Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Yes, but as a US citizen and tax payer, when we see the rest of NATO having a lot of perks that we don’t (Medicare etc) it’s really annoying in a period of dramatically increased global tensions that several NATO member countries are still in max relax mode on the couch.

Or don't really seem to be interested in keeping Russia at bay even though they're a couple of day's drive or so away from their capitals.

Guess what Europe... the USA is not your enemy. But if you keep doing nothing to defend yourselves...

Defending Europe with less America​

• Russia’s war on Ukraine has revealed the sorry state of European militaries and defence industries after decades of peace dividends, as well as their deep reliance on the US.
• A second Trump presidency could drastically reduce US defence support for Europe. But regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election, the degradation of the European security environment and the shifting priorities of the US mean that Europe needs to be prepared to take more responsibility for its own defence.
• Europeans require a sustained plan over the next decade that combines immediate efforts to support Ukraine and rebuild readiness, and longer-term goals to develop a “full force package”, including the combat support capabilities and key enablers that are currently provided primarily by the US.
• Paradoxically, such a deliberate approach to overcoming institutional challenges and strengthening Europe’s defence capabilities may be the best way to preserve a strong transatlantic relationship and a degree of US commitment.

Defending Europe with less America

Shifting US priorities and a degrading security environment – not to mention the possibility of a second Trump presidency – mean Europeans finally have to take more responsibility for their own…

ecfr.eu

 

[KevinB]

and of all the countries the US is outspending how many are allies? How many have designs on world hegemony?

So the world blamed America for being too slow to enter WW1, then WW2.

After WW2 America supported multiple anti-communist missions in Europe (you’re welcome Greece, Italy, and the Berlin airlift) and worldwide.

Now America gets shit on for being the world policeman, by countries and people that sit back and snipe from their couch - so pardon me if I could give a shit what you think or say.

 

[FJAG]

Yes, but as a US citizen and tax payer, when we see the rest of NATO having a lot of perks that we don’t (Medicare etc) it’s really annoying in a period of dramatically increased global tensions that several NATO member countries are still in max relax mode on the couch.

It's not your defence spending that keeps you from having nice things like health care. It's deeply embedded medical and medical insurance businesses that lobby the government maligning public health care as the hallmark of socialism.

The US is spending what it does on defence because its gone from being an isolationist country to one that got involved everywhere at the drop of a hat. Eisenhower warned you to beware.

 

[Weinie]

So the world blamed America for being too slow to enter WW1, then WW2.

After WW2 America supported multiple anti-communist missions in Europe (you’re welcome Greece, Italy, and the Berlin airlift) and worldwide.

Now America gets shit on for being the world policeman, by countries and people that sit back and snipe from their couch - so pardon me if I could give a shit what you think or say.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[KevinB]

It's not your defence spending that keeps you from having nice things like health care. It's deeply embedded medical and medical insurance businesses that lobby the government maligning public health care as the hallmark of socialism.

Would you accept not just Defense spending?
I fully agree our Medical Insurance Complex (see what I did there ) is a nasty leech —

The US is spending what it does on defence because its gone from being an isolationist country to one that got involved everywhere at the drop of a hat. Eisenhower warned you to beware.

Eisenhower was also a root cause — warning about the consequences of a military industrial complex- yet also seeing that global communism needed to be stopped, thus needing that industrial base.

We botched (the collective west), the defeat of the Soviet empire, and we can’t afford to both the next chance to remold Russia and China.

 

[Good2Golf]

Eisenhower was also a root cause — warning about the consequences of a military industrial complex- yet also seeing that global communism needed to be stopped, thus needing that industrial base.

Yup…warned of, then strengthened it. Pragmatically reasoned, but built it up nonetheless, which serves to reinforce The Estimate…have things changed? Yes. Re-plan and execute.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Yes, but as a US citizen and tax payer, when we see the rest of NATO having a lot of perks that we don’t (Medicare etc) it’s really annoying in a period of dramatically increased global tensions that several NATO member countries are still in max relax mode on the couch.

So stop. Look after yourselves. And let the rest of the world rise and fall on their own merit and ability.

So the world blamed America for being too slow to enter WW1, then WW2.

After WW2 America supported multiple anti-communist missions in Europe (you’re welcome Greece, Italy, and the Berlin airlift) and worldwide.

Now America gets shit on for being the world policeman, by countries and people that sit back and snipe from their couch - so pardon me if I could give a shit what you think or say.

See above. I don't blame the US one iota.

 

[YZT580]

Would you accept not just Defense spending?
I fully agree our Medical Insurance Complex (see what I did there ) is a nasty leech —

Eisenhower was also a root cause — warning about the consequences of a military industrial complex- yet also seeing that global communism needed to be stopped, thus needing that industrial base.

We botched (the collective west), the defeat of the Soviet empire, and we can’t afford to both the next chance to remold Russia and China.

Churchill warned us, so did Paton for that matter

 

[FJAG]

After WW2 America supported multiple anti-communist missions in Europe (you’re welcome Greece, Italy, and the Berlin airlift) and worldwide.

I was born in Berlin in 1949, so here's a heartfelt thank you to the US for the airlift. It mattered. I had family living in the Soviet Zone, and before the wall went up we visited back and forth frequently. Berlin had been largely destroyed by 1945. By the time I was conscious of my surroundings as a child in the early 1950s, one could plainly see that the west was a city of light - quite literally - and life, while the east was dim and dreary. Nowhere was the stark contrast between western democratic society and communism more obvious. The American-led anti-communist crusade was absolutely necessary and successful. Even in places where communism survived, it was altered.

I think the big difference in defence spending after the fall of the USSR was that in Europe it was no longer perceived as necessary as Europe had a much narrower focus on the world while the US was still fighting "wars" in the East and Middle East that it had chosen to be involved in. The US too reduced its defence expenditures dramatically in Europe just like the Europeans and Canada. There was no "freeloading" per se as the perception of Russia as a threat no longer existed and, to a large extent, Russia was becoming integrated into the European structure through its energy supplies to the west. When the US found itself attacked on 9/11 most western countries stepped up to help militarily. Maintaining a low defence posture when you do not see a viable threat is not freeloading, its risk management.

Where the big difference comes in is that when Russia resurfaced as a major expansionist threat, Europe and Canada were slow to react to rearm while America still had a large force because of its other foreign ventures. This does result in an uneven burden sharing for propping up Ukraine. I'll fully agree that a realistic regime in the west these days needs to seriously address the issue of rearmament and in that respect Canada's current government is avoiding the issue because that is the posture that that particular party has stood by since the late 1960s (Martin's foray into Afghanistan notwithstanding). IMHO, there was no "freeloading" before 2014. Since then the response has been mixed within NATO.

My problem with Trump's position is that he grabs onto some minor issues which ought to be dealt with diplomatically but rather than doing that he loudly and publicly sets up strawman enemies that he can wrestle to the ground. He creates enemies unnecessarily for his own aggrandisement. While it may please his baying mob, it creates second and third order effects which will hurt the west, and especially the US, in the long run. But it's not only foreign enemies that he is creating, he's doing it domestically as well. Dividing a nation by making half of it "the enemy" is a surefire way to fracture it. The infrastructure to correct this type of situation - a sound education system and a balanced media - have most recently been overwhelmed by a highly inaccurate and divided social media. It may be hard to come back from the harm he is causing his country.

 

[KevinB]

Churchill warned us, so did Paton for that matter

They didn't want to stop - both Patton and Churchill (and for that matter Harry Truman) would have not stopped with VE against the Germans -- Roosevelt was a fool to believe that Stalin was an ally - I suspect Churchill wished that Roosevelt had passed away before Malta...

 

[KevinB]

So stop. Look after yourselves. And let the rest of the world rise and fall on their own merit and ability.

To shamelessly steal from H.L. Menchen: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

As well an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.

 

[Halifax Tar]

To shamelessly steal from H.L. Menchen: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

As well an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.

You cant save everyone.

 

[KevinB]

You cant save everyone.

Agreed, but cutting out a cancer early is a lot less dangerous than letting it grow.

I'm a pragmatic interventionist - as I see it less costly in blood and treasure to act beyond our borders before someone/something is strong enough to affect our direct national interests.

 

[MilEME09]

Agreed, but cutting out a cancer early is a lot less dangerous than letting it grow.

I'm a pragmatic interventionist - as I see it less costly in blood and treasure to act beyond our borders before someone/something is strong enough to affect our direct national interests.

Problem is we are too risk adverse, we will take the easy win fight of say terrorists in africa, but we spent 20 years thinking talk would stop north korea from getting a nuclear bomb. Fight genocidal terrorists in the middle east, and ignore ethnic cleansing in Myanmar. We police when its not risky for us, or there is a geopolitical benefit, not because its morally right.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

For argument's sake, the following tasks and structures could be used to frame equipment and personnel expenditures. I am trying to stay in the realm of the likely, pushing the boundary with possible/dreaming. I will use generic unit indicators such as battalions in place of regiments since those can be confusing. Assume that existing reserve structures get collapsed into full-strength units.

Task 1 - Defence of Canada and North America. This would be a filled by a composite regular and reserve division. The divisional HQ would be static and would execute day-to-day C2 and FG of elements for the role. There would be a regular force light infantry brigade group with three light infantry battalions, a towed artillery battalion (M777), a light engineer unit, and air defence battery plus ISR, C2 and CSS. They would have responsibility for arctic response. There would then be three ARes light brigade groups, each with three light infantry battalions, a towed artillery battalion, light reconnaissance, light engineers, C2 and CSS. Within each Bde, one infantry battalion would have the arctic response remit while the other two would have the territorial battlegroup role for DOMOPs.

Not too much sizzle comes out from this in terms of equipment, but things like sufficient mortars and ATGMs for the infantry battalions, sufficient M777, CSS vehicles and command posts etc. There would also be all the necessary ancillary equipment for those units. All in all, not an insignificant amount of equipment purchase. So if you are in a reserve infantry unit you are in a full-strength section in a full-strength platoon in a full-strength company in a full-strength battalion with all the equipment you would require if placed on active service. What cap-badge you wear could be decided in another thread.


Task 2 - NATO. Canada commits to a mechanized division to NATO. This would be a manouevre division. This would have three mechanized brigades, each of one tank battalion and two mechanized infantry battalions. It would also have an artillery brigade of three SP gun battalions and a long-range rocket battalion. It would have a cavalry battalion that would have a mix of tanks and reconnaissance sub-units. There would be an ISR unit and an air-defence battalion. There would be a divisional service support brigade that would push out service battalions to the brigades and be the link to Corps. There would be an HQ and Signals unit for the Div HQ. For argument's sake, there is an engineer brigade with two combat engineer battalions and a general support unit. This Division would rotate brigades through the eFP task, so half of one brigade is forward at all times with pre-positioned equipment for the rest of the brigade. There could certainly be ARes units assigned to some of these formations.

This generates the following equipment requirements (I am sure there are others):

- two additional battalions of tanks from the one we have with another split between the School and the cavalry unit. So something like 240 tanks
- four battalions worth of SP artillery
- a battalion of AD (the existing GBAD program could be expanded)
- a battalion of long-range rockets (HIMARs equivalent)
- sufficient organic ATGMs for those mechanized battalions (PAX-M)
- sufficient ancillary equipment for all units (night vision, radios etc)
- CP equipment/vehicles for the bn, bde and div HQs
- SP Mortars for the mechanized infantry battalions
- the trucks, refuelers and maintenance vehicles to support all this in the field

It would also be very useful to have a battalion set at a training centre in Canada and a battalion set forward in Europe (Germany?). So plenty of additional LAV 6 and other vehicles.

Task 3 - Indo Pacific and NEO. This line of task would be held by the regular force Light Brigade, with one unit ear-marked for this on a rotational basis. Not too much falls out of this in terms of additional equipment.

Getting all this equipment at once would, of course, be problematic. The idea, though, is to identify requirements couched in likely tasks and then see what can be done. Of course, there is all the operations and maintenance costs to go with this.

I suppose you could ask the US to lease the equipment to us for the mechanized division in Europe, even if it is older Bradly's and M1's. We have done similar leasing before. That will ease your equipment issue, We could contract ARNG trainers and maintainers to teach our people the new systems.

 

[Kirkhill]

I was born in Berlin in 1949, so here's a heartfelt thank you to the US for the airlift. It mattered. I had family living in the Soviet Zone, and before the wall went up we visited back and forth frequently. Berlin had been largely destroyed by 1945. By the time I was conscious of my surroundings as a child in the early 1950s, one could plainly see that the west was a city of light - quite literally - and life, while the east was dim and dreary. Nowhere was the stark contrast between western democratic society and communism more obvious. The American-led anti-communist crusade was absolutely necessary and successful. Even in places where communism survived, it was altered.

I think the big difference in defence spending after the fall of the USSR was that in Europe it was no longer perceived as necessary as Europe had a much narrower focus on the world while the US was still fighting "wars" in the East and Middle East that it had chosen to be involved in. The US too reduced its defence expenditures dramatically in Europe just like the Europeans and Canada. There was no "freeloading" per se as the perception of Russia as a threat no longer existed and, to a large extent, Russia was becoming integrated into the European structure through its energy supplies to the west. When the US found itself attacked on 9/11 most western countries stepped up to help militarily. Maintaining a low defence posture when you do not see a viable threat is not freeloading, its risk management.

Where the big difference comes in is that when Russia resurfaced as a major expansionist threat, Europe and Canada were slow to react to rearm while America still had a large force because of its other foreign ventures. This does result in an uneven burden sharing for propping up Ukraine. I'll fully agree that a realistic regime in the west these days needs to seriously address the issue of rearmament and in that respect Canada's current government is avoiding the issue because that is the posture that that particular party has stood by since the late 1960s (Martin's foray into Afghanistan notwithstanding). IMHO, there was no "freeloading" before 2014. Since then the response has been mixed within NATO.

My problem with Trump's position is that he grabs onto some minor issues which ought to be dealt with diplomatically but rather than doing that he loudly and publicly sets up strawman enemies that he can wrestle to the ground. He creates enemies unnecessarily for his own aggrandisement. While it may please his baying mob, it creates second and third order effects which will hurt the west, and especially the US, in the long run. But it's not only foreign enemies that he is creating, he's doing it domestically as well. Dividing a nation by making half of it "the enemy" is a surefire way to fracture it. The infrastructure to correct this type of situation - a sound education system and a balanced media - have most recently been overwhelmed by a highly inaccurate and divided social media. It may be hard to come back from the harm he is causing his country.

He creates enemies unnecessarily for his own aggrandisement.

I have a problem with that statement. Not necessarily that it is wrong but that it can be given too much weight. I think there is merit to throwing a tantrum if nothing else has worked. If you have been asking for a change for decades, have been slighted for much of the time and actively ignored for the past decade then it might be appropriate to try "the other thing" and see if that is any more effective.

 

[FJAG]

I have a problem with that statement. Not necessarily that it is wrong but that it can be given too much weight. I think there is merit to throwing a tantrum if nothing else has worked. If you have been asking for a change for decades, have been slighted for much of the time and actively ignored for the past decade then it might be appropriate to try "the other thing" and see if that is any more effective.

Actually, I wasn't thinking so much of Canada when I said that rather than what he's doing internally in the US. I'm one of those who does believe that Canada has been blithely ignoring valid complaints coming from the US for many years. I do understand the 2% issue. That's a lot of cash. But there were other issues which were/are easy ones with a fairly reasonable dollar and political cost involved.

 

[Cloud Cover]

It's not your defence spending that keeps you from having nice things like health care. It's deeply embedded medical and medical insurance businesses that lobby the government maligning public health care as the hallmark of socialism.

The US is spending what it does on defence because its gone from being an isolationist country to one that got involved everywhere at the drop of a hat. Eisenhower warned you to beware.

US Federal government spending 1 TRILLION dollars (US!) every 51 days is a place not even Eisenhower could envision the government doing.

Neither was borrowing 1 TRILLION dollars (US$) every 170 days.

The task assigned to DOGE is to cut spending by $4 billion every single day and they are on track, for better or for worse.

 

[Furniture]

So the world blamed America for being too slow to enter WW1, then WW2.

After WW2 America supported multiple anti-communist missions in Europe (you’re welcome Greece, Italy, and the Berlin airlift) and worldwide.

Now America gets shit on for being the world policeman, by countries and people that sit back and snipe from their couch - so pardon me if I could give a shit what you think or say.

The US did go out of its way to force the UK and France to give up their colonial possessions, making thre US the dominant world power. You don't get to force the others to back down, then complain they aren't doing enough...

 

[dapaterson]

The task assigned to DOGE is to cut spending by $4 billion every single day and they are on track, for better or for worse.

Implicit in the direction was to obey the law...