What? Something better than Alert? Enter into coordination agreements with Greenland-Denmark. Focus on developing trade within the TPP and with the EU. Use our abundant natural resources to augment our own interests and have no hesitation to demonstrate it to the US. We need to get a little prickly to force some respect, develop much greater self-reliance.
At the top of my list would be engagement with the Nordic countries both in terms of arctic security, but also to deepen trade ties. The difficulty in the end is twofold though:
1) are Canadians willing to suffer the economic pain that a pivot away from the US will require? Because this can’t be done without significant financial burden and permanent increased costs.
2) are Canadians and decision-makers willing to sacrifice investments in social programs and divert them to military expenditures? Because we can’t do both.
Finally, and most importantly, the existential crisis we face today will require a reinvigoration of the relationship between the fed & prov govts as well as with Canadian citizens writ large. A prerequisite for success is open, honest, transparent and accountable governance, all of which we are currently lacking in spades in this country.
It’s a very tall order for a country that’s been sleepwalking through the post-war Bretton Woods era. As Mike Tyson has presciently said, “everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.” Whatcha’ gonna do about it Canada?
The Nordics... agreed for many reasons... defense awareness, shared Arctic, common Artic threat from Russia, eyes wide open ref Russia, strong democracies, strong military structures ramping up fast...
Agree with all of these suggestions. Have you shared them with your MP and MPP? I was also horrified at the handing over of space in our airports to Americans with guns and power. The worst thing that happened to our country was Lester Pearson’s insistence on making us a nation of “peacekeepers” and neutering our military. That culture shift from what we achieved in the previous two world wars was immense and so detrimental to us. And the number of American trucks flying their flags up here during the so-called Freedom Convoy was unsettling as well. People need to wake up! Otherwise our border will be taken over faster than Ukraine and likely without a shot fired.
To be honest, I’ve stopped bothering engaging politicians at any level. The understanding of defence issues approaches zero, another reason we’re in this mess. They haven’t been interested and don’t care. And this applies to every party.
That's a reflection of the lack of understanding and interest by the voters. In an ideal world our "leaders" would exercise some leadership on this, but in the real world there aren't many vote in it, so they don't bother.
Sane and realistic proposals all around. Will anyone in Ottawa have the courage to adopt them? Our farce on this side of the line shows Canada needs to be ready to walk away from its increasingly deranged partner.
Nuclear subs are pretty much a non-starter (for a number of reasons) - capacity (there are only a handful of yards that can build them, and the next decade or two of orders are already spoken for - see all the concerns about AUKUS), support (it would take a long time to ramp up here), and actual necessity (AIP technology is improving by leaps and bounds, it'll never give the same endurance as nuclear, of course, but it's good enough for our needs).
One thing you worth looking at more closely is closer industry ties with South Korea. They're already becoming a favourite supplier of a number of nations (some flavour of K9 has been adopted by several NATO countries already). Poland is going all in on South Korean artillery, tanks and MLRS systems because SK has been a reliable partner, quick on production, and is pretty generous with domestic production licenses (Poland already produces K9 hulls for their Krab SPG, will be producing a domestic variant of the K2 tank. Similar arrangement for Turkey.) so would offer chances at building domestic defence capabilities/capacity. The KSS-III from Hanwha is the current front runner for the sub replacement program (early days yet, of course, but Hanwha has been building industry partners in Canada for over a year in advance of the actual sub replacement program being formalized), and would give us SLBM capabilities without having to go nuclear. Looking way out, the KF-21 fighter is about to enter production...
Anyway, sincerely not an ad for the South Korean defence industry, just something with a huge amount of potential for both autonomy and aligning with other NATO/European allies.
I fully agree that our southern ally is no longer trust worthy . I agree we must immediately begin forging new international economic and military ties. I believe we must look beyond our existing allies with a longer view . Today’s perceived enemies may become friends, and visa versa.
I know this will be expensive and take time . We may not have the detail knowledge between us, you and I, but we must put in place a government that will take off the old blinders and move now.
I've nursed this question for about a week and couldn't think of another place to ask it. So here goes:
Is there an argument to be made for cancelling the F-35 order? And, if so, is this even possible? There's something that chafes about making large military purchases from a power who is openly hostile to us. And - I don't know only a little about it - but the Saab Gripen seemed to me a better fit for our geography. Also, the option of building it in Canada struck me as a good use of the considerable industrial capacity that - in some of the crappier scenarios about how these 25% tariffs work out - will be lying idle in the near future.
By the way, a thanks Black Cloud for this Substack. It's nice to encounter a group of people who appear without ambivalence about preserving our country.
I knew this argument would come up and it’s a fairly valid one. My issue with Gripen E (remembering I’m not Air Force, so bear that in mind) is that capability-wise, it pales in comparison to the F-35. Remember that Canada was a founding member of the F-35 alliance, which gave us a major stake in the program. It is flown by almost all of our other allies amd the teething problems have been addressed. Moreover, the cancellation penalty at this stage would be eye watering. It’s too late.
If you’ve read my other writings, I’m deeply suspicious of creating defence industries from scratch to produce a single piece of equipment. Canada does this all the time and it has rarely worked out properly. The risk in giving completely inexperienced companies contracts to produce extremely complex pieces of technology like fighter aircraft is very, very high.
I haven't read most of your other writings yet but I gather you'd likely have referenced our unpleasant experiences with the Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy. Yup, building complex stuff is hard and what you write rings true.
It still pains me to think of us paying billions of dollars for a fighter platform - again, forgive me because I know I'm not very informed on the issue - that still seems janky and, in addition to the initial procurement costs, seems to need a lot of maintenance and fancy maintenance facilities. But, I gather it is what it is, and even if the cancellation fees weren't high Canada doesn't have leeway to take another decade to sort this out. Sigh.
Another great post, Black Cloud, and I’m glad that people are starting to come around to the understanding that the US has historically helped us because it was in their interests to do so, not out of any sense of altruism or friendship. I would like to make the following comments for further discussion:
1) On economics we also need to resurrect the Energy East pipeline project, not least because cutting off oil and gas to the US will not go over well with the almost-Americans in Alberta. Both for energy sovereignty and to appease them, we need to give them an alternative market for their hydrocarbons. It would be great if we could sell in Canada at one discounted price and to American refineries at the world market price - but right now we’re hostages to the Americans due to our limited capacity and the type of oil we produce. Add to this increased refining capacity in Canada (and for the record yes I believe in climate change and drive a Tesla, but oil isn’t going away in my lifetime);
2) We need to make a deliberate government policy to keep Canadian natural resources (and key industries) in Canadian hands. No more US or Chinese companies controlling everything for their own benefit. That is going to require investment, likely government investment, because I think that most capital to build projects currently comes from outside Canada;
3) On the defence front, you’ll recall that we considered nuclear subs in the 1980s. That project failed (I have been told) in part because Ronald Reagan didn’t want US nuclear technology transferred to Canada, and in part because of the cost. Nuke boats aren’t cheap, as the Aussies are finding out now, and could quickly gobble up the entire defence budget. I think the Australians have also given up some sovereign control of those systems in the AUKUS agreement, but obviously I’m not privy to all the details of the agreements;
4) Speaking of the Australians, we’ll need to see how their relations with the US develop under Trump. My experience with the ADF is that they are often trying to be just like the Americans, and are unwilling to listen to those of us with more experience on the pros and cons of cozying up to the US military. They also have serious security concerns of their own that *only* the US can currently help them with - so they may be less willing to join our “1777 Club” (open to post-1776 members of the British Empire) than you might think;
5) Arctic base - why? We need the capability to surveil the Arctic and to respond if we find something, but that can be done from the South (or maybe give JTFN a raison d’être) with remote sensors and perhaps autonomous weapon systems. The logistical cost of maintaining a base in the North may not be worth the effect it produces - but what is your logic?
6) the Reserve. I can hear all my Army Reserve friends groaning now, but we have too many regiments and not enough troops. I think we should stand down some regiments and focus on building what’s left. That includes providing them with actual equipment that they can train on and use in wartime. And by “equipment” I don’t mean green Chevy Silverados, I mean real (light) armour, anti-tank capabilities, maybe even organic MANPADS. And when they’ve got that equipment some of it needs to be parked at every armoury so that everyone who drives by can see it and think “I might get to drive that if I join the Reserve.”
7) related to the above - people join the CAF to do cool things. We need to let them do cool things, even if that costs money - exercises, deployments, blowing things up;
8) finally, we need to cancel F-35 (again). Not because it’s a bad airplane (by most unbiased assessments it isn’t), but because the Americans control everything about it including the software. I’m not sure of the extent but P-8 may be essentially the same. As you argue, we need to be in a position to do what we need to without having to ask the US for permission first. That likely means acquiring a European aircraft - which should be fine for the NORAD role (which isn’t something that requires an F-35’s capabilities I don’t think - although admittedly I wasn’t a pilot).
Sorry for the long comment, but I’d really love to hear your opinion (and others’ opinions) on what I’ve said.
It was a great comment and I share some of your opinions.
Nukes. I wasn’t floating nuke boats as a viable option, although I’m sure the French would be more than willing to help us out. Defence sharing between the US, US, and Australia is aimed almost entirely at the nuclear submarine program. The tech sharing between the US and UK is already very extensive on this front.
Australia. I too have very, very direct experience with the ADF and you’re exactly right. They love the US. However, I’m not certain that the same attitude extends to Australia as a whole. The “new Commonwealth” idea has been floated before and is actually part of the Conservative platform.
Arctic Base. All you say about technology is true, but there’s nothing like a physical presence, particularly one equipped to *do something* if an unwelcome intruder appears. Doing things via remote control from Winnipeg just isn’t the same. That’s my thinking anyway.
Reserves. Bang on and I agree completely. If there’s a problem, reduce Army Reserve “regiments/battalions” to sub-units and tactical group them. Easy peasy.
F-35. See my other comments here. There are literally no other options. It’s by far the best aircraft available and we would eat it if we cancelled now. Further, I’ve warned before of efforts to create a defence industry out of whole cloth for single high-technology pieces of equipment. We’ve been burned far too often (see my procurement article here: https://blackcloudsix.substack.com/p/canadas-defence-procurement-debacle )
I agree with the pipeline issue. It was talked about heavily on CJAD tonight with regards to Mark Carney's speech. Despite being a greenie at heart, limiting our exportation of oil from Alberta was a BIG misstep. But like so many things that are suddenly a hair-on-fire emergency, who the hell woulda thunk we'd be in this current situation? Ok, I guess WE should have, but I'm smacking myself in the face lately that I didn't pay closer attention to this, having been focused on U.S. issues. It's sadly easy to do when one's a dualie and arguing with MAGA family about U.S. politics. My New Year resolution is to give as much attention, time, money, and effort towards Canadian policies and party leaders I agree with as I've done for the Democrats in the U.S. for the past 20 years.
Agree 100%. I believe it’s occurred to several of us Canadians that it would be a win-win to strengthen economic ties with the UK and EU to support mutual efforts to become more independent from the US. Aligning ourselves militarily with France is a brilliant idea (not that I’m an expert) as Macron seems to be the only one out there with the guts to openly challenge putin. I admit I’ve been very ashamed of the wingeing Germans.
My fear is that people are thinking "we got thru it the last time, it's only 4 years, let's not go apeshit". But it's not 4 years. This fascist America First movement isn't going to end any time soon. We've got to plan like it's forever.
All great suggestions. Perhaps we should copy them and send them to all Party leaders and Provincial PMs. I can't believe as a dual citizen I'm the a position of seriously hating my homeland right now.
For me this is not about "U.S. bad." We should not be that entangled with any given country - especially with so great a power imbalance. The incoming administration is really just one example of why. The US will most likely recover and be a good friend again one day but we need to remain unentangled.
Thanks for the “afraid”. Very true. Wishing for a great leader who forges ahead regardless and follows his convictions and what is best for his (or her) country.
As logical as all this sounds, it has not been an electable platform - for the same reason that folks shop at Walmart, watch mostly US TV and don't eat enough vegetables. We won't vote for someone pursuing this unless and until it feels like the path of least resistance.
Funny enough, it was after I moved to Canada that I began to hate Walmart, watch no TV except what I wanted that can be horked off the internet, and married a vegetarian so yeah...I learned to love my vegies. No wonder my MAGA dad says I'm "brainwashed". YES! Yes, I am! From the thinking and lifestyle that I grew up on which I've decided is mean, gross, and fatasszombie-like. Ewww!
I don’t think it would be, on it’s own - as a vague promise, but if you plan to do what it actually takes to make it happen, I don’t believe you would get elected. And if you have a concrete plan to do the other things on the 26 point list, you will not be elected (in my over confident/under-informed view). We’ve had governments in the past promise to diversify Canadian trade. We’ve had decades of high and low profile trade missions, free trade agreements across the globe… and yet, the percentage going to and coming from the US is not trending in the right direction. Primarily because the US market is the path of least resistance.
It’s seems to me to be similar to tackling climate change. We all wonder why the politicians keep signing accords and then missing the targets. This is the planet we’re talking about trying to save - what could be a greater motivation? Finally a government comes by and starts implementing just a few of things that might move the needle (required but nowhere near sufficient)… and they’re unelectable - unless they stop doing those things.
I’m not as pessimistic as this might make me sound. I, for some reason, still believe some of these things can (and definately should) be done. But it’s just - not so simple as flipping a switch and implementing a list of things. Someone has to package up a realistic plan in a marketable way and convince enough people that the short term pain is worth it. Who will that be? Maybe, Trump will provide the impetus.
Yes, I understand completely. We as a nation would have to rally under a common cause that would entail some suffering. We’re not 1942 anymore. I also agree we’ve tried to diversify our trade before, notably under Harper when he got frustrated by the Keystone XL cancellation, if I remember correctly. The thing is, Harper looked east, mostly to China, which was a dead-end for several reasons. Now we have a chance (in my over-confident/under-informed view) to create trade partnerships with less-risky prospects like our European allies, who are also looking for ways to separate themselves both from the US and putin. How I would love to see European and Commonwealth nations forge strong economic and military bonds to undermine trump and his cabal of hateful and arrogant isolationists.
I think you probably have the temperature right. While Canada has sought diversification since WWII, it was the Chrétien government that really stepped up the more diversified focus with his Team Canada missions to Asia and South America. The work of the Harper government and current Trudeau government have continually sought to expand on this (with the notable exception of the ongoing vacillations with China). Going back further, it was Diefenbaker that really tried to tie us closer with the UK but it didn’t take. All kinds of reasons given (like we weren’t selling what they needed) but at the end of the day I think the distance was the biggest impediment. Perhaps if this ongoing effort over the last 70 years never occurred closer to 100% of our exports would go to the US. We can’t know. But I do think with Trump trampling all over the sovereignty of nations, and making the US a very unreliable and unlikable trade partner, maybe everyone (not just Canada) will have sufficient motivation to have freer world trade and military cooperation - specifically excluding the US.
I would add an increased Cyber presence and security to that. A good majority of the threats will come via our online presence.
I would also add that Hegseth is almost guaranteed to be approved. Considering his lack of experience and his white nationalist views with a “crusade” mentality, we should see the US as a threat from day one.
We have to reinforce our Government and expel any (I’m looking at you, Smith) that are vulnerable to US influence. She has been in backroom dealings already, is going to the inauguration, and plans to make several trips into the belly of the beast. That weakness needs to be addressed.
The UK, Germany, and Canada are currently under attack online via Musk and the Russians. We should completely block Twitter and possibly Facebook since Zuck is now a cuck.
Poland is showing Europe the way by raising defense spending 5 percent of GNP on broadening and deepening its military capabilities...
Canada should announce a plan to get to 3 percent in a hurry, then when the shock wears off, 4 percent, and then 5 percent.
If Trump sees huge defiance at the citizen level, s strong government in Ottawa, and serious defence capabilities and joint agreements with traditional allies, that adds up to a huge disincentive. If the response is mushy, he'll press harder.
It seems to me that almost all of your suggestions would go down well with a government headed by Chrystia Freeland. Just sayin', Canadians...
With regard to recruiting and retention, I once considered joining the navy. I walked into my local recruitment detachment and was greeted by a friendly Lieutenant and Petty Officer. The conversation went like this.
PO: Do you have a degree?
Me: Yes.
Lt: Are you married?
Me: Yes.
Lt: Do you want to stay that way?
Me: Uh, kinda, yeah.
PO and Lt together: "Then stay the fuck away from the navy!"
Their best guess was that about 2/3 of the people they knew who had been married at some point in the navy were now divorced.
Dream of mine is a Pacific Alliance, even a loose federation, focused on securit from the Bering Strait down to Singapore. Collective procurement, common force structure and doctrine, open to robust democracies in the region.
No need for NATO mission creep, because we'd handle our local baddies. GDPs of the US and Canadian West Coast + Australia and New Zealand + Japan + South Korea + Taiwan = a really big economic bloc.
Canada could contribute a fixed amount of cash annually and let us handle the Pacific while Ottawa focuses on the Arctic. Different mission sets require their own doctrine and kit.
Great stuff! One area not mentioned is our housing crisis. Most of our cities badly need to modernize their height restrictions- it’s cheaper to build one 6 story complex than two 3 story complexes. If we are going to keep our immigration levels, we have to adapt.
What? Something better than Alert? Enter into coordination agreements with Greenland-Denmark. Focus on developing trade within the TPP and with the EU. Use our abundant natural resources to augment our own interests and have no hesitation to demonstrate it to the US. We need to get a little prickly to force some respect, develop much greater self-reliance.
Alert is there for a specific reason. But you’re exactly right. Thanks for commenting.
Amen 👍
👏👏👏👍
At the top of my list would be engagement with the Nordic countries both in terms of arctic security, but also to deepen trade ties. The difficulty in the end is twofold though:
1) are Canadians willing to suffer the economic pain that a pivot away from the US will require? Because this can’t be done without significant financial burden and permanent increased costs.
2) are Canadians and decision-makers willing to sacrifice investments in social programs and divert them to military expenditures? Because we can’t do both.
Finally, and most importantly, the existential crisis we face today will require a reinvigoration of the relationship between the fed & prov govts as well as with Canadian citizens writ large. A prerequisite for success is open, honest, transparent and accountable governance, all of which we are currently lacking in spades in this country.
It’s a very tall order for a country that’s been sleepwalking through the post-war Bretton Woods era. As Mike Tyson has presciently said, “everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.” Whatcha’ gonna do about it Canada?
The Nordics... agreed for many reasons... defense awareness, shared Arctic, common Artic threat from Russia, eyes wide open ref Russia, strong democracies, strong military structures ramping up fast...
Agree with all of these suggestions. Have you shared them with your MP and MPP? I was also horrified at the handing over of space in our airports to Americans with guns and power. The worst thing that happened to our country was Lester Pearson’s insistence on making us a nation of “peacekeepers” and neutering our military. That culture shift from what we achieved in the previous two world wars was immense and so detrimental to us. And the number of American trucks flying their flags up here during the so-called Freedom Convoy was unsettling as well. People need to wake up! Otherwise our border will be taken over faster than Ukraine and likely without a shot fired.
To be honest, I’ve stopped bothering engaging politicians at any level. The understanding of defence issues approaches zero, another reason we’re in this mess. They haven’t been interested and don’t care. And this applies to every party.
That's a reflection of the lack of understanding and interest by the voters. In an ideal world our "leaders" would exercise some leadership on this, but in the real world there aren't many vote in it, so they don't bother.
Sane and realistic proposals all around. Will anyone in Ottawa have the courage to adopt them? Our farce on this side of the line shows Canada needs to be ready to walk away from its increasingly deranged partner.
Nuclear subs are pretty much a non-starter (for a number of reasons) - capacity (there are only a handful of yards that can build them, and the next decade or two of orders are already spoken for - see all the concerns about AUKUS), support (it would take a long time to ramp up here), and actual necessity (AIP technology is improving by leaps and bounds, it'll never give the same endurance as nuclear, of course, but it's good enough for our needs).
One thing you worth looking at more closely is closer industry ties with South Korea. They're already becoming a favourite supplier of a number of nations (some flavour of K9 has been adopted by several NATO countries already). Poland is going all in on South Korean artillery, tanks and MLRS systems because SK has been a reliable partner, quick on production, and is pretty generous with domestic production licenses (Poland already produces K9 hulls for their Krab SPG, will be producing a domestic variant of the K2 tank. Similar arrangement for Turkey.) so would offer chances at building domestic defence capabilities/capacity. The KSS-III from Hanwha is the current front runner for the sub replacement program (early days yet, of course, but Hanwha has been building industry partners in Canada for over a year in advance of the actual sub replacement program being formalized), and would give us SLBM capabilities without having to go nuclear. Looking way out, the KF-21 fighter is about to enter production...
Anyway, sincerely not an ad for the South Korean defence industry, just something with a huge amount of potential for both autonomy and aligning with other NATO/European allies.
I fully agree that our southern ally is no longer trust worthy . I agree we must immediately begin forging new international economic and military ties. I believe we must look beyond our existing allies with a longer view . Today’s perceived enemies may become friends, and visa versa.
I know this will be expensive and take time . We may not have the detail knowledge between us, you and I, but we must put in place a government that will take off the old blinders and move now.
I've nursed this question for about a week and couldn't think of another place to ask it. So here goes:
Is there an argument to be made for cancelling the F-35 order? And, if so, is this even possible? There's something that chafes about making large military purchases from a power who is openly hostile to us. And - I don't know only a little about it - but the Saab Gripen seemed to me a better fit for our geography. Also, the option of building it in Canada struck me as a good use of the considerable industrial capacity that - in some of the crappier scenarios about how these 25% tariffs work out - will be lying idle in the near future.
By the way, a thanks Black Cloud for this Substack. It's nice to encounter a group of people who appear without ambivalence about preserving our country.
I knew this argument would come up and it’s a fairly valid one. My issue with Gripen E (remembering I’m not Air Force, so bear that in mind) is that capability-wise, it pales in comparison to the F-35. Remember that Canada was a founding member of the F-35 alliance, which gave us a major stake in the program. It is flown by almost all of our other allies amd the teething problems have been addressed. Moreover, the cancellation penalty at this stage would be eye watering. It’s too late.
If you’ve read my other writings, I’m deeply suspicious of creating defence industries from scratch to produce a single piece of equipment. Canada does this all the time and it has rarely worked out properly. The risk in giving completely inexperienced companies contracts to produce extremely complex pieces of technology like fighter aircraft is very, very high.
I haven't read most of your other writings yet but I gather you'd likely have referenced our unpleasant experiences with the Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy. Yup, building complex stuff is hard and what you write rings true.
It still pains me to think of us paying billions of dollars for a fighter platform - again, forgive me because I know I'm not very informed on the issue - that still seems janky and, in addition to the initial procurement costs, seems to need a lot of maintenance and fancy maintenance facilities. But, I gather it is what it is, and even if the cancellation fees weren't high Canada doesn't have leeway to take another decade to sort this out. Sigh.
Unfortunately, fighter aircraft are mandatory for any Air Force that wants credibility.
I haven’t written a lot about the Shipbuilding Strategy, largely because it’s an area that im not too familiar with. I have mentioned it, I’m sure.
Another great post, Black Cloud, and I’m glad that people are starting to come around to the understanding that the US has historically helped us because it was in their interests to do so, not out of any sense of altruism or friendship. I would like to make the following comments for further discussion:
1) On economics we also need to resurrect the Energy East pipeline project, not least because cutting off oil and gas to the US will not go over well with the almost-Americans in Alberta. Both for energy sovereignty and to appease them, we need to give them an alternative market for their hydrocarbons. It would be great if we could sell in Canada at one discounted price and to American refineries at the world market price - but right now we’re hostages to the Americans due to our limited capacity and the type of oil we produce. Add to this increased refining capacity in Canada (and for the record yes I believe in climate change and drive a Tesla, but oil isn’t going away in my lifetime);
2) We need to make a deliberate government policy to keep Canadian natural resources (and key industries) in Canadian hands. No more US or Chinese companies controlling everything for their own benefit. That is going to require investment, likely government investment, because I think that most capital to build projects currently comes from outside Canada;
3) On the defence front, you’ll recall that we considered nuclear subs in the 1980s. That project failed (I have been told) in part because Ronald Reagan didn’t want US nuclear technology transferred to Canada, and in part because of the cost. Nuke boats aren’t cheap, as the Aussies are finding out now, and could quickly gobble up the entire defence budget. I think the Australians have also given up some sovereign control of those systems in the AUKUS agreement, but obviously I’m not privy to all the details of the agreements;
4) Speaking of the Australians, we’ll need to see how their relations with the US develop under Trump. My experience with the ADF is that they are often trying to be just like the Americans, and are unwilling to listen to those of us with more experience on the pros and cons of cozying up to the US military. They also have serious security concerns of their own that *only* the US can currently help them with - so they may be less willing to join our “1777 Club” (open to post-1776 members of the British Empire) than you might think;
5) Arctic base - why? We need the capability to surveil the Arctic and to respond if we find something, but that can be done from the South (or maybe give JTFN a raison d’être) with remote sensors and perhaps autonomous weapon systems. The logistical cost of maintaining a base in the North may not be worth the effect it produces - but what is your logic?
6) the Reserve. I can hear all my Army Reserve friends groaning now, but we have too many regiments and not enough troops. I think we should stand down some regiments and focus on building what’s left. That includes providing them with actual equipment that they can train on and use in wartime. And by “equipment” I don’t mean green Chevy Silverados, I mean real (light) armour, anti-tank capabilities, maybe even organic MANPADS. And when they’ve got that equipment some of it needs to be parked at every armoury so that everyone who drives by can see it and think “I might get to drive that if I join the Reserve.”
7) related to the above - people join the CAF to do cool things. We need to let them do cool things, even if that costs money - exercises, deployments, blowing things up;
8) finally, we need to cancel F-35 (again). Not because it’s a bad airplane (by most unbiased assessments it isn’t), but because the Americans control everything about it including the software. I’m not sure of the extent but P-8 may be essentially the same. As you argue, we need to be in a position to do what we need to without having to ask the US for permission first. That likely means acquiring a European aircraft - which should be fine for the NORAD role (which isn’t something that requires an F-35’s capabilities I don’t think - although admittedly I wasn’t a pilot).
Sorry for the long comment, but I’d really love to hear your opinion (and others’ opinions) on what I’ve said.
It was a great comment and I share some of your opinions.
Nukes. I wasn’t floating nuke boats as a viable option, although I’m sure the French would be more than willing to help us out. Defence sharing between the US, US, and Australia is aimed almost entirely at the nuclear submarine program. The tech sharing between the US and UK is already very extensive on this front.
Australia. I too have very, very direct experience with the ADF and you’re exactly right. They love the US. However, I’m not certain that the same attitude extends to Australia as a whole. The “new Commonwealth” idea has been floated before and is actually part of the Conservative platform.
Arctic Base. All you say about technology is true, but there’s nothing like a physical presence, particularly one equipped to *do something* if an unwelcome intruder appears. Doing things via remote control from Winnipeg just isn’t the same. That’s my thinking anyway.
Reserves. Bang on and I agree completely. If there’s a problem, reduce Army Reserve “regiments/battalions” to sub-units and tactical group them. Easy peasy.
F-35. See my other comments here. There are literally no other options. It’s by far the best aircraft available and we would eat it if we cancelled now. Further, I’ve warned before of efforts to create a defence industry out of whole cloth for single high-technology pieces of equipment. We’ve been burned far too often (see my procurement article here: https://blackcloudsix.substack.com/p/canadas-defence-procurement-debacle )
Again, thanks for the excellent comment.
I agree with the pipeline issue. It was talked about heavily on CJAD tonight with regards to Mark Carney's speech. Despite being a greenie at heart, limiting our exportation of oil from Alberta was a BIG misstep. But like so many things that are suddenly a hair-on-fire emergency, who the hell woulda thunk we'd be in this current situation? Ok, I guess WE should have, but I'm smacking myself in the face lately that I didn't pay closer attention to this, having been focused on U.S. issues. It's sadly easy to do when one's a dualie and arguing with MAGA family about U.S. politics. My New Year resolution is to give as much attention, time, money, and effort towards Canadian policies and party leaders I agree with as I've done for the Democrats in the U.S. for the past 20 years.
Agree 100%. I believe it’s occurred to several of us Canadians that it would be a win-win to strengthen economic ties with the UK and EU to support mutual efforts to become more independent from the US. Aligning ourselves militarily with France is a brilliant idea (not that I’m an expert) as Macron seems to be the only one out there with the guts to openly challenge putin. I admit I’ve been very ashamed of the wingeing Germans.
France has a very robust sovereign defence industrial base. It’s a great place to start shopping when you’re looking for non-US military equipment.
I had a premonition of this when Trump called Putin’s invasion of ukraine a genius move. Is there enough time to prepare and disentangle ourselves?
My fear is that people are thinking "we got thru it the last time, it's only 4 years, let's not go apeshit". But it's not 4 years. This fascist America First movement isn't going to end any time soon. We've got to plan like it's forever.
All great suggestions. Perhaps we should copy them and send them to all Party leaders and Provincial PMs. I can't believe as a dual citizen I'm the a position of seriously hating my homeland right now.
For me this is not about "U.S. bad." We should not be that entangled with any given country - especially with so great a power imbalance. The incoming administration is really just one example of why. The US will most likely recover and be a good friend again one day but we need to remain unentangled.
I don’t disagree but we’re already quite entangled, no?
At the moment, yes. Thus the panic all around.
We are likely about to become less so, as the US isolates itself and we, hopefully, focus more on new markets.
What drives me crazy is that we ordinary folk see this clearly. Why can’t our so-called leaders? Are they stupid?
Yes, stupid, short-sighted, and afraid.
Thanks for the “afraid”. Very true. Wishing for a great leader who forges ahead regardless and follows his convictions and what is best for his (or her) country.
Right???? There's nothing new going on that I didn't foresee the minute Drumpf said he was going to run again. Come ON, people!?!
No, they are not stupid.
As logical as all this sounds, it has not been an electable platform - for the same reason that folks shop at Walmart, watch mostly US TV and don't eat enough vegetables. We won't vote for someone pursuing this unless and until it feels like the path of least resistance.
Funny enough, it was after I moved to Canada that I began to hate Walmart, watch no TV except what I wanted that can be horked off the internet, and married a vegetarian so yeah...I learned to love my vegies. No wonder my MAGA dad says I'm "brainwashed". YES! Yes, I am! From the thinking and lifestyle that I grew up on which I've decided is mean, gross, and fatasszombie-like. Ewww!
Why would expanding trade partners be an unelectable platform? Honest question.
I don’t think it would be, on it’s own - as a vague promise, but if you plan to do what it actually takes to make it happen, I don’t believe you would get elected. And if you have a concrete plan to do the other things on the 26 point list, you will not be elected (in my over confident/under-informed view). We’ve had governments in the past promise to diversify Canadian trade. We’ve had decades of high and low profile trade missions, free trade agreements across the globe… and yet, the percentage going to and coming from the US is not trending in the right direction. Primarily because the US market is the path of least resistance.
It’s seems to me to be similar to tackling climate change. We all wonder why the politicians keep signing accords and then missing the targets. This is the planet we’re talking about trying to save - what could be a greater motivation? Finally a government comes by and starts implementing just a few of things that might move the needle (required but nowhere near sufficient)… and they’re unelectable - unless they stop doing those things.
I’m not as pessimistic as this might make me sound. I, for some reason, still believe some of these things can (and definately should) be done. But it’s just - not so simple as flipping a switch and implementing a list of things. Someone has to package up a realistic plan in a marketable way and convince enough people that the short term pain is worth it. Who will that be? Maybe, Trump will provide the impetus.
Yes, I understand completely. We as a nation would have to rally under a common cause that would entail some suffering. We’re not 1942 anymore. I also agree we’ve tried to diversify our trade before, notably under Harper when he got frustrated by the Keystone XL cancellation, if I remember correctly. The thing is, Harper looked east, mostly to China, which was a dead-end for several reasons. Now we have a chance (in my over-confident/under-informed view) to create trade partnerships with less-risky prospects like our European allies, who are also looking for ways to separate themselves both from the US and putin. How I would love to see European and Commonwealth nations forge strong economic and military bonds to undermine trump and his cabal of hateful and arrogant isolationists.
I think you probably have the temperature right. While Canada has sought diversification since WWII, it was the Chrétien government that really stepped up the more diversified focus with his Team Canada missions to Asia and South America. The work of the Harper government and current Trudeau government have continually sought to expand on this (with the notable exception of the ongoing vacillations with China). Going back further, it was Diefenbaker that really tried to tie us closer with the UK but it didn’t take. All kinds of reasons given (like we weren’t selling what they needed) but at the end of the day I think the distance was the biggest impediment. Perhaps if this ongoing effort over the last 70 years never occurred closer to 100% of our exports would go to the US. We can’t know. But I do think with Trump trampling all over the sovereignty of nations, and making the US a very unreliable and unlikable trade partner, maybe everyone (not just Canada) will have sufficient motivation to have freer world trade and military cooperation - specifically excluding the US.
Excellent, as always, and I agree.
I would add an increased Cyber presence and security to that. A good majority of the threats will come via our online presence.
I would also add that Hegseth is almost guaranteed to be approved. Considering his lack of experience and his white nationalist views with a “crusade” mentality, we should see the US as a threat from day one.
We have to reinforce our Government and expel any (I’m looking at you, Smith) that are vulnerable to US influence. She has been in backroom dealings already, is going to the inauguration, and plans to make several trips into the belly of the beast. That weakness needs to be addressed.
The UK, Germany, and Canada are currently under attack online via Musk and the Russians. We should completely block Twitter and possibly Facebook since Zuck is now a cuck.
Respectfully
Your list is a good one.
Poland is showing Europe the way by raising defense spending 5 percent of GNP on broadening and deepening its military capabilities...
Canada should announce a plan to get to 3 percent in a hurry, then when the shock wears off, 4 percent, and then 5 percent.
If Trump sees huge defiance at the citizen level, s strong government in Ottawa, and serious defence capabilities and joint agreements with traditional allies, that adds up to a huge disincentive. If the response is mushy, he'll press harder.
It seems to me that almost all of your suggestions would go down well with a government headed by Chrystia Freeland. Just sayin', Canadians...
The problem with just looking at money is that the system can’t process additional funding without major reform. See my piece on Defence Procurement.
With regard to recruiting and retention, I once considered joining the navy. I walked into my local recruitment detachment and was greeted by a friendly Lieutenant and Petty Officer. The conversation went like this.
PO: Do you have a degree?
Me: Yes.
Lt: Are you married?
Me: Yes.
Lt: Do you want to stay that way?
Me: Uh, kinda, yeah.
PO and Lt together: "Then stay the fuck away from the navy!"
Their best guess was that about 2/3 of the people they knew who had been married at some point in the navy were now divorced.
All fantastic options. Go Canada!
Dream of mine is a Pacific Alliance, even a loose federation, focused on securit from the Bering Strait down to Singapore. Collective procurement, common force structure and doctrine, open to robust democracies in the region.
No need for NATO mission creep, because we'd handle our local baddies. GDPs of the US and Canadian West Coast + Australia and New Zealand + Japan + South Korea + Taiwan = a really big economic bloc.
Canada could contribute a fixed amount of cash annually and let us handle the Pacific while Ottawa focuses on the Arctic. Different mission sets require their own doctrine and kit.
Great stuff! One area not mentioned is our housing crisis. Most of our cities badly need to modernize their height restrictions- it’s cheaper to build one 6 story complex than two 3 story complexes. If we are going to keep our immigration levels, we have to adapt.