Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

[ArmChairCivvy]

(it all started with that AKK article on Politico.EU which sparked Macron)

I agree, but the time order was actually the reverse
- Merkel was silent for a long time
- and when Macron had to be 'reigned back' a bit, there needed to be an 'official German voice to do that. AKK, in the defence post suited just fine, as everyone would know she was speaking for Merkel.

The funny thing is that it would have been U. VDL, should Macron not have suggested her as the solution to another Franco-German dead end... as to who should head the Commission.

[J. Tattersall]

For readers who haven't been following this Franco German debate a good place to start would be a Google search. Try searching AKK MACRON STRATEGIC AUTONOMY and then hitting the News tab. This should illustrate that this storm in a tea cup rather goes to the heart of what direction CSDP/CFSP should go in, and the very role of the EU as a security actor. It's actually a fundamental policy battle.

Without deviating too much from this theme, I do note that most internet debate on the IR has revolved around money, procurement and ORBATs. It's often forgotten that this is an integrated foreign policy, international development, security and defence review with the first four elements of this receiving little attention in this forum.

[SW1]

https://www.nao.org.uk/report/equipment ... an+2020-30

For the fourth successive year, the Equipment Plan remains unaffordable. However, the Department has still not established a reliable basis to assess the affordability of equipment projects, and its estimate of the funding shortfall in the 2020–2030 Plan is likely to understate the growing financial pressures that it faces. The Plan does not include the full costs of the capabilities that the Department is developing, it continues to make over-optimistic or inconsistent adjustments to reduce cost forecasts and is likely to have underestimated the risks across long-term equipment projects. In addition, the Department has not resolved weaknesses in its quality assurance of the Plan’s affordability assessment. While the Department has made some improvements to its approach and the presentation of the Plan over the years, it has not fully addressed the inconsistencies which undermine the reliability and comparability of its assessment.

The Department faces the fundamental problem that its ambition has far exceeded available resources. As a result, its short-term approach to financial management has led to increasing cost pressures, which have restricted Top-Level Budgets from developing military capabilities in a way that will deliver value for money. The growing financial pressures have also created perverse incentives to include unrealistic savings, and to not invest in new equipment to address capability risks. The recent government announcement of additional defence funding, together with the forthcoming Integrated Review, provide opportunities for the Department to set out its priorities and develop a more balanced investment programme. The Department now needs to break the cycle of short-termism that has characterised its management of equipment expenditure and apply sound financial management principles to its assessment and management of the Equipment Plan.

[Lord Jim]

Well if the Review is done properly and the MoD makes a logical case for what it needs to meet the tasks set by the Governments and the threats we face then things may get better. But the Treasury needs to understand that the Defence Budget will be off limits for saving over the next decade at least. For its part the MoD must be realistic about what it actually needs rather than what it would like to have. This is especially true of new capabilities especially those where technology will not mature during the existing ten year plan. Investment is needed in these areas but should not come at the expense of capabilities needed now or in the near term.

[Gtal]

CER, ECFR, DGAP... None of those are pro eu. They're all run for the benefit of the US/NATO.
Cer, ecfr are run by anglo-saxons and dgap may be made to look like a government agency, but it's not, it's part of the same "think tank" network as GMFUS and the Transatlantikbrücke e.V.
Just go look at some of the "papers" they but out around brexit.
They all go off the exact same talking points, downplaying/rewriting history in regards to UK obstructionism on defence cooperation, implying Russian Invasion is literally imminent and just completely ignoring the EUs principles, structures an legal framework.
Clearly focusing all they're effort into trying to somehow keep airstrip one inside eu defence, in a frantic last attempt to maintain the status quo.

Or look at the reactions to the eu-china deal.
Every single one of these manipulation networks regurgitaing the US position in unison.
They're not even trIng to obfuscate their loyalties and priorities anymore.

Mainstream media and think tanks, the last strongholds of the german transatlanticists.

[ArmChairCivvy]

direction CSDP/CFSP should go in, and the very role of the EU as a security actor. It's actually a fundamental policy battle.

Without deviating too much from this theme, I do note that most internet debate on the IR has revolved around money, procurement and ORBATs. It's often forgotten that this is an integrated foreign policy

orientation issue

Mainstream

etc, etc
... talking about mainstream, we will find out by the 22nd, the latest, who the most important party leader in Germany will be,
thereby making that person (likely has an Umlaut in his surname) the likely next Chancellor after September
- as it stands we have bilateral arrangements with France (in defence)
- we also have multilateral arrangements with the Northern Group
- both fit within NATO; both are in essence insurance policies (for greater freedom of action)

By the time Biden takes the reigns, there will be quite a few more Atlanticists coming out (who have been biding their time and hoping that this madman Trump, made KING by the Tsar Putin, won't break too many things in the China shop... and especially elsewhere).

[BlueD954]

So what will be the defence cuts?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 08726.html

The first of many Brexit dividends.

So what will be the defence cuts?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 08726.html

Which defence review never had cuts?

[J. Tattersall]

So what will be the defence cuts?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 08726.html

The first of many Brexit dividends.

So what will be the defence cuts?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 08726.html

Which defence review never had cuts?

Like most of our news outlets the Indy can neither be described as unbiased nor as impartial. Oh for a news paper edited by Mr Spock, based solely on logic and evidence !

[Lord Jim]

And the article is almost a year old and a lot has happened since then, both good and bad for defence.

[ArmChairCivvy]

While we have the IR running to err 'coher' the external policies, may I ask if we are still funding India's space prgrm (they have said that they do not need any 'aid') and are we still sending aid to China who have people in the countryside in poverty - but also have more billionaires than anyone else?

The Spectator (US) makes a meal of the same topic - though most of the sums are A. negligible, and B. relate to combined commercial interest... not unconditional aid as per what we do. A worthwhile read anyway - are we finally going to get some coherence with whereto tax payers' monies go:
"according to an Office of Management and Budget report obtained exclusively by The Spectator.

The report, which provides a full accounting of US spending on China and is the first of its kind, revealed several key trends that are sure to thrill China hawks. Direct aid to China fell from $62 million in Fiscal Year 2019 to $30 million in Fiscal Year 2020, a decrease of 52 percent. Spending on strategic competition with China jumped from $42.4 billion to $47.5 billion, a 12 percent increase. The US also imposed $60 billion worth of duties on imported Chinese goods.

Multiple China support programs saw major reductions in spending or were ceased entirely under the Trump administration. For example, in 2019, the Export-Import Bank provided $11 million in financing guarantees for Chinese transactions. In 2020, it provided none. The US Trade and Development Agency ended its operations in China, cutting $2 million worth of investments in Chinese infrastructure projects. The US also ended its Peace Corps program in China for good following the pandemic."

[Lord Jim]

I must admit I prefer it when aid goes to NGOs operating in countries rather than the countries themselves, even though though they are far from perfect. As far as taking the moral high ground, this has zero effect on countries like China and little or no effect on those like India. Yes seeing poor children in the ghettos of India may tug at the heart strings, but India has had the resources to help these people for decades yet decides to spend substantial funding on defence, nuclear and space programmes. Before committing UK Tax Payers money to help other countries we need to take a good look at at country as a whole.

[ArmChairCivvy]

we need to take a good look at at country as a whole.

Ask for a trade deal

[whitelancer]

Except for emergency aid, much of the aid we give is frankly pointless. It amounts to little more than trying to bail out a sinking ship, while failing to address the cause of the leak.
Its long been my opinion that we should concentrate our aid budget on a small number of (Commonwealth) countries and try and bring them to the point that they no longer need aid but can help themselves. I'm not talking about a quick fix, rather a long term program lasting many years, indeed decades working with the people and government of the countries concerned.

[ArmChairCivvy]

amounts to little more than trying to bail out a sinking ship

Of course, the point you made was a general one, and in no way did address what I had raised, namely:

Sending money, to save 'our souls' to emerging world powers (now regional powers, like us - I hate to use the for the point that is true).

Well, our Integrated Review will put paid to that?

[BlueD954]

I must admit I prefer it when aid goes to NGOs operating in countries rather than the countries themselves, even though though they are far from perfect. As far as taking the moral high ground, this has zero effect on countries like China and little or no effect on those like India. Yes seeing poor children in the ghettos of India may tug at the heart strings, but India has had the resources to help these people for decades yet decides to spend substantial funding on defence, nuclear and space programmes. Before committing UK Tax Payers money to help other countries we need to take a good look at at country as a whole.

Tell that to other donors. Biden is elevating USAID.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Tell that to other donors. Biden is elevating USAID.

It's a long way... to, well, not Tipperary:
The United Nations’ ODA target of 0.7% of GNI exceeded by
-Norway (1.02%),
-Sweden (0.99%) and
-Denmark (0.71%).
-Finland did the same thing as us: cut down to 0.5%
The European Union accumulated a higher portion of GDP in ODA-classified foreign aid than any other economic union.Whereas the United States is a small contributor relative to GNI (0.18% 2016)
{wiki says; these are official statistics... so difficult to better, er edit , them}

[ArmChairCivvy]

The PM moving early on defence funding (so that the review can be meaningful) seems to be proven right, when one considers how money questions are coming to the fore and the difficulty in maintaining Gvmnt (or rather, party) cohesion on those questions. Paul Waugh writes [italics added]:
" recognise that more than two million UC claimants are indeed in work, and that 70% of children in poverty are in working families.
- It was not a coincidence that the Northern Research Group of backbenchers expressed their unease this week about the planned Universal Credit, while loyally sticking to the whip to abstain. Huge numbers of people in Blue Wall seats are either on furlough or Universal Credit."

[jedibeeftrix]

The European Union accumulated a higher portion of GDP in ODA-classified foreign aid than any other economic union.Whereas the United States is a small contributor relative to GNI (0.18% 2016)

Is that not very much a reflection of the collectivist nature of europe (where the gov't does these things on our behalf), vs the indivualist nature of the US (where charity is the responsibility of the individual)?

i.e. do these figure just capture govt spending, or, does it capture total charitable giving including both public and private means...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... e_donation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Giving_Index

[ArmChairCivvy]

just capture govt spending, or, does it capture total charitable giving including both public and private means...

Without going into any forensics, I share your underlying drift that as much as possible is crammed into and under the ODA definition, not just for bragging rights, but also for domestic 'consumption' to ameliorate any feelings about 'plenty here, but look over there: hardly anything'
- the colossal waste that built up once meeting the 0.7% target was made into law, to stitch the Coalition Gvmnt together, is a good example of that. Accountability for results can safely be jettisoned - Mission accomplished, even without!

[Lord Jim]

What has not been really discussed regarding UC and the extra money due to the crisis is that 1000s of people both employed and unemployed are still on the old benefits and have not received any extra.

[SW1]

[ArmChairCivvy]

Yes, fill in the black holes... there's plenty of kit on order.

Then take a loan (from the Treasury, you know, just bridging between the years now that interest rates are ultra low) and accelerate the deliveries
- only the navy has done any transformation, so far
- and on the deal, lost their surface fleet. We'll have some, again, by around 2030

[ArmChairCivvy]

Echoes from across the Pond, their idea of starting anew with the 40+ Advisory Boards to the sprawling Pentagon structure is interesting in the sense that
- as for policy we need to assure that we understand our adversaries and how they are fusing together military, economic, and private markets (tied aid is also a 'private market') to challenge us; both MPs (especially those who have shown an interest and sit on the relevant Committees) and military leadership (career officers, who have specialised in their early careers and the emphasis on 'jointness' of late is still an 'internal view' rather than scanning for external, structural changes) would benefit from raising this type of awareness

Human capital is a sort of follow-on, implementation type of question: what kind of personnel architecture to attract more technologists into the emerging fields and also how to fit them into today’s - from technology point of view - rather sclerotic career paths

[topman]

I wonder how much there is in this 'I can't answer that question'?

[SW1]

There may well be. The spending review showed that while capital spending was going up the RDEL was going dwn, which implies reduction in size.