• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

Canada says it will look at increasing its defence spending and tacked on 10 more Russian names to an ever growing sanctions list.

By Tonda MacCharles
Ottawa Bureau
Mon., March 7, 2022

Riga, LATVIA—On the 13th day of the brutal Russian bid to claim Ukraine as its own, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is showing up at the Latvian battle group led by Canadian soldiers, waving the Maple Leaf and a vague hint at more money for the military.

Canada has been waving the NATO flag for nearly seven years in Latvia as a bulwark against Russia’s further incursions in Eastern Europe.

Canada stepped up to lead one of NATO’s four battle groups in 2015 — part of the defensive alliance’s display of strength and solidarity with weaker member states after Russia invaded Ukraine and seized the Crimean peninsula in 2014. Trudeau arrived in the Latvian capital late Monday after meetings in the U.K. with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Netherlands Prime Minister Mark Rutte.

Earlier Monday, faced with a seemingly unstoppable war in Ukraine, Trudeau said he will look at increasing Canada’s defence spending. Given world events, he said there are “certainly reflections to have.”

And Canada tacked on 10 more Russian names to an ever-growing sanctions list.

The latest round of sanctions includes names Trudeau said were identified by jailed Russian opposition leader and Putin nemesis Alexei Navalny.

However, on a day when Trudeau cited the new sanctions, and Johnson touted new measures meant to expose Russian property owners in his country, Rutte admitted sanctions are not working.

Yet they all called for more concerted international efforts over the long haul, including more economic measures and more humanitarian aid, with Johnson and Rutte divided over how quickly countries need to get off Russian oil and gas.

The 10 latest names on Canada’s target list do not include Roman Abramovich — a Russian billionaire Navalny has been flagging to Canada since at least 2017. Canada appears to have sanctioned about 20 of the 35 names on Navalny’s list.

The Conservative opposition says the Liberal government is not yet exerting maximum pressure on Putin, and should do more to bolster Canadian Forces, including by finally approving the purchase of fighter jets.

Foreign affairs critic Michael Chong said in an interview that Ottawa must still sanction “additional oligarchs close to President Putin who have significant assets in Canada.”

Abramovich owns more than a quarter of the public shares in steelmaking giant Evraz, which has operations in Alberta and Saskatchewan and has supplied most of the steel for the government-owned Trans Mountain pipeline project.

Evraz’s board of directors also includes two more Russians the U.S. government identified as “oligarchs” in 2019 — Aleksandr Abramov and Aleksandr Frolov — and its Canadian operations have received significant support from the federal government.

That includes at least $27 million in emergency wage subsidies during the pandemic, as well as $7 million through a fund meant to help heavy-polluters reduce emissions that cause climate change, according to the company’s most recent annual report.

In addition to upping defence spending, the Conservatives want NORAD’s early warning system upgraded, naval shipbuilding ramped up and Arctic security bolstered.

In London, Johnson sat down with Trudeau and Rutte at the Northolt airbase. Their morning meetings had a rushed feel, with Johnson starting to usher press out before Trudeau spoke. His office said later that the British PM couldn’t squeeze the full meeting in at 10 Downing Street because Johnson’s “diary” was so busy that day. The three leaders held an afternoon news conference at 10 Downing.

But before that Trudeau met with the Queen, saying she was “insightful” and they had a “useful, for me anyway, conversation about global affairs.”

Trudeau meets with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg Tuesday in Latvia.

The prime minister will also meet with three Baltic leaders, the prime ministers of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, in the Latvian capital of Riga.

The Liberals announced they would increase the 500 Canadian Forces in Latvia by another 460 troops. The Canadians are leading a multinational battle group, one of four that are part of NATO’s deployments in the region.

Another 3,400 Canadians could be deployed to the region in the months to come, on standby for NATO orders.

But Canada’s shipments of lethal aid to Ukraine were slow to come in the view of the Conservatives, and the Ukrainian Canadian community.

And suddenly Western allies are eyeing each other’s defence commitments.

At the Downing Street news conference, Rutte noted the Netherlands will increase its defence budget to close to two per cent of GDP. Germany has led the G7, and doubled its defence budget in the face of Putin’s invasion and threats. Johnson said the U.K. defence spending is about 2.4 per cent and declined to comment on Canada’s defence spending which is 1.4 per cent of GDP.

But Johnson didn’t hold back.

“What we can’t do, post the invasion of Ukraine is assume that we go back to a kind of status quo ante, a kind of new normalization in the way that we did after the … seizure of Crimea and the Donbas area,” Johnson said. “We’ve got to recognize that things have changed and that we need a new focus on security and I think that that is kind of increasingly understood by everybody.”

Trudeau stood by his British and Dutch counterparts and pledged Canada would do more.

He defended his government’s record, saying Ottawa is gradually increasing spending over the next decade by 70 per cent. Then Trudeau admitted more might be necessary.

“We also recognize that context is changing rapidly around the world and we need to make sure that women and men have certainty and our forces have all the equipment necessary to be able to stand strongly as we always have. As members of NATO. We will continue to look at what more we can do.”

The three leaders — Johnson, a conservative and Trudeau and Rutte, progressive liberals — in a joint statement said they “will continue to impose severe costs on Russia.”

Arriving for the news conference from Windsor Castle, Trudeau had to detour to enter Downing Street as loud so-called Freedom Convoy protesters bellowed from outside the gate. They carried signs marked “Tuck Frudeau” and “Free Tamara” (Lich).

Protester Jeff Wyatt who said he has no Canadian ties told the Star he came to stand up for Lich and others who were leading a “peaceful protest” worldwide against government “lies” about COVID-19 and what he called Trudeau’s “tyranny.”

Elsewhere in London, outside the Russian embassy, other protesters and passersby reflected on what they said was real tyranny — the Russian attack on Ukraine. “I think we should be as tough as possible to get this stopped, as tough as possible,” said protester Clive Martinez.
 
There's already a funded project for GBAD. We could work quicker too with a UOR but that leaves out all the in service issues. Effectively this purchase is even easier than a UOR because we have no need to figure out where to get manning from and can even go light on sustainment leaving that to the Ukrainians.

Not defending the procurement system here. It's indefensible. But buying for Ukraine is dead simple compared to a project to revive a capability. It's just a political statement.

🍻

We could speed up if we got rid of 10 levels of people asking "what if...?" The Ukrainians aren't asking "what if?"
 
I'll sing my same old song...

What's the US using? Is there any legitimate reason the same system won't work for us? No?...let's buy it for the sake of interoperability and logistics.

In this instance the US isn't necessarily the best mentor. It has let its GBAD game atrophy. Most of NATO did. But some countries have better residual capabilities than others. Norway leads in many respects.
 
Fair enough.

But

If it takes time for people to learn to read English, and more time to learn to drive, gun, load and command, and more time to learn how to work as a team, and more time to learn how to work in a troop, and more time to learn how to work as a squadron, and more time to learn how to work as a combat team, and more to learn how to work as a battlegroup .... how effective are a few squadrons/companies of tanks going to be in changing the rules of the game.

I agree that the best solution is the well trained and well equipped team. Neither the Russians nor the Ukrainians have that option.

So what "toys" are going to be the most effective in the hands available?
The 80-90% solution is likely to be what works.

The M4 Sherman was not the best tank made by the Allies, but the Allies could make a lot of them, and train people to drive them quickly. It was too tall because the best engine available was a radial aviation engine, and the armour was just at the minimum to stop the most common AT rounds because more armour meant it would be too heavy to handle easily with dock cranes.

I suspect the Javelin would be dumbed down a bit (Atlatl? I want credit lol), but something along those lines would be made. UAVs would keep coming out, but I suspect remote ground armour would wither on the vine, as it's all expensive and unproven.
 
The 80-90% solution is likely to be what works.

The M4 Sherman was not the best tank made by the Allies, but the Allies could make a lot of them, and train people to drive them quickly. It was too tall because the best engine available was a radial aviation engine, and the armour was just at the minimum to stop the most common AT rounds because more armour meant it would be too heavy to handle easily with dock cranes.

I suspect the Javelin would be dumbed down a bit (Atlatl? I want credit lol), but something along those lines would be made. UAVs would keep coming out, but I suspect remote ground armour would wither on the vine, as it's all expensive and unproven.

I agree with everything except this....

remote ground armour would wither on the vine, as it's all expensive and unproven.

That depends on what we mean by remote ground armour - if we are talking about fitting into my battlegroup above then I agree with you.

If we are talking about mules for the infantry, artillery and the service battalions then I think we will see them fairly soon.
 
In this instance the US isn't necessarily the best mentor. It has let its GBAD game atrophy. Most of NATO did. But some countries have better residual capabilities than others. Norway leads in many respects.
…while it keeps up to speed on SRBM and ICBM Défense, etc. As well, one could note that the US adjusted its GBAD (not including Patriot and CRAM, of course) effort based on a general situation of their having a fair bit of air presence, so it’s not like they didn’t have other capabilities in the battle space. Norway doesn’t exactly have a huge global footprint to protect…
 
…while it keeps up to speed on SRBM and ICBM Défense, etc. As well, one could note that the US adjusted its GBAD (not including Patriot and CRAM, of course) effort based on a general situation of their having a fair bit of air presence, so it’s not like they didn’t have other capabilities in the battle space. Norway doesn’t exactly have a huge global footprint to protect…

And Norway has spare bucks to spend which they have chosen to focus on a couple of major industries, much the same way the Swedes have.

I like the Yanks but there are other niche players out there doing interesting stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ueo
Fair enough.

But

If it takes time for people to learn to read English, and more time to learn to drive, gun, load and command, and more time to learn how to work as a team, and more time to learn how to work in a troop, and more time to learn how to work as a squadron, and more time to learn how to work as a combat team, and more to learn how to work as a battlegroup .... how effective are a few squadrons/companies of tanks going to be in changing the rules of the game.

I agree that the best solution is the well trained and well equipped team. Neither the Russians nor the Ukrainians have that option.

So what "toys" are going to be the most effective in the hands available?
Canada isn’t in the same situation as Ukraine.

In some ways, Canada’s rust out and entirely devoid categories of equipment are somewhat advantageous at this point.
The CAF can use some of the LL’s from Ukraine to inform and structure new programs — of course the issue is long lines of others looking for the same - and the lack of political/national will to support the CAF with proper support.
 
Canada isn’t in the same situation as Ukraine.

In some ways, Canada’s rust out and entirely devoid categories of equipment are somewhat advantageous at this point.
The CAF can use some of the LL’s from Ukraine to inform and structure new programs — of course the issue is long lines of others looking for the same - and the lack of political/national will to support the CAF with proper support.
As I get older and in this world everyday I see myself wanting to throw Hanlon's razor out the window. I have tried to also live by it. But I think problem is we are living in the movie "Brazil"

One thing I would most (All) of the people on this site are people of action and result orientation. I put to people maybe the results "we" are looking for are not really the ones the "powers" that be are looking for?
 
Ukraine is giving almost everyone tunnel vision IMO, especially with the Sino-Russian-Iranian "Axis of Convenience" forming.
My guess is that Russia remains containable using the tried and true mix of socio-economic and military methods of the 1950s and '60s. But, Putin is a problem. I read something a few weeks (months?) ago by a Brit who said there were three Putins in his experience:
  • The Putin of the 1990s who actually wanted to join with the West because he believed they had common enemies - especially militant Islam;
  • The Putin of the 2000s who was disillusioned and even insulted by the West's reaction which was to treat Russia as something less than an equal, great power; and
  • The Putin who has, pretty clearly, gone off the deep end because, in his view, there is nothing else available to him: Russia must be a great power - the strategic equal of Chinese-led Afro-Asia and the US-led West or ... or Götterdämmerung.
I think that ⬆️ is a reasonable reading of the current situation. Russia can be, fairly readily, contained but Putin must be eliminated - preferably by an accidental fall from a window in the Kremlin.

Asia is quite another matter, in my opinion. Xi Jinping is in socio-political trouble, largely of his own making, but he's neither senile nor demented. He might, however, be willing to take a serious gamble if he calculates that the US-led West is too busy in Eastern Europe and he needs a war to solidify his hold on power.

The West must not get tunnel-vision over Ukraine. China is a bigger problem than Russia can ever hope to be.

If Putin does something really, really stupid we can, fairly simply, bomb the Russians back into the sixth century; China can be defeated only if it decides to leave its own shores.

Taiwan is the key to global peace and security for the next decade.
 
My guess is that Russia remains containable using the tried and true mix of socio-economic and military methods of the 1950s and '60s. But, Putin is a problem. I read something a few weeks (months?) ago by a Brit who said there were three Putins in his experience:
  • The Putin of the 1990s who actually wanted to join with the West because he believed they had common enemies - especially militant Islam;
  • The Putin of the 2000s who was disillusioned and even insulted by the West's reaction which was to treat Russia as something less than an equal, great power; and
  • The Putin who has, pretty clearly, gone off the deep end because, in his view, there is nothing else available to him: Russia must be a great power - the strategic equal of Chinese-led Afro-Asia and the US-led West or ... or Götterdämmerung.
I think that ⬆️ is a reasonable reading of the current situation. Russia can be, fairly readily, contained but Putin must be eliminated - preferably by an accidental fall from a window in the Kremlin.

Asia is quite another matter, in my opinion. Xi Jinping is in socio-political trouble, largely of his own making, but he's neither senile nor demented. He might, however, be willing to take a serious gamble if he calculates that the US-led West is too busy in Eastern Europe and he needs a war to solidify his hold on power.

The West must not get tunnel-vision over Ukraine. China is a bigger problem than Russia can ever hope to be.

If Putin does something really, really stupid we can, fairly simply, bomb the Russians back into the sixth century; China can be defeated only if it decides to leave its own shores.

Taiwan is the key to global peace and security for the next decade.
My money is on availability of fresh water in China over the next decade or two - that to me is the sleeping giant of possible 'casus belli' for conflict between the West (and its proxies) and China.
 
This x 10!

Edit to add: Does anyone think there’s an evac plan for TSCM’s high-end 5/7nm chip fabrication eqpt, or would it be a BIP if China were to try to cross the Strait?
Its been whispered that the plan is to destroy them in place. In that the means of doing that are on site already.

Would not take much the facilities are large but super fragile. the clean rooms etc.
 
The West must not get tunnel-vision over Ukraine. China is a bigger problem than Russia can ever hope to be.
Agree here 100% and I think that any discussions about the future of our military need to take this into account.

It may not be a popular opinion here, but in my mind there are lots of players as big or bigger than Canada right in the Russian neighbourhood that can do much of the heavy lifting there while there is much more work that needs to be done in relation to the China situation.
 
Its been whispered that the plan is to destroy them in place. In that the means of doing that are on site already.

Would not take much the facilities are large but super fragile. the clean rooms etc.
Just as important as destroying the physical infrastructure is ensuring that the know how of the technology (i.e. the data and key personnel) do not fall into Chinese hands.

Remember how Operation Paperclip was able to give the US the lead in the space race (and other key technologies).
 
Just as important as destroying the physical infrastructure is ensuring that the know how of the technology (i.e. the data and key personnel) do not fall into Chinese hands.

Remember how Operation Paperclip was able to give the US the lead in the space race (and other key technologies).
in the end its the people and the data/knowledge that is the important part.

Example is you can look at right now is the Biden ban on chip manufacturing equipment, help and data with China. They are having huge problems.
 
Back
Top