Albanese Rational as Media Sees Russian Ghosts

Echoing through the corridors of the Kremlin must be guffaws of laughter at the ignorance displayed by many in Australia’s media—and the desperation by some within it to prop up the lagging prospects of Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.

Russia must see Antipodean intellect—as a desert of discernment.

The Coalition’s attempt to frame Dutton as a leader of strength only reveals its geopolitical illiteracy, a void all too often mirrored in sections of the Australian press. It’s not just ignorance—it’s a deliberate attempt to stir division and racism, in a Trumpian playbook that Dutton appears determined to emulate.

Journalists like Peter Jennings are doing their best to whip up Cold War paranoia, cloaked as foreign policy commentary, by promoting the fear of a supposed Russian military foothold in eastern Indonesia. I know I’ve been banging on for the past couple of days, but it’s important. Journalists like Jennings through either ignorance or deliberate intent are conning Australians into believing what they are reporting on is real when it’s not.

Jennings’ breathless critique of the Albanese government’s response to unverified reports about Biak Island reads more like a partisan scare campaign than a serious analysis of Australia’s regional posture.

From the moment the story surfaced, Indonesia flatly denied any plans to host a Russian military base. There’s no concrete evidence that such an agreement exists or is even under consideration. Rather than respect a sovereign clarification from one of Australia’s closest neighbours, Jennings chooses wild speculation—insisting the absence of proof is itself cause for alarm.

By doing so, he ignores that Indonesia under President Prabowo Subianto is pursuing a multi-aligned foreign policy aimed at strategic autonomy—not servitude to any global power. Prabowo’s outreach to Moscow is no different from his diplomatic balancing act with Beijing, Washington, and Canberra. Framing it as a covert alignment with Russia—let alone a direct threat to Australia—is a ridiculous overreach.

Prabowo dis visit Moscow, however, Indonesia buys weapons from Russia—just as it buys submarines from South Korea, drones from Turkey, and conducts joint fighter training with the US. That’s not ideological allegiance; it’s pragmatic diversification.

Indonesia has never, and likely will never, allow a foreign power to establish a permanent military base on its soil. To do so would violate the tenets of its independent foreign policy and its 1945 Constitution.

According to Jennings, Australia has “limited insight” into Prabowo’s agenda - an odd assertion, given the extensive engagement between Australian and Indonesian defence institutions—intelligence sharing, military exercises, and active diplomatic channels. If anything, Australia’s shortfall lies in misreading Indonesia’s priorities, not a lack of visibility.

Alarm over Biak Island—portrayed as a launchpad for Russian strategic bombers—is strategically flimsy. The 2017 Tu-95 overflight Jennings references was a one-off, symbolic mission, not the start of a Russian buildup. Russian aircraft landing at an Indonesian airstrip doesn’t equate to a permanent military presence—or a threat to Darwin or Guam.

Furthermore, what’s disingenuous is his attempt to paint Penny Wong and Anthony Albanese as reckless for pushing back on intelligence leaks that remain unverified. Any responsible government should treat such speculation with caution, avoiding unnecessary alarmism or diplomatic damage. But Jennings, seems more interested in stoking fear than pursuing facts.

Central to Jennings’ argument is an outdated view of Australia’s role in Asia—where Canberra must constantly look over its shoulder, suspect its neighbours, and see every Chinese or Russian interaction as part of some anti-Western grand conspiracy. His worldview disrespects Indonesia’s sovereignty and misses the reality of a shifting regional dynamic—where trust-building and multilateralism, not paranoia, will shape the future.

Rather than promoting cooperation, Jennings and The Australian peddle a vision of zero-sum competition dominated by great power proxies. He even suggests Russia might serve Chinese interests by establishing a military presence in Indonesia—an implausible fantasy that misreads Jakarta’s wariness of Beijing and Prabowo’s clear commitment to non-alignment.

What’s needed isn’t more breathless analysis or dog-whistle fearmongering from Cold War relics, but real diplomacy: long-term economic partnerships, climate cooperation, people-to-people exchanges, and smarter defence engagement built on mutual trust—not paranoia.

Jennings laments Australia’s supposed strategic irrelevance. Australia won’t fix that through hawkish columns or recycled threats. It’ll be fixed by maturing it’s foreign policy—by moving beyond reflexive suspicion and finally recognising Southeast Asia not as a threat, but as a partner.

Prabowo or Putin aren’t the danger – it’s the distortion of Australian strategic thinking by commentators trapped in a world of imagined enemies - that makes it unsafe and smaller.

Australia’s been down this path before. In the 1970s, Cold War anxieties—encouraged by Western allies—fuelled fear Indonesia would one day invade northern Australia. It never did. Just as that paranoia was unfounded then, so too is today's manufactured panic over Biak Island.