Author Topic: US Sec Def sends a shot across NATO Bow.  (Read 7529 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online jmt18325

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 16,690
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 994
Re: US Sec Def sends a shot across NATO Bow.
« Reply #50 on: February 24, 2017, 16:44:03 »
Actually, the budgets are based on the duly voted main estimates, where departmental spending is concerned.

Unless of course there is to be a change, as has been hinted at by the Minister of National Defence.  We'll have to wait and see. 

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 158,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,606
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: US Sec Def sends a shot across NATO Bow.
« Reply #51 on: February 24, 2017, 17:20:42 »
Unless of course there is to be a change, as has been hinted at by the Minister of National Defence.  We'll have to wait and see.

And Parliament will have to re-vote the amounts, and that will be on the public record, as the Main Estimates are. 

Hint: That's what they call them "Votes" (1, 5 and 10 in the case of DND).

Regards
G2G

Online jmt18325

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 16,690
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 994
Re: US Sec Def sends a shot across NATO Bow.
« Reply #52 on: February 24, 2017, 22:29:05 »
And Parliament will have to re-vote the amounts, and that will be on the public record, as the Main Estimates are. 

That's right - but not until after we see the budget.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 181,015
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,626
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: US Sec Def sends a shot across NATO Bow.
« Reply #53 on: February 25, 2017, 01:28:38 »
Apparently the CAF isn't the only outfit suffering grief:

Quote
The best overview of the state of the German military is provided once a year in a report submitted by Armed Forces Commissioner Hans-Peter Bartels. As an SPD member of parliament for many years, Bartels is a credible voice from the perspective of the Social Democrats. And the image that he paints of the Bundeswehr is dark indeed.

One year ago, he described how the Saxony-based 371st tank battalion, prior to taking on its role as "spearhead" of the NATO Response Force, had to borrow 15,000 pieces of equipment from 56 other German military units. In another example, the 345th artillery training battalion, based just west of Frankfurt, was officially supposed to have 24 armored artillery vehicles at its disposal. In reality, though, it had just seven, of which six were on standby for NATO and could not be used. And the seventh was in reserve for the six on standby. Troops reported to Bartels that they hadn't been able to carry out training exercises at the site for the last three years.

'Self-Reinforcing'

There is an endless list of such examples: A mountain infantry unit had only 96 pairs of night-vision goggles available instead of the 522 it had been allotted -- of which 76 had to be loaned out to other units. Which meant they only had 20, of which 17 were damaged.

The lack of equipment, Bartels wrote in his most recent report, has led to a system of sharing by necessity. "It is often the case, with Navy units that are returning from a mission, for example, that as soon as they dock in their homeport, pieces of equipment are immediately dismounted from ships and then remounted on those vessels heading out to replace them, such as (radar devices). The components wear out much more quickly due to the frequent mounting and dismounting, such that the process becomes self-reinforcing."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/trump-nato-demands-becomes-political-debate-in-germany-a-1136140.html
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 31,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,354
Re: US Sec Def sends a shot across NATO Bow.
« Reply #54 on: February 25, 2017, 01:45:53 »
Do they atleast have radio's and boots? seriously though sounds like the german army is as equipped as our PRes, in terms of not enough to go around and everyone is loaning and borrowing off each other
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Simian Turner

    is a humbled, curious veteran!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 37,235
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,319
  • Do the right thing; do the thing right!
Re: US Sec Def sends a shot across NATO Bow.
« Reply #55 on: February 25, 2017, 12:03:12 »
That's right - but not until after we see the budget.

Or maybe not - the main estimates are available here for 17/18 - https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/planned-government-spending/budgets-expenditures.html
The grand essentials of happiness: something to do, something to love, something to hope for.  Allan K. Chalmers

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 181,015
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,626
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: US Sec Def sends a shot across NATO Bow.
« Reply #56 on: February 25, 2017, 12:22:09 »


In other news...Mr. Pook, in your quote...
...Mr. Friedman wasn't doing badly until he said...

Oopsies...

To quote from a source (yes, NATO itself): http://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html#basic
:2c:

Regards
G2G

So formal!  I must of screwed up again.  ;D

Can I make the following suggestion - NATO has gone through phases.

Phase 1 - Defensive NATO - 1949:  US, Canada, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, BeNeLux, Italy, Portugal, France

Treaty of Paris - 1951

Phase 2 - Containment NATO - 1952: Greece, Turkey, W.Germany (1955)

Treaty of Rome - 1957
EFTA Treaty - 1960
Merger Treaty - 1965

French Withdrawal From NATO Military Structure - 1966

EEC Expansion - 1973:
Spain Joins NATO - 1982
Schengen Agreement - 1985
Single European Act - 1986

Demise of the Warsaw Pact - 1991

Maastricht Treaty - 1992
Amsterdam Treaty - 1997

Phase 3 - Political NATO 1 - 1999:  Czechia, Hungary, Poland

Sept 11 - 2001

Phase 3 - Political NATO 2 - 2004: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia

Lisbon Treaty - 2007
Russo-Georgian War - 2008

Phase 3 - Political NATO 3 - 2009: Albania,Croatia, France

Arguably, based on intent, as opposed to vocabulary, NATO in 1949 was a political alliance, in that it was an alliance of sovereign nation-states but it had an express military function: Mutual Defence with the threat being Russia.

By 1952 I would argue that NATO adopted a more aggressive strategy focused on the containment of Russia.  NATO maintained that posture up until 1991 at which point, effectively, the threat disappeared.  NATO lost its focus.

Concurrently, during the 1949-1991 period Western Europe had been knocking down internal borders and expanding the role and scope of what would become the EU.   That was a decidedly political project - a project with a very decided French element to it.  NATO was explicitly NOT a French project - especially between 1966 and 2009.

So by 1991 Europe had two competing alliances fighting over turf and roles - one backed by the US and the UK (a decidedly nationalist alliance) and the other backed by France, the Vatican and the Socialist International (a decidedly internationalist alliance).  One of those - NATO - lost its rationale with the loss of the Russian threat.  The other - the EU - gained momentum for exactly the same reason.

In 2001 NATO was given a new lease on life.  And that was reflected in Lord Robertson's 2002 speech:

http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2002/s020218a.htm

And that is where, in my belief, NATO transformed from an obsolescent alliance of nations coming together for mutual defence into a political project that tried to find justification in doing good works of a military kind.   

The problem is that the earlier alliance was easily managed because everybody could see tanks behind the barbed wire and had an incentive (enlightened self-interest if you will) to keep the tanks on the other side of the wire.  The modern construct is more contentious.

From 1991 to 2008 the tanks and the wire disappeared.  And alliances changed.  And countries that hadn't asked for Soviet protection, and that had been trapped and impoverished by the Soviet system, came rushing westward to grab on to western coat tails and shelter under western umbrellas - but - we run into the irreducible problem of Eurasia:  there is too much of it and there are no natural borders east of the Iron Gates between Serbia and Romania.

All this is old news to you, I know. I'm just explaining my view's rationale.

You will be familiar with the concept of fire containment:  There are two ways to contain fires.  One is to put physical barriers in the way - you can either use pre-existing ones, including natural barriers, or you can build them.  The other is just to put distance between fires and trust that one fire will not jump to an adjacent zone.

In the Eurasian case, east of the Iron Gates, and North of the Carpathians, the reliance in the past has been on zones.  But that has been an imperfect solution as the Turks demonstrate every couple of hundred years or so.  The only alternative has been to build barriers - but that is an unfriendly act.  Good fences make good neighbours but only if the neighbours agree on the fence - and if the kids don't start sneaking across the fence at night.

So where am I going with this meandering - what I am trying to say is that 1949 NATO was created for a world that doesn't exist any more.  It has done its own meandering from 1989 to the present day as it tries to adjust to a changed situation.  In that period it has become a competitor to the pan-european project and so has gathered internal enemies trying to bring it down.

The good news for NATO, as an institution, is that everything old is new again and Eurasia is seeing the rise of man-made barriers.  Concurrently, the competing pan-european project is under its own internal stresses largely because those folks that were trapped by the Soviets want to be rich, and they want protection, but they don't want to be subservient to anybody. 
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Online jmt18325

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 16,690
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 994
Re: US Sec Def sends a shot across NATO Bow.
« Reply #57 on: February 25, 2017, 12:41:48 »
Or maybe not - the main estimates are available here for 17/18 - https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/planned-government-spending/budgets-expenditures.html

We've just been through that.  The main estimates are based on the previous budget, and don't cover potential new spending in the budget or individual procurement announcements.  As Beyers pointed out in his article, the LAV upgrade announcement brought Canada's spending for the year up to 1% from just below, as it hadn't originally been booked.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 158,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,606
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: US Sec Def sends a shot across NATO Bow.
« Reply #58 on: February 25, 2017, 21:35:57 »
We've just been through that.  The main estimates are based on the previous budget, and don't cover potential new spending in the budget or individual procurement announcements.  As Beyers pointed out in his article, the LAV upgrade announcement brought Canada's spending for the year up to 1% from just below, as it hadn't originally been booked.

You're using the wrong terminology.  'Booked' means IP resources assigned and planned for by the Department.  TB gives the final auth to expend against what DND books and Finance endorses, but money for LAVUP was booked already prior to TB granting Expenditure Authority.  'Expenditure Authority' / 'booked'

Regards
G2G

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 9,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,301
Re: US Sec Def sends a shot across NATO Bow.
« Reply #59 on: February 25, 2017, 23:33:19 »
Little help with the acronym soup?

TB = Treasury Board?

IP = ?
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Online jmt18325

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 16,690
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 994
Re: US Sec Def sends a shot across NATO Bow.
« Reply #60 on: February 25, 2017, 23:34:34 »
You're using the wrong terminology.  'Booked' means IP resources assigned and planned for by the Department.  TB gives the final auth to expend against what DND books and Finance endorses, but money for LAVUP was booked already prior to TB granting Expenditure Authority.  'Expenditure Authority' / 'booked'

Regards
G2G

Thanks for the correction.

Offline jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 122,602
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,172
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: US Sec Def sends a shot across NATO Bow.
« Reply #61 on: February 26, 2017, 00:39:52 »
Little help with the acronym soup?

TB = Treasury Board?  Yes

IP = ?

Offline Simian Turner

    is a humbled, curious veteran!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 37,235
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,319
  • Do the right thing; do the thing right!
Re: US Sec Def sends a shot across NATO Bow.
« Reply #62 on: February 26, 2017, 01:38:57 »
IP = Investment Plan  http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=18225

The departmental investment plan is a high-level strategic document that defines the direction, capacity and commitments of a department with respect to its investment in assets and acquired services. The plan must clearly set out departmental priorities and strategies for the upcoming five-year period, and outline a three-year investment function that meets the needs of the department within available resources.  Plans must also include sufficient information on planned projects to support an informed decision by Treasury Board Ministers as to which projects would warrant their consideration over the planning horizon.

The investment plan must demonstrate that a strong regime for planning, decision-making and governance exists, which is the basis for Treasury Board approval of a department's expenditure authority. Departments need to demonstrate investment planning capacity and the risk and complexity of investment-based projects within the investment period.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2017, 01:46:14 by Simian Turner »
The grand essentials of happiness: something to do, something to love, something to hope for.  Allan K. Chalmers

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 9,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,301
Re: US Sec Def sends a shot across NATO Bow.
« Reply #63 on: February 26, 2017, 11:41:20 »
Ahhh.....thank  you.   :salute:
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!