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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 enjoy your writing don't get me wrong but I have one question and you can block me for asking it but I think its fair: who's covering the cost of this trip to Ankara?
You are. Thanks! More broadly, every news organization pays market prices for their travel and accommodation. That's been the standard for every government I've covered since 1994 and, I suspect, long before
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 enjoy your writing don't get me wrong but I have one question and you can block me for asking it but I think its fair: who's covering the cost of this trip to Ankara?
You are. Thanks! More broadly, every news organization pays market prices for their travel and accommodation. That's been the standard for every government I've covered since 1994 and, I suspect, long before
Any news organization that accepts funding from the government is NOT paying "market" prices for anything they do, including travel.