By The Straits Times

In a historic move to address ongoing personnel shortages, the Australian Department of Defence has announced plans to begin recruiting foreign nationals into the Australian Defence Force (ADF). This new policy, effective from January 1, 2025, aims to attract recruits from key allied countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada.

The ADF currently faces a shortfall of 4,000 personnel, particularly in critical roles such as pilots of advanced F-35 fighter jets and operators of missile destroyers. The recruitment of foreign nationals is seen as a pragmatic solution to fill these gaps and ensure that Australia maintains a capable and modern defence force.

Under the new policy, eligible foreign nationals must have lived in Australia for at least 12 months and must not have served in a foreign military within the past two years. In addition to enlisting, recruits will need to apply for Australian citizenship, with the Department of Defence offering a pathway to citizenship as an incentive for long-term commitment.

Defence Personnel Minister Matt Keogh expressed optimism about the initiative, stating, “We expect to welcome around 350 individuals from Five Eyes Alliance countries in the upcoming fiscal year. This move will not only bolster our defence capabilities but also bring valuable skills and experience to our ranks.”

The Five Eyes Alliance is an intelligence-sharing partnership between Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Recruiting personnel from these countries aligns with the alliance’s close military and intelligence ties. The Department of Defence has also suggested that it may open recruitment to citizens of Pacific Island countries in the future, aligning with Australia’s broader strategy to strengthen relationships in the Pacific region.

This recruitment drive is part of a broader effort to modernise and expand the ADF, ensuring it can meet future challenges in an increasingly complex global security environment. In recent years, the ADF has struggled to attract and retain military personnel due to demographic changes, competition from the private sector, and evolving societal attitudes toward military service.

The move to recruit foreign nationals is not without precedent. Many countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, have long accepted foreign recruits into their armed forces. By tapping into a pool of skilled individuals from allied nations, Australia hopes to bolster its defence readiness and enhance its ability to respond to regional and global security threats.

In a related development, the Defence Ministers of Australia and New Zealand recently signed a new “Joint Statement on Closer Defence Relations” on December 6, 2024. This agreement, signed by Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles and New Zealand Defence Minister Judith Collins, aims to enhance military cooperation between the two countries. It focuses on improving coordination, coherence, and interoperability between the two nations’ armed forces.

Minister Marles stated, “The Joint Statement on Closer Defence Relations reflects our shared commitment to peace and stability in the Pacific region. By strengthening our cooperation, we ensure that our forces can work seamlessly together to respond to any challenges that may arise.”

While the ANZUS Treaty of 1951 remains the cornerstone of the military alliance between Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, the new joint statement highlights the importance of closer bilateral defence ties amid emerging regional threats.

Despite the potential benefits of recruiting foreign nationals, some defence analysts argue that the policy may undermine efforts to build a homegrown, resilient defence force. Critics suggest that the ADF should instead focus on improving recruitment efforts within Australia and addressing the root causes of its personnel shortages.

One major concern is the outsourcing of recruitment to private contractors. The Department of Defence has faced criticism for relying on private agencies to manage recruitment processes, which some believe has contributed to the current personnel crisis. Advocates for returning recruitment responsibilities to defence personnel argue that military recruiters better understand the unique requirements of service and can provide a more authentic and effective recruitment process.

Handing recruitment back to defence recruiters could improve engagement with potential recruits and ensure that those enlisting fully understand the demands and expectations of military service. Additionally, it may help foster a stronger sense of loyalty and commitment among new recruits, as they are guided through the process by experienced service members.

The decision to recruit foreign nationals represents a significant shift in Australia’s defence policy. It highlights the urgency of addressing the ADF’s personnel crisis and the need for innovative solutions to ensure the force remains capable and ready to respond to regional and global security challenges.

As the recruitment program gets underway, it is essential to evaluate its effectiveness and impact on Australia’s defence capabilities. Is this approach a good value for Australian defence? Or should the focus shift to strengthening domestic recruitment efforts and handing the process back to experienced defence recruiters? These are critical questions that will shape the future of Australia’s defence force and its ability to protect national interests and contribute to regional stability.

ED: This from my inbox thanks to Terry Curtis

Katie Hopkins is no stranger to controversy. Her unapologetic opinions on issues such as immigration, multiculturalism, and national identity have sparked heated debates across the globe. Whether you agree with her or not, one thing is clear: she speaks her mind without fear, and her observations often hit a raw nerve in the societies she critiques. As Australians, it’s time we take a good, hard look at her message because it resonates with the crossroads our nation now faces.

Where Are We Headed?

Australia, like many Western countries, is at a tipping point. The cultural policies introduced over the last fifty years have fundamentally reshaped our society. Since the days of Gough Whitlam and Al Grassby in the 1970s, multiculturalism has been promoted as a virtue. But unlike assimilation, which encourages newcomers to adopt the values and customs of their new home, multiculturalism has allowed parallel societies to emerge, creating divisions rather than unity.

This approach, heavily encouraged by successive Labor governments and echoed by leaders in the European Union and Canada, has left us vulnerable to the same cultural clashes now evident in the UK and other Western nations. The question is: are we going to learn from their mistakes, or will we continue down this path of cultural fragmentation?

The Islamic Cultural Divide

One of the most contentious issues in this debate is the accommodation of Islamic culture in Western societies. Australia is a predominantly Christian nation with values rooted in Western traditions. Yet, in recent decades, there has been a significant push to accommodate Islamic cultural practices, even when they conflict with our national values.

The likes of Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Malcolm Turnbull, Scott Morrison, and now Anthony Albanese have all supported policies that encourage multiculturalism without demanding assimilation. This has led to the growth of communities that reject Western values and, in some cases, openly disdain non-Islamic cultural practices.

The danger lies in the long-term political and cultural impact of this trend. Many of us from older generations have seen the changes and voiced our concerns, only to be dismissed as out of touch or prejudiced. However, it’s becoming increasingly evident that these concerns are legitimate. The next generation of Australians, especially those who have been through our tertiary education system, seem largely unaware of the cultural shift that threatens the nation’s future way of life.

A Wake-Up Call from Europe

Europe is already grappling with the consequences of unchecked multiculturalism. Countries like Sweden, Germany, and the UK have seen the rise of parallel societies, increased cultural tensions, and a growing reluctance among certain communities to integrate.

In response, some European nations are now abandoning their multiculturalism policies. They are instead demanding assimilation, recognizing that national unity cannot be achieved when cultural divides are allowed to deepen. Australia should take note of these developments and consider a similar shift in policy.

The Liberal-National Solution

The Liberal and National parties in Australia have historically been more cautious about multiculturalism policies. If returned to government, there is hope they will take a stronger stance on assimilation. This would mean promoting a shared national identity and ensuring that all Australians, regardless of background, adhere to a common set of values and cultural norms.

It’s not about rejecting diversity but about ensuring that diversity strengthens, rather than weakens, our national fabric. Policies that prioritise integration and shared values will help prevent the kind of societal divisions that are now so evident in parts of Europe and the UK.

The Challenge for Thinking Australians

The time has come for all thinking Australians, regardless of their political leanings, to take action. We need to reclaim our country and protect the values that have made Australia a prosperous and harmonious nation. This isn’t a call for extremism or exclusion but a plea for balance and common sense.

We’ve seen what happens when nations ignore the warning signs. The UK is a prime example. We must not follow their lead by doing nothing and hoping for the best. The future of Australia depends on our ability to address these issues now, before it’s too late.

A Final Thought

Katie Hopkins may be a polarising figure, but her message is worth considering. She highlights uncomfortable truths that many would prefer to ignore. As Australians, we need to face these truths head-on and take steps to ensure that our nation remains united, free, and proud of its identity.

Let’s not wait until it’s too late. The time for action is now.

Photo: Australian Army soldiers from 4th Regiment Royal Australian Artillery fire the M777 Howitzer on a live-fire fire mission during Exercise Keris Woomera 2024 in East Java, Indonesia. Source: Defence Image Library

By: Todd Newett – Defence Connect

Opinion: It is widely accepted that in both world wars, majority of combat casualties were caused by artillery. Late in World War II, artillery was so decisive on the Eastern Front that Stalin remarked it was the “God of War”. Now Todd Newett, former Reservist, is asking: is it time for the Australian Army Reserve to be re-equipped with modern artillery?

By the time I served in the Australian Defence Force in the mid-2000s, at the height of the Global War on Terror, one could be forgiven for thinking that traditional artillery was obsolescent. The conflicts Australia participated in at the time were either counter-insurgency or peacekeeping operations. For the former, coalition air supremacy was assumed and fire support, which required anything heavier than mortars, was generally provided via air support. For the latter, fire support heavier than mortars was not usually required.

As time went by, the Australian Army’s force structure came to reflect types of conflicts it was fighting. Announced in 2011, Plan Beersheba significantly re-rolled and restructured the Army Reserve over the 2010s. The main role of the Reserves became for pairs of reserve brigades to be able to provide a battalion-sized force to reinforce and operate alongside regular forces when required. With this in mind, reserve artillery units were converted from 105mm artillery to mortars able to provide battalion-level fire support.

The unfortunate return of conventional peer-to-peer conflict in recent years, exemplified by the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, has underscored the continuing importance of conventional artillery. In this context, the National Defence: Defence Strategic Review 2023 stated: “Enhanced domestic security and response Army Reserve brigades will be required to provide area security to the northern base network and other critical infrastructure, as well as providing an expansion base and follow-on forces.”

At the dawn of 2025, the Australian Army Reserve remains woefully underequipped to fulfil even this second-line domestic security role, as the Army Reserve brigades lack any brigade-level fire support systems. Army Reserve artillery units are currently equipped with the M252A1 81mm mortar which is a battalion-level resource with limited range and firepower that is unlikely to be able to provide sufficient fire-support to a deployed brigade.

Since the release of the Defence Strategic Review, there has been very little discussion of how the Australian government plans to “enhance” Army Reserve brigades for their new role. The recently released Strategic Review of the Australian Defence Force Reserves, does not consider this matter beyond a mention of creating detachments of reservist High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) operators.

However, the idea of equipping actual reserve units with HIMARS systems would be prohibitively expensive and unnecessary.

Purchasing additional M777 howitzers is also likely to be too expensive for the Australian government to consider equipping reserve artillery units with, particularly when the logistical requirements of these guns are taken into account.

North West Weekly

The Kennedy Energy Park in Hughenden, Far North Queensland, serves as a striking example of the immense scale of resources required for wind turbine foundations. As Australia continues to invest in renewable energy projects, the sheer volume of materials and the long-term impact of these developments deserve closer attention.

Each wind turbine base at the Kennedy Energy Park requires a staggering amount of materials. To construct just one foundation, over 2,222 tonnes of concrete are needed. This equates to approximately 903 cubic meters, or around 143 concrete agitator truckloads, per turbine. Additionally, nearly 90 tonnes of reinforcing steel bars, commonly known as ‘reo,’ are used to strengthen the structure. The construction process also demands over 833 tonnes of sand to complete the foundation. These figures highlight the substantial resources necessary for each individual turbine, and it is important to note that some wind projects in Australia require even larger foundations.

A critical concern with these massive foundations is that they are apparently not reusable. Unlike other infrastructure projects where materials can be recycled or repurposed, wind turbine foundations may remain buried long after the turbines themselves have been decommissioned. This raises significant questions about the long-term sustainability of wind energy.

The lifespan of wind turbines is also a topic of debate. While manufacturers initially promised lifespans of 20 to 30 years, recent reports suggest a more realistic figure might be closer to 15 years. This discrepancy has serious implications for the future of these renewable energy projects. Once turbines reach the end of their service life, what happens next? Reports from both the USA and Australia estimate that decommissioning, removing, and disposing of wind turbines can cost between $400,000 and $1,000,000 per turbine. However, the costs and feasibility of removing the massive foundations, roadways, and restoring the landscape are rarely discussed.

Can the removal of these foundations even be achieved in a practical, environmentally friendly way? If not, are we simply trading one environmental impact for another? These are questions that warrant further scrutiny as Australia moves forward with its renewable energy transition. The notion of “clean and green” energy may need a more nuanced conversation to address the broader environmental and economic impacts of large-scale wind projects.

ED: From my inbox – Thanks Mike

This email attachment from a school friend may be of interest to some. For those not familiar with Angeles City, it was the “support” entertainment and RNR town close to the US Clark AFB in the Philippines north of Manilla and a well-used base during the Vietnam War along with Subic Bay US Naval base and its Olongopo City not too far away.  Cavite City near the Sangley Point US Naval base on Manila Harbour was another “watering hole“ and entertainment precinct in the 1960s/70s visits. I recall once missing the last ferry back from Manila to Sangley Point and having to get a taxi back which was quite something during the Marcos era with the police checkpoints and heavily armed dudes requiring some corruption funds before proceeding. Being young and bullet proof helped us through the ordeal and the belly full of booze might have contributed, no doubt.

But we survived to fly another day… and a few more thousand hours

Cheerz

Mike

Attached find RSL Philippines newsletter.

NEWSLETTER 186 November 2024 pdf

Frontline- Ray Payne OAM

Identifying youth on the wrong side of the law early and diverting them from a path of crime is essential to making Queensland communities safer. David Crisafulli’s recent proposal to introduce youth intervention camps holds promise, but if this initiative is to succeed, it must be carefully structured and comprehensive. In my view, there are three critical elements that policymakers need to consider: expanding eligibility, ensuring sufficient program duration, and providing practical, employable skills for participants.

Youth intervention camps can serve as a crucial tool to reset the behaviour of at-risk youth before they escalate to more serious criminal activity. By allowing parents, police, schools, or social workers to refer youths to these camps, the program can provide an effective early intervention mechanism. However, I believe that limiting these camps to youths who have not yet had contact with the criminal justice system would be a missed opportunity.

Judges and law enforcement officials need alternative sentencing options for low-level offenders who are not best served by incarceration. Currently, many low-level youth offenders avoid significant consequences due to the belief that prison will do more harm than good. Without alternative pathways, these youths often evade punishment entirely, perpetuating a cycle of criminal behaviour with no fear of legal repercussions.

A key element of these intervention camps should be the involvement of ex-service members in running and controlling the centres. Veterans possess the discipline, leadership, and life experience necessary to be effective mentors for troubled youth. Their structured approach to problem-solving, combined with a strong sense of duty and accountability, can help instill positive values in participants. Ex-service members can model resilience, perseverance, and respect, providing a steadying influence on youths who may lack stable role models in their lives.

Moreover, employing veterans in these roles would have the added benefit of providing meaningful employment opportunities for ex-service personnel, many of whom struggle with reintegration into civilian life. This dual-purpose initiative would not only help at-risk youth but also support the veteran community.

In my opinion, for youth intervention camps to have a lasting impact, the duration of the program must be adequate to address the underlying causes of offending behaviour. A one-to-three-week camp may be sufficient to offer a brief reset, but it is unlikely to produce lasting change. Policymakers should consider longer-term programs that provide consistent mentorship, counselling, and skill-building opportunities.

The failure of the previous Newman government’s boot camp trial in 2015 highlights the dangers of underestimating the time required to effect meaningful behavioural change. To avoid repeating past mistakes, intervention camps must offer sustained engagement with at-risk youth, giving them the time and tools they need to make positive life changes.

One of the most effective ways to reduce recidivism is to equip youth with the skills they need to become productive members of society. Intervention camps should not only focus on outdoor activities like canoeing and abseiling but also offer vocational training in areas such as automotive technology, building trades, agriculture, and hospitality.

Programs like California’s Rancho Cielo rehabilitation ranch have demonstrated the value of this approach. By providing at-risk youth with practical, employable skills, Rancho Cielo has reduced recidivism rates from 40% to 15% over two decades. Participants leave the program with the qualifications and confidence needed to secure employment, reducing their likelihood of reoffending.

Intervention camps that focus on practical skill-building and mentorship are not only effective but also cost-efficient. The average cost of detaining one person in a Queensland youth detention centre for a year is approximately $669,000. In contrast, rehabilitation programs like Rancho Cielo operate at a fraction of this cost and produce far better outcomes.

Reducing recidivism rates through early intervention will save taxpayers millions of dollars in the long term while improving community safety. The social and economic benefits of keeping youth out of the criminal justice system cannot be overstated.

Research shows that violent offending is often linked to factors such as substance abuse, poor parental supervision, and negative peer influences. Intervention camps must address these root causes through comprehensive support services, including substance abuse counselling, family engagement programs, and social skills training.

Preventing escalation to more serious crime requires a proactive approach to tackling anti-social behaviour early. By intervening at the right time and providing youth with the tools they need to succeed, policymakers can break the cycle of crime and give young offenders a second chance.

In my opinion, the introduction of youth intervention camps is a welcome step toward improving community safety in Queensland. However, to be truly effective, the program must be designed with long-term impact in mind. Expanding the scope of eligible participants, extending the duration of the camps, and providing practical, employable skills will ensure that these camps achieve their intended purpose.

Furthermore, involving ex-service members in running these camps will bring valuable discipline and mentorship to the program while providing meaningful employment opportunities for veterans. This comprehensive approach will not only divert youth from a path of crime but also equip them with the tools to become productive members of society.

Queensland’s policymakers must seize this opportunity to implement a robust and effective intervention program that addresses the root causes of youth crime and helps build safer communities for all.

The Krakow Post

For the second time in two weeks, Ukrainian forces have dealt a significant blow to the Russian 810th Naval Infantry Brigade. The latest precision raid targeted the brigade’s headquarters in Belaya on Tuesday, according to reports from the Ukrainian general staff in Kyiv. The extent of the damage and the casualties inflicted remain unclear, but the attack underscores the vulnerability of Russian forces operating in the region.

Belaya, located just 20 miles east of Sudzha, is strategically significant. The area forms part of the 250-square-mile salient that Ukrainian troops carved out of Kursk Oblast in August. The proximity to the front lines makes it likely that Ukrainian forces used one of their numerous long-range weapon systems to carry out the strike. However, it is still unknown which specific munitions were employed.

Ukraine now possesses a wide array of deep-strike capabilities, thanks to Western military support. U.S.-made High-Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) can fire guided rockets and Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) ballistic missiles, both of which are capable of precision strikes at long range. Additionally, Ukrainian warplanes could have used American or French glide bombs, or French and British cruise missiles, to hit the target. Heavy attack drones are another viable option for such operations.

The repeated targeting of the 810th Naval Infantry Brigade highlights the precision and effectiveness of Ukraine’s deep-strike weaponry. It also emphasizes Ukraine’s strategy of targeting high-value command-and-control nodes to disrupt Russian military operations.

The 810th Naval Infantry Brigade has suffered disproportionately from Ukrainian strikes in recent months. On Christmas Day, Ukrainian forces hit another of the brigade’s headquarters in Lgov, located 25 miles north of Sudzha. The Ukrainian Centre for Strategic Communications described that strike as creating a “fiery impression.”

Following the Christmas Day raid, the 810th Brigade was rotated off the front line on the northwest edge of the Kursk salient. The unit relocated to Plekhove, just east of the salient, for a brief period of rest. However, it appears that their respite was short-lived.

The brigade, which once numbered around 2,500 personnel, has been heavily depleted. Alongside its sister unit, the 155th Naval Infantry Brigade, the 810th has borne the brunt of Russia’s counteroffensive in Kursk Oblast. Both units have been involved in a series of costly and mostly unsuccessful assaults on the Ukrainian-held salient.

Despite their recent setbacks, the 810th Naval Infantry Brigade continues to be thrown into action. Today, Ukrainian troops reportedly repelled another assault by the brigade around Pogrebki. The Ukrainian Centre for Defence Strategies noted that Russian forces have launched repeated attacks on Pogrebki, deploying at least two 400-person battalions since November. However, these efforts have yielded little more than mounting casualties.

The continued failures of the 810th Naval Infantry Brigade illustrate the growing challenges facing Russian forces in Ukraine. As Kyiv’s forces demonstrate their ability to strike deep into Russian-held territory, the effectiveness of Russia’s counteroffensive operations remains in serious doubt. The repeated destruction of brigade headquarters also raises questions about the morale and operational readiness of Russian units tasked with holding the line in Kursk Oblast.

As the war enters its 35th month, Ukraine’s strategy of targeting critical infrastructure and command centres appears to be paying off. The latest strike on the 810th Naval Infantry Brigade’s headquarters in Belaya is yet another example of Kyiv’s ability to disrupt and degrade Russian military operations through precise and well-coordinated attacks.

Picture: H-20 Stealth Bomber. Image Credit: Artist Rendering Chinese Internet.

China’s People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) is developing the H-20 stealth bomber to bolster its nuclear triad and project power across the Indo-Pacific. Resembling the U.S. B-2 Spirit, the H-20 reportedly has a range of 8,000 miles and a 40-ton payload, capable of striking key U.S. and allied targets, including Taiwan and Guam.

This flying-wing bomber may carry nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, and anti-ship ordnance, posing a serious challenge to U.S. air defences. As China edges closer to operational readiness, the H-20 symbolizes its ambition to rival U.S. air power.

Critics point out China’s tendency to “borrow” foreign designs, with the H-20 mirroring America’s B-2 and the upcoming B-21 Raider. While the PLAAF boasts its stealth capabilities, significant details remain unknown, keeping global military analysts on alert.