Canadian Foreign Policy & Affairs II

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Just wondering what people think about Canada continually failing to meet our NATO obligations...I find it disconcerting and almost embarrassing that Canada, being fully aware of the situation, has not even attempted to meet our obligations, rather appearing to take steps in the opposite direction.

The politics of this country is a reflection of its people.

Largely performative, heavy on image, very light on substance outside of the few actual issues that Canadians actually care about. Even then, somehow welded to certain ideas that prevent re-imagining something better for the things they do care about.

Canadians are generally a pretty embarrassing people when faced with these sorts of things. Rubes if you will, but with the sneering of supposed superiority. It's harder to get people wrapped up in superiority to reconsider ideas about themselves.

It's almost worse than rubes who know they're rubes, because one at least works with a blank slate there.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

This is shocking. It's a complete win win as jobs and industrial capacity is increased. Shameful to be honest.

It really is.

At the end of the day, I doubt there's a lot of allies who think we'll get close to 2%. But I do think there's an expectation that we at least try with what we have. And quibbling over spending $400M, with Americans saying there's a market, while we're $20B behind on defence spending, really makes us look bad.

And again, it shows their actions don't match their rhetoric (on the danger of the Russians).

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The drones being sent over are like the Ferraris of small surveillance drones. They are expensive. And probably limited in manufacturing quantity. Hence the pledged number. The government probably bought up most of the manufacturing slots for the next year or two. This is an example of the kind of thing we should have been ramping at least a year ago. Better late than never.

Good. Ukrainians deserve top notch equipment instead of the NATO leftovers which has comprised a huge chunk of lethal aid in 2 years time!

From Masha Gessen's (Russian American writer, journalist) New Yorker article published January 29, 2024 interviewing Ukrainians in Ukraine

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...cy-in-darkness

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It really is.

At the end of the day, I doubt there's a lot of allies who think we'll get close to 2%. But I do think there's an expectation that we at least try with what we have. And quibbling over spending $400M, with Americans saying there's a market, while we're $20B behind on defence spending, really makes us look bad.

And again, it shows their actions don't match their rhetoric (on the danger of the Russians).

Freeland aside they are pacifists we believe we can make peace with anyone. Frankly that reflects the Canadian mainstream opinion.

[Wigs]

You can't make Peace with Russia.
Putin just had the only Russian man to be closest to an opposition, Alexei Navalny murdered

From another Masha Gessen article, published February 16, 2024



https://www.newyorker.com/news/posts...dable-opponent

Ukraine continues to fight so they hopefully will never be under Russia's tyranny again. Russia has another 6 years with Putin at the helm, going through what my friend in Yekaterinburg calls "the big show" or mock elections next month.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

With all the use of drones is there any reason why nobody has just started attaching rifles/heavy machines guns?

A lot of the drone videos from Ukraine are directly attacking troops with warheads attached to the drones but why not attach a gun and shoot?

Maybe it's technically more difficult?

Weight and recoil limit payload and accuracy and in turn utility. Also, if you have explosives attached, you can hit more than just personnel.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by thewave46

The politics of this country is a reflection of its people.

Largely performative, heavy on image, very light on substance outside of the few actual issues that Canadians actually care about. Even then, somehow welded to certain ideas that prevent re-imagining something better for the things they do care about.

Canadians are generally a pretty embarrassing people when faced with these sorts of things. Rubes if you will, but with the sneering of supposed superiority. It's harder to get people wrapped up in superiority to reconsider ideas about themselves.

It's almost worse than rubes who know they're rubes, because one at least works with a blank slate there.

That's a mouthful of words, but I would suggest it's an over-generalization, or at least off-target a little.

If anything, the issue has remained on the backburner, out of sight, for far too long. People haven't been concerned about it because they didn't think they needed to be concerned. In a period of 50+ years with no real threat, existential or otherwise, to our well-being and sense of peace and safety, people have become a little lazy in what we feel we can get away with (and what level of taxation we want to tolerate).

For all I despise about the orange man to the south, perhaps this one time his hot air will serve a purpose. Maybe Canadians will become aware that a strong military is important to the well-being of the country.

Or maybe not, in a country of 'rubes' after all...

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Wigs

You can't make Peace with Russia.

And yet the government's ambivalence on aid, doesn't imply they believe the theat to be such. Otherwise, they would not be quibbling over $400M spread over 2-3 years.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And yet the government's ambivalence on aid, doesn't imply they believe the theat to be such. Otherwise, they would not be quibbling over $400M spread over 2-3 years.

I'm disgusted and disappointed at Canada, USA, and collectively The West. We are failing Ukraine and will suffer the consequences in the future.

Look at the damage Russian Army did to Avdiivka, occupied territory in eastern Ukraine, Donetsk Oblast. Watch the short video with the sound on
https://x.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1...223148781?s=20

Putin has another 6 years in power with no end in sight.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm

Very. The 2% target has two important functions. First, that level of spending ensures that NATO has enough forces to ensure that any Russian misadventure into NATO territory can be destroyed with just conventional forces, reducing escalation risk and political gridlock (reduce Russia would take advantage of). Next it signals a strong willingness to do enough to stop Russian expansionism. If we aren't even willing to spend 2%, how likely are we to fight back? It's no coincidence that Russia aggression has grown as NATO defence spending has fallen. Had most of NATO been at 2%, we'd all have been able to give Ukraine a lot more aid. And the risk of that, in and of itself, would have changed Russian strategic calculus.

Just for reference. NATO GDP $32T. Russian GDP $1.8T. 2% of NATO's GDP on defence would ensure that even if Russia went close to full war economy, they couldn't defeat NATO.

Thank you!

[casper]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The drones being sent over are like the Ferraris of small surveillance drones. They are expensive. And probably limited in manufacturing quantity. Hence the pledged number. The government probably bought up most of the manufacturing slots for the next year or two. This is an example of the kind of thing we should have been ramping at least a year ago. Better late than never.



The Liberals changed the accounting of defence spending reporting in 2017 to match what they claimed was NATO standard. This added 0.2% of GDP to their stats. If you look at actual dollar amounts in the DND budget and adjust for inflation, this government is spending only slightly more than the last one.



As has been pointed out, they were lying and basically never intended to meet the 2%. That wouldn't be so bad if we weren't at ~1.4%.. I don't think anybody is going to give France crap for being at 1.9%. But I don't think current plans and commitments take us beyond 1.6% sustained.

You are right that we shouldn't expect much from the next government and PP is being intentionally vague on purpose. If he can give out a $20B tax cut rather than spend $20B on defence he absolutely would. No different than many European countries choosing social spending over defence spending. This is what is leading to American frustration with her allies.

We're talking about $500/person. If we asked the average family of 4 what an additional $2000/yr should be spent on, the last thing most families would say would be submarines and flat-tops. We should be cognizant of this. It's going to take exceptional leadership to convince the average Canadian that this spending is necessary to secure our sovereignty and democracy in the long run.

I think getting to 1.6 % is a significant achievement from where we were.

Yes, I do agree saying we will be at 2% and some point in the distant future well beyond the mandate of the current government amounts to nothing more than kicking the problem into the future without addressing the shortfall.

It is a weird contrast between Canada and the US. The US has broad public support for the military and military spending. The general public in Canada just don't pay a lot of attention to the military or the role it has in protecting our way of life.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by casper

I think getting to 1.6 % is a significant achievement from where we were.

Yes, I do agree saying we will be at 2% and some point in the distant future well beyond the mandate of the current government amounts to nothing more than kicking the problem into the future without addressing the shortfall.

It is a weird contrast between Canada and the US. The US has broad public support for the military and military spending. The general public in Canada just don't pay a lot of attention to the military or the role it has in protecting our way of life.

I would be quite surprised if we got to 1.6.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by casper

I think getting to 1.6 % is a significant achievement from where we were.

Yes, I do agree saying we will be at 2% and some point in the distant future well beyond the mandate of the current government amounts to nothing more than kicking the problem into the future without addressing the shortfall.

Originally Posted by acottawa

I would be quite surprised if we got to 1.6.

To be clear we're not hitting 1.6% anytime soon. But, sometime around 2028-2032, when F-35s are being delivered and the shipbuilding is ramping we may touch 1.6%. That, won't mean much though, if we're not actually sustaining that level of spending.

[ConundrumNL]

A couple Defence related stories from the Globe this morning. Their paywalled for me, so I can't read beyond the headline.

Canada should join non-nuclear part of AUKUS defence pact, former British and Australian PMs say

NATO secretary-general says Canada must inform alliance when it will raise defence spending

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by thewave46

The politics of this country is a reflection of its people.

Largely performative, heavy on image, very light on substance outside of the few actual issues that Canadians actually care about. Even then, somehow welded to certain ideas that prevent re-imagining something better for the things they do care about.

Canadians are generally a pretty embarrassing people when faced with these sorts of things. Rubes if you will, but with the sneering of supposed superiority. It's harder to get people wrapped up in superiority to reconsider ideas about themselves.

It's almost worse than rubes who know they're rubes, because one at least works with a blank slate there.

This is harsh but not that far off the mark.

Canadians are very individualistic. Even though Americans are renowned for their individualism, I actually think that Canadians are even further along the spectrum.

The average Canadian has a lot of trouble paying attention, caring about and taking action on issues that aren't of a direct personal concern to them. (This applies to both domestic and world issues - in both cases apathy rules.)

Even a lot of our so-called global consciousness is really about us: related to appearing a certain way and keeping appearances about the "worldly Canadian" as opposed to doing something concrete. Our withdrawal from UN peacekeeping and generally pithy military and foreign aid contributions, etc. are proof of this.

[ConundrumNL]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This is harsh but not that far off the mark.

Canadians are very individualistic. Even though Americans are renowned for their individualism, I actually think that Canadians are even further along the spectrum.

The average Canadian has a lot of trouble paying attention, caring about and taking action on issues that aren't of a direct personal concern to them. (This applies to both domestic and world issues - in both cases apathy rules.)

Even a lot of our so-called global consciousness is really about us: related to appearing a certain way and keeping appearances about the "worldly Canadian" as opposed to doing something concrete. Our withdrawal from UN peacekeeping and generally pithy military and foreign aid contributions, etc. are proof of this.

I think the public's lack of interest in 'items of national concern' such as Foreign Policy or Defence has a few causes:

- The Individualistic streak, so people are generally only concerned with issues that affect them personally.
- IMO, Canada lacks the national identity that the US has. Probably due to country's size and sparse population. People seem to think more in provincial terms then national.
- The US factor. People figuring we can just ride the American coats tails on defence, and follow their lead on foreign policy. I remember a high school teacher once claiming Canada didn't really need a military because the US would never allow an attack so close to their border.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ConundrumNL

I think the public's lack of interest in 'items of national concern' such as Foreign Policy or Defence has a few causes:

- The Individualistic streak, so people are generally only concerned with issues that affect them personally.
- IMO, Canada lacks the national identity that the US has. Probably due to country's size and sparse population. People seem to think more in provincial terms then national.
- The US factor. People figuring we can just ride the American coats tails on defence, and follow their lead on foreign policy. I remember a high school teacher once claiming Canada didn't really need a military because the US would never allow an attack so close to their border.

The stereotype of the American hayseed who knows nothing about the wider world is an extremely important part of the Canadian world-view (since Canadians are supposedly the complete opposite) but in reality your average American has a much greater sense and concern for his country's place in the world, and its destiny and future as a nation in general. (Even if they are often very fuzzy on the details, I admit.)

In Canada, it's as if the dominant ethos is that nothing is "of consequence". And certainly not anything Canadian.

[Truenorth00]

I've served in both countries. Canadians and Americans aren't really that different on their knowledge and concern about the world. What is very different is the institutional and elite understanding of their power and role in the world.

What is also different is that military service is seen as a social institution in the US. 5 years of service guarantees VA healthcare for life, 4 years of subsidized education (without a $ limit) and access to VA loans (for a cheaper mortgage). In a country with no universal healthcare, and expensive post-secondary education, these are massive social advantages. A single 5 yr stint moves a young person up several rungs on the socio-economic ladder. This is how the US can recruit so many.

But why would their government spend so much and not create more of a career military (like Canada and most of NATO)? Because they consider it a substantial advantage to take young people and give them training and experience for 5 years with major socioeconomic advantages after. Each year they discharge hundreds of thousands of trained, disciplined and fit young people into the workforce. It's no accident that Silicon Valley is in the same state as half the nuclear navy and space force. 25 yr old technicians trained to work in high stress environments are highly valuable to industry.

We don't think of military service as force for social equality or a major provider of talent to industry. That's the difference.

[MonctonRad]

Good post.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This is harsh but not that far off the mark.

Canadians are very individualistic. Even though Americans are renowned for their individualism, I actually think that Canadians are even further along the spectrum.

The average Canadian has a lot of trouble paying attention, caring about and taking action on issues that aren't of a direct personal concern to them. (This applies to both domestic and world issues - in both cases apathy rules.)

Even a lot of our so-called global consciousness is really about us: related to appearing a certain way and keeping appearances about the "worldly Canadian" as opposed to doing something concrete. Our withdrawal from UN peacekeeping and generally pithy military and foreign aid contributions, etc. are proof of this.

I think Canadians are hyper-localized. Most urban Canadians don’t leave their home town, even to go to school, they rarely travel to other parts of the country, and more rarely internationally, other than the closest border town in the US and maybe a sunwing package vacation.