Next head of NATO

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by Finningley Boy

What's more interesting, or disappointing here, is the very clear emnity toward the UK by Joe Biden.

I think that he is simply extending the form of his previous boss, President Obama, who turned a cold shoulder to the UK on a variety of occasions.
Should not surprise anyone: he was Obama's VP for 8 years.

.. does that mean he thinks Jen Stoltenberg shouldn't even have been appointed?

Good question, and I'll not to try and read Macron's mind.
But his objection may be tabled for a while, since the news / rumor I hear is that Jens gets another year, since NATO(collectively) can't seem to make a decision.
*chuckles*
NATO solution to the "replace Jens" problem: "Let's form a working group, which means that we kick the can down the road to 2024"
Pure NATO.

[Diff Tail Shim]

Originally Posted by Finningley Boy

What's more interesting, or disappointing here, is the very clear emnity toward the UK by Joe Biden. He's going around the houses to get Von der Leyen to take on the NATO Secretary General appointment despite the obvious difference in her's and Wallace's respective qualifications. As for Macron's notion that the NATO head should be from an EU country is simply supporting further division within NATO. Given the fact that Norway is in fact not an EU country, it only has a Free Trade Association, does that mean he thinks Jen Stoltenberg shouldn't even have been appointed?

FB

Ben Wallaces qualification? A ceremonial infantry SO2 that became head of a government department that he has destroyed with his incompetence. NATO head needs to be a top diplomat. Has always been the case. People like George Robertson whom I.do.believe was greatly respected in that role. My opinion as a 25 year time served SNCO, not a short service commission. Edited. Sorry. He made Captain. So no higher than the not to be SENgO Steve Baker whom many of my friends do not have a good word for.

[Finningley Boy]

Originally Posted by Diff Tail Shim

Ben Wallaces qualification? A ceremonial infantry SO2 that became head of a government department that he has destroyed with his incompetence. NATO head needs to be a top diplomat. Has always been the case. People like George Robertson whom I.do.believe was greatly respected in that role. My opinion as a 25 year time served SNCO, not a short service commission. Edited. Sorry. He made Captain. So no higher than the not to be SENgO Steve Baker whom many of my friends do not have a good word for.

So given vonder Leyen's track record you reckon Biden going out of his way to squeeze this round peg into a square hole is preferable to the UK Defence Secretary? I'm sure you can throw back the charge tht defence spending has continued to wither on the vine under Wallace, it did so while George Robertson was Defence Secretary, cast your mind back to SDR 1998. Its been down hill all the way since. So what makes George Robertson (I've no objections to the man and his time as NATO Secretary General by the way) a "top diplomat"? Is it simply because he didn't attract oprobrium?

FB

[Diff Tail Shim]

Originally Posted by Finningley Boy

So given vonder Leyen's track record you reckon Biden going out of his way to squeeze this round peg into a square hole is preferable to the UK Defence Secretary? I'm sure you can throw back the charge tht defence spending has continued to wither on the vine under Wallace, it did so while George Robertson was Defence Secretary, cast your mind back to SDR 1998. Its been down hill all the way since. So what makes George Robertson (I've no objections to the man and his time as NATO Secretary General by the way) a "top diplomat"? Is it simply because he didn't attract oprobrium?

FB

Would not have anyone from the shitshow of our country at the moment remotely put foward to lead NATO. As for the SDR in 1998, the cuts also included commitments to modernisation and new equipment. Not the slash and burn we have seen in later Blue on Blue defence reviews.

[Asturias56]

Solve all the problems - appoint a Canadian...............

[Not_a_boffin]

Originally Posted by Diff Tail Shim

Would not have anyone from the sh1tshow of our country at the moment remotely put foward to lead NATO. As for the SDR in 1998, the cuts also included commitments to modernisation and new equipment. Not the slash and burn we have seen in later Blue on Blue defence reviews.

The vast majority of which were unfunded (JCRS anyone?) and exacerbated by conducting two operations concurrently at way above scale and duration that the Defence Planning Assumptions and associated funding supported. Which was the direct cause of much of the "hollowing out" that followed.

[Union Jack]

Originally Posted by RAFEngO74to09

(1) Jens Stoltenberg on Twitter: "Honoured by #NATO Allies' decision to extend my term as Secretary General until 1 October 2024. The transatlantic bond between Europe & North America has ensured our freedom & security for nearly 75 years, and in a more dangerous world, our Alliance is more important than ever." / Twitter

The following quotation from today's Daily Telegraph sheds further light on the above, namely

"Mrs von der Leyen is being lined up to take over following next year’s European elections, having privately admitted that she will not be available for Nato duties until then.Mr Stoltenberg’s mandate was extended until October 2024, which coincides with the German EU chief’s availability.

Mr Stoltenberg’s mandate was extended until October 2024, which coincides with the German EU chief’s availability."

Jack

[Asturias56]

"exacerbated by conducting two operations concurrently at way above scale and duration that the Defence Planning Assumptions and associated funding supported"

yes - it 's the lunatic idea you can fight a war to a pre-planned budget

In "Wolf Hall" Mantel has Thomas Cromwell tell Henry VIII in their first interview

"Wars are not affordable things. No prince ever says, "this is my budget so this is the kind of war I can have." You enter into one and it uses all the money you've got, and then it breaks you and bankrupts you."

[Not_a_boffin]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

"exacerbated by conducting two operations concurrently at way above scale and duration that the Defence Planning Assumptions and associated funding supported"

yes - it 's the lunatic idea you can fight a war to a pre-planned budget

In "Wolf Hall" Mantel has Thomas Cromwell tell Henry VIII in their first interview

"Wars are not affordable things. No prince ever says, "this is my budget so this is the kind of war I can have." You enter into one and it uses all the money you've got, and then it breaks you and bankrupts you."

Indeed. The lunacy perpetrated by a so-called financial genius, who - after his boss committed the country to those two operations - refused to provide the requisite funding, by which I mean not the day to day conduct, but the uplift in personnel, support and force structure required to sustain them.

[Finningley Boy]

Originally Posted by Diff Tail Shim

Would not have anyone from the shitshow of our country at the moment remotely put foward to lead NATO. As for the SDR in 1998, the cuts also included commitments to modernisation and new equipment. Not the slash and burn we have seen in later Blue on Blue defence reviews.

Do bear in mind, Wallace, you could argue alongside Johnson, are both responsible for the fact that Zelensky is alive today and that Russia has sustained such a high level of attrition just to cling on to that eastern crescent of Ukraine. You cast your mind back to the early stages when the EU countries were doing their usual verbal condemnation of the latest outrage from the Kremlin etc, I don't think the Whitehouse was responding with any get up and go either to recall. Worse still, Scholz wouldn't allow, initially, RAF aircraft transporting the initial consigment of LAWs Rockets to stage over in Germany. Those LAWs Rockets decimated that Tank column, you'll recall, heading down an open road toward Kyiz, each tank Commander with a fist full of cards identiying Ukrainians to be murdered on the orders of Putin. They travelled along that open road as they didn't expect, just like the EU and US leaders, any kind of resistance. Perhaps there wouldn't have been but for the shitshow back in 10 Downing Street. But I'm sure Biden's going out of his way and delaying Stoltenberg's retirement just to get von der Leyen in the top job is a wise choice eh?!?!??

FB

[downsizer]

Originally Posted by Finningley Boy

Do bear in mind, Wallace, you could argue alongside Johnson, are both responsible for the fact that Zelensky is alive today and that Russia has sustained such a high level of attrition just to cling on to that eastern crescent of Ukraine. You cast your mind back to the early stages when the EU countries were doing their usual verbal condemnation of the latest outrage from the Kremlin etc, I don't think the Whitehouse was responding with any get up and go either to recall. Worse still, Scholz wouldn't allow, initially, RAF aircraft transporting the initial consigment of LAWs Rockets to stage over in Germany. Those LAWs Rockets decimated that Tank column, you'll recall, heading down an open road toward Kyiz, each tank Commander with a fist full of cards identiying Ukrainians to be murdered on the orders of Putin. They travelled along that open road as they didn't expect, just like the EU and US leaders, any kind of resistance. Perhaps there wouldn't have been but for the shitshow back in 10 Downing Street. But I'm sure Biden's going out of his way and delaying Stoltenberg's retirement just to get von der Leyen in the top job is a wise choice eh?!?!??

FB

You are wrong. The US was in there before us and has delivered a load more. We weren't far behind, but the Americans have kept him alive.

[Finningley Boy]

Originally Posted by downsizer

You are wrong. The US was in there before us and has delivered a load more. We weren't far behind, but the Americans have kept him alive.

One of my failings is often to react prematurely to what is genuine B******s, but while I should have checked before posting I was relying on a 'reliable' source, I can't recall his name, but an expert on the matter from RUSI who told Andrew Castle on LBC a couple of Saturdays ago at least, that if it hadn't been for the swift response by Johnson with the LAWs Rockets Zelensky would have been toast. He pointed out the bit about the Russian Tank commanders with the identity cards. So I'll take it on the chin that the US State Department, or whoever, got supplies there first, that the US Treasury once again has quickly dwarfed our efforts is nothing remarkable and was ever thus since 1942. However, Biden's complete lack of grace and never missing an opportunity to demonstrate his personal emnity questions just what kind of an ally the US currently is? Same for the EU, especially Macron, now there is someone who's feet froze instantly.

FB

[B Fraser]

The delivery of NLAW etc. was being planned and implemented far earlier than most would ever imagine. Had this not happened then today, Putin would be in Kyiv, eyeing up his next venture.

[artee]

Originally Posted by Finningley Boy

Do bear in mind, Wallace, you could argue alongside Johnson, are both responsible for the fact that Zelensky is alive today and that Russia has sustained such a high level of attrition just to cling on to that eastern crescent of Ukraine. You cast your mind back to the early stages when the EU countries were doing their usual verbal condemnation of the latest outrage from the Kremlin etc, I don't think the Whitehouse was responding with any get up and go either to recall. Worse still, Scholz wouldn't allow, initially, RAF aircraft transporting the initial consigment of LAWs Rockets to stage over in Germany. Those LAWs Rockets decimated that Tank column, you'll recall, heading down an open road toward Kyiz, each tank Commander with a fist full of cards identiying Ukrainians to be murdered on the orders of Putin. They travelled along that open road as they didn't expect, just like the EU and US leaders, any kind of resistance. Perhaps there wouldn't have been but for the shitshow back in 10 Downing Street. But I'm sure Biden's going out of his way and delaying Stoltenberg's retirement just to get von der Leyen in the top job is a wise choice eh?!?!??

FB

UvdL as head of NATO? Surely not. Talk about failing upwards:

The inconvenient truth about Ursula von der Leyen

"BERLIN — A polyglot Brussels native who reared seven children and earned a medical degree on the side before storming to the top of German politics.News that this Wunderfrau — aka German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen — could become the Commission’s next president left European capitals abuzz on Tuesday. “Finally some good news” was the general tenor. Who needs a Spitzenkandidat when you can have a Homecoming Queen?

At first glance, the affable 60-year-old minister with a camera-ready smile looks to be a perfect fit, with the requisite experience, political pedigree and personality to handle the EU’s toughest job.

And yet a nagging question remains: Is she too good to be true? In the German capital, the answer is clear..."

[Less Hair]

What will the next NATO boss have to do? Get significant more funding from central european nations to beef up defence and enable the US to focus more on China. It will have to be somebody with very good political top level networks, including to Germany, which might have to pay for most of the future expenses. This is why the US seems to focus on Uschi instead of Ben.

[B Fraser]

How successful was she in allocating funding to the Bundeswehr when she was in charge ? She couldn't even manage that.

German army paints broomsticks black to resemble machine guns in Nato exercises | The Independent | The Independent

[Less Hair]

Not so much. Still, how much more would Wallace manage to extract?

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by B Fraser

How successful was she in allocating funding to the Bundeswehr when she was in charge ? She couldn't even manage that.

German army paints broomsticks black to resemble machine guns in Nato exercises | The Independent | The Independent

Funny you mention that. Here's an analysis that suggests the 2% GDP goal is insufficient for the next ten years for all of NATO. 3% is a better target if you want to hedge against the Americans continuing that "pivot to the Pacific" that began a decade ago. (Details within the Spoiler)

Spoiler

 

 

By Ulrich Speck, foreign affairs columnist at Neue Zürcher Zeitung
When NATO leaders discuss the bloc’s future next week, there will be an elephant in the room: What happens if former U.S. President Donald Trump is reelected in 2024? Even short of pulling the United States out of the alliance, as Trump came close to doing, a future U.S. president might limit engagement in Europe, driven by either isolationism or the need to shift scarce resources to the Asian theater.

Without the United States, the value of the alliance approaches zero. Deterring the Kremlin depends on credibility and power—and for the foreseeable future, those qualities can only be provided by the world’s leading military.

Europeans lack the military strength and, even more importantly, the strategic unity to deter a determined adversary. France is little trusted in much of Europe and focused elsewhere and Britain is weakened by Brexit, while Germany does not have much of a functioning military at all. Countries along NATO’s eastern and northern frontier have the will but lack the means. Without a strong and credible deterrence, Moscow would double down on regaining its Soviet-era possessions, and war in all its forms would spread beyond Ukraine.

Trump-proofing NATO is impossible, and Europe must live with a degree of dependence. But the risk of losing Washington can be diminished. In order to keep the United States engaged as the key power behind the European security order, its allies have to massively raise their share of the burden.

The key to any serious burden-sharing remains Germany—Europe’s economic heavyweight, political and geographic center, and close partner of much of Central and Eastern Europe. Germany needs to become the key backup power for the countries exposed to Russian pressure. It won’t be able to do that alone, not least because it lacks a nuclear deterrent, which remains crucial to being at eye level with the Kremlin. But Berlin could and should take over a far bigger share of the burden, stepping into the still-vacant position of “partner in leadership” that then-U.S. President George H.W. Bush offered to Germany at the conclusion of the Cold War.

A commitment to spend 3 percent of its GDP on defense—roughly doubling the 1.44 percent it spent in 2022—would be a strong signal to Russia and Europe. By stepping forward the same way that Japan has done in the Indo-Pacific, Germany would make it much harder for any U.S. leader to blame Europe for not bearing a fair share of the continent’s own defense.

A muscular Germany ready to free the United States from a large part of its European burden would not only impress the skeptics in Washington, but usher the trans-Atlantic relationship into a new era no longer defined by Cold War memories. It would turn NATO into a key element of an emerging free-world architecture involving the United States, Europe, and key Asian allies and partners, including India, Japan, and South Korea. Tokyo has already stepped into the new era—not least by doubling defense spending—while Berlin has yet to take any serious steps.

A massive investment in German defense would be far more than a symbolic tool to keep Washington engaged. It would become the basis for a healthy and sustainable balance between the United States and Europe in underwriting the European security order. Finally, it would be the prerequisite for any Plan B in case the worst comes to pass and a future U.S. president withdraws from Europe, leaving the continent on its own to face a neoimperialist Russia.

Originally Posted by Less Hair

What will the next NATO boss have to do? Get significant more funding from central european nations to beef up defence and enable the US to focus more on China. It will have to be somebody with very good political top level networks, including to Germany, which might have to pay for most of the future expenses. This is why the US seems to focus on Uschi instead of Ben.

The Germans have let their military capabiility decay, but their arms industry is still top notch. Where there's a profit motive, I suspect she'll be able to line up the ducklings to walk in the proper direction.
But I'm not a fan,and would rather someone else be the replacement.

[rattman]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

Funny you mention that. Here's an analysis that suggests the 2% GDP goal is insufficient for the next ten years for all of NATO. 3% is a better target if you want to hedge against the Americans continuing that "pivot to the Pacific" that began a decade ago. (Details within the Spoiler)

Spoiler

 

 

The Germans have let their military capabiility decay, but their arms industry is still top notch. Where there's a profit motive, I suspect she'll be able to line up the ducklings to walk in the proper direction.
But I'm not a fan,and would rather someone else be the replacement.

I see both her and Ben Wallace as mirror images of each other and as poor choices. Both have presided over atrophy of their respective armed forces, both have been bullish on their Ukraine support. Sure Wallace was a military Man, still hasn't prevented issues with the MOD. Even now pilots are having to goto food banks.

To get either in my opinion is a failure, that said dont follow european / nato politics enough to any clue about someone better.