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

Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But Johnson didn’t hold back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elsewhere in London, outside the Russian embassy, other protesters and passersby reflected on what they said was real tyranny — the Russian attack on Ukraine. “I think we should be as tough as possible to get this stopped, as tough as possible,” said protester Clive Martinez.
 
Ultimately though you are talking about the past. We aren’t a military power anymore and haven’t been for a while . It’s an honest statement. As much as I think her words are a bit misplaced she isn’t wrong in this case.

That doesn’t mean we can’t contribute. But let’s be honest about what we can actually do with what we have. And it isn’t that much in the grand scheme.

We lament that we are under equipped, under manned and lack capabilities and that the cupboard is worse than bare and yet when someone points it out we get offended.

I take her comments as a good sign that maybe, finally the gvt is actually admitting that we can’t do as much on the military side of things instead of saying a bunch of BS about how we are more than capable and that we contribute our share blah blah. The first step is admitting we have a problem and fix it.

Her statement and Anand saying that maybe we need to aggressively start increasing our defence spending and commitments is a sign that maybe a new narrative on defence spending is coming.

Like most, I’ll believe it when I see it but at least the gvt isn’t living in denial or trying to convince Canadians that everything in defence is all fine and dandy.

Agree. It's a cold hard truth.

It's statements like these though that might actually wake up the Canadian public to our true position on this planet.
 
@dapaterson
Not to pour too much more salt but as was previously noted...



Pixie dust, unicorns and rainbows ...
Well, this is true. We are not a military power. Maybe we were in the past but it’s not the case anymore, probably since the Korean War. We contribute to warfare in that we’ll provide people and equipment an contribute to someone else’s initiative. We chose our battles. And that’s the key, right there, to our contribution.

Canada, as a generally rational nation, measures its military involvement well. When Canada participates militarily, it sends a message to the World and gives legitimacy to a military operation. When we do not, that also sends a powerful message. When we are asked to participate militarily to an operation, it is not because of our military might: it’s because it gives legitimacy.
 
Her statement and Anand saying that maybe we need to aggressively start increasing our defence spending and commitments is a sign that maybe a new narrative on defence spending is coming.
Anand's statement is a used car sales pitch.

We already agreed to model of car, 2% GDP.

We've had years to provide that but we didn't. Now the dealership is offering "options" to provide the car they were already supposed to provide. On top of that there's new options to provide something less than promised, and options to provide "an even better model" i.e exceeding what we promised.
 
we need a serious increase in spending to just replaced what we sent to the Ukraine. Ammo, Carls, vests, nvgs, rations, helmets, machine guns, sniper rifles , plus jet fuel to get it there. Our transport fleet will have decades cut off their service life with the amount of service they are flying right now.

Plus new equipment incase we get into a shooting war again. The freezer has thawed everything out and we are getting back to the post war 2 worries. The wall came down but it is being rebuilt with the blood of innocent people over there.
 
On a related, but completely different note, how does one make it so the original article stays at the top like this one? Can it be the norm for all threads that have articles?
 
Our transport fleet will have decades cut off their service life with the amount of service they are flying right now.

No it won’t. It is taken from an already allocated yearly flying rate. Our Air Mobility fleets are used to high tempos (it is pretty much their routine).
 
Anand's statement is a used car sales pitch.

We already agreed to model of car, 2% GDP.

We've had years to provide that but we didn't. Now the dealership is offering "options" to provide the car they were already supposed to provide. On top of that there's new options to provide something less than promised, and options to provide "an even better model" i.e exceeding what we promised.

As along as there are some FNC1s left, I'll be good if they drag me back ;)
 
Canada, as a generally rational nation, measures its military involvement well. When Canada participates militarily, it sends a message to the World and gives legitimacy to a military operation. When we do not, that also sends a powerful message. When we are asked to participate militarily to an operation, it is not because of our military might: it’s because it gives legitimacy.
What would you say the reason is that Canada being involved gives something legitimacy?

You mention we measure our military involvement well. Isn't that due to our military being is in such a shit state, not for more lofty, philosophical reasons?
 
Ultimately though you are talking about the past. We aren’t a military power anymore and haven’t been for a while . It’s an honest statement. As much as I think her words are a bit misplaced she isn’t wrong in this case.

That doesn’t mean we can’t contribute. But let’s be honest about what we can actually do with what we have. And it isn’t that much in the grand scheme.

We lament that we are under equipped, under manned and lack capabilities and that the cupboard is worse than bare and yet when someone points it out we get offended.

I take her comments as a good sign that maybe, finally the gvt is actually admitting that we can’t do as much on the military side of things instead of saying a bunch of BS about how we are more than capable and that we contribute our share blah blah. The first step is admitting we have a problem and fix it.

Her statement and Anand saying that maybe we need to aggressively start increasing our defence spending and commitments is a sign that maybe a new narrative on defence spending is coming.

Like most, I’ll believe it when I see it but at least the gvt isn’t living in denial or trying to convince Canadians that everything in defence is all fine and dandy.
I agree with your assessment, but I don't see how it follows from her statement.

Saying "Canada is not a military power and that's that" is a fatalistic argument against increased military spending, not a call to action, far from it.

And those examples of military deployments I provided... Of course they're in "the past"!

The military is an insurance policy. You don't call up your insurance broker when you're about to crash your car! Just like you don't cancel your insurance after the crash.

It takes years, decades to build a strong military, ready to respond to threats.

We are a degraded military power only because she and her friends have let it degrade.
 
Canada was a second if not third rate military power prior to WW1 and WW2, yet look what we accomplished in both of those wars. Maybe I’m wrong but I think Ministers Freeland and Anand are strong Believers in having a strong military.
 
The state of Canada's military capability doesn't just happen. It is a consequence of what federal governments did or left undone. If it is unsatisfactory, it can be made satisfactory. All that lacks is political will and some clear thinking.
 
The military is an insurance policy. You don't call up your insurance broker when you're about to crash your car! Just like you don't cancel your insurance after the crash.

It takes years, decades to build a strong military, ready to respond to threats.
I broadly agree with the idea but I find the "insurance" analogy too simplistic. Our issues aren't just limited to funding DND/CAF, but what we do with the money already given.

Canada was a second if not third rate military power prior to WW1 and WW2, yet look what we accomplished in both of those wars.
Yes, but the tech level was very different. Today's combat systems are so advanced that we can't roll out aircraft, ships, and tanks at the same rates as we did in WWII.
 
As I stated earlier, unfortunately the Russo-Ukranian has to be the event that is finally rousing the Great Reset crew from their slumber.

We have reaped the harvest of over 30 years of relative peace and security; but now it's time to beat the ploughshares into swords. At least some of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ueo
The state of Canada's military capability doesn't just happen. It is a consequence of what federal governments did or left undone. If it is unsatisfactory, it can be made satisfactory. All that lacks is political will and some clear thinking.
It seems to me that the invasion of Ukraine has made Canadians increasingly aware of the importance of having a strong and capable military. Hopefully our politicians will stop dithering.
 
Back
Top