Tiny point: Look at the Canadian flag behind Carney. I've never seen a newer, shinier flag anywhere. We saw a few more like it around the summit site. It's like a lot of what we saw in Ankara: Brand-new and not really lived-in. There was a real city wrapped around it, but we didn't see much of it.
I think a reduced role by America in NATO is a good thing. Canada and her European allies are capable of taking more responsibility in dealing with whatever problems Russia causes. I would like to see America (who hopefully will have somebody more competent as president after the next election) to continue to be involved, but in a lesser role. China is the most pressing threat right now, and America needs to pivot to the Pacific.
IMHO, increased NATO spending will be directed primarily to other NATO members (like Canada's recent submarine purchase) and where possible, domestically.
We absolutely need to strengthen our defence. Such a dear price for murmuring “ oh well, Ukraine is over there and us guys will show that Putin what’s what!” It never happened and the collective western world is paying a big price for wishing it would all just go away.
The point of Canada's spending is to pull our weight in the defensive alliance. Trump has a legitimate beef when he harps on defence spending levels. For too long, Canada was a NATO freeloader. Now we are atoning for that neglect. When a country lets all its military hardware rust out or go obsolete at the same time, the catchup is horrendously costly -- as we are finding out..
I hope that the Prime Minister and his government work hard this summer to develop a compelling public narrative WRT defence spending and its CRUCIAL importance to this country.
Narratives aren't the only things that matter, but in a democracy, or indeed any sort of polity, those with the most compelling narratives are usually the ones who gain the most points, in political terms.
it seems astonishing to me that nobody talks about the nuclear endgame that lurks behind this global militarization.
there is not a stitch of historical evidence that the constant, incessant "re-up" that has been going on for the last 125 years on this planet has led to anything except hundreds of millions of deaths and the ensuing and massive neglect of urgent human needs other than military safety.
in fact, war and the drumbeat for more war is what really constitutes the last 500 years of so-called enlightened european history.
and yet the drumbeat of realpolitik goes on and on anytime militarization is questioned
the point is not that questioning militarization is "necessarily" the only answer. it is simply that there is nary even a peep about the stunning ambiguities of all this "defensive" posturing and spending. not even from canucks who used to stand for something other than the endless augmentation of the military status quo.
when do we actually get just a real debate about war? there was a brief one 60 years ago and you know where that got us. y'all have drunk ALL the kool-aid. the world has been moved far to the right since that time.
i suspect there is no debate forthcoming. gird the loins.
my point is really the lack of consciousness about the rather obvious and severe ambiguity of the arms race and then the complete absence of any debate about that, including the nuclear arms race.
given the history of the atom bomb already and the world presently drowning in nuclear arms, and in the context of the collapse of already existent nuclear arms treaties, surely at least a mention of same, never mind a real debate would be appropriate.
and whether iran does or does not eventually develop nuclear arms is quite irrelevant.
one tiny starting point would be for canada to convene even a small group of nations opposing an arms race. the young, particularly college students, also need to hit the streets. specifics can be developed as conversation begins. there are plenty of military specialists around to engage with.
what we have instead is a categorical vacuum. nothing. silence.
when did we ever see any sovereign power that failed to use the arms that they accumulated? usage is guaranteed. you buy it, you use it. sooner or later.
I understand the broader premise of NATO membership, but it's weight on the "defense of Europe" is not obviously reciprocated in European's efforts towards the "defense of Canada".
Is this simply the cost of entry, so that we have someplace to go should disaster fall? But have they ever been there for Canada in the past? Why would we believe they would be in the future? The Europeans after all invented perfidy.
Let's invest only proportional to the probable support from those who in most circumstances are our ruthless competitors.
The European NATO allies will support Canada and vice-versa.
Obviously we would all prefer it if the United States took a deep breath and removed the loon that currently leads them. But we've all decided, quite sensibly, that waiting, and praying, for such an outcome to come quickly would be silly.
I would have preferred to hear Mark Carney say we’re spending $100 billion building our own next-generation unmanned systems for air, sea, and land — or, if we must partner, doing so with Ukraine, which has been sinking the Russian navy by turning Canadian-made Bombardier SeaDoos into naval drones. The Ukrainians aren’t waiting a decade for a crewed submarine; they’re hacking Canadian consumer technology today to decimate warships in the Black Sea.
As Canadians learned in 1939, we already have what we need at home: the critical minerals, the brains, the brawn. We can build our own defences, in Canada, by Canadians. The German companies we’re courting in 2026 could be governed by the neo-fascist, Trump-backed Alternative für Deutschland by the time the first ThyssenKrupp submarine is ready, a decade from now.
Disagree strongly with the main thrust of your argument. Canadian history has repeatedly underscored the importance of close cooperation with allies.
We won't get to call how those allies manage their domestic politics, but we certainly can call how it is we manage our diplomacy and our intelligence assessments, with a view to ensuring Canadian interests.
Please provide historical examples of how allies helped us in national defence. What I can see in history is this: We have provided troops and materiel to help defend others, at our cost. The others have not provided the same to us.
Canadian forces have been involved in joint combat operations with allies in the past. Yes, these took place overseas, but our involvement was very much about securing our own interests, as well as those of our allies.
Would it have been in our interest to sit idly by while European allies were destroyed by Nazi Germany?
Would it have been in our interest to do nothing in the face of Imperial Japanese aggression in the Pacific?
Would it have been in our interest to ignore a call by the UN, which we helped to establish, when a resolution was passed in respect of Korea in 1950?
Would it make sense to allow US fighters to intercept foreign aircraft on patrol in Canadian air space in the Arctic?
Would it have been right to simply ignore what happened to the United States on the 11th of September in 2001 and subsequent calls for involvement in Afghanistan?
Yes, sometimes these things go awry, but we undertake them because of self-
interest and commitments to allies.
We are in alliances because successive generations of Canadians have supported politicians and officials who presented compelling reasons as to why these things benefit us. In other words, it is in our strategic interest to join and support these things.
Please provide historical examples of how allies DID NOT help us in national defence. The US has often scrambled fighters to intercept Soviet and Russian bombers approaching Canadian airspace. We are part of an alliance and allies help each other.
I do find the comment from Carney to watch for the budget to be interesting. I am concerned that at said budget, we will find that a choice has been made, and that "there won't be enough money for dental care or pharmacare". Similar how we heard lots of words of support for fighting climate change, until the last moment, and then we heard it was too costly the day before we funded a new pipeline. All governments need to make choices. But I find this government and this PM to be even more tight-lipped about their choices right up to the last possible second. Which is their right, but I think in the long run, it breeds cynicism in a pool of voters that might have voted strategically last election and now are questioning that choice.
A political party that hasn't had the courage to throw out yesterday's man?
Or a party led by men and women who would much rather fight culture wars and punt for environmental extremism, despite rapidly shifting global geostrategic dynamics?
I have some sympathy for politicians who have to navigate the proclivities of voters wholly unrealistic about the costs of running a modern country in a dangerous and demanding world and the taxes needed to fund them.
my specific recommendations are entirely irrelevant. my position is that the species needs to disarm. period. the fact that this is utopian is also irrelevant.
again. there are religious leaders, military specialists, academics, political leaders, nation-states that need to opine. not me.
what is needed is consciousness that yet another rearmament is at minimum extremely dangerous to the existence of the species, followed by a debate by people with the power, for better or worse, while being pressured by their constituencies to get off their asses and jam, to get serious about the planet.
what has gone before is pitiful and pathetic. each generation seems to essentially put the following generations at extreme risk by their ignorance, by their narcissism. this way of living is not viable. too much financial, political, and technological power has been accumulated by just a few men. the butchery must stop. basta ya.
Remember the adage, "walk softly and carry a big stick", it is good advice in a dangerous world. However the Liberals have a long tradition of talking loudly and letting someone else, usually the Americans, pay for andcarry the big stick. I don't believe that the Liberals have made a fundamental change. This is just another example of loud talk tailored for anxious voters.
The proof will be in the pudding, ie in a couple year's time we'll be able to look at the military and see if this spending increase has made a noticeable difference in terms of recruitment/personnel #s and the quality of equipment the CAF then poseses. And how much difference or not this new defence procurement agency has made.
I always assumed that nobody else followed the USA into wartime military spending during peacetime because the USA was considered to have been captured by Mr. Eisenhower's Complex, just spending for the arms industry benefit.
But if we all do have to arm if they leave, could I see a list of enemies credible for this spending?
Russia? Ahem. China? Would go broke without their customers. Non-nuclear nations? Do not attack nuclear nations.
At least in the Cold War, we got Tom Clancy "Red Storm Rising" scenarios to scare us. I can't think of a Tom Clancy novel about the supervillains of 2035 that are just waiting to pounce upon us.
NATO lost it's relevance after 9/11. The US' War on Terror was a total shift away from Russia & Europe, NATO's purpose. There has been decades-long discussion about Article 5, the mutual defense line. After 9/11, the US was never going to help Europe resist a Russian attack. Relying on the Article was the basis for underfunding defense.
JT hated the Highway of Heroes. That was spontaneous, private and celebrated military sacrifice. He wanted the adulation given freely to our military. His solution: starve it.
Successive Canadian governments have been “starving” the military for years before JT including the elimination of 30K military positions from 2005-2015. Your assertion that JT hated the “highway of heroes” is ridiculous and has no basis in reality.
I’m not sure what to make of this column. I get why Carney and other leaders have to try, or at least pretend to try, to treat Trump as a rational player. The type with whom you can have serious negotiations and trade-offs. (Even though they know they’re dealing with a mad King.) Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to view him that way as well, as someone for whom there will be a rationale other than his own ego and enrichment?
The leaders of NATO member countries meet to discuss peace, all the while the globe's biggest arms manufacturers attend to sell their wares, on the premise we need a strong military for our own safety and security to protect us from our aggressive neighbours. Our governments embrace the mentality of peace through military might. An oxymoron?
Closer to home, we lock the doors to our homes and vehicles as otherwise they will be stolen by a neighbour.
Obviously we have a very long way to go before we live in peace and harmony.
Tiny point: Look at the Canadian flag behind Carney. I've never seen a newer, shinier flag anywhere. We saw a few more like it around the summit site. It's like a lot of what we saw in Ankara: Brand-new and not really lived-in. There was a real city wrapped around it, but we didn't see much of it.
I think a reduced role by America in NATO is a good thing. Canada and her European allies are capable of taking more responsibility in dealing with whatever problems Russia causes. I would like to see America (who hopefully will have somebody more competent as president after the next election) to continue to be involved, but in a lesser role. China is the most pressing threat right now, and America needs to pivot to the Pacific.
And for sure American arms manufacturers will still be ever so prevalent.
IMHO, increased NATO spending will be directed primarily to other NATO members (like Canada's recent submarine purchase) and where possible, domestically.
We absolutely need to strengthen our defence. Such a dear price for murmuring “ oh well, Ukraine is over there and us guys will show that Putin what’s what!” It never happened and the collective western world is paying a big price for wishing it would all just go away.
The point of Canada's spending is to pull our weight in the defensive alliance. Trump has a legitimate beef when he harps on defence spending levels. For too long, Canada was a NATO freeloader. Now we are atoning for that neglect. When a country lets all its military hardware rust out or go obsolete at the same time, the catchup is horrendously costly -- as we are finding out..
I hope that the Prime Minister and his government work hard this summer to develop a compelling public narrative WRT defence spending and its CRUCIAL importance to this country.
Narratives aren't the only things that matter, but in a democracy, or indeed any sort of polity, those with the most compelling narratives are usually the ones who gain the most points, in political terms.
it seems astonishing to me that nobody talks about the nuclear endgame that lurks behind this global militarization.
there is not a stitch of historical evidence that the constant, incessant "re-up" that has been going on for the last 125 years on this planet has led to anything except hundreds of millions of deaths and the ensuing and massive neglect of urgent human needs other than military safety.
in fact, war and the drumbeat for more war is what really constitutes the last 500 years of so-called enlightened european history.
and yet the drumbeat of realpolitik goes on and on anytime militarization is questioned
the point is not that questioning militarization is "necessarily" the only answer. it is simply that there is nary even a peep about the stunning ambiguities of all this "defensive" posturing and spending. not even from canucks who used to stand for something other than the endless augmentation of the military status quo.
when do we actually get just a real debate about war? there was a brief one 60 years ago and you know where that got us. y'all have drunk ALL the kool-aid. the world has been moved far to the right since that time.
i suspect there is no debate forthcoming. gird the loins.
What is your preferred option (besides militarization I presume), how would you get the world to agree to it, and how would you enforce it?
my point is really the lack of consciousness about the rather obvious and severe ambiguity of the arms race and then the complete absence of any debate about that, including the nuclear arms race.
given the history of the atom bomb already and the world presently drowning in nuclear arms, and in the context of the collapse of already existent nuclear arms treaties, surely at least a mention of same, never mind a real debate would be appropriate.
and whether iran does or does not eventually develop nuclear arms is quite irrelevant.
one tiny starting point would be for canada to convene even a small group of nations opposing an arms race. the young, particularly college students, also need to hit the streets. specifics can be developed as conversation begins. there are plenty of military specialists around to engage with.
what we have instead is a categorical vacuum. nothing. silence.
when did we ever see any sovereign power that failed to use the arms that they accumulated? usage is guaranteed. you buy it, you use it. sooner or later.
So, again, what's your point? you say "there's an absence of debate". OK, what would *your* position be in that debate?
Your position would be "Canada should oppose the arms race". Great! But who cares? What happens when the rest of the world does not go along with it?
I understand the broader premise of NATO membership, but it's weight on the "defense of Europe" is not obviously reciprocated in European's efforts towards the "defense of Canada".
Is this simply the cost of entry, so that we have someplace to go should disaster fall? But have they ever been there for Canada in the past? Why would we believe they would be in the future? The Europeans after all invented perfidy.
Let's invest only proportional to the probable support from those who in most circumstances are our ruthless competitors.
The European NATO allies will support Canada and vice-versa.
Obviously we would all prefer it if the United States took a deep breath and removed the loon that currently leads them. But we've all decided, quite sensibly, that waiting, and praying, for such an outcome to come quickly would be silly.
I would have preferred to hear Mark Carney say we’re spending $100 billion building our own next-generation unmanned systems for air, sea, and land — or, if we must partner, doing so with Ukraine, which has been sinking the Russian navy by turning Canadian-made Bombardier SeaDoos into naval drones. The Ukrainians aren’t waiting a decade for a crewed submarine; they’re hacking Canadian consumer technology today to decimate warships in the Black Sea.
As Canadians learned in 1939, we already have what we need at home: the critical minerals, the brains, the brawn. We can build our own defences, in Canada, by Canadians. The German companies we’re courting in 2026 could be governed by the neo-fascist, Trump-backed Alternative für Deutschland by the time the first ThyssenKrupp submarine is ready, a decade from now.
https://georgeemerson.substack.com/p/will-thyssen-u-boats-save-canadas?r=4pw0q&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Disagree strongly with the main thrust of your argument. Canadian history has repeatedly underscored the importance of close cooperation with allies.
We won't get to call how those allies manage their domestic politics, but we certainly can call how it is we manage our diplomacy and our intelligence assessments, with a view to ensuring Canadian interests.
"Going it alone" is a fool's paradise.
Please provide historical examples of how allies helped us in national defence. What I can see in history is this: We have provided troops and materiel to help defend others, at our cost. The others have not provided the same to us.
Canadian forces have been involved in joint combat operations with allies in the past. Yes, these took place overseas, but our involvement was very much about securing our own interests, as well as those of our allies.
Would it have been in our interest to sit idly by while European allies were destroyed by Nazi Germany?
Would it have been in our interest to do nothing in the face of Imperial Japanese aggression in the Pacific?
Would it have been in our interest to ignore a call by the UN, which we helped to establish, when a resolution was passed in respect of Korea in 1950?
Would it make sense to allow US fighters to intercept foreign aircraft on patrol in Canadian air space in the Arctic?
Would it have been right to simply ignore what happened to the United States on the 11th of September in 2001 and subsequent calls for involvement in Afghanistan?
Yes, sometimes these things go awry, but we undertake them because of self-
interest and commitments to allies.
We are in alliances because successive generations of Canadians have supported politicians and officials who presented compelling reasons as to why these things benefit us. In other words, it is in our strategic interest to join and support these things.
I am talking about industrial defence production. How did you conflate that with what you cited?
You wrote “national defence”. Hardly a clear reference to “defence sector industrial production”.
Please provide historical examples of how allies DID NOT help us in national defence. The US has often scrambled fighters to intercept Soviet and Russian bombers approaching Canadian airspace. We are part of an alliance and allies help each other.
Per above - I am talking about industrial defence production. That was clear in my original post, and in the reply to the comment.
Late comer here. Your point was perfectly clear to me, George.
His initial post, yes, but then he switched to talking about national defence and that was what I was responding to.
I do find the comment from Carney to watch for the budget to be interesting. I am concerned that at said budget, we will find that a choice has been made, and that "there won't be enough money for dental care or pharmacare". Similar how we heard lots of words of support for fighting climate change, until the last moment, and then we heard it was too costly the day before we funded a new pipeline. All governments need to make choices. But I find this government and this PM to be even more tight-lipped about their choices right up to the last possible second. Which is their right, but I think in the long run, it breeds cynicism in a pool of voters that might have voted strategically last election and now are questioning that choice.
What alternative?
A political party that hasn't had the courage to throw out yesterday's man?
Or a party led by men and women who would much rather fight culture wars and punt for environmental extremism, despite rapidly shifting global geostrategic dynamics?
I have some sympathy for politicians who have to navigate the proclivities of voters wholly unrealistic about the costs of running a modern country in a dangerous and demanding world and the taxes needed to fund them.
my specific recommendations are entirely irrelevant. my position is that the species needs to disarm. period. the fact that this is utopian is also irrelevant.
again. there are religious leaders, military specialists, academics, political leaders, nation-states that need to opine. not me.
what is needed is consciousness that yet another rearmament is at minimum extremely dangerous to the existence of the species, followed by a debate by people with the power, for better or worse, while being pressured by their constituencies to get off their asses and jam, to get serious about the planet.
what has gone before is pitiful and pathetic. each generation seems to essentially put the following generations at extreme risk by their ignorance, by their narcissism. this way of living is not viable. too much financial, political, and technological power has been accumulated by just a few men. the butchery must stop. basta ya.
Remember the adage, "walk softly and carry a big stick", it is good advice in a dangerous world. However the Liberals have a long tradition of talking loudly and letting someone else, usually the Americans, pay for andcarry the big stick. I don't believe that the Liberals have made a fundamental change. This is just another example of loud talk tailored for anxious voters.
The proof will be in the pudding, ie in a couple year's time we'll be able to look at the military and see if this spending increase has made a noticeable difference in terms of recruitment/personnel #s and the quality of equipment the CAF then poseses. And how much difference or not this new defence procurement agency has made.
I always assumed that nobody else followed the USA into wartime military spending during peacetime because the USA was considered to have been captured by Mr. Eisenhower's Complex, just spending for the arms industry benefit.
But if we all do have to arm if they leave, could I see a list of enemies credible for this spending?
Russia? Ahem. China? Would go broke without their customers. Non-nuclear nations? Do not attack nuclear nations.
At least in the Cold War, we got Tom Clancy "Red Storm Rising" scenarios to scare us. I can't think of a Tom Clancy novel about the supervillains of 2035 that are just waiting to pounce upon us.
NATO lost it's relevance after 9/11. The US' War on Terror was a total shift away from Russia & Europe, NATO's purpose. There has been decades-long discussion about Article 5, the mutual defense line. After 9/11, the US was never going to help Europe resist a Russian attack. Relying on the Article was the basis for underfunding defense.
JT hated the Highway of Heroes. That was spontaneous, private and celebrated military sacrifice. He wanted the adulation given freely to our military. His solution: starve it.
Successive Canadian governments have been “starving” the military for years before JT including the elimination of 30K military positions from 2005-2015. Your assertion that JT hated the “highway of heroes” is ridiculous and has no basis in reality.
I’m not sure what to make of this column. I get why Carney and other leaders have to try, or at least pretend to try, to treat Trump as a rational player. The type with whom you can have serious negotiations and trade-offs. (Even though they know they’re dealing with a mad King.) Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to view him that way as well, as someone for whom there will be a rationale other than his own ego and enrichment?
What a species we are!
The leaders of NATO member countries meet to discuss peace, all the while the globe's biggest arms manufacturers attend to sell their wares, on the premise we need a strong military for our own safety and security to protect us from our aggressive neighbours. Our governments embrace the mentality of peace through military might. An oxymoron?
Closer to home, we lock the doors to our homes and vehicles as otherwise they will be stolen by a neighbour.
Obviously we have a very long way to go before we live in peace and harmony.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
I appreciate your non-aligned impartial assessments—thank you.