer than an hour, or no further than you can throw him, and being a mountain of Big Mac blubber, that's not very far.

The pond takes the view to be found in this substack, Trump Is So Angry With Putin He Delayed Sanctions For 50 Days, i.e. until September! (paywall).

So much alleged anger, and over such an extended time. So many chances for decisions, and revisions of the decisions, and revisions of the revisions...

This is the valiant, valuable ally the pond is supposed to faint over? 

The one that insists that Kyiv fight with one hand tied behind its back, while the sociopathic Vlad the impaler terrorises Ukraine's capital and the rest of the country?

This is the alliance that the craven worshipper of fellow authoritarians is in charge of that nattering "Ned" drools over this day?

A clunky sentence perhaps, but follow the sense if not the sensibility.

The pond almost went on strike, but settled, and left base camp for the usual "Ned" Everest climb...

What a turgid, tepid bore he is, and the pond almost didn't make it past the header: Australia-US alliance has reached a dangerous moment over Taiwan question, The longer this issue is unresolved, the more dangerous it gets and the more it will spill into other aspects of the alliance. Labor should see this as a national interest issue, not a domestic political opportunity to exploit.

How on earth is it going to be resolved? By bunging on WWIII by Xmas?

There was also an irritatingly banal caption for King Donald in King Canute pose: President Donald Trump speaks with reporters before departing the White House.

And the mystifying proposal: This article contains features which are only available in the web version, Take me there

The reptiles rated "Ned" a five minute read, and the pond realised that all the wailing and whining and flapping about would be like Henny Penny on steroids ...

The arrogance and ineptitude of the Trump administration in seeking the integration of Australia into its America First strategy in the Indo-Pacific risk a political backlash in this country and even serious damage to the alliance relationship.
Consider the unfolding fiascos: the US imposes trade discrimination on Australia, allowing China, the architect of past trade coercion against us, to depict itself as the trade good guy – an unbelievable US own goal; a senior American official probes Australia’s reliability as an ally in a war over Taiwan, a totally unjustified demand of Australia; the understandable US review of AUKUS is consumed by damaging reports, leaks and rumours from Washington, raising alarms the review may seek changes designed to disadvantage Australia; and the fully justified US demand that Australia spend more on defence risks being caught in a presentation trap that only reinforces Anthony Albanese’s myopic messaging that he won’t buckle to Trumpian intimidation.
There is nobody managing this alliance. Nobody on either side. Misunderstanding and confusion is the order of the day. The absence of a Trump-Albanese meeting to provide firm political guidelines is a grievous omission. The Prime Minister making a second visit to China without seeing Donald Trump isn’t just a diplomatic mistake but fuels risks for alliance policy.

Just roll out that mindless piece of moronic scribbling around on the tongue again:

The absence of a Trump-Albanese meeting to provide firm political guidelines is a grievous omission

Here's the problem.

You do the meeting, likely involving ritual humiliation, headlines are generated, and an hour after you leave the meeting, you read in a Truth post the bitter truth ...

King Donald, on a whim, has turned on a dime and hates you ... or he loves you ... until he hates you again an hour later. Endlessly repeat the cycle, no rinsing allowed...

The reptiles interrupted "Ned" with a snap,  President Xi Jinping shakes hands with Anthony Albanese prior to their bilateral meeting at the Great Hall of the People, in Beijing.

It was only a temporary break, as "Ned" carried on ...

In the long run, relations will probably settle. Probably. The phone contact between Trump and Albanese has been positive. Most of the contact at official levels seems cordial. But the big question remains unanswered in a Trump administration afflicted by rival outlooks – just what changes does Trump expect from Australia as part of his still unarticulated Asia strategy? Has Trump even worked that out? Probably not.
At present, the two sides are talking past each other. The Trump administration has asked Australia for assurances on Taiwan that we cannot give, while Australia has refused to give the assurances on defence spending that we should give.
The management chasm is shocking. The focal point is the review of the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement conducted by senior Pentagon official Elbridge Colby, a China hawk who wants the US to prioritise strategic deterrence against China and is fixated on having America’s regional allies lift their defence contribution.
The Australian blunder is obvious. It is the stubborn, untenable refusal to signal substantial increases in our defence budget, a policy change sought by most of Australia’s defence experts.
Colby has concluded Australia is not properly financing AUKUS because it lacks a defence budget that meets the submarine program consistent with expanding other defence resources. This is a lethal conclusion embraced by US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has called for Australia to lift spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP.
This is not a sovereignty issue. There needs to be a Trump-Albanese deal on this question. The concern is that this conflict might only escalate with Albanese obsessed about the political optics of appearing to concede to Trump.
The longer this issue is unresolved, the more dangerous it gets and the more it will spill into other aspects of the alliance. Labor should see this as a national interest issue, not a domestic political opportunity to exploit.
The bigger risk, however, is that the Trump administration will plunge into its own brand of alliance follies over AUKUS as it seeks to reconcile Colby’s convictions with Trump’s instincts.
The Pentagon tried to clear the air with an official spokesperson telling this newspaper at the weekend: “The Secretary of Defence directed Elbridge Colby in his role as the Under Secretary of Defence for Policy to undertake this review. The point of the review is to make sure that this agreement is structured and implemented in a way that aligns with President Trump’s objectives and priorities.”

See there, see the strength of the delusion?

There needs to be a Trump-Albanese deal on this question. 

Unless comrade Albo decides to go full Stalin, King Donald will treat him as a gnat, not even worth the swatting. If a deal is done, it's only so the deal can be undone on a whim, and then perhaps done again, so that it can be undone again. Endlessly repeat the cycle, no rinsing allowed.

Meanwhile, the minions in the court will feud and fuss and scheme and bitch and back bite, and do a Colby, Elbridge Colby speaking at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee at the US Capitol in Washington.

Next thing you know you're the Ukraine meat in the champers Pete sandwich ...

"Ned's" terrified the deal will go away, but perhaps it's time to get our fighters from Sweden, our choppers from South Korea, some subs from Japan or France, and the pond's next EV from China...

Never mind, carry on with the Chicken Little routines ...

The review is not designed to kill the agreement. The purpose is “making sure that it (AUKUS) is something we can make good on” but “there are challenges” and “we should take them head-on”.
In short, the review is a bigger event than realised and that’s surely a plus. But the Financial Times report of July 12 launched a new red flag, saying Colby had been pushing Japan and Australia on commitments in relation to a war over Taiwan.
The same report, however, said “this request caught Tokyo and Canberra by surprise because the US itself does not give a blank-cheque guarantee to Taiwan”.
This is the pivotal point. Given Trump’s stance of strategic ambiguity on Taiwan, allies such as Australia can’t be asked to offer strategic clarity. The Americans can’t ask Australia to do something the US won’t do.
This newspaper knows for a fact that Colby has raised the Taiwan issue in talks with Australian officials – and got a sharp rebuttal. The notion that the US government would impose a Taiwan test in a considered AUKUS review seems preposterous, but the lesson from the Trump era is never to dismiss the preposterous.
Let’s deconstruct what such a US insistence would involve.

Oh sheesh, "Let's"?

Must we? It won't involve a "Ned" listicle, or a kind of PowerPoint numerical ticking off of "Ned" talking points?

The reptiles tried to distract the pond, analyst Joe Siracusa says Elbridge Colby is trying to "embarrass" the Australian government through his AUKUS review. US Undersecretary of Defence Elbridge Colby, who's leading the AUKUS review, wants to know if the nuclear submarines Australia purchases will then be used to help the US in any invasion by China of Taiwan. Mr Siracusa said Australia's government is "too smart" to let the US humiliate them.

Oh dear, there's going to a first and a second and eventually a fourth, and it's too late for a "let's not, Ned" ...

First, it is a repudiation of Australia as a sovereign democracy to expect any statement of intent, let alone a guarantee from our government, to promise its forces and future submarines to support the US in a Taiwan conflict. No government, Labor or Coalition, would make such a commitment. Albanese made this plain in his response to questions on Sunday. Obviously, Albanese cannot commit any future Labor or Coalition government anyway. Beyond that, the Australian public would never endorse such a commitment.
Second, the idea is strategically absurd since it overlooks the possible trigger for conflict – military action provoked by a Taiwan push for independence would be entirely different from an unprovoked military decision by Beijing. The cause of the conflict would be seminal in Australian calculations, thereby rendering any supposed guarantee null and void.
Third, such a request from the US would destroy mutual trust between alliance partners. Has the US ever asked any other ally for such a statement of intent in any other circumstances involving future military conflict? Any such request would prove the US lack of trust in Australia as an ally – despite a century of shared military support, despite the existence of joint facilities in this country stretching back decades and despite Australia’s more recent provisions for US air, naval and ground forces.

Did "Ned" just destroy the entire point of his musings? 

Never mind, after a snap of champers Pete, US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth speaks during a bilateral meeting with German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius at the Pentagon.

...it was time for "Ned" to lurch to his ending ...

The cry from the local critics of the US alliance and AUKUS would thunder across the land: Trump doesn’t trust us – and if he doesn’t trust us, then we can’t trust him. A totally self-defeating situation.
Of course, it is true that the joint facilities mean Australia would be involved from the outset in any conflict – but this is not Colby’s question. His concern is force deployment.
Fourth, this would be a significant change to the AUKUS agreement, never required when it was sealed with the Biden administration by the president himself. Obviously, it would shake Australia’s trust in the agreement.
Such a US request also would verify there was no deal when AUKUS was finalised that Australia was locked into a US-led military force participation in a conflict over Taiwan. It is now apparent that repeated assertions by critics to this effect are demonstrably false.
The point, as Scott Morrison has endlessly said, is that AUKUS was devised to strengthen US-led strategic deterrence against China involving both US and Australian force projection.
The related mistake by the Albanese government has been its reluctance to present and champion AUKUS for what it is – strategic deterrence. Don’t think Colby isn’t fully alert to this omission.
The irony, as current Exercise Talisman Sabre 2025 shows – with the US and Australia involved along with 35,000 military personnel from 19 nations – is the alliance is in sound operating condition.
The task facing leaders from both sides is to sustain this arrangement, not undermine it through strategic and political blunders and stupidity.

The alliance is in sound operating condition, as we watch from afar enormous stupidity at work? 

Tell that to Ukraine ...

The pond realised that it had a very low tolerance level for any more blather about how we must please the Cantaloupe Caligula and his assorted horses, but simply couldn't go there with Dame Slap ...

Australia’s legal profession has lost its way
The great aim of the Australian legal profession is now too often to use the law to win political victories they could never win at an election.
By Janet Albrechtsen

Why on earth doesn't she return to lawyering to show the way? Why is it the way for lawyers to turn into Murdochian hacks to attempt political victories and then bleat about the law when they cop a thrashing at the ballot box?

No, there was no way out, it was time for the war with China by Xmas, part zillion, with the reptiles very own Reichsmarschall des GroßAustralisch Reiches...

The tediously lengthy header and sub:

An improvement from Anthony Albanese on China from a low bar, but there is not much substance to this tour
At least this time, Anthony Albanese was willing to mention some of the issues where Canberra disagrees with Beijing. Of course, there’s not the slightest chance that anything he says to Xi Jinping will affect China’s behaviour.

The tedious caption for a tedious snap of a tedious pose:

Anthony Albanese meets with President Xi Jinping in Beijing on Tuesday. Picture: PMO

The unremitting advice, studiously and continually ignored: This article contains features which are only available in the web version, Take me there

The pond almost baulked because there's only so much bromancer bunging on a do that any possum should be forced to endure, yet here we are again ...

Anthony Albanese’s Beijing press conference, following his meeting with Xi Jinping, was an improvement on his recent performances regarding the People’s Republic of China.
At least this time he was willing to mention some of the issues where Canberra disagrees with Beijing.
Of course, there’s not the slightest chance that anything Albanese says to Xi will affect Beijing’s behaviour.
The PM confirmed he had raised concerns about the PRC navy circumnavigating Australia in February and also engaging in live fire exercises in the Tasman Sea without notification, such that civilian passenger aircraft were forced to change their routes.
Xi told Albanese more or less that Beijing will do whatever it likes in terms of exercises.

Almost immediately the reptiles interrupted with a distraction, Anthony Albanese says he did not “need to” bring up the Port of Darwin with China’s President Xi Jinping.

That just made the bromancer mad:

Nonetheless, it was progress of a sort that Albanese was willing to mention it at all.
Quite misleadingly, Albanese claimed his position was just the same when the exercises took place in February. That’s not quite right. The government was notable in its apologia for Beijing’s actions back then.
Similarly, the PM raised the case of the Australian writer Yang Hengjun, who has been wrongly imprisoned in the PRC since 2019 on preposterous charges of spying.
The PM also reiterated Australia’s position on Taiwan, that we support the status quo on Taiwan and oppose any unilateral actions to change it. That means Australia opposes Beijing’s bullying and military intimidation of Taiwan, and certainly opposes the idea of Beijing taking direct military action against Taiwan.
It’s a good thing that the Australian PM stated that clearly, in a press conference, in Beijing. Nonetheless, there was, as ever, maddening vagueness and ambiguity about much that Albanese said.

The reptiles settled for another photo op, China’s President Xi Jinping welcomes Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. Picture: AAP

The maddened, some might think barking mad, bromancer carried on ...

For example, Beijing officials and state owned media have been waging a campaign against Albanese’s decision to require the Chinese-owned company, Landbridge, to sell its long-term lease of the Port of Darwin.
They have also been campaigning for more liberal treatment of PRC investment in sensitive sectors in Australia.
Xi in his opening remarks stressed the importance of “equal treatment” of nations. Presumably that’s a dig at Australia’s foreign investment regime which distinguishes between potential investors who present strategic risk and those who don’t.

The reptiles decided it was time for another distraction, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meets face-to-face with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing, marking a major step in rebuilding Australia–China relations. Beyond the diplomatic pleasantries, tough issues were on the table, including military tensions near Australian waters, the case of detained writer Yang Hengjun, and pressure to restore trade ties. North Asia correspondent Will Glasgow reports from outside the Great Hall of the People as Australia navigates a delicate balancing act: re-engaging with Beijing while standing firm on national interests.

As soon as you see an EXPLAINER, thank the long absent lord the pond only offers a screen cap rather than a viewing ...

Of course, the PRC would never practice equal reciprocal treatment to Australia. Which port in mainland China, adjacent to sensitive military facilities, has a long-term lease owned by an Australian company?

And who was it who did it, and who was still defending it back in April? Former NT minister defends lease of Darwin port to Chinese-owned company

Never mind ...

Albanese announced before the federal election that his government would require Landbridge to sell the lease. There’s no sovereign risk here. The sale will occur at commercial prices. And if no corporate sale can be arranged, the Australian government should buy the lease at a price which means the company does not suffer a commercial disadvantage.

How the reptiles love mindless flag shots... The national flags of Australia and China flutter in Tiananmen Square. Picture: Wang Xin/VCG

The bromancer carried on ...

But Albanese then claimed that he’d had the same position on the Port of Darwin for 10 years. Certainly, nobody in Australia was aware of that. Nor did Albanese previously claim, until the last election, that there would be a forced sale.
Now that decision has been made, it should be proceeded with quickly.
Rightly, Albanese acknowledged that we have strategic competition in the region. But did he mean only strategic competition between the PRC and the US? Or is Australia part of that strategic competition as well, both as a close ally of the US and in our own right in the South Pacific? It would take code breaking skills of a high order to answer those questions from Australian ministerial statements.
Naturally, Albanese is completely unhelpful in trying to unravel what Richard Marles and Penny Wong mean when they say the chief worry about the Chinese military build-up is its lack of transparency. Questions aiming at this mystery provoked classic prime ministerial waffle.
The Prime Minister’s visit has been mostly symbol and not much substance, as is generally the case with high-profile visits to the PRC.

Then came another photo op, Anthony Albanese meets with China’s President Xi Jinping in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China. Picture: AAP

The pond couldn't stand it anymore, it was way past time for an infallible Pope to break up the ranting...

It turned out that the bromancer only had one more gobbet in him ...

The high blown talk about so called “green steel” is more fantastic than the idea we’ll build nuclear submarines in Australia next decade, achieve free trade in APEC, abolish child poverty, or pay dividends for fourth and fifth places at all Australian race meetings.
Green hydrogen projects have been falling over left and right in Australia. They are unproven technology and not remotely economically competitive. The idea that with all our renewable energy we will make green steel which the PRC will pay a huge price premium for in order to satisfy the ambitions of reaching net-zero emissions by 2060 heaps fantasy upon conjecture, then mixes it with science fiction and political satire. It’s more likely that Superman will come to earth from Planet Krypton and play for the Socceroos.

Before allowing the bromancer to finish, a final interruption with some fun news. 

Unlike the current US administration, headed by climate science denying King Donald as the water-clogged atmosphere indulges in sundry deluges from Texas to NJ (the pond hopes all is well in Joisey), China is actually taking steps.

Per Vox, The world’s largest emitter just delivered some good climate news, China may have met an important climate goal — ahead of schedule.

Sure, it's fragile, sure it's an authoritarian dictatorship, but at least its trying ...

Why did this happen?
In large part, the decline in emissions came from clean electricity production. China deployed vastly more wind, solar, and nuclear power — sources that don’t emit carbon dioxide — at a pace faster than its electricity demand growth. Meanwhile, its coal and gas electricity production dropped. China’s emissions have dipped before due to economic slowdowns, so the fact that its economy grew while emissions declined is a significant turning point, putting China in a league with more than 30 countries, including the US, that have already done the same.
China has established itself as the world’s largest producer of solar panels, wind turbines, electric vehicles, and batteries, driving down prices for the global market. It’s deploying these technologies within its own borders, as well as exporting them en masse, and some of its biggest customers are developing countries. That means China’s investments in clean energy redound to the rest of the world. Renewables accounted for 90 percent of new power capacity installed worldwide last year.

Later this year, countries will gather in Brazil for the COP30 climate conference, where world leaders will hash out how to bring new, stronger commitments to cut their contributions to climate change by 2035. China’s President Xi Jinping pledged that his country will come to the table with a comprehensive plan to further reduce its emissions across its economy, while the US may not show up at all. One his first day of his second term, President Donald Trump began the process of pulling the country out of the Paris climate agreement altogether. Again.

And so on, and to a hammer, everything's a nail, and so to the bromancer, talk of climate change is mere high-minded nonsense ...

Several decades ago there was a season of talking about how we were going to export huge amounts of elaborately transformed manufactures to Indonesia. I covered several Australian delegations in Indonesia where this was the talk of the day.
Nothing remotely like that ever came to pass and indeed now we have one of the smallest manufacturing sectors of any advanced economy.
Happy talk in foreign affairs often involves a good deal of high-minded nonsense. Much of that can be harmless, but it’s a sign, at best, that substance is missing.

One way or another, the reptiles very own Reichsmarschall des GroßAustralisch Reiches is intent on fucking the planet, and he doesn't seem to mind how its done, whether by dissing and dismissing action on climate change, or by bunging on WWIII by Xmas ...

And so to conclude on a lighter note, with TT wondering what's the latest on Leon ... Grok away...