• 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.
 
Hmmmm with all the other areas divested or let rot in the CAF the forces are still in the Parachute business?

I would understand SAR, pilots, aircrew but then jumping infantry is something to think we need? Helicopter airborne I still get( but then the VDV is not covering themselves in glory either) but jumping not so more today. Horse borne cavalry of the 21 century.

Pilots are aircrew.

Aircrew do not train parachuting much if at all.
 
I'd like to get one of those. My sister-in-law's husband had to punch out of a CF-104 when it decided it had flown enough for the day.

🍻
He should have got one when he became a member of the club, not long after the incident Also the Safety Systems tech that packed the chute gets one. I had a childhood friend who was a pilot. Put his VooDoo into the Pacific. Both him and his Scope Wizard as well as the SS tech in my shop got caterpillars.
 
He should have got one when he became a member of the club, not long after the incident Also the Safety Systems tech that packed the chute gets one. I had a childhood friend who was a pilot. Put his VooDoo into the Pacific. Both him and his Scope Wizard as well as the SS tech in my shop got caterpillars.
I'll have to ask him. I never knew this existed.

🍻
 
It's like he follows this forum ;)

More than a decade ago, the army had a plan to rebuild. It went nowhere​

Canada is still standing in line for equipment it planned to buy 12 years ago​


Ottawa is a city of plans. Many plans. Sometimes you find there are plans to have a plan. But as the old Scottish poem says, "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men often go awry."

More than a decade ago, as Canada's war in Afghanistan was grinding to its conclusion, a plan was drawn up to rebuild, refresh and re-equip the army for the future.

It withered and died over several years — a victim of changing defence fashions, budgets, inter-service and inter-departmental bureaucratic warfare and political indifference.

Parts of the plan were resurrected, but in true bureaucratic fashion, those elements have languished somewhere in the dark recesses of the Department of National Defence and Public Services and Procurement Canada.

Several of the key weapons systems in the 2010 plan — ground-based air defence, modern anti-tank systems and long-range artillery — are among the items the Liberal government is now urgently trying to buy, just as other allied nations also scramble to arm themselves against a resurgent Russia.

In November, a senior defence planner told a conference that it could take up to 18 months to land some of the less complex items on Ottawa's wish list. In the meantime, Canadian troops in Latvia staring across the border at a wounded, unpredictable Russian Army will have to make do — or rely on allies.

 
It's like he follows this forum ;)

More than a decade ago, the army had a plan to rebuild. It went nowhere​

Canada is still standing in line for equipment it planned to buy 12 years ago​


Ottawa is a city of plans. Many plans. Sometimes you find there are plans to have a plan. But as the old Scottish poem says, "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men often go awry."

More than a decade ago, as Canada's war in Afghanistan was grinding to its conclusion, a plan was drawn up to rebuild, refresh and re-equip the army for the future.

It withered and died over several years — a victim of changing defence fashions, budgets, inter-service and inter-departmental bureaucratic warfare and political indifference.

Parts of the plan were resurrected, but in true bureaucratic fashion, those elements have languished somewhere in the dark recesses of the Department of National Defence and Public Services and Procurement Canada.

Several of the key weapons systems in the 2010 plan — ground-based air defence, modern anti-tank systems and long-range artillery — are among the items the Liberal government is now urgently trying to buy, just as other allied nations also scramble to arm themselves against a resurgent Russia.

In November, a senior defence planner told a conference that it could take up to 18 months to land some of the less complex items on Ottawa's wish list. In the meantime, Canadian troops in Latvia staring across the border at a wounded, unpredictable Russian Army will have to make do — or rely on allies.

Leslie is right on two counts:
  • "Liberals and Conservatives both have found a neat trick of telling Canadians that they are increasing defence spending, that the capabilities are on the horizon, but then somehow never getting around to fine-tuning the various procurement systems so that the money gets out the door;" and
  • On the issue of readiness and Gen (ret'd )Lawson's contention that Gen Eyre 'was simply doing his job and advocating for the military,' "The world is now much more dangerous than it's been at any other time during my lifetime ... Far more dangerous than the Cold War. So I believe Gen. Eyre's comments are balanced and reasonable, and I think general Lawson is completely and utterly wrong."
But Gen Lawson is correct to note that it is the government of the day, NOT the defence establishment, that decides what Canada needs. Gen Eyre's advice is offered and received ... and then treated as just one - not always either important or even trusted - factor in a complex political equation.

When, as I agree with Andrew Leslie there exists today, a very dangerous strategic situation we hope that we can see something like the first image: when we have a dangerous situation the public becomes aware and will, sooner or later, tell their elected representatives too take action. But, history - not just Canadian history - says that doesn't happen too often. More often we need some "actors" to make the blue arrow into reality (second image).

Now, the leaders who warn of danger are not rare; Churchill was not sui generis; people like him have existed for centuries, for sure, even for millennia. But, very often, they are "voices in the wilderness." What is needed is an amplifier for the voices of the political leader and his team. That is the role of the opinion makers - the bards and minstrels in ancient times, the pamphleteers in the 18th century and the media and the "chattering classes," today.

I'm going to argue that Churchill had that in 1938/39 and again in the 1950s; Truman, in the 1940s, and Eisenhower, St Laurent and Menzies in the 1950s had it, too. I suspect that Canada may have had the right leaders in the early 2000s but there was almost no-one to amplify their voice, and there still isn't. The "chattering classes" are almost totally unified in their reaction to any warnings ... third image.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2023-01-07 at 13.12.15.png
    Screenshot 2023-01-07 at 13.12.15.png
    161.3 KB · Views: 12
  • Screenshot 2023-01-07 at 13.14.27.png
    Screenshot 2023-01-07 at 13.14.27.png
    284.7 KB · Views: 13
  • lalala.png
    lalala.png
    135.8 KB · Views: 12
I doubt the world is more dangerous in military terms. At one time some believed that if the Warsaw Pact chose to attack, we'd be forced to use tactical nuclear weapons within a few days, and still might fail. Now the Warsaw Pact is gone and we believe that Russia is barely capable of invading eastern Ukraine. I'd be surprised if any "war games" situated anywhere resulted in commanders begging for authority to release tactical nukes.

If the world is more dangerous, I'd list the likely contenders for blame as biologists first, AI researchers second, and climate engineering enthusiasts third.
 
I doubt the world is more dangerous in military terms. At one time some believed that if the Warsaw Pact chose to attack, we'd be forced to use tactical nuclear weapons within a few days, and still might fail. Now the Warsaw Pact is gone and we believe that Russia is barely capable of invading eastern Ukraine. I'd be surprised if any "war games" situated anywhere resulted in commanders begging for authority to release tactical nukes.

If the world is more dangerous, I'd list the likely contenders for blame as biologists first, AI researchers second, and climate engineering enthusiasts third.
I think the danger of East Asia exploding into a full blown nuclear war is at least as serious as NATO vs WP in the 1950s and '60s.
 
Leslie is right on two counts:
  • "Liberals and Conservatives both have found a neat trick of telling Canadians that they are increasing defence spending, that the capabilities are on the horizon, but then somehow never getting around to fine-tuning the various procurement systems so that the money gets out the door;" and
  • On the issue of readiness and Gen (ret'd )Lawson's contention that Gen Eyre 'was simply doing his job and advocating for the military,' "The world is now much more dangerous than it's been at any other time during my lifetime ... Far more dangerous than the Cold War. So I believe Gen. Eyre's comments are balanced and reasonable, and I think general Lawson is completely and utterly wrong."
But Gen Lawson is correct to note that it is the government of the day, NOT the defence establishment, that decides what Canada needs. Gen Eyre's advice is offered and received ... and then treated as just one - not always either important or even trusted - factor in a complex political equation.

When, as I agree with Andrew Leslie there exists today, a very dangerous strategic situation we hope that we can see something like the first image: when we have a dangerous situation the public becomes aware and will, sooner or later, tell their elected representatives too take action. But, history - not just Canadian history - says that doesn't happen too often. More often we need some "actors" to make the blue arrow into reality (second image).

Now, the leaders who warn of danger are not rare; Churchill was not sui generis; people like him have existed for centuries, for sure, even for millennia. But, very often, they are "voices in the wilderness." What is needed is an amplifier for the voices of the political leader and his team. That is the role of the opinion makers - the bards and minstrels in ancient times, the pamphleteers in the 18th century and the media and the "chattering classes," today.

I'm going to argue that Churchill had that in 1938/39 and again in the 1950s; Truman, in the 1940s, and Eisenhower, St Laurent and Menzies in the 1950s had it, too. I suspect that Canada may have had the right leaders in the early 2000s but there was almost no-one to amplify their voice, and there still isn't. The "chattering classes" are almost totally unified in their reaction to any warnings ... third image.

As we've noted before - this Canada is not the Canada of even the Cold War, much less WW2 and WW1.

A diminishing portion of the population feels any direct ties to Europe, let alone France and the United Kingdom. A good chunk of our population has arrived here since 1970 and they didn't come here because of the weather. In many cases Canada was seen as the safest place on the planet and a place where money could be made.

Soldiering just doesn't come into it.
 
In many cases Canada was seen as the safest place on the planet and a place where money could be made.
…which will ramp up as it becomes the planet’s first post-nation (vassal) state, just like Fils Trudeau prognosticates…he and his cabal team members just don’t appreciate that they’re going to be handing Canada over to Uncle Sam as the Vassal Overlord…
 
I'd like to get one of those. My sister-in-law's husband had to punch out of a CF-104 when it decided it had flown enough for the day.

🍻
Tell us more! Did he make it ok? What happened?
 
…which will ramp up as it becomes the planet’s first post-nation (vassal) state, just like Fils Trudeau prognosticates…he and his cabal team members just don’t appreciate that they’re going to be handing Canada over to Uncle Sam as the Vassal Overlord…

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords." - Benjamin Franklin

I imagine a lot of the folks who come here seeking refuge and potential prosperity would say the same. My family lost everything in the Old Country first to Mussolini, then the Nazis, then the Allies confiscated what was left because "well everyone here is a Fascist so...." Canada was a place where people were protected and free.

I imagine for as many immigrants that came to Canada to enjoy a seat at that table, there are just as many that know how easily that table gets flipped when you don't have someone there protecting it.

I have met many folks in my years in uniform from former Soviet nations, Warsaw Pact, Iran, the Middle Eaat, Korea, and all over Africa that have held strong the belief that "if not me, who else?"

I find the most reluctant of Canadians when it comes to anything military are those that stand the most to lose from a weakened Canada; the wealthiest and most powerful, who conversely lobby and set policy for these governments that favour stimulus over security.

It's mind boggling to be honest.
 
It is…until you consider they are protecting their interests with constructs that are not directly threatened by potential adversaries’ influences (consider the mix of the Power Corp.’s investments…not in Canada, etc.). The middle class and below Canadians have a dependence to the good faith trust they place in those in power, but the reciprocity of respect to the rank and file of Canadian society by the power brokers/political masters is quite reasonably questioned…
 
The "chattering classes" are almost totally unified in their reaction to any warnings ... third image.
They are too busy talking about Danielle Smith and the Sovereignty Act, Doug Ford and the Green Belt, a myriad of other provincial topics the feds are sticking their fingers into, or staring into the US Craziness to be bothered looking North/East or West at what the world is up to.
 
Written by:
Robert Smol is a retired military intelligence officer who served in the Canadian Armed Forces for more than 20 years. He is completing a PhD in military history.


I would argue that every decision to purchase the Frigates, F18s, and CP 140 were brought about because the current gear (Steamers, Starfighters, and Argus's) were so worn out something had to be done and the absolute minimum (after a lot of kicking and screaming) was acquired.
 
He should have got one when he became a member of the club, not long after the incident Also the Safety Systems tech that packed the chute gets one. I had a childhood friend who was a pilot. Put his VooDoo into the Pacific. Both him and his Scope Wizard as well as the SS tech in my shop got caterpillars.
I've heard back from him and he says that he got a lovely club membership card and a gold caterpillar pin from Irvin Company. He added that he was quite happy to receive them "in person". The landing was not silky smooth and somewhat abrupt as the chute did not have much time to open from the altitude he was at.

:giggle:
 
Back
Top