• 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.
 
-Disband the Army, or severely reduce it, and teach citizens how to handle/fire rifles incase of invasion. Do we really need a deployable fulll-time Army? Keep SOF?
-Rebrand the Navy to a Coast Guard. Get more ships.
-Focus on NORAD defense and increase Transport support for humanitarian aid (need to justify being in NATO). Dissolve CAF SAR and contract it out to private companies.

Off-topic: Holy hell does Singapore have a solid Air Force, what's their deal?

Full agreement I know people hate it but we really don't need a deployable Army.

A solid small SOF organization and some territorials is all we need for land forces.

Almost all of our defense spending should be towards sea and air power.
 
Not to get too cranky here but when you are part of a mutual defence alliance the other guys expect that you'll contribute something across the board and not just the crap that suits you.

It's an old formula that has pretty much worked for some 70 years now.

Toodles.

🍻
 
I think the argument could be made to keep some well trained & resourced RegF Light Inf. We have a lot of territory to defend. Then there's always the possibility of NEO, reinforcing NATO on short notice, or another counterinsurgency type mission. And unless SOF has moved to DE, those people have to start somewhere.
 
Not to get too cranky here but when you are part of a mutual defence alliance the other guys expect that you'll contribute something across the board and not just the crap that suits you.

It's an old formula that has pretty much worked for some 70 years now.

Toodles.

🍻
I'm curious if that is actually true? Has NATO ever sat down and tried to rationalize contributions and get some specialization? Or do they as you say want everyone to be the all singing and dancing force?
 
Not to get too cranky here but when you are part of a mutual defence alliance the other guys expect that you'll contribute something across the board and not just the crap that suits you.

It's an old formula that has pretty much worked for some 70 years now.

Toodles.

🍻

Since when has that mattered in Canada ?

I remain convinced we do not need a deployable Army. What we do need are big robust air and sea forces.
 
I think the argument could be made to keep some well trained & resourced RegF Light Inf. We have a lot of territory to defend. Then there's always the possibility of NEO, reinforcing NATO on short notice, or another counterinsurgency type mission. And unless SOF has moved to DE, those people have to start somewhere.

I'm curious if that is actually true? Has NATO ever sat down and tried to rationalize contributions and get some specialization? Or do they as you say want everyone to be the all singing and dancing force?

I'd wager if we went to NATO and said we're shutting down the army and instead were going to be the among the world's best in quality and quantity for air and sea power they'd be pretty excited about that.
 
I’m in agreement with the army. I’d reduce the full time and increase the reserves or even double it. Make it mostly combat arms and some CSS. But that would require massive changes to reserve TOS.

Keep SOF. keep specialists and CSS. And a full time cadre of trainers/instructors for the combat arms element

Increase the airforce and Navy significantly.
And reserve army doctrine should be added: how to become the insurgent, in case were invaded by land and we still don’t have the hardware needed to defend.
 
I'd wager if we went to NATO and said we're shutting down the army and instead were going to be the among the world's best in quality and quantity for air and sea power they'd be pretty excited about that.
I'd wager we'd be even more a of a joke as a "world leader", or "soft power" if we did that, and we'd get laughed out of the room.

Canada can afford a modern, well killed out army of a reasonable size, alongside a capable air force and navy. The last thing Canada needs is further support for the militia myth...
 
And reserve army doctrine should be added: how to become the insurgent, in case were invaded by land and we still don’t have the hardware needed to defend.
If your Navy and Air Force are good enough, those land invasion crafts won't come anywhere near the shores.
 
Full agreement I know people hate it but we really don't need a deployable Army.

A solid small SOF organization and some territorials is all we need for land forces.

Almost all of our defense spending should be towards sea and air power.
I do kinda hate it.
Do we have a deployable army?
I feel like our sea and air power must already consume much of the budget?
We should be able to field a decent somewhat more capable army than we do for a small increase in funds. Just as we should be able to reequip the RCAF and RCN.

By cutting the Army how much more are we going to get out of/for the RCN and RCAF?
 
I do kinda hate it.
Do we have a deployable army?
I feel like our sea and air power must already consume much of the budget?
We should be able to field a decent somewhat more capable army than we do for a small increase in funds. Just as we should be able to reequip the RCAF and RCN.

By cutting the Army how much more are we going to get out of/for the RCN and RCAF?
You could shift full time PYs to the airforce and navy.

I would gather that the Navy and Air Force are constantly more operational than the Army is. Coasts need patrolling, air needs patrolling. Our land? Yes but really the only ones truly really doing that are the Rangers up North.

I’m not sure that we need the kind of army we have when it could be designed as a small core able to surge when and as needed.
 
I'd wager we'd be even more a of a joke as a "world leader", or "soft power" if we did that, and we'd get laughed out of the room.

Canada can afford a modern, well killed out army of a reasonable size, alongside a capable air force and navy. The last thing Canada needs is further support for the militia myth...

I fully disagree. If we went to NATO and said we are going to immediately meet or exceed the 2% expenditure on defense BUT our contribution will be solely Naval and Air forces I feel like they would be happy. We should be the go to for ASW/Convoy protection and Air Superiority.

Why do we need a deployable Army ? What we need is territorials with small arms, manpads and hand held antitank capability. And lots of them. They should be solely for DOMOPs and Territorial defense. We need a strong and mobile SOF component for what ever arises. I posted in another thread we could petition the US for them to allow Canadians to join the US Army.

I do kinda hate it.
Do we have a deployable army?
I feel like our sea and air power must already consume much of the budget?
We should be able to field a decent somewhat more capable army than we do for a small increase in funds. Just as we should be able to reequip the RCAF and RCN.

By cutting the Army how much more are we going to get out of/for the RCN and RCAF?

See for your self

RCN:

Army:

RCAF:

This of course is missing all of the joint stuff. Just the bare bones for each command.
 
I fully disagree. If we went to NATO and said we are going to immediately meet or exceed the 2% expenditure on defense BUT our contribution will be solely Naval and Air forces I feel like they would be happy. We should be the go to for ASW/Convoy protection and Air Superiority.

Why do we need a deployable Army ? What we need is territorials with small arms, manpads and hand held antitank capability. And lots of them. They should be solely for DOMOPs and Territorial defense. We need a strong and mobile SOF component for what ever arises. I posted in another thread we could petition the US for them to allow Canadians to join the US Army.
So when the next SFOR, KFOR, or ISAF comes up Canada can be the large, rich nation sitting back sending in air lift? I'm sure that will go over well with our partners while their troops are coming home in body bags. Just like Canada looked down on NATO partners that weren't carrying their share of the load with ISAF.

From a purely selfish Canadian point of view there is sense in it, but there is no way that Canada would be taken seriously if all we could muster was fighters, airlift, and convoy escorts.

The USA will always be the go-to for air superiority, even if we wanted to buy the best fighters they wouldn't sell them to us. Unless we plan to expand our fleet many times compared to what we have(we can't even staff what we have), we will never be the "convoy escorts" of NATO.

Lastly, do you really want people who want to serve in the army to go south to the USA to do it? Where will our reserves come from if anyone who wants to be army full time has gone south? Are you assuming they will do their initial contract, and come running home for Tim's, and Heartland re-runs?
 
So when the next SFOR, KFOR, or ISAF comes up Canada can be the large, rich nation sitting back sending in air lift? I'm sure that will go over well with our partners while their troops are coming home in body bags. Just like Canada looked down on NATO partners that weren't carrying their share of the load with ISAF.

Do you think anyone would have missed us if we didn't show up in KAF or SFOR ? Do you think the big heads don't realize it takes a monumental effort it takes to move men and material and support them ?

From a purely selfish Canadian point of view there is sense in it, but there is no way that Canada would be taken seriously if all we could muster was fighters, airlift, and convoy escorts.

Is Canada being taken seriously now while we try to be all singing all dancing ?

The USA will always be the go-to for air superiority, even if we wanted to buy the best fighters they wouldn't sell them to us. Unless we plan to expand our fleet many times compared to what we have(we can't even staff what we have), we will never be the "convoy escorts" of NATO.

I think we can play a bigger part in our partnership with our continental friends. Carry our weight and more if you will.

We have to expand our Navy many times over. No real quantity of material can yet be moved by air as efficiently or in matching volume as by sea. Truly the most important battle ground NATO has is the North Atlantic.


Lastly, do you really want people who want to serve in the army to go south to the USA to do it? Where will our reserves come from if anyone who wants to be army full time has gone south? Are you assuming they will do their initial contract, and come running home for Tim's, and Heartland re-runs?

I'm trying to provide options. At this point anyone I know with dual citizenship and a desire went south anyways.
 
I do kinda hate it.
Do we have a deployable army?
I feel like our sea and air power must already consume much of the budget?
We should be able to field a decent somewhat more capable army than we do for a small increase in funds. Just as we should be able to reequip the RCAF and RCN.

By cutting the Army how much more are we going to get out of/for the RCN and RCAF?
The problem with the notion of getting rid of the Army is basically advocating cutting off a limb to save the body, when there's antibiotics for the infection.

We can have a solid military; Navy, Air Force, and Army, but it will require one thing we haven't had in decades: political will.

I hope we see this conflict doing 2 things that are needed for Canadians:

1. The G7, NATO, and our "friends around the world" finally call out politicians out on their bullshit. We talk a good game, but are the first ones to get up and leave when the cheque drops.

and

2. Canadians take a long, hard look at our ability to defend ourselves. I'm sure Ukraine was sure the West would come to their rescue. Article 5 is Article 5, but I bet the tepid NATO response to a conventional war in Europe has done "wonders" to comfort the Baltic states. We often joke about Poland being the speedbump between Moscow and Berlin, I wonder how many Canadians realize we're the speed bump between Moscow and Washingston?

The previous POTUS was willing to walk from NATO due to inaction. Thar same POTUS sparked division and instability directly across our border. If we cannot depend on our allies, we need to be able to depend on ourselves; currently we cannot defend our coasts or our airspace, let alone when the rubber hits the road in a ground invasion.
 
Full agreement I know people hate it but we really don't need a deployable Army.

A solid small SOF organization and some territorials is all we need for land forces.

Almost all of our defense spending should be towards sea and air power.

Keep the Army but rework it so that it is deployable in small and large units.

Now if only the Navy would let them on board, or build them their own boat.

I'd take half a dozen Absalons in a Pinch

1647291659014.png

By the way, that is a Type 26 CSC with a big garage.

Could you spare half a dozen out of that 15 you're building?
 
I fully disagree. If we went to NATO and said we are going to immediately meet or exceed the 2% expenditure on defense BUT our contribution will be solely Naval and Air forces I feel like they would be happy. We should be the go to for ASW/Convoy protection and Air Superiority.

Why do we need a deployable Army ? What we need is territorials with small arms, manpads and hand held antitank capability. And lots of them. They should be solely for DOMOPs and Territorial defense. We need a strong and mobile SOF component for what ever arises. I posted in another thread we could petition the US for them to allow Canadians to join the US Army.



See for your self

RCN:

Army:

RCAF:

This of course is missing all of the joint stuff. Just the bare bones for each command.
The personnel numbers are obviously quite different but the operating budget numbers don't seem to support the proposition

RCN $715M
RCAF $1060M
Army $935

I'd have to see some numbers and outcomes first. On the surface army personnel have to be a major cost driver but their weapons/platforms aren't in relation to those employed by the RCAF and RCN. A $250M F-35 is should outfit a decent amount of grunts and a $4000M CSC sure would
 
Not to get too cranky here but when you are part of a mutual defence alliance the other guys expect that you'll contribute something across the board and not just the crap that suits you.

It's an old formula that has pretty much worked for some 70 years now.

Toodles.

🍻

Helicopters.

AKA Flying Tanks.
And Infantry with ATGMs, MANPADs and heliportable vehicles.

Tara! :giggle:
 
I'd wager if we went to NATO and said we're shutting down the army and instead were going to be the among the world's best in quality and quantity for air and sea power they'd be pretty excited about that.

I don't know. Marines seem to be in fashion these days. And you don't need to Holystone the decks anymore.
 
Keep the Army but rework it so that it is deployable in small and large units.

Now if only the Navy would let them on board, or build them their own boat.

I'd take half a dozen Absalons in a Pinch

View attachment 69469

By the way, that is a Type 26 CSC with a big garage.

Could you spare half a dozen out of that 15 you're building?

I like it! Turn the Army into a Marine corps and make them subservient to the RCN ;)
 
Back
Top