Editor's note: John Gong is a professor at the University of International Business and Economics and a research fellow at the Academy of China Open Economy Studies at UIBE. The article reflects the author's views and not necessarily those of CGTN.

The formation of AUKUS, which is billed as a new geopolitical and security partnership among the U.S., the UK and Australia to coordinate on cyber issues, advanced technologies and defense in order to counter security challenges in the Indo-Pacific, seen by many as a metaphor for China, appears on the surface to be a major strategic shift in Washington's alliance-based China policy.

But digging deeper, there are indications to show that this is mostly about money – a naked pretense to a grab prey from a weaker predator, and thus it may not be interpreted too much out of context from a geopolitical perspective, although its viciousness and maliciousness from a commercial dealing ethics perspective should be widely condemned by the international community.

The center of the AUKUS pack is the submarine deal. The U.S. and the UK will help Australia build and maintain nuclear-powered submarines, making it potentially the seventh country in the world to acquire such powerful underwater capability. But it also shred apart an existing deal worth $66 billion under which Australia is supposed to purchase 12 Attack-class conventional submarines from France's Naval Group. 

Paris went ballistic on hearing the news; its Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian called the AUKUS deal a "stab in the back," "a brutal, unilateral and unpredictable decision that reminded him of former president Donald Trump." Paris later recalled its ambassadors to the U.S. and Australian in retaliation.

But interestingly, French ambassador to Britain has saved the trip back home. Le Monde newspaper called the decision to not recall him an "odd exception." According to a report in Washington Post on September 18th quoting a French diplomatic official, "the UK tagged along with this entire operation opportunistically," and was seen by Paris as a junior partner in the three-nation defense pact.

Canada, another Anglosphere workhorse which should have behaved with a more sour-grape feeling as it is shut out of the pure-bred Anglo-Saxon clique this time, is more straightforward with pointing out the essence of the AUKUS deal.

"This is a deal for nuclear submarines, which Canada is not currently or any time soon in the market for; Australia is," Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said. "We continue to be strong members of the Five Eyes, and continue to share information and security approaches with our partners," he continued. Apparently Canada doesn't see this new development as a major strategic shift in the Biden administration’s alliance-based security framework.

In the announcement of the deal, U.S. President Joe Biden himself went out of his way to appease Paris's furor by stressing the importance of trans-Atlantic relations. But the damage is already done. Granted, this is a very big deal, probably worth of $100 billion with replacing diesel engines with nuclear reactors in the original French deal. That would bring thousands of jobs in America's defense industry presence in Connecticut and other parts of the country.

And for that, Washington's willingness to still go for it even at the cost of committing a shameful perfidy to a long-time ally testifies to the value of the much hailed trans-Atlantic relations – it is probably just worth $100 billion.

On top of that, AUKUS also sabotages the regional power balance by spurring other countries' ambition to acquire their own nuclear-powered submarines, potentially causing a regional arms race. South Korea openly expressed interest in acquiring one during ex-President Donald Trump's visit to Seoul in November 2017. Canada openly explored buying nuclear attack submarines with both France and the UK as early as 1987, which were later sabotaged by Washington. And then there is Indonesia or even Japan that might be interested in nuclear-powered submarines.

Unfortunately these arms race concerns were all shoveled aside for $100 billion worth of jobs and economic activities, running squarely opposite of Washington's rhetoric on regional peace and stability. 

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)