The Geopolitics of it all

[Kirkhill]

No, I don’t know Ottawa better than you.

Thank God…

My apologies. How on earth did you manage to dodge the bullet this long?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

My apologies. How on earth did you manage to dodge the bullet this long?

Clean living.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Union employees have more to lose than many people when the federal government's policies deflate the value of assets and income.

 

[YZT580]

It's the union folks who will lose their jobs as more green kicks in. Green things use automation, robots, engineers and technicians they have no use for people who do actual physical work. All of those tasks are in China and the other Asian countries.

 

[Spencer100]

What he said....

David McDonough: As China threat rises, the days of Canada as security freeloader are over​

As Sino-American strategic competition evolves, China’s diplomatic sway and military power will likely become even more formidable
Author of the article:
David S. McDonough, Special to National Post
Published Apr 06, 2023 • Last updated 4 hours ago • 9 minute read


Recent intelligence leaks that revealed Chinese agents trying to manipulate Canadian election outcomes were just the latest wake-up call that the Beijing regime is not a responsible international stakeholder, let alone a trustworthy friend or partner of Canada.


Despite Ottawa’s stonewalling on confronting this particular issue, there is reason to hope. Canada has been moving, slowly and fitfully to be sure, in this direction: by banning Huawei from our 5G network, ending federal funding for research projects that involve Chinese military and security institutions, and forcing Chinese state-owned enterprises to divest their stakes in Canadian critical mineral companies.

Renewed efforts to create a foreign registry is very much in line with this trend. Whatever the motivation for this recent announcement, and clearly damage control is one of them, there is reason to believe the government will move forward on creating one — again, perhaps reluctantly, but the important point is that it gets done. Even Canada’s belated Indo-Pacific Strategy made the point of calling China “an increasingly disruptive global power” and a “strategic challenge,” which aligns with the general thrust of how our key allies’ view. One hopes the Defence Policy Update currently in development uses even more robust language and is backed up with additional funding.

This shift in the government’s approach towards China could not come sooner. Indeed, many of our allies and partners are further ahead of us in having a clear-eyed view of China as a threat to the rules-based global order.

The United States, our closest ally and security guarantor, increasingly sees China as an aggressive strategic competitor. Australia has taken the fateful step to acquire U.S.-made nuclear-powered attack submarines, which promises to be its most expensive procurement project to date and one that could fundamentally alter its navy’s fleet structure. Even Japan has finally broken its longstanding taboo on raising its defence budget above one per cent of GDP, with plans to double that to two per cent in five years time.

With new arrangements like the Quad (India, Japan, Australia, and the US) and AUKUS (Australia, UK, US) now placed alongside America’s existing hub-and-spoke alliance system, one can see the contours of a U.S.-led anti-hegemonic coalition — to use American strategist Elbridge Colby’s term — to stymie Beijing’s effort to achieve hegemony in the Indo-Pacific and beyond.

Much of the recent Sino-American diplomatic jockeying stems from this new reality. As China moves from merely obstructing the US in the Indo-Pacific to building a global order more conducive to its values and interests, one can see this contest playing out on a global scale — from China’s role in brokering restored relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia, to China’s peace proposal for Ukraine, which was highlighted in Xi Jinping’s meeting with his “junior partner” Russia’s Vladimir Putin, to recent reports of China and the U.S. secretly battling to control undersea Internet cables around the world.

The stakes in this strategic competition could not be higher. As scholar Rush Doshi has so eloquently argued, China now seems intent on displacing the United States as a superpower. Having long ago thrown out Deng’s maxim of “hiding capabilities and biding time” and no longer content with Hu’s addendum of “actively accomplishing something,” China under Xi Jinping instead seeks to leverage these “great changes unseen in a century” — a nod to perceived American decline arising from the polarized Trump years and its disastrous COVID response — to emerge as “a leading country in comprehensive national strength and international influence.”

Yet, as Canada faces this new geostrategic reality, it needs to go beyond its more half-hearted (albeit still welcome) efforts and more properly assess its own position and place in this incipient anti-hegemonic coalition — and it’s useful to start closer to home in its assessment.

The 1941 Kingston dispensation between Canada and the United States still holds. Simply put, we cannot become a security threat to our greatest security guarantor. Instead, we need to strengthen our societal resilience against foreign interference and disinformation from China and its allies, and ensure our security and intelligence services are adequately resourced to protect us from such threats. We cannot be a weak link in that chain.

We also have a key role in defending the continent in partnership with the Americans. That is perhaps our greatest military contribution to the anti-hegemonic coalition, as helping to secure the continent will allow the U.S. to focus more attention to the Indo-Pacific, especially military contingencies around Taiwan.

On that front, we must fully modernize the North Warning System (NWS) to a multi-domain system capable of protecting against new air-breathing and hypersonic threats, ensure our airspace is protected through a modernized NORAD, including investment in forward operating bases to support the 5th generation F-35 aircraft (as was recently announced during the Biden visit), and protect the Arctic from Russian and Chinese aggrandizement.

The latter will likely require important infrastructure improvements and procuring both heavy icebreakers for its Coast Guard and new submarines to replace the aging Victoria-class fleet; the submarines could either be nuclear-powered or, if that proves prohibitively expensive, have air-independent power (AIP) technology to increase the limited endurance of diesel subs. Non-nuclear vessels also have an important ancillary benefit beyond cost — by allowing us to continue providing training opportunities to a US Navy (USN) that lacks diesel submarines.

Canada should also move to finally join (and help fund) continental ballistic missile defence (BMD). While this might have little immediate relevance vis-à-vis China, given the latter’s ability to overwhelm any limited BMD system, it does carry important benefits against China’s nuclear-armed ally, North Korea — thereby helping to ensure the U.S. is not coerced into refraining from intervening in defence of South Korea or Japan by that country’s nuclear arsenal, which would weaken key elements of this anti-hegemonic coalition.

Beyond North America, Canada should maintain and even strengthen its traditional Atlantic ties with NATO and Europe, especially its presence in the enhanced Forward Presence in Latvia. (Edit: NB Latvia is a member of JEF) Indeed, this deployment should eventually be buttressed with additional air and ground assets and be made long-term — as an important deterrent against future Russian aggression and, if that deterrent should fail, to increase the Baltic states’ capacity to withstand an initial Russian assault until a NATO counteroffensive is made.

Canada’s role here is also important when it comes to China. By helping to deter Russian aggression against NATO, we help minimize the chances of a catastrophic war in Europe that would assuredly involve the U.S. military in a significant way and serve as a drain on any anti-hegemonic coalition against China.

Canadian military support for Ukraine should also be viewed in such a framework. After all, by arming the Ukrainians, we are helping to ensure Russia’s military is further weakened — and that only strengthens NATO’s deterrence against them. In that regard, Canada can and should be doing more to militarily support Ukraine, including both ammunition and weapon systems; enhancing its munitions production and replenishing its own weapons stock are crucial in that regard.

Lastly, Canada needs to place greater attention on the Indo-Pacific. But we need to be realistic on our importance in this vast maritime theatre. Claims that Canada is a Pacific power ring hollow when more of our diplomatic, economic and military attention is rightly focused on North America and Europe. And Canada’s geo-strategic position and limited resources means that our attention will forever be split with these other locations.

For example, assuming adequate funding, Canada currently plans for a new fleet of 15 Canadian Surface Combatants — advanced warships that would be the sine qua non for a military presence in the Indo-Pacific theatre. Yet, even if its fleet structure prioritizes the Pacific over the Atlantic, Canada would likely have eight frigates on the West Coast, and no more than two-to-three would be readily available for deployment in the Pacific at any one time, perhaps supplemented by submarines that aren’t patrolling the Arctic.

While a significant boost on our current capacity for deployment, Canada’s Pacific fleet will remain largely a token force in comparison to regional countries like Japan and Australia or an extra-regional superpower like the United States — to say nothing of China, which already has the largest navy in the world and is building around 20 advanced naval warships each year.

Still, such a rebalanced fleet structure would prove useful. An increased naval presence could open the door to Canada participating in critical arrangements like the Quad or forums like the ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting–Plus, while giving us a means to cooperate more closely with the USN in the region; for example, we could leverage our interoperability with the USN by permanently deploying a frigate in a US battlegroup and/or participating in freedom of navigation operations with the US and other allies.

Of course, with only two new logistics joint supply ships (JSS) on the horizon, Canada should also consider adding at least one more JSS to the West Coast — to enhance its logistics in this maritime environment.

Canada should also expand its partnership with countries like Japan and/or Singapore to acquire access to their naval facilities. This would increase its ability to undertake long-term naval deployment in the Western Pacific, tie us even more concretely to the incipient anti-hegemonic coalition, help buttress deterrence against China — and, if such deterrence fails, better ensures a strong response. After all, any outbreak of hostilities between the U.S. and China, over Taiwan for instance, could then directly involve Canada, given the proximity and location of its naval assets in the region (and the real danger that such allied naval bases might come under attack by a Chinese missile barrage).

To be sure, much depends on whether Ottawa ultimately provides its security and defence institutions with sufficient funding. At a minimum, Canada would need to ensure — even with possible cost overruns — that its plans to acquire 15 new surface combatants and 88 F-35s are fulfilled in a timely manner. Ideally, it should also procure new platforms like a submarine replacement (whether nuclear or AIP), heavy icebreakers for the Coast Guard, and an additional JSS to enhance our logistical capability in the Pacific. It would also entail funding for radar and/or interceptors (including possibly an interceptor site) for BMD, more resources for its security and intelligence services, and increasing its military aid to Ukraine. Even an upgraded NWS will likely need more funding than the promised $4.9 billion.

Canada’s defence budget would therefore need to increase over the next several years, especially as it pertains to the capital portion — given that this scenario puts a relatively stronger emphasis on capital-intensive air and naval power rather than ground forces.

The government has made some important strides in seeing the reality of today’s China, which is all the more striking given how rose-hued its original vision was about Beijing — a fact that only seemed to end when Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor were unlawfully detained in 2018. One should give it credit where credit is due. But more still needs to be done.

As Sino-American strategic competition evolves in the coming years, China’s diplomatic sway and military power will likely become even more formidable than it is today. It is not guaranteed the U.S. will even win this competition, as it has never faced a peer competitor with China’s economic heft; neither Germany and Japan nor the Soviet Union at its zenith had that economic power. As such, the United States will likely be asking more from its allies and partners, including Canada.

Let’s be clear: the time Canada could free ride on American security guarantees is coming to an end. Harder choices will need to be made — from funding to force structure to military deployments. The ongoing Defence Policy Update will serve as a crucial bellwether on this issue. One only hopes Canadian decision-makers are ready to face this new reality.



David S. McDonough is Senior Editor at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

This is good. I like to see the government plan laid out like that. But to see it you need a mirror. Everything there but opposite.

 

[Spencer100]

It's the union folks who will lose their jobs as more green kicks in. Green things use automation, robots, engineers and technicians they have no use for people who do actual physical work. All of those tasks are in China and the other Asian countries.

They are figuring it out.

Union boss are the problem. Much corruption.

FIRST READING: Union members (even public sector ones) are breaking for the Tories

After decades of being one of the most reliable voting blocs for left-wing parties, Canadian union members appear to be leaning Conservative for the first time anyone can remember.

nationalpost.com

 

[Kirkhill]

More on Macron, VDL and the Chinese ...

Apparently the China gig was organized by Macron and he brought VdL along because he had to. International trade is her job. Not his.

Macron has humiliated himself – and the EU​

So much for Western unity. The French president’s trip to China shows he learnt nothing from Ukraine
CON COUGHLIN6 April 2023 • 6:00am

Nothing better illustrates the growing irrelevance in world affairs of some of Europe’s most prominent leaders than the sight of Emmanuel Macron, the French president, and Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, effectively prostrating themselves before Xi Jinping, China’s all-powerful leader.

At a moment when Western democracy faces an existential threat from the expanding power of autocratic regimes, its leaders should be pooling their resources to defend themselves, not indulging in obsequious behaviour towards hostile states.

Xi’s China makes no secret of its ambition to become the world’s dominant power, from its attempts to replace the dollar as the leading currency to its massive investment in the Chinese military with the explicit aim, as Xi himself declared last year, of “fighting and winning” wars by the middle of the century. Together with Russia, Iran and North Korea, China is fundamentally opposed to the freedom and liberal values that underpin Western democratic government, as is evident from its brutal suppression of democracy in Hong Kong and its aggressive stance towards Taiwan.

If the West is to withstand the generational challenge posed by autocracies, it needs to display strength and resolve. Instead, we have the decidedly unimpressive sight of Macron and von der Leyen making a joint visit to Beijing, apparently in the vain hope that they might be able to enlist Xi’s support in ending the war in Ukraine and develop a more constructive relationship with the West.

Some hope. It was only last month that Xi reaffirmed his deepening alliance with Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin. The two leaders, while notionally declaring their support for peace talks, insisted that Nato, not Russia, was ultimately responsible for provoking the Ukraine conflict. At the same time, there is mounting evidence – gleaned from analysis of customs data by American investigators – that Beijing is supplying weapons to Russia to support its war effort against Ukraine.

And yet Macron has chosen this moment to lead a delegation of French businessmen on a tour of China’s regional capitals, apparently in the hope of expanding profitable trade ties with Beijing. Even more embarrassing is the fact that von der Leyen, who is supposed to represent Europe’s largest trading bloc, has been reduced to playing second fiddle to the French president, who took the liberty of arranging the visit on her behalf.

Macron’s shameful decision to abandon the cause of European unity in pursuit of improved French trade ties with Beijing will surprise no one given his conduct since the Ukraine crisis began. Rather than standing firm against Russian aggression, the French leader broke ranks by launching his own diplomatic initiative to negotiate a peace deal with Putin, which achieved nothing.

Von der Leyen’s presence in Beijing is even more problematic because it runs the risk of undermining the EU’s official policy of denouncing Russian aggression in Ukraine, a policy that carries less weight if the EU president is also intent on forging closer ties with Beijing, Russia’s main backer. Von der Leyen’s confused approach certainly raises questions about her suitability to become Nato’s next secretary general, a proposition that is being seriously mooted in some European security circles.

There are, of course, more effective ways of safeguarding the Western alliance than kowtowing to dictators like Xi, as Finland’s accession to the Nato alliance this week has shown.

One of Putin’s main justifications for launching his invasion of Ukraine was that he was acting in response to Nato’s expansion into territory he regards as falling within Moscow’s traditional sphere of influence. Finland, which fought a bitter war against the Soviets at the start of the Second World War, was one such country, having been forced by Moscow to remain neutral during the Cold War.

The fact that Finland, which has an 800-mile border with Russia, has now been welcomed into the Nato fold represents not only a major own goal for the Russian leader, but shows that the cause of European solidarity is still strong, irrespective of the antics of Macron and von der Leyen.

Indeed, rather than indulging in the pointless task of trying to reason with irreconcilable leaders like Xi, Western efforts would be far better spent bolstering ties with friendly states, as Nato is doing with the accession of Finland and, hopefully, Sweden, assuming Stockholm can overcome the objections of Hungary and Turkey.

The establishment of the Aukus defence pact between Britain, the US and Australia, is another encouraging development that shows the West is prepared to defend its interests against the likes of China. As is Britain’s decision to join the Asia-Pacific free trade area, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Forging closer trade and security ties with friendly nations is more likely to safeguard our freedoms than pandering to Chinese autocrats.

 

[Kirkhill]

And there is this...

Xi Jinping splits West by welcoming Macron and EU​

Chinese government appears interested in pulling EU away from US, when Biden administration has sought to shore up allies to counter Beijing

BySophia Yan, CHINA CORRESPONDENT, TAIPEI6 April 2023 • 5:08pm

China’s muted response to the historic meeting of Tsai Ing-wen, the Taiwanese president, with Kevin McCarthy, the US House speaker, comes as Beijing prioritises a flurry of diplomatic activity aimed at its wider efforts to lure the European Union and other nations away from the United States.

Ms Tsai’s meeting was the highest-level government reception for a Taiwanese leader on US soil in decades, and one that China protested in advance.

But neither Ms Tsai nor Mr McCarthy backed down, prompting Beijing to accuse the US of “collusion” with Taiwan, stage naval landing drills day and night, and start three days of “patrol operations” yesterday in the Taiwan Strait.

Still, that falls short of how Beijing reacted in August last year, when it held its biggest-ever military games – firing missiles, buzzing warplanes and pushing dangerously close to conflict – when McCarthy’s predecessor, Nancy Pelosi, touched down in Taiwan and met with Ms Tsai.

What is probably tempering China’s reaction this time is leader Xi Jinping’s high-profile guest list.

First, the presidents of France and the European Commission, Emmanuel Macron and Ursula von der Leyen, are on official visits in Beijing.

The Chinese government appears interested in pulling the EU away from the US, at a time when the Biden administration has sought to shore up allies to counter Beijing.

Xi Jinping splits West by welcoming Macron and EU

Chinese government appears interested in pulling EU away from US, when Biden administration has sought to shore up allies to counter Beijing

www.telegraph.co.uk

The letter from the French Ambassador to Trudeau certainly reads as if it came from Beijing's speech writer.

 

[Spencer100]

And there is this...

Xi Jinping splits West by welcoming Macron and EU

Chinese government appears interested in pulling EU away from US, when Biden administration has sought to shore up allies to counter Beijing

www.telegraph.co.uk

The letter from the French Ambassador to Trudeau certainly reads as if it came from Beijing's speech writer.

It's not that he is spilting the west. Macrin is just trying to reinforce the Globlist, EU, WEF or the Elite view. The post national world. Call it whatever like. But he is their man, so is Trudeau and Ardern etc.

But the populations of west are starting to turn from that....(way too late and it won't make difference) but he is being instructed to get the agenda back on track.

 

[Kirkhill]

More fun with spreadsheets

JEF's Navy

Submarines

UK	Vanguard class	HMS Vanguard	S28	15,900 tonnes
UK	Vanguard class	HMS Victorious	S29	15,900 tonnes
UK	Vanguard class	HMS Vigilant	S30	15,900 tonnes
UK	Vanguard class	HMS Vengeance	S31	15,900 tonnes
UK	Astute class	HMS Astute	S119	7,400 tonnes
UK	Astute class	HMS Ambush	S120	7,400 tonnes
UK	Astute class	HMS Artful	S121	7,400 tonnes
UK	Astute class	HMS Audacious	S122	7,400 tonnes
UK	Astute class	HMS Anson	S123	7,400 tonnes
UK	Trafalgar class	HMS Triumph	S93	5,300 tonnes
NO	Type 212CD	HNoMS Uredd	S305	3,000 tonnes (submerged)
NL	Walrus class	Walrus	S802	2800 tonnes
NL	Walrus class	Zeeleeuw	S803	2800 tonnes
NL	Walrus class	Dolfijn	S808	2800 tonnes
NL	Walrus class	Bruinvis	S810	2800 tonnes
SV	Gotland-class	HSwMS Gotland (Gtd)		1580 tonnes
SV	Gotland-class	HSwMS Uppland (Upd)		1580 tonnes
SV	Gotland-class	HSwMS Halland (Hnd)		1580 tonnes
SV	Södermanland-class	HSwMS Södermanland (Söd)		1400 tonnes
NO	Ula class	HNoMS Ula	S300	1,150 tonnes (submerged)
NO	Ula class	HNoMS Utsira	S301	1,150 tonnes (submerged)
NO	Ula class	HNoMS Utstein	S302	1,150 tonnes (submerged)
NO	Ula class	HNoMS Utvær	S303	1,150 tonnes (submerged)
NO	Ula class	HNoMS Uthaug	S304	1,150 tonnes (submerged)

Strategic Transport

UK	Queen Elizabeth class	HMS Queen Elizabeth	R08	65,000 tonnes
UK	Queen Elizabeth class	HMS Prince of Wales	R09	65,000 tonnes
UK	Albion class	HMS Albion	L14	19,560 tonnes
UK	Albion class	HMS Bulwark	L15	19,560 tonnes
UK	Bay class	RFA Mounts Bay	L3008	16,160 tonnes
UK	Bay class	RFA Cardigan Bay	L3009	16,160 tonnes
UK	Bay class	RFA Lyme Bay	L3007	16,160 tonnes
NL	Johan de Witt class	Johan de Witt	L801	16,500 tonnes
NL	Rotterdam class	Rotterdam	L800	12,750 tonnes
UK	—	RFA Argus	A135	28,081 tonnes
NL	Karel Doorman class	Karel Doorman	A833	27,800 (full load)
UK	Point class	MV Hurst Point		23,000 tonnes
UK	Point class	MV Eddystone		23,000 tonnes
UK	Point class	MV Hartland Point		23,000 tonnes
UK	Point class	MV Anvil Point		23,000 tonnes

Destroyers and Frigates (Belgians and Dutch adding two more new frigates each)

UK	Type 45 (Daring class)	HMS Daring	D32	8,500 tonnes
UK	Type 45 (Daring class)	HMS Dauntless	D33	8,500 tonnes
UK	Type 45 (Daring class)	HMS Diamond	D34	8,500 tonnes
UK	Type 45 (Daring class)	HMS Dragon	D35	8,500 tonnes
UK	Type 45 (Daring class)	HMS Defender	D36	8,500 tonnes
UK	Type 45 (Daring class)	HMS Duncan	D37	8,500 tonnes
DK	Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate		6,645 tonnes
DK	Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate		6,645 tonnes
DK	Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate		6,645 tonnes
DK	Absalon-class frigate			6,600 tonnes
DK	Absalon-class frigate			6,600 tonnes
NL	De Zeven Provinciën class	De Zeven Provinciën	F802	6,050 tonnes
NL	De Zeven Provinciën class	Tromp	F803	6,050 tonnes
NL	De Zeven Provinciën class	De Ruyter	F804	6,050 tonnes
NL	De Zeven Provinciën class	Evertsen	F805	6,050 tonnes
NO	Fridtjof Nansen class	HNoMS Fridtjof Nansen	F310	5,290 tonnes
NO	Fridtjof Nansen class	HNoMS Roald Amundsen	F311	5,290 tonnes
NO	Fridtjof Nansen class	HNoMS Otto Sverdrup	F312	5,290 tonnes
NO	Fridtjof Nansen class	HNoMS Thor Heyerdahl	F314	5,290 tonnes
UK	Type 23 (Duke class)	HMS Argyll	F231	4,900 tonnes
UK	Type 23 (Duke class)	HMS Lancaster	F229	4,900 tonnes
UK	Type 23 (Duke class)	HMS Iron Duke	F234	4,900 tonnes
UK	Type 23 (Duke class)	HMS Montrose	F236	4,900 tonnes
UK	Type 23 (Duke class)	HMS Westminster	F237	4,900 tonnes
UK	Type 23 (Duke class)	HMS Northumberland	F238	4,900 tonnes
UK	Type 23 (Duke class)	HMS Richmond	F239	4,900 tonnes
UK	Type 23 (Duke class)	HMS Somerset	F82	4,900 tonnes
UK	Type 23 (Duke class)	HMS Sutherland	F81	4,900 tonnes
UK	Type 23 (Duke class)	HMS Kent	F78	4,900 tonnes
UK	Type 23 (Duke class)	HMS Portland	F79	4,900 tonnes
UK	Type 23 (Duke class)	HMS St Albans	F83	4,900 tonnes
NL	Karel Doorman class	Van Amstel	F831	3,320 tonnes
NL	Karel Doorman class	Van Speijk	F828	3,320 tonnes

OPVs

NO	Jan Mayen Class	NoCGV Jan Mayen		9,800 tonnes
NO	Jan Mayen Class	NoCGV Bjoernoeya		9,800 tonnes
NO	Jan Mayen Class	NoCGV Hopen		9,800 tonnes
NO	Svalbard class	NoCGV Svalbard	W303	6,375 tonnes
NO		NoCGV Jarl[7]	W324	6,250 tonnes
NO		NoCGV Bison[8]	W323	6,250 tonnes
NO	Barentshav class	NoCGV Barentshav	W340	4,000 tonnes
NO	Barentshav class	NoCGV Bergen	W341	4,000 tonnes
NO	Barentshav class	NoCGV Sortland	W342	4,000 tonnes
SU	Pohjanmaa class	Pohjanmaa		3,900 tons
SU	Pohjanmaa class	Unnamed		3,900 tons
SU	Pohjanmaa class	Unnamed		3,900 tons
SU	Pohjanmaa class	Unnamed		3,900 tons
NL	Holland class	Holland	P840	3,750 tonnes
NL	Holland class	Zeeland	P841	3,750 tonnes
NL	Holland class	Friesland	P842	3,750 tonnes
NL	Holland class	Groningen	P843	3,750 tonnes
DK	Thetis class			3500 tonnes
DK	Thetis class			3500 tonnes
DK	Thetis class			3500 tonnes
DK	Thetis class			3500 tonnes
NO	Nordkapp class	NoCGV Nordkapp	A531	3,320 tonnes
NO	Nordkapp class	NoCGV Andenes	W322	3,320 tonnes
SV	Carlskrona-class	HSwMS Carlskrona (P04)	3,150 tonnes
NO	Harstad class	NoCGV Harstad	W318	3,130 tonnes
UK	River class	HMS Forth	P222	2,000 tonnes
UK	River class	HMS Medway	P223	2,000 tonnes
UK	River class	HMS Trent	P224	2,000 tonnes
UK	River class	HMS Tamar	P233	2,000 tonnes
UK	River class	HMS Spey	P234	2,000 tonnes
DK	Knud Rasmussen-class			1720 tonnes
DK	Knud Rasmussen-class			1720 tonnes
DK	Knud Rasmussen-class			1720 tonnes
UK	River class	HMS Tyne	P281	1,700 tonnes
UK	River class	HMS Severn	P282	1,700 tonnes
UK	River class	HMS Mersey	P283	1,700 tonnes

Patrol and Missile Boats

NO	Nornen-class	NoCGV Nornen	W330	760 tonnes
NO	Nornen-class	NoCGV Farm	W331	760 tonnes
NO	Nornen-class	NoCGV Heimdal	W332	760 tonnes
NO	Nornen-class	NoCGV Njord	W333	760 tonnes
NO	Nornen-class	NoCGV Tor	W334	760 tonnes
NO	Olav Tryggvason class	HNoMS Olav Tryggvason	A536	760 tonnes
NO	Olav Tryggvason class	HNoMS Magnus Lagabøte	A537	760 tonnes
SV	Visby-class	HSwMS Visby (K31)		600 tonnes
SV	Visby-class	HSwMS Helsingborg (K32)		600 tonnes
SV	Visby-class	HSwMS Härnösand (K33)		600 tonnes
SV	Visby-class	HSwMS Nyköping (K34)		600 tonnes
SV	Visby-class	HSwMS Karlstad (K35)		600 tonnes
LT	Flyvefisken-class	P11 Žemaitis		450 tonnes
LT	Flyvefisken-class	P12 Dzūkas		450 tonnes
LT	Flyvefisken-class	P14 Aukštaitis		450 tonnes
LT	Flyvefisken-class	P15 Sėlis		450 tonnes
SV	Göteborg-class	HSwMS Gävle (K22)		380 tonnes
SV	Göteborg-class	HSwMS Sundsvall (K24)		380 tonnes
SV	Stockholm-class	HSwMS Stockholm (P11)		380 tonnes
SV	Stockholm-class	HSwMS Malmö (P12)		380 tonnes
NO	Skjold class	HNoMS Skjold	P960	274 tonnes
NO	Skjold class	HNoMS Storm	P961	274 tonnes
NO	Skjold class	HNoMS Skudd	P962	274 tonnes
NO	Skjold class	HNoMS Steil	P963	274 tonnes
NO	Skjold class	HNoMS Glimt	P964	274 tonnes
NO	Skjold class	HNoMS Gnist	P965	274 tonnes
SU	Hamina class	Hamina	80​	250 tons
SU	Hamina class	Tornio	81​	250 tons
SU	Hamina class	Hanko	82​	250 tons
SU	Hamina class	Pori	83​	250 tons
DK	Diana-class			246 tonnes
DK	Diana-class			246 tonnes
DK	Diana-class			246 tonnes
DK	Diana-class			246 tonnes
DK	Diana-class			246 tonnes
DK	Diana-class			246 tonnes
SU	Rauma class	Rauma	70​	240 tons
SU	Rauma class	Raahe	71​	240 tons
SU	Rauma class	Porvoo	72​	240 tons
SU	Rauma class	Naantali	73​	240 tons

Minewarfare (Layers, Hunters and Sweepers)

LT	Vidar-class	N42 Jotvingis		1,722 tonnes
LV	A-53 Virsaitis	LVNS Virsaitis 5949.JPG		1,673 tonnes
SU	Hämeenmaa class	Hämeenmaa	2​	1,450 tons
SU	Hämeenmaa class	Uusimaa	5​	1,450 tons
SU	Pansio class	Pansio [fi]	90​	680 tons
SU	Pansio class	Pyhäranta	92​	680 tons
SU	Pansio class	Porkkala [fi]	91​	680 tons
ET	Lindormen class	EML Wambola (A433)		577 tonnes
UK	Hunt class	HMS Ledbury	M30	750 tonnes
UK	Hunt class	HMS Cattistock	M31	750 tonnes
UK	Hunt class	HMS Brocklesby	M33	750 tonnes
UK	Hunt class	HMS Middleton	M34	750 tonnes
UK	Hunt class	HMS Chiddingfold	M37	750 tonnes
UK	Hunt class	HMS Hurworth	M39	750 tonnes
LT	Hunt-class	M53 Skalvis		750 tonnes
LT	Hunt-class	M54 Kuršis		750 tonnes
LT	Hunt-class	M55		750 tonnes
UK	Sandown class	HMS Penzance	M106	600 tonnes
UK	Sandown class	HMS Pembroke	M107	600 tonnes
UK	Sandown class	HMS Bangor	M109	600 tonnes
ET	Sandown class	EML Admiral Cowan (M313)		600 tonnes
ET	Sandown class	EML Sakala (M314)		600 tonnes
ET	Sandown class	EML Ugandi (M315)		600 tonnes
LV	M-04 Imanta			595 tonnes
LV	M-05 Viesturs			595 tonnes
LV	M-06 Tālivaldis			595 tonnes
LV	M-07 Visvaldis			595 tonnes
LV	M-08 Rūsiņš			595 tonnes
NL	Tripartite class	Makkum	M857	571 tonnes
NL	Tripartite class	Schiedam	M860	571 tonnes
NL	Tripartite class	Zierikzee	M862	571 tonnes
NL	Tripartite class	Vlaardingen	M863	571 tonnes
NL	Tripartite class	Willemstad	M864	571 tonnes
NO	Oksøy class	HNoMS Måløy	M342	375 tonnes
NO	Oksøy class	HNoMS Hinnøy	M343	375 tonnes
SU	Katanpää class	Katanpää [fi]	40​	680 tons
SU	Katanpää class	Purunpää [fi]	41​	680 tons
SU	Katanpää class	Vahterpää [fi]	42​	680 tons
NO	Alta class	HNoMS Otra	M351	375 tonnes
NO	Alta class	HNoMS Rauma	M352	375 tonnes
SV	Koster-class	HSwMS Koster (M73)		360 tonnes
SV	Koster-class	HSwMS Kullen (M74)		360 tonnes
SV	Koster-class	HSwMS Vinga (M75)		360 tonnes
SV	Koster-class	HSwMS Ven (M76)		360 tonnes
SV	Koster-class	HSwMS Ulvön (M77)		360 tonnes
SV	Styrsö-class	HSwMS Styrsö (M11)		205 tonnes
SV	Styrsö-class	HSwMS Spårö (M12)		205 tonnes
SV	Styrsö-class	HSwMS Skaftö (M13)		205 tonnes
SV	Styrsö-class	HSwMS Sturkö (M14)		205 tonnes
SU	Kuha class	Kuha 21	21​	150 tons
SU	Kuha class	Kuha 23	23​	150 tons
SU	Kuha class	Kuha 24	24​	150 tons
SU	Kuha class	Kuha 26	26​	150 tons

An interesting shopping list...

We could also add the Polish Navy but officially it isn't part of JEF. It is just tightly bound.

 

[Kirkhill]

Friends and enemies

Glencore of Switzerland and ESG investors are not in the Friends group

On the other hand CPTPP partners, and fellow backers of Ukraine, Japan and South Korea, are considered Friends. The same people needing the BC coal are also asking for Natural Gas.

Alberta has coal, gas, oil and bitumen for sale as well. Too bad we can't get ours to salt water.

Canadian group led by Pierre Lassonde launches plan to protect Teck’s coal spin-off from foreign takeover​

ERIC REGULYEUROPEAN BUREAU CHIEF
PUBLISHED 4 HOURS AGOUPDATED 2 HOURS AGO
Pierre Lassonde speaks at the announcement of the building of a new pavillion to honour painter Jean Paul Riopelle, in Quebec City, Dec. 2, 2021.JACQUES BOISSINOT/THE CANADIAN PRESS


Pierre Lassonde, the wealthy gold entrepreneur turned ally of Teck Resources Ltd.’s controlling shareholder Norman Keevil, is planning to buy a blocking stake in Teck’s spin-out coal company to ensure it stays in Canadian hands.
Mr. Lassonde’s strategy aligns philosophically with that of Mr. Keevil, who has rejected this week’s proposal by Glencore PLC
GLNCY -0.09% decrease of Switzerland, one of the world’s biggest commodities companies, to merge with Teck TECK-B-T +4.29% increase
in an all-share deal. Mr. Keevil, a Canadian resources nationalist who has decried the hollowing out of the Canadian mining industry in recent decades, has said he would not sell to a foreign company at any price.

In an interview Friday with The Globe and Mail, Mr. Lassonde, co-founder of Canada’s Franco-Nevada gold royalty company, said he had a double motivation to take a big position in Elk Valley Resources, the coal company that is to be hived off by Teck, subject to shareholder approval later this month.

“I believe Elk Valley is fantastic, long-term value and I want this world-class asset to remain Canadian,” he said.

Elk Valley would hold all of Teck’s metallurgical coal assets, leaving Teck as a base metals company with a focus on copper and zinc. Teck is valuing its Elk Valley offspring at C$11.5-billion. Its shares would be listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange and start trading on June 6. After the spin-off, Elk Valley, which would start life with a debt-free balance sheet, would deliver at least C$14-billion in payments, through royalties and dividends, to Teck for up to 11 years.

Mr. Lassonde said that he was “surprised” to learn that Elk Valley would emerge without a significant Canadian shareholder, one who could block a takeover attempt. The biggest shareholders, with a combined 12.5 per cent, would be Nippon Steel of Japan and South Korean steel maker Posco. The rest – 87.5 per cent – would be owned by the diverse range of Teck shareholders.

Without a blocking shareholder, Elk Valley would be vulnerable to a takeover from its first days of trading, when a flurry of buying and selling is expected as millions of shares hit the market. Funds which follow ESG (environmental, social and governance) principles almost certainly would sell the shares in a company devoted to coal, and hedge funds and other investors would gamble on making quick profits by buying the shares or selling them short, a bet that they will lose value.

There are rumours that several investment groups from Australia, United States and Europe are keen to buy Elk Valley and take it private. Were any of them to change the nature of the company by, say, shrinking production or eliminating new coal projects, the payment stream to Teck might come into jeopardy.

Mr. Lassonde is trying to put together a group of investors who would buy up to C$300-million of Elk Valley shares, potentially giving them 10 per cent to 20 per cent of the company. He said he would put up more than a third of the cash and would buy along with a small group of Canadian co-investors. It is not known if Mr. Keevil would be among them. He could not be reached for comment on Friday.

“I would love to own up to 20 per cent of Elk Valley,” he said. “It will be a Canadian mining giant and should absolutely stay in Canadian hands.”

Mr. Lassonde’s stake, plus the 12.5 per cent held by Nippon Steel and Posco, which are considered allies of Teck and Mr. Keevil, would create a control block, meaning Elk Valley’s takeover would be impossible without their approval.

Glencore PLC covets Elk Valley too. Its proposal is to merge its base metals with those of Teck Resources Ltd., creating a new company called Teck Metals. The second part of Glencore’s proposal would see Glencore PLC and Teck Resources Ltd. create a new company to hold their thermal and metallurgical coal assets.

Teck shareholders are to vote on spinning off the company’s coal assets on April 26. The deal requires two-thirds of both the class A shares, with 100 votes per share, and the single-vote class B shares to be put into motion.

Canadian group led by Pierre Lassonde launches plan to protect Teck’s coal spin-off from foreign takeover

Gold entrepreneur Lassonde’s strategy aligns with that of Norman Keevil, who has rejected this week’s proposal by Glencore of Switzerland to merge with Teck in an all-share deal

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[Kirkhill]

Putin wants to debate Ukraine's future with Germany.

Apparently he thinks Germany is the key to Europe, NATO and The West.

Yet another strategic misread. Encouraged by Macron and Scholz?

'We don't want war': Putin declares he's ready for NATO negotiations to end Ukraine terror​

Kremlin spokesperson reveals Putin discussed the prospect of negotiations to end the war in Ukraine during a meeting with a Turkish diplomat in Moscow.​

By TIM MCNULTY
10:36, Fri, Apr 7, 2023 | UPDATED: 15:33, Fri, Apr 7, 2023



Vladimir Putin has reportedly declared a willingness to open negotiations with NATO over Ukraine during a meeting with İbrahim Kalın, the Presidential Spokesperson of Turkey. The Kremlin's representative, Dmitriy Peskov, announced that during the meeting Putin admitted that Russia was not looking to escape talk over Ukraine indefinitely, and was prepared to enter into talks to end the conflict which has left thousands dead and displaced millions of people.

​

Turkish media reports, Putin said: "We do not want war forever, we will not run away from negotiations."


Putin's main demand is that the negotiations be conducted with the USA and the West, especially with Germany, according to Hurriyet.
Putin said: "However, the West must also take into account our conditions."

'We don't want war': Putin declares he's ready for NATO negotiations

Kremlin spokesperson reveals Putin discussed the prospect of negotiations to end the war in Ukraine during a meeting with a Turkish diplomat in Moscow.

www.express.co.uk

 

[Kirkhill]

It will be interesting to see which way Italy "breaks".

Italy 'now clear favourite to be next country to quit EU' under eurosceptic Meloni​

Giorgia Meloni's party is from the eurosceptic wing of Italian politics - although it does not currently back quitting the bloc.​

By CIARAN MCGRATH
13:35, Fri, Apr 7, 2023 | UPDATED: 15:51, Fri, Apr 7, 2023

Italy is now the clear favourite to be the next EU member state to quit the bloc, bookmakers have said. With eurosceptic Giorgia Meloni now six months into the job, the betting community platform the Online Sports Betting Group (OSBG) pointed to odds of 3-1 being offered by betting sites including Coral, Ladbrokes and Bet365 that the country will be next to use the escape hatch.

Tea leaves

Japan, UK, Italy push joint fighter jet development by 2035​

By MARI YAMAGUCHIMarch 16, 2023

Japan, Britain and Italy reaffirmed their commitment Thursday to push joint development of a next-generation fighter jet as a centerpiece of their increasingly close defense ties in the face of growing threat from China, Russia and North Korea.

In December, Japan announced a joint next-generation fighter jet development with the U.K. and Italy as it looks to expand defense cooperation beyond its traditional ally, the United States.

The nations agreed to merge their earlier individual plans for development of next-generation planes — Japan’s Mitsubishi F-X to succeed the retiring F-2s developed with the United States, and Britain’s Tempest, a successor to the Eurofighter Typhoon — to produce the new combat aircraft.

Japan, UK, Italy push joint fighter jet development by 2035

Japan, Britain and Italy reaffirmed their commitment Thursday to push joint development of a next-generation fighter jet as a centerpiece of their increasingly close defense ties in the face of growing threat from China, Russia and North Korea.

apnews.com

Macron-Meloni spat reveals strained ties, as Draghi’s legacy start to unravel​

​

Bloomberg
Published: 12 February ,2023: 03:27 PM GSTUpdated: 12 February ,2023: 03:57 PM GST


An acrimonious back-and-forth between Italian Prime Minster Giorgia Meloni and French President Emmanuel Macron has laid bare how strained relations are between the two leaders and rolled back years of diplomatic efforts to strengthen ties between the countries.
The spat took place on Thursday after Volodymyr Zelenskyy met Macron and German chancellor Olaf Scholz at the Ukrainian leader’s request for dinner at the presidential Elysée Palace.

Meloni, who was not informed about the dinner ahead of time –- or offered a seat at the table –- characterized the meeting as “inappropriate,” prompting Macron to retort that France and Germany have a “special role” in supporting Ukraine.

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy (L) poses with France's President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz upon his arrival at the Elysee presidential palace for a working diner in Paris on February 8, 2023. Zelensky made today his first visits to Britain and France since the Russian invasion almost one year ago, pressing his allies for more weaponry and in particular fighter jets. (AFP)
Officials from both countries say the problem is that the leaders are fundamentally incompatible.

Macron sees Meloni as an Italian equivalent of the French populist Marine Le Pen, who has spent years attacking his pro-market policies. For Meloni, the French president is just the kind of arrogant elitist that she built her movement to bring down.

According to two people familiar with the dinner incident, such a failure of communication would not have happened when Meloni’s predecessor Mario Draghi was in power. (Edit - of course not. He was a Brussels appointee)

Within Italy, the dinner incident has revealed the vulnerability of Meloni’s governing coalition, particularly around the war in Ukraine and the government’s relations with France. While Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party has remained steadfast in its support for Ukraine, coalition parties the League and Forza Italia have in the past allied themselves with Russia and Vladimir Putin, and have clashed hard with Macron.

In 2018, a junior member of Macron’s cabinet said Italy’s migration policy “makes you vomit.” At the time, they were overseen by Matteo Salvini, Meloni’s current deputy and leader of the League.

The following year, France recalled its ambassador to Rome after Italian deputy Prime Minister Luigi Di Maio met with anti-government Gilet Jaunes protesters.

Interpersonal tensions are undermining what should be a high point in relations between France and Italy. Earlier this month, the Quirinal Treaty, a cooperation pact that Macron signed to great fanfare in 2021 with Meloni’s predecessor, Mario Draghi, came into effect, easing the way for the counties to work together on issues such as migration, trade deals, and relations with Libya.

While the treaty stipulates that the leaders must regularly schedule bilateral government meetings, arrange embassy personnel exchanges and develop joint strategies on Mediterranean policy and security, the ideological gap between Meloni and Macron has made meeting even the most basic requirements more challenging.

A prime example, according to people involved in the planning, is Meloni’s first visit as prime minister to Paris, which has not yet taken place. French government officials say that Meloni has been welcome to visit since her first day in office; Italian officials say that planning conversations are still ongoing.

A spokesperson for the Italian government declined to comment on the matter.

“The bickering among the two will only impact Meloni, who has shown limited political ability to handle relations with Paris,” said Teresa Coratella, a political analyst at the European Council on Foreign Relations in Rome. “This will increase Italy’s isolation in the European Union.” (Edit - says the EU)

To be sure, bilateral relations between Italy and France remain solid, with diplomats and defense officials collaborating closely on a daily basis. The two countries have also committed to providing Ukraine with an anti-missile system know as SAMP-T, which they jointly developed and produced.

Still, the clash at the very top is a stark reversal from recent years, as Draghi and Macron were personal friends, and relations between the countries hit an all-time high while the Italian was in office.

An early indication of the trouble to come happened at the end of last year, shortly after Meloni was sworn into office. In November, interior ministers from both countries clashed over Italy’s decision to refuse entry to a boat carrying migrants. Italian officials demanded that France step in and help, leading to a row between the countries, and the Ocean Viking ship ultimately docked in the French city of Toulon.
In a half-hearted attempt to ease tensions early on Friday, Macron referred to the joint SAMP-T project as an example of productive cooperation. But in a veiled criticism of Meloni, he added that he always respects other people’s choices.

In an indication of how much the dinner incident had bothered her, Meloni said on Friday that the gathering was “politically wrong” and that she likely would not have gone had she been invited.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I wonder how this will affect the Euro Tank project. If France gets too close to Red China it might make the Brits and Germans skittish.

 

[Kirkhill]

I wonder how this will affect the Euro Tank project. If France gets too close to Red China it might make the Brits and Germans skittish.

The Brits? Maybe.

The Germans? I dunno about thaaat.

 

[Kirkhill]

More on the Geopolitics front - Brazil - Russia - India - China - South Africa.

Not many Friends in that bunch.

Brazil says Ukraine should cede Crimea to Russia to end war, Kyiv says no​

by The Kyiv Independent news deskApril 7, 2023 2:45 PM1 min read

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva speaks on March 30, 2023 in Brasilia, Brazil. (Photo by Andressa Anholete/Getty Images)

Listen to this article


0:00 / 1:25
1X
BeyondWords
Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva suggested that Ukraine should be open to the idea of giving up Crimea in exchange for peace with Russia.
“(The Russian President Vladimir Putin) cannot seize the territory of Ukraine. But perhaps we can discuss Crimea. (President Volodymyr Zelensky) cannot want everything… the world needs to calm down," Lula told the media on April 6, Le Figaro reports.
Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson said, “Ukraine does not give up its territories.”
Brazil’s president has so far refused to condemn Russia’s invasion or provide arms to Ukraine, instead positioning himself as a mediator.

Brazil says Ukraine should cede Crimea to Russia to end war, Kyiv says no

Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva suggested that Ukraine should be open to the idea of giving up Crimea in exchange for peace with Russia. Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson said, “Ukraine does not give up its territories.”

kyivindependent.com

 

[Kirkhill]

Humiliation - Loss of face.

I have been watching a lot of "reactions" to Thomas Sowell extolling the benefits of the British Empire and its crusade to liberate the world and abolish slavery.

As worthy as we find the effort today many people found the effort both deeply humiliating and economically disruptive.

We may have made friends among the enslaved - we made no friends among the moneyed classes. No matter where they lived.

And those moneyed classes were fighting the good fight at least until the 1960s, trying to retain "their" ancient privileges and their wealth and status.

Some of the last of those countries were some of the same countries that we currently find ourselves still trying to impose our liberation crusade on.

A war that started in the UK in the 18th century continues. 1945 was the start of a hiatus. Not the beginning of The Millenium.

The following list is extracted from

Timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

England	1706​	In Smith v. Browne & Cooper, Sir John Holt, Lord Chief Justice of England, rules that "as soon as a Negro comes into England, he becomes free. One may be a villein in England, but not a slave."[51][52]
Georgia	1732​	Province established without African slavery in sharp contrast to neighboring colony of Carolina. In 1738, James Oglethorpe warns against changing that policy, which would "occasion the misery of thousands in Africa."[55] Native American slavery is legal throughout Georgia, however, and African slavery is later introduced in 1749.
England	1772​	Somersett's case rules that no slave can be forcibly removed from England. This case was generally taken at the time to have decided that the condition of slavery did not exist under English law in England and Wales, and resulted in the emancipation of the remaining ten to fourteen thousand slaves or possible slaves in England and Wales, who were mostly domestic servants.[63]
Pennsylvania		Pennsylvania Abolition Society formed in Philadelphia, the first abolition society within the territory that is now the United States of America.
United States	Atlantic slave trade banned or suspended in the United Colonies during the Revolutionary War. This was a continuation of the Thirteen Colonies' non-importation agreements against Britain, as an attempt to cut all economic ties with Britain during the war.[66]
Scotland	1778​	Joseph Knight successfully argues that Scots law cannot support the status of slavery.[71]
Great Britain	1788	Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade founded in Great Britain.[67]
France	1793	Abolitionist Society of the Friends of the Blacks founded in Paris.
Scotland	1799​	The Colliers (Scotland) Act 1799 ends the legal servitude or slavery of coal and salt miners that had been established in 1606.[85]
Denmark-Norway	1803​	Abolition of Danish participation in the transatlantic slave trade takes effect on 1 January.
United States	1807​	International slave trade made a felony
United Kingdom	1807​	Abolition of the Slave Trade Act abolishes slave trading throughout the British Empire.
United States	1808​	Importation and exportation of slaves made a crime.[92]
United Kingdom	1811​	Slave trading made a felony punishable by transportation for both British subjects and foreigners.
Netherlands	1814​	Slave trade abolished.
France	1815​	Napoleon abolishes the slave trade.
United Kingdom		The Congress of Vienna declares its opposition to the slave trade.[95]
Portugal
Sweden-Norway
France
Austria
Russia
Spain
Prussia
Algeria		Algiers bombarded by the British and Dutch navies in an attempt to end North African piracy and slave raiding in the Mediterranean. 3,000 slaves freed.
United Kingdom		Bilateral treaty abolishing the slave trade.[96]
Spain
Venezuela	Simon Bolivar calls for the abolition of slavery.[61]
United Kingdom	1818​	Bilateral treaty abolishing the slave trade.[98]
Portugal
France	Slave trade banned.
United Kingdom	Bilateral treaty taking additional measures to enforce the 1814 ban on slave trading.[98]
Netherlands
Upper Canada		Attorney-General John Robinson declares all black residents free.
Spain	1820​	The 1817 abolition of the slave trade takes effect.[100]
Haiti	1822​	Jean Pierre Boyer annexes Spanish Haiti and abolishes slavery there.
Liberia	Founded by the American Colonization Society as a colony for emancipated slaves.
Chile	1823​	Slavery abolished.[67]
United Kingdom	The Society for the Mitigation and Gradual Abolition of Slavery Throughout the British Dominions (Anti-Slavery Society) is founded.
Greece	Prohibition of slavery is enshrined in the Greek Constitution of 1823, during the Greek War of Independence.[102]
Mexico	1824​	The new constitution effectively abolishes slavery.
Central America	Slavery abolished.[103]
United Kingdom	1827​	Bilateral treaty abolishing the slave trade.[98]
Sweden-Norway
Mexico	1829​	Last slaves freed just as the first president of partial African ancestry (Vicente Guerrero) is elected.[67]
Uruguay	1830​	Slavery abolished.
Bolivia	1831​	Slavery abolished.[67]
Greece	1832​	Slavery abolished with independence.
United Kingdom	1833​	The Slavery Abolition Act 1833 comes into force, abolishing slavery throughout most of the British Empire over the next six years.[106] Legally frees 700,000 in the West Indies, 20,000 in Mauritius, and 40,000 in South Africa. The exceptions are the territories controlled by the East India Company and Ceylon.[107]
France	1834​	French Society for the Abolition of Slavery founded in Paris.[108]
Serbia	1835​	Freedom granted to all slaves in the moment they step on Serb soil.[109]
United Kingdom	Bilateral treaties abolishing the slave trade.[98]
France
United Kingdom
Denmark
United Kingdom	1838​	All slaves in the colonies become free after a period of forced apprenticeship following the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. Society for the Mitigation and Gradual Abolition of Slavery Throughout the British Dominions (now London Anti-Slavery Society) winds up.
United Kingdom	1839​	The British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society (after several changes, now known as Anti-Slavery International) is founded.
Catholic Church	Pope Gregory XVI's In supremo apostolatus resoundingly condemns slavery and the slave trade.
United Kingdom	1840​	Bilateral treaty abolishing the slave trade.
Venezuela
United Kingdom	First World Anti-Slavery Convention meets in London.
New Zealand	Taking slaves banned by Treaty of Waitangi.[111]
United Kingdom	1841​	Quintuple Treaty agreeing to suppress the slave trade.[67]
France
Russia
Prussia
Austria
United Kingdom	1842​	Bilateral treaty extending the enforcement of the slave trade ban to Portuguese ships south of the Equator.
Portugal
Paraguay	Law for the gradual abolition of slavery passed.[61]
East India Company	1843​	The Indian Slavery Act, 1843, Act V abolishes slavery in territories controlled by the company.
United Kingdom	Bilateral treaties abolishing the slave trade.[98]
Uruguay
United Kingdom
Mexico
United Kingdom
Chile
United Kingdom
Bolivia
Moldavia	1844​	Mihail Sturdza abolishes slavery in Moldavia.
Paraguay	Slave trade abolished.[61]
United Kingdom	1845​	36 Royal Navy ships assigned to the Anti-Slavery Squadron, making it one of the largest fleets in the world.
Tunisia	1846​	Slavery abolished in Tunisia under Ahmed Bey rule.[113]
United Kingdom		Bilateral treaties abolishing the slave trade.[98]
Muscat and Oman
United Kingdom	1849​
Trucial States
Sierra Leone	The Royal Navy destroys the slave factory of Lomboko.
Taiping Heavenly Kingdom		Slavery nominally abolished along with opium, gambling, polygamy and foot binding.[122][123][124]
Ecuador	Slavery abolished in the country by José María Urvina.[126]
Lagos	Reduction of Lagos: The British capture the city of Lagos and replace King Kosoko with Akitoye because of the former's refusal to ban the slave trade.
Hawaii	1852​	1852 Constitution officially declared slavery illegal.[127]
United Kingdom	Bilateral treaty banning the slave trade and human sacrifice.
Lagos
Argentina	1853​	Slavery abolished with the sanction of a new federal Constitution.[128]
Peru	1854​	Slavery abolished by Ramón Castilla.[129][67]
Venezuela	Slavery abolished.[67][101]
Moldavia	1855​	Slavery abolished.
Wallachia	1856​
Egypt	1857​	Firman banning the trade of Black African (Zanj) slaves.[citation needed]
Atlantic Ocean	1859​	Definitive suppression of the transatlantic slave trade.
United States		The election of Abraham Lincoln leads to the attempted secession of eleven slaveholding states and the American Civil War.
United States	1862	Bilateral treaty abolishing the slave trade (African Slave Trade Treaty Act).[98]
United Kingdom
Cuba	1862​	Slave trade abolished.[67]
Netherlands	1863​	Slavery abolished in the colonies
United States	Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation,
Spain	1867​	Law of Repression and Punishment of the Slave Trade.[61]
Portugal	1869​	Louis I abolishes slavery in all Portuguese territories and colonies.
Paraguay	Slavery abolished.
Puerto Rico	1873​	Slavery abolished.
United Kingdom	Triple treaty abolishing the slave trade.[98]
Zanzibar
Madagascar
Gold Coast	1874​	Slavery abolished.[141]
Bulgaria	1879​	Slavery abolished with independence. The Constitution states that any slave that enters Bulgarian territory is immediately freed.
Ottoman Empire	1882​	A firman emancipates all slaves, white and black.[142]
Cambodia	1884​	Slavery abolished.
Cuba	1886​	Slavery abolished.[67]
Brazil	1888​	Golden Law decreeing the total abolition of slavery with immediate effect.[143]
United Kingdom	1890​	Brussels Conference Act – a collection of anti-slavery measures to put an end to the slave trade on land and sea, especially in the Congo Basin, the Ottoman Empire, and the East African coast.
France
Germany
Portugal
Congo
Italy
Spain
Netherlands
Belgium
Russia
Austria-Hungary
Sweden-Norway
Denmark
United States
Ottoman Empire
Zanzibar
Persia
Egypt	1895​	Slavery abolished.[145]
Madagascar	1896​	Slavery abolished.
Zanzibar	1897​	Slavery abolished.[147]
Siam	Slave trade abolished.[148]
Ndzuwani	1899​	Slavery abolished.
Guam	1900​	Slavery abolished 22 February 1900, by proclamation of Richard P. Leary.[149]
French Sudan	1903​	"Slave" no longer used as an administrative category.
United Kingdom	1904​	International Agreement for the suppression of the White Slave Traffic signed in Paris. Only France, the Netherlands and Russia extend the treaty to the whole extent of their colonial empires with immediate effect, and Italy extends it to Eritrea but not to Italian Somaliland.[151]
Germany
Denmark
Spain
France
Italy
Netherlands
Portugal
Russia
British East Africa	Slavery abolished.[152]
French West Africa	1905​	Slavery formally abolished. Though up to one million slaves gain their freedom, slavery continues to exist in practice for decades afterward.
China	1906​	Slavery abolished beginning on 31 January 1910. Adult slaves are converted into hired laborers and the minors freed upon reaching age 25.[153]
Barotseland	Slavery abolished.[154]
Ottoman Empire	1908​	The Young Turk Revolution eradicates the open trade of Zanj and Circassian women from Constantinople.[155]
Congo Free State	Belgium annexes the Congo Free State, ending the practice of slavery there.
Siam	1912​	Slavery abolished.[148]
British Malaya	1915​	Slavery abolished.[156]
British Raj	1917​	Indian indenture system abolished.[157]
Soviet Russia	1917​	Decree Abolishing Classes and Civil Ranks
Tanganyika	1919​	Slavery abolished.[152]
Morocco	1922​	Slave trade abolished, slave holding remained legal.[158]
Afghanistan	1923​	Slavery abolished.[159]
Hong Kong	Slavery of Mui tsai abolished.
Iraq	1924​	Slavery abolished.[citation needed]
Anglo-Egyptian Sudan	Slavery abolished[160]
Turkey	Slavery abolished[161]
Nepal	1926​	Slavery abolished.[162]
British Burma	Slavery abolished.[156]
Spain	1927​	1926 Slavery Convention ratified.
United Kingdom	Treaty of Jeddah (1927) abolishing the slave trade.
Nejd
Hejaz
Sierra Leone	1928​	Abolition of domestic slavery practised by local African elites.[163] Although established as a place for freed slaves, a study found practices of domestic slavery still widespread in rural areas in the 1970s.[citation needed]
Alabama	Convict lease abolished, the last state in the Union to do so.
Persia	1929​	Slavery abolished and criminalized.[164]
League of Nations	1930​	Forced Labour Convention.
Ethiopia	1935​	The invading Italian General Emilio De Bono claims to have abolished slavery in the Ethiopian Empire.[165]
Nazi Germany	Nazi Germany legalized forced labor.[166]
Northern Nigeria	1936​	Slavery abolished.[167]
Bechuanaland	Slavery abolished.[168]
Bahrain	1937​	Slavery abolished.[169]
United Nations	1948​	Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares slavery contrary to human rights.[171]
Kuwait	1949​	Slavery abolished.[169]
Qatar	1952​	Slavery abolished.[172][173]
Australia	1953​	1926 Slavery Convention ratified.
Canada
Liberia
New Zealand
South Africa
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Afghanistan	1954​
Austria
Cuba
Denmark
Egypt
Finland
India
Italy
Mexico
Monaco
Sweden
Syria
Ecuador	1955​
Greece
Iraq
Israel
Netherlands
Pakistan
Philippines
Republic of China (Taiwan)
Turkey
United Nations	1956​	Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery.
Byelorussia[174]	1926 Slavery Convention ratified.
Soviet Union
United States
South Vietnam
United Nations	1957​	The Abolition of Forced Labour Convention eliminates some exceptions admitted in the 1930 Forced Labour Convention.
Albania	1926 Slavery Convention ratified.
Libya
Burma
Norway
Romania
Sudan
Bhutan	1958​	Slavery abolished.[175]
Hungary	1926 Slavery Convention ratified.
Ceylon
Jordan	1959​
Morocco
Ukraine[176]
Niger	1960​	Slavery abolished.[177]
Nigeria	1961​	1926 Slavery Convention ratified.
Morocco	1961​	Slavery abolished under Moroccan Constitution, although domestic slave practices continued.[158]
Saudi Arabia	1962​	Slavery abolished.[172]
North Yemen
Belgium	1926 Slavery Convention ratified.
Sierra Leone
Tanganyika
Algeria	1963​
France
Guinea
Kuwait
Nepal
Trucial States	1964​	Slavery abolished.[a]
Jamaica	1926 Slavery Convention ratified.
Madagascar
Niger
Uganda
Malawi	1965​
Brazil	1966​
Malta
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
South Yemen	1967​	Slavery abolished.[179]
Mongolia	1968​	1926 Slavery Convention ratified.
Ethiopia	1969​
Mauritius
Oman	1970​	Slavery abolished.[180]
Fiji	1972​	1926 Slavery Convention ratified.
West Germany	1973​
Mali
Saudi Arabia
Zambia
Lesotho	1974​
Bahamas	1976​
Barbados
Kentucky	Thirteenth Amendment ratified.
Mauritania	1981​	Slavery abolished,[181][182] though the ban was not enforced and many people continued to be held as slaves.[183]
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	1926 Slavery Convention ratified.
Solomon Islands
Papua New Guinea	1982​
Bolivia	1983​
Guatemala
Cameroon	1984​
Bangladesh	1985​
Cyprus	1986​
Mauritania
Nicaragua
North Yemen	1987​
Bahrain	1990​
Saint Lucia
Croatia	1992​
Bosnia and Herzegovina	1993​
Dominica	1994​
Chile	1995​
Azerbaijan	1996​	1926 Slavery Convention ratified.
Kyrgyzstan	1997​	1926 Slavery Convention ratified.
Yugoslavia	2001​	1926 Slavery Convention ratified.
Uruguay
Niger	2003​	Slavery criminalized.[177]
Montenegro	2006​	1926 Slavery Convention ratified.
Mauritania	2007​	Slavery criminalized.[185]
Paraguay	1926 Slavery Convention ratified.
Kazakhstan	2008​
Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic	2010​	Slavery criminalized.[187]
United Kingdom	2015​	Modern Slavery Act 2015.[188]
Navajoland	2017​	Criminalization of human trafficking.[189]
Chad	Slavery criminalized.[190]
Iraq	2019​	Defeat and debellatio of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant leads to the freeing of thousands of slaves, including Yazidi and Christian sex slaves.[192][193][194]
Syria
Worldwide	Present	Although slavery is now abolished de jure in all countries,[198][199] de facto practices akin to it continue today in many places throughout the world, almost exclusively in Asia and Africa.[200][201][202][203]

 

[Kirkhill]

DUP won’t cave to Brexit deal pressure from ‘anti-British’ Biden​

Unionists said they won’t be ‘rushing through the door to greet’ the ‘pro-Republican’ president during his visit

ByJames Crisp, EUROPE EDITOR ; Neil Johnston and Amy Gibbons IN BELFAST11 April 2023 • 5:20pm

DUP won’t cave to Brexit deal pressure from ‘anti-British’ Biden

Unionists said they won’t be ‘rushing through the door to greet’ the ‘pro-Republican’ president during his visit

www.telegraph.co.uk

Or,

• "No Surrender!",
• a British Unionist slogan originating from Siege of Derry now used in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and England

The siege of Derry began in December 1688 when 13 apprentice boys[6] shut the gates of the city against a regiment of twelve hundred Jacobite soldiers, commanded by the Roman Catholic, Alexander Macdonnell, Earl of Antrim, which was immediately withdrawn.[7] Retaliatory action passed to the Duke of Tyrconnel who assembled a large but poorly ordered Jacobite force commanded by Sir Richard Hamilton to march north against the Ulster Protestants.[8] The deposed King James II, who had travelled from France to Ireland in March, took charge with the aid of two French generals. Arriving at the gates of Derry on 18 April 1689, he was greeted by a cry of "No Surrender!"[9

 

[daftandbarmy]

DUP won’t cave to Brexit deal pressure from ‘anti-British’ Biden

Unionists said they won’t be ‘rushing through the door to greet’ the ‘pro-Republican’ president during his visit

www.telegraph.co.uk

Or,

• "No Surrender!",
• a British Unionist slogan originating from Siege of Derry now used in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and England

Ian Paisley's party... all batshit crazy off the other end of the chart...

 

[Kirkhill]

Ian Paisley's party... all batshit crazy off the other end of the chart...

My people!