Sure. Canada wants to participate in peacekeeping and NATO deployments so you have to maintain some capability. Does the Canadian military do disaster relief? Border patrolling? Air policing? There's many things to consider.
NATO
- Thread starter gf0012-aust
- Start date
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
My comment was defence spending wrt our new problem south of our border. Capability for disaster relief, yes, peace keeping, no!! NATO deployments, maybe but will NATO survive Trump?
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
Yes, NATO will survive Trump.
Will it be the same as before? No. Both sides of the atlantic will change their posture and this will eventually lead to more division within the alliance.
But how do you say in english... every cloud has a silver lining?
Will it be the same as before? No. Both sides of the atlantic will change their posture and this will eventually lead to more division within the alliance.
But how do you say in english... every cloud has a silver lining?
The German Ministry of Finance has already presented a roadmap on how to escalate spending to the newly (to be) agreed 3.5% target.
It's planned for Germany to reach that target by 2029 already (instead of 2035 as will apparently be agreed), with defence-related expenditure for 2025-2029 accumulating to 600 billion Euro. 2029 defence-related expenditure is planned to be 167.8 billion at 3.5% of the projected GDP with an average GDP growth rate of 2.9% annually.
About 378.1 billion of the 600 billion is planned to be financed through debts made possible through a change of the constitution befiore the current parliament came into power. Overall the planned expenditure presented is about 20% of the German federal budget for the same period.
It's planned for Germany to reach that target by 2029 already (instead of 2035 as will apparently be agreed), with defence-related expenditure for 2025-2029 accumulating to 600 billion Euro. 2029 defence-related expenditure is planned to be 167.8 billion at 3.5% of the projected GDP with an average GDP growth rate of 2.9% annually.
- 527.7 billion within that is planned for the Bundeswehr, ramping up from 75.1 billion in 2025 to 152.8 billion in 2029.
- 42.3 billion within that is planned for "aid to illegally attacked states", i.e. for military aid to Ukraine (from 2026 on set to a static 8.5b annually). Small note here: This is direct military aid financed by the German government, not credit arrangements or other financial aid.
- 29.8 billion within that is planned for civil protection, intelligence services and IT security.
About 378.1 billion of the 600 billion is planned to be financed through debts made possible through a change of the constitution befiore the current parliament came into power. Overall the planned expenditure presented is about 20% of the German federal budget for the same period.
Norwegian government confirms that they intend to order 2 extra U212CD subs, bringing the total to 6 subs. Germany has previously confirmed they will get 6 subs so a total of 12 U212 subs will be available to European NATO countries. Included in the cost is extra money to open a second assembly line to speed up manufacturing. Norwegian subs
In addition Norway will purchase long range weapons (up to 500km of range) the most likely candidate is in my uneducated opinion Chunmoo. Norwegian missile system
Poland is ordering 3 A26 subs from Sweden. Polish subs
Denmark is also ordering stuff.
The Danish Ministry of Defense and a broad parliamentary majority Friday that funds have been allocated for the purchase of a dedicated surveillance ship focused on monitoring critical undersea infrastructure. danish ship
Denmark is also ordering AMRAAM and IBCS. More stuff for Denmark
And something is happening in the UK, involving some drones. drones in the UK
ZVS Holding has signed a seven year framework agreement with the Slovak Ministry of Defence to supply large and medium calibre ammunition worth up to EUR 58 billion to EU member states. ZVS Holding EUR 58 billion ammo deal
Poland to receive 44 billion EUR to spend on arms deals. Billions to Poland
Russia should think twice about their next steps in Europe. European NATO countries are finally starting to arm up.
In addition Norway will purchase long range weapons (up to 500km of range) the most likely candidate is in my uneducated opinion Chunmoo. Norwegian missile system
Poland is ordering 3 A26 subs from Sweden. Polish subs
Denmark is also ordering stuff.
The Danish Ministry of Defense and a broad parliamentary majority Friday that funds have been allocated for the purchase of a dedicated surveillance ship focused on monitoring critical undersea infrastructure. danish ship
Denmark is also ordering AMRAAM and IBCS. More stuff for Denmark
And something is happening in the UK, involving some drones. drones in the UK
ZVS Holding has signed a seven year framework agreement with the Slovak Ministry of Defence to supply large and medium calibre ammunition worth up to EUR 58 billion to EU member states. ZVS Holding EUR 58 billion ammo deal
Poland to receive 44 billion EUR to spend on arms deals. Billions to Poland
Russia should think twice about their next steps in Europe. European NATO countries are finally starting to arm up.
Last edited:
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
The 58 billion EUR ammunition deal is an european wide framework that will benefit from european funds and is open to EU-members joining the order.
Of course the "slovak ministry of defence" is simply the contracting station.
Of course the "slovak ministry of defence" is simply the contracting station.
NATO country Denmark orders land based NSM systems, in a 100 million EUR deal. Number of batteries, launchers and missiles not published. The NSM missiles have both land attack and anti-ship capabilities.
Denmark acquires NSM Coastal Defence System from Kongsberg - Naval News
Denmark acquires NSM Coastal Defence System from Kongsberg - Naval News
Slovakian company STV Machinery is restarting BMP-1 hull production. The first prototype is being worked on now, and they're starting with the hulls. Reportedly it will be made out of upgraded materials, and with ergonomic improvements. This will be the second country to create a new BMP-1 production line in the 21st century (the first being Vietnam with their XCB-1). It remains to be seen what the final vehicle looks like, I would be shocked it they retained the 73mm gun. Something unmanned with a stabilized 30mm (or 35mm) is the likeliest in my opinion. Personally I don't know what to make of this. The USSR certainly had some weapon systems last a very long time. The T-54/55 MBT family is a good example. On the other hand the BMP-1 is not the vehicle whose longevity I would hold up as an example of a great vehicle. If any country were to resume BMP-1 production in some form, my money would have been on Russia where the Rubtsov Machinebuilding plant does overhauls and upgrades of old BMP-1 hulls. And they still might. But Slovakia is here. It's unclear if these vehicles are meant for domestic use, for Ukraine, or for general export sales. Supporting Ukraine would be the most logical reason for this, but Slovakia recently had a change of leadership and has pivoted away from supporting Ukraine's war effort.
I'm really curious what everyone's thoughts are. Why do this? Who are the users likely to be? Will this provide some sort of reasonably modern armored vehicle based on the BMP-1 core design, or are we going to see something badly dated and not particularly relevant?
vk.com
I'm really curious what everyone's thoughts are. Why do this? Who are the users likely to be? Will this provide some sort of reasonably modern armored vehicle based on the BMP-1 core design, or are we going to see something badly dated and not particularly relevant?
VK.com | VK
vk.com
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
If a business decision seems unreasonable by all accounts, then it's probably a facade.Slovakian company STV Machinery is restarting BMP-1 hull production. The first prototype is being worked on now, and they're starting with the hulls. Reportedly it will be made out of upgraded materials, and with ergonomic improvements. This will be the second country to create a new BMP-1 production line in the 21st century (the first being Vietnam with their XCB-1). It remains to be seen what the final vehicle looks like, I would be shocked it they retained the 73mm gun. Something unmanned with a stabilized 30mm (or 35mm) is the likeliest in my opinion. Personally I don't know what to make of this. The USSR certainly had some weapon systems last a very long time. The T-54/55 MBT family is a good example. On the other hand the BMP-1 is not the vehicle whose longevity I would hold up as an example of a great vehicle. If any country were to resume BMP-1 production in some form, my money would have been on Russia where the Rubtsov Machinebuilding plant does overhauls and upgrades of old BMP-1 hulls. And they still might. But Slovakia is here. It's unclear if these vehicles are meant for domestic use, for Ukraine, or for general export sales. Supporting Ukraine would be the most logical reason for this, but Slovakia recently had a change of leadership and has pivoted away from supporting Ukraine's war effort.
I'm really curious what everyone's thoughts are. Why do this? Who are the users likely to be? Will this provide some sort of reasonably modern armored vehicle based on the BMP-1 core design, or are we going to see something badly dated and not particularly relevant?
VK.com | VK
I'm guessing someone was paid a fixed price to deliver a fixed number of armored vehicles and is looking for the cheapest option to check the box.
Still, there must be a customer. And that is likely Ukraine. Local Ukrainian 30mm RWS are the natural choice then.
It can't be cheaper to restart production of new BMP-1 hulls than to produce something more modern that's already in production, can it? And... why BMP-1s with their firing ports, back-to-back seating etc.? It's such a strange option. It should be so easy to start with a BMP-1 hull but make some sensible changes at least...
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
Slovakia is one of the countries that signed european CV-90 procurement in 2022, they should receive first deliveries soon... 152 vehicles on order.
Not sure why a company would waste time on BMP-1 hull production.
Slovakian Army also reported they want to get rid of remaining soviet-designed equipment as soon as possible, just like all eastern european countries.
They were also in talk for more CV-90 with a 120mm gun as an alternative to Leopard 2a8 procurement. Not sure how its going.
Not sure why a company would waste time on BMP-1 hull production.
Slovakian Army also reported they want to get rid of remaining soviet-designed equipment as soon as possible, just like all eastern european countries.
They were also in talk for more CV-90 with a 120mm gun as an alternative to Leopard 2a8 procurement. Not sure how its going.
Likely, but not absolutely sure. STV Export, the defence trade subsidiary of the group, mostly deals with countries in Africa, with some side business in the Middle East.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Recent US threats wrt Greenland might lead to Denmark reconsidering the P-8 option.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
I don't think they're genuinely presented as threats. The two sides are obviously talking. What negotiations didn't have a spicy public aspect?
And they're not stupid. The US's interest in Greenland predates the P-8 request. Denmark speaks the new American language and they're arming up. They probably view their and America's interests as aligned, but the truth is that securing the North Sea and Greenland among its other commitments is probably out of its depth.
I wouldn't be surprised if the US and Denmark agree on some mixed ownership model, allowing the US exclusive military rights and perhaps some economic ones, and Denmark governing all matters civil.
I disagree, the Trump administration are very clear: they want Greenland. If they cannot get it through negotiations, they are ready to use military force to get it. This is an official statement from the WH. I don't think it's just "negotiation tactic". Unfortunately. Attacking one of the closest and most loyal US allies since WW2 just because negotiations about purchasing land fail, would most likely destroy NATO, and cause alarm with all US allies, worldwide.
White House says U.S. military is an option to acquire Greenland
What is extremely sad and also hurting the relationship between the US and European NATO countries is that the current admin completely ignores the sacrifices by Denmark and other countries, in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, in direct support of the US. NATO article 5 has been used only once, as a response to 911. Denmark was one of the countries with highest number of deaths per capita in Afghanistan; the same leves as the US (7-8 deaths per million). And today Trump had the gall to write "I doubt NATO would be there for us".
https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/2008920160808091781
If the US continues on this trajectory we should all be concerned about the future of the NATO alliance. I hope I am wrong.
I think you're missing the point. The question is why should Denmark have to agree to anything, and can Denmark afford security dependencies on the USA if they face a potential threat from the USA? Denmark has no desire for a mixed ownership model at least that we can tell. The USA wants the territory. Their leverage is not only their military power but also their role in NATO and as a provider of goods like the P-8 to Denmark and others. It's much harder for Denmark to straight up tell the USA to kick rocks if they depend on the USA for the functionality of critical military assets like the P-8. Depending on how the Greenland situation evolves, we may very well see multiple European actors within NATO move away from cooperation with the US and towards other alternatives.
This, more than anything else, stinks of foreign interference in US government thinking. Whether moves to take control of the territory eventuate or not, it damages the cohesion of the treaty, undermining security for all members.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
So you're saying it's supposed to be taken literally for some reason, but also that it doesn't make sense.
I can't really connect to this methodology.
Unless they are currently deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't see how this makes sense.
You said it yourself, today Trump says NATO is not ready. And that's just objective reality, because we know that even if all NATO members weren't criminally under-funded and were properly investing, it'd still take many years to restore long lost capabilities necessary today.
What they did 10 years ago, with a very minimal required set of capabilities, is not relevant to what's needed today, with a very different and higher end capability set.
I buy a car. I drive a friend every day to work. I sell my car and take a bus instead. My friend says "I doubt you can pick me up today".
I can find the logical path here. The fact that you don't, both fails to convince me, and worries me deeply.
I agree that US rhetoric on Greenland is often excessive. And usual political commentators and trigger happy media aren't really helping the situation with their idiotic practice of taking everything for granted (what are analysts for?). But rhetoric and reality are very different, and we can see the two nations talking and working things out.
1. Because the security tasks at hand are beyond Denmark's existing and near future capabilities, or even economic feasibility of creating. It is a vast ocean requiring a vast and modern naval and air fleet. Regional countries do not have enough capability to compensate, and European NATO tendency to fall back on US assets and capabilities to plug many different and vital gaps in ISR, EW and so on.
Denmark must allocate resources to the North Sea and Baltic Sea among other areas.
2. Of course. The US manufactures a lot of things that other niche suppliers like South Korea and Israel cannot fulfill. Particularly aircraft, which obviously are a very central aspect of the modern fighting force.
3. Still yes. Even if we consider the US "very scary" it should not be an obstacle to a healthy defense trade between Denmark and the USA.
The USA emerges as Europe's most essential and desired arms supplier in this high demand period, and it's very conducive to European rearmament efforts.
How can you tell? Because for any country outside NATO looking into Greenland, they'd see a mixed ownership model already, with American basing in Greenland.
That's why Denmark should have been building leverage a long time ago. But it didn't, and it missed its shot. But if it negotiates with the US, it could still get a very favorable outcome. Which practically could be very similar to what already exists.
I still don't know exactly what the US wants to achieve. Maybe all they're looking for is the autonomy to build military infrastructure on whichever part of the territory they want.
Because of Greenland, or because the USA has been shouting from the rooftop to Europe that it's refocusing on China and they need to start being more independent?
Because I can't take this "colonialism imperialism" argument seriously when its most vocal European proponent is the country whose longest border is with Brazil.
Last edited: