• 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

Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

Canada says it will look at increasing its defence spending and tacked on 10 more Russian names to an ever growing sanctions list.

By Tonda MacCharles
Ottawa Bureau
Mon., March 7, 2022

Riga, LATVIA—On the 13th day of the brutal Russian bid to claim Ukraine as its own, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is showing up at the Latvian battle group led by Canadian soldiers, waving the Maple Leaf and a vague hint at more money for the military.

Canada has been waving the NATO flag for nearly seven years in Latvia as a bulwark against Russia’s further incursions in Eastern Europe.

Canada stepped up to lead one of NATO’s four battle groups in 2015 — part of the defensive alliance’s display of strength and solidarity with weaker member states after Russia invaded Ukraine and seized the Crimean peninsula in 2014. Trudeau arrived in the Latvian capital late Monday after meetings in the U.K. with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Netherlands Prime Minister Mark Rutte.

Earlier Monday, faced with a seemingly unstoppable war in Ukraine, Trudeau said he will look at increasing Canada’s defence spending. Given world events, he said there are “certainly reflections to have.”

And Canada tacked on 10 more Russian names to an ever-growing sanctions list.

The latest round of sanctions includes names Trudeau said were identified by jailed Russian opposition leader and Putin nemesis Alexei Navalny.

However, on a day when Trudeau cited the new sanctions, and Johnson touted new measures meant to expose Russian property owners in his country, Rutte admitted sanctions are not working.

Yet they all called for more concerted international efforts over the long haul, including more economic measures and more humanitarian aid, with Johnson and Rutte divided over how quickly countries need to get off Russian oil and gas.

The 10 latest names on Canada’s target list do not include Roman Abramovich — a Russian billionaire Navalny has been flagging to Canada since at least 2017. Canada appears to have sanctioned about 20 of the 35 names on Navalny’s list.

The Conservative opposition says the Liberal government is not yet exerting maximum pressure on Putin, and should do more to bolster Canadian Forces, including by finally approving the purchase of fighter jets.

Foreign affairs critic Michael Chong said in an interview that Ottawa must still sanction “additional oligarchs close to President Putin who have significant assets in Canada.”

Abramovich owns more than a quarter of the public shares in steelmaking giant Evraz, which has operations in Alberta and Saskatchewan and has supplied most of the steel for the government-owned Trans Mountain pipeline project.

Evraz’s board of directors also includes two more Russians the U.S. government identified as “oligarchs” in 2019 — Aleksandr Abramov and Aleksandr Frolov — and its Canadian operations have received significant support from the federal government.

That includes at least $27 million in emergency wage subsidies during the pandemic, as well as $7 million through a fund meant to help heavy-polluters reduce emissions that cause climate change, according to the company’s most recent annual report.

In addition to upping defence spending, the Conservatives want NORAD’s early warning system upgraded, naval shipbuilding ramped up and Arctic security bolstered.

In London, Johnson sat down with Trudeau and Rutte at the Northolt airbase. Their morning meetings had a rushed feel, with Johnson starting to usher press out before Trudeau spoke. His office said later that the British PM couldn’t squeeze the full meeting in at 10 Downing Street because Johnson’s “diary” was so busy that day. The three leaders held an afternoon news conference at 10 Downing.

But before that Trudeau met with the Queen, saying she was “insightful” and they had a “useful, for me anyway, conversation about global affairs.”

Trudeau meets with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg Tuesday in Latvia.

The prime minister will also meet with three Baltic leaders, the prime ministers of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, in the Latvian capital of Riga.

The Liberals announced they would increase the 500 Canadian Forces in Latvia by another 460 troops. The Canadians are leading a multinational battle group, one of four that are part of NATO’s deployments in the region.

Another 3,400 Canadians could be deployed to the region in the months to come, on standby for NATO orders.

But Canada’s shipments of lethal aid to Ukraine were slow to come in the view of the Conservatives, and the Ukrainian Canadian community.

And suddenly Western allies are eyeing each other’s defence commitments.

At the Downing Street news conference, Rutte noted the Netherlands will increase its defence budget to close to two per cent of GDP. Germany has led the G7, and doubled its defence budget in the face of Putin’s invasion and threats. Johnson said the U.K. defence spending is about 2.4 per cent and declined to comment on Canada’s defence spending which is 1.4 per cent of GDP.

But Johnson didn’t hold back.

“What we can’t do, post the invasion of Ukraine is assume that we go back to a kind of status quo ante, a kind of new normalization in the way that we did after the … seizure of Crimea and the Donbas area,” Johnson said. “We’ve got to recognize that things have changed and that we need a new focus on security and I think that that is kind of increasingly understood by everybody.”

Trudeau stood by his British and Dutch counterparts and pledged Canada would do more.

He defended his government’s record, saying Ottawa is gradually increasing spending over the next decade by 70 per cent. Then Trudeau admitted more might be necessary.

“We also recognize that context is changing rapidly around the world and we need to make sure that women and men have certainty and our forces have all the equipment necessary to be able to stand strongly as we always have. As members of NATO. We will continue to look at what more we can do.”

The three leaders — Johnson, a conservative and Trudeau and Rutte, progressive liberals — in a joint statement said they “will continue to impose severe costs on Russia.”

Arriving for the news conference from Windsor Castle, Trudeau had to detour to enter Downing Street as loud so-called Freedom Convoy protesters bellowed from outside the gate. They carried signs marked “Tuck Frudeau” and “Free Tamara” (Lich).

Protester Jeff Wyatt who said he has no Canadian ties told the Star he came to stand up for Lich and others who were leading a “peaceful protest” worldwide against government “lies” about COVID-19 and what he called Trudeau’s “tyranny.”

Elsewhere in London, outside the Russian embassy, other protesters and passersby reflected on what they said was real tyranny — the Russian attack on Ukraine. “I think we should be as tough as possible to get this stopped, as tough as possible,” said protester Clive Martinez.
 
Just spitballing here. Latvia is the primary theatre where we expect to require our mechanized forces. We currently have 6 x LAV battalions at 65-67% of full pers levels. That means you basically have 6 x Battalions of vehicles but only 4 x Battalions of personnel.

Let's say you reorganize to have 4 x LAV Battalions at full pers levels in Canada. Pre-position 1 x Battalion of LAVs in Latvia with our eFP Brigade. That leaves you with 1 x Battalion worth of LAVs as spares/war stocks to draw on if necessary.

The four LAV Battalions rotate as a fly-over Battalion to crew the eFP Latvia LAVs or can be tasked for Battle Group sized deployments elsewhere if/when required. That still leaves you with 3 x full LAV Battalions for the primary Latvia mission.
 
Just spitballing here. Latvia is the primary theatre where we expect to require our mechanized forces. We currently have 6 x LAV battalions at 65-67% of full pers levels. That means you basically have 6 x Battalions of vehicles but only 4 x Battalions of personnel.

Let's say you reorganize to have 4 x LAV Battalions at full pers levels in Canada. Pre-position 1 x Battalion of LAVs in Latvia with our eFP Brigade. That leaves you with 1 x Battalion worth of LAVs as spares/war stocks to draw on if necessary.

The four LAV Battalions rotate as a fly-over Battalion to crew the eFP Latvia LAVs or can be tasked for Battle Group sized deployments elsewhere if/when required. That still leaves you with 3 x full LAV Battalions for the primary Latvia mission.
Make the 4th Lav battalion a 2 year posting to Latvia, with it and the Bde it's a part of separate from the 3x CMBG construct.
 
Everyone else seems to have come to the understanding that their forward presence in Europe should be Heavy Armor - but hey Canada just keep beating to your own drummer, it must be everyone else that is out of step...
In fairness, the eFP battlegroup is heavy armour. There is a strong mix of tanks and IFVs (and LAVs) in it. The second battle group is a Danish mech one. The Danes are equipping with a battalion of Leo2A7s and I haven't heard one way or the other as to whether or not they will deploy a squadron or two to Latvia, but I'd be surprised if eventually they didn't. And then there are the Swedes.

The light component is merely the flyover add on. While my personal preference is a prepositioned heavy battle group I can see where some of the tactical lessons from Ukraine might result in a decision for a light battalion. Like you, I think that the simplicity of a preposition light v heavy battalion has a lot to do with it - I can still see the other rationale.

🍻
 
Just spitballing here. Latvia is the primary theatre where we expect to require our mechanized forces. We currently have 6 x LAV battalions at 65-67% of full pers levels. That means you basically have 6 x Battalions of vehicles but only 4 x Battalions of personnel.

Let's say you reorganize to have 4 x LAV Battalions at full pers levels in Canada. Pre-position 1 x Battalion of LAVs in Latvia with our eFP Brigade. That leaves you with 1 x Battalion worth of LAVs as spares/war stocks to draw on if necessary.

The four LAV Battalions rotate as a fly-over Battalion to crew the eFP Latvia LAVs or can be tasked for Battle Group sized deployments elsewhere if/when required. That still leaves you with 3 x full LAV Battalions for the primary Latvia mission.
Our armoured fighting vehicles are not the critical path. Our logistics fleets are in collapse. Our echelons from unit to formation are under resourced, and we don’t even have anything that can provide a national hub and support a mobile service battalion in a deployed theatre.

The logistics vehicle projects that we do have will ameliorate but not solve this. They are on fixed budget paths with max scope set before Feb 2022 (when we were still building towards a world class FOB army) and not revisited since.
 
Our armoured fighting vehicles are not the critical path. Our logistics fleets are in collapse. Our echelons from unit to formation are under resourced, and we don’t even have anything that can provide a national hub and support a mobile service battalion in a deployed theatre.

The logistics vehicle projects that we do have will ameliorate but not solve this. They are on fixed budget paths with max scope set before Feb 2022 (when we were still building towards a world class FOB army) and not revisited since.
I'm not well versed on the specifics, and could very well be wrong here. But it was my understanding our logistics vehicle plans were...

- Approx 1200 medium utility trucks, that have replaced the MLVW. (They dwarf the old MLVW, and can be found in a lot of Reece unit vehicls pools)

- Approx another 1200 trucks of a SMP type, that would be more suitable for deployments (Armour kits, etc etc)


That's 2400 medium logistics trucks we should have in our inventory.



Was there a complication somewhere along the way? Is that not the case currently?

If our logistics fleets are in collapse, why is this the case?
 
The medium fleet cannot move all our loads … too few trucks and too insignificant a payload. It has no recover variants and no fuel trucks. The logistics fleets are the HLVW, SHLVW, HESV, some Kenworths still alive in Wainwright, and the AHSVS (a micro-fleet in quantities to support a single BG in FOB based warfare).
 
Let’s not forget the self-divesting LSVW which provides the vast majority of mobile repair team vehicles and the command posts for all our logistics organizations.
 
Oh no I’m 100 percent with you in that. Although I think a light Bn could effectively defend some dense Baltic forests, I’d prefer they be in an ifv of some kind. Frankly that we can deploy a full Bg is shocking, even in the 90s we had Bgs in the Balkaans.

Multiple BG's
In fact the 92-93 period was just about as thing as there CA was stretched, as the CAR was in Somalia, and 2 RCHA was in Cyprus, as well as the FYR deployments coming and going...
Don't even need to go back that far....

2010 = BG in Afghanistan + SOTF + Air Wing + PRT + Naval Forces in the Arabian Sea and a bunch of extras... when you add up the #s it's close to 5000

We also had Haiti which was 800-1000 pers

And we were also handling the 2010 Olympics at the same time

All told, 10,000+ engaged in Operations as early as 13 years ago.

We have fallen considerably
 
SHORAD
120Mortar
ATGM
what else are we missing that we can mount on a LAV
Politicians on the front?

No. Your memory has failed you here. The Liberals did promise to never buy it and to run a competition, but the Conservative deferred the actual decision until they lost power. Conservatives had announced an intent to buy F35 as early as 2011, but they never put it in the budget and they never committed through a contract.
Ah, thanks for the corrections but not so much my memory as mis-reported (imagine news getting anything wrong lol). Wikipedia and other unreliable sources let me down again. I remember some news at the time talking about cancelling the deal and wiki still reads "A Liberal government will immediately cancel the mismanaged $30 billion sole-source deal for F-35 stealth fighter jets"
 
Politicians on the front?


Ah, thanks for the corrections but not so much my memory as mis-reported (imagine news getting anything wrong lol). Wikipedia and other unreliable sources let me down again. I remember some news at the time talking about cancelling the deal and wiki still reads "A Liberal government will immediately cancel the mismanaged $30 billion sole-source deal for F-35 stealth fighter jets"
A deal that cost money was Chretien's cancellation of a helicopter contract. Maybe a mix-up?
 
I’m out of the Bns right now and have been for a year. So grain of salt and I won’t get into specifics. That being. Said the infantry is actually doing okay for manning (ie it’s a green trade) however the Bns are only authorized at 70% their full strength. Which means that even at 90 odd percent full the Bns are actually at 65-67 percent of what they should be for a deployment. So for a Bn to go over you need to pull 1-2 companies worth of people from somewhere. Deploying two companies + a tank Squadron is an option but isn’t really doctrine, not that 15 tanks is either mind you.

Almost all L4 units are bottom of the manning priority.
Most CA units are the bottom of the VCDS manning priority, it then trickles down that most units are the bottom of the CA manning priority.

Interestingly the 3rd Battalions as the CA high readiness rapid deployment units are afforded the same priority as the mech Bns. I’m not expecting that to change with the GRTF.

Usually for a HR or VHR unit to go out the door with their actual establishment they are resourced at 105-110% manning to accommodate sick, injured, rear party etc.
 
I'm not well versed on the specifics, and could very well be wrong here. But it was my understanding our logistics vehicle plans were...

- Approx 1200 medium utility trucks, that have replaced the MLVW. (They dwarf the old MLVW, and can be found in a lot of Reece unit vehicls pools)

- Approx another 1200 trucks of a SMP type, that would be more suitable for deployments (Armour kits, etc etc)


That's 2400 medium logistics trucks we should have in our inventory.



Was there a complication somewhere along the way? Is that not the case currently?

If our logistics fleets are in collapse, why is this the case?
all 2400 aren't cargo, especially the new Mack fleet, it has MRT's, MHS, cargo, PLS. You can't just get less trucks and make them bigger. You can't have a truck delivering in two places at the same time. Every new generation of kit we buy less, and less of it, and we are coming to the point it is biting us in the rear end.
 
MSVS MilCOTS was contracted in 2009; the trucks are over a decade old.

Also missing in necessary quantities is MHE (forklifts etc).

1200 trucks

2023-2009 = 14 years (Call it 15)

80 new trucks a year on an ongoing basis?

Aside from the Engineer and Arty versions aren't all the rest of them equipped to take on SEV Modules?
 
The trucks are an interesting thing

The LSVW is supposed to be replaced close to (or less?) what we have now 1300 instead of the original 2879

The MSVS Milcots = 1300
The MSVS-SMP - 1587

The HLVW I think I read somewhere is going to be a max of 500?

And then I think I read that the LUVW-Milcot (1061) and LUVW-SMP (1159) were going to be replaced with one common vehicle with add on armour but at half the fleet so like 1100 total

edit

edit no 2

"The LVM project will acquire up to 542 heavy trucks and as many as 1,113 light trucks to replace the Heavy Engineer Support Vehicle (HESV), Heavy Logistics Vehicle Wheeled (HLVW), and Light Support Vehicle Wheeled (LSVW), all of which entered service in the 1990s."

 
Almost all L4 units are bottom of the manning priority.
Most CA units are the bottom of the VCDS manning priority, it then trickles down that most units are the bottom of the CA manning priority.

Interestingly the 3rd Battalions as the CA high readiness rapid deployment units are afforded the same priority as the mech Bns. I’m not expecting that to change with the GRTF.

Usually for a HR or VHR unit to go out the door with their actual establishment they are resourced at 105-110% manning to accommodate sick, injured, rear party etc.
None of which contradicts what I said. I know the manning for units, they’re just below their peace time establishments. The problem is that’s only 70 percent their deployed strength. So we end up robbing Peter to pay Paul. I’ll care about the man I g of the light “GRTF” if they ever deploy a company to harms way.
 
None of which contradicts what I said. I know the manning for units, they’re just below their peace time establishments. The problem is that’s only 70 percent their deployed strength. So we end up robbing Peter to pay Paul. I’ll care about the man I g of the light “GRTF” if they ever deploy a company to harms way.
Agreed generally. It was meant as amplification not contradiction.👍
 
I'm not well versed on the specifics, and could very well be wrong here. But it was my understanding our logistics vehicle plans were...

- Approx 1200 medium utility trucks, that have replaced the MLVW. (They dwarf the old MLVW, and can be found in a lot of Reece unit vehicls pools)

- Approx another 1200 trucks of a SMP type, that would be more suitable for deployments (Armour kits, etc etc)


That's 2400 medium logistics trucks we should have in our inventory.



Was there a complication somewhere along the way? Is that not the case currently?

If our logistics fleets are in collapse, why is this the case?
The FMTV would fit the bill. It's available in 2.5 and 5 ton and is the same as the HLVW, and has an armour package.
 
Back
Top