Trust on Delen Private Bank for the planning and management of your family.
Experts who discuss, but also think about, your financial household.
Personally, with a foresighted view.
Delen Private Bank. For today and tomorrow.
Welcome to "Boekstijn en de Wijk".
I am looking for the new world order.
It is day 1359 of the war in Ukraine.
Every Tuesday and Thursday with listening questions.
Mail us at
[email protected] if you have a question.
And we start with a question from Hans van de Koppel.
Reserve First Lieutenant Derpanser Infantry in the Regiment.
Johan Willem Frizzo.
He writes, "All Europe is slowly moving to eventually go armed."
A lot is said about big investments in tanks and fuel.
But now tanks are something of the previous century.
Tanks are being used as modernized setting docks...
...with the largest amount destroyed by anti-tank weapons of the infantry.
By drones, by fighter aircraft and helicopters.
You can also see the countless strikes on YouTube by the Ukrainians.
And with my ingenious optics, a complete wronged investment.
I would like to reward you with a valuable vision.
Rob, I'll start with you.
It might be useful to start with me.
It's something you hear very often, of course.
But of course you realize that the drones...
...in combination with those...
...lobes that were destroyed by all parties and large minefields...
...in Ukraine, the so-called "manoeuvre war" has come to an end.
So that means that the parties are against each other.
And everything that is visible...
...about a band through the country of Pakweg...
...some 40 kilometers, some 20 kilometers, some less...
...that can be changed by chance.
So this means that maneuvering the war with tanks...
...and maneuvering the war means that you can maneuver with large units...
...to finally book an victory, that this is not possible at all.
Is the tank worth less? Well, that's my question, if that's the case.
Tanks are still being used, if you look at the movies on the internet from yesterday.
Yesterday, we talked about the prokosk and that kind of cities.
You can see that in the belending cities, the tanks just go in.
And that has to do with the fact that there are a lot of mistakes in this regard.
The weather conditions are bad to be able to operate well with drones.
So that means that you can go in with tanks and with heavy artillery pieces...
...you can maneuver without getting caught up too easily.
So it's not like the tanks were going to play a role in this regard.
And the tanks started to stagnate, and everyone stood up against each other in the corridor.
And then you see that tanks are being used for the protection of your own people.
Of course, those tanks are built for protection, so they are relatively safe.
But they are also being used as a kind of artillery piece, which you can shoot with.
So that tank is not completely emptied in that regard.
By the way, it turns out that it is also emptied.
Because some bonds say that they are back in the Ukraine, since the beginning of the war.
And we're still counting 11,000 tanks lost to the Russian side.
Others say that there are 4,000, and the British say that there are 26,000 lost.
But those tanks are still being used.
But often, because of this, the fight has come to a certain extent, in a very different way.
Now, the big question is, should we as a NAVOO take off from that?
The answer is, no. You have to be very careful about your drone protection.
It's not easy, because the Russians have a huge technological advantage over this.
As well as my concern about drone protection, as an offensive threat to the West.
The Ukrainians can do the same, so we have to learn from the Ukrainians again.
But you can see that it's not certain that such a drone protection will always exist.
And that it's always effective. When you have a breakthrough, for example, that can happen by the Russians.
Then you come back to the whole discussion about maneuvering, and then you need the tanks again.
So it depends on the phase of the fight you're in, to decide if you need the tanks or not.
I would be against it, because those heavy weapons systems are now all out of sight.
And to say, "No, we're doing everything with drones." That's not the case.
And you realize that, because of those drones, and because of the enormous attention the Russians have for the drone fight...
...they are actually doing well in practice with maneuvering.
And that's exactly what this is all about, a very strong West.
So that question is therefore not clear to answer, but I would be against it...
...to now say, "Look at what's happening there, and get the whole bunch off."
And then they have to invest. No, priority has to be invested in drone distribution.
And then you can create time and space to get the heavy weapons systems back on board again.
Because that takes a very long time for you to have that in front of you.
So the arsenal has to be diverse, but we don't have to write down the old-fashioned pillars?
I would never do that, because if you don't have them anymore, and the opponent does have them...
...and there is a breakthrough, then you have a huge problem.
That's the same problem with nuclear weapons.
That's why I can also say, "Get everything off." Because then nothing happens anymore.
That's not the case, because if the opponent has one more nuclear weapon left, then you can be sent with it.
I also read a report in which it is published for unmanned tanks...
...and then a number that is sent from distance, and then all the drones swarm around to protect them.
Yes, that's right. So this is often the case in the direction of unmanned systems.
That's also true. But that doesn't mean that the traditional systems are completely obsolete.
That's also true for fighter jets. They are still being used only with standard weapons.
They can also be used with weapons, and it can be used as a standard weapon.
It is all true, but you also adapt those systems, those platforms that I am talking about today...
...to the situation that is at the moment.
And you try to reduce, for example, a tank or a man to make a man with drone systems around it.
And that is the innovation that takes place during the war.
Camille Kamps writes that it is no longer safe that we can shout under the nuclear umbrella of the United States.
He writes, "Heren, you are going to assume that France or France or the United Kingdom will be watching this nuclear guarantee.
But what if Le Pen in France and Farage in the United Kingdom come to power, and we no longer get this guarantee from them?
What can we do then? Should we develop a Dutch nuclear weapon? There are several questions in one.
Arend Jan, what if Le Pen and Farage would both come to power?
That is a very interesting question.
What strikes me is that the party that Le Pen belongs to, is connected to the sovereignty of France.
It is connected to the sovereignty of France. And that means that they are critical about nuclear sharing.
So there is a serious problem there. Farage is in the polls, the largest party in England.
But that does not mean that he will really become prime minister.
Look, strictly logically speaking, Camille Kamps has a problem.
If you can't trust her, then you have to have something yourself, together with the Germans or the Scandinavians.
I understand that. But the political path to that, in the Netherlands, in the current parliament, I don't see it.
There are so many barriers, especially against national nuclear weapons, that I don't think there will be a possible way.
What do you think, Rob?
No, I don't think so either. We can play the game. We still have Urengko, who reaches.
We still can do it, I think, as long as the costs are there. But of course, they are huge.
But we can do it. The problem is, of course, that you will do something like that.
I mean, you are going to force them to do that on the wall of the island, because they don't pay for that.
There is no way to do that.
Yes, there is Belgium.
So I mean, it's just a bit of a problem to do that.
Of course, it wasn't for nothing that the French did that on an atoll bikini.
And that was pretty far away from France. The whole area there is probably polluted.
And they are still with the Dutch. But France is not there.
So, no, look, if that is going to happen, then the countries will be like Germany, but with the name Polen.
I think with the name Polen, that step will be set.
And of course there is something to say about it, from the perspective of the Poles.
Yes, they will of course pay, because they will also want to keep that relationship with America.
Which is also on the power.
Because that is a guarantee for the possible use of nuclear weapons, if it goes completely wrong.
So that's the real disadvantage that wants to have in this regard.
But no, but this is of course a nightmare scenario, if Le Pen and Farage come to power.
And say, we're going to war.
And we have very little to do with the ships, with the rest of Europe.
There will be some who will hear that this is not the case, because imagine that the Russians will indeed fall in.
And they will no longer be sent by American nuclear weapons, or the French or the British nuclear weapons.
And there will be a big war in Europe, with Poland and Germany, or the Baltic States, or the Netherlands.
To be hit very hard. You know, that also means the economic end of the United Kingdom and France.
So congratulations on your nuclear weapons, even if you don't put them in, then it's not handy yet.
So I think that these leaders will probably come to a conclusion, that if the Americans retreat,
they will simply have no choice, and they have to take a step forward.
Also in relation to their own interests, economic and security interests.
Dirk Sievert van der Laan writes the following.
With a lot of interest and care for the next July podcast.
Last week, it was about the vulnerability of the Netherlands when it comes to cyber-tex,
and that our Dutch government should do much more in that area.
I share that opinion, writes Dirk, but it's not about the business life either.
Although the business life is not responsible for the protection of the Dutch citizens,
but for its clients, employees, products, intellectual property,
I don't have the idea that the protection of cyber-tex in the business life
is better arranged than in the government, with all possible consequences.
What is your estimate, Rob? What do you think is indeed not just good in the business life,
or at least not better in terms of cyber-security than in the government?
It all depends on which company you have.
That makes a lot of some companies who have very critical processes,
who are incredibly well protected.
I can't say too much about that, but it all depends on the different types of security.
And that some companies really care about the highest rates,
because about every second they are attacked on a digital level.
So, yes, it all depends on which role the government has.
The government has, of course, just like companies, computers that have to be safe.
But besides that, the government has a role to ensure that the security is in order everywhere.
That's after a few years.
Well, we have the National Cyber Security Centre for that.
That advises companies as well in the direction of security.
At this point, a collaboration is being worked on.
The cyber-security network, and it's very good to do that.
There are obligations for companies, if there have been major attacks,
because there must be a second report within 24 hours, within 72 hours, and the final report within a month.
So, it's quite well-planned, but that doesn't mean that everyone is keeping an eye on it.
And everyone always leads the way with confidence, when you don't do that.
But that applies to the government as well as to the company life.
Yes, that's a problem, of course.
But because of the banks, there are certainly more vital institutions, like the banks.
They really have that in order, I have to say.
But that also applies to companies such as the telecom providers, I also know what they're talking about.
I've seen how it works.
And yes, maybe you always get through it once, if you do your best.
But due to the banks, we have a lot of companies that are doing very well in order.
We are especially smaller companies that don't have that.
Yes, but of course, that also affects the shoes a bit.
Of course, you have a number of vital players, and they are regularly regulated,
but they also have the greatest interest in ensuring that there is a cyber-security order.
But yes, every company does business with a whole list of other companies.
And there often has to be only one in the list, a stake to be made, or you have a big problem.
We have seen that at large events in America, for example.
We have also seen a number in Europe, that it just went completely wrong.
And that there are just cascade effects on the whole of Europe.
No, that can just happen.
And you have to keep that in mind, that it is going to happen.
But normally, I think that some big companies, and also some smaller companies,
because it depends on which sector you are in, and how secure you are.
Yes, yes, there it is, there it is really very important.
If that wasn't the case, then we would have already gone out of the light.
Now there comes a little bit where you have something on as a employer.
If you are changing daily, stimulating under your employees,
it is likely that they will also go vital with pension.
That's why you get a pension from ASR, also ASR Vitality.
With that, you are now being rewarded for walking,
so that they can not only enjoy financial fit, but also enjoy the vitality of their pension.
And you always contribute to a more vital Netherlands.
This is ASR for you and a healthy society.
ASR does it.
PodcastTranscript AI