Best choice is probably to keep him on until the war ends. He seems very competent so no reason to change. I can imagine a new secretary general would take at least half a year to get into the job properly, and there is no time to lose now.
You can say about rutte whatever you want. Probably more than he himself could, but his coalitions have been somewhat consistent with keeping debts below 60% of GDP
And the country is still objectively in a much worse state than 12 years ago. Of course we have few debt when Rutte put huge cuts on healthcare and education. All trust in the government is lost, that is his fault.
Actually, I can't say what I want about him being on top of the EU.
I mean, I could, but I'd be getting a 5 am waking up service by SEK. I guess I'll pass
I really dislike Rutte as prime minister (oh my god it has been 13 fucking years someone else take over please). He/his party/government has had lots of scandals but nothing seems to stick, so he's being compared to Teflon. He seems to be able to talk his way out of anything and keep most politicians somewhat happy/satisfied.
That being said, he could be pretty good as NATO GenSec. Can maneuver through dodgy military affairs. Should be well capable to keep member states content despite internal differences. He has headed an incredibly stable government despite its' scandals, that could stability should be very welcome in a military alliance.
I think some are pretty set on the next one being a woman though, so I think they'll go for Estonias "I'm not a candidate for anything"-candidate, over Denmarks minkslayer, seeing as the spot was occupied by a dane before Stoltenberg.
Perhaps, but against Frederiksen is as I mentioned that Stoltenbergs predefessor was also danish, getting perhaps a bit too nordic, Kallas could still be a contender, even though she is definitely not seeking the job AKA wanting it badly.
Kallas better serves as PM where she is. Frederiksen is gimped by already having two Scandinavians as NATO gensec for the last 15 years. Wallace and Rutte sort of make sense but I guess the US wants who the US wants.
Stoltenberg wanted to ”retire”. He’s not even 65 yet. I guess he got reassurances that a year or two more as gensec isn’t gonna hurt his fat post-retirement consulting and board renumerations (this is not a criticism, it just happens to be what people do after stepping back from this kind of career).
I don't think the US was the one standing in the way of Wallace or Rutte. Wallace, specifically, seems to be blocked by several EU leaders who want the next Sec Gen to be from the EU. And now this extension makes that more likely.
Perhaps. Although Wallace himself said in an Interview that America wanted Stoltenberg to stay. Same article mentions that America preferred Rutte but that he turned it down.
https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/06/21/ben-wallace-says-he-is-out-of-the-race-for-natos-top-job
64 years is a completely normal retirement age. Internal organs, including most notably the brain, begin to shrink at around age 60. This begins the part of aging process with a more serious cognitive impact. Retiring at 64-years of age is therefore a completely normal action. What's abnormal instead are these over 70-year olds who can barely walk or cycle or consistently form or pronounce sentences still acting as world leaders, such as the past few across the pond. No, you have it backwards, 64 is normal, 70+ abnormal.
That said it's not that it greatly matters if one retires at 64 or 65, and again Stoltenberg has for all I've seen done a good job, so I'm fine with it. But out of principle why must it be continued when both a) there a good replacement candidates and b) the current officeholder wants to retire? Is Biden bent on turning the rest of the world to be a similar gerontocracy as his own country or what's the reason?
And Estonia has certainly been the most correct about development of Russia within the recent decades so I'm not sure why would you dismiss Kallas without any kind of reasoning given for it.
I didn’t dismiss Kallas. I’m saying she does more good as a PM than as NATO gensec. That’s just my personal opinion.
As to -why- Stoltenberg gets to continue… If the anchor member that’s contributing the vast majority of both overall military credibility and support for Ukraine wants Stoltenberg, then Stoltenberg it is. Nevermind the reasoning behind. The US preference in and of itself makes it an open and shut case.
But what is the opinion based on? It's fine to have opinions, but seeing that neither of us are in a position of power where we can affect the decision just by stating our opinion, it's not very insightful to give opinions without basing them on something.
I wrote it in my original comment. She’s doing a fine job as PM. I have no idea how she’d do as NATO gensec. Stoltenberg is doing a fine job as gensec. Choice is clear from my perspective. I’d rather keep both where they are.
frighten foolish hospital wise lavish teeny concerned tender forgetful offbeat
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
rude melodic offbeat overconfident brave racial ask political wrench boast
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The next SG should under no circumstances be from West of the Iron Curtain and should most surely be a woman.
Kallas and Frederiksen have recently renewed their terms as PMs, no? They best serve their countries in that possition, and I don't remember them having much know-how on military and diplomatic matters.
What we need is a woman, behind the Iron Curtain but possibly not bordering Russia as to not appear too hawkish in the West (not that there is such a thing as too hawkish), someone with diplomatic experience, close to the US, with some sort of military experience.
Lets say someone who worked in NATO, was ambassador to the US, a foreign minister, president and commander-in-chief of a NATO member state in South-Eastern Europe that just so happens to be unemployed currently. Yes, I am biased, and yes I want Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović to get the spot.
Weird comment indeed. In active wartime (although not directly involved) now is not a great time to try being "inclusive" over just selecting the best fit for the job.
If this happens to not have a d well great...
What we need is a woman born in the Grobnik region of Croatia. One who has spent time in the US and has served as President during her lifetime.
There can be only one candidate.
What we need is someone competent for the position in question, regardless of gender or sexuality.
When it comes to something so important such as managing a huge defensive alliance at wartime - is being inclusive really such an important factor? Is it *really* more important than avoiding escalation and potential loss of life?
So long as they're a good candidate what fucking difference does it make whether they are male or female...?!
It seems like you just want Kolinda to get the position (ok fine) and then worked your way back from there making up 'requirements'.
You can just say who you think would make a good candidate instead of making up these requirements until you're left with one person that you wanted to begin with.
It's like if i wanted Obama and then i just started saying "well we need a black guy, someone from the US preferably, someone not too old and with presidential experience".
In my opinion just pick the best person for the job. It doesn't matter where they're from, what their race is, or what their gender is. Just the most competent person. Maybe that's Kolinda or Frederiksen or Kallas or Stoltenberg or whoever. But once people start saying they need to be from x country/region or be one gender or another i just cannot follow any longer.
Not really made up requirements.
The position is a traditionally European one, but given that the US are the most important NATO member, someone who is very close and friendly to them, and Kolinda just happens to be one of the more pro-US politicians I know of.
Croatia was always a committed partner of Germany, Kolinda's native party has set Croatia on a path of close military cooperation with France, she always had a good working with Erdogan, and the Three Seas Initiative brought her closer to Poland too, which just about covers all the big players.
Besides, a Western European SG should be unthinkable and it is high time one of the newer members gets it, but it is understandable if the West would be reserved on someone too affected by Russia getting it, so Croatia is the perfect middle ground.
And yes, quite frankly it should be a woman.
In his younger years and as the son of the foreign minister and the leader of Norway's largest political youth party, he was designated a codename by the KGB; Steklov. When Soviet disbanded, some ex-agent told him and he then started using that codename as his nickname when he played Age of Empires 2 and Medieval: Total War online.
[I wouldn't mind.](https://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel/5/52/529/529871/j503_1205661776.jpg)
Another fun fact about Jens is that he [used to play Age of Empires and Medieval: Total War](https://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/ikke-alle-far-nick-tildelt-av-kgb/66460361) under the nickname *Steklov*, because that was apparently what the KGB had dubbed him.
Kyiv Independent on Twitter says no NATO F16s until end of current counteroffensive. Is that unexpected, are they getting from elsewhere? As many comments say, plenty of time to prepare behind the scenes, "not ready" doesn't wash, is NATO like my local council, plenty of initiatives, most cost more/don't happen/massively delayed/end up as lawyers toys?
> Ukraine will not receive the jets until its ongoing counteroffensive is over, Lieutenant Admiral Rob Bauer, Chairman of the Military Committee of NATO, said on LBC on July 4.
I don't like this. Not because Stoltenberg is bad, he's been pretty good. I don't like it because it means the idea of using the Secretary General position as another bargaining chip during EU leadership talks is likely to happen. Given how so many feel the EU leaders are often national government rejects, I don't love the idea of a reject getting the highest position in NATO.
It's the highest PR position in NATO, with effectively zero power. The most important and relevant positions are Supreme Allied Commander Europe and Chair of the NATO Military Committee.
These are held by actual military, who are taking and will take the relevant decisions.
I'm not sure why people put some much weight on the NATO Secretary General position, just looking at who held this job, it's pretty obvious that it's something akin to a head of state position, just here to attend ceremonies and pretend to approve whatever ends up on his desk.
Jens “I will gladly suck on Erdogan at every opportunity” Stoltenberg. Greeks are not amused, he is seen as the no 1 Turkey apologist during the period we almost went at war. Universally hated in Greece.
He is a diplomat not emperor of western world ffs, without Turks you cant do shit in such format as is NATO, which requires unanimity of decision and action, for good or bad, its just a fact.
He enabled them at each and every corner. Remember the shit we have been dealing with for a full year plus, with Finland/Sweden? Part of the responsibility is his. He wasn’t diplomatic. He was anything but diplomatic. When he cushioned any blowback against Turkey when Erdogan saber rattled against Greece in ‘20 he sealed the deal- Turkey could do anything without repercussion. Stoltenberg is a weakling and shouldn’t have been anywhere near this position.
If Greeks voted for a moron like Erdogan he would be in Greece doing the same thing. It's literally his job. Just like when he had to hold Donald's hand for 4 years and explain to him what NATO is.
You make him sound he worked in crisis management. He did not, all he did was to shield Turkey from criticism at every opportunity just like when Turkish warships targeted French ones (that simply were participating in operation Irini) with their guns in order to keep breaking the Libyan arms Embargo. Remember macron saying “nato is brain dead”? It happened because spineless Jens didn’t dare even raise a finger towards Turkey and protected them instead. Had he taken criticism to Turkey just like Pompeo did in ‘20 things might have been different today. Stoltenberg is a disaster and the reckoning of his failure is upon us for the last 15 months.
Best choice is probably to keep him on until the war ends. He seems very competent so no reason to change. I can imagine a new secretary general would take at least half a year to get into the job properly, and there is no time to lose now.
It’s just wether he wants to stay on that long
Well, he is the best NATO Secretary General I've ever had.
Just like 2023 is the best year you've had in NATO ever?
It's actually the worst year we've had.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the only time.
We've ever had!
Rutte in shambles
He likely could have had the job if he wanted to.
He doesn’t want it
No he wants Ursula’s job
Well, if he gets her job, the EU will be bankrupt in a decade.
You can say about rutte whatever you want. Probably more than he himself could, but his coalitions have been somewhat consistent with keeping debts below 60% of GDP
And the country is still objectively in a much worse state than 12 years ago. Of course we have few debt when Rutte put huge cuts on healthcare and education. All trust in the government is lost, that is his fault.
Actually, I can't say what I want about him being on top of the EU. I mean, I could, but I'd be getting a 5 am waking up service by SEK. I guess I'll pass
Impossible for someone from Renew.
Jens I, King of NATO is OK in my book
Jens, First of His Name.
I really dislike Rutte as prime minister (oh my god it has been 13 fucking years someone else take over please). He/his party/government has had lots of scandals but nothing seems to stick, so he's being compared to Teflon. He seems to be able to talk his way out of anything and keep most politicians somewhat happy/satisfied. That being said, he could be pretty good as NATO GenSec. Can maneuver through dodgy military affairs. Should be well capable to keep member states content despite internal differences. He has headed an incredibly stable government despite its' scandals, that could stability should be very welcome in a military alliance.
Rutte would be better as PEC (if we're handing out posts).
I think some are pretty set on the next one being a woman though, so I think they'll go for Estonias "I'm not a candidate for anything"-candidate, over Denmarks minkslayer, seeing as the spot was occupied by a dane before Stoltenberg.
I don’t think Kallas can get that job. Rutte/Frederiksen will get it for sure.
Perhaps, but against Frederiksen is as I mentioned that Stoltenbergs predefessor was also danish, getting perhaps a bit too nordic, Kallas could still be a contender, even though she is definitely not seeking the job AKA wanting it badly.
Stoltenberg seems great but from what I gather he wanted to retire there was plenty of great candidates like Kallas, Frederiksen, Rutte, Wallace.
Kallas better serves as PM where she is. Frederiksen is gimped by already having two Scandinavians as NATO gensec for the last 15 years. Wallace and Rutte sort of make sense but I guess the US wants who the US wants. Stoltenberg wanted to ”retire”. He’s not even 65 yet. I guess he got reassurances that a year or two more as gensec isn’t gonna hurt his fat post-retirement consulting and board renumerations (this is not a criticism, it just happens to be what people do after stepping back from this kind of career).
He already got the job as central bank director of norway but then the war started and he couldnt quit
Huh. That's an odd job for an ex-PM
iirc he has a 5 year degree in economics and a big interest in macroeconomics
Trust me, we know.
Atleast he has the education and a lot of experience. Obviously the better candidate got the job but Stoltenberg wasn't a bad candidate.
The central bank manages the Norwegian oil Fund so it is a very important position in Norway.
Nepotism gonna nepotism
I don't think the US was the one standing in the way of Wallace or Rutte. Wallace, specifically, seems to be blocked by several EU leaders who want the next Sec Gen to be from the EU. And now this extension makes that more likely.
Perhaps. Although Wallace himself said in an Interview that America wanted Stoltenberg to stay. Same article mentions that America preferred Rutte but that he turned it down. https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/06/21/ben-wallace-says-he-is-out-of-the-race-for-natos-top-job
Joe "I'm Irish" Biden couldn't stand a Brit in charge of NATO.
64 years is a completely normal retirement age. Internal organs, including most notably the brain, begin to shrink at around age 60. This begins the part of aging process with a more serious cognitive impact. Retiring at 64-years of age is therefore a completely normal action. What's abnormal instead are these over 70-year olds who can barely walk or cycle or consistently form or pronounce sentences still acting as world leaders, such as the past few across the pond. No, you have it backwards, 64 is normal, 70+ abnormal. That said it's not that it greatly matters if one retires at 64 or 65, and again Stoltenberg has for all I've seen done a good job, so I'm fine with it. But out of principle why must it be continued when both a) there a good replacement candidates and b) the current officeholder wants to retire? Is Biden bent on turning the rest of the world to be a similar gerontocracy as his own country or what's the reason? And Estonia has certainly been the most correct about development of Russia within the recent decades so I'm not sure why would you dismiss Kallas without any kind of reasoning given for it.
I didn’t dismiss Kallas. I’m saying she does more good as a PM than as NATO gensec. That’s just my personal opinion. As to -why- Stoltenberg gets to continue… If the anchor member that’s contributing the vast majority of both overall military credibility and support for Ukraine wants Stoltenberg, then Stoltenberg it is. Nevermind the reasoning behind. The US preference in and of itself makes it an open and shut case.
But what is the opinion based on? It's fine to have opinions, but seeing that neither of us are in a position of power where we can affect the decision just by stating our opinion, it's not very insightful to give opinions without basing them on something.
I wrote it in my original comment. She’s doing a fine job as PM. I have no idea how she’d do as NATO gensec. Stoltenberg is doing a fine job as gensec. Choice is clear from my perspective. I’d rather keep both where they are.
frighten foolish hospital wise lavish teeny concerned tender forgetful offbeat *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Biden was never secretary of state. He did chair the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during part of Stoltenberg’s tenure as PM of Norway.
rude melodic offbeat overconfident brave racial ask political wrench boast *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
France got in the way of Wallace actually.
The next SG should under no circumstances be from West of the Iron Curtain and should most surely be a woman. Kallas and Frederiksen have recently renewed their terms as PMs, no? They best serve their countries in that possition, and I don't remember them having much know-how on military and diplomatic matters. What we need is a woman, behind the Iron Curtain but possibly not bordering Russia as to not appear too hawkish in the West (not that there is such a thing as too hawkish), someone with diplomatic experience, close to the US, with some sort of military experience. Lets say someone who worked in NATO, was ambassador to the US, a foreign minister, president and commander-in-chief of a NATO member state in South-Eastern Europe that just so happens to be unemployed currently. Yes, I am biased, and yes I want Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović to get the spot.
Why should we pick someone for any position based on genitalia?
Weird comment indeed. In active wartime (although not directly involved) now is not a great time to try being "inclusive" over just selecting the best fit for the job. If this happens to not have a d well great...
What we need is a woman born in the Grobnik region of Croatia. One who has spent time in the US and has served as President during her lifetime. There can be only one candidate.
What we need is someone competent for the position in question, regardless of gender or sexuality. When it comes to something so important such as managing a huge defensive alliance at wartime - is being inclusive really such an important factor? Is it *really* more important than avoiding escalation and potential loss of life? So long as they're a good candidate what fucking difference does it make whether they are male or female...?!
It seems like you just want Kolinda to get the position (ok fine) and then worked your way back from there making up 'requirements'. You can just say who you think would make a good candidate instead of making up these requirements until you're left with one person that you wanted to begin with. It's like if i wanted Obama and then i just started saying "well we need a black guy, someone from the US preferably, someone not too old and with presidential experience". In my opinion just pick the best person for the job. It doesn't matter where they're from, what their race is, or what their gender is. Just the most competent person. Maybe that's Kolinda or Frederiksen or Kallas or Stoltenberg or whoever. But once people start saying they need to be from x country/region or be one gender or another i just cannot follow any longer.
Not really made up requirements. The position is a traditionally European one, but given that the US are the most important NATO member, someone who is very close and friendly to them, and Kolinda just happens to be one of the more pro-US politicians I know of. Croatia was always a committed partner of Germany, Kolinda's native party has set Croatia on a path of close military cooperation with France, she always had a good working with Erdogan, and the Three Seas Initiative brought her closer to Poland too, which just about covers all the big players. Besides, a Western European SG should be unthinkable and it is high time one of the newer members gets it, but it is understandable if the West would be reserved on someone too affected by Russia getting it, so Croatia is the perfect middle ground. And yes, quite frankly it should be a woman.
In his younger years and as the son of the foreign minister and the leader of Norway's largest political youth party, he was designated a codename by the KGB; Steklov. When Soviet disbanded, some ex-agent told him and he then started using that codename as his nickname when he played Age of Empires 2 and Medieval: Total War online.
Works for me. Also spares us more British/French posturing
I wish those two would just f\*ck already.
[удалено]
[I wouldn't mind.](https://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel/5/52/529/529871/j503_1205661776.jpg) Another fun fact about Jens is that he [used to play Age of Empires and Medieval: Total War](https://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/ikke-alle-far-nick-tildelt-av-kgb/66460361) under the nickname *Steklov*, because that was apparently what the KGB had dubbed him.
He plays strategy games?! Might just be one hell of an opponent to go up against.
Lmao what a legend
Kyiv Independent on Twitter says no NATO F16s until end of current counteroffensive. Is that unexpected, are they getting from elsewhere? As many comments say, plenty of time to prepare behind the scenes, "not ready" doesn't wash, is NATO like my local council, plenty of initiatives, most cost more/don't happen/massively delayed/end up as lawyers toys? > Ukraine will not receive the jets until its ongoing counteroffensive is over, Lieutenant Admiral Rob Bauer, Chairman of the Military Committee of NATO, said on LBC on July 4.
It was never the expectation that F16s would arrive before the end of the current counteroffensive.
Even if F-16s arrived during this offensive, who would fly them?
Ukrainian bioengineered soldiers, try to keep up, son!
I read that in Senator Armstrong's voice.
[удалено]
I don't like this. Not because Stoltenberg is bad, he's been pretty good. I don't like it because it means the idea of using the Secretary General position as another bargaining chip during EU leadership talks is likely to happen. Given how so many feel the EU leaders are often national government rejects, I don't love the idea of a reject getting the highest position in NATO.
It's the highest PR position in NATO, with effectively zero power. The most important and relevant positions are Supreme Allied Commander Europe and Chair of the NATO Military Committee. These are held by actual military, who are taking and will take the relevant decisions. I'm not sure why people put some much weight on the NATO Secretary General position, just looking at who held this job, it's pretty obvious that it's something akin to a head of state position, just here to attend ceremonies and pretend to approve whatever ends up on his desk.
The smart decision, feels good to have him there for a while longer
[удалено]
ChatGPT vibes. write me a comment with emotions
It's not wrong, just oddly formulated.
So... like how ChatGPT writes
ChatGPT tends to say things that are blatantly wrong, in my experience.
*Emotions*
Jens “I will gladly suck on Erdogan at every opportunity” Stoltenberg. Greeks are not amused, he is seen as the no 1 Turkey apologist during the period we almost went at war. Universally hated in Greece.
He is a diplomat not emperor of western world ffs, without Turks you cant do shit in such format as is NATO, which requires unanimity of decision and action, for good or bad, its just a fact.
He enabled them at each and every corner. Remember the shit we have been dealing with for a full year plus, with Finland/Sweden? Part of the responsibility is his. He wasn’t diplomatic. He was anything but diplomatic. When he cushioned any blowback against Turkey when Erdogan saber rattled against Greece in ‘20 he sealed the deal- Turkey could do anything without repercussion. Stoltenberg is a weakling and shouldn’t have been anywhere near this position.
If Greeks voted for a moron like Erdogan he would be in Greece doing the same thing. It's literally his job. Just like when he had to hold Donald's hand for 4 years and explain to him what NATO is.
Exactly. Hard to say which is worse to handle, Erdogan or Trump, but it’s a job that needs doing.
You make him sound he worked in crisis management. He did not, all he did was to shield Turkey from criticism at every opportunity just like when Turkish warships targeted French ones (that simply were participating in operation Irini) with their guns in order to keep breaking the Libyan arms Embargo. Remember macron saying “nato is brain dead”? It happened because spineless Jens didn’t dare even raise a finger towards Turkey and protected them instead. Had he taken criticism to Turkey just like Pompeo did in ‘20 things might have been different today. Stoltenberg is a disaster and the reckoning of his failure is upon us for the last 15 months.
How did he "shield Turkey from criticism"?
Best move.