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.
Because the "largest potential threat" is unrealistic to absurdity, and there are practical gains to be realized from aiding others.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
That's what the folks in the government and the CAF in the 1990's thought. Look where that got us.
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.
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.
I agree to the first, I'm not sure we shouldn't be part of the second.
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.
No man is an island. Neither is a country or even a continent.
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.
No man is an island. Neither is a country or even a continent.
I think we mostly agree. Especially on the fact that we should be more ambitious and involved.
I think we mostly agree. Especially on the fact that we should be more ambitious and involved.
Maybe my NATO tilt comes from my own heritage and that I think that committing to the defence there in a meaningful way - primarily a flyover prepositioned division - will pay big dividends in trade and political influence. I see pulling back as highly counterproductive and a flyover division (heavily based on reservists) is a cost effective way of being involved. Except for a brief decade, Russia has been a constant threat for almost a century but, until recently, deterrence has worked. It will again.
I do see benefits in a bigger involvement in the Pacific theatre. But while I see a strong defence posture in Europe as deterring Russia, I do not see deterrence working with China. They have an agenda. They will take time with their agenda for as long as it takes for the balance of power to assure their victory stage by stage. IMHO they are smarter and more elegant in their methods than Russia or the US. If things get too rough in the Pacific, I see the US caving in and becoming isolationist before the Chinese change their aims and when that happens there is no chance of a credible deterrence in that theatre regardless of our involvement.
Whenever possible I try to avoid the Mercator view of the world. When you do that you see just how large Africa, India, the Middle East and Australia, even South America (including their resources) are in comparison to Europe and even Canada and the US. The world is changing in recognition of that and who the future big players will be is still up for grabs.
My thinking lies between you and @FJAG. I agree that Russia is an extremely unlikely conventional threat to NATO as long as NATO remains united and maintains a credible military deterrent. European NATO is simply too large physically, economically and demographically for a declining Russia to hope to defeat. Their actions are much more likely to be hybrid and political rather than kinetic. Divisions aren't effective against those kinds of threats.
Maybe not for general war with Europe per se, but do not count out the bite and hold strategies it has used with Ukraine. The Baltics are very vulnerable to that as are Armenia, Moldova, and Serbia (The last two aren't NATO but NATO adjacent).
