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

NATO response to Russian sabre rattling

Since the soviet days Russia has used military production to boost it's economy, however the Russian federations more hostile posturing will lead to a larger conflict if it continues, Georgia, and Ukraine were very much tests for russian equipment, training, and tactics, and they have learned.
 
I would be sad to see a punch up between the Russians and the West.  I would rather a joint effort against the common enemies such as Daesh.
 
Might want to start stocking up on ATGMs.
 
NATO chief makes personal pitch for Canada to join Baltic force to deter Russia


While Canada is facing a lot of international arm-twisting to join a NATO brigade destined for Eastern Europe, sources are telling CBC News the Trudeau government is hesitating over concerns participation could detract from future peacekeeping missions.

The military alliance's top official, Jens Stoltenberg, said it's imperative Western nations respond to "a more dangerous security environment" involving Russia in Eastern Europe.

"I'm glad to see Canada is among several NATO allies which are considering to contribute to this forward presence," Stoltenberg, said in an exclusive interview on CBC News Network's Power & Politics on Thursday.

He noted that Ottawa has already supplied CF-18 fighter jets for Baltic air policing, a frigate as part of NATO's standing force patrolling the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea, as well as a company of soldiers for training exercises in Poland.

"We are very grateful for the contributions from Canada, which we [have] already received, but we would welcome even more," Stoltenberg told CBC.

In the aftermath of Russia's annexation of Crimea two years ago, NATO leaders agreed to expand their multinational rapid reaction force to include up to 40,000 troops, who would be on notice to move within a week of a crisis. They also announced plans to create an ultra-mobile brigade of 4,000 soldiers that could get to trouble spots within a couple of days.

Canada was recently asked to provide troops and lead one of the four battalions that make up the contingent, but the Trudeau government has yet to formally sign off on the proposal.

The soldiers would likely be stationed in the Baltic, but other Eastern European nations have apparently indicated their willingness to host the brigade.
Personal pitch

Stoltenberg made a personal pitch to Canadian Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan in a telephone call last week, according to the sources who have knowledge of the file, but could not speak publicly because of the sensitivity of the matter.

The proposal, which has apparently been endorsed by Sajjan, was up for discussion at a cabinet sub-committee but has not been given the government's full blessing.

Concern seems to revolve around the Liberal promise in the last election to put more emphasis on peacekeeping.

Behind closed doors, the suggestion is that tying the army into a NATO engagement involving several hundred troops might prevent the government from taking on a potential United Nations mission in French West Africa.

The sources said senior military commanders have indicated they can do both and that involvement with NATO would only last up to nine months.

The army already has one company of soldiers — just over 150 — training in Eastern Europe and the thinking is it would not be too hard to add an additional company and a headquarters unit.

Despite that, skepticism remains on the political side with some pointing out the last time the alliance asked for a short-term commitment (in Kandahar), it turned into a five-year combat mission, with an additional 2½-year training detachment in Kabul.
Caution justified

The political apprehension is well founded, said Steve Saideman, an international affairs professor at Ottawa's Carleton University.

"Anybody who is saying this is temporary is missing the boat," said Saideman, an expert on NATO.

By creating the brigade, NATO's intention is to establish a "persistent" presence in Eastern Europe in order to hold Russia at bay. It is reassuring jittery allies, many of them new members of the alliance and former East Bloc countries.

Whatever countries agree to in the coming weeks, it should be understood it will be for the "foreseeable future," he said.

Saideman also added that the Liberal government put a lot of emphasis in last fall's election on winning a UN Security Council seat and a commitment to NATO "doesn't move the needle" on that endeavour.

The final troop commitments will be revealed at the upcoming leaders summit in Warsaw, Stoltenberg said.

"This is a very strong and firm response, but it is also a measured response. We don't want a new Cold War. We don't want to provoke a conflict, but we want to prevent the conflict. That's exactly what we are doing."
Defence spending

Under the Harper government, Canada came in for a tongue-lashing on the issue of defence spending. Following the Afghan war, the budget for National Defence was trimmed — leaving the country spending approximately one per cent of its gross domestic product on the military — or about half the NATO benchmark.

"I've told Canada the same as I've told all other allies, who are spending less than two per cent. We have to stop the cuts and we gradually have to increase the defence spending," Stoltenberg told CBC News.

"Canada has actually stopped the cuts and I welcome that very much."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nato-canada-stoltenberg-1.3639014
 
MilEME09 said:
NATO chief makes personal pitch for Canada to join Baltic force
And with badge man LGen Hainse off to NATO HQ Brussels this summer as Canadian Military Representative, it all falls into place (except of course, it doesn't fit in with the PMs mythologized vision of peacekeeping)
 
Campaign promises get in the way of real world issues again. Oh to be able to hide my head in the sand like Trudeau.
 
PuckChaser said:
Campaign promises get in the way of real world issues again. Oh to be able to hide my head in the sand like Trudeau.
Hey, I think we are missing something here.

Trudeau is looking to send troops overseas in one capacity or another. I for one cannot wait, and don't care which.
 
Altair said:
Hey, I think we are missing something here.

Trudeau is looking to send troops overseas in one capacity or another. I for one cannot wait, and don't care which.
This.

This is a perfect example of what plagues this country: the vast majority of the general public doesn't care about foreign policy, and knows even less about it.  They are too busy keeping up with the Kardashians to actually care about boring stuff like Canada's strategic interests or insisting the government makes a considered and informed decision when sending men and women into harms way.

I am really struggling to see how a deployment to West Africa furthers those interests. 

Remember that meme from years ago, the pic of the troops on patrol, with the caption "Canada isn't at war.  These guys are at war.  Canada is at the mall."

Your post is that meme.
 
Altair said:
Trudeau is looking to send troops overseas in one capacity or another.
But if I had to bet a loony, I'd guess he & Team Red were thinking more this ...
peacekeepers%2Bcanada%2B%25282%2529.jpg

... and not so much this:
30DA687600000578-3430259-image-a-82_1454539973880.jpg

MARS said:
... the vast majority of the general public doesn't care about foreign policy, and knows even less about it.  They are too busy keeping up with the Kardashians to actually care about boring stuff like Canada's strategic interests or insisting the government makes a considered and informed decision when sending men and women into harms way ...
Hence, the government(s) we get  :nod:
 
Altair said:
Trudeau is looking to send troops overseas in one capacity or another. I for one cannot wait, and don't care which.

I'm not sure if you're being serious or not, and I'm hoping/wishing that you are thinking beyond "ooh...this would be a great tax-free deployment". 
 
Dimsum said:
I'm not sure if you're being serious or not, and I'm hoping/wishing that you are thinking beyond "ooh...this would be a great tax-free deployment".
I have no doubt that the thought is serious.  I also agree with MARS that thought is lacking at any level regarding a strategic rationale.

For the government, it's about "being seen to contribute";  for some of the troops, I've no doubt it's "I don't care where, I just need to get any  deployment ribbon on my DEU so I can stop looking at my watch when anyone mentions 'time in.'    Neither of which is good.  :not-again:
 
Minimal armour, almost no ATGM's, no SPG's, no ADA and little training to fight a peer opponent. Ugh  [:'(
 
Colin P said:
Minimal armour, almost no ATGM's, no SPG's, no ADA and little training to fight a peer opponent. Ugh  [:'(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_XYb3AWK58

all of this has happened before, and it will happen again
 
MARS said:
This.

This is a perfect example of what plagues this country: the vast majority of the general public doesn't care about foreign policy, and knows even less about it.  They are too busy keeping up with the Kardashians to actually care about boring stuff like Canada's strategic interests or insisting the government makes a considered and informed decision when sending men and women into harms way.

I am really struggling to see how a deployment to West Africa furthers those interests. 

Remember that meme from years ago, the pic of the troops on patrol, with the caption "Canada isn't at war.  These guys are at war.  Canada is at the mall."

Your post is that meme.
To hell with the Canadian public. This is strictly personal.

I will cut off my left nut to go anywhere not called Petawawa or wainwright.

If that's peacekeeping so be it, if it's being a part of a rapid reaction force in eastern Europe so be it. I don't give a damn, let's just do something!
 
milnews.ca said:
But if I had to bet a loony, I'd guess he & Team Red were thinking more this ...
peacekeepers%2Bcanada%2B%25282%2529.jpg

... and not so much this:
30DA687600000578-3430259-image-a-82_1454539973880.jpg
Hence, the government(s) we get  :nod:
Wrong.

Trudeau is thinking that.

Altair is thinking either of those pictures is a vast improvement over the training area and make work jobs on base.
 
Journeyman said:
I have no doubt that the thought is serious.  I also agree with MARS that thought is lacking at any level regarding a strategic rationale.

For the government, it's about "being seen to contribute";  for some of the troops, I've no doubt it's "I don't care where, I just need to get any  deployment ribbon on my DEU so I can stop looking at my watch when anyone mentions 'time in.'    Neither of which is good.  :not-again:
nailed it.
 
Altair said:
To hell with the Canadian public. This is strictly personal.

I will cut off my left nut to go anywhere not called Petawawa or wainwright.

Sounds like a great reason for a VOT.  I suggest any of the aircrew trades.
 
Dimsum said:
Sounds like a great reason for a VOT.  I suggest any of the aircrew trades.

Where is 427 Sqn and 450 Sqn located?  Petawawa? 

I'll suggest VOT to AES Op.  There are no positions for AES Ops in either of those shit holes. 
 
Stop poaching, my career manager doesn't appreciate it.

No, I would just rather the goverment send me somewhere, anywhere out of this country. I've seen enough training bases, done enough training recleaned enough tents because there isn't jack all else to do.

Peacekeeping? Sure

Rapid reaction force? Sure

Screw foreign policy, screw the public,  hell, screw trudeau. Just send me somewhere.
 
Altair, you do not want to send anyone to Africa.  Can you say Somali?  It is an infested hellhole that is guaranteed to eat troops and there is nothing to gain.  They have been either killing each other or selling each other into slavery for 600 years or more.  A few white faces will not stop these things from happening. 
 
Back
Top