2026 US-Denmark Tensions/End of NATO

[Halifax Tar]

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).

Post WW2 Soviet expansion had put significant ethnic Russian populations in these (and other former Warsaw block) countries. Hybrid warfare by way of disinformation and manipulation continues apace, and if not aggressively countered, could lead to erosion of non-Russian European interests.

This is not the time to take the eye off the ball. Don't think big war. Think hybrid war and what needs to be done to defeat it. And yes, the commitment of a flyover Canadian division for Latvia has a big role to play in that both as a deterrent and as a commitment that gives us a strong chip at the table.

I guess where we differ is I just don't see why we need a chip or seat at Europe's table.

I don't see what Europe brings us. I think for balance they need our natural resources more anything the other way; and I'm cool to do business. But their internal strife is not a place more Canadian blood should be spilled IMHO.

While I don't want to see the dissolution of NATO, I also understand for everything there is season...

I can accept that it may have run its course.

 

[ArmyRick]

I mostly agree we don't need or want to be part of the EU.

First trade, no matter how you put it, there is an ocean separating us from Europe, so goods fly or sail to and from, that is expensive, period. So trade there has its limits.

The USA, is separated by an imaginary line, like Trump or hate him (I hate him because he is mostly responsible for Liberals winning and he has a big mouth), the USA will remain our predominant trading partner. The sooner we get a deal, the better.

Next, EU bullies the hell out of its members on stuff like agriculture (I am sure others as well) and many of the "feel good, achieve nothing" regulations only leading to sever financial hardship on farmers and lessen food productivity. Keep EU European.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Are you motioning towards the French ? Lol

By nominal GDP, either of Germany, UK, France, or Italy outranks Russia. Theoretically, any of them could do it alone.

 

[GR66]

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).

Post WW2 Soviet expansion had put significant ethnic Russian populations in these (and other former Warsaw block) countries. Hybrid warfare by way of disinformation and manipulation continues apace, and if not aggressively countered, could lead to erosion of non-Russian European interests.

This is not the time to take the eye off the ball. Don't think big war. Think hybrid war and what needs to be done to defeat it. And yes, the commitment of a flyover Canadian division for Latvia has a big role to play in that both as a deterrent and as a commitment that gives us a strong chip at the table.

I agree that Russia isn't going to go away and is unlikely to stop being a thorn in the West's side. As I noted, our Brigade in Latvia plays an important role in deterring Russia from a conventional military attack against the smaller NATO members along its border. It serves a political role by showing NATO's unity because Russia knows that if it attacks Latvia it won't be fighting Latvia alone...it will be all of NATO. Having a Division there rather than a Brigade won't change that calculus for Russia. Are they going to risk taking on all of NATO if Canada only has a Brigade there but won't dare to take on all of NATO if Canada has a Division there instead?

Hybrid threats are another thing all together. How are conventional troops in Latvia going to help against pro-Russian rallies by Ruso-Latvian civilians? Are we going to put down civil unrest on behalf of the Latvian government? Heck, if you have too large a foreign force there it could in itself cause discontent among the local population. Look at Okinawa as an example.

 

[McG]

no matter how you put it, there is an ocean separating us from Europe

 

[FJAG]

Having a Division there rather than a Brigade won't change that calculus for Russia. Are they going to risk taking on all of NATO if Canada only has a Brigade there but won't dare to take on all of NATO if Canada has a Division there instead?

My concept is a prepositioned, flyover division which could in fact have a smaller full-time presence in Latvia than we have now. It would simply grow for training events and in times of crisis. Practically speaking though, growing the planned defensive structure for the Baltics by two brigades would change the calculus for Russia - especially in Latvia.

Hybrid threats are another thing all together. How are conventional troops in Latvia going to help against pro-Russian rallies by Ruso-Latvian civilians?

The division has resources above and beyond those of a conventional brigade that can have roles in hybrid warfare. But fair enough, hybrid warfare goes well beyond the conventional. Additional, committed conventional forces provide the confidence needed to enable local authorities to invest and engage in counter-hybrid warfare activities.

 

[YZT580]

I guess where we differ is I just don't see why we need a chip or seat at Europe's table.

I don't see what Europe brings us. I think for balance they need our natural resources more anything the other way; and I'm cool to do business. But their internal strife is not a place more Canadian blood should be spilled IMHO.

While I don't want to see the dissolution of NATO, I also understand for everything there is season...

I can accept that it may have run its course.

Europe is NA's barbican guarding the eastern side of our moat. (the Atlantic)