2026 US-Denmark Tensions/End of NATO

[Oldgateboatdriver]

If the Americans want "Europe" (by which, I assume they mean they want "other NATO members") to take over the majority of the conventional forces defence capabilities, can we (Canada) take over SACLANT? Please, please, please.

 

[Halifax Tar]

If the Americans want "Europe" (by which, I assume they mean they want "other NATO members") to take over the majority of the conventional forces defence capabilities, can we (Canada) take over SACLANT? Please, please, please.

Shouldn't we be making a pacific pivot ? Europe is really yesterdays problem and place. Asia is the future, no ?

 

[Eaglelord17]

Shouldn't we be making a pacific pivot ? Europe is really yesterdays problem and place. Asia is the future, no ?

I would rather see a internal pivot. Currently we could not defend our country if attacked by the largest potential threat to us, that is fact not conjecture.

If we cannot meet our own defence needs why are we looking at aiding others?

 

[Brad Sallows]

I would rather see a internal pivot. Currently we could not defend our country if attacked by the largest potential threat to us, that is fact not conjecture.

If we cannot meet our own defence needs why are we looking at aiding others?

Because the "largest potential threat" is unrealistic to absurdity, and there are practical gains to be realized from aiding others.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I would rather see a internal pivot. Currently we could not defend our country if attacked by the largest potential threat to us, that is fact not conjecture.

If we cannot meet our own defence needs why are we looking at aiding others?

You're not wrong.

I just don't think Canadians are willing to sacrifice elsewhere to make that kind of investment in defence.

 

[FJAG]

If the Americans want "Europe" (by which, I assume they mean they want "other NATO members") to take over the majority of the conventional forces defence capabilities, can we (Canada) take over SACLANT? Please, please, please.

I think we're showing signs of making all the right decisions about our air force and navy - assuming we stay with the F35 - and a bigger role in the Atlantic / Arctic passages would be a good idea. Considering this US administrations fetish with Greenland, I don't think that they are prepared to abandon the Atlantic entirely in any event. A stronger NATO force there - including the US - is fine by me.

OTOH that doesn't mean we should abandon the European land commitments. I think that we can still play a big - bigger - part there and the political/economic brownie points that this will gain in the European community - especially the northern one - are worth pursuing.

Shouldn't we be making a pacific pivot ? Europe is really yesterdays problem and place. Asia is the future, no ?

I'm not sure that we can adequately compete in the Pacific. Frankly, I see that we can provide reasonable assistance with deterrence in the European/Atlantic theatres but we're way out of our depth in the Pacific.

Land forces there - forget about it. Do we want to station a brigade/division in Taiwan? Japan? Korea? Indonesia? Australia? - I don't see that. We're hopelessly overmatched with both naval and air forces there and regardless of what else we might want to build will never be anything but a token force there with little influence. Yes. I believe we should have a presence but we need to remain realistic about it in the same way that we need to carefully balance our relationship with both the US and China these days. Neither side should see us as too deeply in bed with the other.

IMHO, we are currently on the right course for the mid term as far as the navy and air force are concerned. My criticism of the army remains the same. We are hopelessly devoted to a small regular force army with an unequipped, marginally capable reserve force when we should be creating a large fully equipped hybrid army for the future. I don't like the current 1 Div / 2 Div model and wait with bated breath to see what the 100,000 PRes model looks like. The signals that I'm seeing do not make me optimistic.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'm not sure that we can adequately compete in the Pacific. Frankly, I see that we can provide reasonable assistance with deterrence in the European/Atlantic theatres but we're way out of our depth in the Pacific.

Land forces there - forget about it. Do we want to station a brigade/division in Taiwan? Japan? Korea? Indonesia? Australia? - I don't see that. We're hopelessly overmatched with both naval and air forces there and regardless of what else we might want to build will never be anything but a token force there with little influence. Yes. I believe we should have a presence but we need to remain realistic about it in the same way that we need to carefully balance our relationship with both the US and China these days. Neither side should see us as too deeply in bed with the other.

IMHO, we are currently on the right course for the mid term as far as the navy and air force are concerned. My criticism of the army remains the same. We are hopelessly devoted to a small regular force army with an unequipped, marginally capable reserve force when we should be creating a large fully equipped hybrid army for the future. I don't like the current 1 Div / 2 Div model and wait with bated breath to see what the 100,000 PRes model looks like. The signals that I'm seeing do not make me optimistic.

Should we be concentrating on Europe and focusing our Armed Forces on the sustainment and fight of a European land war ?

I don't think so. Russia is no threat. Their proven incompetence and inferiority should mean we can leave that for European nations to deal with. I am not concerned about trade with Europe. We have the natural resources they need. They will come.

Maybe Russians nuclear forces, but I think that's a whole different ball of wax, and we don't play in that world.

The issue in Asia really means little to no land force involvement from Canada, but we could expand sea and air and be solid ally and partner.

I still like the fortress North America concept. Even with the unpredictability of the US.

Fortress North America — GlobalGFX

“Fortress North America” is a concept from the Second World War and Cold War, a term used when imagining how the two countries might operate if the rest of the world succumbed to communism.

globalgfx.ca

 

[GR66]

Should we be concentrating on Europe and focusing our Armed Forces on the sustainment and fight of a European land war ?

I don't think so. Russia is no threat. Their proven incompetence and inferiority should mean we can leave that for European nations to deal with. I am not concerned about trade with Europe. We have the natural resources they need. They will come.

Maybe Russians nuclear forces, but I think that's a whole different ball of wax, and we don't play in that world.

The issue in Asia really means little to no land force involvement from Canada, but we could expand sea and air and be solid ally and partner.

I still like the fortress North America concept. Even with the unpredictability of the US.

Fortress North America — GlobalGFX

“Fortress North America” is a concept from the Second World War and Cold War, a term used when imagining how the two countries might operate if the rest of the world succumbed to communism.

globalgfx.ca

That version of "Fortress North America" describes an economic integration of Canada, the US and Mexico to compete together in the global market, not a defence posture. I'd argue that regardless of whether we aim to compete globally on our own or together as a North American block they both require us to have a military capable of ensuring our access to global markets and defending our global interests.

 

[PrairieFella]

It's hardly bullshit. NATOs wishy washy commitments, and more recently EU countries restricting US ability to use the bases they fund and lease as they require now necessitates the US obtain much more control over Greenland than simply a promise from another EU country.

Theres not a cockamamee trump scheme you didnt stan lol

 

[Kirkhill]

Because the "largest potential threat" is unrealistic to absurdity, and there are practical gains to be realized from aiding others.

And that is the rationale that we have used to justify our inactivity.

That inactivity contributes to Canadians believing that there is no case for defence spending and that the money spent on expeditions is discretionary and not existential.

And thus we get a defence establishment with no focus and no kit.

If we believe that national defence is an existential matter then we have to make a convincing case for it and a viable plan.

The plan doesn't have to be a 100% solution, even a 70 to 80 percenter that gives a fighting chance would be good.

 

[FJAG]

Russia is no threat.

That's what the folks in the government and the CAF in the 1990's thought. Look where that got us.

Their proven incompetence and inferiority should mean we can leave that for European nations to deal with.

Don't forget their resilience and unpredictability. Like the US is now, they have been and are focused on their own interests. They abandoned a key role in Europe as the suppliers of energy for spurious security concerns by attacking Ukraine. They are constantly testing the limit of European and North American vulnerabilities. They are neither incompetent nor inferior. They do have issues but they are not ones that can't be overcome.

I am not concerned about trade with Europe.

We should be

We have the natural resources they need. They will come.

That's the "hewers of wood and drawers of water" view of Canada and it presupposes that we are and will continue to be the sole dependable supplier of those resources. It's why we are what we are now instead of what we could be.

Maybe Russians nuclear forces, but I think that's a whole different ball of wax, and we don't play in that world.

I agree to the first, I'm not sure we shouldn't be part of the second.

The issue in Asia really means little to no land force involvement from Canada, but we could expand sea and air and be solid ally and partner.

I agree up to the point of "solid ally." I doubt that our sea and air forces will ever be at a scale to be relevant in that theatre.

I still like the fortress North America concept. Even with the unpredictability of the US.

No man is an island. Neither is a country or even a continent.

 

[Eaglelord17]

You're not wrong.

I just don't think Canadians are willing to sacrifice elsewhere to make that kind of investment in defence.

True enough. I like the Swiss method of not necessarily being able to win, but being able to cause enough pain to make it not worthwhile.

However a internal pivot especially in the short term wouldn’t be a terrible thing considering we can barely sustain a brigade, a few ships, and a few planes. Focusing on replenishment/reconstitution at the moment wouldn’t be terrible considering we basically need to completely rework our doctrine/capabilities and train the forces needed for such.

Because the "largest potential threat" is unrealistic to absurdity, and there are practical gains to be realized from aiding others.

A empire is falling next door to us. It can be peaceful and drawn out like the end of the British empire, or it can be chaotic or even violent like the USSR or Ottoman empires. Preparing for the worst is never a terrible idea with that in mind.

 

[brihard]

Regarding our navy building towards credibility in the pacific… Nobody is saying we’re going to ever be in a position to take China on alone. I think the best lens to look at this through is the old familiar one of ‘credible coalition partner’. How can Canada be a useful member of a multinational counterbalance to China? Where do we fit in with the U.S., Aussies, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Indonesia? Can we contribute to protecting the very lengthy Pacific supply lines, and interdicting attempts to sneak attack infrastructure on or near the Pacific coast? Can we help protecting undersea infrastructure like telecommunications cables? Can we contribute to air defence bubbles?

The collective ‘we’ don’t want to have to fight China… So we’d better be able to deter them.

Can modern Destroyers and SSKs, plus P8s and tanker supported tactical aircraft contribute to this? Yeah, I expect so. We’d better choose to me militarily credible in defence of our own pacific coast, and contributing to the larger team effort. Choosing not to will leave us flapping in the wind.

 

[Halifax Tar]

That's what the folks in the government and the CAF in the 1990's thought. Look where that got us.

A failed Russian invasion of the Ukraine and destruction of their economy and military?

Don't forget their resilience and unpredictability. Like the US is now, they have been and are focused on their own interests. They abandoned a key role in Europe as the suppliers of energy for spurious security concerns by attacking Ukraine. They are constantly testing the limit of European and North American vulnerabilities. They are neither incompetent nor inferior. They do have issues but they are not ones that can't be overcome.

Id put the closer to a revolution than another invasion right now.

We should be

That's the "hewers of wood and drawers of water" view of Canada and it presupposes that we are and will continue to be the sole dependable supplier of those resources. It's why we are what we are now instead of what we could be.

Canada can simultaneously be the "hewers of wood and drawers of water" while carrying a big stick. It's not a binary choice.

We should be the first stop for all things natural resources and make people nervous about getting on our bad side.

I agree to the first, I'm not sure we shouldn't be part of the second.

Id love to see Canada become a nuclear power. Unfortunately I think you and I are in the minority.

I agree up to the point of "solid ally." I doubt that our sea and air forces will ever be at a scale to be relevant in that theatre.

We absolutely have the means to be a credible partner in that theater. It's the will that's the problem.

No man is an island. Neither is a country or even a continent.

I said fortress. We should be the richest most exclusive place to live on the planet. And we should guard that jealously.