NZDF General discussion thread

[recce.k1]

Another thing and speaking generally (at no-one in particular) it isn't accurate to suggest NZ is beholden on the CCP to set its (NZ's) policy responses be that in terms of defence or AUKUS response or trade.

Taking trade as an example NZ ranks quite low when compared to other Five Eyes or ASEAN nations in the context of country exports and imports to/from China i.e. many other nations have larger "skin in the game" and continue to trade.

China Imports By Country

Trading Economics provides data for 20 million economic indicators from 196 countries including actual values, consensus figures, forecasts, historical time series and news. China Imports By Country - was last updated on Thursday, May 16, 2024.

tradingeconomics.com

China Exports By Country

Trading Economics provides data for 20 million economic indicators from 196 countries including actual values, consensus figures, forecasts, historical time series and news. China Exports By Country - was last updated on Thursday, May 16, 2024.

tradingeconomics.com

And at the end of the day NZ is largely supplying China with food and milk products for its middle classes (nothing high-tech or raw materials that can also be used for dual civil/military purposes) so why is there "outrage" here sometimes?

In terms of defence, yes it is true that successive NZG's have dropped the ball since the end of the Cold War cutting funding/capabilities on the negative side (but unfortunately that was how it was "designed" as part of the '80's/90's "neo-liberal" economic reforms i.e. when at peace defence was designed to wind down. When peace settings change so does the defence settings. Of course I/we here will mostly disagree with this model and a major flaw of this model is that defence should have started to increase post East Timor/911 (like the ADF did) not "now" when the rules based order is under threat - that's kind of too late)!

However on the positive side successive Govt's have been, at the very least, re-equipping defence and kit to be more interoperable with our allies especially over the last two decades. Granted there is still much to be done (or can be done or should have been done) but indications are trending positively. Let's not forget a potential change of Govt has been talking about raising defence spending because we are now living in challenging times and for the foreseeable future (I'm sure we mostly agree it needs to be higher but still even 2% of gdp will increase both mass and improve sustainment, and should allow for some additional capabilities. But yes we will need to do more).

However at this point in time the ball is in the Govt's court. What will be their intentions and direction for defence with these challenges (and the blatant flouting) to the rules based order? And how will they be supporting this funding wise? Will this Govt be providing and supporting a credible pathway forward? We will soon be finding out.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1686250094574882816

 

[Stuart M]

Actually to correct the record on here, no such thing has happened i.e. NZ's Foreign Minister has NOT "slammed the door shut" on Pillar 2.

Far from it (the NZG is considering Pillar 2, along with the likes of Canada and Japan, but at the same time is also waiting on the original AUKUS partners to finalise Pillar 2's framework and participation levels - it won't happen overnight) and likewise in your original post on this above, you might have fallen for "MSM misinformation" (by an hyperbolic tv news journalist, sensationalising Foreign Minister Mahuta's answers using selective editing and then mixing in his own opinion to conclude the segment)!

See the full "X" discussion here for context:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1684723744034762753

Anyway Foreign Minister Mahuta was only referring to Pillar 1 (NZ wasn't, isn't and never will be party to that ... we couldn't afford nuclear powered submarines even if we ditched the anti-nuke legislation! Pillar 1 is exclusively for the original AUKUS partners and they are not, and never were, thinking of the likes of us joining so let's all rule that out for the record on here and we all shouldn't take offence if FM Mahuta did the same last week).

So here we have Mahuta also last week batting away the hard-left Greens (perhaps also using "misinformation" to sometimes juxtapose AUKUS Pillar 1 with Pillar 2 etc), where she is clear that NZ has no part in Pillar 1 but is open to Pillar 2 (the NZG position).

Question 4 - Golriz Ghahraman to the Minister of Foreign Affairs - Parliament On Demand

ondemand.parliament.nz

And that was also Mahuta responding to a domestic (and Pacific) audience in terms of the framing of her answers.

I dont have access to 'X Twitter' .. and have no desire to, but it seems to me that Mahuta was quite clear that AUKUS of any sort is not on the cards. As the Minister has said in the House, there is official level exploration of what pillar two might entail, but that is not a policy commitment. Given the nature of this government and its predecessors, if there is no public commitment, it aint happening (at least while NZ has this government).

 

[Gracie1234]

From this article, the conversation being held in the committee and the overall more bleak outlook held by NZ public than others globally I would say this is why we would be interested in Pillar 2 of AUKUS. Pillar 2 provides the capabilities we would need to defend ourselves from future attacks, not kinetic. Capabilities like AI, Cyber, Quantum Computing etc these are the capabilities we need to invest in as these will be the front lines in the future if not today. The article below provides a good summary, interesting to see Gerry stuck in the 90's, the world has moved and will move faster in the future. A cyber attack can impact as much as a kinetic attack, what happened at Waikato Hospital would of resulted in people dying due to a disruption of clinical care.

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

It is good that this is getting out to the public, maybe to warm them up to Friday.

 

[kiwi in exile]

Nats are always willfully in denial about th big red panda in the room. Luxon was on breakfast this morning stating that he would "absolutely" accept CCP investment to fund their roading investment. That places us in the same debt diplomacy position as other Pacific neighbours. Both national and labour get lots of political donations from Chinese businessmen. Under Chinese law all Chinese companies must work for the good of the party. I remember seeing a list of all the recent senior national figures with Chinese company board positions. Key is always pro china in interviews.

 

[Stuart M]

From this article, the conversation being held in the committee and the overall more bleak outlook held by NZ public than others globally I would say this is why we would be interested in Pillar 2 of AUKUS. Pillar 2 provides the capabilities we would need to defend ourselves from future attacks, not kinetic. Capabilities like AI, Cyber, Quantum Computing etc these are the capabilities we need to invest in as these will be the front lines in the future if not today. The article below provides a good summary, interesting to see Gerry stuck in the 90's, the world has moved and will move faster in the future. A cyber attack can impact as much as a kinetic attack, what happened at Waikato Hospital would of resulted in people dying due to a disruption of clinical care.

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

It is good that this is getting out to the public, maybe to warm them up to Friday.

Yes, its a revolting and depressing outlook and a significant section of the NZ political establishment will wish to stay out of it.

AUKUS 2 doesn't provide anything per se, anything that comes out of it will be the product of the collaborative work of the nations involved, and NZ will have to contribute if it wants in, and will have to pay for the things it gets from it.
The big question is, what wont we get if we are not involved? And that question aint just about things that go 'Bang'

 

[recce.k1]

I dont have access to 'X Twitter' .. and have no desire to,

This is what was said and was quite interesting - it will be some time before other nations (inc NZ) may or may not join pillar 2 (so NZ not making any commitment right now isn't really relevant, because we don't know the pillar 2 framework/conditions/expectations are yet, as they have yet to be worked out etc):

@ashleytownshend (Senior Fellow for Indo-Pacific Security)
100%. There’s simply no pathway for NZ to join AUKUS P2 at this stage. We are in the very early days bringing P2 to life for the AUKUS three. Folks who are tracking the three-sided process of reform needed to enable AUKUS know just how high a bar this will be for others.

@davidcapie (Director, Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand @ VUW)
Ashley, not disagreeing but just for the record, FM Mahuta did not say the quote that has been attributed to her.

@ashleytownsend
I didn’t know that. Very poor reporting out there. Thanks for clarifying. My views on how tricky it will be for others to join AUKUS P2 still stand. I hope we can see project-level coop in time (ie with Japan in hypersonics etc). But ctrys “joining” P2 completely is a way off.

@Dom_ma (Dominic Meagher - Deputy Director & Chief Economist, John Curtin Research Centre)
The article doesn’t actually attribute that comment to Mahuta, though it’s written in a way that makes it seem like they are. The key part is outside the quotation marks:

... but it seems to me that Mahuta was quite clear that AUKUS of any sort is not on the cards. As the Minister has said in the House, there is official level exploration of what pillar two might entail, but that is not a policy commitment. Given the nature of this government and its predecessors, if there is no public commitment, it aint happening (at least while NZ has this government).

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1684695456436400129

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1684696903802630148

 

[Wombat000]

I’m curious as to what AUKUS would gain from having NZ as a partner?
what will IT bring to the table?

If there is a subsequent expectation of NZ contribution, then why does that expectation be on the condition of AUKUS membership? why don’t the already allied parties have those expectations already?

If those expectations are already met, then why the incentive for AUKUS to include NZ further?

 

[Stuart M]

This is what was said and was quite interesting - it will be some time before other nations (inc NZ) may or may not join pillar 2 (so NZ not making any commitment right now isn't really relevant, because we don't know the pillar 2 framework/conditions/expectations are yet, as they have yet to be worked out etc):

@ashleytownshend (Senior Fellow for Indo-Pacific Security)
100%. There’s simply no pathway for NZ to join AUKUS P2 at this stage. We are in the very early days bringing P2 to life for the AUKUS three. Folks who are tracking the three-sided process of reform needed to enable AUKUS know just how high a bar this will be for others.

@davidcapie (Director, Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand @ VUW)
Ashley, not disagreeing but just for the record, FM Mahuta did not say the quote that has been attributed to her.

@ashleytownsend
I didn’t know that. Very poor reporting out there. Thanks for clarifying. My views on how tricky it will be for others to join AUKUS P2 still stand. I hope we can see project-level coop in time (ie with Japan in hypersonics etc). But ctrys “joining” P2 completely is a way off.

@Dom_ma (Dominic Meagher - Deputy Director & Chief Economist, John Curtin Research Centre)
The article doesn’t actually attribute that comment to Mahuta, though it’s written in a way that makes it seem like they are. The key part is outside the quotation marks:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1684695456436400129

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1684696903802630148

Cheers for that

My takeaway from that is either the journalist is making shite up, which I think in this case to be improbable or there is some behind the scenes briefing going on as to NZ's actual policy intent. I do think it need to be made clear that politicians regularly brief journalists on what they intend but do not wish to go on the record for whatever reason, but still wish to put out a public stance.
That comment that's 'not attributable to Mahuta', it is there on purpose.

Based on personal history, this is not something I think, it's something I know.

At this point I will stand by what I have said, based on NZ's policy history and current political comments, that NZ being in AUKUS P2 is a dead letter.

So what is going on? I think that NZ is playing its usual game of fence sitting; They will examine the proposed AKUS Pillar 2 to keep the US and Australia onside for now, and string along those who are opposed to Chinese expansionism. But, out of the discussions of AUKUS Pillar 2, they will say that the conditions and costs are incompatible with NZ's policy across a number of areas, but will look to further cooperation with its traditional friends and allies in a manner more in keeping with NZs Independent Foreign Policy, recognition of Climate Change as a foremost security issue, its opposition to militarisation of the Pacific and Aotearoa's commitments to Te Tiriti O Waitangi. This will keep the Chinese happy.

So WTF does that mean in practice?

There is recognition of a deteriorating international position but in keeping with its policy of fence sitting having an independent foreign policy, NZ response will not look like what most on here will want, me included, but will look like more of the same but more so.

So what follows is not a fantasy shopping list per se, but how I see NZ continuing its established foreign policy/defence settings but recognising continuing global destabilisation and the means of acknowledging this new reality.

I can see improvements for the services;

For the Senior Service, perhaps three capable frigates, including SSM's to go with them, as well as possibly a pair of LPD's, a Canterbury replacement and OPV replacements that have a whiff of corvette.

I can see Army getting proper protected mobility for the infantry (Bushmaster) and the LAV's being replaced at least like for like, finally getting Scorpion replacements (tracked or wheeled) and 155mm self propelled artillery (probably wheeled). Effectively three battalions, some direct fire support and a regiment of artillery with 'other arms' in support.
If they are wise they will get a SAM system like Land CAAM and a man portable system.

For the RNZ Flying Corp, perhaps another pair of P8's plus anti shipping missiles as well as persistent maritime drone surveillance. Maybe 12 or so Seasprite replacements and I would think the NH90's might get earlier replacement than we were expecting (for running costs reasons if nothing else) and perhaps going back to 14 transport helicopters.
Can't see more C130's, but probably 757 replacements (once Luxon realises that Airforce is not an Airline).

I cannot see a return of fast jet Airstrike unfortunately.

I can see NZ getting via purchase non kinetic technology improvements, when required, that evolve out of AUKUS as well as moves to better space based secure communications directly under NZ control.

I can see lots of exercises with 'Friends and Allies', NATO standardisation and cooperation etc, but no AUKUS stuff or anything that looks like 'alliances' or can be construed as such. I also expect to see a much greater emphasis on NZ's connection to the South Pacific nations through practical cooperation measures such as training, but also deployment of NZ forces to them to directly aid their local commitments such as fisheries patrols, law enforcement etc.

So a bastardized form of lightly armed neutrality, with strong western alignment but without formal links.

Plenty of ambiguity on China.

*This view is subject to change, terms and conditions apply*

 

[Stuart M]

I’m curious as to what AUKUS would gain from having NZ as a partner?
what will IT bring to the table?

If there is a subsequent expectation of NZ contribution, then why does that expectation be on the condition of AUKUS membership? why don’t the already allied parties have those expectations already?

If those expectations are already met, then why the incentive for AUKUS to include NZ further?

NZ has a capable and affordable 'space programme' across a number of local companies that local base of knowledge can be utilised for defence purposes.

Expectations will be subject to negotiations.

 

[ngatimozart]

NZ has a capable and affordable 'space programme' across a number of local companies that local base of knowledge can be utilised for defence purposes.

Expectations will be subject to negotiations.

Something that Australia doesn't have. Also there are other space projects underway here as well.

 

[At lakes]

deleted the merlot struck again

 

[ngatimozart]

The first two parts of the Defence Review have just been released. The Minister is presenting them at a breakfast as I post this. I haven't read through them yet.

Defence Policy and Strategy Statement 2023

Future Force Design Principles

 

[Shanesworld]

The first two parts of the Defence Review have just been released. The Minister is presenting them at a breakfast as I post this. I haven't read through them yet.

Defence Policy and Strategy Statement 2023

Future Force Design Principles

Narrative is changing. I'm surprised and grateful to the extent that Little is changing it.

'Not in a fit state': NZ to ramp up defence resources

New Zealand's Defence Force will ramp up its readiness for combat, taking a more "proactive and purposeful" approach as part of a new government...

www.odt.co.nz

Benign strategic environment now firmly consigned to the dustbin by the looks of it.

But as refreshing as this talk from little is I am not hopefully of a timely and adequate change in walk to match it.
My opinion its a decade late. We've lost too many real people with the real skills.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

I scanned over them same fluff no meat...

that being said will give a better read after work...

 

[Stuart M]

I scanned over them same fluff no meat...

that being said will give a better read after work...

Detail will come in a 'Defence Capability Plan', the two released documents are 'scene setters',

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

Detail will come in a 'Defence Capability Plan', the two released documents are 'scene setters',

I know and agree... What i will say is... at least some of the pollys are starting to wake up from their slumber sleep... we will just have to wait and see what the go is... and what the other parties say... i think
luxon still has his head in the sand...

 

[Stuart M]

Some interesting language coming out of this.

Little said the government would improve the effectiveness of combat and other military capabilities, ensuring the Defence Force could act "early and deliberately" in protecting the interests of New Zealand and the surrounding region.

"We must be prepared to equip ourselves with trained personnel, assets and material, and appropriate international relationships in order to protect our own defence and national security - and we are."

The documents come as part of a Defence Policy Review commissioned by the government a year ago and chaired by Sir Brian Roche.

The resulting 37-page Defence Policy Strategy Statement concluded there was a need for "a combat-capable, credible, deployable force" ready to respond when and where required.

"Defence will need to act earlier to prevent threats, for example through increased presence, as part of broader New Zealand efforts and in concert with international partners.

"Where possible, Defence will seek to act to constrain hostile actions, will be prepared to employ military force, and engage in combat if required."

New Zealand's security was assured by the collective strength of a network of partners to which the country needed to offer "operationally credible" contributions, the statement said.

"Our region is now a strategic theatre, and New Zealand needs a defence posture that reflects this reality... Defence must be able to defend, if necessary, New Zealand's sovereign territory and maritime interests."

Changing global tensions prompt New Zealand to ramp up security and defence resources | RNZ News

A change to a defence force with more of a Navy and Air Force focus?

"Appropriate International Relationships" This does not rule AUKUS in or out, but I'm betting out.

I think China will have a hissy fit and it will make the usual domestic suspects most unhappy, if nothing else that will make it worthwhile.

 

[Stuart M]

It pays to read widely on these matters to get a feel for what is actually being said as opposed to rhetoric.


New Zealand to boost defence citing Pacific challenges | Illawarra Mercury | Wollongong, NSW

Defence Minister Andrew Little said current defence spending amounted to about 1 per cent of the nation's economy, a proportion he expected would need to increase, although not as high as 2 per cent.

He said replacing aging navy frigates and patrol vessels is among the most pressing needs under consideration.

So there's the actuality, separate from the rhetoric, that will define what follows, and a priority point that may hint at government objectives.
So, a slightly better equipped navy (with new helicopters, that programme is underway) and they will try to keep pay at or near market levels to help ensure readiness?

 

[recce.k1]

It pays to read widely on these matters to get a feel for what is actually being said as opposed to rhetoric.
***
Defence Minister Andrew Little said current defence spending amounted to about 1 per cent of the nation's economy, a proportion he expected would need to increase, although not as high as 2 per cent.

Interesting, mostly 1.5% (of GDP) is quoted when using the NATO measurement ... then very occasionally 1% is quoted (so which one is it).

Sooo if Andrew Little may be thinking, say, 1% > 1.5% (over time) ...... does that translate to 1.5% > 2% using NATO's measurement?

Anyway, kinda moot point as if there is a change of Govt both National and ACT have indicated "2%" ... (qualification = over time).

Needs to be higher anyway (over time). But still a 0.5% increase amounts to almost $2B/yr, which is still good.

New Zealand’s message to China in new defence strategy - not a 'path to war'

A grassroots activist group claims the new strategy leads NZ down the path to war.

www.nzherald.co.nz

(NZ Herald article warning: H1 has emerged from the shadows to "warn us" from the path being taken. But any comment on your "benign strategic environment" we live in? Thought not)!

 

[Stuart M]

Interesting, mostly 1.5% (of GDP) is quoted when using the NATO measurement ... then very occasionally 1% is quoted (so which one is it).

Sooo if Andrew Little may be thinking, say, 1% > 1.5% (over time) ...... does that translate to 1.5% > 2% using NATO's measurement?

Anyway, kinda moot point as if there is a change of Govt both National and ACT have indicated "2%" ... (qualification = over time).

Needs to be higher anyway (over time). But still a 0.5% increase amounts to almost $2B/yr, which is still good.

New Zealand’s message to China in new defence strategy - not a 'path to war'

A grassroots activist group claims the new strategy leads NZ down the path to war.

www.nzherald.co.nz

(NZ Herald article warning: H1 has emerged from the shadows to "warn us" from the path being taken. But any comment on your "benign strategic environment" we live in? Thought not)!

Ohh.. Helen is livid..... that really made my day.. so the nation 'can't think for ourselves if the government disagrees with her? And the usual suspects are indeed unhappy, so if nothing else this set of reviews has produced entertainment value.

We wont know what Labour has in mind for spending, but I'm not yet convinced that the rhetoric will be matched by a suitable improvement in capacity and capability for the money they are prepared to spend.

Nationals seem rather subdued about it... probably because it puts them in a tight spot policy wise, they can hardly deny now what China is, but they still want to ignore it because China = easy money that doesn't require hard unpopular choices at home

All that remains now is to flesh it out and see if the language can be translated into something that matches the rhetoric and that something can be sustained by both major parties.