I'm not so pessimistic. Each country will put their own interests first, but they do work together. Pursuing Assange isn't central to the US/UK national interest. Part of the reason Assange languished so long was because the Australian government didn't stick up for him earlier.

The thing is that if Australia wants to deny extradition, they can, and the US presumably wouldn't want that precedent.

As an Australian, I would be blown away if our government ever tried to stand against the USA in that way. We rely too much on our alliance for defence; there's no way Australia can stand on its own militarily. So there's a lot we would tolerate to keep that relationship stable.

That isn't really true. There is no concrete threat to Australia for the foreseeable decades, and the US cannot afford to lose influence in the Pacific, so the US will be compelled to act either way much before a threat ever comes to Australia.

When you compare the relationship that Australia has to the US compared to non-EU, non-NATO US allies in Europe and Asia, it's plain to see that Australia is far, far more deferential to the US than it has to be, as nations much more vulnerable and much less valuable tolerate far less.

> That isn't really true. There is no concrete threat to Australia for the foreseeable decades

Except, you know, the giant obvious one. https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/ch...

As expected, nothing in your link details the threat to Australia, it's just about the size of the Chinese military. The problem that no one in mainstream Australian media talks about is that there is not much China can do to Australia now it couldn't before. China's buildup is centered around invading a small island 70km away, and as of today may not be sufficient for that. To go from that to a serious threat to a continent 5000km away has zero credibility.

I think you have serious misunderstanding of what a concrete military threat is. China is 6000km away from Australia by sea, and to get there it has to get rather close to US bases. There is no way that China can do anything beyond standoff strikes to Australia without a crippling cost in the next 20-30+ years. There is absolutely no military threat to the Australian mainland. Conversely, there is very little US submarine bases in Australia do against standoff strikes, so clearly that's not what Australia or the US are worried about (nor should they). In any case any naval power or sustained air power would have to defeat the US first, ally or not, to get to Australia. And if the US can indeed be defeated, then what?

Australia is not meaningfully more threatened by China than, say Brazil. That's just how the geography works out. However, Australia is lot more useful if your goal is to block shipping to and from China, as it is not so far from the straits of Malacca and a good base to contest the island chains (and is, as we've said before, itself very secure).

Unless you think Canada is somehow under a severe Chinese threat, neither is Australia. Australia is far more useful offensively against Chinese shipping, hence why the US will never ever drop it as a basing location unless it really has to.

This, so much. There's so much discussion of "the Chinese threat", but it's just not credible.

The only thing that China would want to invade Australia for is our resources, and they can just buy those. There is at least one mining operation in WA that is Chinese-owned, Chinese-run, entirely staffed by Chinese folks flown in direct from China, and exports the mined resources only to China. They just pay some taxes and royalties to Australia. That is vastly cheaper than any military solution for obtaining the same resources.

I think there's a section of Aussie society that would like China to be a credible threat so that it justifies more military and more fear. But it's just not.

> I'm not sure that the US gives too many fucks about Australian public opinion

Public opinion, maybe. And not comparing the two in size, etc., but Australia holds a bit of a privileged place in terms of some of the US resources: Pine Gap and a lot of the classified NRO/NSA equipment, deep space and classified military satellite comms, and then one of the major relays / radio systems for US submarine communications.

We like to think this. But it's not true. There are other options for siting all of that stuff if Australia decided to grow a pair.

I hope Assange never has to buy a beer for the rest of his life.

He leaked enough CIA materials that your wish is almost guarenteed.

I mean we are one of a few places they have relays for their submarine comms.