All News

China’s recent live-fire exercises in the Tasman Sea mark the furthest south a Chinese naval group has ever ventured. While some initially saw the timing as an attempt to influence Australia’s strategic positioning ahead of the federal election, many analysts believe the visit of US Indo-Pacific Command chief, Admiral Samuel Paparo, to Sydney played a key role.

Paparo, responsible for US preparations against potential conflict with China, is frequently criticised by Beijing for his stance on the People’s Liberation Army’s activities in the South China Sea. Beijing has a pattern of staging military displays to coincide with high-profile US visits, asserting its reach into the South Pacific.

Legally, China’s manoeuvres stayed within international boundaries. The warships exited Australia’s exclusive economic zone before conducting live-fire exercises. However, the broader message is clear: Beijing is asserting its naval presence in these waters, testing US and allied reactions.

Rather than primarily influencing Australian politics, the exercises appear aimed at Washington. Nevertheless, they inevitably impact the Australia-China relationship. The Albanese government responded with measured diplomacy, requesting greater notice to prevent disruptions to commercial aviation and reaffirming Australia’s commitment to UNCLOS principles. There was no strong condemnation, reflecting a careful balancing act.

Questions remain about Beijing’s broader political intentions. Security agencies warn of potential foreign influence, cyber activities, and disinformation campaigns in support of Albanese’s government. Meanwhile, the Coalition has subtly recalibrated its China stance.

This shift reflects an effort to balance security concerns with diplomatic pragmatism. While both Dutton and Albanese prioritise Australia’s interests, they adopt different strategies—Dutton highlighting security, Albanese focusing on restoring diplomatic ties. Whether this strategic shift is a genuine policy evolution, or a political tactic remains uncertain.

A notable diplomatic signal is Wang Yi’s “empty list” of demands—a subtle indication of China’s current approach to Australia. As Beijing watches the federal election closely, it is likely betting on continued Labor leadership to ensure stability in its dealings with one of America’s key regional allies.

ED: This arrived in my inbox this morning … Thanks Bob Buick … it made me smile hope you do as well.

A group of Iraqi soldiers surrender to American forces. Gulf War, February 28th, 1991. Unknown location.

A full-scale war unfolded when coalition forces began military operations against Iraq in the early hours of 17 January 1991, beginning with a devastating 42-day aerial bombing campaign against Iraqi military targets in Kuwait and the Iraqi capital, Baghdad. On 24 February 1991, coalition ground forces moved from Saudi Arabia against Iraqi positions, destroying what was left of Iraq’s ability to resist. After two further days of air strikes, Baghdad radio announced Saddam’s forces had been ordered to withdraw from Kuwait to the positions they had occupied before 2 August 1990. As they did so, they set fire to Kuwaiti oil wells and dumped millions of barrels of oil into the Persian Gulf. Less than 100 hours after the commencement of ground operations, a ceasefire was declared on 28 February 1991.

On the night of February 28–March 1, 1942, the waters of the Sunda Strait bore witness to one of the most tragic and heroic battles of World War II. The Australian light cruiser HMAS Perth, alongside the American heavy cruiser USS Houston and the Dutch destroyer HNLMS Evertsen, faced an overwhelming Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) force in a desperate bid to disrupt Japan’s invasion of Java. Despite their valiant efforts, all three Allied ships were lost.

As Japanese forces prepared to invade Java, the main American-British-Dutch-Australian Command (ABDA) fleet, led by Dutch Admiral Karel Doorman, engaged the enemy in the Battle of the Java Sea on February 27. The Allied fleet suffered heavy losses, and only HMAS Perth, under Captain Hector Waller, and USS Houston, commanded by Captain Albert Rooks, managed to retreat to Tanjung Priok, the port of Batavia.

Ordered to escape southward through the Sunda Strait, Perth and Houston set sail on the evening of February 28, unaware that they were heading directly into a Japanese invasion fleet of over 50 transport ships and a formidable escort of cruisers and destroyers. As they approached Bantam Bay around 23:15, they were detected by the Japanese destroyer Fubuki. Perth, believing the ship to be an Allied vessel, signalled for identification, only to be met with torpedoes. Waller immediately gave the order to open fire.

Surrounded by enemy warships, the two Allied cruisers fought desperately, causing significant damage. Perth and Houston targeted Japanese transports, sinking several in the confusion of battle. However, the numerical and firepower disadvantage soon proved insurmountable. After sustaining multiple torpedo and shell hits, Perth was abandoned and sank just after midnight. Houston continued the fight until she too succumbed shortly after. The Dutch destroyer Evertsen, arriving later, also fell victim to enemy fire and was eventually grounded by her crew before being destroyed.

The human toll was devastating. HMAS Perth lost 375 men, including Captain Waller, while USS Houston suffered 696 casualties, including Captain Rooks, who was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor. The survivors, 307 from Perth and 368 from Houston, were taken as prisoners of war by the Japanese. They endured years of brutal captivity, with many never returning home.

The Battle of Sunda Strait stands as a testament to the courage and determination of those who fought against impossible odds. Each year, Australians honour the memory of HMAS Perth and her crew, ensuring their sacrifice is never forgotten. Their bravery continues to inspire future generations, reminding us of the cost of freedom and the enduring spirit of those who serve.

We will remember them.

Ministers responsible for veterans’ issues at the Federal, State and Territory levels met today to discuss key priorities and next steps following the Government’s response to Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.

Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide

In December 2024 the Government responded to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide’s final report. Recommendation 122 of the report recommended the establishment of an independent body that would oversee system reform across the defence ecosystem.

Noting the urgency of this recommendation, the Australian Parliament passed the historic Veterans’ Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Act 2024 (the VETS Act), establishing the Commission on 13 February 2025.

In January the Albanese Government appointed Mr Michael Manthorpe PSM to the role of Interim Head of the Defence and Veterans’ Service Commission and today Mr Manthope briefed Ministers on its work.

Ministers reinforced their commitment to collaborate across the Commonwealth on the implementation of relevant recommendations of the Royal Commission.

Legislation Reform

Following the Parliament’s recent passing of the VETS Act, the Council was advised that the Department of Veterans’ Affairs is now working towards implementation. It has developed a communication and education plan, including a roadshow commencing next week, to make the veteran community aware of the changes and how they might be impacted when the Act takes effect as follows:

• New unified appeal process using the Veterans’ Review Board from 21 April 2025;
• Statutory Defence & Veteran Service Commission from 29 September 2025; and
• All claims being processed through a single enhanced statutory regime from 1 July 2026.

Veterans’ Acute Housing Program

Ministers were briefed on the $30 million in grant funding recently awarded by the Australian Government under the Capital Works Grant and Specialist Services Grant streams of the Veterans’ Acute Housing Program. A total of 8 grants were awarded under the $24 million Capital Works Grant for the construction or purchase of crisis and transitional housing for veterans and families. A further 5 grants were awarded under the $6 million Specialist Services Grant to assist organisations to deliver wrap-around services to address the risk factors for homelessness. Ministers welcomed the funding to assist those in the veteran community who are experiencing, or are at risk of, homelessness.

Ministerial attendees (all via video)

• Australian Government (Chair): The Hon Matt Keogh MP
• Australian Capital Territory: Suzanne Orr MLA
• New South Wales: The Hon David Harris MP
• Northern Territory: The Hon Jinson Charls MLA
• Queensland: Janelle Poole MP
• South Australia: The Hon Joe Szakacs MP
• Tasmania: The Hon Jacquie Petrusma MP
• Victoria: The Hon Natalie Suleyman MP
• Western Australia: Due to the WA State election, WA was represented by officials.

The SR-75 Penetrator is rumoured to be the successor to the legendary SR-71 Blackbird—a hypersonic aircraft designed for reconnaissance and strategic missions. But is it real, or just an aviation myth? This video examines the evidence, classified projects, and the likelihood of this plane ever taking to the skies.

New York Times

It turns out actions have consequences, and Hamas is finally admitting it. A senior official has expressed regret over the October 7 terrorist attack on Israel—not because of the atrocities committed, but because Gaza has paid the price in return.

Mousa Abu Marzouk, head of Hamas’s foreign relations office, confessed in an interview with The New York Times that he had no knowledge of the attack’s detailed plans. Had he known the scale of the response it would provoke, he says he wouldn’t have supported it.

“If it was expected that what happened would happen, there wouldn’t have been October 7,” he admitted.

In other words, Hamas didn’t expect Israel to strike back as hard as it did. Now, as Gaza lies in ruins, Abu Marzouk and his ilk are trying to backtrack—not out of remorse, but because they realize they’ve lost more than they bargained for.

Abu Marzouk went on to claim that Hamas’s survival is itself a “victory,” but even he had to concede that the destruction inflicted on Gaza makes it impossible to pretend they’ve won.

He also hinted that Hamas may now be open to negotiating disarmament. Funny how that option was never on the table before they got crushed.

Abu Marzouk wants the world to believe Hamas was blindsided by Israel’s response. But let’s not forget—Hamas’s late leader Yahya Sinwar explicitly planned to manipulate Western moral and political dilemmas to turn global opinion against Israel. He knew civilians would suffer and was willing to use their suffering as propaganda.

This interview? Just another attempt at the same game. They knew what was coming. They just didn’t think it would cost them this much.

In response to Abu Marzouk’s statements, Hamas quickly scrambled to cover itself, claiming on its Telegram channel that his remarks were taken “out of context.” The group reiterated that October 7 was an act of “resistance” and that they remain committed to armed struggle.

But the reality is clear: Hamas gambled with the lives of Gazans, expecting the world to shield them from the consequences. They were wrong—and now they’re paying the price.

Ukraine has agreed to a mineral rights deal with the US, set to be finalised on Friday at a White House signing ceremony with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The deal, after intense negotiations, no longer includes a previous US demand for a $500 billion share in potential revenue from Ukraine’s mineral resources.

Trump has framed the agreement as a means for the US to recoup financial aid provided to Ukraine. He has been pushing for a resolution to the war, linking economic cooperation to broader strategic goals. The agreement marks a significant step in defining Ukraine’s future economic ties with the US while balancing security concerns and sovereignty.

The Kremlin has acknowledged the shift in US policy, seeing potential avenues for dialogue but remaining cautious. Key divisions persist, particularly regarding European security structures and broader geopolitical implications. The mineral deal has been a contentious issue, with Zelensky initially refusing to sign the agreement drafted by Trump’s administration, citing concerns over resource control and national security.

European leaders reacted strongly to the initial terms proposed by the US, particularly the claim to substantial future mineral revenues. The revised agreement includes the establishment of a “Reconstruction Investment Fund,” structured to reflect actual financial contributions from participating nations.

Ukrainian media reports indicate that while the US intends to make financial commitments, these do not include concrete security guarantees. Zelensky had resisted signing an earlier version of the deal under Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, insisting on a direct agreement with Trump. His stance was seen as an effort to strengthen Ukraine’s negotiating position and ensure fair terms.

Trump has argued that US companies should gain access to Ukraine’s mineral wealth as compensation for the billions provided in aid. Ukraine, in turn, has sought stronger security commitments, particularly in light of ongoing military threats. The revised deal attempts to balance these interests, though questions remain over its long-term impact.

The US has been Ukraine’s most significant supporter since Russia’s invasion in 2022, providing financial, military, and political backing. As the war enters its third year, Kyiv continues to push for NATO membership and expanded military support, seeing these as critical to securing a lasting peace.

Zelensky has remained firm in his stance that Ukraine’s sovereignty is not for sale. His recent discussions with European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron and leaders of Finland and Denmark, underscore ongoing diplomatic efforts to maintain Western support.

While some US officials have criticised Zelensky’s negotiating tactics, others have praised his resilience. Trump’s envoy Keith Kellogg publicly commended Zelensky’s leadership, while some within Trump’s circle have expressed frustration with Kyiv’s stance.

As the deal moves towards finalisation, the broader implications for US-Ukraine relations, European security, and Russia’s response remain uncertain.

From the Army, Navy, and Air Force to cutting-edge tech, AUKUS, and Quad alliances, we uncover how Australia shapes Indo-Pacific security.