• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'd rather those tax dollars go to killing Russki invaders than being wasted by some L1 on new furniture. Makes the Army's job easier down the road if the Russians decide to hit Poland or the Baltics.
Yet if Ukraine throws in the towel simply because it is exhausted, that will all just be a sunk cost and we won't have anything ready to help in Poland and the Baltics, nor to deter anyone else who thinks that NATO or various coalitions of the willing centred on the US are temporarily weak.
 
Yet if Ukraine throws in the towel simply because it is exhausted, that will all just be a sunk cost and we won't have anything ready to help in Poland and the Baltics, nor to deter anyone else who thinks that NATO or various coalitions of the willing centred on the US are temporarily weak.
Ukraine isnt throwing in the towel anytime soon. If they do there is a serious risk they are ethnically cleansed or genocided. To paraphrase, they will fight in the streets, fields, landing grounds, etc. If we reach that point, NATO willing be gearing up general war and we'll receive all the kit we need for the parking lots of shit that the USA is sitting on via lend lease. All these donations are doing is cleaning out old stock.
 
Ukraine isnt throwing in the towel anytime soon. If they do there is a serious risk they are ethnically cleansed or genocided. To paraphrase, they will fight in the streets, fields, landing grounds, etc. If we reach that point, NATO willing be gearing up general war and we'll receive all the kit we need for the parking lots of shit that the USA is sitting on via lend lease. All these donations are doing is cleaning out old stock.
I doubt Putin expects complete collapse or would hold out for a surrender amounting to same. "Throwing in the towel" at this point would be simply conceding the land Russia already occupies.
 
I'd rather those tax dollars go to killing Russki invaders than being wasted by some L1 on new furniture. Makes the Army's job easier down the road if the Russians decide to hit Poland or the Baltics.
This has to be the cheapest Great Power war ever fought (Russian aid to Vietnam?). Costing no NATO lives and minimal equipment. Seems extremely stupid to not finish the job with another $300 billion in aid from the combined economies of $32 trillion
 
According to Politico - Ottawa Playbook’s daily email this morning the climate address was given in the Cdn Embassy. It seems that there were more LPC MPs in attendance than anyone else. The three notable foreign reps were the Norwegian and Belgian foreign ministers and the Biden administration senior advisor on climate change. That’s it.
Again, how dare someone post “facts and context” in a political thread?
 
It’s like he watched Biden's debate and afterwards Freeland and Joly bet him that he couldn't look/sound worse in a public setting and Trudeau said 'Hold my Zinfandel'.
We’re talking about the same speech where @Fabius pointed out it wasn’t to the NATO Assembly, and mostly to Canadian politicians, right?
 
Yet if Ukraine throws in the towel simply because it is exhausted, that will all just be a sunk cost and we won't have anything ready to help in Poland and the Baltics, nor to deter anyone else who thinks that NATO or various coalitions of the willing centred on the US are temporarily weak.

The only reason Ukraine would “throw in the towel” is if Western (i.e. American) aid dried up. All indications point to them staying in the fight as long as the Yanks (and us) continue to support them.

As long as they’re willing to fight, we should support them maximally. Any less will see the Russian Empire expanding into Georgia, Moldova, the Baltics, Poland, etc.
 
The only reason Ukraine would “throw in the towel” is if Western (i.e. American) aid dried up. All indications point to them staying in the fight as long as the Yanks (and us) continue to support them.

As long as they’re willing to fight, we should support them maximally. Any less will see the Russian Empire expanding into Georgia, Moldova, the Baltics, Poland, etc.
They already went 6 months without aid from the US. Who knows whats going to happen if Trump becomes President again? Ukraine should be prepared and the rest of NATO should be prepared to step up.
 
And then there’s the issue of foreign aid. Whether it’s bilateral or multilateral trade, I take particular exception to those countries that spend huge amounts on their military machines getting assistance from Canada so that they don’t have to improve their standard of living for their people. In the meantime, Justin says we can’t afford to increase our defence spending to the level NATO wants. This is a chart from Global Affairs Canada for 2022-23. I do believe in supporting Ukraine to the fullest and even Haiti and some other countries who are down on their luck and their resources. But India? Pakistan? Afghanistan? Or perhaps I’m just being overly simplistic.

Geographic distribution of Canada’s international assistance​

iar-rai-2022-2023-03_en.png
 
Poilievre says he wants to restore the military while cutting spending — how would that work?

How would that work, journalist? Unleash the resource sector, restore measures that will improve the economy, cut funding for CBC, foreign aid, and social and transfer programs. Slowly scale funding back up in some social/transfer programs once Canada's defence obligations are secure.
 
The only reason Ukraine would “throw in the towel” is if Western (i.e. American) aid dried up. All indications point to them staying in the fight as long as the Yanks (and us) continue to support them.
Ukraine will have a threshold at which loss of life becomes a determining factor irrespective of foreign aid.
As long as they’re willing to fight, we should support them maximally. Any less will see the Russian Empire expanding into Georgia, Moldova, the Baltics, Poland, etc.
Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are all NATO members. None of those is a deadbeat by NATO standards. To stretch Trump's threat to let Russia have its way with deadbeats (which is not necessarily credible in itself) into a threat against any of those is making sh!t up. So it would mean war with NATO, which would mean everything Russia owns is on the table. Anything that puts to sea will be lost; much of what sits in harbours will be lost. It will be the work of three or four decades just to rebuild its navy. Everything it receives by sea will be blockaded (sunk, if the shipping companies are persistently obtuse). Its air force will also be written down to almost nothing - again, expensive and time-consuming to replace. I suppose what is left of its barely-able-to-function-above-battle-group army can grab a few kilometres of depth at selected points along borders, for a while.

I suspect NATO would be able to eventually dictate terms that include restoration of Ukrainian territory, unless Putin popped a nuke to draw a hard line on how abject Russia's negotiating position would be.
 
At what point does a nation stop fighting for its survival/independence? How long for Afghanistan? Vietnam? France? Ireland? Dagestan?
Ukraine is getting F16's while Russia is refurbishing T-55's and T-62's
 
At what point does a nation stop fighting for its survival/independence? How long for Afghanistan? Vietnam? France? Ireland? Dagestan?
Ukraine is getting F16's while Russia is refurbishing T-55's and T-62's

Probably similar to Germany near the end of WWII - when a sustainable stalemate is no longer the best hope and decisive loss is on the horizon.
 
Probably similar to Germany near the end of WWII - when a sustainable stalemate is no longer the best hope and decisive loss is on the horizon.
hmm. Germany in WW2 is completely defeated and conquered, so they capitulated. Ukraine is nowhere close to this situation. But why does one nation or culture at any given time choose to keep fighting while another does not?
 
The security issues caused by "climate change" pale in significance to the problems created by people and their governments. Famines are typically man-made (managerial failures). Large cities on river deltas aren't slipping into the sea because of sea level rise; the ground is subsiding due to aquifer depletion. And so on.

The biggest security issue is people fleeing tyrannical governments and those that interfere too much with open markets. Nothing to do with climate.

That's why it's called a threat multiplier. Climate change isn't automatically a strategic threat. But it can make actual strategic threats much worse. For example, what do you think will happen in the Global South if more extreme climate drives substantial volatility in food prices? Part of what set off Syria was actually water stress driving pressure on farmers who increasingly got upset at the regime's inability to deal with it. I do agree that the PM is being insincere and evasive when he talks about climate change as a threat but then doesn't resource the very organizations that will be needed in a more volatile security environment. But that doesn't negate climate change as a threat multiplier. That's just a politician being a politician unfortunately.

Green tech doesn’t mean cheaper or more available or even less environmental damage- arguably much more

Cleantech has advantages well beyond climate benefits. That's why when I was in grad school at a military institution (NPS = Naval Postgraduate School), there were so many cleantech thesis topics. And a lot of the students who picked those were Afghan vets who intimately understood the logistics risks of delivering fuel to a COP or FOB. Some were SOF guys who had actually used electric motorcycles in theatre. I was grateful to be in an environment where people can set aside their politics and emotions and understand the value of technology for what it is.
 
Back
Top