Here's a pretty good Fraser Institute retrospective on defence spending since the Mulroney years. It goes up when you'd expect it to (the early Afghanistan years, for the first time in years) and goes down when you'd expect (most other times). The party stripe of the government seems to have very little influence over these trends. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/defence-spending-in-canada-a-look-at-the-data
This coming election season, the Liberals will not propose any new defence spending, but neither will the Conservatives, because the real enemy is the woke Left, and they can be beaten without tanks.
Excellent...my thoughts put into your words, Paul. We have been living our lives since WW2 on the backs of that generation who were faced with the same situation as a bad guy crept towards them relentlessly..."is this our war, or is it not"...Macron had to say it and I believe the majority of NATO will get it very soon.
For anyone who knows me, they will be surprised to hear that I have been thinking that it is time to start heeding the sounds of war. I suspect that France and the rest of Europe are hearing the sounds much louder.
It means that our economies are going to have either gear up in a controlled way to a more focused effort at considering imminent war or risk being plunged into it as a crisis moves too quickly.
The reallocation of resources and the sacrificing of industrial policy in favour of more effective scaling up of military capability need to be on the table. Nothing that I personally would have considered 3 years ago.
As you point out in this piece, France is considering that the time is now to prevent a broader escalation and to demonstrate resolve and really do what is needed to “have their backs” for as long as it takes.
This position is all based on the premise that Russia will invade other countries, and that the only solution is a military one. Who is pressuring these countries to the negotiating table?
It is a pretty solid premise given Russia's track record of violating the borders of neighbouring countries. They used to be bumper sticker in the Cold War that said; "Visit Russia Before Russia Visits You".
First, as always, well written, well thought out and, well, just great. Thank you, as always, PW.
And, meanwhile in Canada ...... it's hopeless ....
Mr. Wells (Paul, I just cannot make myself call you Paul - seems disrespectful of a very serious guy, you know?) has said that he thinks that the upcoming budget will increase military spending. Given the history of the current Prime Face Painter - and his father, for that matter - not to mention most of the intervening governments, the military is not important. Chrystia Freeland is herself of Ukrainian heritage, has spent much time in Ukraine, speaks Ukrainian, has made passionate speeches in favor of Ukraine but she has done nothing obvious to advance Canada's military assistance to Ukraine. Mr. Wells, I hope - I pray - you are right but I think you are wrong. I expect much additional spending from this government in this budget, all in the hope of turning around the polls but I don't see support for Ukraine as moving the needle on the government's (lack of) popularity so I cannot see that it will be addressed in the budget.
I started off above by saying, "And, meanwhile in Canada ...... it's hopeless ...." We cannot maintain order; the police protect the people who want to tear down our society, the people who will not allow two heads of state attend a dinner, the people who fire bomb places of worship; the police defend people who disrupt transportation (oops! they defend SOME of them!). The government cannot manage pretty much anything successfully other than charging higher and higher taxes and placing more red tape and restrictions on ever so much.
So, I offer to you a definition from the Oxford dictionary folks: "failed state (noun) a state whose political or economic system has become so weak that the government is no longer in control."
Ring any bells?
And now, back to Ukraine.
I am too old to serve in the military; my kids are too old to serve. My three grandchildren are under 10 so they will soon be in the "correct" age group to serve. Hell!
Given that Canada is so weak and bends it's knees to pretty much anyone who just kinda, possibly, maybe threatens it ("good" reasons not required), it is my grandchildren who will have to deal with these consequences which very much include the revanchist Russian dictatorship. We say that no one will come after Canada because we are too far away. Well, Russia and China are already prowling around in the North; elections here will soon be decided by China, India, Russia - countries other than Canada. Given that we will do pretty well nothing for Ukraine we can expect Russia to conquer Ukraine. And, then, Russia will be off to take over other countries.
But, don't worry - we're all right, Jack! No one is coming after us!
Yes, the North. Many Canadian talking heads don’t seem to have clued in to our own vulnerability to Russia and China and the future value of defending our northern passage rights. Heads in the sand as usual.
The idiocy of most Canadians in believing a) no one will ever attack us because we are sooooo remote from the rest of the world, and b) if someone does attack us the US will step in, is breathtakingly ostrich like.
Clearly, China and Russia covet the North and are encroaching on our sovereign territory currently. The only way that will stop is if somebody stops them. Canada does not have sufficient military forces to even try to enforce a stop and, even if Canada had the requisite number of troops, Canada does not actively train troops for northern warfare and has essentially no equipment for such warfare. That leaves it to the US and one can be very certain that the US will insist of ongoing rights and access if it assists.
And, of course, Canada doesn't want to embarrass the Chinese (or the Russians for that matter) by calling them out for their northern adventurism. Canada is more worried about offending China by trying stop interference in our elections.
To be honest I believe we marched back military spending after the cold war ended (you can challenge me on that, I'm going on memory), with the happy notion that world peace had been achieved. So did Europe I think. Now we'll see who can recognize and act on the new reality. Macron seems to be pivoting pretty quickly.
Yes, after the end of the cold war the military spending was dramatically cut. Having said that, previous administrations also found the military to be a useful place to find cuts to be allocated elsewhere. We used to have military bases in France and West Germany; the French bases were closed first and the German bases were closed at the end of the cold war (per Mr. Google).
If you go back far enough (T1) the Canadian navy had it's own aircraft carrier, the HMCS Bonaventure) but that luxury was ended during the reign of T1.
No, we have not been a military nation since WWII but we were trying maintain a pretense until the 1970s.
I was among those who publicly said this war would be over in three, two, one... I was also among those who called for a NATO-enforced no-fly zone at that time. Macron's question is simple to answer: it is our war, and always was, just as the peace, if it can be restored, will be ours. Maybe--only maybe--if Russia got spanked by NATO, Russia's soft allies in Beijing and Tehran would realize Ukraine isn't worth the disruption. Beijing can afford to be coy, calling for a diplomatic solution, because right now it's just money the West is sending. When all the carrier groups in the Western world converge on the Eastern Med and the Gulf; when the Bering Strait is blockaded; when sanctions extend to Friends of the Regime; when Russian assets frozen in European banks are confiscated and not just frozen; when everyone is shown clearly two sides and asked to choose one; then Russia will find itself without such powerful friends I think. What part Canada would play in this, I shudder to think. Decades of utter neglect hath brought our military to near the breaking point. Easy for me to cry, Let loose the dogs of war: in my 40s, with two bad knees, I'd be rejected as a volunteer out of hand. But this is not a skirmish or a distraction, this is the main event for Canada for the foreseeable future; so if not now, when?
Macron, like all leaders, has occasion to speak publicly and in these statements, he spoke powerfully and we should be paying more attention. Your article, Paul, helps us to do so.
As usual, Paul, your article is my highlight of the week. Am 76 and throughout my adulthood I have become increasingly concerned with the total incompetence of government at all levels.The constant bickering among LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT and POLITICAL PARTIES have meant that over time few of society’s problems have been solved. And now perhaps an existential moment!
It takes two decades to move the mindset of society away from the bleak, Soviet outlook towards trust and appreciation of personal freedoms. The Baltic states went through this but, they wisely joined NATO at their first opportunity, well before the mindset had started to move. Ukraine took a longer road but they finally got there sans NATO membership. This is why they are fighting so well. It would be a shame them to lose.
For this reason, the West should have jumped in quickly. Slowly escalating support over two years has caused much suffering in Ukraine. It will look foolish if the West decides to move in now but better late than never and the help will be welcomed.
Almost every small town in Southern Ontario has a commemorative park or structure erected by Dutch immigrants to thank Canadians for liberating the Netherlands during the 1940s. In Goderich, they constructed a square gazebo and each of the four facades was in the architectural style of a different region of the Netherlands. We have a tradition of liberating people.
I wish that Canadians had made the moral decision to jump in quickly and give our rhetoric substance. Our NATO allies could have back-filled our role in Latvia to free up what little forces we have. I also wish that the Canadian Forces were capable of much more than having a negligible impact. Two years of waffling is an embarrassment to Canadians and the West. Do or do not - there should not have been, 'let's wait and see if a few bread crumbs here or there just might be enough.' In Canada, it looks like the pysanka in Vegreville, Alberta, will remain extremely lonely.
Ukraine asked for a no-fly zone right at the beginning of the war. NATO refused to do it on the grounds that it would lead to World War III. Now it sounds as if we're going to get WWIII anyway. I don't know if that no-fly zone would have saved lives, but it's looking as if it would have saved a lot of time.
Thank you Jason for the tip. A very precise interesting assessment of how and why Ukraine needs to be supported. It details in part Putin's posturing and the red lines he has set that have, in spite of his threats, been crossed. Reminds one of the beginnings of WWII.
A no fly zone in Ukraine would have required striking numerous targets within Russian territory so they couldn't target NATO planes enforcing it. A no fly zone requires continual air patrols, and modern air defense systems have ranges measured in hundreds of kilometers. NATO declaring a no fly zone in Ukraine would be tantamount to a declaration of war against Russia.
Yes! And war against Russia will sooner or later happen anyway. That was the point. Well, unless Putin dies first, or somebody makes him die. This is entirely his war. Would anyone want to continue it if he was no longer around?
I'm somewhat resigned to a direct conflict between NATO and Russia at some point, but I don't think we should be all that eager to start it. A lot of very intelligent and respected commentators were either totally dishonest or completely ignorant about a no-fly zone being some sort of magic solution that would both prevent a Russian invasion and avoid a direct conflict between NATO and Russia when in reality it was massively escalatory. It's clear now that the West should have been far less concerned about escalation in the conflict's early days, but I don't think that extends to NATO starting a shooting war at the outset.
As far as Putin and Russia goes, if Putin drops dead tomorrow nothing much would change on the ground. Whoever comes after him is likely to be as bad or worse. The regime can't go backwards now, and they know it. Which is why I think conflicts over the Baltic countries, Moldova, or Poland are coming down the road unless Russia is defeated in Ukraine.
I agree with Macron that the ambitious Putin is a danger to NATO and the world order and has to be stopped in Ukraine. To date, though, the West has not clearly defined what it wants to achieve with support for Ukraine. If we want them to win -- as we should -- then let's say so and act accordingly. So far our support has a reluctant quality to it and seems to reflect a desire that Ukraine not lose. And please, let's not be wetting our pants every time Putin rattles his nukes. It would make no more sense for him to use nuclear weapons than it would for the West to do so. The guy is a bully and should be dealt with like one.
Paul, re your comment on NATO and its ill-fated foray into Afghanistan, I think that it’s important to point out that that conflict was a “war on terror”. Foreign terrorists attacked the US on 9/11, and the US declared war on terrorism. Because the terrorists were considered to be hiding out in Afghanistan, which was and still is for all intents a failed state, the US focused its war efforts there. And because the US is a NATO country it invoked Article 5 of the NATO charter thereby enjoining other member countries (including Canada) in the conflict.
I suspect NATO never envisioned this scenario (basically an insurgency war) back in 1949, but rather the more historical scenario of a country invading and attacking a member country. Hence the morass which was Afghanistan rather than the traditional army vs army conflict upon which NATO was founded.
Ukraine is not a member of NATO but it has been invaded and attacked by Russia. This should be of grave concern to other European countries and so, rightly, Macron posits, better late than never I would add: “Is this our war or is it not our war?”
This is a question which has already been answered by history. Which brings to the fore that old saying that goes along the lines of “those who ignore the lessons of history are bound to repeat them.”
Two years ago, shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine, I ressponded to comments by Matt Gurney and Jen Gerson over at The Line:
“I read yesterday’s dispatch (26 Mar) and kept coming back to this line: ‘The Ukrainians are finally doing what the West should have done years ago, namely, standing up to Vladimir Putin, his bullying, and his aggression.’ Of course, one can only surmise as to what you meant by the West ‘standing up’ but the implication seems to be that while the Ukrainians are ‘standing up’, we in the West haven’t yet found the raison d’être to similarly face Russian aggression. You made clear in at least two of your previous dispatches wherein, to paraphrase, you couldn’t endorse standing up to Putin’s aggression in a form such as implementing a no-fly zone because that might (or would) lead to a NATO/Russia military confrontation, and worse, because of implied threats by Putin, to a nuclear conflict.
This begs the question, in the context of military aggression, in this case an invasion of a sovereign democratic state, exactly how would you propose that the West ‘stand up’? No sane person wants to see a nuclear war and an argument could be made that no sane person would threaten one. But once such a threat is made or implied - then what? Do we recoil in fear … or do we ‘stand up’? …..
I can’t help but remember back in 1962, when challenged by President Kennedy - Kruschev blinked. Here we are 60 years later in 2022, Putin has challenged the West - and the West has blinked. The US, in particular, has abandoned its role as Leader of the Free World. Putin has become emboldened by the West’s lack of resolve and the only good thing that has come out of this is the revelation of the surprising impotence of the Russian military in the face of Ukrainian resistance.
…. despite the continued refusal of NATO to intervene, the Ukrainians seem to be holding their own and in some places even causing the Russians to retreat around Kyiv. But this disaster in Ukraine, now entering its second month, should never have been allowed to unfold as it has. I think that Terry Glavin’s quote from Ukrainian President Zelensky best sums things up: ‘We believe that NATO member states have themselves created a narrative that the closure of the airspace in Ukraine would provoke direct aggression from Russia against NATO. It is self-induced hypnosis of those who are weak and lack confidence.’ ”
Well, back to today, here the world sits 2 years later and the conflict still drags on with Ukrainian loss of life in the tens of thousands and hundreds of billions in property and infrastructure destruction. Putin is still threatening nuclear retaliation. The West has been supplying Ukraine just enough equipment and ammunition to keep it in the fray, but not near enough for it to mount an effective counterattack. If Russia prevails and eventually defeats Ukraine - then what's next on his agenda? So the time is long overdue, and Macron is right to ask: “Is this our war or is it not our war?”
Seems like this, and similar problems, could be solved with the help of a team of crack snipers. But we don't do that anymore, no matter how many lives it would save.
I can't get over the feeling that we've not nearly exhausted our non-military options to wear Russia down. The fact is that not only is war immediately exploited to put money in pockets, so is the need of opponents for certain products.
I suspect we could still plug a lot of holes through which trade is flowing in and out of Russia; that China and Iran can be, um, incentivized to stop selling them weapons and parts. As always, I'm suspicious that wealth and influence find ways around sanctions.
Roy, I really, really would like to see those non-military options enumerated. Would you please do that? I am not, not being a smart ass by asking this simply because I cannot think of many, many such non-military options.
Together with not being able to think of any such options I DO think that so many countries in the West, in particular the sad failed state in which you and I live, would debate, dither and confuse but not deliver on any such non-military options.
As a final thought, I must ask whether, in your opinion, Ukraine still has sufficient time in which to allow such non-military options to work? Again, not a smart ass comment but it is a real question for which I seek your opinion.
Primarily, threats to also stop doing business with India and China if they don't stop doing (lethal) business with Russia. For those two names, add many others (Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, Vietnam...) but those are the big ones.
At some point with economic "war", the pain to your own businesspeople becomes too high to bear. Cutting off your profits to spite Russia's face, as it were. Very wealthy people start phoning up MPs about lost contracts and maybe closing doors, "you've ruined us", etc.
Wars are mostly about how much economic pain you can bear, as the lives of soldiers are lightly weighted, at the top. Alastair Smith, and Bruce Bueno de Mesquite, authors of "The Dictator's Handbook", note that the free nations had more belly for war than the dictatorship, because dictatorships only exist for their 1%. By 1945, the richest German industrialists were hiding their wealth, pulling back support from the regime, preparing their exits, whereas the free societies fought to the last dollar. (Russians imagined themselves a freer society than ours, at the time, free of evil capitalists and run by socialist angels.)
The Russian government is now far worse than Nazi Germany's, in terms of corruption. Russian government now exists for its 0.1%, not for the people. Their attack surface is the businesses that make those oligarchs rich - above all, selling energy to India and China (now that we/EU are not buying). But we're letting India and China subvert the war aims because our own 1% would hate sanctioning them. (If we could bottle up all Russian gas, there'd be no need to insist on no-weapons-sales, because Russia couldn't afford them.)
It's the obvious next step, but our leaders have very little belly for actions that would hurt those lovely sales to them, cheap stuff we get from them. Remember when we our massive spat with Saudi started and they cut off students and ambassadors...and the $600M light-armoured-vehicle contract sailed along untouched, because it would have cost a thousand jobs in Ontario? We need the guts to face losses like that, not just "spend more on defense."
Sorry to prattle on at such length. I'm aware how complicated international trade is, and how hard all this would be; I just darkly suspect we haven't tried that hard. The huge problem is that it would only work if ultimately multi-lateral, all nations either persuaded, or bullied, into compliance.
I just think if the negotiators and business people who find it all just too hard and costly were the ones going to the front line for lack of it, they'd go back and dig deeper.
I had already thought of those things and immediately discarded them not because they are incorrect but I felt that the Canadian government would never try to do such a thing. Canada used to be considered a middle power but is now much more properly approaching the category of failed state. My point is that Canada could not reasonably expect anyone to listen if we proposed such an action.
On the other hand, Canada could do it by itself because "it's the right thing to do," you know, just like we justify the ruinous carbon ideology that has taken over our country. No, such an action by other countries will not occur unless and until some very "worthy" [no definition offered by me] lead the way. And, at that, Canada would probably moralize and not follow a good idea.
So, I agree in full but I cannot see it happening.
So ..... troops on the ground. Or not, in which case, Russia ultimately takes over Ukraine.
The domino theory did not apply in Vietnam but in this case, the xenophobia and personal ambition is pushed by an individual so perhaps the domino theory has validity.
Since 1941 during WWII when Hitler had three million soldiers invade Russia in 1941, resulting in the death of at least 16 million Russian civilians and 8 million soldiers, Russia has become very protective and isolated.
The resultant of dividing the spoils after World War II, was that the Soviet Union came into being, with all countries surrounding Russia being within their control. NATO was formed with the sole purpose of protecting member nations, of which Russia was not a member. Today six NATO bases in Europe have nuclear weapons aimed at Russia. Culturally, Putin's position is that the people of Crimea as well as now the Donbas region are majority ethnic Russians, and want to be part of Russia. Politically, he argues that if Ukraine becomes a NATO member there would soon be U.S. missiles aimed at them from the Ukraine/Russia border.
Ukraine on the other hand argues they want complete independence from Russia and finds comfort in aligning itself with the United States.
NATO members fear invasion by Russia, and hence prefer closer ties to the United States, militarily and economically. The United States in turn feels it is to their benefit to have close ties with anyone who opposes Russia. In the end, we have a formal Strategic Partnership being established between Ukraine and the U.S.
When France's President Marcon asks, "Is this our war, or is it not?" he is expressing a fear that if Ukraine or even more parts of Ukraine fall under Russian control, soon it will be France and other European nations. The same domino effect thinking which brought the United States into Vietnam.
When Putin invaded Ukraine some two years ago, some Russian experts maintained that Russia, no matter the sanctions, could afford to prolong this conflict for years. These experts are being proven correct. It is time to stop the killing and destruction and come to a resolution to this conflict. Expanding the conflict is not a resolution.
As someone with a Polish grandfather who was a school teacher in his mid-20's in 1939, I find it disgusting that you portray Russia/USSR as some sort of victim in WW2. Funny that your little potted history starts in 1941, and somehow claims that the Soviet Union came about in the aftermath of WW2. You have a completely warped sense of history.
Here's a pretty good Fraser Institute retrospective on defence spending since the Mulroney years. It goes up when you'd expect it to (the early Afghanistan years, for the first time in years) and goes down when you'd expect (most other times). The party stripe of the government seems to have very little influence over these trends. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/defence-spending-in-canada-a-look-at-the-data
This coming election season, the Liberals will not propose any new defence spending, but neither will the Conservatives, because the real enemy is the woke Left, and they can be beaten without tanks.
Excellent...my thoughts put into your words, Paul. We have been living our lives since WW2 on the backs of that generation who were faced with the same situation as a bad guy crept towards them relentlessly..."is this our war, or is it not"...Macron had to say it and I believe the majority of NATO will get it very soon.
For anyone who knows me, they will be surprised to hear that I have been thinking that it is time to start heeding the sounds of war. I suspect that France and the rest of Europe are hearing the sounds much louder.
It means that our economies are going to have either gear up in a controlled way to a more focused effort at considering imminent war or risk being plunged into it as a crisis moves too quickly.
The reallocation of resources and the sacrificing of industrial policy in favour of more effective scaling up of military capability need to be on the table. Nothing that I personally would have considered 3 years ago.
As you point out in this piece, France is considering that the time is now to prevent a broader escalation and to demonstrate resolve and really do what is needed to “have their backs” for as long as it takes.
A scale up of military capability doesn't have to sacrifice industrial policy. It could boost it really.
This position is all based on the premise that Russia will invade other countries, and that the only solution is a military one. Who is pressuring these countries to the negotiating table?
It is a pretty solid premise given Russia's track record of violating the borders of neighbouring countries. They used to be bumper sticker in the Cold War that said; "Visit Russia Before Russia Visits You".
First, as always, well written, well thought out and, well, just great. Thank you, as always, PW.
And, meanwhile in Canada ...... it's hopeless ....
Mr. Wells (Paul, I just cannot make myself call you Paul - seems disrespectful of a very serious guy, you know?) has said that he thinks that the upcoming budget will increase military spending. Given the history of the current Prime Face Painter - and his father, for that matter - not to mention most of the intervening governments, the military is not important. Chrystia Freeland is herself of Ukrainian heritage, has spent much time in Ukraine, speaks Ukrainian, has made passionate speeches in favor of Ukraine but she has done nothing obvious to advance Canada's military assistance to Ukraine. Mr. Wells, I hope - I pray - you are right but I think you are wrong. I expect much additional spending from this government in this budget, all in the hope of turning around the polls but I don't see support for Ukraine as moving the needle on the government's (lack of) popularity so I cannot see that it will be addressed in the budget.
I started off above by saying, "And, meanwhile in Canada ...... it's hopeless ...." We cannot maintain order; the police protect the people who want to tear down our society, the people who will not allow two heads of state attend a dinner, the people who fire bomb places of worship; the police defend people who disrupt transportation (oops! they defend SOME of them!). The government cannot manage pretty much anything successfully other than charging higher and higher taxes and placing more red tape and restrictions on ever so much.
So, I offer to you a definition from the Oxford dictionary folks: "failed state (noun) a state whose political or economic system has become so weak that the government is no longer in control."
Ring any bells?
And now, back to Ukraine.
I am too old to serve in the military; my kids are too old to serve. My three grandchildren are under 10 so they will soon be in the "correct" age group to serve. Hell!
Given that Canada is so weak and bends it's knees to pretty much anyone who just kinda, possibly, maybe threatens it ("good" reasons not required), it is my grandchildren who will have to deal with these consequences which very much include the revanchist Russian dictatorship. We say that no one will come after Canada because we are too far away. Well, Russia and China are already prowling around in the North; elections here will soon be decided by China, India, Russia - countries other than Canada. Given that we will do pretty well nothing for Ukraine we can expect Russia to conquer Ukraine. And, then, Russia will be off to take over other countries.
But, don't worry - we're all right, Jack! No one is coming after us!
Yet.
Yup, failed state.
Yes, the North. Many Canadian talking heads don’t seem to have clued in to our own vulnerability to Russia and China and the future value of defending our northern passage rights. Heads in the sand as usual.
The idiocy of most Canadians in believing a) no one will ever attack us because we are sooooo remote from the rest of the world, and b) if someone does attack us the US will step in, is breathtakingly ostrich like.
Clearly, China and Russia covet the North and are encroaching on our sovereign territory currently. The only way that will stop is if somebody stops them. Canada does not have sufficient military forces to even try to enforce a stop and, even if Canada had the requisite number of troops, Canada does not actively train troops for northern warfare and has essentially no equipment for such warfare. That leaves it to the US and one can be very certain that the US will insist of ongoing rights and access if it assists.
And, of course, Canada doesn't want to embarrass the Chinese (or the Russians for that matter) by calling them out for their northern adventurism. Canada is more worried about offending China by trying stop interference in our elections.
Stupid country that I live in!
To be honest I believe we marched back military spending after the cold war ended (you can challenge me on that, I'm going on memory), with the happy notion that world peace had been achieved. So did Europe I think. Now we'll see who can recognize and act on the new reality. Macron seems to be pivoting pretty quickly.
Like you, I am going from memory.
Yes, after the end of the cold war the military spending was dramatically cut. Having said that, previous administrations also found the military to be a useful place to find cuts to be allocated elsewhere. We used to have military bases in France and West Germany; the French bases were closed first and the German bases were closed at the end of the cold war (per Mr. Google).
If you go back far enough (T1) the Canadian navy had it's own aircraft carrier, the HMCS Bonaventure) but that luxury was ended during the reign of T1.
No, we have not been a military nation since WWII but we were trying maintain a pretense until the 1970s.
It is a time-honoured Canadian tradition to be caught with our pants down.
I was among those who publicly said this war would be over in three, two, one... I was also among those who called for a NATO-enforced no-fly zone at that time. Macron's question is simple to answer: it is our war, and always was, just as the peace, if it can be restored, will be ours. Maybe--only maybe--if Russia got spanked by NATO, Russia's soft allies in Beijing and Tehran would realize Ukraine isn't worth the disruption. Beijing can afford to be coy, calling for a diplomatic solution, because right now it's just money the West is sending. When all the carrier groups in the Western world converge on the Eastern Med and the Gulf; when the Bering Strait is blockaded; when sanctions extend to Friends of the Regime; when Russian assets frozen in European banks are confiscated and not just frozen; when everyone is shown clearly two sides and asked to choose one; then Russia will find itself without such powerful friends I think. What part Canada would play in this, I shudder to think. Decades of utter neglect hath brought our military to near the breaking point. Easy for me to cry, Let loose the dogs of war: in my 40s, with two bad knees, I'd be rejected as a volunteer out of hand. But this is not a skirmish or a distraction, this is the main event for Canada for the foreseeable future; so if not now, when?
Well said.
Great piece which captures the full throttle the dilemmas of NATO’s and West’s existential moment.
Macron, like all leaders, has occasion to speak publicly and in these statements, he spoke powerfully and we should be paying more attention. Your article, Paul, helps us to do so.
As usual, Paul, your article is my highlight of the week. Am 76 and throughout my adulthood I have become increasingly concerned with the total incompetence of government at all levels.The constant bickering among LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT and POLITICAL PARTIES have meant that over time few of society’s problems have been solved. And now perhaps an existential moment!
It takes two decades to move the mindset of society away from the bleak, Soviet outlook towards trust and appreciation of personal freedoms. The Baltic states went through this but, they wisely joined NATO at their first opportunity, well before the mindset had started to move. Ukraine took a longer road but they finally got there sans NATO membership. This is why they are fighting so well. It would be a shame them to lose.
For this reason, the West should have jumped in quickly. Slowly escalating support over two years has caused much suffering in Ukraine. It will look foolish if the West decides to move in now but better late than never and the help will be welcomed.
Almost every small town in Southern Ontario has a commemorative park or structure erected by Dutch immigrants to thank Canadians for liberating the Netherlands during the 1940s. In Goderich, they constructed a square gazebo and each of the four facades was in the architectural style of a different region of the Netherlands. We have a tradition of liberating people.
I wish that Canadians had made the moral decision to jump in quickly and give our rhetoric substance. Our NATO allies could have back-filled our role in Latvia to free up what little forces we have. I also wish that the Canadian Forces were capable of much more than having a negligible impact. Two years of waffling is an embarrassment to Canadians and the West. Do or do not - there should not have been, 'let's wait and see if a few bread crumbs here or there just might be enough.' In Canada, it looks like the pysanka in Vegreville, Alberta, will remain extremely lonely.
Ukraine asked for a no-fly zone right at the beginning of the war. NATO refused to do it on the grounds that it would lead to World War III. Now it sounds as if we're going to get WWIII anyway. I don't know if that no-fly zone would have saved lives, but it's looking as if it would have saved a lot of time.
Somehow I feel like you’ll appreciate this https://www.optimallyirrational.com/p/beyond-borders-the-stakes-in-ukraine
Thank you Jason for the tip. A very precise interesting assessment of how and why Ukraine needs to be supported. It details in part Putin's posturing and the red lines he has set that have, in spite of his threats, been crossed. Reminds one of the beginnings of WWII.
Thanks Jason. This is a great piece.
A no fly zone in Ukraine would have required striking numerous targets within Russian territory so they couldn't target NATO planes enforcing it. A no fly zone requires continual air patrols, and modern air defense systems have ranges measured in hundreds of kilometers. NATO declaring a no fly zone in Ukraine would be tantamount to a declaration of war against Russia.
Yes! And war against Russia will sooner or later happen anyway. That was the point. Well, unless Putin dies first, or somebody makes him die. This is entirely his war. Would anyone want to continue it if he was no longer around?
Thanks for the details on how no-fly zones work.
I'm somewhat resigned to a direct conflict between NATO and Russia at some point, but I don't think we should be all that eager to start it. A lot of very intelligent and respected commentators were either totally dishonest or completely ignorant about a no-fly zone being some sort of magic solution that would both prevent a Russian invasion and avoid a direct conflict between NATO and Russia when in reality it was massively escalatory. It's clear now that the West should have been far less concerned about escalation in the conflict's early days, but I don't think that extends to NATO starting a shooting war at the outset.
As far as Putin and Russia goes, if Putin drops dead tomorrow nothing much would change on the ground. Whoever comes after him is likely to be as bad or worse. The regime can't go backwards now, and they know it. Which is why I think conflicts over the Baltic countries, Moldova, or Poland are coming down the road unless Russia is defeated in Ukraine.
In a perfect world, we would all live in Peace!
I agree with Macron that the ambitious Putin is a danger to NATO and the world order and has to be stopped in Ukraine. To date, though, the West has not clearly defined what it wants to achieve with support for Ukraine. If we want them to win -- as we should -- then let's say so and act accordingly. So far our support has a reluctant quality to it and seems to reflect a desire that Ukraine not lose. And please, let's not be wetting our pants every time Putin rattles his nukes. It would make no more sense for him to use nuclear weapons than it would for the West to do so. The guy is a bully and should be dealt with like one.
Paul, re your comment on NATO and its ill-fated foray into Afghanistan, I think that it’s important to point out that that conflict was a “war on terror”. Foreign terrorists attacked the US on 9/11, and the US declared war on terrorism. Because the terrorists were considered to be hiding out in Afghanistan, which was and still is for all intents a failed state, the US focused its war efforts there. And because the US is a NATO country it invoked Article 5 of the NATO charter thereby enjoining other member countries (including Canada) in the conflict.
I suspect NATO never envisioned this scenario (basically an insurgency war) back in 1949, but rather the more historical scenario of a country invading and attacking a member country. Hence the morass which was Afghanistan rather than the traditional army vs army conflict upon which NATO was founded.
Ukraine is not a member of NATO but it has been invaded and attacked by Russia. This should be of grave concern to other European countries and so, rightly, Macron posits, better late than never I would add: “Is this our war or is it not our war?”
This is a question which has already been answered by history. Which brings to the fore that old saying that goes along the lines of “those who ignore the lessons of history are bound to repeat them.”
Two years ago, shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine, I ressponded to comments by Matt Gurney and Jen Gerson over at The Line:
“I read yesterday’s dispatch (26 Mar) and kept coming back to this line: ‘The Ukrainians are finally doing what the West should have done years ago, namely, standing up to Vladimir Putin, his bullying, and his aggression.’ Of course, one can only surmise as to what you meant by the West ‘standing up’ but the implication seems to be that while the Ukrainians are ‘standing up’, we in the West haven’t yet found the raison d’être to similarly face Russian aggression. You made clear in at least two of your previous dispatches wherein, to paraphrase, you couldn’t endorse standing up to Putin’s aggression in a form such as implementing a no-fly zone because that might (or would) lead to a NATO/Russia military confrontation, and worse, because of implied threats by Putin, to a nuclear conflict.
This begs the question, in the context of military aggression, in this case an invasion of a sovereign democratic state, exactly how would you propose that the West ‘stand up’? No sane person wants to see a nuclear war and an argument could be made that no sane person would threaten one. But once such a threat is made or implied - then what? Do we recoil in fear … or do we ‘stand up’? …..
I can’t help but remember back in 1962, when challenged by President Kennedy - Kruschev blinked. Here we are 60 years later in 2022, Putin has challenged the West - and the West has blinked. The US, in particular, has abandoned its role as Leader of the Free World. Putin has become emboldened by the West’s lack of resolve and the only good thing that has come out of this is the revelation of the surprising impotence of the Russian military in the face of Ukrainian resistance.
…. despite the continued refusal of NATO to intervene, the Ukrainians seem to be holding their own and in some places even causing the Russians to retreat around Kyiv. But this disaster in Ukraine, now entering its second month, should never have been allowed to unfold as it has. I think that Terry Glavin’s quote from Ukrainian President Zelensky best sums things up: ‘We believe that NATO member states have themselves created a narrative that the closure of the airspace in Ukraine would provoke direct aggression from Russia against NATO. It is self-induced hypnosis of those who are weak and lack confidence.’ ”
Well, back to today, here the world sits 2 years later and the conflict still drags on with Ukrainian loss of life in the tens of thousands and hundreds of billions in property and infrastructure destruction. Putin is still threatening nuclear retaliation. The West has been supplying Ukraine just enough equipment and ammunition to keep it in the fray, but not near enough for it to mount an effective counterattack. If Russia prevails and eventually defeats Ukraine - then what's next on his agenda? So the time is long overdue, and Macron is right to ask: “Is this our war or is it not our war?”
Seems like this, and similar problems, could be solved with the help of a team of crack snipers. But we don't do that anymore, no matter how many lives it would save.
I can't get over the feeling that we've not nearly exhausted our non-military options to wear Russia down. The fact is that not only is war immediately exploited to put money in pockets, so is the need of opponents for certain products.
I suspect we could still plug a lot of holes through which trade is flowing in and out of Russia; that China and Iran can be, um, incentivized to stop selling them weapons and parts. As always, I'm suspicious that wealth and influence find ways around sanctions.
Roy, I really, really would like to see those non-military options enumerated. Would you please do that? I am not, not being a smart ass by asking this simply because I cannot think of many, many such non-military options.
Together with not being able to think of any such options I DO think that so many countries in the West, in particular the sad failed state in which you and I live, would debate, dither and confuse but not deliver on any such non-military options.
As a final thought, I must ask whether, in your opinion, Ukraine still has sufficient time in which to allow such non-military options to work? Again, not a smart ass comment but it is a real question for which I seek your opinion.
Primarily, threats to also stop doing business with India and China if they don't stop doing (lethal) business with Russia. For those two names, add many others (Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, Vietnam...) but those are the big ones.
At some point with economic "war", the pain to your own businesspeople becomes too high to bear. Cutting off your profits to spite Russia's face, as it were. Very wealthy people start phoning up MPs about lost contracts and maybe closing doors, "you've ruined us", etc.
Wars are mostly about how much economic pain you can bear, as the lives of soldiers are lightly weighted, at the top. Alastair Smith, and Bruce Bueno de Mesquite, authors of "The Dictator's Handbook", note that the free nations had more belly for war than the dictatorship, because dictatorships only exist for their 1%. By 1945, the richest German industrialists were hiding their wealth, pulling back support from the regime, preparing their exits, whereas the free societies fought to the last dollar. (Russians imagined themselves a freer society than ours, at the time, free of evil capitalists and run by socialist angels.)
The Russian government is now far worse than Nazi Germany's, in terms of corruption. Russian government now exists for its 0.1%, not for the people. Their attack surface is the businesses that make those oligarchs rich - above all, selling energy to India and China (now that we/EU are not buying). But we're letting India and China subvert the war aims because our own 1% would hate sanctioning them. (If we could bottle up all Russian gas, there'd be no need to insist on no-weapons-sales, because Russia couldn't afford them.)
It's the obvious next step, but our leaders have very little belly for actions that would hurt those lovely sales to them, cheap stuff we get from them. Remember when we our massive spat with Saudi started and they cut off students and ambassadors...and the $600M light-armoured-vehicle contract sailed along untouched, because it would have cost a thousand jobs in Ontario? We need the guts to face losses like that, not just "spend more on defense."
Sorry to prattle on at such length. I'm aware how complicated international trade is, and how hard all this would be; I just darkly suspect we haven't tried that hard. The huge problem is that it would only work if ultimately multi-lateral, all nations either persuaded, or bullied, into compliance.
I just think if the negotiators and business people who find it all just too hard and costly were the ones going to the front line for lack of it, they'd go back and dig deeper.
Roy, you are correct in your analysis.
I had already thought of those things and immediately discarded them not because they are incorrect but I felt that the Canadian government would never try to do such a thing. Canada used to be considered a middle power but is now much more properly approaching the category of failed state. My point is that Canada could not reasonably expect anyone to listen if we proposed such an action.
On the other hand, Canada could do it by itself because "it's the right thing to do," you know, just like we justify the ruinous carbon ideology that has taken over our country. No, such an action by other countries will not occur unless and until some very "worthy" [no definition offered by me] lead the way. And, at that, Canada would probably moralize and not follow a good idea.
So, I agree in full but I cannot see it happening.
So ..... troops on the ground. Or not, in which case, Russia ultimately takes over Ukraine.
The domino theory did not apply in Vietnam but in this case, the xenophobia and personal ambition is pushed by an individual so perhaps the domino theory has validity.
View form my kitchen table.
Since 1941 during WWII when Hitler had three million soldiers invade Russia in 1941, resulting in the death of at least 16 million Russian civilians and 8 million soldiers, Russia has become very protective and isolated.
The resultant of dividing the spoils after World War II, was that the Soviet Union came into being, with all countries surrounding Russia being within their control. NATO was formed with the sole purpose of protecting member nations, of which Russia was not a member. Today six NATO bases in Europe have nuclear weapons aimed at Russia. Culturally, Putin's position is that the people of Crimea as well as now the Donbas region are majority ethnic Russians, and want to be part of Russia. Politically, he argues that if Ukraine becomes a NATO member there would soon be U.S. missiles aimed at them from the Ukraine/Russia border.
Ukraine on the other hand argues they want complete independence from Russia and finds comfort in aligning itself with the United States.
NATO members fear invasion by Russia, and hence prefer closer ties to the United States, militarily and economically. The United States in turn feels it is to their benefit to have close ties with anyone who opposes Russia. In the end, we have a formal Strategic Partnership being established between Ukraine and the U.S.
When France's President Marcon asks, "Is this our war, or is it not?" he is expressing a fear that if Ukraine or even more parts of Ukraine fall under Russian control, soon it will be France and other European nations. The same domino effect thinking which brought the United States into Vietnam.
When Putin invaded Ukraine some two years ago, some Russian experts maintained that Russia, no matter the sanctions, could afford to prolong this conflict for years. These experts are being proven correct. It is time to stop the killing and destruction and come to a resolution to this conflict. Expanding the conflict is not a resolution.
Is your kitchen table in Minsk, perhaps?
The view from the Kremlin.
As someone with a Polish grandfather who was a school teacher in his mid-20's in 1939, I find it disgusting that you portray Russia/USSR as some sort of victim in WW2. Funny that your little potted history starts in 1941, and somehow claims that the Soviet Union came about in the aftermath of WW2. You have a completely warped sense of history.
Neville Chamberlain would applaud that position.