"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (9 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Once again you are conflating NATO responsibilities with those of its member nations. The civilian head of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, is a civil servant who reports to the political leaders of the member nations. However, there are no NATO politicians. In order for there to be such an animal, there would have to be elections for them, just as there are separate elections for national politicians and EU politicians within Europe.

NATO is run by civil servants and military personnel. It acts when the political leaders of the member nations agree that action is required. However, this politicians are elected by their national populations and are acting in their own national interest. Thus NATO staff may recommend a course of action but it may not be acted upon due to lack of political will by some member nations.
 
Last edited:
The issue was about NATO not being run by politicians - aka NATO has no politicians, nothing else.
And that statement is blatantly wrong. Since it is a pure political institution run entirely by politicians.

The NATO military personal has nothing to do with NATO council decisions - but simply to obey and work out the feasibility of military actions if voted upon under the leadership of SACEUR.

According to your logic any cabinet in a European country wouldn't consist of politicians because they haven't been voted upon, but e.g. Germany and many others the composition
of a cabinet is decided upon by the Prime-minister or Chancellor - they are not voted upon. The head of the NATO council (NATO Secretary General is voted upon IIRC every 5 years.

Regards
Jagdflieger
 
Last edited:

But the NAC is composed of representatives appointed by their nations. They are appointed bureaucrats, much like UN Representatives or even national ambassadors. They are not elected politicians.
 
buffnut453 said:
But the NAC is composed of representatives appointed by their nations. They are appointed bureaucrats, much like UN Representatives or even national ambassadors. They are not elected politicians.
Click to expand...
Okay if now you want to bring up that "bureaucrats" appointed by the respective countries political figures are not politicians - okay then we should leave it at that.
Wiki:
  1. Politician
    A politician is a person active in party politics, or a person holding or seeking office in government. Politicians propose, support and create laws or policies that govern the land and, by extension, its people. Broadly speaking, a "politician" can be anyone who seeks to achieve political power in any bureaucratic institution.
Regards
Jagdflieger
 
Last edited:

No...the cabinet membership may not be elected but in order to be a member of the cabinet, you must have been elected by your local constituents. So, yes, the European Cabinets are composed of politicians.

The NATO Secretary General is "elected" because to do otherwise would mean one nation imposing its will on the others. Nations nominate candidates for the Secretary General role and, because of the nature of the role, those nominees are typically people with a political background. However, there is no process by which the people of the member nations voice their opinions in who becomes NATO Secretary General, thus he/she is a mutually-agreed political appointee and not an elected politician.
 
Can we please stop discussing about facts? please

NATO Politicians to Svalbard in May

NATO's Parliamentary Assembly's next gathering will take place on Svalbard. 80 to 100 NATO politicians will meet in Longyearbyen between the 8th and 10th of May. At the meeting, they will amongst others discuss the security policy situation.
www.highnorthnews.com

NATO's Parliamentary Assembly's next gathering will take place on Svalbard. 80 to 100 NATO politicians will meet in Longyearbyen between the 8th and 10th of May.
At the meeting, they will amongst others discuss the security policy situation.

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly is an international organization for parliamentarians from NATO's member countries.
It was created in 1955 and has its headquarters and secretariat in Brussels.
Øyvind Halleraker from the Conservatives chairs the Norwegian NATO parliamentary delegation, while Sverre Myrli from Labor is Deputy Chair.

The foundation for cooperation between NATO and the NATO PA was strengthened in December 1967 when the North Atlantic Council (NAC) authorised the NATO Secretary General to study how to achieve closer cooperation between the two bodies. As a result of these deliberations, the NATO Secretary General, after consultation with the NAC, implemented several measures to enhance the working relationship between NATO and the Assembly. These measures included the Secretary General providing a response to all Assembly recommendations and resolutions adopted in its Plenary Sessions.

Now you might also have a better understanding as to who actually runs NATO, who includes their own politicians or bureaucrats if you prefer.

NATO Permanent Representatives

Each member nation is represented on the North Atlantic Council by an Ambassador or Permanent Representative supported by a national delegation composed of advisers and officials who represent their country on different NATO committees.
www.nato.int
Here you can check the vitae of all NATO permanent representatives.
If you want to draw a line of distinction between a high ranking bureaucrat working in a bureaucratic institution that follows the instructions of his government and a politician
- I will leave that up to you.

Regards
Jagdflieger
 
Last edited:

Or another definition: Politician - a person who is professionally involved in politics, especially as a holder of or a candidate for an elected office.

It is possible to be in a political role (e.g. an ambassador) without being a politician. The key words for me are "an elected office" which implies becoming a representative for the electorate...i.e. the voters. That's not the case for the NATO Secretary General because the only "voters" are the nations themselves, and it's a workaround to ensure all member nations get a voice in who runs the NATO organization.
 

As a moderator, I will recuse myself from this discussion. I do not feel I can answer in a fitting manner.
 
Jagdflieger said:
Can we please stop discussing about facts? please
Click to expand...

So you'd rather keep discussing opinions?




The NATO Parliamentary Assembly is a gathering of political representatives from the member nations. They are elected members of the member nation parliament and they are appointees to the NATO Assembly. They are NOT "NATO POLITICIANS".
 
Folks - I want to remind all of the ground rules of this thread;

This event is too big of a deal to not discuss. We are literally witnessing an event that was decades in the making and has huge global ramifications.

This thread will remain open. Here are the ground rules…

1. All discussion must pertain to the invasion of Ukraine.

2. No political BS. By political BS I mean NO insulting, ignorant, hate filled Left vs. Right, Liberal vs. Conservative, Trump vs. Biden BS. We don't need that stuff here on our forum. Everyone has their own beliefs and opinions, but we are friends and family. Lets not ruin that. I've lost too many friends already because of it.

This is not up for debate, and the rule will be enforced.

I don't want to see this thread go into the abyss. Please start to get this on track!
 
What can the West do to help prevent the fall of Mariupol?

Maps: Tracking the Russian Invasion of Ukraine

Ukraine has staged a string of successful counterattacks in southern Ukraine around the city of Kherson.
www.nytimes.com

Ukraine war: Mass surrender of troops in Mariupol, says Russia

Russia says more than 1,000 marines in the besieged port have surrendered - but Ukraine denies this.
www.bbc.com

The city is surrounded, so weapons and reinforcements cannot easily (or at all) arrive overland. Once the city falls, the Russians will free up forces to invade more of eastern Ukraine.
 
I'm interested to know what is actually going to be left for them to take. In other words, what exactly is the gain in destroying a city
when it is more likely to galvanise opposition to any further action.

Somebody didn't think any of this through.
 
Don't wait for Putin to call the next shot - threaten him via NATO and the UN with a no-fly zone and UN troops involvment if hostilities are not ceased immediately in regards to attacking an internationally recognized state. Then see what bluff he will call out.

Regards
Jagdflieger
 
Just start redeploying NATO forces all over the place. Can NATO (or an individual member nation) send anything into the Black Sea? I know that would involve Turkey. Just move stuff around to keep Putler busy responding to possible multiple threat vectors. RF forces seem to have difficulties moving men and material around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 10 (members: 1, guests: 9)

Similar threads

A
The coming $26 billion windfall for the Canadian Armed Forces. What to buy?
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Sisu
S
M
All V-22's Grounded
Replies
2
Views
1K
GTX
M
All This For The Low, Low Price of .....
Replies
19
Views
2K
MIflyer
M
M
The Wrath of KAAN?
Replies
3
Views
835
Snautzer01
M
The USAF V-22 Mishap of 2023
Replies
2
Views
491
Thumpalumpacus
Menu
Log in
Register