Short note to remind everyone that I will *certainly* criticize whoever your preferred party or candidate is. If you love it when I take a whack at your favourite goat, you will hate it when I am insufficiently reverential to your champion. This is something that will certainly happen. Carry on.
Great idea, in theory anyway. None of us like to see our guy criticized, and I have noticed that you get a little "testy" sometimes when commenters take a shot at you. What's that saying about glass houses? Personally I avoid getting into disagreements with you because you are far more knowledgeable about politics and a vastly better writer, I'm not too concerned however, because I know you are too much of a gentleman to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Good discussion Paul. Two things I especially liked in the discussion were the point that the political class needs to develop/have/demonstrate the courage to lead (rather than simply responding to polls) in the areas of defence and to do more than mouth platitudes. Also their discussion on the need to focus on personnel and creating military organizations that attract and retain people given the options that exist for Canadians. I remember a time growing up next to the Wainwright army base when soldiers were help in high regard. That would be a laudable goal today.
Thank you for this. The commentary provided by Vincent Rigby and Philippe Lagasse was spot on, as was the dark tone of the Carleton University report.
Canadians have been woefully content to wallow in their ignorance of the world and their complacent disregard for our collective responsibility to ensure the security and defence of our country.
If this existential threat from the United States ("our closest and most important strategic partner") is not sufficient to the task of awakening Canadians from their slumber, then perhaps we do not deserve to survive as a separate state.
Love this discussion with Lagassé and Rigby. Being myself an old hand at Foreign Affairs, they make very good points and I do not know if we will finally get a serious discussion on Foreign policy and defence. Especially now with Trump and his threats, we need to make Canadians understand and get our politicians wake up. If it does not happen this time around, then our future is not bright.
As for the magnitude of spending I believe there’s a strong case for 3% asap (this is no time for revenue cuts) in a rebuilding phase with perhaps a relaxing of that back to somewhere around 2 to 2.5% to maintain.
(These numbers may need to be adjusted in the event of a decision to initiate a nuclear weapons program.)
Such a good podcast! Makes me wish I’d actually taken my MA in politics after graduating from Queen’s… I’ve held so many of these ideas for 30+ years, I could have been voicing them too.
When I was in government communications for a federal department (I won’t name here), in the early 2000s (for less than 2 years as the constraints of the system drove me mad), I asked: where was our national policy on our subject area. I was told that we don’t, as a rule, explicitly state that anywhere. That made me crazy, and when I again raised the issue at a fairly senior table, I was told to be quiet, that explicitly stating the federal policy was not what we did. I pushed to at least understand the policy and was ultimately told that we sell our goods to the US, we regulate extraction using a philosophy of “sustainable development,” and we respect markets. But it took several more years for said policy to be articulated for the public to understand.
I have never understood why governments think Canadians can’t handle the truth.
I sincerely hope that we stop this tail wagging the dog and build policy from a place of understanding the Canadian needs rather than the “joiner” philosophy that we’ve had for generations. And then we simply must communicate where we land on policy to the public, so they know, and can engage in dialogue, or object by voting, if they wish.
We need to keep our eye on the ball… in this case, for military spending, it’s not about the percentage of GDP spent on the military that matters, its the explicit policy of what we are going to do with our military that matters, and how much that will cost us… Once we have done that work, then consider how close we come to the 2%, or whatever the number is… if we don’t build policy based on what we need, we’re simply throwing money into the air. Scattered effort is no effort at all.
For anyone that missed it this was some insightful reporting from inside the hoard. Didn’t love to read about provincial elites cozying up to the Trump camp. Fits with what we’ve been seeing in this crisis though…
Trudeau has recalled the unelected Laurentian parliament, instead of the elected Canadian parliament. Actual parliamentarians are not invited. The Laurentian Deep State autocrats are not even obfuscating their disdain for democracy anymore.
"Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the upcoming Canada-U.S. Economic Summit, bringing together leaders in business, trade, public policy, and organized labour to galvanize investment, grow our economy, and diversify Canada’s export markets."
It's not like parliament was functional before prorogation.
A filibuster stopped parliamentary business..
Unruly behavior made the chamber almost unmanageable
Poilievre even had problems managing his own caucus
It was a place of obscene dysfunction, unfit for the eyes and ears of schools children.
We need a politics where those in the chamber work for the best interests of all via cooperation and consensus making, not peering and staged photo of clips for social media.
If the Liberals had produced all the documents in regards to the Green Slush Fund as they were ordered to by parliament and the Speaker of the House, a filibuster would not have been necessary. Why did they refuse to release everything, what are they hiding?
Mps will realize they are there to do the people's business when voters punish a government that does not produce documents they are ordered to produce.
If a voter thinks the dysfunctional parliament was due to a fillibuster and not due to a wasteful, secretive and corrupt government, then we will continue to be a nation in a rapid decline.
And the other opposition parties were in agreement with the conservatives that the documents should be produced but some choose to just blame the conservatives as usual.
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms".
Do you believe in democratic representative government or not? You appear not to. Let us have the Laurentian elites just sit around a table and decide for us, rather than the elected representatives of the people.
Do YOU believe in democratic representative government or not?
Surely you know that in 2019 and 2021 Conservative got more votes than the Liberals but far fewer MPs in the House of Commons.
Surely you know that first-past-the-post the most put its thumb on the scale electing Trudeau to majority government in 2015 and minority governments in 2019 and 2021?
Surely you know then that the House of Commons is not representative of voters when 50% of votes are discarded by first-past-the-post?
I'd say there's a tacit deal between Laurentian elites and western elites to keep in place the cozy first-past-the-post created duopoly from which Liberals and Conservatives benefit. Neither wants to fix it.
2% is a starting goal. We should go higher. That's not warmongering. We just received the mother of all wake up calls from the US. We need to diversify our trading partners and all of them require us to cross oceans. The US is busy blowing up the rules based international order. We will need to join new trading partners in ensuring the safety of shipping lanes. I think trade is an opening to bring Canadians into the defence discussion.
I think Canadians still value international justice. With the US, ah, stepping back, Canada has an opportunity to join with the middle powers in leading the charge. We need to start imagining a world without US hegemony. That could be a world where medium and small countries work through alliances toward common justice and development goals. We don't have to scamper to the next global giant!
Defence and Intelligence: We have to start contributing more. Reports coming from the US indicate that Elon Musk has breached the US government computers including defence networks. Both Tulsi Gabbard and Elon Musk are viewed as likely Russian agents. To spell this out: the secutity of US intelligence is at risk. To further spell out the security position, the end of USAID will bring terrorist acts to our shores.
When I worked in the public service, I was in defence research for the navy. Most of that time was characterized by the demoralization and learned helplessness that arises in a directionless organization. The naked self interest of the managerial class then filled the void and trickled down. If we can define a strong goal for our military and capture the imagination of Canadians, the moral/recruitment issues will start to abate. I suspect even the procurement issues will be diminished as public servants begin to align their self-interest with a clear goal. (Most people have no clue how much procurement woes are tied up in an employee's self-interested fear of not getting punished for a tiny mistake. No one wants to take responsibility for anything. I've run contracts. I've been there. I know.)
I'm going to do my part, but Canadians need to understand the truth of our situation. dental care and universal daycare are pretty dreams that will mean nothing if we can't defend ourselves and our allies. We have a starting point - the US is tearing itself apart and cannot be depended upon. We need to ruthlessly exploit it.
Tara, I have to disagree with the basic premise of your comment. “2% is a starting goal.” That said, I think if you re-listen to what Vincent and Phillippe said you will realize that more money is not and should not be a starting goal.
Canada and Canadians may have national goals and aspirations, but more often than not those are not national interests. I consider goals and aspirations to be wants were as interests are needs. So yes you are correct to say that ten dollar daycare is a want vice a need. However, we have no collective idea as to what our prioritized national needs are. Until we do, spending real and big money on defence and security will just perpetuate the status quo.
Fascinating conversation that left me both informed but utterly depressed. We can't endure another lost decade.
In terms of NATO, what is the actual cost discrepancy? From what I've been able to understand, we currently spend 41 billion on defense (1.35%). To get us to 2% we would need to add how many more billions? (27 billion this year?) Can't we look to other countries who recently reached their 2% benchmarks and emulate some of their choices in terms of personnel and procurement? Have that be a focus of the national security strategy on how to scale up more quickly.
Trudeau doubled consultancy cost from 8 billion to 16 billion (while increasing the Federal civil servant by 30+ %). To start, re-allocate those 8 billion dollars to defense. How stupid are we as a nation? We are being threatened with 25% tariffs, which will cost wildly more than 27 billion. Carney just stated he will reach our NATO obligations by 2030! This isn't a serious candidate.
I hate to say this, but until we are actually, physically attacked (and I don't mean by nasty musings by Trump, nor any pending tariffs he may impose), nothing of substance will happen with regards to defence.
Canada lives in a Disney-like fantasy.
War and conflicts happen 'over there' in the minds of 99% of Canadians.
As for our leadership, such that it is or could be?
Trudeau won't do it - he's performative.
Carney won't do it - he's 'fighting climate change'.
Pollievre won't do it - he's fighting taxes and regulations.
I don't want to be physically attacked, but that's what I fear it will take to wake Canadians up.
In cold reality, Canadians don't, and won't, stand on guard for thee.
Both Trudeau PM's despised the military. The Liberals see it as a huge waste of money. We could have developed an indigenous arms industry. However, too many politicians, especially the NDP types, decried anything to do with weapons and were pacifists or communist dupes. People like Mr Granatstein have been telling us for years we have been neglecting our military. I doubt very much that there is any serious intent on the side of the Liberals and the NDP (or the Bloc for that matter) to have a properly funded military.
Great guests with a deep understanding of Canadian status quo. How do we get from here to there? Fearless leadership is required and we certainly don't have it with the current lot. I really heard the reference to risk aversion as being problematic within the bureaucracy. Now that we are seeing a step down in the questioning of motives behind many Western democratic cultural institutions worldwide (thank you US) perhaps there is a chance to free up the funds to really invest in foreign policy and fulfill our military requirements. What really scares me is that the recent Trudeau contemplation of a COVID years financial response will become a reality complete with the fraud and ridiculous lack of oversight , how can Canada possibly commit economically to anything? I picture the Liberals gleefully rubbing their hands together drooling over the thought that they will again get access to our subdued taxation pool.
Such a good podcast! Makes me wish I’d actually taken my MA in politics after graduating from Queen’s… I’ve held so many of these ideas for 30+ years, I could have been voicing them too.
When I was in government communications for a federal department (I won’t name here), in the early 2000s (for less than 2 years as the constraints of the system drove me mad), I asked: where was our national policy on our subject area. I was told that we don’t, as a rule, explicitly state that anywhere. That made me crazy, and when I again raised the issue at a fairly senior table, I was told to be quiet, that explicitly stating the federal policy was not what we did. I pushed to at least understand the policy and was ultimately told that we sell our goods to the US, we regulate extraction using a philosophy of “sustainable development,” and we respect markets. But it took several more years for said policy to be articulated for the public to understand.
I have never understood why governments think Canadians can’t handle the truth.
I sincerely hope that we stop this tail wagging the dog and build policy from a place of understanding the Canadian needs rather then the “joiner” philosophy that we’ve had for generations. And then we simply must communicate where we land on policy to the public, so they know, and can engage in dialogue, or object by voting, if they wish.
We need to keep our eye on the ball… in this case, for military spending, it’s not about the percentage of GDP spent on the military that matters, its the explicit policy of what we are going to do with our military that matters, and how much that will cost us… once we have done that work, then consider how close we come to the 2%, or whatever the number is… if we don’t build policy based on what we need, we’re simply throwing money into the air. Scattered effort is no effort at all.
Can someone dig up the source of the 2% of GDP target? Based on SIPRI statistics, NATO countries appear to be outspending Russia in military by a factor of 15 to 1. So not even close. Is this a NATO - WTO relic?
A suggestion about the transcriptions (which can read faster than I can listen): Could the transcription identify the speaker in some way when the speaker changes?
I've been mostly leaving the transcription robots to their own devices, with obviously mixed results, but I'll try to do at least this. It's kind of fun to see which combination of voices confuses the AI, although probably more fun for me than for you.
Short note to remind everyone that I will *certainly* criticize whoever your preferred party or candidate is. If you love it when I take a whack at your favourite goat, you will hate it when I am insufficiently reverential to your champion. This is something that will certainly happen. Carry on.
At the present moment in time, I do NOT have a preferred party or candidate , so feel free to whack as many goats as you wish!
Great idea, in theory anyway. None of us like to see our guy criticized, and I have noticed that you get a little "testy" sometimes when commenters take a shot at you. What's that saying about glass houses? Personally I avoid getting into disagreements with you because you are far more knowledgeable about politics and a vastly better writer, I'm not too concerned however, because I know you are too much of a gentleman to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Heh-heh, you certainly didn’t have to tell me that. I’ve felt the sting!
Good discussion Paul. Two things I especially liked in the discussion were the point that the political class needs to develop/have/demonstrate the courage to lead (rather than simply responding to polls) in the areas of defence and to do more than mouth platitudes. Also their discussion on the need to focus on personnel and creating military organizations that attract and retain people given the options that exist for Canadians. I remember a time growing up next to the Wainwright army base when soldiers were help in high regard. That would be a laudable goal today.
Thank you for this. The commentary provided by Vincent Rigby and Philippe Lagasse was spot on, as was the dark tone of the Carleton University report.
Canadians have been woefully content to wallow in their ignorance of the world and their complacent disregard for our collective responsibility to ensure the security and defence of our country.
If this existential threat from the United States ("our closest and most important strategic partner") is not sufficient to the task of awakening Canadians from their slumber, then perhaps we do not deserve to survive as a separate state.
A depressing thought but it has been in my mind as well.
Love this discussion with Lagassé and Rigby. Being myself an old hand at Foreign Affairs, they make very good points and I do not know if we will finally get a serious discussion on Foreign policy and defence. Especially now with Trump and his threats, we need to make Canadians understand and get our politicians wake up. If it does not happen this time around, then our future is not bright.
As for how to get politicians and citizens to take sharply higher military spending seriously I would rely heavily on this shameful graph…
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/econographics/whos-at-2-percent-look-how-nato-allies-have-increased-their-defense-spending-since-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/
As for the magnitude of spending I believe there’s a strong case for 3% asap (this is no time for revenue cuts) in a rebuilding phase with perhaps a relaxing of that back to somewhere around 2 to 2.5% to maintain.
(These numbers may need to be adjusted in the event of a decision to initiate a nuclear weapons program.)
Such a good podcast! Makes me wish I’d actually taken my MA in politics after graduating from Queen’s… I’ve held so many of these ideas for 30+ years, I could have been voicing them too.
When I was in government communications for a federal department (I won’t name here), in the early 2000s (for less than 2 years as the constraints of the system drove me mad), I asked: where was our national policy on our subject area. I was told that we don’t, as a rule, explicitly state that anywhere. That made me crazy, and when I again raised the issue at a fairly senior table, I was told to be quiet, that explicitly stating the federal policy was not what we did. I pushed to at least understand the policy and was ultimately told that we sell our goods to the US, we regulate extraction using a philosophy of “sustainable development,” and we respect markets. But it took several more years for said policy to be articulated for the public to understand.
I have never understood why governments think Canadians can’t handle the truth.
I sincerely hope that we stop this tail wagging the dog and build policy from a place of understanding the Canadian needs rather than the “joiner” philosophy that we’ve had for generations. And then we simply must communicate where we land on policy to the public, so they know, and can engage in dialogue, or object by voting, if they wish.
We need to keep our eye on the ball… in this case, for military spending, it’s not about the percentage of GDP spent on the military that matters, its the explicit policy of what we are going to do with our military that matters, and how much that will cost us… Once we have done that work, then consider how close we come to the 2%, or whatever the number is… if we don’t build policy based on what we need, we’re simply throwing money into the air. Scattered effort is no effort at all.
For anyone that missed it this was some insightful reporting from inside the hoard. Didn’t love to read about provincial elites cozying up to the Trump camp. Fits with what we’ve been seeing in this crisis though…
https://globalnews.ca/news/11005023/steve-bannon-donald-trump-tariffs-canada-arctic-interview/
Trudeau has recalled the unelected Laurentian parliament, instead of the elected Canadian parliament. Actual parliamentarians are not invited. The Laurentian Deep State autocrats are not even obfuscating their disdain for democracy anymore.
"Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the upcoming Canada-U.S. Economic Summit, bringing together leaders in business, trade, public policy, and organized labour to galvanize investment, grow our economy, and diversify Canada’s export markets."
https://x.com/CanadianPM/status/1887158014001467741
It's not like parliament was functional before prorogation.
A filibuster stopped parliamentary business..
Unruly behavior made the chamber almost unmanageable
Poilievre even had problems managing his own caucus
It was a place of obscene dysfunction, unfit for the eyes and ears of schools children.
We need a politics where those in the chamber work for the best interests of all via cooperation and consensus making, not peering and staged photo of clips for social media.
If the Liberals had produced all the documents in regards to the Green Slush Fund as they were ordered to by parliament and the Speaker of the House, a filibuster would not have been necessary. Why did they refuse to release everything, what are they hiding?
I thought Liberals muddied the waters by giving over a complete set of documents with redactions...
The NDP and BQ sided with Conservatives...the whole place came to a standstill for months..
When will MPs realize that they are there to do the people's business not to play silly games?
When we all cast an equal vote is when we will get a much more functional parliament without the games...
Mps will realize they are there to do the people's business when voters punish a government that does not produce documents they are ordered to produce.
If a voter thinks the dysfunctional parliament was due to a fillibuster and not due to a wasteful, secretive and corrupt government, then we will continue to be a nation in a rapid decline.
And the other opposition parties were in agreement with the conservatives that the documents should be produced but some choose to just blame the conservatives as usual.
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms".
Do you believe in democratic representative government or not? You appear not to. Let us have the Laurentian elites just sit around a table and decide for us, rather than the elected representatives of the people.
Do YOU believe in democratic representative government or not?
Surely you know that in 2019 and 2021 Conservative got more votes than the Liberals but far fewer MPs in the House of Commons.
Surely you know that first-past-the-post the most put its thumb on the scale electing Trudeau to majority government in 2015 and minority governments in 2019 and 2021?
Surely you know then that the House of Commons is not representative of voters when 50% of votes are discarded by first-past-the-post?
I'd say there's a tacit deal between Laurentian elites and western elites to keep in place the cozy first-past-the-post created duopoly from which Liberals and Conservatives benefit. Neither wants to fix it.
Real representative democracy can go pound sand.
Absolutely fantastic episode! So many thoughts.
2% is a starting goal. We should go higher. That's not warmongering. We just received the mother of all wake up calls from the US. We need to diversify our trading partners and all of them require us to cross oceans. The US is busy blowing up the rules based international order. We will need to join new trading partners in ensuring the safety of shipping lanes. I think trade is an opening to bring Canadians into the defence discussion.
I think Canadians still value international justice. With the US, ah, stepping back, Canada has an opportunity to join with the middle powers in leading the charge. We need to start imagining a world without US hegemony. That could be a world where medium and small countries work through alliances toward common justice and development goals. We don't have to scamper to the next global giant!
Defence and Intelligence: We have to start contributing more. Reports coming from the US indicate that Elon Musk has breached the US government computers including defence networks. Both Tulsi Gabbard and Elon Musk are viewed as likely Russian agents. To spell this out: the secutity of US intelligence is at risk. To further spell out the security position, the end of USAID will bring terrorist acts to our shores.
When I worked in the public service, I was in defence research for the navy. Most of that time was characterized by the demoralization and learned helplessness that arises in a directionless organization. The naked self interest of the managerial class then filled the void and trickled down. If we can define a strong goal for our military and capture the imagination of Canadians, the moral/recruitment issues will start to abate. I suspect even the procurement issues will be diminished as public servants begin to align their self-interest with a clear goal. (Most people have no clue how much procurement woes are tied up in an employee's self-interested fear of not getting punished for a tiny mistake. No one wants to take responsibility for anything. I've run contracts. I've been there. I know.)
I'm going to do my part, but Canadians need to understand the truth of our situation. dental care and universal daycare are pretty dreams that will mean nothing if we can't defend ourselves and our allies. We have a starting point - the US is tearing itself apart and cannot be depended upon. We need to ruthlessly exploit it.
Tara, I have to disagree with the basic premise of your comment. “2% is a starting goal.” That said, I think if you re-listen to what Vincent and Phillippe said you will realize that more money is not and should not be a starting goal.
Canada and Canadians may have national goals and aspirations, but more often than not those are not national interests. I consider goals and aspirations to be wants were as interests are needs. So yes you are correct to say that ten dollar daycare is a want vice a need. However, we have no collective idea as to what our prioritized national needs are. Until we do, spending real and big money on defence and security will just perpetuate the status quo.
Fascinating conversation that left me both informed but utterly depressed. We can't endure another lost decade.
In terms of NATO, what is the actual cost discrepancy? From what I've been able to understand, we currently spend 41 billion on defense (1.35%). To get us to 2% we would need to add how many more billions? (27 billion this year?) Can't we look to other countries who recently reached their 2% benchmarks and emulate some of their choices in terms of personnel and procurement? Have that be a focus of the national security strategy on how to scale up more quickly.
Trudeau doubled consultancy cost from 8 billion to 16 billion (while increasing the Federal civil servant by 30+ %). To start, re-allocate those 8 billion dollars to defense. How stupid are we as a nation? We are being threatened with 25% tariffs, which will cost wildly more than 27 billion. Carney just stated he will reach our NATO obligations by 2030! This isn't a serious candidate.
I hate to say this, but until we are actually, physically attacked (and I don't mean by nasty musings by Trump, nor any pending tariffs he may impose), nothing of substance will happen with regards to defence.
Canada lives in a Disney-like fantasy.
War and conflicts happen 'over there' in the minds of 99% of Canadians.
As for our leadership, such that it is or could be?
Trudeau won't do it - he's performative.
Carney won't do it - he's 'fighting climate change'.
Pollievre won't do it - he's fighting taxes and regulations.
I don't want to be physically attacked, but that's what I fear it will take to wake Canadians up.
In cold reality, Canadians don't, and won't, stand on guard for thee.
We don't understand what the words even mean.
Both Trudeau PM's despised the military. The Liberals see it as a huge waste of money. We could have developed an indigenous arms industry. However, too many politicians, especially the NDP types, decried anything to do with weapons and were pacifists or communist dupes. People like Mr Granatstein have been telling us for years we have been neglecting our military. I doubt very much that there is any serious intent on the side of the Liberals and the NDP (or the Bloc for that matter) to have a properly funded military.
Great guests with a deep understanding of Canadian status quo. How do we get from here to there? Fearless leadership is required and we certainly don't have it with the current lot. I really heard the reference to risk aversion as being problematic within the bureaucracy. Now that we are seeing a step down in the questioning of motives behind many Western democratic cultural institutions worldwide (thank you US) perhaps there is a chance to free up the funds to really invest in foreign policy and fulfill our military requirements. What really scares me is that the recent Trudeau contemplation of a COVID years financial response will become a reality complete with the fraud and ridiculous lack of oversight , how can Canada possibly commit economically to anything? I picture the Liberals gleefully rubbing their hands together drooling over the thought that they will again get access to our subdued taxation pool.
True North Strong and Free........for how long?
Such a good podcast! Makes me wish I’d actually taken my MA in politics after graduating from Queen’s… I’ve held so many of these ideas for 30+ years, I could have been voicing them too.
When I was in government communications for a federal department (I won’t name here), in the early 2000s (for less than 2 years as the constraints of the system drove me mad), I asked: where was our national policy on our subject area. I was told that we don’t, as a rule, explicitly state that anywhere. That made me crazy, and when I again raised the issue at a fairly senior table, I was told to be quiet, that explicitly stating the federal policy was not what we did. I pushed to at least understand the policy and was ultimately told that we sell our goods to the US, we regulate extraction using a philosophy of “sustainable development,” and we respect markets. But it took several more years for said policy to be articulated for the public to understand.
I have never understood why governments think Canadians can’t handle the truth.
I sincerely hope that we stop this tail wagging the dog and build policy from a place of understanding the Canadian needs rather then the “joiner” philosophy that we’ve had for generations. And then we simply must communicate where we land on policy to the public, so they know, and can engage in dialogue, or object by voting, if they wish.
We need to keep our eye on the ball… in this case, for military spending, it’s not about the percentage of GDP spent on the military that matters, its the explicit policy of what we are going to do with our military that matters, and how much that will cost us… once we have done that work, then consider how close we come to the 2%, or whatever the number is… if we don’t build policy based on what we need, we’re simply throwing money into the air. Scattered effort is no effort at all.
Can someone dig up the source of the 2% of GDP target? Based on SIPRI statistics, NATO countries appear to be outspending Russia in military by a factor of 15 to 1. So not even close. Is this a NATO - WTO relic?
A suggestion about the transcriptions (which can read faster than I can listen): Could the transcription identify the speaker in some way when the speaker changes?
I've been mostly leaving the transcription robots to their own devices, with obviously mixed results, but I'll try to do at least this. It's kind of fun to see which combination of voices confuses the AI, although probably more fun for me than for you.