Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I have long said that you could fund the CAF to 4 percent of GDP, but we would still lag behind in NATO and be much the same where we are.

It's never the money, it's politics. It's procedures. It's the pork-barreling in our defence spending that makes us a paper tiger in NATO.

My only hope in all of this for the CAF and the GoC, whatever the political stripe that may be, is that it will rouse them out of the "Peace Dividend" slumber. The world has been unstable since 1945. We have used geography, proximity, and association as a Defence Policy ever since. ICBMs don't care how close to the U.S. or how far from Russia/China we are.

Don't give us a dime more, but let us spend money on defence like it matters. The fact we follow the same rules for purchasing a fighter aircraft as we do for buying office furniture for a Service Canada office is disgraceful. Don't treat defense procurement as a stimulus package for Canadian Industry. There I said it.

We spend so much money, time, and effort trying to get that money to stay in Canada; be it by awarding contracts to companies with no capability to produce items without first "retooling" and"developing the production lines", or by hamstringing perfectly competent and competitive bidders by forcing the project to be made in St. Margaret de Poutain de Champignon, QC because the ruling government either lost the seat in the election, or won it with promises.

We spend so much money and staff hours jumping through TBS regulations that are great for other departments, but are terrible for defence procurement. Some items you have to sole source, because there are technologies and capabilities no one else makes. By doing the bid process, you get companies clamoring for a project they can't deliver on, but because they tick the bright boxes on the score sheet....

I truly and honestly belief we need to split from PSPC and legislate that its not beholden to TBS, only to the PBO/PCO. The guiding principles of this new Defence Procurement department should be "Off the shelf, from somewhere else" if there isn't an industry in Canada.

BOOTFORGEN has demonstrated how well we do when we are able to actually get what we need, instead of lining the pockets of a Canadian company that got lucky.

That, but with tanks, fighters, ships, weapons systems....

 

[Kirkhill]

Outdated Foreign Office dogma makes Britain weak. Chagos proves it​

Our diplomats still believes the rules-based international order protects us, but power is what counts

Outdated Foreign Office dogma makes Britain weak. Chagos proves it

Our diplomats still believe the rules-based international order protects us, but power is what counts

www.telegraph.co.uk

It was ever thus. Rules never protected us.

 

[Cloud Cover]

That looks awfully tall...

How about this?
View attachment 93434

Amateurs …

 

[Halifax Tar]

Outdated Foreign Office dogma makes Britain weak. Chagos proves it

Our diplomats still believe the rules-based international order protects us, but power is what counts

www.telegraph.co.uk

It was ever thus. Rules never protected us.

Agreed. They never did.

What protected us (The west) was the USAs nuclear/military safety blanket. And it allowed many western nations believe in silly notions like this.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Agreed. They never did.

What protected us (The west) was the USAs nuclear/military safety blanket. And it allowed many western nations believe in silly notions like this.

The rule of law is quite real we've just forgotten the old maxim true now just as it was during the 17th century . " The King's Law extends only as far as the King's muskets."

 

[McG]

We will have to really raise spending to hit this goal: NATO to embrace 5% GDP defence spending target in June, Secretary-General says

 

[Czech_pivo]

We will have to really raise spending to hit this goal: NATO to embrace 5% GDP defence spending target in June, Secretary-General says

I think going over 2.5-2.75% will be a tough hoe to row.

 

[McG]

I have heard talk of 3% or 3.5%.
Nobody in NATO is currently doing 5%. I would be surprised if there is a serious intention to get there.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I have heard talk of 3% or 3.5%.
Nobody in NATO is currently doing 5%. I would be surprised if there is a serious intention to get there.

"Those guys over there must be on crack. We'll just play along."

 

[KevinB]

I have heard talk of 3% or 3.5%.
Nobody in NATO is currently doing 5%. I would be surprised if there is a serious intention to get there.

Poland and the Baltics have been talking about 5% for the last 6 months.

We have about 15 months till China is capable of taking Taiwan, and 36 months till they can also support Russia to push past Ukraine.

So yeah some are very serious.

 

[JLB50]

Even if NATO members spent 5%, I wonder if the U.S. could be trusted to fulfill its treaty obligations. Look at the current tariff wars.

Also, back in 2018, Fox News host Ticker Carlson made a remark about Montenegro being a NATO member: “Why should my son go to Montenegro to defend it from attack?” In reply, Trump made this statement to Fox News: “Montenegro is a tiny country with very strong people ... They’re very aggressive people. They may get aggressive, and congratulations, you’re in World War Three.”

If I am correct on my GDP figures, the U.S. is slated to spend just under 3% for this year. My suspicion is that he intentionally wants to fracture NATO.

 

[KevinB]

Even if NATO members spent 5%, I wonder if the U.S. could be trusted to fulfill its treaty obligations. Look at the current tariff wars.

Also, back in 2018, Fox News host Ticker Carlson made a remark about Montenegro being a NATO member: “Why should my son go to Montenegro to defend it from attack?” In reply, Trump made this statement to Fox News: “Montenegro is a tiny country with very strong people ... They’re very aggressive people. They may get aggressive, and congratulations, you’re in World War Three.”

If I am correct on my GDP figures, the U.S. is slated to spend just under 3% for this year. My suspicion is that he intentionally wants to fracture NATO.

Tucker Carlson is a Russian asset.

When the rest of NATO has half of what the US Military fields then others can be critical of our DoD Budget.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Even if NATO members spent 5%, I wonder if the U.S. could be trusted to fulfill its treaty obligations. Look at the current tariff wars.

Also, back in 2018, Fox News host Ticker Carlson made a remark about Montenegro being a NATO member: “Why should my son go to Montenegro to defend it from attack?” In reply, Trump made this statement to Fox News: “Montenegro is a tiny country with very strong people ... They’re very aggressive people. They may get aggressive, and congratulations, you’re in World War Three.”

If I am correct on my GDP figures, the U.S. is slated to spend just under 3% for this year. My suspicion is that he intentionally wants to fracture NATO.

What is the approach is a 'divide and conquer/contain' approach? What the US's goal is to get the Europeans in NATO to ramp up the capabilities, defense manufacturing abilities, number of boots in the military, cohesiveness and get them in 'fighting form' so that their 'job' is to be able to confront the Russians?

When looking at the Russians we are now looking at a country with around 140m vs the EU population of 445m, (back out the Non-NATO EU but add back in the UK and the numbers stay about the same). That's a 3-1 manpower advantage NATO has without the US involved. Sprinkle in some US battlefield nucs and I'd say that the Russians can be contained by the EU NATO members if a suitable backbone can be found. Plus the massive losses they have occurred in Ukraine means they are 7-10yrs away from properly rearming in depth.

By doing this it would allow the US to focus the remaining 90+% of its military on China. Throw in the SK's, Nippon, Ozzie's forces, and bases in Philippines for good measure, and its a doable force to confront/contain China. Meanwhile, 7-10yrs going forward China will be continuing down its population decline phase that begun in 2022. In 20yrs time China will have lost 110m in population and in 70yrs over 600m.

 

[KevinB]

What is the approach is a 'divide and conquer/contain' approach? What the US's goal is to get the Europeans in NATO to ramp up the capabilities, defense manufacturing abilities, number of boots in the military, cohesiveness and get them in 'fighting form' so that their 'job' is to be able to confront the Russians?

When looking at the Russians we are now looking at a country with around 140m vs the EU population of 445m, (back out the Non-NATO EU but add back in the UK and the numbers stay about the same). That's a 3-1 manpower advantage NATO has without the US involved. Sprinkle in some US battlefield nucs and I'd say that the Russians can be contained by the EU NATO members if a suitable backbone can be found. Plus the massive losses they have occurred in Ukraine means they are 7-10yrs away from properly rearming in depth.

Russia has an equipment issue - but not a manpower issue. They have taken to not using equipment to build up new units and new equipment outside of the Ukraine conflict. But are still able to keep manpower fairly stable - as even losing 30k+ a month, their intake gives them that 30k plus more…

Plus they have their North Korean lackeys to act as bulletproof sponges too.

China has a lot of older equipment they can give to Russia to make up for the massive losses they suffered in Ukraine.

By doing this it would allow the US to focus the remaining 90+% of its military on China. Throw in the SK's, Nippon, Ozzie's forces, and bases in Philippines for good measure, and its a doable force to confront/contain China. Meanwhile, 7-10yrs going forward China will be continuing down its population decline phase that begun in 2022. In 20yrs time China will have lost 110m in population and in 70yrs over 600m.

Keep in mind that 2027 is considered to be the year that China will have built up enough mass to conquer Taiwan.

The West is very late to the game - and frankly I don’t think even with 10% could ramp up fast enough to be able to conduct a 2 front war in 2027.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Russia has an equipment issue - but not a manpower issue. They have taken to not using equipment to build up new units and new equipment outside of the Ukraine conflict. But are still able to keep manpower fairly stable - as even losing 30k+ a month, their intake gives them that 30k plus more…

Plus they have their North Korean lackeys to act as bulletproof sponges too.

China has a lot of older equipment they can give to Russia to make up for the massive losses they suffered in Ukraine.


Keep in mind that 2027 is considered to be the year that China will have built up enough mass to conquer Taiwan.

The West is very late to the game - and frankly I don’t think even with 10% could ramp up fast enough to be able to conduct a 2 front war in 2027.

If the Chinese are to make a move, I suspect they will do it before 2027 or a few years after. I don't think they will do it necessarily in 2027 just because a number of Western think-tanks say that's the best time for them to do it. They tend to play the long game of chess not the NYC Central Park variety of sit and play rapid 5 mins Blitz Chess.

 

[KevinB]

If the Chinese are to make a move, I suspect they will do it before 2027 or a few years after. I don't think they will do it necessarily in 2027 just because a number of Western think-tanks say that's the best time for them to do it. They tend to play the long game of chess not the NYC Central Park variety of sit and play rapid 5 mins Blitz Chess.

My guess is 2030, or a little earlier.
They keep watching Ukraine, and know what western missiles will do to their Ships and Aircraft.

So they have to factor in a lot of losses for them on an opposed Amphibious and Airborne invasion. I think they aren't keen on seeing western missile production going up - unless it is all being spent on Russians - so more and more Chinese equipment will start bleeding into Ukraine, to try to soak more up there without Chinese crews in them.

 

[PrairieFella]

5% is impossible for basically any NATO country not under current threat. Sure Poland or Estonia or Lithuania can justify it, but it'd be political suicide anywhere else. Healthcare, a social safety net or 5% GDP on defence, pick 2. Frankly, jacking the defence spending in most countries to 5% in peacetime (US included), will be counterproductive and will cause people to revolt. 2.5% - 2.75% across the alliance and amongst our partners like SK or Aus is more than enough to keep Russia and China contained.

 

[Kirkhill]

5% is impossible for basically any NATO country not under current threat. Sure Poland or Estonia or Lithuania can justify it, but it'd be political suicide anywhere else. Healthcare, a social safety net or 5% GDP on defence, pick 2. Frankly, jacking the defence spending in most countries to 5% in peacetime (US included), will be counterproductive and will cause people to revolt. 2.5% - 2.75% across the alliance and amongst our partners like SK or Aus is more than enough to keep Russia and China contained.

Also, as far as the average Brit or Frenchman is concerned, given their perception of distances, Ukraine might as well be in China.

These are people that don't see their family for decades if they live more than half-an-hour away.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Well the King just announced that we'll be a part of the 'ReArm Europe' initiative, so I guess that's official.

 

[Remius]

Well the King just announced that we'll be a part of the 'ReArm Europe' initiative, so I guess that's official.

Saw that as well. Good.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Amateurs …

Saw that elsewhere, coveralls, gaiters and 51pat webbing. People complaining about Tacvests and other combat clothing gear would not get much sympathy from 1950-60 soldiers.