Latest news with #militaryreform
CNA
23-06-2025
- Politics
- CNA
South Korea gets first civilian defence minister in 60 years
SEOUL: South Korea's government on Monday (Jun 23) appointed the country's first civilian defence minister in more than 60 years, after growing calls for stronger oversight of the military. It comes after a failed martial law attempt in December that led to the impeachment of ex-president Yoon Suk Yeol. Veteran lawmaker Ahn Gyu-back is "the first civilian to lead the ministry in 64 years", said presidential Chief of Staff Kang Hoon-sik at a news conference on Monday. "He is expected to push reforms in the military, particularly in response to its involvement in the martial law," he added. During his election campaign, President Lee Jae Myung had promised to appoint a defence minister from the "civilian circle", responding to widespread public calls for control of the military in the wake of the martial law crisis. South Korea's former president Yoon was impeached and suspended by lawmakers over his Dec 3 attempt to subvert civilian rule, which saw armed soldiers deployed to parliament. Kim Yong-hyun, who served as defence minister under Yoon, has been under arrest since December and is currently on trial for insurrection, accused of recommending martial law to the former president and drafting the decree. Previous liberal administrations have attempted to appoint a "civilian" defence minister, but have failed to do so, many citing the growing threat of North Korea's nuclear programme. Ties between the two Koreas deteriorated under the hardline administration of the hawkish ex-president. They technically remain at war because the 1950-53 conflict ended in an armistice, not a peace treaty. Lee has vowed to improve relations with the North and reduce tensions on the peninsula, halting the loudspeaker broadcasts Seoul had begun last year in response to a barrage of trash-filled balloons flown southward by Pyongyang. In response, a day after, North Korea stopped broadcasting strange and unsettling noises along the border which the ministry hailed as "a meaningful opportunity to ease inter-Korean military tensions and restore mutual trust".
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Ukraine's outgoing ground forces chief says his command was mired in 'managerial stagnation' when he joined
The outgoing chief of Ukraine's land troops says he initially found his officers stuck in "stagnation." Mykhailo Drapatyi, 42, took command in November as Kyiv urgently sought reform among its ranks. His complaints of an "atmosphere of fear" and other issues echo frustrations in Ukraine's military. The outgoing chief of Ukraine's ground forces said on Wednesday that his command was in a "state of managerial stagnation" when he first took his post in November. Writing on social media on Wednesday, Mykhailo Drapatyi listed a slew of issues he discovered last year, including an "atmosphere of fear, lack of initiative, closure to feedback, indifference to personnel problems, a facade of discipline, a deep gap between headquarters and units." Drapatyi wrote that he replaced half of the leaders under him, slamming what he said was systematic abuse, staffing decisions based on connections, and chaos within the officer ranks. "There was not even a trace of a developmental spirit in command," Drapatyi added. The remarks from Drapatyi, who led Kyiv's land forces for roughly six months, reflect an oft-discussed frustration in Ukraine's military that it was thrown into war with an outdated structure and culture that cleaved to old Soviet habits. Ukraine has urgently tried to initiate changes as it battles Russia on its own borders. Drapatyi, a 42-year-old general, was appointed command in November as part of a younger wave of leaders aimed at facilitating reform. "I worked to break this system," he wrote on Wednesday. Drapatyi said one of his focuses was reshaping Ukraine's training divisions, which he said also saw half of its leading officers removed. Additionally, the general said he had to bring digitalization to training management and logistics systems, and introduced "psychological support tools" for soldiers. "The Command of the Ground Forces is only at the beginning of change. A system does not change in a few months, but the vector has already been set, the team assembled, and the approaches revised," he added. Drapatyi stepped down from his post on June 1 in the aftermath of a Russian strike on a Dnipro training ground that killed 12 Ukrainians. While announcing his resignation, Drapatyi blamed himself for the deaths of the soldiers, calling them young Ukrainians who were "supposed to learn, live, fight— not die." "The behavior of fighters matters, but the main responsibility always lies with the command," he wrote. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy summoned Drapatyi for a meeting on June 3, after which the latter was reassigned to the commander of the Joint Forces of Ukraine, another military branch that reports to the General Staff. Zelenskyy said that in his new role, Drapatyi would focus "exclusively on combat issues." Shortly after Zelenskyy's announcement, Drapatyi wrote that he would "remain in the ranks" and take on the new position assigned by the president. "I am stepping down with a clear conscience," he wrote on Wednesday. Read the original article on Business Insider
Telegraph
02-06-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Defence doesn't just need more money. It needs wholesale reform
Today saw the unveiling of the much awaited Strategic Defence Review. Commissioned nearly a year ago and presented by an independent panel including Lord Robertson, Fiona Hill, and General Richard Barrons it has been a long time coming and the crescendo of speculation and rumours is now at an end. Which is a shame really because the review itself is something of a disappointment. It's long, well written, insightful in places and contains some interesting strategic guidance. The problem is it lacks foundations. Defence doesn't just need more money. It needs a root and branch overhaul of the systems, infrastructure and mindset that underpins it. These are largely absent from this document at a time in which they are needed more than ever. The SDR was designed to: 'determine the roles, capabilities and reforms required by UK defence to meet the challenges, threats and opportunities of the twenty-first century, deliverable and affordable within the resources available to defence within the trajectory to 2.5 per cent. The Review will ensure that Defence is central both to the security, and to the economic growth and prosperity, of the United Kingdom'. But what drafting it has shown, almost from the off, is the gulf between what the Ministry of Defence thinks it needs to achieve this last sentence and the 2.5 per cent the Treasury thinks it can afford to do so. The Prime Minister, despite making 'defence the central organising principle of government', has not arbitrated to the extent required to resolve this difference. The current promise of '2.5 per cent by 2027', an increase in 0.2 per cent, is not enough to do anything but paper over the cracks caused by 30 years of underinvestment. Only now is the Defence Secretary talking in terms of '3 per cent by 2034' which by many, myself included, is too little too late. Unless this is resolved, the SDR remains window dressing. A document that doesn't articulate and then balance Ends, Ways and Means is not a strategy; it's a think piece. The Hague summit later this month will be key. Many countries attending are now talking openly in terms of a rapid 'increase to 3.5 per cent on defence and a further 1.5 per cent on broader security measures'. We can not pretend to hold any sort of a leadership position on defence if we don't move in the same direction, and fast. The usual, 'by the end of next Parliament', or 'when economic conditions allow' will show that we are still not serious and our allies who are already prioritising this spending over their own domestic needs will not be impressed. It has also been noticeable during the build-up to today that the ministry has done that thing it occasionally does when the pressure is on, to forget that there are actual military people at the other end of these decisions – the pesky armed forces getting in the way of the politics of Defence again. The respective heads of service consequently have been given very little time to explain to their teams why not much is going to change. The content itself is based around 'five defence pillars'. The first is a move to 'war-fighting readiness' with suitable robust accompanying rhetoric about lethality and deterrence. Second can be summarised as 'Nato first (but not Nato only)'. From a navy perspective this clearly means focussing on the North Atlantic, protection of Critical Undersea Infrastructure (CUI) and the nuclear deterrent, but does not rule out global deployments such as the one HMS Prince of Wales is currently undertaking. The third describes how defence is an 'engine for growth', but here there is a clear munitions and land bias. Shipbuilding – something that could contribute massively – barely features. If you just take the Harland and Wolff yard in Belfast, they are about to start building the Fleet Solid Support (FSS) ships that our carriers so badly need, but progress is painfully slow. After this they will build the Multi Roll Support Ship that will underpin our Commando Force – this has been discussed for four years now and nothing has happened and now can't because of the FSS backlog. Finally, many years from now, they will move on to building more fleet tankers. But where are these orders, what is the timeline and where is the imperative to accelerate it? Where is the ambition and drive that the industry needs to thrive and expand in accordance with this 'engine for growth'? This is almost an exemplar of the whole thing; loads capability and revenue potential and yet seemingly no one with the leadership or levers to get on with it. Fourth is the requirement to innovate, largely driven by the lessons from Ukraine. If you have any dealings with Small and Medium Enterprises trying to get business in the MOD, you will know that we have created very nearly the worst business environment possible for these engines of UK excellence and change. Our speed of drone production is woeful and has to change if we want to just keep up, much less excel. SMEs hoping this document would unlock funding and a new framework into which they could plug will be disappointed. The fifth and final pillar is about national resilience and a whole-of-society approach to national security. If getting the public to care about resilience means they in turn care about defence enough to make it votable, then we should drive hard for that. From a naval perspective there are no real surprises. There is a reiteration of the importance of the sea to our survival as an island nation followed by a section on the importance of the nuclear deterrent, CUI protection (both data and energy) and how fast the threat to that is changing. There is a push to 'uncrewed where possible, crewed where necessary', how that could affect carrier operations in the future and how AI will improve our Maritime Domain Awareness, which is so important around the UK, Baltic and High North. Nuclear powered attack submarines get a boost with an aspiration for the Aukus tri-lateral agreement to eventually provide us with twelve of these behemoths. This might be the single line in the report that best reflects the strategic nature of what is now required. Twelve would be an excellent operational outcome but requires a huge uplift in expenditure that would include a second build line at Barrow. Great, but none of that is happening at 2.5 per cent. Likewise, the aspiration to increase to 25 frigates and destroyers. With the Type 31 about to start flying off the shelf, what does the overall surface ship breakdown look like between current and future destroyers (the stalled Type 83 programme), the anti-submarine Type 26 and the general purpose Type 31 frigate. Whatever happened to the Type 32 – does this get reborn or should we just keep building the Type 31 and export the ones we don't need. What about icebreakers, mine warfare support and patrol vessels. Start totting that lot up and you can see why many of these questions were dodged. The review discusses exports which is an area where the UK is increasingly being seen as a good ally (insert 'as the US wobbles' if you wish). Away from the navy there are a couple of interesting sections. The plan to grow the army is commendable until you realise we are talking about going from 73,000 to 76,000, at which point it feels performative, particularly as they continue to lose soldiers at a rate of about 300 a month. Growing the Army is an excellent idea, but we need to make it meaningful. There is a very interesting section on the possibility of acquiring a fleet of F-35As for the RAF. I argued here not long ago that this would be a good way to bridge the gap that is appearing between the ageing Typhoon and the 6 th Generation Tempest fighter. Nice to see it being aired as an option in the SDR. Even more interesting is the idea that these jets could be part of a tactical nuclear strike option. As a country I think we need this, but the financial, legal and operating complexities inherent in using the F-35 as the solution makes your eyes water. In terms of overall defence and security architecture, this review is but one part. I have mentioned the Hague summit later this month which may or may not alter the headline figures. We also know that the investment decisions required to make this a costed strategy will be deferred to a Defence Investment Plan due in the autumn. If there is optimism to be drawn from this SDR it is to see it as part of a whole, but given how hard we have found cohering just the defence part in a timely fashion, I shall remain sceptical until proven wrong. Overall this SDR reminds me of a cake. A nice looking one with some pretty icing and the promise of some candles tomorrow. The problem is, the defence cake doesn't really need more icing, it needs a new pedestal, more base ingredients and if not new chefs, at least a wholly new approach to baking. The risk aversion and lack of accountability that has plagued defence decision making in recent decades is not addressed. Neither is the treasury-led sense that defence is tomorrow's problem, certainly when compared to other domestic priorities. If you're a glass half full type, the review should be seen as part of a whole, but let's see. And at least the Treasury isn't visibly eating the cake like in previous reviews. But there is no escaping the fact that everyone in Europe thinks the defence paradigm has now changed sufficiently to force through more money and new ways of working. We have between now and the Hague summit to show that it has here too, or we will be left behind, lose defence credibility and most importantly, be less safe. Tom Sharpe OBE served for 27 years as a Royal Navy officer, commanding four different warships. He specialised first as a Fighter Controller and then as an Anti Air Warfare Officer
Arab News
27-05-2025
- Business
- Arab News
German army must use new funds responsibly, auditors say
In March, Germany's parliament approved plans for a massive spending surge Key recommendations include a thorough review of tasks, prioritization of defense-critical dutiesBERLIN: The German army must undergo significant organizational and personnel reforms to effectively utilize increased defense spending, the country's federal audit institute said on Tuesday in a special March, Germany's parliament approved plans for a massive spending surge, largely removing defense investment from the rules that cap Bundesrechnungshof report highlights that despite relaxed debt rules, the Bundeswehr must prioritize its core mission of national and alliance defense while reducing administrative processes.''Whatever it takes' must not become 'money doesn't matter!'' said Kay Scheller, president of the institute, emphasising the need for responsible financial management and increased efficiency in defense recommendations include a thorough review of tasks, prioritization of defense-critical duties, and restructuring the Bundeswehr to focus on 'more troops, less administration.'The Bundesrechnungshof recommends careful justification of financial needs, conducting efficiency analyzes, as well as maintaining a balance between time, cost and quality.'It is crucial that these funds are used responsibly to significantly increase the effectiveness of defense spending,' Scheller said.
Sky News
19-03-2025
- Sky News
Jaysley Beck: Mother of soldier who took her own life says she has 'sleepless nights' knowing there are still abusers in the Army
The mother of a young soldier who took her own life says she has "sleepless nights" knowing there are abusers still serving in the Army. A coroner ruled that the Army's failure to take action after 19-year-old Royal Artillery Gunner Jaysley Beck was sexually assaulted by a more senior soldier and harassed by her line manager contributed to her death at Larkhill Camp in Wiltshire in 2021. One of the men has since left the Army but the other continues to serve. Jaysley Beck's mother, Leighann McCready, believes he has been protected by the Army. "Why should they continue to carry on serving when we're left absolutely heartbroken? We have to deal with this for the rest of our lives and it's not fair. It's absolutely not fair that no action's been taken." Reacting to the announcement that claims of sexual harassment in the Army will be removed from the chain of command and instead dealt with by a new, specialist taskforce, Ms McCready said it was a "step in the right direction" but added that "it should have happened a long time ago". One former soldier described how, after reporting an alleged rape, she discovered the officers dealing with her case had called her a whore. 0:57 Ms McCready praised the hundreds of servicewomen who have spoken out since her daughter's death and urged the Army to root out their abusers. "This causes me sleepless nights to know that they're still serving. It's heartbreaking. It's absolutely heartbreaking to think this is still going on. "All I want now is for action, for real action to be taken and to continue with the change and continue speaking up". A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said "the Army and MoD have undertaken to carefully analyse and assess all of HM Coroner's findings into the tragic death of Gunner Jaysley-Louise Beck. "There is no place for bullying, harassment, or discrimination in the military. This government is totally committed to making the reforms that are needed to stamp out inappropriate behaviour and hold people to account." On Tuesday the head of the Army, General Sir Roly Walker, told MPs "I absolutely recognise that we still have work to do. There are some recurring themes which we are addressing. Self-evidently, there continues to be a prevalence of bullying, harassment, and discrimination within our ranks. "We have to recognise that there are some cultural and structural barriers still."
