• 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.
 
The difference is, if our chicken coop shits the bed - everyone is FUBAR.

We share a land border - it is much easier to get stuff to Canada in a time of need that way - as opposed to getting stuff from Europe.

I think the concern is more that political games could see us denied access to support and parts. A softwood lumber dispute could turn into no more spares for any of our kit as a way to force us to do what the USA wants.
 
has anyone really examined the toll in hardware in Ukraine? Our entire purchase order of new aircraft would now be so much scrap metal if we were engaged in any kind of peer war.
We have no near peer threats in our hemisphere. Anything combat we do won't be unilateral or local unless Newfoundland and Labrador decide that Joey Smallwood was wrong in 1949 and secede.
 
We have no near peer threats in our hemisphere. Anything combat we do won't be unilateral or local unless Newfoundland and Labrador decide that Joey Smallwood was wrong in 1949 and secede.
On the other hand Haggis, an M72 or the Russian RPG-18 would make a very bad day for a Mountie patrol car.

The downside of all of this effective manportable gear means that you don't have bring Tanks into Canada to disrupt the functioning of government and civil life.

C4, M72s, AT4s, NLAWs and Stingers in the hands of small bands could really do a number on Canada's economy.
 
The eastern most part of Russia lies In the Western Hemisphere. I know it’s a cheap shit- but our house is no longer fireproof
 
We don't have the personnel to keep our dwindling fighter force flying as it is, ramming more aircraft, of different type no less, into the bases won't do anything. We need to retain, rebuild and recruit, this will take years and Billions. We can double the amount of people in the CAF, but there won't be anywhere to house them. Building new housing is just as important as purchasing new toys.
Actually that has me taking a different tack again. I think we have enough PYs already, just badly distributed. Currently we're understrength so obviously recruiting to get back up to strength is necessary. I would be very hesitant to increase PYs until we've thoroughly examined and enabled our reserve force with equipment and training and proper employer/employee legislation.

All that more PYs do is add more annually recurring expenses which will once again limit the funding of the equipment and O&M components.

My approach is that all new dollars should go into equipping the whole force, Reg and Res, which will double the size of the Army's capabilities. The one PY exception that I would make is adding the necessary PYs to maintain the new equipment and that existing equipment that is currently being inadequately maintained.

Basically I firmly believe that our RegF is big enough to meet Canada's peacetime obligations. What we need to work on is Canada's ability to surge and sustain the size of its force in an emergency. That is fundamentally a ResF function. We need a well organized, trained, equipped and led ResF - that should be our priority.

One thing that I would stop immediately is the divestment of older equipment. You can't grow a force if you are constantly divesting item A and replacing it with the same number, or less, of item B. Much of this equipment should go into reserve stock (and yest here is a maintenance cost involved with that). We're currently looking at divesting perfectly serviceable Bisons and TLAVs while we have a ResF with no equipment. Rather than looking at a way to maintain them, we're tossing them. I have similar thoughts about the F-18s. It costs billions to bring a new aircraft fleet on line while one could also maintain an old fleet for tens or several hundreds of millions if one built in the maintenance structure and and properly organized the reserve component to operate them like the Air National Guard. They may not be the newest thing but they would be an additional capability when the shit hits the fan.

🍻
 
We have no near peer threats in our hemisphere. Anything combat we do won't be unilateral or local unless Newfoundland and Labrador decide that Joey Smallwood was wrong in 1949 and secede.
Hm? If the Newfies so decided, and the Feds wanted to force them back in, you can count me out!
 
1647798787459.png1647798884589.png

What were you saying about PYs?

The solution first presented itself in the Diefenbaker era with the 700 km BOMARC.
However that required a nuclear warhead due to lack of precision.

Kratos now offers the 2600 km Mako and the 3400 km Valkyrie that can be launched from fixed bases like the BOMARC and the existing line of Kratos drones.

1647799466598.png



 
View attachment 69596View attachment 69597

What were you saying about PYs?

The solution first presented itself in the Diefenbaker era with the 700 km BOMARC.
However that required a nuclear warhead due to lack of precision.

Kratos now offers the 2600 km Mako and the 3400 km Valkyrie that can be launched from fixed bases like the BOMARC and the existing line of Kratos drones.

View attachment 69598




I'll say that despite the glossy brochure, none of those aircraft (Loyal Wingman, the Kratos products, Project Mosquito in the UK, etc) are anywhere near production ready.

In 10 years? Maybe.
 
Actually that has me taking a different tack again. I think we have enough PYs already, just badly distributed. Currently we're understrength so obviously recruiting to get back up to strength is necessary. I would be very hesitant to increase PYs until we've thoroughly examined and enabled our reserve force with equipment and training and proper employer/employee legislation.

All that more PYs do is add more annually recurring expenses which will once again limit the funding of the equipment and O&M components.

My approach is that all new dollars should go into equipping the whole force, Reg and Res, which will double the size of the Army's capabilities. The one PY exception that I would make is adding the necessary PYs to maintain the new equipment and that existing equipment that is currently being inadequately maintained.

Basically I firmly believe that our RegF is big enough to meet Canada's peacetime obligations. What we need to work on is Canada's ability to surge and sustain the size of its force in an emergency. That is fundamentally a ResF function. We need a well organized, trained, equipped and led ResF - that should be our priority.

One thing that I would stop immediately is the divestment of older equipment. You can't grow a force if you are constantly divesting item A and replacing it with the same number, or less, of item B. Much of this equipment should go into reserve stock (and yest here is a maintenance cost involved with that). We're currently looking at divesting perfectly serviceable Bisons and TLAVs while we have a ResF with no equipment. Rather than looking at a way to maintain them, we're tossing them. I have similar thoughts about the F-18s. It costs billions to bring a new aircraft fleet on line while one could also maintain an old fleet for tens or several hundreds of millions if one built in the maintenance structure and and properly organized the reserve component to operate them like the Air National Guard. They may not be the newest thing but they would be an additional capability when the shit hits the fan.

🍻

I'll say that despite the glossy brochure, none of those aircraft (Loyal Wingman, the Kratos products, Project Mosquito in the UK, etc) are anywhere near production ready.

In 10 years? Maybe.
I'll take that bet. 2 years.

And the Turks or Israelis will be first.
 
I'll take that bet. 2 years.

And the Turks or Israelis will be first.
It's always those guys!

How does Israel do procurement? Naturally, military issues are much more pressing and critical to them, but if we can import some good ideas that'd be great...
 
How does Israel do procurement? Naturally, military issues are much more pressing and critical to them, but if we can import some good ideas that'd be great...
They make damn near everything at home. What isn't made at home, the US provides because of their geopolitical location.
 
It's always those guys!

How does Israel do procurement? Naturally, military issues are much more pressing and critical to them, but if we can import some good ideas that'd be great...
They get a slew of kit from us.
They developed things for their needs that doesn’t alway make sense for the rest of us.

But they have been surrounded by enemies since the creation of Israel, so they had a little bit of focus.

IMHO most of Israeli kit isn’t a great choice for Western ‘Expeditionary’ Forces.
 
Also: "Don't you know there's a war on!"

Yes, they will beg, borrow and steal whatever they can get their hands on to protect themselves.

Their first priority is devising methods to eliminate threats. Even if inefficiently.
Their next priority is to make their kit more efficient.
Their third priority is to accommodate Civil Airspace Rules. - If they accommodate them at all. They can always do what Ukraine has done and shut down the airspace.

As to the 10 years - that was then, this is now.
Consider 5 years during WW2.
Consider 5 years at the beginning of the Cold War.

I don't believe adding TB2 software, or even Hero-120 software, to a Kratos Target Drone is beyond the capability of either the Turks or the Israelis. Or for that matter the Swedes, Finns, Poles, Ukrainians, Iranians, Indians or Chinese. Or Singapore or Taiwan. Or Japan or Korea.

And one F35 will by you 30 or more of the Mako/Valkyrie beasts. Lots of opportunities to experiment and losses won't break the bank.

Definitely not 10 years.

Congress might hold things up for 10 years. Canada for 20 years or so. But not the rest of the world.
 
We don't have the personnel to keep our dwindling fighter force flying as it is, ramming more aircraft, of different type no less, into the bases won't do anything. We need to retain, rebuild and recruit, this will take years and Billions. We can double the amount of people in the CAF, but there won't be anywhere to house them. Building new housing is just as important as purchasing new toys.
absolutely agree, but you had better have the other products on order because lead time is measured in years and years. Decide what is needed, start the recruitment programme to operate it, order the gear, start your training programme. That is the sequence that needs to be followed. Oh, and one last thing, stop with the wringing of hands in despair.
 
On the other hand Haggis, an M72 or the Russian RPG-18 would make a very bad day for a Mountie patrol car.
Is this meant to infer that we are capable only of seeing an insurgency or terrorist attack as "near peer"?
The downside of all of this effective manportable gear means that you don't have bring Tanks into Canada to disrupt the functioning of government and civil life.
All you need is big trucks and a bouncy castle or two, apparently
C4, M72s, AT4s, NLAWs and Stingers in the hands of small bands could really do a number on Canada's economy.
The possession of which - except for the C4 - has been banned under the May 1st, 2020 OIC... no one would dare!
 
Is this meant to infer that we are capable only of seeing an insurgency or terrorist attack as "near peer"?

No. Not at all. Just that the quality of the threat continues to evolve and may require a different range of responses.

All you need is big trucks and a bouncy castle or two, apparently

:D

The possession of which - except for the C4 - has been banned under the May 1st, 2020 OIC... no one would dare!

Sorry. Forgot. Canada. No lawbreakers here.
 
Back
Top