Canadian Foreign Policy & Affairs II

[Truenorth00]

Trump 2.0 foreign policy. Exactly as I predicted. Economic consequences for those who don't spend on defence.

...
"Increase allied conventional defense burden-sharing. U.S. allies must take far greater responsibility for their conventional defense. U.S. allies must play their part not only in dealing with China, but also in dealing with threats from Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

1. Make burden-sharing a central part of U.S. defense strategy with the United States not just helping allies to step up, but strongly encouraging them to do so.
2. Support greater spending and collaboration by Taiwan and allies in the Asia–Pacific like Japan and Australia to create a collective defense model.
3. Transform NATO so that U.S. allies are capable of fielding the great majority of the conventional forces required to deter Russia while relying on the United States primarily for our nuclear deterrent, and select other capabilities while reducing the U.S. force posture in Europe.
4. Sustain support for Israel even as America empowers Gulf partners to take responsibility for their own coastal, air, and missile defenses both individually and working collectively.
5. Enable South Korea to take the lead in its conventional defense against North Korea."

...


"Prioritize the U.S. and allies under the “domestic end product” and “domestic components” requirements of the Build America,
Buy America Act.5 Currently, defense companies are required to manufacture defense items for the U.S. government that are 100 percent domestically produced and at least 50 percent composed of domestically produced components. However, there are loopholes that allow companies to manufacture these items overseas. This can create supply chain and other issues, especially in wartime. Manufacturing components and end products domestically and with allies spurs factory development, increases American jobs, and builds resilience in America’s defense industrial base.

Review the sectors currently prioritized for onshoring or “friendshoring” of manufacturing (kinetic capabilities, castings and forgings, critical materials, microelectronics, space, and electric vehicle batteries); evaluate them according to the strategic landscape; and expand or reprioritize the list as appropriate."

https://static.project2025.org/2025_...CHAPTER-04.pdf

[Truenorth00]

This is going to do wonders for our relationship with the US.

Undocumented Indian migrants chart new path to US via Canada

.....

In fiscal year 2023, U.S. border agents encountered nearly 97,000 undocumented Indian migrants nationwide, including more than 30,000 at the northern border, according to data from the Customs and Border Patrol or CBP.

Encounters include apprehensions and expulsions. In fiscal year 2019, more than 16,000 Indian migrants were encountered nationwide, CBP data shows.

In recent months, the numbers have continued largely unabated. Between October 2023 and February 2024, nearly 14,000 Indians were encountered at the U.S.-Canada border.

The record influx is part of a migration rush through Canada that has overwhelmed border security officials and unsettled communities in northern U.S. states. CBP data show that there were nearly 190,000 encounters at the Canadian border in 2023, more than six times the number in 2021.

....

https://www.voanews.com/a/undocument...a/7564143.html

[MonctonRad]

Time for another Trumpian wall.

Question is - will he make us pay for it???

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Question is - will he make us pay for it???

By the time it's procured, we'll be on to another administration. And probably not the next one after this!

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Time for another Trumpian wall.

Question is - will he make us pay for it???

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

By the time it's procured, we'll be on to another administration. And probably not the next one after this!

That's what the proposal to tie trade more explicitly to American interests (and subservience) is about. They have all the leverage here. If Trump decides to shut the Northern border down or impose extremely onerous checks what leverage would we have on them other than hoping a few northern states scream?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is going to do wonders for our relationship with the US.



https://www.voanews.com/a/undocument...a/7564143.html

Undocumented in the USA I take it, or in Canada?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Undocumented in the USA I take it, or in Canada?

In the US. They arrive in Canada legally. It's the same as Mexico with Africans and Asians and South Americans taking advantage of existing smuggling networks there while arriving in a Mexico legally.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Trump 2.0 foreign policy. Exactly as I predicted. Economic consequences for those who don't spend on defence.

I don't like Trump and think he is a terrible choice for president (again) but this may be for the best in the long run. Europe can and should look after itself. This may be a self-defeating strategy for the USA; I'd rather see Europe defend against Russia and other countries than have them rely on incompetent American leaders to solve their security problems. And the timing is actually kind of nice since Russia and China have ruined their reputation so much now in the EU. I don't think WW2 era fears about Germany or Japan are relevant these days.

Canada needs its own proper military too and shouldn't be far behind a country like France on the world stage in this century.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Trump 2.0 foreign policy. Exactly as I predicted. Economic consequences for those who don't spend on defence.

https://static.project2025.org/2025_...CHAPTER-04.pdf

There is no question hitting the 2% is critical to our long-term relationship with the US. The question is which of the two political particles in Canada has the highest likelihood of getting close to it.

The secondary issue (that has the potential to become a major problem for Canada) is the US in Europe. Currently the US is a major factor in containing Russia. A Trump administration just does not care all that much about containing Russia. Clearly the Western European will be forced to step up and fill the gap. Will Canada join them? I don't know.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by casper

There is no question hitting the 2% is critical to our long-term relationship with the US. The question is which of the two political particles in Canada has the highest likelihood of getting close to it.

You could make an argument for the Liberals at this point.

But we shouldn't pretend giving in to American threats works. The US will get as much from us as they can tradewise regardless. We suffered in no way not going to Iraq. Did France suffer from Freedom Fries? Did the US pay back Britain in their time of need or totally blow them off after Brexit?

The US will be able to use it as an excuse but at the end of the day it is our ability to hurt back and give up key gains that will get us through any trade war. I've mentioned it before but giving them access to our dairy market or stopping softwood lumber exports would get trump a lot more votes than making us spend more on defence and we could compensate the losers for pennies on the dollar while also in case of dairy benefiting millions of Canadian children.

[Truenorth00]

NBC News is reporting that Harris has more pledged delegates than needed for the nomination and a quarter of a billion dollars raised in less than a day and a half.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/22/live...-campaign.html

They had a Zoom fundraising call for Black Women yesterday. Zoom calls have limits of 1000 participants. They had to get the CEO of Zoom to override the limits and accommodate 44 000 participants. Also reporting that her campaign has signed up 28 000 volunteers across battleground states.

Absolutely amazing to see. And she hasn't even picked a VP yet.

Still very much an uphill fight. But she has a real shot. Hopefully, this is good for Canada. That said, she is a lot more hawkish on foreign policy than Biden. Something which Canadians who think it will be back to the Obama era might find disconcerting.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

You could make an argument for the Liberals at this point.

Actually, according to the PBO that would be a false arguement.

I have no idea what the CPC plan is (or if there is one), but the PBO has clearly said that the LPC plan will come no where close to the 2% ...

PBO forecasts that Canada’s military expenditures will rise from 1.29% of GDP in 2024-25 to a peak of 1.49% of GDP in 2025-26 before falling and stabilizing at 1.42% by 2029-30.

If I have to choose between the PBO or Blair, I know who I’d believe …

[Djeffery]

What is the bottom half of that fraction though? Surely the PBO is also forecasting an increasing GDP, so 1.42% of X in 2030 would be a fair bit more actual dollars than 1.49% of X in 2025. It's progress but as TN has said, the military would have trouble actually spending a ~40% budget increase in just a few years anyway.

As for which party do we think would work towards 2% more? Well, we have 18 years pretty much divided equally between the 2 to see who has done more and one has been basically silent on it

[Truenorth00]

Timing also matters. Chretien gets a lot of shit for the "decade of darkness". But during that time period there was a ton of inventory that could be used. Lots of kit leftover from the 80s. Harper's cuts in the teens came at the worst time. Exactly when we needed to recapitalize and replace all the 80s and 90s kit that was aging out or war worn.

Trudeau has borne the brunt of criticism for this failing. And he hasn't done enough. But it's like so many other things. Past governments letting the problem fester until it became almost untenable. It's incredible to me that most of the aircraft I joined with a quarter century ago are still in service. But over the next decade half the air force will be recapitalized. That's not the underspending that people make it out to be.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Timing also matters. Chretien gets a lot of shit for the "decade of darkness". But during that time period there was a ton of inventory that could be used. Lots of kit leftover from the 80s. Harper's cuts in the teens came at the worst time. Exactly when we needed to recapitalize and replace all the 80s and 90s kit that was aging out or war worn.

Trudeau has borne the brunt of criticism for this failing. And he hasn't done enough. But it's like so many other things. Past governments letting the problem fester until it became almost untenable. It's incredible to me that most of the aircraft I joined with a quarter century ago are still in service. But over the next decade half the air force will be recapitalized. That's not the underspending that people make it out to be.

Two items are totally on JC, Force Reduction Plan (FRP) and cancelling EH 101. FRP, which cut 1/3 of the CAF Personnel and EH 101 with its bastard child Cyclone echo's to this day.
Our policies of keeping kit until they "self-divest" has been proven time and time again but we refuse to change.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

Two items are totally on JC, Force Reduction Plan (FRP) and cancelling EH 101. FRP, which cut 1/3 of the CAF Personnel and EH 101 with its bastard child Cyclone echo's to this day.
Our policies of keeping kit until they "self-divest" has been proven time and time again but we refuse to change.

To be clear. JC wasn't great to the CAF. And downsizing could have been handled a lot better. He was almost contemptuous in hindsight. But I wasn't in at the time so I don't fully understand that era. What I do see are the downstream effects of all those decisions.

I question why Harper doesn't get more of a shit reputation on defence though. He was nearly as bad as Chretien. The Kingfisher is arguably a bigger disaster than the Cyclone. Every army fleet is falling apart, which was not true in the 90s. Ditto for a lot of the navy.

All these guys. Love the credit for balanced budgets. Never want to admit to the trail of future liabilities they left behind with those "balanced" budgets.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

To be clear. JC wasn't great to the CAF. And downsizing could have been handled a lot better. He was almost contemptuous in hindsight. But I wasn't in at the time so I don't fully understand that era. What I do see are the downstream effects of all those decisions.

I question why Harper doesn't get more of a shit reputation on defence though. He was nearly as bad as Chretien. The Kingfisher is arguably a bigger disaster than the Cyclone. Every army fleet is falling apart, which was not true in the 90s. Ditto for a lot of the navy.

All these guys. Love the credit for balanced budgets. Never want to admit to the trail of future liabilities they left behind with those "balanced" budgets.

I was a newly promoted Lt(N) when FRP was initiated. It was a shit-show. Instead of taking the bottom third of the PER stack the government threw the doors opened the doors for everyone and we lost a lot of very good people. The only criteria was that you had to be at OFP to get out. We had a couple of up and coming subbies on the ship I was in, RMC grads and whip smart. They passed their Naval Warfare Promotion Board and handed in their release with in minutes of getting the nod from the board. They got a big cheque and didn't have to pay for getting out of their commitment early.
Then the government basically halted recruiting for a couple of years and here we are today.

But the Canadian public wanted a balanced budget and that is what they got. Yea us!

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

Two items are totally on JC, Force Reduction Plan (FRP) and cancelling EH 101. FRP, which cut 1/3 of the CAF Personnel ...

IMO it's not just the 1/3 cut that was bad, but WHO was cut. I personally know recent 2 RMC grads who took the payout who then went on to found a number of successful companies ... and who would likely be FOGOs now.

Ha ha ... you beat me to it!

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I question why Harper doesn't get more of a shit reputation on defence though. He was nearly as bad as Chretien. The Kingfisher is arguably a bigger disaster than the Cyclone. Every army fleet is falling apart, which was not true in the 90s. Ditto for a lot of the navy.

From the outside, it seemed like since the Army spent like crazy during Afghanistan, that any new funds would be go to the other branches: namely via NSS and JSF. Of course that didn't happen (some of it self inflicted, some not), but yeah the CPC certainly dialed it down after 2010 ...

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by shreddog

From the outside, it seemed like since the Army spent like crazy during Afghanistan, that any new funds would be go to the other branches: namely via NSS and JSF. Of course that didn't happen (some of it self inflicted, some not), but yeah the CPC certainly dialed it down after 2010 ...

The Army really got shafted under Harper. They got the TAPV which is rather useless for near-peer. They got the G-wagon which is better than the Iltis. But that's not saying much. And a handful of Leopards. Not even enough to consistently field a full operational regiment/battalion. And some logistics vehicles. But they saw more than half the logistics fleet rust out. Most of the LAV fleet needed to be rebuilt. They lost Air defence and most EW capabilities. And they finished the war with artillery that was less mobile. If you read the Army's doctrine, they can't apply what they would teach because of all the gaps.

Leaving a hole in defence and blaming their successor for it seems to the CPC version of LPC signing climate pledges they know their successors can't meet.