Category: Andre artikler på dansk

I går, den 10. december, deltog jeg i Clement Kjærsgaards P1-program “Akkurat”. Mine bidrag knyttede sig primært til situationen i Ukraine, hvor jeg dels understregede dennes alvor og konstaterede, at som Rusland havde gjort klart for to år siden, var en sejr over Ukraine ikke et mål i sig selv. Det var et middel til at opnå en ny strategisk situation, hvor USA var væk og hvert europæisk land var tvunget til at tilpasse sig russisk magt.

Jeg konstaterede ved afslutningen af min deltagelse, at næste fase var indledt, idet Rusland havde stillet krav til Letland om at forbedre landets russiske minoritets status.

Det fik en anden deltager, den tidligere direktør i Udenrigsministeriet, ambassadør Friis Arne Petersen, til at påpege, at Letland som de andre baltiske lande i modsætning til Ukraine var sikret af deres NATO-medlemskab. Alliancens styrke ville effektivt sikre dem.

Han syntes derfor ikke at forstå, at det eneste medlemsland, der har militære styrker, der kan sikre russisk respekt for NATO, er USA. Andre, derunder Danmark, har på alt andet end det symbolske niveau kørt på frihjul i tyve år.

De vesteuropæiske medlemslandes støttemuligheder over for russisk militært pres og et konventionelt angreb er igennem de sidste tre årtier sparet og rådnet væk, og i modsætning i frontlinjestaterne fra Sverige og Finland mod syd, der siden 2014 har forsøgt at lukke de værste huller, er USA’s militær nu endnu mere dominerende end under Den Kolde Krig.

Rusland ser grundlæggende ret, når man opfatter USA som lig med NATO.

At USA nu er på vej til at opgive Ukraine, fordi Trump-støttende Republikanerne blokerer en fortsættelse og samarbejder med Putins agent, Ungarns Viktor Orban, om at sabotere økonomisk støtte fra EU til Ukraine.

Dette undergraver med god grund frontlinjestaternes tillid til USAs og derigennem alliancens muligheder.

Mens ambassadøren forklarede, hvordan USA måtte bede europæerne om at bære mere at eget konventionelt forsvar af Europa, var en anden deltager i udsendelsen, Danmarksdemokraternes Søren Espersen uden argumenter af den sikre opfattelse, at USA ikke ville tillade et ukrainsk nederlag.

Kort sagt viste udsendelsen klart og akkurat, at man slet ikke forstår den dramatiske ændring af Europas situation som er på vej som følge af Vestens amatørisme og svigt i at inddæmme Ruslands offensiv mod vores fremtid.

You should feel proud of the long Western legacy of breaking with a past where we did as earlier empires.

We thereafter sought less suffering, more equality, more freedom and more justice for all or most, even if the situation was often difficult and complex.

But instead you hate your world and its achievements and follow the Pied Piper with no knowledge/understanding driven by unthinking and manipulated emotions in your social media echo chambers.

You deserve what you will get, but I feel sorry for my gransons.

Russia invaded Ukraine starting a war that most in the West saw as a conflict between good and evil. A war between democratic aspirations and autocratic and imperial regression.

However, it soon became clear that the Global South remained neutral and it exploited the situation as much as possible. The Russians had again succeeded in making the former colonies of Western European empires ignore that the only old European empire still there and aggressively active is Russia. The only people remembering this is China, but Beijing wanted Moscow as an ally.

Through 2023 it became ever more clear that the relatively united Western front was fragmenting, as right-wing, populist political forces in both the U.S. and Europe sought a regression from democracy and rule of law. Historically aware people may recognise that this is a replay of what had happened in the Interwar Period.

After the start of the Hamas-Israeli War on 7 October the support for Ukraine has come under serious pressure from three independent forces.

The first one were the right-wing, Ukraine hostile, Trumpist forces in the U.S. It adopted an uncritical pro-Israeli line to further undermine support for Ukraine.

The second were the large – and now clearly not politically integrated – Muslim population groups of the West that fully identified with the Palestinian (in reality Hamas) position in the new conflict. In reality they acted as a radicalised extension of the Global South‘s position of neutrality in the Ukraine War.

The third was what must be called the young and largely Anarchist left that was and is nourished by years of Woke hatred and disgust of the West and their democratic governments. The West – their own countries – had been colonialist exploiters and racist slave owners, and their elites were still considered to be “structurally” racist and supporting inequality.

And their democratic states’ politicians had clearly been ineffective in meeting the main problem of our time, climate collapse. Therefore chaos with human extinction is approaching fast and uncontained.

As their equally tunnel-visioned grand-parents uncritically marched for Vietnamese Communist Party dictatorship in all Vietnam and their parents marched for unilateral Western nuclear disarmament, the young Left activists now march for a Palestine from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. They feel good doing so, so everything will end all right. Ukraine’s future is clearly a minor issue not relevant to them.

I shall not use text here to consider how it is possible for in principle intelligent, young people that have grown-up and benefitted from the rule of law and attempted social justice in Western Europe to put these unique benefits at risk and at stake by their actions. I do not understand it now as I did not understand it meeting the many fundamentalist Marxists at University and in meetings in the 1970’ties.

However, I do understand that the insecure, but convinced, young now organise outside and in opposition to the party based parliamentary democracy. The echo rooms of social media groups of the like-minded feel much safer.

My focus here is their never aquired or lost knowledge/acceptance of how Western international behaviour has improved in a unique way over the last two and a half century. I do this even if it probably is futile to unlock and defuse the self-disgust of young activists by pointing out that they should be proud of the history of the West and embrace their inheritance.

It is true that the West, at the end mainly Anglo-Saxons and the French, build and exploited immense empires and enslaved other nations.

They behaved the same way that others had done in other periods for thousands of years and some still work hard to continue to do (such as the Russians and Han Chinese on a large scale and many others on a regional or local scale).

What they should be proud rather than ashamed of is that it was their countries of the West that past started roughly 250 years ago during the Enlightenment movement in Europa.

Gradually it became accepted by more and more of the Western elites that past behaviour was morally wrong should end. The elite and state behaviour paradigm morfed gradually into what would be familiar today. The actions necessary to expand and sustain empire became controlled in means and ways to fight until it could be completely abolished. International behaviour should be regulated by a common framework of rules.

The development towards changed behaviour and more international justice certainly did not follow a straigth line.

However, after the disastrous lapse of the extended world conflict 1931 to 1945, the complex of improvement ideas was realised at the creation of the United Nations. As this organisation was created and manned by humans, it was not perfect. However most did their best to solve the unsolvable dilemmas of the time.

One such dilemma was how to create some future for the Jewish nation after decades of intensified Russian progroms in the “Bloodlands” of the Eastern Europe followed by the German led Holocaust.

Note, dear simple-minded critics, that the intentions were the best possible, but as all other settlements and societal enginnering, the implementation brought a continuation of the conflict in the British Mandate of Palestine in the 1930’ties.

Ambitious new Arab neighbouring states actively nourished the hostilities, and the UN 1956 attempt to contain the conflict failed after ten years, bringing half a century of conflict and escalating misery.

The solution now suggested by the critics of the past well-intentioned solution will just continue the Holocaust in a more naïve clothing pretending the certain result to be just.

An indirect result of the blind support of unlimited Palestinian claims against easing the way for the return of the last European empire, the Russian, to Eastern Europe.

Being a veteran of the Alliance at the end of the Cold War that ended roughly thirty years before the present still unnamed intense confrontation with Russia, I am worried, seriously worried because some core functions have been lost. They were functions developed from the early 1950ties to make NATO a credible deterrent.

Here I shall limit myself to two functions that I experienced in my own service then as major and lieutenant-colonel: The common readiness plan and the command structure. Both were exercised in the bi-annual Command Post Exercises that trained procedures.

The readiness plan (cannot remember if it was a SHAPE or NATO HQs document) described all the detailed steps at each readiness level from Peace Time to the war condition. It made it possible to coordinate preparations among all member states as the same steps were mirrored in a more detailed specific form in the national readiness plans. The NATO document also described when the Alliance would pool member resources such as communications, shipping and aviation.

The regional and subregional structure (I experienced the subregional HQs Baltic Approaches and its subordinate land force headquarters), were essential as a framework for bridging the front line and rear area/reinforcing member states. The subordinate headquarters such as the German-Danish Corps LANDJUT and the Danish LANDZEALAND developed defence plans and forces requirements, where at best only the initial part could be met by the front line member states. The NATO command structure could therefore work as a clearing-house for the distribution of the arriving force reinforments from rear including overseas member states, supplementing the national efforts of the frontline states to attract such reinforcements and negotiate the host nation support and other conditions.

Until NATO have recreated such functions for new European member forces and plans and consolidated them through regular exercises, the deterrent effect depends entirely on the visible remaining U.S. armed forces in Europa.

I have read no signs that this has been understood by the successor generation.

The new Israeli-Palestinian War was likely condoned and supported by Iran to break the developing relations between Israel and Arab States. This means that Russia has been informed in advance and has (at least tacitly) approved the Hamas coup attack.

However, as the Iran dominated Hezbollah was not involved from the start, it was probably not a direct Iranian initiative.

But, no matter who has been involved in various ways, the war is the worst news possible for the Ukraine since 24 February last year.

The reason is not only that it attracts world media and political attention at crucial time of fading interest in the Ukrainian cause.

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict has for decades been a highly devisive issue for Europe with the large Muslim, Palestinian supporting minorities in several states. However, the latest domestic political development in Israel away from the rule of law worries even traditional European supporters of the country.

In the U.S. the issue of support for the Ukrainians now divides the Republicans, but the support for Israel does not. The more Trumpist, the more uncritical support.

Thus the new war threatens to undermine Western unity, so no matter if or how the Kremlin was involved, it is good news for Putin, and the more the new conflict spreads and longer it lasts the better for him.

Israeli support for Ukraine was limited by its security concerns in Syria. Any hope of change is now gone, if the conflicts do not merge after an escalation to a direct Israeli-Iranian conflict.

Erdogan’s Türkiye should be watched as it will try to exploit the new conflict as well.

(Photo AP)

The gangs and their warfare are creating the equivalent og “liberated areas” in the classical theory of insurgency. They are exploiting the lack of ability of the courts, social support system and police to do more than reacting to the tragic results.

To counter the problem, the Swedish authorities must apply the tools of the classical methods of counter-insurgency presented by Robert Thompson nearly 60 years ago when he extracted the lessons of the succesful campaign i Malaya. Then the central tools were an energetic campaing to generate accurate intelligence for precise intervention combined with pressure against the communities that protected the rebels plus political and economic benefits for both those communities and for the rebels that changed side.

It must be accepted that a more massive police operation even with military support will not help in itself.

These tools are necessary even if very controversial:

Forced move of families (north – Sweden is large) in forced settlement in places and environment that enhance effective survellance and control.

Effective constant and complete surveillance of the rebellious gang clusters must be sought.

Changing juvenile court procedures and decisions to support the control and intelligence effort.

Recruiting agents in the gangs and communities with guarantees of rewards, freedom from procecution and protection.

Achieving full acceptance and support from EU authorities and especially neighbouring states such as Denmark.

The alternative is continued escalation until the remaining unity of Sweden is lost.

Den 1. september, dvs. i går

svarede jeg dårligt i spørgeperioden efter et foredrag om Ukrainekrigen. Spørgsmålet drejede sig om den danske hærs læring af ukrainerne.

Det vil jeg derfor tage op i dette blog-indlæg. Det er indlysende, at vi kan og bør lære af det der er gjort godt og skidt under konflikten. Det er uansvarligt andet. Bl.a. Forsvarsakademiet og dets Hærens Officerskole samt sergentuddannelser, i hærstaben, i brigadestabene samt i regimenterne (og derefter forhåbentligt i genskabte våbenskoler) må man da selvfølgelig være i gang med at samle informationer, analyse, lære og tilpasse sig. Alt andet kan man da slet ikke forestille sig.

Lad mig her berøre nogle af de emner, der ligger lige for.

Hvordan er det lykkedes ukrainerne at føre deres brigader under presset fra konstant overvågning af droner samt elektronisk overvågning. Hvordan ser føringscentrene og deres bemanding ud, dvs. hvor store er de, med hvilke specialister ud over cheferne, med hvilke køretøjer skjult hvordan, eller i bygninger? Hvordan planlægges for kommende indsats? Hvordan kontrollerer man de forskellige enheder? Alt må ske helt anderledes, end vi normalt gør det, meget mere diskret?

Hvordan organiseres sikkerheden i felten mod udslip effektivt i en periode med intensiv droneovervågning og sociale medier?

Hvordan organiseres anvendelsen af forskellige typer af droner med artilleri under angreb og forsvar (at det sker effektivt for overvågningsdroner, kan man se på udsendte videoer)?

(Fotografiet viser angiveligt ødelagte russiske føringskøretøjer fra et kampstade)

Indtil begyndelsen af 1990’erne var næsten hele Hærens virksomhed rettet mod at kunne løse krigsopgaverne bedst muligt med de svage enheder i fredsstyrken og de forberedte mobiliseringsstyrker. Det drejede sig først og fremmest om forsvaret af det dansk-tyske korps, LANDJUT’s, nordlige sektor ved Lübeck, forsvaret af Sjælland med hovedindsatsen mod de østlige kyster samt øforsvaret af Bornholm. Hertil kom baglandsforsvaret af Nørrejylland og Fyn.

Udgangspunktet i denne indsats var de periodiske rekognosceringer i forsvarsterrænet og den efterfølgende planproces, der skulle sikre en tilpasning til erkendte udviklinger i de identificerede sandsynlige fjendtlige enheder fra DDR, Polen og Sovjetunionen samt ændrede egne muligheder. Da de rådige danske hærenheder altid var betydeligt mindre og ikke specielt tilstrækkeligt udrustet, var perioden fra begyndelsen af 1970’erne præget af en stadig søgen efter fremgangsmåder, der kompenserede for manglerne. Herunder ingeniørtroppers bidrag til hindrearbejder og senere integrationen af artilleriets nye clusterammunition i de taktiske fremgangsmåder for våbnenes samvirke.

Denne søgen efter den bedste vej til at løse konkrete opgaver i et givet terræn inspirerede Hærens øvrige aktiviteter, herunder de instruktionsøvelser, der skulle sikre professionel ajourføring af reserveofficerer og de linjeofficerer, der normalt anvendtes i rene fredstidsstillinger, men bemandede stillinger i enheder og taktiske stabe fra mobilisering.

Umiddelbart skabte de operative og logistiske krigsplaner grundlaget for mobiliseringsplanlægningen og forberedelserne til flytningen af de mobiliserede enheder fra mobiliseringsområderne i militærregionerne til de planlagte indsættelsesområder.

Mere generelt skabte den opgavefokuserede krigsplanlægning grundlaget for alle hærens aktiviteter, dvs. logistiske forberedelser, uddannelsen af kadrerne til deres rolle i krig samt scenarierne for den praktiske uddannelse ved øvelser af stabe og enheder fra enhedsniveau og opefter i højere ramme. Ikke mindst stabe fra bataljon/afdeling og opefter blev bevidst presset og stresset af behovet for at kunne løse deres opgaver 27syv i mange dage under jævnlige flytninger og kravet om maksimal sikkerhed i forhold til udstråling, synlighed fra luften og risikoen af overfald af specialstyrker. Realistiske scenarier spillede altid risikoen for at blive ramt artilleri og fly samt periodevis også kemiske våben, og uddømning af nøglepersoner skulle øve enhederne i at fungere på trods af forventelige tab.

Selvfølgelig kan stormagtslandstyrker udvikle effektive enheder og stabe uden at have én dimensionerende terrænlåst krigsopgave, men det forudsætter at styrkerne er fuldt bemandede og man har de meget store resurser, der kan sikre fleksibilitet. Og selv sådanne styrker (som marineinfanteri og luftbårne styrker) lader deres organisation og aktiviteter styrke af et dimensionerende scenarie.

Men den tidligere ikke alene danske, men den generelle terrænbestemte ramme for alle NATOs landmilitære forsvarsforberedelser i Europa, sikrede, at disse forberedelser tog udgangspunkt i den samlede forsvarsopgave. Hele fronten skulle dækkes. Dette krav var forankret i NATOs daværende regionale og subregionale ramme for forsvarsplanlægningen, i Danmark og Nordtyskland Enhedskommandoen for området (BALTAP).

Det er ikke sandsynligt, at en sådan størrelse og forberedt dansk hærstyrke, der kan bidrage til løsningen af NATO-opgaver, kan genskabes uden, at udgangspunktet igen bliver én (eller evt. et par) dimensionerende forsvarsopgave(r).

Det er ikke kun enhederne og deres kadrer, der tabte relevant erfaring og rutine efter begyndelsen af 1990’erne og specielt fra nullerne. De faciliteter i garnisonerne og den rutine her, at sikrede muligheden for at kunne mobilisere og derefter supplere Hærens enheder, blev nedlagt og må i givet fald retableres fra bunden. Det må nok ske med udenlandsk hjælp, hvis det skal kunne ske friktionsløst og hurtigt.

Til sidst er det væsentligt at erindre sig, at forfaldet allerede var startet i 1980’erne. Allerede da var øvelserne blevet drejebogsstyrede med henblik på at indøve en doktrinær opførsel, der reelt var blevet dogmatisk. Man gennemførte ikke længere øvelser, kontrolleret af en øvelsesledelse støttet af en kampdommerorganisation, hvor cheferne fik muligheden af at lære kampens virkelighed gennem egne dumheder. Den sidste kampdommerstøttede øvelse, jeg oplevede, var en 2. Sjællandske Brigade-styret øvelse på Lolland i vinteren 1975-76.

Fra starten af opbygningen under Den Kolde Krig havde Hæren det problem, at man ikke indrettede strukturen til en længerevarende konfrontation og åben konflikt. Man havde ikke reservemateriel, og der eksisterede ikke nogen professionelt indrettet personelerstatningsorganisation i mobiliseringsstyrken. Alt for meget facade, for lidt substans.

Øvelser blev allerede da “afviklet” og var altid en succes, uanset om denne succes var, hvad der senere benævntes “spin”, dvs. en forkromet løgn.

Bold Guard 86 var den sidste øvelse, hvor næsten alle elementer, som her beskrives, blev øvet.

In Afghanistan the West was incapable of developing a strategy that might have brought a less tragic outcome for the Afghan people. That strategy would have had to be founded on the reality that Pakistan should to be forced to stopped supporting the rebellion north of the border line by playing the Indian card.

We failed in our short-lived and half-hearted effert, the Afghans lost.

And we failed to learn that a strategy for conflict must have a solid bridging between a realistic objective and the dedicated means and chosen methods.

So now we are in a hurry and therefore cannot accept the reality that Russia has chosen an extended strategy for what it has convinced its people is a defensive war against the West for its existential right to become (again) a traditional empire and thereby a main world power in defence of etarnal conservative values.

In this Russian struggle all international rules of war and humanity are obviously irrelevant, as only a defeated power can be held responsible.

The initial war theatre is Ukraine. Here Western politicians seem incapable of accepting that any attempts af compromise will only fuel the conflict. We must face the difficult and unwanted future as we did in 1948-49.

However, it seems impossible to accept the reality that the brilliant British analyst Keir Giles has described in his latest two books.

As the West is as always in a hurry it has to assume that Russia will not become able to develop a war economy that can support an extended war. We have to assume that our sanctions will work well enough to keep the Russians from getting what they need. We must ignore what they get by other channels … via “neutral” and neighbour states and from China (that has only limited herself by not supplying finished weapons, at least not openly).

We cherish at any rumour that Russia is running out of enough missiles, shells, tanks, etc. to sustain the war.

Everybody noted that the Russian Army of winter-spring 2022 was corrupt, backward and ineffective and thus over-rated. We noted all stories about badly equipped and disillusioned Russian soldiers, and we ignore the evidence that these stories have become less frequent. This it spite of Ukrainian information that the Russian forces have learned and improved tactics, logistics and command security. We are happy to continue our contempt for the Russian Army performance instead of seeking to understand where it succeeded at improving and where it remains sub-standard.

With deep lack of military professionalism we encouraged the Ukrainians to become convinced that some donated Western army equipment would enable them to break-through the formidable Russian defended obstacles that their engineer troops created in the occupied areas from last autumn.

Because politically we needed and early victory and we had un-learnt the ability to see bad news and moral courage to advice the politicians accordingly.

Right now we do not confront the situation that has been and will be created by the very high Ukrainian casualties that they have little hope of replacing.

As they rarely describe their motivations, I hereby outline the likely steadily growing resistance to continuing the support of the Ukranian side in the struggle. I have the Danish scene in mind, but please correct me if wrong.

The first group are the people that always belonged to the left. The U.S. was and is the main enemy, and everybody fighting the U.S. is basically right. They consider it obviously right when Putin presents the Americans as self-serving hypocrits. Democracy is a sham.

The second group are fundamentalist supporters of various religions, in the West primarily militant Christianity. The woke liberal democracies undermine the core pillars of Western societies with the traditional family at the centre.

Putin is the present main defender of those values and must therefore be supported in his fight against the slide towards immorality. Democracy is irrelevant if it does not stand-up in the defence against the slide. If necessary “strong patriotic MEN” such as Putin, Orban and Erdogan must command the bulwark against the satanic destruction of values.

We at the centre are under siege from both Putin and our own left and right.

Billedet viser sydkoreanske K9 Thunder haubitser, som bl.a. Norge, Finland, Estland og Polen har valgt, og som Polen producerer og videreudvikler.

Den første fase i en af en større militær materielgenstand er ren politisk, og uden denne rager man efterfølgende rundt i tågen.

Politikerne skal bestemme hvilke opgaver, som det enkelte værn skal løse, under hvilke vilkår (hvor lang forberedelse) og i hvilket sandsynligt geografisk område.

Forsvarsledelsen undersøger sammen med værnsledelsen/-ledelserne mulighederne for at løse de forskellige opgaver og fastlægger det umiddelbart mest økonomiske og robuste mix af enheder og våbensystemer.

Dette geografiske er af stor betydning, for hvis allierede i området allerede opererer en sådan type materiel i området og er tilfredse, vil det være ret logistisk, operativt og uddannelsesmæssigt dumt ikke at vælge samme type og ikke udnytte vennernes erfaringer maksimalt. Som basis må intet materiel anskaffes, der ikke anvender samme ammunition og brændstof som de allierede.

Den anden fase finder sted i et tæt samspil mellem den centrale forvaltning og specialister (det relevante værns-specialcenter/skole for studie- og uddannelsesvirksomhed). Her fastlægges mulighederne for mulige valg, og man indhenter oplysninger om økonomiske forhold (herunder anslåede “livstidsomkostninger”, logistiske forhold vedrørende vedligeholdelse og ammunition og uddannelseskrav for brugere og mekanikere).

Om muligt skal hver producent enten levere et kopi af materielgenstanden til sammenlignede afprøvning på specialcentret/-skolen, eller også skal hold fra skolen have mulighed for at prøve materiellet over en længere periode i produktionslandet, bedst i en enhed, der i en periode har haft materielle. Ingen kontrakt skal undertegnes før en hård praktisk afprøvning af genstanden og vedligeholdelsen af denne. Et centralt problem i Danmark er, at Hærens våbenskoler for fem år siden blev nedlagt, og så man på mange områder allerede tidligere har fravalgt materieltyper, så man mangler erfaringer med

I denne fase skal det også fastlægges, hvor hurtigt de forskellige mulige producenter kan levere 1) materiel til den første enhed, der kan opnå erfaringer med anvendelsen af det nye materiel og simulator (evt. ved udlån fra producentens militære styrker), og 2) resten.

Hvorfor er der så store problemer nu?

Fordi der ikke findes det politiske grundlag af prioritering af opgaver.

A) Fordi der derfor ikke foreligger forsvars- og værnskoncepter for at løse opgaverne.

B) Fordi de danske forsvarsmyndigheder synes at have været ekstremt arrogante i manglede vilje til at lære af allierede i regionen.

C) Fordi de ansvarlige myndigheder ikke synes at vide, hvordan de opbygger og inddrager den operative og logistiske baggrund for beslutningerne.

D) Fordi studie- og udviklingsvirksomheden og den tilknyttede faglige debat er nedlagt, reduceret og forvitret, så man reelt skal starte fra bunden.

Hvordan det virkede i det nuværende forsvar (på grundlag af åbne kilder)

Man valgte oprindeligt den israelske pjece uden nogen tanker om operativ anvendighed, for der fandtes jo ikke nogen dimensionerende opgave, og vi skulle aldrig i krig, hvor man skød rigtigt tilbage. Opgaven var at tilfredsstille NATO. Det eneste styrende kriterie var, at FMI angiveligt ikke kan lide bæltekøretøjer. Det er rationelt, når man stille forudsætter, at man ikke skal vælge stillinger frit i terrænet hele året rundt.

Men så blev man underkendt i den politiske proces, fordi De Radikale ikke ville acceptere Israel som leverandør. Det blokerede for den beslutning om køb, som man åbenbart allerede havde meddelt, at Elbit kunne regne med.

Uden at gennemføre ny udbudsforretning med nye kriterier anskaffer man i stedet de franske Caesar-haubitser.

Israelerne blev med god grund sure og forberedte et for FMI meget ubehageligt sagsanlæg.

Men da ukrainerne så gerne ville have vores Caesar slap man af med problemet og handelen med israelerne besluttes hurtigt uden seriøst udbud. Sagsanlægget blev droppet, og artilleriregimentet kunne hurtigt gives noget at lege med. Ingen var interesseret i, at Atmos og Puls ikke fandtes i andre NATO-lande.

Man kunne forklare hastværket med, at artilleriregimentet havde været til grin så længe, at brigaden fik kanoner og NATO så havde lidt mindre grund til at brokke sig. Nu skulle man blot have solgt eventyret til politikerne og offentligheden.

Processen har været uskøn på enhver måde pga. at man ikke har fulgt den professionelle model med saglig analyse på grundlag af et prioriteret scenarie.

Det ville med stor sandsynlighed – som i de andre lande – have givet den danske hær K9.

Dette kan ikke udredes af selv den mest kvalificerede civile udredning, for hvorfra skulle et konsulentfirma vide noget om dette.

Måske kan problemerne afdækkes af en kombineret gruppe af udenlandske militære fagfolk fra kvalificerede strukturer.