CAN Enhanced (Permanent?) Fwd Presence in Latvia

[captloadie]

The other fact that needs to be realized is that this isn't the old days in Germany. It is easy to say just post everyone on 4 year deployments with their families, they'll love it. Except have you spoken to any of those families who have done a current posting in Latvia? Are you aware of the restrictions they lived with, the sense of fear that hung over their heads, the increased security threats? Yes, many of them enjoyed the opportunity, but a lot of them were glad when they got back to Canada.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The other fact that needs to be realized is that this isn't the old days in Germany. It is easy to say just post everyone on 4 year deployments with their families, they'll love it. Except have you spoken to any of those families who have done a current posting in Latvia? Are you aware of the restrictions they lived with, the sense of fear that hung over their heads, the increased security threats? Yes, many of them enjoyed the opportunity, but a lot of them were glad when they got back to Canada.

I always felt a higher degree of safety when I was in this type of accommodation. Maybe that could be arranged?

 

[MJP]

Base and training area. The base proper is pretty dense and could be expanded ? But I don’t know the land use / zoning / ect

Man that base has expanded substatially. I was roto 0 in 2017 and the then to now is an awesome testament of infrastructure will. It is interesting to see what the Latvians have done there that were just in the planning stages or pipe dreams in 2017.

I also see people think the same way now that many did then regarding the infrastructure in that we foreigners can just willy nilly ignore Latvian sovereignty to do whatever we want.

 

[markppcli]

I always felt a higher degree of safety when I was in this type of accommodation. Maybe that could be arranged?


View attachment 78780

I’m confused, it’s so short yet they aren’t digging…

 

[Fabius]

So has a memorandum to cabinet actually been signed. That is the question, as unless I am mistaken, announcements don’t count as formal direction.

I’m of the opinion that the skepticism and cynicism that is expressed stems from a couple items. First is a “Say Do” gap that both the GoC and the CAF seem to suffer from. Second is the “Paralysis by Analysis” that seems widespread paired with lack of evidence in long term planning.

Behind every good news item, ie MBTs to Latvia, Increasing the eFP to a Bde, key equipment UORs there are announcements and discussions going back years yet the ability to implement them is measured in years if not decades.

That is not conducive to engendering an optimistic outlook. It’s unfortunate.

 

[KevinB]

I also see people think the same way now that many did then regarding the infrastructure in that we foreigners can just willy nilly ignore Latvian sovereignty to do whatever we want.

The Latvians clearly want (or at least their Gov does) a NATO Bde parked in their country. With that Bde comes personnel and infrastructure.
It’s not ignoring their sovereignty, it’s a partnership, one that both sides are involved in. Part of the Latvia duty in that partnership is to accommodate the Bde, and due to the fact it’s an ongoing mission, the families of the Bde.

 

[MJP]

The Latvians clearly want (or at least their Gov does) a NATO Bde parked in their country. With that Bde comes personnel and infrastructure.
It’s not ignoring their sovereignty, it’s a partnership, one that both sides are involved in. Part of the Latvia duty in that partnership is to accommodate the Bde, and due to the fact it’s an ongoing mission, the families of the Bde.

Sure that makes sense and my limited experience is how it is being done. What people are actually posting ignore that reality which is pretty normal for any army.ca conversation rabbit hole in any case

 

[Jarnhamar]

I wouldn't think many military families in 2023 could manage a 3 year posting to a foreign country for 3 years (in terms of spouse careers).

 

[Fabius]

The Latvians clearly want (or at least their Gov does) a NATO Bde parked in their country. With that Bde comes personnel and infrastructure.
It’s not ignoring their sovereignty, it’s a partnership, one that both sides are involved in. Part of the Latvia duty in that partnership is to accommodate the Bde, and due to the fact it’s an ongoing mission, the families of the Bde.

In addition its the mindset that drives both personnel and infrastructure decisions. Is this an enduring generational commitment or is it a 3-5 year commitment.

If its a generational commitment then both sides of the partnership would be seeking to create the infrastructure to support that. This can be seen in the US Army's growth in Poland over the last 6 years, going from rotational forces only to now having a permanent garrision in Poznan with a bunch of US infrastructure projects from ranges to DFACs to accommodations and the slow transition of V Corps to being a posting vs a deployment. First with singles and military couples with the plan to build towards families as infrastructure gets built.

If its only a 3-5 year commitment then the rational to spend captial construction infrastructure dollars in Latvia vs Canada will be low to non existent and the deployed forces can continue with the current existing infrastructure and 6 month rotations.

Do we know what our presence in Latvia and in the Baltics is? Is it an enduring generational one or a 3-5 year one?

 

[childs56]

The CAF had been involved in planning the Leopard deployment, with input from theatre and down to unit level in Canada, for over a year before that was publicly announced. This newest announcement was being worked on conçurent to tank planning the whole time. Multiple L1s (and even DCC) we involved. This is not a surprise. For every sky is falling question asked here, people have been working the problem already. Work has already started on most solutions. But the CAF can’t make big announcement until the government does. So preparations carry on without fanfare or attention being drawn to them.

I see this planning as taking to long. If it takes us a year or so to plan this then we really are in trouble. We have been over there for a few years now. This speaks volumes that we do not have the equipment, including support parts, tools, ancillary equipment and staffing at all support levels to make this acceptably viable.
What we will have is a deployment of the Soldiers will make it work, make it happen and pour everything into it until it fails. Then they will put more effort into it.
It is not the Tanker, or Tech on the grounds fault. But it will be their burden to make happen. It is the GOC, our Leaders who failed to provide an adequate working environment that works.
The only saving side of this is the Manufacturer will be a short distance away and it is in their best interest to provide support for the short term into this deployment. GOC will do what they do best. Demand High serviceability rates, high tempo rates with a small in-adequate budget. Then be surprised when it starts falling apart.

 

[markppcli]

I see this planning as taking to long. If it takes us a year or so to plan this then we really are in trouble. We have been over there for a few years now. This speaks volumes that we do not have the equipment, including support parts, tools, ancillary equipment and staffing at all support levels to make this acceptably viable.
What we will have is a deployment of the Soldiers will make it work, make it happen and pour everything into it until it fails. Then they will put more effort into it.
It is not the Tanker, or Tech on the grounds fault. But it will be their burden to make happen. It is the GOC, our Leaders who failed to provide an adequate working environment that works.
The only saving side of this is the Manufacturer will be a short distance away and it is in their best interest to provide support for the short term into this deployment. GOC will do what they do best. Demand High serviceability rates, high tempo rates with a small in-adequate budget. Then be surprised when it starts falling apart.

So based on your experience supporting tanks deployed overseas what could an acceptable time line have been? What would the acceptable equipment stock pile look like. I’m assuming you also have an in-depth knowledge of the start and end date for this planning cycle given that it’s “taken too long.” Which I would find interesting to know given that the CCA told the CO of the LdSH (RC) in front of the battle group tanks wouldn’t be deployed to Latvia because we can’t support them over there in 2020.

 

[McG]

I see this planning as taking to long. If it takes us a year …

There is more than planning that happens outside of what you see. We do concurrent activity. There are preparations that occur and synchronizing with other activities (including synchronization with allies). There is no point showing up before the host nation will accept us. And even when we are ready, the government gets to decide when it will make the announcement. We may have to sit, waiting and ready, while waiting for “go conditions” and government announcement. This leads to the need that the plan also has to be maintained, as the situation is not static and it will change … so, more concurrent activity.

 

[KevinB]

I'd suggest it's going to be longer than 5-6 years...
Might make room for a whole Bde BTW

https://twitter.com/x/status/1678851432118734855

 

[ballz]

Quite a few years ago I remember posting that it would be interesting to see all the non-essential activities we might finally cut if we actually had to deploy a Brigade for a sustained period of time, because that was the only way a lot of the existing crap would get cut... someone said it had happened before - Korea.

Maybe now the CAF will see some actual chopping / reconstitution occurring instead of just announcements about it. If the CDS needed an excuse he's finally got one...

 

[The Bread Guy]

... Maybe now the CAF will see some actual chopping / reconstitution occurring instead of just announcements about it. If the CDS needed an excuse he's finally got one...

As others upthread have mentioned, though, the betting today would go to Team Red wheelhouse crew deciding to do the barest minimum to get along, not give a "we're at war, folks - get 'er done."

 

[Edward Campbell]

We need to remember that when we first assigned a brigade to Germany, early 1950s, in Hanover, there were some families but the men, the rank and file, were, largely single soldiers - the first units served two years, many of the officers and NCOs were unaccompanied. Later we moved to the Soest/Hemer/Werl area, into purpose built barracks with nearby PMQs and adequate rental accommodation because the army was changing - more and more junior ranks and most senior NCOs were married and the army wanted longer tours of duty for both operational and administrative efficient and effectiveness.

 

[BrianWL]

It’s not hard to make it a longer term posting versus a short term task…
I mean it’s not like 4 CMBG did not exist in Germany…

and it existed quite well, like a little piece of Canada

 

[YZT580]

We need to remember that when we first assigned a brigade to Germany, early 1950s, in Hanover, there were some families but the men, the rank and file, were, largely single soldiers - the first units served two years, many of the officers and NCOs were unaccompanied. Later we moved to the Soest/Hemer/Werl area, into purpose built barracks with nearby PMQs and adequate rental accommodation because the army was changing - more and more junior ranks and most senior NCOs were married and the army wanted longer tours of duty for both operational and administrative efficient and effectiveness.

and when the iron curtain came down we didn't waste any time withdrawing. Part of another budget cut. Can't really fault Trudeau and co. They are following a path well trodden by previous governments and we don't have any leaders that have any experience at actually leading. Trudeau needs to sit down with Pierre and hash out a progressive plan that both parties can adhere to regardless of election results and regardless of the polls and publicly announce it as a joint undertaking to eliminate campaigning on the issue

 

[Furniture]

and when the iron curtain came down we didn't waste any time withdrawing. Part of another budget cut. Can't really fault Trudeau and co. They are following a path well trodden by previous governments and we don't have any leaders that have any experience at actually leading. Trudeau needs to sit down with Pierre and hash out a progressive plan that both parties can adhere to regardless of election results and regardless of the polls and publicly announce it as a joint undertaking to eliminate campaigning on the issue

You're asking for more than either of them can give...

We live in a sheltered corner of the world, so our politicians will not be taking defence seriously as a non-partisan issue, short of a full scale war that directly threatens us.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

You're asking for more than either of them can give...

We live in a sheltered corner of the world, so our politicians will not be taking defence seriously as a non-partisan issue, short of a full scale war that directly threatens us.

I think the last time Defence was a non-partisan issue in Canada was when the Fenians crossed the border in 1866....