Here's more detailed analysis of NATO's post-Hague moment from Finnish analyst Minna Ålander. I'll be interviewing Ålander later this week for an instalment of my surprisingly popular Q&A feature.
As Hans Morgenthau describes it, the basic divide in international politics isn't between good and evil, it's between those powers which support the status quo and those opposed to it. When those opposed to the status quo outweigh those supporting it - like during the interwar years, when Germany, the Soviet Union, and Japan outweighed Britain and France - we can expect trouble.
Today, China, Russia, and Iran are opposed to the status quo. China's rapid economic growth and its aggressive foreign policy under Xi, the erratic behaviour of the US, and Russia's war in Ukraine all spell trouble.
Like Paul, I'm hearing from progressives who voted Liberal but who disagree with increasing military spending at the expense of consumption and/or public services. But the less we can rely on the US, the more we need to build up Canada's own hard and soft power. In a more dangerous world, we need more soldiers, spies, diplomats, and trading partners. And we need economic growth to support this increased spending.
When it comes to Carney, yes you and many other journalists are being Gloomy Guses a bit too soon compared to most Canadians 😃. But that may be a good thing to push against the government from getting away with inevitable hubris that will develop as time passes.
As a voter, though, I keep thinking what a Poilievre government would have done under these circumstances. (That is still the marker for most of us non-journalist voters).
I am thankful for the collective wisdom of Canadians during the recent elections - wherever it may take us next.
I think your comment lays out the part of the reasoning by which the Liberals won the last election … that being … we need to always give the Liberals the benefit of the doubt (disregarding their record as the governing party for the last ten years) while always not giving the Conservatives the same benefit of the doubt. After the past lost decade, I don’t subscribe to that reasoning and think the Liberals should have been held accountable.
Mr Carney was elected largely due to his claim only he could deal with Mr Trump. I’d agree he’s likely appeared much more statesmanlike in his dealings with Mr Trump than Mr Poilievre would have been. Looking at what’s happened to date, I don’t see anything the Conservatives couldn’t have had accomplished. I’d be very happy to proven wrong in the future.
Friend, that is your interpretation of my reasoning, which cannot be farther from what I have states 😃. I have no doubt that the Conservatives have the expertise to handle the situation, but their leader doesn’t have a good track record of listening to his own team 💁🏽♂️
Indeed, Carney's cabinet consists of seasoned veterans who follow government policy. That's a minister's job in any government; it shouldn't be considered pejoratively.
As for Poilievre being judged "on his way of governing" by the electorate despite him being "never in power", that's on him. His toxic behavior, lack of experience, implausible ideas, poor judgement and weak caucus made all the more apparent when compared to Carney's achievements and demeanor, provided the electorate a safer choice and an easy decision.
The question I keep asking myself is how Liberal voters would be reacting if it were a Poilievre-led government doing or announcing any of the exact same things which have happened since the election.
That is a good question gs. Actually I think we all know how the Liberal "core", the CBC, the Star, and a few gems at the Globe and Mail would be lighting their hair on fire were the announcements forthcoming from this Carney-led government instead being announced by a Poilievre-led government.
For fun, let's dream about an imaginary world of a Poilievre-led government. It makes for an interesting thought exercise to picture Rosemary Barton interviewing Chrystia Freeland had the a Conservative government reversed the capital gains tax. Or perhaps get Stephen Guibault to the table to share his fringe views on cancelling the carbon tax. Katherine McKenna would no doubt be on the line to share her opinion about fast tracking regulatory approvals on resource (oil? pipeline?) projects. Oh, now let's get Chrystal back for a follow up to talk about dropping the Digital Services Sales Tax. And for a really good laugh let's get Rosemary to interview Harjit Sajjan about a plan for tripling defence spending in the federal budget outlook. And who is Rosemary going to get to display the appropriate level of hysteria about 15% scorched earth, departmental cuts in the federal government...?
Yes, had a Poilievre-led government done exactly what the Carney-led government is doing, we would be getting inundated with a very bleak, cold and cruel view of the future.
That said, it basically feels like "we" have actually put in place something that behaves in a manner that closely resembles a conservative government. For that I am relieved, although given the faces around the cabinet table, I still have profound reservations and consternation.
I take your point about accountability (and strongly agree).
Where you and I disagree is on the question of the recent election.
As much as the Liberal Party as a whole deserved to have its derrière given to it on a bloody platter, the reason why they secured a majority of seats in the House of Commons is simple: their (newish) leader, Mark Carney, was able to convince a sufficient number of Canadians that he was up to the (Immense) challenges that we face.
Pierre Poilievre, on the other hand, was a prisoner of his irrefutable record of pandering to some genuinely disturbing ideas (which scared many people in Canada). That was certainly true of people in Ottawa, including the majority in his own (now former) riding.
This is my point. Canadians were easily convinced to return the Liberal caucus (who could have turned Trudeau at any time), and behind the scene influencers (Butts et al), merely by making Trudeau a scapegoat. We rejected accountability in favour of promises of reform.
The problem is, as they say, elections are choices, not referenda. It's hard to ever say that a party deserves to lose without the context of whether the other guys would be even worse.
Accountability means that people actually suffer for their failures. Having things be worse in the short term is an almost inevitable feature of accountability. It is very rare for someone to be so incompetent that firing leads to immediate improvement.
For me, accountability means taking responsibility for your actions. It doesn't mean anything about "suffering". Wanting people to "suffer" is no way to run a railroad.
Generally speaking, that they would rule by ideologically-based fiat rather than collaboration with subject matter experts, and that they would impose these fiats on other levels of government by threatening their ability to provide essential services.
More significantly, their demeanor has generally been corrosive, and antithetical to the notion that our government(s) should reflect society's ideals, rather than their worst impulses.
But most significantly disturbing is the lack of ideas about how to solve problems and ensure our future. The brandishing of easy, "common sense" solutions composed entirely of tag lines, reflects a shallow understanding of everything, and a disinterest/lack of curiosity in the consequences for everyone else.
"Expertism" is an ideology. The idea that "our" notion of the good is objectively true, and that anyone who disagrees is simply wrong, is mere arrogance.
WRT defence, oh how I wish Canadians would grow up.
We need to spend more on our own defence because, as a country, we run the risk of losing our sovereignty if we fail to do so.
The alliance commitment is obviously important, as well (because it is a force multiplier).
At bottom, though, is our need to ensure that we can deter foreign aggression and, in the event that deterrence fails, we can inflict maximum damage on any who would do us harm (or seek to take what is ours).
I liked your accounting of Canadian contributions during the two world wars.
However, the link you seek to make (between allied recognition of our efforts then and our widely disputed Arctic waters sovereignty claim today) is problematic at best.
No matter how friendly our main allies are at any given moment, none is likely to make the strategic sacrifice needed (circumscribing their own freedom of manoeuvre) in order to accept our claims (and it certainly won’t happen under Trump)
Thanks for the kind words. You are right. Which is why our spending should go to defending our territory. Our past spending helped everyone else. If they don’t want to reciprocate, we’ve overpaid. Enough.
One note: it’s not actually 5%, it’s 3.5% with the other 1.5% for defence-enabling infrastructure, a category so wide as to probably actually encompass dental care (the troops don’t get cavities?). It’ll include highways, ports, power grid, data centres, etc. Actually the main effect will be every industry lining up to have their products declared as defence-related infrastructure and get federal subsidies. Pipelines? Power plants? Meat processing facilities? All needed to wage war, right?
Regardless, even 3.5% is a big increase. I personally hope it will go to stuff that matters for the next war — drones etc., and training more troops and reserves to try to bring back national service as a culture element at the same time.
I just find it really easy to imagine future NATO summits at which, say, a nervous Democrat president with one eye on the next election says, "Well, nobody meant THIS when we talked about defence-enabling infrastructure!..."
I have trouble believing that the 5% figure to be achieved by 2035 - long after Mr Trump will have departed the scene - is anything more than pandering? That is, unless global war actually breaks out.
The real threat to Canada is the ongoing effects of climate change. So let's configure our military to better assist with fighting fires and floods. We can't do that with F-35's but, for example, better capability to move personnel and materials quickly would help.
That’s a great point and probably an easy one for people across the political spectrum to support. Logistics capabilities that can be used for both overseas wars or for deploying help into a climate disaster area.
But, I agree, there is a "national security" aspect to "fighting climate change", that government needs to own. The primary airplane used is a Canadian-built one, the De Havilland, which is backordered for a decade. The factory in Alberta is still under construction for the new model. Government should throw a few "Bs" at that, to influence global fire-fighting weapons production. Double it's capacity, buy every second unit for domestic use, exchange them for F35s, because Canada is enormous, and we need really fast and reliable weapons platforms to respond to something happening 4000 kms away, right now.
Sabia's definition of accountability is interesting. I wonder if it includes answering for designing very expensive and bespoke tax expenditures while DM of Fjnance, then immediately jumping ship to run their biggest beneficiary.
What is it about actually following through on the treaty commitments we previously made that progressives continuing their long run of ruling the roost in Ottawa don't get? Ragging the NATO puck may have served them well (not our reputation, though, as we find ourselves being publicly called out as laggards - ouch!). Our decades long preference for butter over guns has brought us to a crossroad now that a guy like Trump - or Daddy, or whatever you want to call him - came along and changed the rules of the game.
We have a choice to make. With our trade prospects on the line and the nasty threat of tariffs tied to the choice we land on, it shouldn't be that difficult a decision to make. And we already have the Spanish example to guide us on the direction we're going to have to take...
Wow, that Sabia letter was good to read. Power to him and all his peers, in their multitudes. I hope our elected members can take on those serious discussions about simplifying, etc.
The question about why 5% is an important one, I would argue it starts with an honest conversation about what the defence risks to Canada and Canadas allies are, and then expands to the much bigger question, aside from making the US happy, what is Canadas national interest globally and what is required from the CAF (if anything) to achieve that.
Yes, the honest conversation starts with what Canadians need to spend to defend Canada. Unlike many of our "allies," we have no imperial objectives. We need to defend ourselves against the imperial tendencies of our allies and enemies alike. We have paid too high a price for defending others' empires, with a negative return on equity, as the math demonstrates. http://bit.ly/3IevbGF
Thank you Paul as I haven’t see coverage of Rutte podcast by MSM. On the basis of Rutte’s comments why exactly is Carney pivoting to ReArm Europe venture?
Exactly, Cheryl. I have 3 sons. One is in the CAF. He asks, what do Canadians get from defending Europeans from each other? His brothers agree. Their great-grandfather defended Europe and got nothing but PTSD. Their grandfather served in Korea. So we can buy Korean cars? Why do we keep thinking solving other people's problems is going to make a difference? I doubt Dutch Rutte would defend Canada from, as Paul calls him, Daddy's aggression.
While I can *understand* your view that Canada doesn’t need allies (and that us entering World War II was a bad idea — a bold take!) I strongly disagree and thankfully, I think most Canadians do too.
We’re a middle power country. Sure, the Netherlands probably wouldn’t send troops and Stinger missiles to defend against American tanks rolling across the 49th parallel, but that’s not actually where we’re heading. Any future American annexation will be economic, so our defence is *economic* strength and independence, and military alliances with friendly countries are part of that.
Geoff Olynyk. Your sophistry is cute. But no one said we don't need allies. And it's a lie to allege I said entering WW2 was "a bad idea." Your "bold take" is we keep going further into debt in the current alliance where we get nothing in return but tulips from the Dutch? Has anyone in your family line paid in blood for Canada's overseas expeditions? Read more history, and do the math: http://bit.ly/3IevbGF
"What do Canadians get from defending Europeans from each other?"
Canada's basic security challenge is similar to that of Britain: our security depends on maintaining the balance of power in Europe and Asia, so that no single power dominates the rest, putting it in a position to expand overseas. That's why Canada's a NATO member, and why Canada fought in World War I and II: to help prevent Germany (under Wilhelm II and then Hitler) and then the Soviet Union from conquering Europe, and thus threatening North America.
We're not going to fight anyone single-handedly, which is why our alliances (especially NATO) are so important.
Thanks, Russil. I read your thoughtful Remembrance Day piece. That was before Trump 2.0. That is our security threat. And before Trump, we were the chump for our UK and USA cousins. We got into fights they engaged in as imperial powers. We are not an imperial power. We have to stop being the chump. We have to put our domestic economic and territorial interests first. And all our defence spending has to be on that, bearing in mind that the only country that has any territorial ambitions on Canada is the USA. That is proven in history and in the current mindset of Trump’s Project 2025. NATO is Trump’s Club, as Paul Wells writes. NATO has done nothing for Canada and we have overpaid to defend Europe. There is no “forward defence posture” in an age of intercontinental rocket warfare and drones. Defend Canada with our own rockets and drones, and full deterrence.
Even to this fan of arms control over military action, seems like many long-term arguments exist to boost defence spending, including having functional military forces (assuming the substandard submarine force is a microcosm of larger shortcomings), stimulating the industrial base, decoupling from the United States, deterring those who might seek to exploit Canadian critical minerals, and, eventually, managing the flow of climate-change refugees.
In 2017, I was Canada’s Ambassador to NATO and at President Trump’s first leaders’ meeting at NATO, tried to get the U.S. to recommit to article 5, the mutual defence guarantee. This was needed because Trump had already started to say publicly that the US wouldn’t come to the assistance of an ally who “didn’t pay”. The White House assured NATO officials this would happen at the meeting. In 2017 Trump refused. In 2025, Rutte secured a recommitment to article 5 in the Summit declaration and from President Trump in the follow on press conference. Not worth nothing. So the “Daddy Sunmit” was perhaps only tactical, but it produced a result. Maybe the U.S. won’t stick to it, maybe it will but deterrence is mostly political and consistent messaging around mutual defence to is the foundation of the alliance.
Reader Geoff Olynyk claims he knows how most Canadians think, and that we need not worry about USA annexation. But it turns out 53% of Canadians disagree with him. That's the stat from the latest Pew Research Centre study. Pew, non-partisan, is perhaps the most reputable public opinion research body in the world. Pew says "53 per cent said the USA poses a national security threat." That's up 3X in a few years. Please read more history, and do the math. http://bit.ly/3IevbGF
Here's more detailed analysis of NATO's post-Hague moment from Finnish analyst Minna Ålander. I'll be interviewing Ålander later this week for an instalment of my surprisingly popular Q&A feature.
https://phillipspobrien.substack.com/p/buying-time-europes-trump-dilemma
Thanks, that's a really excellent article.
As Hans Morgenthau describes it, the basic divide in international politics isn't between good and evil, it's between those powers which support the status quo and those opposed to it. When those opposed to the status quo outweigh those supporting it - like during the interwar years, when Germany, the Soviet Union, and Japan outweighed Britain and France - we can expect trouble.
Today, China, Russia, and Iran are opposed to the status quo. China's rapid economic growth and its aggressive foreign policy under Xi, the erratic behaviour of the US, and Russia's war in Ukraine all spell trouble.
Like Paul, I'm hearing from progressives who voted Liberal but who disagree with increasing military spending at the expense of consumption and/or public services. But the less we can rely on the US, the more we need to build up Canada's own hard and soft power. In a more dangerous world, we need more soldiers, spies, diplomats, and trading partners. And we need economic growth to support this increased spending.
When it comes to Carney, yes you and many other journalists are being Gloomy Guses a bit too soon compared to most Canadians 😃. But that may be a good thing to push against the government from getting away with inevitable hubris that will develop as time passes.
As a voter, though, I keep thinking what a Poilievre government would have done under these circumstances. (That is still the marker for most of us non-journalist voters).
I am thankful for the collective wisdom of Canadians during the recent elections - wherever it may take us next.
I think your comment lays out the part of the reasoning by which the Liberals won the last election … that being … we need to always give the Liberals the benefit of the doubt (disregarding their record as the governing party for the last ten years) while always not giving the Conservatives the same benefit of the doubt. After the past lost decade, I don’t subscribe to that reasoning and think the Liberals should have been held accountable.
Mr Carney was elected largely due to his claim only he could deal with Mr Trump. I’d agree he’s likely appeared much more statesmanlike in his dealings with Mr Trump than Mr Poilievre would have been. Looking at what’s happened to date, I don’t see anything the Conservatives couldn’t have had accomplished. I’d be very happy to proven wrong in the future.
Friend, that is your interpretation of my reasoning, which cannot be farther from what I have states 😃. I have no doubt that the Conservatives have the expertise to handle the situation, but their leader doesn’t have a good track record of listening to his own team 💁🏽♂️
Carney has inherited Trudeau’s old yes Massa team. Poilievre was never in power how can anybody judge him on his way of governing.
Indeed, Carney's cabinet consists of seasoned veterans who follow government policy. That's a minister's job in any government; it shouldn't be considered pejoratively.
As for Poilievre being judged "on his way of governing" by the electorate despite him being "never in power", that's on him. His toxic behavior, lack of experience, implausible ideas, poor judgement and weak caucus made all the more apparent when compared to Carney's achievements and demeanor, provided the electorate a safer choice and an easy decision.
I would think that Carney’s “A Man For All Seasons” persona
Liberals are always better than Conservatives. Or so they think.
The question I keep asking myself is how Liberal voters would be reacting if it were a Poilievre-led government doing or announcing any of the exact same things which have happened since the election.
"Not well" is the inescapable conclusion.
That is a good question gs. Actually I think we all know how the Liberal "core", the CBC, the Star, and a few gems at the Globe and Mail would be lighting their hair on fire were the announcements forthcoming from this Carney-led government instead being announced by a Poilievre-led government.
For fun, let's dream about an imaginary world of a Poilievre-led government. It makes for an interesting thought exercise to picture Rosemary Barton interviewing Chrystia Freeland had the a Conservative government reversed the capital gains tax. Or perhaps get Stephen Guibault to the table to share his fringe views on cancelling the carbon tax. Katherine McKenna would no doubt be on the line to share her opinion about fast tracking regulatory approvals on resource (oil? pipeline?) projects. Oh, now let's get Chrystal back for a follow up to talk about dropping the Digital Services Sales Tax. And for a really good laugh let's get Rosemary to interview Harjit Sajjan about a plan for tripling defence spending in the federal budget outlook. And who is Rosemary going to get to display the appropriate level of hysteria about 15% scorched earth, departmental cuts in the federal government...?
Yes, had a Poilievre-led government done exactly what the Carney-led government is doing, we would be getting inundated with a very bleak, cold and cruel view of the future.
That said, it basically feels like "we" have actually put in place something that behaves in a manner that closely resembles a conservative government. For that I am relieved, although given the faces around the cabinet table, I still have profound reservations and consternation.
Accountability isn't about how people feel. It's about consequences when they fail.
The election of a Liberal government is an explicit rejection of accountability.
I take your point about accountability (and strongly agree).
Where you and I disagree is on the question of the recent election.
As much as the Liberal Party as a whole deserved to have its derrière given to it on a bloody platter, the reason why they secured a majority of seats in the House of Commons is simple: their (newish) leader, Mark Carney, was able to convince a sufficient number of Canadians that he was up to the (Immense) challenges that we face.
Pierre Poilievre, on the other hand, was a prisoner of his irrefutable record of pandering to some genuinely disturbing ideas (which scared many people in Canada). That was certainly true of people in Ottawa, including the majority in his own (now former) riding.
This is my point. Canadians were easily convinced to return the Liberal caucus (who could have turned Trudeau at any time), and behind the scene influencers (Butts et al), merely by making Trudeau a scapegoat. We rejected accountability in favour of promises of reform.
The problem is, as they say, elections are choices, not referenda. It's hard to ever say that a party deserves to lose without the context of whether the other guys would be even worse.
Accountability means that people actually suffer for their failures. Having things be worse in the short term is an almost inevitable feature of accountability. It is very rare for someone to be so incompetent that firing leads to immediate improvement.
Wow, we disagree about a number of things.
For me, accountability means taking responsibility for your actions. It doesn't mean anything about "suffering". Wanting people to "suffer" is no way to run a railroad.
"Taking responsibility" without consequences means nothing.
What disturbing ideas did the Conservatives have?
Generally speaking, that they would rule by ideologically-based fiat rather than collaboration with subject matter experts, and that they would impose these fiats on other levels of government by threatening their ability to provide essential services.
More significantly, their demeanor has generally been corrosive, and antithetical to the notion that our government(s) should reflect society's ideals, rather than their worst impulses.
But most significantly disturbing is the lack of ideas about how to solve problems and ensure our future. The brandishing of easy, "common sense" solutions composed entirely of tag lines, reflects a shallow understanding of everything, and a disinterest/lack of curiosity in the consequences for everyone else.
"Expertism" is an ideology. The idea that "our" notion of the good is objectively true, and that anyone who disagrees is simply wrong, is mere arrogance.
WRT defence, oh how I wish Canadians would grow up.
We need to spend more on our own defence because, as a country, we run the risk of losing our sovereignty if we fail to do so.
The alliance commitment is obviously important, as well (because it is a force multiplier).
At bottom, though, is our need to ensure that we can deter foreign aggression and, in the event that deterrence fails, we can inflict maximum damage on any who would do us harm (or seek to take what is ours).
It isn’t rocket science.
Right. It isn't rocket science. Where are Canada's rockets, etc, to deter foreign aggression against Canada (not Latvia)?
?
I'm agreeing with you that Canada needs to deter foreign aggression. History shows that always comes from one place. http://bit.ly/3IevbGF
I liked your accounting of Canadian contributions during the two world wars.
However, the link you seek to make (between allied recognition of our efforts then and our widely disputed Arctic waters sovereignty claim today) is problematic at best.
No matter how friendly our main allies are at any given moment, none is likely to make the strategic sacrifice needed (circumscribing their own freedom of manoeuvre) in order to accept our claims (and it certainly won’t happen under Trump)
Thanks for the kind words. You are right. Which is why our spending should go to defending our territory. Our past spending helped everyone else. If they don’t want to reciprocate, we’ve overpaid. Enough.
One note: it’s not actually 5%, it’s 3.5% with the other 1.5% for defence-enabling infrastructure, a category so wide as to probably actually encompass dental care (the troops don’t get cavities?). It’ll include highways, ports, power grid, data centres, etc. Actually the main effect will be every industry lining up to have their products declared as defence-related infrastructure and get federal subsidies. Pipelines? Power plants? Meat processing facilities? All needed to wage war, right?
Regardless, even 3.5% is a big increase. I personally hope it will go to stuff that matters for the next war — drones etc., and training more troops and reserves to try to bring back national service as a culture element at the same time.
I just find it really easy to imagine future NATO summits at which, say, a nervous Democrat president with one eye on the next election says, "Well, nobody meant THIS when we talked about defence-enabling infrastructure!..."
I have trouble believing that the 5% figure to be achieved by 2035 - long after Mr Trump will have departed the scene - is anything more than pandering? That is, unless global war actually breaks out.
The real threat to Canada is the ongoing effects of climate change. So let's configure our military to better assist with fighting fires and floods. We can't do that with F-35's but, for example, better capability to move personnel and materials quickly would help.
That’s a great point and probably an easy one for people across the political spectrum to support. Logistics capabilities that can be used for both overseas wars or for deploying help into a climate disaster area.
It is not the military's job to fight fires and deal with floods in Canada. The miltitary's job is to kill people and break things.
Certain capabilities like logistics can be used for both, and help build public support for military investments.
Let's not conflate the risks on the table.
But, I agree, there is a "national security" aspect to "fighting climate change", that government needs to own. The primary airplane used is a Canadian-built one, the De Havilland, which is backordered for a decade. The factory in Alberta is still under construction for the new model. Government should throw a few "Bs" at that, to influence global fire-fighting weapons production. Double it's capacity, buy every second unit for domestic use, exchange them for F35s, because Canada is enormous, and we need really fast and reliable weapons platforms to respond to something happening 4000 kms away, right now.
Sabia's definition of accountability is interesting. I wonder if it includes answering for designing very expensive and bespoke tax expenditures while DM of Fjnance, then immediately jumping ship to run their biggest beneficiary.
Sabia has never been known for his “delivery” of ideas and promises. Check out Hydro Quebec.
He is not my Daddy and I don't wish to be in his club!
What is it about actually following through on the treaty commitments we previously made that progressives continuing their long run of ruling the roost in Ottawa don't get? Ragging the NATO puck may have served them well (not our reputation, though, as we find ourselves being publicly called out as laggards - ouch!). Our decades long preference for butter over guns has brought us to a crossroad now that a guy like Trump - or Daddy, or whatever you want to call him - came along and changed the rules of the game.
We have a choice to make. With our trade prospects on the line and the nasty threat of tariffs tied to the choice we land on, it shouldn't be that difficult a decision to make. And we already have the Spanish example to guide us on the direction we're going to have to take...
Wow, that Sabia letter was good to read. Power to him and all his peers, in their multitudes. I hope our elected members can take on those serious discussions about simplifying, etc.
Thanks for reacting to the bottom part of the post. There's a lot to parse in that Sabia letter.
The question about why 5% is an important one, I would argue it starts with an honest conversation about what the defence risks to Canada and Canadas allies are, and then expands to the much bigger question, aside from making the US happy, what is Canadas national interest globally and what is required from the CAF (if anything) to achieve that.
Yes, the honest conversation starts with what Canadians need to spend to defend Canada. Unlike many of our "allies," we have no imperial objectives. We need to defend ourselves against the imperial tendencies of our allies and enemies alike. We have paid too high a price for defending others' empires, with a negative return on equity, as the math demonstrates. http://bit.ly/3IevbGF
Thank you Paul as I haven’t see coverage of Rutte podcast by MSM. On the basis of Rutte’s comments why exactly is Carney pivoting to ReArm Europe venture?
Exactly, Cheryl. I have 3 sons. One is in the CAF. He asks, what do Canadians get from defending Europeans from each other? His brothers agree. Their great-grandfather defended Europe and got nothing but PTSD. Their grandfather served in Korea. So we can buy Korean cars? Why do we keep thinking solving other people's problems is going to make a difference? I doubt Dutch Rutte would defend Canada from, as Paul calls him, Daddy's aggression.
While I can *understand* your view that Canada doesn’t need allies (and that us entering World War II was a bad idea — a bold take!) I strongly disagree and thankfully, I think most Canadians do too.
We’re a middle power country. Sure, the Netherlands probably wouldn’t send troops and Stinger missiles to defend against American tanks rolling across the 49th parallel, but that’s not actually where we’re heading. Any future American annexation will be economic, so our defence is *economic* strength and independence, and military alliances with friendly countries are part of that.
Geoff Olynyk. Your sophistry is cute. But no one said we don't need allies. And it's a lie to allege I said entering WW2 was "a bad idea." Your "bold take" is we keep going further into debt in the current alliance where we get nothing in return but tulips from the Dutch? Has anyone in your family line paid in blood for Canada's overseas expeditions? Read more history, and do the math: http://bit.ly/3IevbGF
"What do Canadians get from defending Europeans from each other?"
Canada's basic security challenge is similar to that of Britain: our security depends on maintaining the balance of power in Europe and Asia, so that no single power dominates the rest, putting it in a position to expand overseas. That's why Canada's a NATO member, and why Canada fought in World War I and II: to help prevent Germany (under Wilhelm II and then Hitler) and then the Soviet Union from conquering Europe, and thus threatening North America.
We're not going to fight anyone single-handedly, which is why our alliances (especially NATO) are so important.
More: https://vancouverkingsway.ca/remembrance-day-2024
Thanks, Russil. I read your thoughtful Remembrance Day piece. That was before Trump 2.0. That is our security threat. And before Trump, we were the chump for our UK and USA cousins. We got into fights they engaged in as imperial powers. We are not an imperial power. We have to stop being the chump. We have to put our domestic economic and territorial interests first. And all our defence spending has to be on that, bearing in mind that the only country that has any territorial ambitions on Canada is the USA. That is proven in history and in the current mindset of Trump’s Project 2025. NATO is Trump’s Club, as Paul Wells writes. NATO has done nothing for Canada and we have overpaid to defend Europe. There is no “forward defence posture” in an age of intercontinental rocket warfare and drones. Defend Canada with our own rockets and drones, and full deterrence.
Even to this fan of arms control over military action, seems like many long-term arguments exist to boost defence spending, including having functional military forces (assuming the substandard submarine force is a microcosm of larger shortcomings), stimulating the industrial base, decoupling from the United States, deterring those who might seek to exploit Canadian critical minerals, and, eventually, managing the flow of climate-change refugees.
Yes, we need an environmental defence force. The environment is Canada and its three oceans. http://bit.ly/3IevbGF
Michael Sabia has been to Bilderberg.........speaks volumes!
In 2017, I was Canada’s Ambassador to NATO and at President Trump’s first leaders’ meeting at NATO, tried to get the U.S. to recommit to article 5, the mutual defence guarantee. This was needed because Trump had already started to say publicly that the US wouldn’t come to the assistance of an ally who “didn’t pay”. The White House assured NATO officials this would happen at the meeting. In 2017 Trump refused. In 2025, Rutte secured a recommitment to article 5 in the Summit declaration and from President Trump in the follow on press conference. Not worth nothing. So the “Daddy Sunmit” was perhaps only tactical, but it produced a result. Maybe the U.S. won’t stick to it, maybe it will but deterrence is mostly political and consistent messaging around mutual defence to is the foundation of the alliance.
Thanks for noting this fact.
Reader Geoff Olynyk claims he knows how most Canadians think, and that we need not worry about USA annexation. But it turns out 53% of Canadians disagree with him. That's the stat from the latest Pew Research Centre study. Pew, non-partisan, is perhaps the most reputable public opinion research body in the world. Pew says "53 per cent said the USA poses a national security threat." That's up 3X in a few years. Please read more history, and do the math. http://bit.ly/3IevbGF
So how long until Sabia jets off for another gig when he realizes none of this shit is happening? Over/under at 9 months?