Andrey Kortunov, the Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council, posed this question in his article for the Carnegie Moscow Center on Sept. 29. He wrote, “Decisions made by NATO may be unpalatable for Moscow, but they are generally consistent and predictable. The same cannot be said of structures such as AUKUS,” the newly formed military alliance of the United States, Australia, and the U.K.
The reactions to AUKUS were mixed, Kortunov reports. A conflict between the U.S. and France was welcomed by some; others viewed the deal as targeting Russia as well as China. Others expressed concern about sharing nuclear submarine technology with non-nuclear Australia, which under AUKUS, will now get eight nuclear submarines. But these are only the short-term effects of the creation of AUKUS, Kortunov said. There will be long-term implications for Russia, but even more, the creation of AUKUS confirms that the U.S. standoff with China is the top policy priority for the Biden administration. Kortunov stated, “The fact is that it’s getting increasingly difficult for Washington to single-handedly compete with Beijing in the naval area, especially in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. This means it must press its most reliable partners, while ignoring the inevitable cost.”
In perhaps his most important observation, Kortunov explained that nuclear submarines have only one indisputable advantage over modern diesel subs: a greater operating range. Therefore, he says, it follows that if the purpose of the new submarines were to defend Australia, they would not need to be nuclear. But if their purpose is to perform covert operations over many months in more remote waters—near the Taiwan Strait, the Korean Peninsula, or even farther afield in the world—then being nuclear would be a significant advantage.
