Nicholas Stuart | Anthony Albanese's AUKUS move disarms Peter Dutton, but leaves us exposed

Although a transparent, gossamer cloak sill remains to cover the explicit details of the new, tripartite agreement between Washington, London and Canberra, this is simply to ensure the unveiling itself achieves the desired frisson of excitement.

Just peer through the transparent covering that's been pulled over the signing, however, and you can easily discern what's behind the veil of secrecy.

That's just part of a strip-teasing media strategy designed to accompany and amplify the announcement, and this has already delivered what is, for Labor, the most crucial element of this meeting.

The media iconography of a warm, three-way handshake between a smiling Joe Biden, Rishi Sunak, and Anthony Albanese - leaders of (respectively) democrat, conservative, and labour - places Labor as the party guaranteeing our future security.

Just consider what Albanese's achieved. With a single stroke of his pen he will have transformed our politics.

Labor will now be able to portray itself as the party that both cemented and broadened the alliance.

He will never be pilloried - as Julia Gillard was when she addressed Congress - as a gushing girl overwhelmed by the might of the US.

Instead Albanese is sitting down (at least nominally) as an equal with a US President happy to sign the same document and, just to emphasise how Australia's finally becoming a grown-up on the world stage, to sign as an equal with the UK too.

With a swift flourish of his pen, the PM will force the opposition to completely rethink its approach to defence. Never again will it be able to claim this government is soft on defence.

Albanese has reached out and ripped a key plank of Peter Dutton's platform out from under him, outflanking the Coalition on the right.

This is transformative. Australia has never been more closely aligned with America, even when Harold Holt proclaimed we were "all the way with LBJ (Lyndon Baines Johnson, the US president at the time of the Vietnam War).

Gone is any pretence our foreign policy is somehow independent. We have literally clambered into the US boat and will sink or submerge with it. This is the second dynamic of tomorrow's agreement.

Clarity outshines nuance. Tying the navy so firmly to Washington's strings requires abandoning any pretence that Australia remains an independent actor on the world stage.

The simple fact that this agreement depends on complex technology transfer and dual-crewing emphasises that this country has admitted it can no longer provide for its own defence.

Australia's military now takes its role as another just another US service - different uniforms, perhaps, and not quite as big as the US Marine Corps, but, as far as any other country is concerned, part of the US military and using US inventory.

This agreement also provides a clear path for defence industry.

The government will continue to support it however this will be limited to the extent to which it accommodates itself to Washington's demands.

Canberra's two biggest current projects - the F35 fighter and the Hunter-class warship - are mired in cost blowouts, delivery scheduling problems, and capability questions.

Both projects are hugely troubled and, with the Hunter frigates in particular, there are serious questions about the utility of the vessels this multibillion-dollar project will ever manage to deliver.

Nevertheless, because these are respectively US and British equipment purchases, no public debate about their future is being given any oxygen.

When it comes to the potential purchase of South Korean (or German) armoured vehicles for the army, however, a very different dynamic is at work.

The potential numbers to be acquired have been slashed and the army's objections dismissed. The message is clear.

From this moment on the alliance will be fully embraced by both sides of politics and the commercial success of individual companies will be measured by the extent they are capable of providing equipment that is relevant to the needs of the three countries.

This will represent the only future for industry. The idea of sovereign capability will remain just that - a motherhood statement that will not have any practical application beyond the feel-good glow of rhetoric.

The real message is to get with the program, forge links with (preferably) US companies (or, if you can't manage that, British ones), and don't rely on handouts from Canberra.

READ MORE:

Again, at a stroke, Albanese has neutered a potential domestic industry lobby and simplified the country's foreign relationships.

We can now save even more money by closing down embassies overseas and transferring diplomats to work as consular staff within American institutions. Perhaps Kyiv might provide an opportunity to trial this new style of operations.

In Asia, particularly countries like Indonesia and Malaysia (not to mention neighbours in the south Pacific), this new alliance will be seen unambiguously as retrograde.

The already fragile image Canberra retained as an independent partner capable of implementing a nuanced approach in its engagement has been exploded with the violence of a sledgehammer smashing into glass.

Nothing is gained by rendering explicit an assumed relationship. Our interactions with the region will now be, effectively, conducted through Washington.

The final dimension is the military one.

As a result of the alliance the equipment used by Australia's forces will be excellent. This doesn't mean it's what Canberra requires. The primary mission of US and Royal Navy nuclear submarines (SSNs) is to sink Chinese and Russian ballistic missile boats (SSBNs).

That's not something that Australia needs to do. What Albanese is signing up for is a deal that's brilliant for him personally because it completely defuses defence as a political issue. Internationally, it will muffle any independent voice Canberra may once have had by lodging us firmly under Washington's umbrella.

And while it provides the forces with access to the best equipment, this doesn't mean it's what's required.

In 1939, on the best military advice, Australia had two divisions of mounted cavalry. They were completely irrelevant in the war to come.