# US Sec Def sends a shot across NATO Bow.



## FSTO (15 Feb 2017)

Mattis telling NATO there is a limit to the amount of freeloading going on.

My worry that if Canada heeds the warning and ups our spending we wouldn't know how to do it!
https://blog.usni.org/2017/02/15/secdef-mattis-to-nato-sober-up


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Feb 2017)

Not so much how to do it, more like do it within the handcuffs, Chasity Belts, Iron Maidens, and other assorted dungeon torture devices of the procurement system we're using that is TB and PSPC.  Believe me, I could spend money very easily if it was that easy to spend it and I'm a small potatoes guy when it comes to systems I take care of when set against the real money pits.


----------



## QV (15 Feb 2017)

Finally.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Feb 2017)

On the Support of the American Citizenry for NATO and Foreign Intervention. ---- It ain't there.

https://thefederalist.com/2017/02/17/new-poll-finds-dc-touch-americans-foreign-policy/



> Poll Finds DC Is Out Of Touch With Americans On Foreign Policy
> FEBRUARY 17, 2017 By Jeremy Lott
> 
> The foreign policy consensus in Washington DC is so stubbornly pro-intervention that our most recent president—who dragged the country into several foreign entanglements and whose military dropped 26,171 bombs last year alone—is seen as, at best, a ditherer. The World Politics Review summed up his legacy by saying, “The problem with Obama’s foreign policy has been inaction, not weakness.”
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Feb 2017)

NATO on Trump's (And Mattis's And Pence's) Call for Support and Renewal - Yes.

On the other hand - they have agreed to a lot of stuff in the past.



> Candidate Donald Trump set off a furious controversy when he said NATO countries should pay their "fair share" of mutual defense costs and, later, that the treaty organization was "obsolete" because not enough of its efforts were directed against radical Islamic terrorism.
> 
> On Monday, Vice President Mike Pence took the Trump message to NATO headquarters in Brussels. And after all the controversy and complaining, NATO's response could be boiled down to a single sentence: Yes sir, Mr. Trump.
> 
> ...



http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-nato-to-us-yes-sir-mr.-trump/article/2615336


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Feb 2017)

The US can "do it's part" by responding to an invasion of a NATO member, however standing up to the Russian bear and providing deterrence is the duty of the European members. Canada and the US can respond to a impending threat and assist in securing the sea lanes. The initial response and border protection should be European.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Feb 2017)

They're not exactly broke, nor are they without material resources.  It isn't 1945 anymore.

Also with respect to the EU: I think an economically cohesive, but politically fragmented entity would suit everybody but the Eurocrats just fine.

Some thoughts on groupings by Corporate Tax Rate

Malta 35%
*Belgium 34%
France 33%
Germany 33%
Luxembourg 29%*
Greece 29%
*Italy 28%*
Spain 28%
Austria 25%
*Netherlands 25%*

The Original 6 plus the client state of Greece and Malta and Spain (culturally akin to Italy) - also the territory that was fought for by the Hapsburg-Valois-Bourbons (Greece excepted)

Norway 22%
Sweden 22%
Denmark 22%
Portugal 21%
Iceland 20%
Finland 20%
Estonia 20%
Latvia 15%
Lithuania 15%

Slovakia 22%
Czech 19%
Poland 19%
Hungary 9%

Slovenia 19%
Romania 16%
Serbia 15%
Albania 15%
Croatia 12%
Bosnia - Herzegovina 10%
Macedonia 10%
Bulgaria 10%
Montenegro 9%

Ukraine 18%
Georgia 15%

Switzerland 16.5%
Liechtenstein 12.5%
Cyprus 12.5%
Ireland 12.5%


And the UK is at 18%, heading for 15% and threatening 10%.

I suggest that each of these groups internally share not just similar outlooks on economics, politics and culture but also geopolitical realities.  Each of the blocks is naturally cohesive but not good fits for a single supra-national government.

The people with the biggest problems are likely to be the Irish - as their 12.5% tax rate doesn't buy them many friends in Brussels and nor does their neutral stance.


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Feb 2017)

Getting our NATO partners to help finance  their own defense is an old problem that isnt going away. From the US standpoint having an alliance meant the US wasnt alone.The US was willing to pay the freight so to speak.The reliability of the alliance partners has always been a key question mark for me. A number of our NATO partners have done yeomans work in Afghanistan. Unfortunately ISIS has duped Europe into taking in millions of muslims which undermine the very security of the host nations.Their are unable at least to this point to send the migrants packing.It will happen but I hope it happens before they are undone.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Feb 2017)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Getting our NATO partners to help finance  their own defense is an old problem that isnt going away. From the US standpoint having an alliance meant the US wasnt alone.The US was willing to pay the freight so to speak.The reliability of the alliance partners has always been a key question mark for me. A number of our NATO partners have done yeomans work in Afghanistan. Unfortunately ISIS has duped Europe into taking in millions of muslims which undermine the very security of the host nations.Their are unable at least to this point to send the migrants packing.It will happen but I hope it happens before they are undone.



On the upside, they seem to be abandoning conscription, which was pretty much a guarantee that the UK, USA and Canada would have been left at the FEBA looking around and wondering where all their 'allies' went if the balloon went up for real.


----------



## Rifleman62 (21 Feb 2017)

The important part of the Vice President's remarks should be highlighted. Are you listening Gerald Butts, I mean PM Trudeau?



> “Europe’s defense requires Europe’s commitment as much as ours,” Pence said. He reminded the group that in 2014 all 28 members of NATO promised to try to spend two percent of their GDP on defense by 2024. Only four countries, in addition to the U.S., are now meeting that standard. As a candidate, Trump repeatedly called for NATO to pay more, Pence noted.
> 
> And now Trump is president. “So let me say again what I said this last weekend in Munich,” Pence said “The president of the United States and the American people expect our allies to keep their word and to do more in our common defense, and the president expects real progress by the end of 2017. … *It is time for actions, not words.”*





> Just in case anyone missed the message, Pence encouraged the NATO countries that don’t spend two percent on defense to accelerate their plans to get there. *“And if you don’t have a plan,” Pence said, “get one.”*


----------



## Old Sweat (21 Feb 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> The important part of the Vice President's remarks should be highlighted. Are you listening Gerald Butts, I mean PM Trudeau?



I just commented to a friend who is studying the planning for Desert Storm as part of his master's program that the Americans have difficulty understanding that coalition negotiation is more than standing up and delivering an ultimatum of the "my way or the highway" genre in a loud voice.


----------



## Rifleman62 (21 Feb 2017)

It is not the US ultimatum "my way or the highway", it is an NATO agreement, signed by all partners, announced by the US VPres/Secretary of Defence in a loud voice.

Canada also has NORAD to be concerned about getting a plan. Purchased 60-80 F-35's should bring our expenditures up.


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Feb 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> It is not the US ultimatum "my way or the highway", it is an NATO agreement, signed by all partners, announced by the US VPres/Secretary of Defence in a loud voice.



It's a guideline.  Nothing more.


----------



## Rifleman62 (21 Feb 2017)

Agreement is a mutual understanding. A guideline is a statement to determine a course of *action*. In this case I believe it was *signed* by all the country representatives of NATO. Thus this guideline, if that's what you call it, having been signed by all, was an agreement.


----------



## jeffb (21 Feb 2017)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I just commented to a friend who is studying the planning for Desert Storm as part of his master's program that the Americans have difficulty understanding that coalition negotiation is more than standing up and delivering an ultimatum of the "my way or the highway" genre in a loud voice.



Loudership is a recognized method of leadership is it not?


----------



## Journeyman (21 Feb 2017)

First off, it was a "pledge," hence merely a guideline.  The agreement does state that:


> Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level [2% GDP] will:
> - halt any decline in defence expenditure;
> - aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows;
> - aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO’s capability shortfalls. 1



Tossing about the term "2% GDP" is meaningless without considering "NATO Capability Targets  and filling NATO’s capability shortfalls." 

The other point is, the agreement stipulated "within a decade," ie - 2024 is the agreed timeline, not Trump's tweets. 


I do not envy HR McMaster or James Mattis.   



ps - there's not a hope in hell that all 28 NATO nations will _ever_  reach 2% GDP defence spending. Ever. Regardless of the bombast.


1.  North Atlantic Treaty Organization, “Wales Summit Declaration,” press release, September 5, 2014, www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm.


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Feb 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> First off, it was a "pledge," hence merely a guideline.  The agreement does state that:
> Tossing about the term "2% GDP" is meaningless without considering "NATO Capability Targets  and filling NATO’s capability shortfalls."
> 
> The other point is, the agreement stipulated "within a decade," ie - 2024 is the agreed timeline, not Trump's tweets.
> ...



NATO countries could spend 50% of GDP on their defence and still fail to prevent the invasion of, oh I don't know, the Crimea etc, because of rotten leadership and poor diplomacy.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Feb 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's a guideline.  Nothing more.



For a lot of things in life, the guideline is what keeps you from breaking the law, in example guidelines to avoid destruction of fish habitat, if you don't follow the guideline chances are you get charged.

In this case if you don't meet the 2% without a good excuse, there will be political consequences.


----------



## jmt18325 (22 Feb 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> In this case if you don't meet the 2% without a good excuse, there will be political consequences.



Almost no one is meeting it.  What are the consequences?


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 Feb 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Almost no one is meeting it.  What are the consequences?



The consequence wont be known until the Russians head west. Or until the mullah's figure out a way to instigate their fifth column to attemp to seize control of the EU state by state. AS this would be an internal matter is NATO still obliged to come to the defense of a member facing cicil war ?


----------



## jmt18325 (22 Feb 2017)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The consequence wont be known until the Russians head west. Or until the mullah's figure out a way to instigate their fifth column to attemp to seize control of the EU state by state. AS this would be an internal matter is NATO still obliged to come to the defense of a member facing cicil war ?



That's a separate matter.  What are the political repercussions from one member to another that doesn't spend the 2%?


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Feb 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That's a separate matter.  What are the political repercussions from one member to another that doesn't spend the 2%?



As T6 says - you won't know until the day the Russians, or the Germans, head west.  And then you will have to wait and see who shows up for the party and who discovers they have a prior engagement.

You don't come to my wedding, I don't come to your funeral.


----------



## jmt18325 (22 Feb 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> As T6 says - you won't know until the day the Russians, or the Germans, head west.  And then you will have to wait and see who shows up for the party and who discovers they have a prior engagement.
> 
> You don't come to my wedding, I don't come to your funeral.



But what if I came to your wedding but didn't bring an expensive gift?  Don't you at least owe me some cheap flowers?


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Feb 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> But what if I came to your wedding but didn't bring an expensive gift?  Don't you at least owe me some cheap flowers?



You'll have to wait and see, won't you?

Meanwhile - this article, in my opinion, pretty much sums up the Euro situation.



> NATO, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe
> By George Friedman
> February 22, 2017
> 
> ...



http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2017/02/22/nato_the_middle_east_and_eastern_europe.html


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Feb 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That's a separate matter.  What are the political repercussions from one member to another that doesn't spend the 2%?



Loss of contracts, lack of support on political issues both domestic and international. Countries like Canada build credits by supporting missions with our C17/C130J fleet, that pays dividends at other tables. What the US is saying; step up or find that your not invited to various tables, your companies not invited to bid, trade negotiations suddenly become harder and even potential tariffs.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Feb 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> You don't come to my wedding, I don't come to your funeral.


But what if I've been to at least _two_ of your previous weddings, and contributed to both?  How's it look if you skip the funeral, then?


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Feb 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> But what if I've been to at least _two_ of your previous weddings, and contributed to both?  How's it look if you skip the funeral, then?



How does it look?  A matter of appearances then? That is not an existential justification. 

I can live with dirty looks.  

The point is, as the article I posted above points out, that NATO without Russia has no reason.

France and Britain wanted NATO to keep the Germans down.  The Germans wanted NATO to keep the Russians out.  The bargain was that the Europeans would let the Americans run things to keep them in.

The Germans no longer see the need to keep the Russians out.  France (or at least the establishment) no longer wants to keep the Germans down.  The Brits have decided that they were right the first time and should never have guaranteed Belgium's neutrality - then they wouldn't have been stuck with the silliness in 1914.  And lets not talk about the Entente Cordiale.

Meanwhile the French and the Germans (along with the Belgians) have decided to bury the hatchet (and the coal) and retake their rightful position as heirs of Clovis and reclaim Europe.  But that position has always sat uneasily with the Spaniards and the Italians and even more so with the Greeks, the Slavs and the Magyars.  The Slavs and the Magyars continue to feel heat from the Rus - and even if the Rus can't organize a march under the Eiffel Tower they can make life miserable for the Slavs and the Magyars - so they want help.  But Clovis's kids, quite happy to have the Slavs and Magyars as buffers, as cheap labour, as cheap resources - and happy to tell them how to run their lives - have got no interest in mixing it up with the Rus.  

So the Slavs and the Magyars, and the Balts, reach out to others that might be inclined to help - the Yanks and, to a lesser extent, the Brits.  But they, the Yanks and Brits, are looking to Clovis's kids pony up as well and they are disinclined.

This ends with the Easterners splitting from the Westerners in order to form their own alliance with the Brits and the Yanks - and the Vikings coming along as well; with the Bourbons rediscovering the Pyrenees and Italy and Spain merging; and Clovis's kids going back to their intramural activities in their traditional cockpit - Belgium.

I also wouldn't take the rise of a new Khazaria off the table - splitting Genghis's Turks from the Rus.


----------



## jmt18325 (23 Feb 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Loss of contracts, lack of support on political issues both domestic and international. Countries like Canada build credits by supporting missions with our C17/C130J fleet, that pays dividends at other tables. What the US is saying; step up or find that your not invited to various tables, your companies not invited to bid, trade negotiations suddenly become harder and even potential tariffs.



None of that has happened thus far.  I won't hold my breath for it to start.  

Canada will almost certainly increase spending to appease Trump.  It won't be $21B worth of appeasement.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Feb 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> How does it look?  A matter of appearances then? That is not an existential justification.
> 
> I can live with dirty looks.


Next time you throw a party, asking for volunteers, you better not expect a great turnout, then  ;D


			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> ... NATO without Russia has no reason ...


Except when the senior partner needs help, if only to look good politically?  #Iraq

I'm not as pessimistic as you or Real Clear World that Europe's going to break down into infighting tribes - or more so than now, anyway.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Feb 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Next time you throw a party, asking for volunteers, you better not expect a great turnout, then  ;D ... #Iraq



You assume that I like to throw parties.  Personally I generally prefer my own company.  

With respect to Europe I am of the opinion, as somebody once said, that culture matters.  And Europe is running into the same problem as the UN, the League of Nations before it and the Holy Roman Empire and India and China.  Too many voices.

One city, with its houses/families/clans, can accumulate enough wealth that for a while it can attract enough sycophants and cow enough belligerents so as to establish its empire over surrounding turf.  But eventually it reaches its Limes.  And starts to discover that it can spread no farther, it can hire no more troops and its sycophants desert it.  But.... the people in their villages, in their clans, abide.  And they abide in their valleys and behind their rivers with their common languages and their common appreciation of the universe .... regardless of the empire of the day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griko_people

When did the Romans clear the Greeks from Italy? Or was it the Lombards that did that? Or the Franks?  The Normans?


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Feb 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> You assume that I like to throw parties.  Personally I generally prefer my own company.


If that's the case, unlike countries, all fair ball  ;D


			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> When did the Romans clear the Greeks from Italy? Or was it the Lombards that did that? Or the Franks?  The Normans?


Yes  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Feb 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> When did the Romans clear the Greeks from Italy? Or was it the Lombards that did that? Or the Franks?  The Normans?
> 
> Yes  ;D



And still, they speak Greek.  Tis a puzzlement.   ;D


----------



## Underway (23 Feb 2017)

Does anyone think that the attempted NATO expansion into Ukraine and Georgia was an attempt to poke the Russian bear into a reaction?  Anyone with half a brain would have realized that that expansion would have caused Putin to react similarly to Kennedy in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  From Russian psychology it's an existential threat.  Probably prescribes more intelligence to NATO than they seem to be burdened with though...


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Feb 2017)

Well at the moment there is no talk of a bigger budget but cutbacks.  We'll see what comes before April but for the time being things are gloomy.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Feb 2017)

The Navy needs to see what they can milk out of the Ocean Protection Program (Anti-ship missiles for environmental protection)  [


----------



## jmt18325 (23 Feb 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Well at the moment there is no talk of a bigger budget but cutbacks.  We'll see what comes before April but for the time being things are gloomy.



There's no chance of budget cuts in the current climate.  It's much more likely that the Liberals will work to reach the 20% spending on new equipment.  That would mean about $1 - 2B per year.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 Feb 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The Navy needs to see what they can milk out of the Ocean Protection Program (Anti-ship missiles for environmental protection)  [



Yep! Pollute our waters ... and we guarantee you won't do it again.  :nod:


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Feb 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> There's no chance of budget cuts in the current climate.  It's much more likely that the Liberals will work to reach the 20% spending on new equipment.  That would mean about $1 - 2B per year.



Be that as it may, we're still being told to work with a massive reduction in funds this coming fiscal year.   I won't say how much but it's Trump huge.


----------



## YZT580 (23 Feb 2017)

Chris that was one hell of a great explanation


----------



## jmt18325 (24 Feb 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Be that as it may, we're still being told to work with a massive reduction in funds this coming fiscal year.



I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's unlikely that many people would know what's actually coming at this point.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Feb 2017)

The Ocean Protection Program is the gongshow you want to be on if your looking for money.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (24 Feb 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's unlikely that many people would know what's actually coming at this point.



Are you a politician?  You should be one, awesome waffle!

"I'm not saying your wrong"?  So are you saying he's right?

"but it's unlikely that many people would know what's actually coming at this point."

What's the point of this statement?


----------



## NavyShooter (24 Feb 2017)

The point is to add fluff and post count to something that jmt, clearly, has no clue about....again.

I'm not going to say that the reductions are 'trump-like' in proportion, but one of the numbers I've heard bandied about is in the hundreds....of millions.  I'm also currently in the logistics chain, and note the number of items 'accumulating' in the Repairable Reserve seems to be climbing, pending new FY fund availability, and the fact that a 5 day TD request has to be presented to the Admiral for approval speaks to the lack of funds available for day-to-day operations.

There are other indicators that you'll hear of, but I'm suspicious that 'trump-like' will be all too close to the truth.

I'm actually sitting back and waiting for the fiscal 'blow out' when the various PSAC unions finally settle for their (3+ year past due) pay raises, and the GOC has to pay out the 3+ years worth of owed back-pay to both PSAC and the Military.  That's about the time that someone's going to remember that employees are expensive, and SWE can be capped just like was done back in the 90's....no pay-raise unless promoted.  I'm thinking that with the next budget, we'll see some form of austerity factor like that being back-channeled out as a 'informed source rumor' then it'll hit us right in the wallets in the 2018 budget, especially when the cost of the back-pay and raises is floated as justification to the media.


----------



## jmt18325 (24 Feb 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Are you a politician?  You should be one, awesome waffle!
> 
> "I'm not saying your wrong"?  So are you saying he's right?



I can't say that either, as I don't know the answer.



> "but it's unlikely that many people would know what's actually coming at this point."



The point of this statement - the people telling him that would have as much idea as me at this point.


----------



## jmt18325 (24 Feb 2017)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> The point is to add fluff and post count to something that jmt, clearly, has no clue about....again.
> 
> I'm not going to say that the reductions are 'trump-like' in proportion, but one of the numbers I've heard bandied about is in the hundreds....of millions.



At this point in time, no one outside of a few key people in Finance and the PMO would have any idea what the 2017-2018 budget will hold.  The signals from the Minister of Defence have indicated a larger budget, but I question if even he would know that at this point.

As usual, some of you have to resort to personal attacks.  I don't really care.  It's not my job to impress you.  Lets just say that it's also a good thing that it's not your job to impress me.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Feb 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> At this point in time, no one outside of a few key people in Finance and the PMO would have any idea what the 2017-2018 budget will hold.  The signals from the Minister of Defence have indicated a larger budget, but I question if even he would know that at this point.
> 
> As usual, some of you have to resort to personal attacks.  I don't really care.  It's not my job to impress you.  Lets just say that it's also a good thing that it's not your job to impress me.



Not so.  The Main Estimates for 2017/2018 are out: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/canada/tbs-sct/migration/hgw-cgf/finances/pgs-pdg/gepme-pdgbpd/20172018/me-bpd-eng.pdf

In short, DND's allocation for 2017/2018 is $18,662,067,234.  

DND's allocation in the 2016/2017 Main Estimates was $18,640,268,933 and, with Supplemental Estimates A, B and (yet to be reconciled) C, rose to $18,908,344,554.

So...2017/2018 will see DND start out with ($268,075,621) less than 2016/2017 was allocated.  More specifically, the Vote 5 (Capital acquisitions monies) are down *~$293M *from 2016/2017, which means that ALL the reductions from 2016/2017 to 2017/2018 came from Equipment, and then some.

To quote the Main Estimates document itself (page 123):


> Major factors contributing to the net decrease in authorities include:
> • A decrease in spending on major capital equipment and infrastructure projects to align financial resources with current project acquisition
> timelines. This funding includes investments in major capital projects such as Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships, and the Halifax Class
> Modernization and Frigate Life Extension; and
> ...


   

Supps A better be REALLY, REALLY BIG! :nod:


In other news...Mr. Pook, in your quote...


			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Meanwhile - this article, in my opinion, pretty much sums up the Euro situation.
> http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2017/02/22/nato_the_middle_east_and_eastern_europe.html



...Mr. Friedman wasn't doing badly until he said...



> It is vital to constantly point out that NATO is not a political framework where discussions take place but a military alliance that rests on military goals and resources. It is about soldiers and sailors, and if the issues being faced do not involve these, then NATO has no use. Some other sort of institution may be required to address these issues instead.



Oopsies...

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


> A political and military Alliance
> 
> _NATO’s essential purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members through political and military means.
> 
> ...



:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## jmt18325 (24 Feb 2017)

The main estimates are based on the numbers from the 2016-2017 budget, and do not necessarily have anything to do with what will be spent in the 2017-2018 fiscal year.  The budget is a closely guarded secret.


----------



## Loachman (24 Feb 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's not my job to impress you.



You may enjoy some optimism, then, for your continued employment.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Feb 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The main estimates are based on the numbers from the 2016-2017 budget, and do not necessarily have anything to do with what will be spent in the 2017-2018 fiscal year.  The budget is a closely guarded secret.



The Main Estimates have reliably been quite close to what unfolded in the budgets.  That said, I suspect a few folks in 90 Elgin are going to be having a few late nights in the coming weeks.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (24 Feb 2017)

Actually, the budgets are based on the duly voted main estimates, where departmental spending is concerned.

What is closely guarded in the budget is never how much money each department will get for its ongoing operations. What is secret is any changes to fiscal laws, any economic intervention measure in the market generally and any new program the government intends to introduce that was not existing. These are kept secret because otherwise, people with foreknowledge could act in advance of everybody else and get an unfair economic advantage.

The actual day-to-day budget of the government for its operation is no big deal, and actually does not have any potential effect on the markets.


----------



## jmt18325 (24 Feb 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Feb 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> 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


----------



## jmt18325 (24 Feb 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Feb 2017)

Apparently the CAF isn't the only outfit suffering grief:



> 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.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## MilEME09 (25 Feb 2017)

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


----------



## Gunner98 (25 Feb 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> 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


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Feb 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

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



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.


----------



## jmt18325 (25 Feb 2017)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Feb 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> 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


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (26 Feb 2017)

Little help with the acronym soup?

TB = Treasury Board?

IP = ?


----------



## jmt18325 (26 Feb 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Feb 2017)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Little help with the acronym soup?
> 
> TB = Treasury Board?  Yes
> 
> IP = ?


----------



## Gunner98 (26 Feb 2017)

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.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (26 Feb 2017)

Ahhh.....thank  you.


----------

