Very interesting. I've long thought we need to be doubling down on the JEF. I was a bit surprised you didn't mention getting Ukraine in the JEF. It would life Ukraine out of a dangerous grey zone. It will never be safe until it's part of a structured organisation or alliance where it be safe from what will certainly be a third wave of Russian aggression even if a "peace" is reached soon. Ukraine rightly distrusts paper guarantees.
That's a really interesting point on Ukraine and one that would be interesting to explore; utilising JEF as a form of sub-NATO securitisation. But it potentially risks adding complexity to an expanding and formalising JEF before it has time to develop. Potentially a second wave of new members or a partner nation?
Ukraine is by far the most battle-ready armed forces - other than Russia's - on the continent. We need them in NATO and if can't be NATO because of others' short-sightedness, selfishness or greed we need to find another way.
This is a very interesting article Samuel and I learn't something about the JEF that I didn't know, how well coordinated it has been. I think this is something thay the UK and others need to build on. I think it's very important that members share a similar world view and common values.
Really interesting article and take on the future on JEF.
My less than honourable opinion is the JEF needs focus and that appears to replicating other formats that exist.
Given the current membership of the JEF surely a focus on the high north as part of a NATO-intra grouping with the UK acting as the framework nation. It does appear structurally that’s how it’s set up (although some of the original ambitions were out of Europe expeditionary) but with US retrenchment and unreliability I believe the JEF should double down.
Hopefully this could lead to NATO-intra groupings elsewhere say in Central and Southern Europe. These can then with the JEF solidify NATO structures that maybe further tested as the US further pulls out of Europe. US changes won’t stop post-Trump and elements of this did start with Obama and will continue.
Equally for an expeditionary focus there are the Lancaster House Treaties with France. These could be expanded to countries with more expeditionary focussed outlooks such as Italy.
Soo.. I have to say I'm just ever so slightly confused, has the JEF been delivering that for which it was set up so far?
Certainly there have been comments from a couple of countries about the framework underdelivering on it's original promises and yet here we are once again reading some UK thinktanks vague and unspecified fantasy about all the things the JEF is apparently best suited to deliver...
This positively screams "D10", "economic/hybrid NATO", "G7 perm secretariat " or "Defence Investment Bank" at anyone who isn't gaslit!
Or can someone expand on how this is any different to all these other wonky ideas that appear to be concertedly marketed and campaigned into public consideration?
It's becoming excruciatingly obvious that the UK policy/strategy elites are increasingly desperate about the UK ability to shape, influence and access structures and developments going on around them!
Very interesting. I've long thought we need to be doubling down on the JEF. I was a bit surprised you didn't mention getting Ukraine in the JEF. It would life Ukraine out of a dangerous grey zone. It will never be safe until it's part of a structured organisation or alliance where it be safe from what will certainly be a third wave of Russian aggression even if a "peace" is reached soon. Ukraine rightly distrusts paper guarantees.
That's a really interesting point on Ukraine and one that would be interesting to explore; utilising JEF as a form of sub-NATO securitisation. But it potentially risks adding complexity to an expanding and formalising JEF before it has time to develop. Potentially a second wave of new members or a partner nation?
Ukraine is by far the most battle-ready armed forces - other than Russia's - on the continent. We need them in NATO and if can't be NATO because of others' short-sightedness, selfishness or greed we need to find another way.
This is a very interesting article Samuel and I learn't something about the JEF that I didn't know, how well coordinated it has been. I think this is something thay the UK and others need to build on. I think it's very important that members share a similar world view and common values.
Thank you Dominic, very much appreciated
Really interesting article and take on the future on JEF.
My less than honourable opinion is the JEF needs focus and that appears to replicating other formats that exist.
Given the current membership of the JEF surely a focus on the high north as part of a NATO-intra grouping with the UK acting as the framework nation. It does appear structurally that’s how it’s set up (although some of the original ambitions were out of Europe expeditionary) but with US retrenchment and unreliability I believe the JEF should double down.
Hopefully this could lead to NATO-intra groupings elsewhere say in Central and Southern Europe. These can then with the JEF solidify NATO structures that maybe further tested as the US further pulls out of Europe. US changes won’t stop post-Trump and elements of this did start with Obama and will continue.
Equally for an expeditionary focus there are the Lancaster House Treaties with France. These could be expanded to countries with more expeditionary focussed outlooks such as Italy.
Soo.. I have to say I'm just ever so slightly confused, has the JEF been delivering that for which it was set up so far?
Certainly there have been comments from a couple of countries about the framework underdelivering on it's original promises and yet here we are once again reading some UK thinktanks vague and unspecified fantasy about all the things the JEF is apparently best suited to deliver...
This positively screams "D10", "economic/hybrid NATO", "G7 perm secretariat " or "Defence Investment Bank" at anyone who isn't gaslit!
Or can someone expand on how this is any different to all these other wonky ideas that appear to be concertedly marketed and campaigned into public consideration?
It's becoming excruciatingly obvious that the UK policy/strategy elites are increasingly desperate about the UK ability to shape, influence and access structures and developments going on around them!