• 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.
 
Nobody in the US Government votes in Canadian elections, so does this matter to the Liberals? No.

Similarly, although Trudeau is still getting bashed in the EU following his speech last month, the Liberals don't care as no members of the EU parliament vote in Canadian elections, either.
True statements.

Here's to hoping the the US, the UK, Germans, Dutch, Danes, Poles and anyone/everyone else calls us out during the June NATO meeting and seats us with Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Hungary, Luxembourg, Iceland and Greece during the discussions and photo ops.
 
I'm sure that some of you have already read this info


Canada’s defence spending ‘likely wasn’t enough’ for America’s liking​

Still just RUMINT, but:

1. The amount that the MND/DM put forward was something like 10 to 15 times what the Finance Minister promised in the budget and that ($60-$90B) is what the Americans guess we should be investing in North American defence.

2. It's not all just for NORAD. Despite the fact that the Americans don't accept all of our clams to all of our Arctic waterways they believe that we ~ not they ~ should have bases, ships and so on up there, doing the job as part of a coordinated (combined) continental defence system.

3. The Americans would welcome us into their continental ballistic missile defence system ... at what amount to being fire-sale prices because the system will work better if our airspace is part of it. But even they understand that combined systems ~ like NORAD, like BMD ~ erode our sovereignty because Canada will never be a fully equal partner; we will always be the junior partner. They understand that and they understand that Canadian nationalists don't like that. But, when push comes to shove, they will not hesitate to invoke the diplomatic/strategic equivalent of force majeure.
 
Still just RUMINT, but:

1. The amount that the MND/DM put forward was something like 10 to 15 times what the Finance Minister promised in the budget and that ($60-$90B) is what the Americans guess we should be investing in North American defence.

2. It's not all just for NORAD. Despite the fact that the Americans don't accept all of our clams to all of our Arctic waterways they believe that we ~ not they ~ should have bases, ships and so on up there, doing the job as part of a coordinated (combined) continental defence system.

3. The Americans would welcome us into their continental ballistic missile defence system ... at what amount to being fire-sale prices because the system will work better if our airspace is part of it. But even they understand that combined systems ~ like NORAD, like BMD ~ erode our sovereignty because Canada will never be a fully equal partner; we will always be the junior partner. They understand that and they understand that Canadian nationalists don't like that. But, when push comes to shove, they will not hesitate to invoke the diplomatic/strategic equivalent of force majeure.

when push comes to shove, they will not hesitate to invoke the diplomatic/strategic equivalent of force majeure.

See Also - Prince Rupert, AlCan Highway, Argentia, Goose Bay, Iqaluit, Eureka, Alert, Pine Tree, DEW and North Warning,
 
Still just RUMINT, but:

1. The amount that the MND/DM put forward was something like 10 to 15 times what the Finance Minister promised in the budget and that ($60-$90B) is what the Americans guess we should be investing in North American defence.

2. It's not all just for NORAD. Despite the fact that the Americans don't accept all of our clams to all of our Arctic waterways they believe that we ~ not they ~ should have bases, ships and so on up there, doing the job as part of a coordinated (combined) continental defence system.

3. The Americans would welcome us into their continental ballistic missile defence system ... at what amount to being fire-sale prices because the system will work better if our airspace is part of it. But even they understand that combined systems ~ like NORAD, like BMD ~ erode our sovereignty because Canada will never be a fully equal partner; we will always be the junior partner. They understand that and they understand that Canadian nationalists don't like that. But, when push comes to shove, they will not hesitate to invoke the diplomatic/strategic equivalent of force majeure.
1) The DM said that she was putting forward 3 funding proposals, what I would label, the 'Porridge' approach. The first being 'too hot', the second being 'just right' and the last being 'too cold'. I have zero way of knowing this, but I suspect you're RUMINT under your #1 is the 'too hot' approach. Put out some WAG for all those hawks that exist here in Canada and say, 'look, this is how much we were looking to spend and to try to make us an actual player once again, but XXXX wouldn't let us.'

2) If we had real assets on the ground (or Mukluks in the snow) throughout the Arctic 12 months of the year, it would gain credence and some respect from the US (and UK/Danes/Norwegians - the recent offer by the UK to 'help' us defend/patrol the Arctic is a perfect example). Stationing SAR bases/resources allocated for covering NWT/NT/Yukon thousands of KM in the south doesn't really say that we take that area seriously. And its not just the Far North that these lack of resources hold true or, the over-relying on the US. When I was growing up back in Windsor and would be out fishing/boating/sailing on Lake St. Clair, the Detroit River or the western basin of the Lake Erie, I knew, as did everyone else on those waters, that if help/rescue was needed that 9/10 times it would come from the USCG helo's or Cutters coming from Belle Isle, Toledo, St Clair Shores or Selfridges ANG, it wouldn't be the CCG coming over the horizon or a Griffon coming from Trenton.

3) When have we ever been an equal partner to anyone? It's never occurred.
In the past it was due to tiny population and being significantly poorer than our Allies, while currently it's still a small population (when compared to US/UK/France/Germany/Spain/Italy) and less testicular fortitude to pony up on the costs related to actually being a legitimate 'middle power'. It doesn't help our cause with the Americans when it seems to be fair game for the Federal Liberal party to throw stones at the US's house glass house every single time they get the chance. The exact same can be said about our media. It's a national past time to beat our chests and say how much better we are then them. This totally comes from an inferiority complex that a significant portion of Canadians have had since just after the days of Confederation when the US well and truly started to massively outperform us economically.

Do I have the answers? No, not even close. But reconstituting the CAF, through greater involvement politically, economically and asset backing in NORAD and NATO can only help our case. Its close, very close to the point that continuing to do what we do will be the end of this country's world standing.

My Grandfather used to say to me when I was a small boy, 'It's easy to destroy something, but to try and rebuild it, that takes years and years and in the end, it may never happen.'
 
My Grandfather used to say to me when I was a small boy, 'It's easy to destroy something, but to try and rebuild it, that takes years and years and in the end, it may never happen.'
This may be where we are reputationally…I fear we are at a point where Canada won’t ever be taken as seriously again as we were in the past when we were a true middle power…up until…oh….say 1968….
 
Still just RUMINT, but:

1. The amount that the MND/DM put forward was something like 10 to 15 times what the Finance Minister promised in the budget and that ($60-$90B) is what the Americans guess we should be investing in North American defence.

2. It's not all just for NORAD. Despite the fact that the Americans don't accept all of our clams to all of our Arctic waterways they believe that we ~ not they ~ should have bases, ships and so on up there, doing the job as part of a coordinated (combined) continental defence system.

3. The Americans would welcome us into their continental ballistic missile defence system ... at what amount to being fire-sale prices because the system will work better if our airspace is part of it. But even they understand that combined systems ~ like NORAD, like BMD ~ erode our sovereignty because Canada will never be a fully equal partner; we will always be the junior partner. They understand that and they understand that Canadian nationalists don't like that. But, when push comes to shove, they will not hesitate to invoke the diplomatic/strategic equivalent of force majeure.
Partner (junior) or slave -- pick one...
 
See Also - Prince Rupert, AlCan Highway, Argentia, Goose Bay, Iqaluit, Eureka, Alert, Pine Tree, DEW and North Warning,
Forgot one...

Kuujjuaq - another WW2 development by the US. A weather station.
 
The HBC factories and forts for 300 years. The Norwegians and Danes around 1900. The USAF from the 1940s to 1980s.

Have the southern settlers ever shown any interest in the Arctic?
 
It's almost like you're a chartered professional accountant or something 😁

I'm sure you can get hired for $200.00 an hour as a consultant to advise them on the way forward.

They won't take your advice and will discard the report as soon as it's produced. Such is life in the GoC 😁

Kinda like they already ignore it even though it's departmental direction? $400/hr is the going rate, minimum charge of $1000. Ironically I'd be telling them exactly what's already written in the FAM on S.34 where it clearly shows finance staff are supposed to manage payables.............. see attachment, 5th column.

I remember when in AP my involvement with supply and contracts was making sure there was a valid contract and all the authorities were in place before paying the invoice.

That's part of it... ensure EIA/S.32 is on the file, ensure a valid contract is in place*, confirm receipt of goods/services is there, and then do the account verification, sign S.34, and pay it. Amongst that is verifying that segregation of duties was exercised.... like I had said, the person doing this should be the SME on the expenditure management process (not contracting itself). That's really it for 99% of transactions.

*This just means checking to see that the person who authorized the contract (signed the contract) has a valid DOA to do so. Not deep diving into the contract file checking for quotes and all that jazz..... that's the G4's job.... although there is arguably a place for a G8-type to do so, it's definitely not for an A/P clerk to do.

I was actually surprised to see in our doctrine that in the Brigade's Fin Pl which owns all the FSAs (oh yeah, where's that at? Instead we farmed out 3x FSAs per unit like the donkeys we are) there is a contracting section and technical oversight of contracting was a task for the Fin Pl. Not really sure what that means or if I agree with it, but I suppose it doesn't matter since we don't have any Finance Pls.
 

Attachments

  • 1649722210634.png
    1649722210634.png
    139.2 KB · Views: 6
I wonder if the Abrams or other NATO tanks, with or without their reactive armour, would have fared much better than their Russian counterparts. Are they like the battleships today? Sitting ducks for the Russian or Chinese equivalent of an NLAW or Stinger?
 
I wonder if the Abrams or other NATO tanks, with or without their reactive armour, would have fared much better than their Russian counterparts. Are they like the battleships today? Sitting ducks for the Russian or Chinese equivalent of an NLAW or Stinger?
Tough question to answer. There’s design features of T72 and T80 that seem to be making k kills more likely, but there’s also some horrific tactical decisions being made that play into the hands of the Ukranians.
 
Easy question to answer.
NATO tanks (Abrams, Leo and Challenger current variants) have 1) better armor (composite and extremely dense materials), 2) Insensitivity munitions, so with a significant impact they don’t detonate (unlike the T series turret launching munitions) 3) Have venting ammo storage so even a ammo detonation of the ammo rack won’t K kill the tank
4) Better VAS and FCS to allow targets to be viewed and selected at longer ranges.
 
Back
Top