Fair enough for picking up on borders, I should have said protect Australia's National interest. In 2025 the world finally turned a much anticipated historic chapter and became far more reminiscent of the world in 1870's-1910's nation states in competition, however with far more countries campaigning for their own interests. This is probably a more realist take than I actually advocate, its in Australia's best interest to have allies, and preserve what can be preserved of a rules based order, preferably this should be led by middling powers such as Australia, France, Britain, Brazil, Colombia, S Korea, Japan, Nigeria, et al.

Australia is definitely a strong nation to a degree, but i think we have notable points of potential failure. The largest is what I point to in my previous comment, our reliance on another power for key defensive capabilities. Australia has a strong military, but I don't think its resilient. The national defense strategy seemingly amounts to being able to protect ourselves until our allies can come to help us throw off an attacker.

Our industrial base is low, our personnel requirements are near an almost 'neoliberal-esque' minimum, and our logistical abilities rest on a commercial airline and trucks, boats and rail are (apart from notable geographic areas, Pilbara for rail may be one) largely forgotten modes, narrowing our logistical flexibility and abilities to respond.

Take the ability of our navy, it amounts to a patrol of our national shores and enough for a single oil supply convoy. Although note, this is based on an early 2025 assessment from just Aidan Morrison on Decouple

The key to not getting invaded is deterrence. Its folly to rule out Indonesia as a possible future invader in a game that moves in decades, just look at the time horizons of AUKUS for example. In a world where it is less likely USA will commit to defense of an allied nation, even though they're placing military assets in Australia, it is more prudent now to get ourselves on the road to heavier self reliance such as that of Sweden, Finland, or Switzerland. They of course have very different threats between themselves and Australia, but their military resilience is what i focus on as a key difference between Australia and those nations.

To go back to Indonesia, its not that I think they're planning a multi-decade attack, or that I think they're the most significant threat to Australia, its that I don't want to see the Oceania region dominated by Indonesia, and Australia is best placed in our region to offer a counterbalance and work with the Indonesians to focus on their Northern defence as the gateway to a highly collaborative and understanding oceanic region. Basically our Island region is the smallest in the world, but could become highly defendable if the nations in this region work together. This argument takes on the realist assumption that a country who perceives weakness in their neighbours will invariably seek to dominate them in every way, its not becessary that that assumption is true always, but its a risk that doesn't need to be ignored.

This is a whole lot of words, i'm gona stop here even if I haven't quite answered you properly, but i feel i'm losing the thread here. Thanks for helping me actively think about and justify my position. Please tear apart this comment, i wrote it in a stream of consciousness, so i reckon theres a bit in here that won't stack up.