• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

Canada says it will look at increasing its defence spending and tacked on 10 more Russian names to an ever growing sanctions list.

By Tonda MacCharles
Ottawa Bureau
Mon., March 7, 2022

Riga, LATVIA—On the 13th day of the brutal Russian bid to claim Ukraine as its own, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is showing up at the Latvian battle group led by Canadian soldiers, waving the Maple Leaf and a vague hint at more money for the military.

Canada has been waving the NATO flag for nearly seven years in Latvia as a bulwark against Russia’s further incursions in Eastern Europe.

Canada stepped up to lead one of NATO’s four battle groups in 2015 — part of the defensive alliance’s display of strength and solidarity with weaker member states after Russia invaded Ukraine and seized the Crimean peninsula in 2014. Trudeau arrived in the Latvian capital late Monday after meetings in the U.K. with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Netherlands Prime Minister Mark Rutte.

Earlier Monday, faced with a seemingly unstoppable war in Ukraine, Trudeau said he will look at increasing Canada’s defence spending. Given world events, he said there are “certainly reflections to have.”

And Canada tacked on 10 more Russian names to an ever-growing sanctions list.

The latest round of sanctions includes names Trudeau said were identified by jailed Russian opposition leader and Putin nemesis Alexei Navalny.

However, on a day when Trudeau cited the new sanctions, and Johnson touted new measures meant to expose Russian property owners in his country, Rutte admitted sanctions are not working.

Yet they all called for more concerted international efforts over the long haul, including more economic measures and more humanitarian aid, with Johnson and Rutte divided over how quickly countries need to get off Russian oil and gas.

The 10 latest names on Canada’s target list do not include Roman Abramovich — a Russian billionaire Navalny has been flagging to Canada since at least 2017. Canada appears to have sanctioned about 20 of the 35 names on Navalny’s list.

The Conservative opposition says the Liberal government is not yet exerting maximum pressure on Putin, and should do more to bolster Canadian Forces, including by finally approving the purchase of fighter jets.

Foreign affairs critic Michael Chong said in an interview that Ottawa must still sanction “additional oligarchs close to President Putin who have significant assets in Canada.”

Abramovich owns more than a quarter of the public shares in steelmaking giant Evraz, which has operations in Alberta and Saskatchewan and has supplied most of the steel for the government-owned Trans Mountain pipeline project.

Evraz’s board of directors also includes two more Russians the U.S. government identified as “oligarchs” in 2019 — Aleksandr Abramov and Aleksandr Frolov — and its Canadian operations have received significant support from the federal government.

That includes at least $27 million in emergency wage subsidies during the pandemic, as well as $7 million through a fund meant to help heavy-polluters reduce emissions that cause climate change, according to the company’s most recent annual report.

In addition to upping defence spending, the Conservatives want NORAD’s early warning system upgraded, naval shipbuilding ramped up and Arctic security bolstered.

In London, Johnson sat down with Trudeau and Rutte at the Northolt airbase. Their morning meetings had a rushed feel, with Johnson starting to usher press out before Trudeau spoke. His office said later that the British PM couldn’t squeeze the full meeting in at 10 Downing Street because Johnson’s “diary” was so busy that day. The three leaders held an afternoon news conference at 10 Downing.

But before that Trudeau met with the Queen, saying she was “insightful” and they had a “useful, for me anyway, conversation about global affairs.”

Trudeau meets with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg Tuesday in Latvia.

The prime minister will also meet with three Baltic leaders, the prime ministers of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, in the Latvian capital of Riga.

The Liberals announced they would increase the 500 Canadian Forces in Latvia by another 460 troops. The Canadians are leading a multinational battle group, one of four that are part of NATO’s deployments in the region.

Another 3,400 Canadians could be deployed to the region in the months to come, on standby for NATO orders.

But Canada’s shipments of lethal aid to Ukraine were slow to come in the view of the Conservatives, and the Ukrainian Canadian community.

And suddenly Western allies are eyeing each other’s defence commitments.

At the Downing Street news conference, Rutte noted the Netherlands will increase its defence budget to close to two per cent of GDP. Germany has led the G7, and doubled its defence budget in the face of Putin’s invasion and threats. Johnson said the U.K. defence spending is about 2.4 per cent and declined to comment on Canada’s defence spending which is 1.4 per cent of GDP.

But Johnson didn’t hold back.

“What we can’t do, post the invasion of Ukraine is assume that we go back to a kind of status quo ante, a kind of new normalization in the way that we did after the … seizure of Crimea and the Donbas area,” Johnson said. “We’ve got to recognize that things have changed and that we need a new focus on security and I think that that is kind of increasingly understood by everybody.”

Trudeau stood by his British and Dutch counterparts and pledged Canada would do more.

He defended his government’s record, saying Ottawa is gradually increasing spending over the next decade by 70 per cent. Then Trudeau admitted more might be necessary.

“We also recognize that context is changing rapidly around the world and we need to make sure that women and men have certainty and our forces have all the equipment necessary to be able to stand strongly as we always have. As members of NATO. We will continue to look at what more we can do.”

The three leaders — Johnson, a conservative and Trudeau and Rutte, progressive liberals — in a joint statement said they “will continue to impose severe costs on Russia.”

Arriving for the news conference from Windsor Castle, Trudeau had to detour to enter Downing Street as loud so-called Freedom Convoy protesters bellowed from outside the gate. They carried signs marked “Tuck Frudeau” and “Free Tamara” (Lich).

Protester Jeff Wyatt who said he has no Canadian ties told the Star he came to stand up for Lich and others who were leading a “peaceful protest” worldwide against government “lies” about COVID-19 and what he called Trudeau’s “tyranny.”

Elsewhere in London, outside the Russian embassy, other protesters and passersby reflected on what they said was real tyranny — the Russian attack on Ukraine. “I think we should be as tough as possible to get this stopped, as tough as possible,” said protester Clive Martinez.
 
95% of NCO's told everyone that could hear that it was a stupid idea, maybe 5 officers had the balls to stand up. They were soon ostracized.
 
Fingers crossed....


FIRST READING: Buckle up for a Canadian defence spending splurge​


Defence Minister Anita Anand said this week that she will be tabling “aggressive” options to significantly boost Canada’s rate of defence spending once the cabinet starts planning its spring budget. Depending on how it goes, this could spell the biggest surge in Canadian defence spending in more than 50 years.​

The government can throw as much money at us as they want, but we still need the people in uniform. As it is we can't fill all the empty spots we have. We need to stop turning people away based on their skin colour and gender just to be able to fill quotas. (I know that some recruiters were told to turn away white males, I don't know if it was a local thing, or how widespread. I of course cannot name my sources).
 
As the name states, I am a recently retired Air Defender ( 6 months free). It has been like pushing a wet rope up a hill for the past 12 years, or if you like, pounding you head against wall! Have the white hat, was the first Canadian on the year long AD GCC course in the UK, went from zero to hero on Rapier FSC , HVM StarStreak LML+ Stormer platform. As well qualified Javelin S-15, 35mm Gun/Skyguard and ADATS. It is so unfortunate that Putin's megalomania has initiated this conversation, there have been pers in the CF advocating very hard for some form of AD. Unfortunately, as we stated 12 years ago, keep it a separate trade " Black beret Strat, Blue beret Air Force or even Navy" , as long it as far away from the Royal Regiment of Artillery as possible, cross training/ streaming should never had been an option. The only accomplishment was to produce more Officer / MWO (if you speak french positions). Take some of the numerous Reserve Arty Units (LG 1, C2), equip them with BV206, quads and a MANPAD system. Sry, rant over.
I had a preview of that when we stood up air defence in the 70s.

We started off debating which direction to take as the RCA is a small organization PY wise and there's a point at certain levels where both senior officers and senior NCMs need to slot into generic career bands. I think the same situation is again rearing its head with the STA specialty. When GBAD finally stands up it will probably be at the one or two battery level. What was once a 450PY career field will probably end up at less than 200 (especially if reservists take on many positions)

Under our current battlegroup centric system specialty knowledge is critical up to the MWO and major level - ie gun battery, STA bty and soon GBAD battery. Major's need to know their own field cold and majors running a battlegroup FSCC must have a fundamental understanding of STA and GBAD as well. But where do you find the more rounded experts that you need at the LCol and CWO level if they've simply come up in one silo?

It's a difficult balancing act as between viable career profiles and ensuring people with the right qualifications reach the right leadership and staff levels at the right time. If one was to create AD as its own specialty one would probably hit a career choke point at roughly ten years for both officers and NCMs. At that point they'd join the competition for the great herd of the "any trade or classification" group. One might see a competition for CO and RSM of 4 GS being split between AD and STA silos but neither silo would be of value in a CS regt role without the cross training.

It becomes even harder if, like one should, one converts many of the lower ranked PYs to reservist positions.

I frankly do not know the answer. It's one of the issues that the RCA is working on.

🍻
 
I had a preview of that when we stood up air defence in the 70s.

We started off debating which direction to take as the RCA is a small organization PY wise and there's a point at certain levels where both senior officers and senior NCMs need to slot into generic career bands. I think the same situation is again rearing its head with the STA specialty. When GBAD finally stands up it will probably be at the one or two battery level. What was once a 450PY career field will probably end up at less than 200 (especially if reservists take on many positions)

Under our current battlegroup centric system specialty knowledge is critical up to the MWO and major level - ie gun battery, STA bty and soon GBAD battery. Major's need to know their own field cold and majors running a battlegroup FSCC must have a fundamental understanding of STA and GBAD as well. But where do you find the more rounded experts that you need at the LCol and CWO level if they've simply come up in one silo?

It's a difficult balancing act as between viable career profiles and ensuring people with the right qualifications reach the right leadership and staff levels at the right time. If one was to create AD as its own specialty one would probably hit a career choke point at roughly ten years for both officers and NCMs. At that point they'd join the competition for the great herd of the "any trade or classification" group. One might see a competition for CO and RSM of 4 GS being split between AD and STA silos but neither silo would be of value in a CS regt role without the cross training.

It becomes even harder if, like one should, one converts many of the lower ranked PYs to reservist positions.

I frankly do not know the answer. It's one of the issues that the RCA is working on.

🍻
Well said
 
I had a preview of that when we stood up air defence in the 70s.

We started off debating which direction to take as the RCA is a small organization PY wise and there's a point at certain levels where both senior officers and senior NCMs need to slot into generic career bands. I think the same situation is again rearing its head with the STA specialty. When GBAD finally stands up it will probably be at the one or two battery level. What was once a 450PY career field will probably end up at less than 200 (especially if reservists take on many positions)

Under our current battlegroup centric system specialty knowledge is critical up to the MWO and major level - ie gun battery, STA bty and soon GBAD battery. Major's need to know their own field cold and majors running a battlegroup FSCC must have a fundamental understanding of STA and GBAD as well. But where do you find the more rounded experts that you need at the LCol and CWO level if they've simply come up in one silo?

It's a difficult balancing act as between viable career profiles and ensuring people with the right qualifications reach the right leadership and staff levels at the right time. If one was to create AD as its own specialty one would probably hit a career choke point at roughly ten years for both officers and NCMs. At that point they'd join the competition for the great herd of the "any trade or classification" group. One might see a competition for CO and RSM of 4 GS being split between AD and STA silos but neither silo would be of value in a CS regt role without the cross training.

It becomes even harder if, like one should, one converts many of the lower ranked PYs to reservist positions.

I frankly do not know the answer. It's one of the issues that the RCA is working on.

🍻
...and don't forget, the RCAF is looking at the RCA (or whoever deals with this) for airfield defence as well.
 
I have to disagree with you. There is an old saying, " About never putting all your eggs in one basket." The same principle applies to defence procurement.
The difference is, if our chicken coop shits the bed - everyone is FUBAR.

We share a land border - it is much easier to get stuff to Canada in a time of need that way - as opposed to getting stuff from Europe.
 
has anyone really examined the toll in hardware in Ukraine? Our entire purchase order of new aircraft would now be so much scrap metal if we were engaged in any kind of peer war. To this civilian, you need at least a third more aircraft even if the numbers beyond 88 are sitting in a hangar. When the shooting starts you can't order anymore; you go with what you have. It would probably be wise to shop for a second aircraft i.e. F16 for pure airborne intercept and keep your F35 types for battlefield control. You definitely need some kind of ground/air system, hopefully combining high altitude/long range and manpads. Decent anti-armour weapons. If you don't, you might as well stay home and hoist your flag in the inverted position.
 
...and don't forget, the RCAF is looking at the RCA (or whoever deals with this) for airfield defence as well.
I wonder if we still have any of the ADATS and Oerlikons warehoused in Montreal? Or the Boffins?

:unsure:
 
has anyone really examined the toll in hardware in Ukraine? Our entire purchase order of new aircraft would now be so much scrap metal if we were engaged in any kind of peer war. To this civilian, you need at least a third more aircraft even if the numbers beyond 88 are sitting in a hangar. When the shooting starts you can't order anymore; you go with what you have. It would probably be wise to shop for a second aircraft i.e. F16 for pure airborne intercept and keep your F35 types for battlefield control. You definitely need some kind of ground/air system, hopefully combining high altitude/long range and manpads. Decent anti-armour weapons. If you don't, you might as well stay home and hoist your flag in the inverted position.

We don't have the personnel to keep our dwindling fighter force flying as it is, ramming more aircraft, of different type no less, into the bases won't do anything. We need to retain, rebuild and recruit, this will take years and Billions. We can double the amount of people in the CAF, but there won't be anywhere to house them. Building new housing is just as important as purchasing new toys.
 
We don't have the personnel to keep our dwindling fighter force flying as it is, ramming more aircraft, of different type no less, into the bases won't do anything. We need to retain, rebuild and recruit, this will take years and Billions. We can double the amount of people in the CAF, but there won't be anywhere to house them. Building new housing is just as important as purchasing new toys.

All this talk about Air Defence, RCAF and RCA and Ground Based Air Defence has got me playing with words again.

It strikes me that Fighters, Low Cost Attritables, UAVs, Drones and Missiles are all "Ground Based". Fighters are Manned Ground Based Air Defence Systems.
 
Not necessarily so. From both an historical perspective (I exempt Afghanistan as we didn't deploy a "mechanized formation") and our current NATO land commitment, we don't actually "integrate" with the American army sustainment system all that much. And that should be one of the factors considered in selecting major equipment - who'll provide repair, recovery, replacement (and will it be compatible) in the echelon above that which we deploy. We have much greater need of interoperability with the US in air and naval operations.

What do I foresee in the short-term (up to ten years) as to our "army" commitment? It will likely be a greater reinforcement of our current NATO deployment (eFP Latvia). While it's currently a bit of a dog's breakfast with odds and sods from several countries, the tanks in that battlegroup are Leopards (Poland and Spain), so we may not be working alongside Abrams. It makes sense (but who says that military thinking should make sense) to build on existing operational structures rather that change horses in mid-stride. Regardless of how the situation in Ukraine evolves, my suggestion would be to initially increase the Canadian presence on the ground to a full battle group with an adequate tranche of supporting arms and services. Hopefully the other NATO contributors would also increase their participation with the goal to round out a brigade group. Eventually, we should provide the majority of combat power (on the ground and dedicated/legitimate for quick fly-over to marry with equipment), and then it would make sense for Canada to command such a NATO brigade (or to be one of primary nations to rotate command). The next step would be to organize an integrated operational HQ with the Latvians.
I'd argue that in the case of a full-scale shooting war in Europe that ONLY the US would have the surplus capacity to provide Canada with any replacement vehicles and parts. Any spare capacity for European vehicles would go to the European users as only the US maintains enough surplus capacity to provide for anyone else besides themselves. All the more reason in my mind to establish even greater interoperability and formal links with the US Army at echelons above the (aspirational) Brigade level deployment that the CF would be capable of.
 
has anyone really examined the toll in hardware in Ukraine? Our entire purchase order of new aircraft would now be so much scrap metal if we were engaged in any kind of peer war. To this civilian, you need at least a third more aircraft even if the numbers beyond 88 are sitting in a hangar. When the shooting starts you can't order anymore; you go with what you have. It would probably be wise to shop for a second aircraft i.e. F16 for pure airborne intercept and keep your F35 types for battlefield control. You definitely need some kind of ground/air system, hopefully combining high altitude/long range and manpads. Decent anti-armour weapons. If you don't, you might as well stay home and hoist your flag in the inverted position.

Decades of 'Brush Fire Wars' have skewed our understanding about what it takes to fight and win a major conflict (s). Time to pay the Piper....

1647792610669.png
 
Depending on how a war escalates, Europe might not be the only theatre. Most raising and training of new forces and replacements will still be in Canada. It's best to have fewer types of equipments. It's easier to ship stuff coming into Canada across a secure land border than a contested ocean.
 
Back
Top