CAN Enhanced (Permanent?) Fwd Presence in Latvia

[Fabius]

Much to the displeasure of the Spanish.

 

[markppcli]

Much to the displeasure of the Spanish.

I’ve compared both our work life balances while I was there. Trust me we’d all prefer to work for the Spanish.

 

[McG]

Looks like it will be permanent forward presence.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1512954151117877248

 

[FJAG]

I guess that means Trudeau has until June in Madrid to figure out how to weasel out of actually doing anything.

I have my fingers crossed for Anand but after the budget I'm not expecting much from us on the international front.

 

[McG]

Okay, to get ourselves a seat back at the big-boy table let's figure out how to make this our REASSURANCE commitment:

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Replace 415 Sqn with LRP ATF REASSURANACE...

 

[MilEME09]

Okay, to get ourselves a seat back at the big-boy table let's figure out how to make this our REASSURANCE commitment:
View attachment 69988

Air wing in Poland or Germany? 3 service battalions seem a bit heavy, I'd reorg it into 1 maintenance battalion, and a forward logistics battalion to handle other functions.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

The unfortunate thing is that we haven't been able to field this large of a formation since 1945, with both conscription and a large augmentation of the reserve force.

I have zero idea how we could staff an organization this large, as it would pull every person currently in uniform into the formation.

That's not even looking into the complete lack of capabilities listed, and the equipment rust out we currently have within our field force.

Something to aspire to in 15 years?

 

[GR66]

Despite the recent Russian attack on Ukraine I still believe that the risk of a Russian attack on NATO itself is extremely low. Economics, population and geography are against them in the long run and Ukraine has shown that their military has serious limitations in performing offensive operations against a well-equipped and determined enemy.

My personal opinion is that deploying a Division or even a full Brigade Group to Europe would be a poor use of Canadian defence dollars. To my mind that money would be better spent on things like:

• Additional Fighter Aircraft earmarked for Europe (expand the F-35 buy if required or invest in UCAV development to supplement them).
• Increase our airlift/AAR capability to support fighter operations and surge of forces to Europe if required (I'd love to see our A300 MRTT order doubled).
• Increase our ISR and EW capabilites (P-8s, UAVs, possibly even Global Eye, ground based capabilities, etc.) to assist in detecting a Russian build-up in advance as well as providing targeting for strikes if hostilities begin.
• Invest in building a well-equipped, high-readiness rapid reaction light force that could quickly deploy to Europe in case of an invasion or heightened tensions. Needs to include lots of AT and AA capability within the force. Objective would be to rapidly increase deterrence once a build-up is detected or to blunt/slow the initial attack if it occurs in order give time for heavier forces to be deployed.
  • Alternately heavily invest in SHORAD, MRAD and Long Range Precision Fires (HIMARS) capabilities which can be rapidly air deployed to Europe in support of allied ground troops in case of conflict.
  • Alternate "B" - pre-position additional equipment to round out eFP Latvia with fly-over troops in case of conflict (I prefer the other two options as they can be deployed wherever a risk of conflict is detected rather than already being located in a specific area that can be targeted by Russian forces in initial strikes).
• In general increase our Air and Naval forces in order to be able to better support and protect a surge of US forces into theatre.

 

[KevinB]

If it wasn’t for nukes NATO would be in Moscow…
If you look at what Russia has left for equipment outside the UKR theatre, a Cbt Team of Leo’s and LAV’s could pretty much drive from Latvia to St Petersburg with out much significant opposition.

If Canada can’t at least get a Bde into Latvia - everyone else in NATO will see the CAF as a joke.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Did we change the abbreviation for Battalion to Bde recently? yes?

 

[McG]

The unfortunate thing is that we haven't been able to field this large of a formation since 1945, with both conscription and a large augmentation of the reserve force.

This is tiny compared to the forces Canada deployed to either World War. CFE was also larger through most of its existence in the first Cold War.

 

[Spencer100]

Putting that big a force back into Europe is taking the eye off the real enemy and problem. Russia will soon be a spent force. China will be on the move.

We should put a large enough force that get us out of the kids table.

 

[TacticalTea]

Despite the recent Russian attack on Ukraine I still believe that the risk of a Russian attack on NATO itself is extremely low. Economics, population and geography are against them in the long run and Ukraine has shown that their military has serious limitations in performing offensive operations against a well-equipped and determined enemy.

I generally agree with the priorities outlined, but remember this:

In 1763, France lost everything. Its american adventure would end.

But, they learned from their mistakes, re-invested in their military, and kicked butt for a half century. First - poetically enough - by taking revenge in America against the Brits, then going on to build their own European empire, against which it took the united might of essentially the remainder of Europe to stop them.

Russia could do the same, and their apparent defeat today is no indication of what will happen in 15 years. While I understand the point you are making, I've also seen others use the same argument to explain that there is no need, after all, to invest in and rebuild our own military, which in my view could not be more wrong.

 

[Infanteer]

This is a valid point. Russia is going to walk away from Ukraine facing some level of failure. They probably will fix that, as losing armies tend to do, making them more dangerous down the road if they remain an adversary of the West.

 

[KevinB]

Putting that big a force back into Europe is taking the eye off the real enemy and problem. Russia will soon be a spent force. China will be on the move.

We should put a large enough force that get us out of the kids table.

The 250k US personnel in Europe are 1/8th of our Force.
That leaves a fairly robust Force available for Pacific Pivot.

Canada doesn’t seem to have any inclination to Pacific pivot - and isn’t structured in any way shape or form in the CAF to do that, nor does it seem to want to be shaped that way.

 

[MilEME09]

This is a valid point. Russia is going to walk away from Ukraine facing some level of failure. They probably will fix that, as losing armies tend to do, making them more dangerous down the road if they remain an adversary of the West.

Your assume corruption does not continue and their equipment actually is cared for.

 

[KevinB]

Your assume corruption does not continue and their equipment actually is cared for.

Better to err to the high side of enemy capabilities…

 

[Czech_pivo]

Despite the recent Russian attack on Ukraine I still believe that the risk of a Russian attack on NATO itself is extremely low. Economics, population and geography are against them in the long run and Ukraine has shown that their military has serious limitations in performing offensive operations against a well-equipped and determined enemy.

My personal opinion is that deploying a Division or even a full Brigade Group to Europe would be a poor use of Canadian defence dollars. To my mind that money would be better spent on things like:

• Additional Fighter Aircraft earmarked for Europe (expand the F-35 buy if required or invest in UCAV development to supplement them).
• Increase our airlift/AAR capability to support fighter operations and surge of forces to Europe if required (I'd love to see our A300 MRTT order doubled).
• Increase our ISR and EW capabilites (P-8s, UAVs, possibly even Global Eye, ground based capabilities, etc.) to assist in detecting a Russian build-up in advance as well as providing targeting for strikes if hostilities begin.
• Invest in building a well-equipped, high-readiness rapid reaction light force that could quickly deploy to Europe in case of an invasion or heightened tensions. Needs to include lots of AT and AA capability within the force. Objective would be to rapidly increase deterrence once a build-up is detected or to blunt/slow the initial attack if it occurs in order give time for heavier forces to be deployed.
  • Alternately heavily invest in SHORAD, MRAD and Long Range Precision Fires (HIMARS) capabilities which can be rapidly air deployed to Europe in support of allied ground troops in case of conflict.
  • Alternate "B" - pre-position additional equipment to round out eFP Latvia with fly-over troops in case of conflict (I prefer the other two options as they can be deployed wherever a risk of conflict is detected rather than already being located in a specific area that can be targeted by Russian forces in initial strikes).
• In general increase our Air and Naval forces in order to be able to better support and protect a surge of US forces into theatre.

I know that the current Bogey man is Russia and while there is the need to address them and address the CAF's plainly evident shortfalls in helping in a meaningful way our commitment to NATO that equals our G7 status, we need to be looking East to our next potential adversary.

If the war in Ukraine was to stop now, with Ukraine's Feb 24th borders being intact, it will take Russia a decade+ to recover from their beating. In that decade+ of time, regime change will most likely occur and there is X% chance that the new regime may not have to same ambitions to recreate USSR 2.0 as the current one does. This does not mean that we shouldn't rearm and expand our capabilities within NATO but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't neglect our other area of focus = SE ASIA.

What's that mantra? 'Armies prepare to fight their last war, rather than their next war'.

 

[GR66]

I know that the current Bogey man is Russia and while there is the need to address them and address the CAF's plainly evident shortfalls in helping in a meaningful way our commitment to NATO that equals our G7 status, we need to be looking East to our next potential adversary.

If the war in Ukraine was to stop now, with Ukraine's Feb 24th borders being intact, it will take Russia a decade+ to recover from their beating. In that decade+ of time, regime change will most likely occur and there is X% chance that the new regime may not have to same ambitions to recreate USSR 2.0 as the current one does. This does not mean that we shouldn't rearm and expand our capabilities within NATO but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't neglect our other area of focus = SE ASIA.

What's that mantra? 'Armies prepare to fight their last war, rather than their next war'.

What on my list of revised priorities doesn't fulfill the dual role of countering China?

• Additional Fighter Aircraft earmarked for Europe the Indo-Pacific (expand the F-35 buy if required or invest in UCAV development to supplement them).
• Increase our airlift/AAR capability to support fighter operations and surge of forces to Europe the Indo-Pacific if required (I'd love to see our A300 MRTT order doubled).
• Increase our ISR and EW capabilites (P-8s, UAVs, possibly even Global Eye, ground based capabilities, etc.) to assist in detecting a Russian Chinese build-up in advance as well as providing targeting for strikes if hostilities begin.
• Invest in building a well-equipped, high-readiness rapid reaction light force that could quickly deploy to Europe the Indo-Pacific in case of an invasion or heightened tensions. Needs to include lots of AT and AA capability within the force. Objective would be to rapidly increase deterrence once a build-up is detected or to blunt/slow the initial attack if it occurs in order give time for heavier forces to be deployed.
  • Alternately heavily invest in SHORAD, MRAD and Long Range Precision Fires (HIMARS) capabilities which can be rapidly air deployed to Europe the Indo-Pacific in support of allied ground troops in case of conflict.
  • Alternate "B" - pre-position additional equipment to round out eFP Latvia the Indo-Pacific with fly-over troops in case of conflict (I prefer the other two options as they can be deployed wherever a risk of conflict is detected rather than already being located in a specific area that can be targeted by Russian forces in initial strikes).
• In general increase our Air and Naval forces in order to be able to better support and protect a surge of US forces into theatre [insert any applicable theatre here].