Thanks for the informative article, I really enjoyed it and found it quite thought provoking. Recently, NATO nations are deploying more often in the Pacific supporting 'freedom of navigation' patrols and exercising with nations like Japan and Australia. Do you see a role for JEF is the Indo-Pacific region?
So, while technically it could happen, feasibly I don't really think so. Most of the nations in JEF are very focused on local European defence, and only really the UK and maybe the Netherlands would have the interest in conducting serious activity in the Indo-Pac, which they are more likely to do bilaterally or through NATO.
However, the RUSI paper I mentioned does suggest a diplomatic role in having Japan as an observer; I personally don't think it would be particularly likely or useful in the JEF's current format, but it does offer a potential alternative.
About 40 years ago I told an academic out of Dublin that (at that time) NATO couldn't afford to have Ireland in the Alliance - of course, this was back in the Cold War when things may actually have been calmer - so I look at JEF and I have to wonder if this is an option for the Republic?
Great question! So... one of the issues is that the JEF is pretty explicitly aligned to NATO these days, which flies in the face of Irish neutrality. However, if Ireland wished to start testing the boundaries of that neutrality... JEF might be a place to start. However, I'd say that is a question of domestic Irish politics, which I am not qualified to comment upon.
Whether the other members would want Ireland in the JEF is another matter...
A concise, insightful read per usual, Matthew. Nice play on ‘JEF’ for Kevin! 👌🏻 And you have to love the conspicuously eastward-facing lion in that punchy JEF logo.
It is a shame the German and Italian frameworks have not proved equally consequential thus far, though not entirely surprising; if the FT and Economist are to be believed, even the so-called zeitenwende threatens (maddeningly) to underdeliver, fractious German coalition politics aside.
You mention disagreeing with the RUSI analysis on some points: When you have the time, might I ask how so (without sadistically drawing you too far into the weeds!)?
Agreed on German/Italian frameworks; I would caveat that, as far as I understand, neither ever had the ambition of JEF, but even so I can't find much evidence that they ever came to much.
Regarding RUSI - in short, it relates to my general belief that the JEF isn't 10 nations in the round; it is fundamentally a 2* headquarters. Some of the recommendations I think are rather ambitious for what it is at the moment. It is right to be ambitious, but I'm not sure that bolting on big new inter-agency/inter-departmental options onto the JEF will enhance, rather than detract, from its core military business. However, the points made about clarified mission statements, enhancing exercises and operations etc, are all extremely valid.
Cheers for your reply, Matthew. I appreciate the insider’s perspective.
I might belatedly add you’ve sent me down the rabbit hole with that prior submarine sim recommendation, to my partner’s relief or regret—not quite sure just yet. I’d been an avid flight sim aficionado as a kid but was frustrated I could never find an equally complex sub simulation in those days. (Like you, I once foresaw myself as a submariner living in the perpetual night of a submersible hermitage.) Good to see MicroProse is still making sims too!
Indeed—a solid recommendation and highly addictive, no matter how many times I get mercilessly torpedoed! (Clearly it was for the best I never became a submariner.)
Interesting article. When I see the term "Expeditionary Force" I think MEF, or Marine Expeditionary Force, which is on par with a Corps level formation. A MEF focuses on the 'E' - rapid power projection. How expeditionary is the JEF? How joint is it? What kind of C3 interoperability does it have?
Thanks for the informative article, I really enjoyed it and found it quite thought provoking. Recently, NATO nations are deploying more often in the Pacific supporting 'freedom of navigation' patrols and exercising with nations like Japan and Australia. Do you see a role for JEF is the Indo-Pacific region?
Thank you for reading!
So, while technically it could happen, feasibly I don't really think so. Most of the nations in JEF are very focused on local European defence, and only really the UK and maybe the Netherlands would have the interest in conducting serious activity in the Indo-Pac, which they are more likely to do bilaterally or through NATO.
However, the RUSI paper I mentioned does suggest a diplomatic role in having Japan as an observer; I personally don't think it would be particularly likely or useful in the JEF's current format, but it does offer a potential alternative.
That first link tho 👁️👁️
About 40 years ago I told an academic out of Dublin that (at that time) NATO couldn't afford to have Ireland in the Alliance - of course, this was back in the Cold War when things may actually have been calmer - so I look at JEF and I have to wonder if this is an option for the Republic?
Great question! So... one of the issues is that the JEF is pretty explicitly aligned to NATO these days, which flies in the face of Irish neutrality. However, if Ireland wished to start testing the boundaries of that neutrality... JEF might be a place to start. However, I'd say that is a question of domestic Irish politics, which I am not qualified to comment upon.
Whether the other members would want Ireland in the JEF is another matter...
A concise, insightful read per usual, Matthew. Nice play on ‘JEF’ for Kevin! 👌🏻 And you have to love the conspicuously eastward-facing lion in that punchy JEF logo.
It is a shame the German and Italian frameworks have not proved equally consequential thus far, though not entirely surprising; if the FT and Economist are to be believed, even the so-called zeitenwende threatens (maddeningly) to underdeliver, fractious German coalition politics aside.
You mention disagreeing with the RUSI analysis on some points: When you have the time, might I ask how so (without sadistically drawing you too far into the weeds!)?
Thank you! I'm glad you found it useful!
Agreed on German/Italian frameworks; I would caveat that, as far as I understand, neither ever had the ambition of JEF, but even so I can't find much evidence that they ever came to much.
Regarding RUSI - in short, it relates to my general belief that the JEF isn't 10 nations in the round; it is fundamentally a 2* headquarters. Some of the recommendations I think are rather ambitious for what it is at the moment. It is right to be ambitious, but I'm not sure that bolting on big new inter-agency/inter-departmental options onto the JEF will enhance, rather than detract, from its core military business. However, the points made about clarified mission statements, enhancing exercises and operations etc, are all extremely valid.
Cheers for your reply, Matthew. I appreciate the insider’s perspective.
I might belatedly add you’ve sent me down the rabbit hole with that prior submarine sim recommendation, to my partner’s relief or regret—not quite sure just yet. I’d been an avid flight sim aficionado as a kid but was frustrated I could never find an equally complex sub simulation in those days. (Like you, I once foresaw myself as a submariner living in the perpetual night of a submersible hermitage.) Good to see MicroProse is still making sims too!
Hope you have a good week,
B
Cold Waters? Its great, isn't it!
Indeed—a solid recommendation and highly addictive, no matter how many times I get mercilessly torpedoed! (Clearly it was for the best I never became a submariner.)
Interesting article. When I see the term "Expeditionary Force" I think MEF, or Marine Expeditionary Force, which is on par with a Corps level formation. A MEF focuses on the 'E' - rapid power projection. How expeditionary is the JEF? How joint is it? What kind of C3 interoperability does it have?