Mil News NATO Military News

This guy is another member of the worldwide phenomena especially amongst politicians that equalates saying something is the same as actually doing something.

I see it everywhere amongst hierarchy especially. "I've said something" equates to "I've done something"

Madness :(
 
This guy is another member of the worldwide phenomena especially amongst politicians that equalates saying something is the same as actually doing something.

I see it everywhere amongst hierarchy especially. "I've said something" equates to "I've done something"

Madness :(
They all come from the same assembly line
Medíocres that never worked a day in life and ascended inside the party via the youths organizations
 
Elbit Systems announced today that it was awarded two contracts with an aggregate value of $252 million to supply artillery rocket systems to a European NATO member country.

Under the first contract in an amount of $119 million, Elbit Systems will supply a battalion’s worth of ATMOS (Autonomous Truck Mounted Howitzer) 155mm/52 calibre truck-mounted howitzers systems. The contract will be performed over a period of two years.

Under the second contract in an amount of $133 million, Elbit Systems will provide two batteries worth of PULS artillery rocket-launcher systems including a package of rockets and missiles. The contract will be performed over a period of three years.

The ATMOS modular artillery system is a combat proven wheeled Howitzer solution, capable of firing all NATO-certified 155mm projectiles that has an effective range of over 40km with standard projectiles and offers extended range with Rocket-Assisted Projectiles (RAP). The ATMOS is designed for rapid deployment and operation enabling provision of fire support for a broad range of missions.

Elbit Systems’ PULS launcher supports firing both free-flying rockets and precision guided rockets and missiles ranged form 12km and up to 300km. The PULS launcher is fully adaptable to existing wheeled and tracked platforms, enabling a significant reduction in maintenance and training costs.
https://elbitsystems.com/pr-new/elb...s-artillery-systems-to-a-nato-member-country/
1678269037231.webp

1678269095821.webp
 
GettyImages-1250764006.webp

When Finland cleared the last hurdle for NATO membership last week, major Western newspapers buried the story. Yet Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto justly celebrated ‘these historic days’—the end of 75 years of neutrality. As of this week, Finland is formally in, and Sweden, another eternal neutral, will soon follow, once Turkey stops blocking its membership.

Why would these two countries throng into an alliance that French President Emmanuel Macron diagnosed as being ‘brain dead’ only four years ago, and which former US President Donald Trump saw as ‘obsolete’ in 2017? The wisdom of the 18th-century British wit Samuel Johnson offers a broad answer here: ‘When a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.’

But there is an even pithier answer to this question: Vladimir Putin. The man who would be king of Europe has given NATO a new brain and a new lease on life.

What an irony! One of Putin’s many pretexts for subduing Ukraine was to stop NATO enlargement once and for all. Instead, by pushing two neutral Nordic countries into the alliance, he has achieved the opposite. NATO, now, has not been in better health for decades.

Yet Putin doesn’t deserve all the credit. NATO was never as sclerotic as Macron and Trump presumed. It is the oldest alliance of free countries, and longevity bespeaks functionality. In past centuries, royals changed coalitions more often than their wigs. As Lord Palmerston famously said, ‘We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies.’

NATO is unique in the annals of nation-states. When Napoleon was beaten for good, the coalition arrayed against him was history. NATO, by contrast, was never a temporary marriage of convenience that would fall apart after victory or defeat. Its forces are integrated under a supreme commander and benefit from hardware compatibility, common communications and constant training. Such synergies make it costly to renationalise defence, and no member has ever defected.

And the alliance keeps growing. It started with 12 states in 1949. Greece, Turkey and West Germany joined in the 1950s, followed by Spain in the 1980s, three former Soviet satrapies in 1999, and seven more in 2004. Albania and Croatia were admitted in 2009; then Montenegro joined in 2017 and North Macedonia in 2020. Once Finland and Sweden are in, the original 12 will have expanded to 32. Growth does not imply obsolescence.

The most critical reason for longevity is the United States, which had to overcome its long aversion to what Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural address in 1801, called ‘entangling alliances’. In fact, the US didn’t commit to Europe in the early years of World War I or World War II. The turn from self-isolation to permanent alliance with Europe had to await the Cold War, when those ex-isolationists provided Western Europe with that most precious gift: a security umbrella made in the USA, including more than 350,000 US troops and thousands of tactical nuclear weapons at the peak that kept Stalin’s heirs on their best behaviour.

Moreover, the US acted not only as a protector, but also as a pacifier. With their common security assured, age-old enemies like Britain, France and Germany could safely dispense with arms races and strategic rivalry in favour of trust and community.

This is why the European Defence Community (without the US) died in the cradle in 1954, why NATO has reached the age of 74, and why a purely European strategic player remains a noble dream—even if the EU plus Britain add up to the world’s second-largest economy (after the US and ahead of China). The US is the not-so-secret ingredient. It spares the Europeans the necessity of mounting a divisive autonomous defence.

Putin’s war of conquest against Ukraine proves the point. When US President Joe Biden committed in earnest after Russia’s full-scale invasion last year, the hesitant Europeans could feel safe enough to engage. With Mr Big there to deter the Kremlin’s nuclearised war machine, would-be mediators like France and Germany have curbed their classic reflexes. Germany abandoned the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia while providing a steady stream of equipment to Ukraine, even Leopard 2 tanks, but only after the US had gone first with its Abrams tanks.

Thus, the ‘brain dead’ alliance has bounced back—nothing like an impending hanging to concentrate the mind. NATO, give or take Hungary or Turkey, has grasped the obvious. The war on its doorsteps is not just about Ukraine, but also about a precious European order that has delegitimised conquest. The stakes could not be higher. As in Stalin’s days, Putin’s lunge has reintroduced the spectre of Russian hegemony over Europe. Putin wants a certified sphere of influence, preferably a back-to-the-future restoration of the old Soviet empire.

If the Ukraine war turns into a blood-drenched stalemate, the voices of accommodation—‘give Putin an offramp’—will grow louder on both sides of the Atlantic, on the left and on the right. Is Europe prepared for its strategic paradigm to shift towards the return of power politics?

Already, Russia’s war of aggression has revealed the price of three decades of European disarmament. The alliance has shrunk not only its munitions stockpiles, but also its arms production lines. High-intensity protracted warfare seemed to have gone the way of the buggy. Yet, whichever way the war goes, it holds a sobering lesson for the West: pile up plenty of gear and ordnance, invest in mobility and train your troops.

‘A conqueror is always a lover of peace,’ taught Clausewitz. They want to move in ‘quite calmly’. Hence, ‘we must prepare for war’ in order to avert it. As the West peers ahead, it should heed the age-old rule: deterrence is better than having to halt aggression. It is also a lot cheaper.
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/h...CampaignMonitor&utm_term=How Putin saved NATO
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
NATO and the EU want to increase their military satellite capacity.

 
Russia, a country where a man with this kind of historical understanding can serve as a foreign minister. Another option is that he is not ignorant but a sociopath. Lose-lose.

About Europe. Our Foreign Policy Concept says (in simple terms) that Europe has chosen the path of war with us. We, of course, do not care to live with them together "side by side". But if this is a war, then we must achieve our goals. We have them much more noble than Europeans. They want someone else's, and we want ours. Never wanted someone else. All those who joined our country since the time of the Russian Empire did so voluntarily. We, unlike the United States, have never “grinded” anyone into our Russian culture. She has always been hospitable to all peoples who joined the tsarist empire and the Soviet Union. Languages have always been preserved. Recently President of Russia Vladimir Putin spoke about how many ethnic groups and, accordingly, languages we have. Stunning, colorful, vibrant dances and songs. They did not manage to "set" the small nations on the state-forming Russian people. Reports from Buryatia, which recently celebrated its anniversary, make a strong impression.
https://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_polic..._sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fi&_x_tr_pto=wapp
(go to googel transatel)

If USA wrote it's history like Russia; "native Americans walked themselves to reservations for a camping trip and there was no fire bombing or nuclear bombing of Japanese cities. Didn't happen. "

These are "moon is made of cheese" kind of statements.
 
Last edited:
NATO-meeting.webp

In the build-up to the 2023 NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, the sense of history was palpable. The original NATO construct of 12 members, formed in 1949, is now 31 and will soon be 32 with Sweden’s accession. The alliance has endured plenty of instability in its lifetime, through the Cold War, the Suez crisis, the encircling of West Berlin and much more. Russia’s unrelenting 17-month war in Ukraine, a clear eye on China’s coercive behaviour and internal disagreements about the organisation’s role in the Indo-Pacific gave a sense of urgency and occasion to the summit, including for Australia.

The meeting was geared to tackle tough challenges, including Sweden’s and Ukraine’s bids for membership; security commitments to Ukraine, as a member or not; budgetary and preparedness challenges; future leadership, the Moscow–Beijing partnership; and Europe’s relationship with the Indo-Pacific.

There were initial doubts about whether Anthony Albanese would attend the summit and considerable speculation about what support Australia might provide Ukraine.

That conjecture was likely prolonged due to the government’s wish to save ‘announceables’ for the prime minister’s European trip—while the additions to Australia’s support may have been a consequence of public criticism of the assistance package announced last week.

Most of the uncertainties heading into the summit, including Australia’s ongoing support for Ukraine, were resolved. So how did it all end? Well, Sweden is in and Jens Stoltenberg has been extended as the organisation’s secretary-general, consistent with a view that NATO is only getting started with its support for Ukraine, not showing the fatigue about which so many had been concerned. Predictably, though, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is disappointed.

The NATO summit communiqué reaffirmed the Bucharest decision to admit Ukraine as a member, but it declined to outline a clear pathway to membership. That drove the Ukrainian leader to describe the decision as ‘unprecedented and absurd’.

The summit communiqué stated: ‘We will be in a position to extend an invitation to Ukraine to join the Alliance when Allies agree and conditions are met.’ The precise nature of those conditions is not yet clear, but the writing was on the wall before the summit when key allies such as Germany and the US expressed reservations.

In some respects, it was a missed opportunity. Mapping out a pathway for Ukrainian membership should be part of a deterrence strategy to prevent Russia from thinking it will succeed merely by prolonging the war.

While Ukraine is understandably disappointed, Zelensky was happier with the assistance packages, including the gifts pledged by Albanese.

Recent Australian support has been provided in three tranches. In late June came the announcement of $110 million worth of military vehicles, ammunition and humanitarian assistance. On the eve of the Vilnius summit, the government revealed that a Royal Australian Air Force E7 Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft would be deployed to Germany to help watch over the supply lines for lethal and humanitarian aid heading to Ukraine. That highly sophisticated aircraft is likely to be capable of much more.

The third in the trio of announcements came on the last day of the summit, when Albanese met with Zelensky and promised a further 30 Bushmaster armoured personnel carriers to help protect Ukrainian troops advancing across a mine- and bomb-strewn landscape.

While the package appears piecemeal and aimed at driving announcements, heart should be taken from the broader Australian public’s resolve for Ukraine and the government’s willingness to listen and increase its support.

But with no end to the conflict in sight, the Australian government now has the opportunity to evolve the current stop–start approach and consider what a continued meaningful contribution to Ukraine looks like. That won’t be easy, with the Department of Defence under significant financial pressure and the government insisting on the costs of supporting Ukraine being absorbed within Defence’s existing budget. But it’s a better approach than the current one of inadequate assistance, followed by public criticism and then more government support. Let’s skip the first two parts.

The one area of inconsistency centred on NATO’s relationship with the Indo-Pacific. Australia’s invitation to the summit as part of the Indo-Pacific four—with Japan, the Republic of Korea and New Zealand—was significant. And, importantly, the NATO communiqué contained strong words on Beijing’s coercive policies and subversion of the international rules-based order. In a sign of the ongoing global shift within NATO, the EU and many member states, Indo-Pacific security warranted a mention: ‘The Indo-Pacific is important for NATO, given that developments in that region can directly affect Euro-Atlantic security.’ This is a direct response to Beijing’s military build-up and economic coercion.

Yet the communiqué contained no mention of the plan, now in doubt, to open a NATO office in Japan. That outcome is likely to have followed French President Emmanuel Macron’s objection, which unfortunately seems to be based on attempts to mollify China and not on precedent, given the existence of offices in other regions such as Africa.

Regrettably, this shows tensions within the organisation on how to engage on Indo-Pacific security. That’s even more disappointing given that the main holdout, France, is a Pacific power. In the face of this tension, it’s vital that Australia not be silent and continue to be a proactive advocate of the inseparability of Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific security. The national interest demands a year-round strategy, not just annual visits.
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/a...s over Outcomes of the NATO summit in Vilnius
 
From page 31 of the IIS report "The Future of NATO’s European Land Forces: Plans, Challenges, Prospects":
Persistent issues like this undermine Germany’s
ambition to be a serial integrator of the capabilities of smaller European nations, including under NATO’s framework nations concept. The German interpretation of the framework nation concept is focused on gener-
ating large formations for use in NATO (and possibly the EU). Smaller nations are dependent on the larger nation, in this case Germany, to provide the enablers for this purpose, including – but not limited to – command and control and high degrees of interoperability.
Unfortunately, however, this is precisely one of the areas where Germany’s progress has been slow, for example with software-defined radios and tactical data networks. Indeed, the lack of digitisation in the German army has required partner nations to downgrade their own capabilities in order to achieve interoperability.
 

It is the biggest arms deal in Israel's history - and now that the U.S. government has approved the billion-dollar deal, nothing stands in the way: Israel will sell its Arrow 3 missile defense system to Germany. A "historic decision," headlines the media in Israel.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top