# Foreign Minister Baird:  we'll protect the North by force if needed



## The Bread Guy (26 Aug 2014)

This, from Russian media ....


> Canada is concerned about Russia’s military expansion in the Arctic and is ready to defend its interests in the region using military force, John Baird, Canadian foreign affairs minister, told the _Berlingske_ newspaper Monday.
> 
> “We are deeply worried and ready to promote and protect Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic. It’s a strategic priority for us. When it comes to militarization, we would prefer to de-escalate the conflict, but it is clear that we may protect our sovereignty by force,” Baird told the newspaper ....


.... and this, the original source inDanish media (Google translation below of original in Danish):


> .... "We are deeply concerned and we are keen to promote and protect Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic. It is a strategic priority for us, and in terms of the militarization we see, we prefer to de-escalate the conflict, but it is clear that we will protect our sovereignty by force," said Foreign Minister John Baird in a interview with _Berlingske_ ....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Aug 2014)

So we are issuing the spike bayonets to the Rangers?


----------



## Jed (26 Aug 2014)

Wipe off the cosmoline.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 Aug 2014)

:blah: :blah: Don't write cheques your ass can't cash Minister Baird!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Aug 2014)

Brings new meaning to the "Thin red line"


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 Aug 2014)




----------



## dapaterson (26 Aug 2014)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

>



Where's the Burger King?


----------



## Transporter (26 Aug 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Where's the Burger King?



Right where the Wendy's used to be


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Aug 2014)

And you can count on the headline writers at that old Soviet Cold War-Horse propaganda outlet Pravda (yes, it's still around) to take the next (in their minds) logical step ....

_"Canada determined to solve Arctic crisis with Russia by force"_


----------



## McG (31 Aug 2014)

> ... we will protect our sovereignty by force ...


We will need to invest a whole lot more in our armed forces if we are going to deliver on that promise in a shoving match with Russia.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Sep 2014)

*Bingo!*

And now is the time for Conservative Party members, especially for retired military members, to write to the PM and to e.g. Alykhan Velshi, the Director of Issues Management in the PMO, and to express our _Conservative_ dismay at the dismal state of the CF.


Edited to add: 

But this article, in the _Globe and Mail_, illustrates the problem. A "government source" (most likely a minister) says that while "Canada is prepared to consider increasing defense spending to fund specific proposals," it will go no further because, the 'source' explains, "committing 2 per cent of Ottawa’s spending to military aims within a decade is far too costly a pledge ... it would mean boosting defence expenditures to $60-billion from about $20-billion today. That would entail increases of $4-billion per year annually for 10 years ... The Harper government doesn’t feel Canadian voters would back such a shift in spending."

I know I keep saying it, but: Canadians, the overwhelming majority of Canadians, probably including your and my relatives, friends and neighbours, do not have any strategic vision, they don't like defence spending and governments and parties (Conservative, Liberal and NDP) all know that.


----------



## Pencil Tech (2 Sep 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> *Bingo!*
> 
> I know I keep saying it, but: Canadians, the overwhelming majority of Canadians, probably including your and my relatives, friends and neighbours, do not have any strategic vision, they don't like defence spending and governments and parties (Conservative, Liberal and NDP) all know that.



Well Canadians liked it OK up to the levels it was at before the government started cutting it again. I never heard many people saying defence spending is too high. Harper and Baird should keep their mouths shut about Russia, and anything else, because we're not going to do anything about it except yap, yap, yap.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Sep 2014)

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> Well Canadians liked it OK up to the levels it was at before the government started cutting it again. I never heard many people saying defence spending is too high ...




Canadian _accepted_ the higher levels when we had troops in contact with an enemy and when that news was in our faces day after day. There were, in the past decade, plenty of voices complaining about defence spending but those voices were muted because we were taking casualties.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Sep 2014)

Actually I was surprised at our ability to accept causalities in Afghanistan. I think as long as the purpose and goal is clear, we will accept it as the price of being part of the world. It's when things get muddled, then people question it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Sep 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Actually I was surprised at our ability to accept causalities in Afghanistan. I think as long as the purpose and goal is clear, we will accept it as the price of being part of the world. It's when things get muddled, then people question it.




_*That's it!*_ Even as Canadians grew tired of the mission (war) and remained mistrustful, almost from the start, of the NATO (US) leadership, they accepted that we had made an honourable commitment and we ought to see it through to some, equally honourable, end.

I _think_ things began to go wrong in 2007/08 - Canadians, I *believe*, understood that we were doing more than our share and others were doing too little or, as bad, maybe worse, doing the wrong things. President Karzai and all associated with him ~ which meant the ISAF leadership and management ~ were perceived to be part of the problem, not our allies.

As long as Canadians thought we you the CF was "doing the right thing" they were willing to foot the bill, they had _accepted_ the mission and they would see it through. Once they lost faith in the mission (around 2010?) they also lost their willingness to _accept_ and pay the bills.


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Sep 2014)

This cartoon could go in several threads, but, here will do.  http://thechronicleherald.ca/editorial-cartoon/2014-09-03-editorial-cartoon


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (3 Sep 2014)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> This cartoon could go in several threads, but, here will do.  http://thechronicleherald.ca/editorial-cartoon/2014-09-03-editorial-cartoon



While I agree that we could be doing a lot more to help the military, at least the government is speaking out about the issue. The opposition has been quiet on the russia-Ukraine events. If they had a plan for the military, this would provide them (especially the liberals) with a fantastic soap box to announce it. The crickets that we hear, I suspect, are a telling sign for what we can expect from a Lib or NDP government/coalition


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Sep 2014)

Something I believe as well; people are moaning about cuts and slashes to $ now...I say - wait for it.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (6 Sep 2014)

http://rt.com/news/185620-russian-military-base-arctic/

Seems the Russians are a little more serious about working in the arctic then we are.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Sep 2014)

Hey we've got ALERT and OP Nanook!  

Nice shot of the Delta.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (6 Sep 2014)

I'm not sure either are on the scale of what the Russians are planning.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Sep 2014)

Yup - curious to know what they had on the 2 landing ships.


----------

