Count Steer wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 9:03 pm
Has she been appointed? Stoltenberg is in the job for another year+ I thought. Rutte was favourite but looks like he's quitting for quiet obscurity. Seems pretty obvious to go for someone from the EU bloc tbh.
Why? The whole of the EU only contribute 20% of the NATO budget, and several EU countries especially Germany do not contribute as much as they have signed up to do.
'Why is NATO’s top diplomat always a European?
NATO‘s top general is always an American and the Alliance‘s top diplomatic post of Secretary General is always filled by a European. The first Secretary General was appointed in April 1952 and since then twelve different European diplomats have served officially in the position and two others on a temporary basis. The official and somewhat tautological answer to the question is that this arrangement is intended to balance the influence of the United States, which appoints the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), NATO's top general.'
Doubt is not a pleasant condition.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Voltaire
Every article I've read regarding the claims that Biden blocked Wallace refers back to a Telegraph piece and an unamed source. Same for the Ursula von der Leyen claim. 5 days earlier, the Telegraph claimed it was Macron blocking Wallace, again from an unamed source. Other media outlets blame France and Germany, while others blame a group of unamed EU countries.
Reads like The Telegraph just throws lots of stones at the same time in the hope that one hits its mark and they can say they were right.
A triumph of politics over reality which the US, when Biden has gone, will in the future regret.
demographic wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 9:31 am
Reads like The Telegraph just throws lots of stones at the same time in the hope that one hits its mark and they can say they were right.
A triumph of politics over reality which the US, when Biden has gone, will in the future regret.
As opposed to Trump?
You resort to this trite comment about Trump because not for the first time you're out of your depth.
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people." - Giordano Bruno
Count Steer wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 9:03 pm
Has she been appointed? Stoltenberg is in the job for another year+ I thought. Rutte was favourite but looks like he's quitting for quiet obscurity. Seems pretty obvious to go for someone from the EU bloc tbh.
The EU members of NATO have been a shambles for a very long time so it makes sense to put her in there to finish the job.
Count Steer wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 9:03 pm
Has she been appointed? Stoltenberg is in the job for another year+ I thought. Rutte was favourite but looks like he's quitting for quiet obscurity. Seems pretty obvious to go for someone from the EU bloc tbh.
Why? The whole of the EU only contribute 20% of the NATO budget, and several EU countries especially Germany do not contribute as much as they have signed up to do.
'Why is NATO’s top diplomat always a European?
NATO‘s top general is always an American and the Alliance‘s top diplomatic post of Secretary General is always filled by a European. The first Secretary General was appointed in April 1952 and since then twelve different European diplomats have served officially in the position and two others on a temporary basis. The official and somewhat tautological answer to the question is that this arrangement is intended to balance the influence of the United States, which appoints the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), NATO's top general.'
Correct, it's a European member, not a member of the EU bloc. From a geological point of view, the UK is deemed part of Europe.
Why? The whole of the EU only contribute 20% of the NATO budget, and several EU countries especially Germany do not contribute as much as they have signed up to do.
'Why is NATO’s top diplomat always a European?
NATO‘s top general is always an American and the Alliance‘s top diplomatic post of Secretary General is always filled by a European. The first Secretary General was appointed in April 1952 and since then twelve different European diplomats have served officially in the position and two others on a temporary basis. The official and somewhat tautological answer to the question is that this arrangement is intended to balance the influence of the United States, which appoints the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), NATO's top general.'
Correct, it's a European member, not a member of the EU bloc. From a geological point of view, the UK is deemed part of Europe.
...and NATO is a political alliance not a geological one.
(Though frankly, why anyone that could do the job would want it at the salary on offer is beyond me).
Doubt is not a pleasant condition.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Voltaire
Count Steer wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 12:20 pm
...and NATO is a political alliance not a geological one.
(Though frankly, why anyone that could do the job would want it at the salary on offer is beyond me).
Correct, and it makes sense to give that role to a member from that political union, and not a political union such as the EU.
Which they almost certainly will, but the EU has 21 (22?) members out of the 31 in NATO (29 are actually in Europe) the USA will want someone with (hopefully) some influence on that bloc. They don't need influence over the UK, they already have it, and the UK doesn't have much influence over the EU - oddly.
You may not like it but seriously, how do you think it's going to pan out? They could go for a neutral figure from outside the bloc ie Norway (again) if members kick up about eg a German or French candidate but I'll stake money they won't want anyone from the UK. I can't see them picking a Turk or a Canadian. The Netherlands isn't a bad bet, a founding member, non-EU and all that if they want a 'neutral'.
(All bets are off if it's after the next USA elections ).
Doubt is not a pleasant condition.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Voltaire
).
