US Sec Def sends a shot across NATO Bow.

[Colin Parkinson]

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

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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
• A decrease in incremental funding related to fleet maintenance. The fleet maintenance of major equipment has been maintained or
increased using the annual escalator on defence spending; and
• A decrease in funding to build and renew infrastructure at Canadian Armed Forces and other defence properties as announced in Budget
2014 as part of Federal Infrastructure Investment Plan due to project completion.

 

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


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

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.

POLITICAL - NATO promotes democratic values and encourages consultation and cooperation on defence and security issues to build trust and, in the long run, prevent conflict.

MILITARY - NATO is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes. If diplomatic efforts fail, it has the military capacity needed to undertake crisis-management operations. These are carried out under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty - NATO’s founding treaty - or under a UN mandate, alone or in cooperation with other countries and international organizations.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[jmt18325]

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]

It's not my job to impress you.

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

 

[Good2Golf]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

'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

 

[MilEME09]

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]

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]

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. 

 

[jmt18325]

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]

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]

Little help with the acronym soup?

TB = Treasury Board?

IP = ?