• 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.
 
I’m
Kevin James Liar GIF by TV Land
added training time for AVS Techs ….
 
Considerably more powerful than any of those Countries unfortunately. Absolute scoundrels and criminals but they are really good at it.

Vlad and his Cronies are basically the Juiced up version of "Pepe" Pablo Escobar except they have nukes, way more money & industrial capacity and a security council seat.

pablo escobar GIF

And we all know what happened to ol' Pablo!
 

Attachments

  • pablo.jpg
    pablo.jpg
    175.5 KB · Views: 10
Related, retired general Leslie asks if we are buying for Ukraine, why are we not buying for us too? Which is a fair question

Well admittedly the UAF has a bit more of an urgent need - and due to Canada’s neglect (negligence) with the Armed Forces the CAF can’t just do a draw down of AA system to send over.
Too bad the ADATS and Skyguards were not just put into storage.
 
Flowers - 85 men in 1000 tonnes.

I can float 1000 tonnes with a crew of zero and position all 225 that were built in a permanent conveyor from Halifax to Derry with torps, missiles, sonars and UAVs. Add some SSNs underneath and you have a much more secure highway to Europe than was possible in 1943.

Satellites, UAVs and LRPAs over head all the way across. Tankers and Fighters launching from Norway, UK, Iceland, Greenland, Canada and the US.

The modern game looks nothing like the old game with its Condor Gap and Wolf Packs.

"User Friendly" means something. And a lot of technology is geared towards making "User Friendly" kit. That means kit that doesn't require much training.

NLAW and Javelin are popular because they are user friendly.

Guns and tanks and F35s aren't.

But UAVs and Missiles are.
You know it was the side that lost WWII that though along those lines...

They imagined the next Wunderwaffe would be the one that gave them the upper hand over the masses of the Soviets and Western Allies.
 
"User Friendly" means something. And a lot of technology is geared towards making "User Friendly" kit. That means kit that doesn't require much training.

NLAW and Javelin are popular because they are user friendly.
NLAW isn’t nearly as user friendly as purported.
Heck they bolt a Trijicon ACOG to it as the ranging optic.

If you want user friendly- Javelin says hold my beer, it was designed for the lowest common denominator down here to reliably kill an enemy tank.


Guns and tanks and F35s aren't.

But UAVs and Missiles are.
UAS in poorly trained hands are exceptionally dangerous to friendly forces.
There is no substitute for a well trained and well equipped team.
 
Related, retired general Leslie asks if we are buying for Ukraine, why are we not buying for us too? Which is a fair question



The minister doesn’t want to answer because the answer is “by some bureaucratic sorcery; we are in a position where for us to arm another nation is more streamline, efficient, and has fewer hoops to jump through.”
 
The minister doesn’t want to answer because the answer is “by some bureaucratic sorcery; we are in a position where for us to arm another nation is more streamline, efficient, and has fewer hoops to jump through.”
There's already a funded project for GBAD. We could work quicker too with a UOR but that leaves out all the in service issues. Effectively this purchase is even easier than a UOR because we have no need to figure out where to get manning from and can even go light on sustainment leaving that to the Ukrainians.

Not defending the procurement system here. It's indefensible. But buying for Ukraine is dead simple compared to a project to revive a capability. It's just a political statement.

🍻
 
The minister doesn’t want to answer because the answer is “by some bureaucratic sorcery; we are in a position where for us to arm another nation is more streamline, efficient, and has fewer hoops to jump through.”
I imagine the treasury board submission is a whole lot shorter when you don’t have to do the PSPC checklist.

Look on the bright side…we will have a contract with Konigsberg/Raytheon. We could leverage that in the future to deliver us “X“ battery sets…
 
There's already a funded project for GBAD. We could work quicker too with a UOR but that leaves out all the in service issues. Effectively this purchase is even easier than a UOR because we have no need to figure out where to get manning from and can even go light on sustainment leaving that to the Ukrainians.

Not defending the procurement system here. It's indefensible. But buying for Ukraine is dead simple compared to a project to revive a capability. It's just a political statement.

🍻
That GBAD procurement had a 9 year time line. Maybe I’m just a simple minded man but I can’t imagine how it takes nine years to procure air defence.
 
That GBAD procurement had a 9 year time line. Maybe I’m just a simple minded man but I can’t imagine how it takes nine years to procure air defence.
If you are asking for an explanation - you are asking the wrong guy. It simply boggles my mind.

😖
 
That GBAD procurement had a 9 year time line. Maybe I’m just a simple minded man but I can’t imagine how it takes nine years to procure air defence.
I'll sing my same old song...

What's the US using? Is there any legitimate reason the same system won't work for us? No?...let's buy it for the sake of interoperability and logistics.
 
NLAW isn’t nearly as user friendly as purported.
Heck they bolt a Trijicon ACOG to it as the ranging optic.

If you want user friendly- Javelin says hold my beer, it was designed for the lowest common denominator down here to reliably kill an enemy tank.



UAS in poorly trained hands are exceptionally dangerous to friendly forces.
There is no substitute for a well trained and well equipped team.


Fair enough.

But

If it takes time for people to learn to read English, and more time to learn to drive, gun, load and command, and more time to learn how to work as a team, and more time to learn how to work in a troop, and more time to learn how to work as a squadron, and more time to learn how to work as a combat team, and more to learn how to work as a battlegroup .... how effective are a few squadrons/companies of tanks going to be in changing the rules of the game.

I agree that the best solution is the well trained and well equipped team. Neither the Russians nor the Ukrainians have that option.

So what "toys" are going to be the most effective in the hands available?
 
Back
Top