Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Kirkhill]

Trudeau

• Premiers all support 2%
• Canadians support 2%
• Europeans support >>2%

3:39PM

Europe should welcome Trump’s calls to boost military spending​

Europe should welcome rather than rebuff Donald Trump’s call for other NATO members to ramp up their military spending, said Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister.

“We shouldn’t be irritated. We shouldn’t be appalled,” Tusk told the European Parliament on Wednesday. “Some think it’s extravagant or it is a brutal or malicious warning.”

Mr Tusk added that Europe’s “time of comfort” was over and urged European leaders to bear a greater share of responsibility for its own security.

”Only an ally can wish another ally to get stronger. This is not what an opponent of Europe would say,” he said.

Trump latest news: President tells Putin ‘stop this ridiculous war’ or face consequences

Donald Trump has ordered Vladimir Putin to stop his “ridiculous war” with Ukraine or face fresh tariffs and sanctions from the US.

www.telegraph.co.uk

3 in 4 Canadians show support for defence spending on new submarines, Nanos survey shows

Three in four Canadians support defence spending on new submarines, according to a new survey from Nanos Research and CTV News.

www.ctvnews.ca

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-defence-spending-nato-trump-1.7397141

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to...

9:05AM

‘Trump is right, we don’t spend enough on defence,’ says EU​

The EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas has urged the bloc to heed Donald Trump’s demand to spend more on defence, as she told members to prepare for war with Russia.

“President Trump is right to say that we don’t spend enough. It’s time to invest,” Ms Kallas said, adding that the United States must remain Europe’s “strongest ally”.

“Russia poses an existential threat to our security today, tomorrow and for as long as we underinvest in our defence,” she said during a speech at the annual conference of the European Defence Agency.

Mr Trump said earlier this month NATO members should spend 5 per cent of GDP on defence – a huge increase from the current 2 per cent goal and a level that no NATO country, including the United States, currently reaches.

“Time is not on Russia’s side. But it’s not necessarily on ours either. Because we are not yet doing enough. There should be no doubt in any of our minds that we must spend more to prevent war. But we also need to prepare for war,” Ms Kallas said.

Trump latest news: President tells Putin ‘stop this ridiculous war’ or face consequences

Donald Trump has ordered Vladimir Putin to stop his “ridiculous war” with Ukraine or face fresh tariffs and sanctions from the US.

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Good2Golf]

2% is so yesterday. Europeans are getting on board 3.5%, which is Trump’s mid-point in a bracketed negotiation to increase to 5%.

Canada will likely begrudgingly expedite 2% and moan about most of NATO pushing to achieve 3.5%

 

[Czech_pivo]

2% is so yesterday. Europeans are getting on board 3.5%, which is Trump’s mid-point in a bracketed negotiation to increase to 5%.

Canada will likely begrudgingly expedite 2% and moan about most of NATO pushing to achieve 3.5%

If it involves spending more money, of course Canadians is moan about it, its part of our culture.

 

[MilEME09]

2% is so yesterday. Europeans are getting on board 3.5%, which is Trump’s mid-point in a bracketed negotiation to increase to 5%.

Canada will likely begrudgingly expedite 2% and moan about most of NATO pushing to achieve 3.5%

If we fixed our infrastructure and housing problem, increased our manning limit so that the reg force was actually at 80% strength (IE full peacetime strength) and not using class B's to hide the problem, and actually outfit the force properly, like 3 actual tank regiments, 3 full artillery regiments, etc I bet we would be at 3% pretty quickly.

 

[KevinB]

If we fixed our infrastructure and housing problem, increased our manning limit so that the reg force was actually at 80% strength (IE full peacetime strength) and not using class B's to hide the problem, and actually outfit the force properly, like 3 actual tank regiments, 3 full artillery regiments, etc I bet we would be at 3% pretty quickly.

I’d suggest that it’s possible for the CAF to easily absorb 5%, or even 10%…

The issue needs to be focused on what capabilities does the GOC require from the CAF, what are the additional wants, and willing to fund.

 

[quadrapiper]

The issue needs to be focused on what capabilities does the GOC require from the CAF, what are the additional wants, and willing to fund.

Bet you could kick that can (capability planning) down the road, just run a decade of infrastructure fixes, and get above 3%, too.

 

[Kirkhill]

Nato chief: ‘Crazy’ ethical investing is harming European defence​

Mark Rutte warns that ethical investment rules are ‘destroying the European defence industry’

Nato chief: ‘Crazy’ ethical investing is harming European defence

Mark Rutte warns that ethical investment rules are ‘destroying the European defence industry’

www.telegraph.co.uk

Mark Rutte, general secretary of the transatlantic military alliance, said that finance companies were withholding money from defence companies after effectively putting them into the same category as drug dealers and pornographers.

He blamed ESG (environmental, social and governance) rules, which are used by many big banks, asset managers and pension funds to decide where to invest savers’ money.

Speaking at a side event in the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Mr Rutte said: “We still are not able to explain to the pension funds, to the banks, the difference between illicit drugs and pornography on the one hand and spending on our collective defence on the other.

“All over Nato we produce in a year, in terms of ammunition, what Russia is producing in three months,” he said.

“So this is evidence that we have huge problems, and that’s why my plea is, yes, we are safe now but in four or five years, if we do not ramp up production and do not ramp up spending, then we are really into difficulty.”

The Dutchman reiterated that Nato’s spending target of 2pc of GDP was “clearly not enough”, amid calls by Donald Trump, the US President, for European countries to shoulder more of the burden.

He said discussions about higher government spending by Nato states were under way and a deal would be hammered out at a gathering in June.

As noted above....

2% is the floor, not the ceiling. More will be asked.

 

[KevinB]

As noted above....

2% is the floor, not the ceiling. More will be asked.

3% is the floor realistically. You may want to start planning for a 4% and 5% CAF, or your not going to get the option to plan, you will just get a >$120B bill annual from us…

 

[Kirkhill]

3% is the floor realistically. You may want to start planning for a 4% and 5% CAF, or your not going to get the option to plan, you will just get a >$120B bill annual from us…

Payable in WCS oil?

 

[MilEME09]

3% is the floor realistically. You may want to start planning for a 4% and 5% CAF, or your not going to get the option to plan, you will just get a >$120B bill annual from us…

at 4 or 5% we are going to need to reopen Cornwallis, CFLRS really can't handle any capacity increases.

 

[KevinB]

at 4 or 5% we are going to need to reopen Cornwallis, CFLRS really can't handle any capacity increases.

Honestly I’m of the opinion Cornwallis never should have been closed and the St Jean move was a bad idea for a number of reasons. Now however regardless of budget, I believe that for most trades One Station Training should be a goal though.

Personnel throughput needs to be increased, but even a 4-5% CAF doesn’t need a massive increase in PY for the Regular Force. Creating an effective military isn’t just about people, but there needs to be infrastructure, equipment, consumables, and reserves of all of those in quantity to support a longer conflict and/or mobilization beyond the PRes.

 

[KevinB]

Payable in WCS oil?

Probably closer to reality than either of us think.

 

[PrairieFella]

5% is such a complete non-starter its laughable. At 3.45% US defence spending is completely unsustainable in the long run. Interest is now the largest line item in the US federal budget. You can have all the weapons in the world but if your economy defaults, it doesn't matter much. This would be made even worse considering that other countries can't print greenbacks and such high levels of defence spending would inevitably be inflationary.

2.5%? That could be reasonable. Anything higher than 2.75% would be detrimental to almost all Western welfare states.

 

[Czech_pivo]

5% is such a complete non-starter its laughable. At 3.45% US defence spending is completely unsustainable in the long run. Interest is now the largest line item in the US federal budget. You can have all the weapons in the world but if your economy defaults, it doesn't matter much. This would be made even worse considering that other countries can't print greenbacks and such high levels of defence spending would inevitably be inflationary.

2.5%? That could be reasonable. Anything higher than 2.75% would be detrimental to almost all Western welfare states.

If we, the ‘collective we’, would give Ukraine what it truly needs to finish the job with Russia and then be allowed to join the EU/NATO, it would allow us to pivot and deal with a China.
Otherwise, we’ve still got to deal with both of them and a kneecapped Ukraine.

 

[Kirkhill]

3% is the floor realistically. You may want to start planning for a 4% and 5% CAF, or your not going to get the option to plan, you will just get a >$120B bill annual from us…

Just a reminder -

Canada's GDP 2024 per IMF - 2100 BUSD

1% = 21 BUSD (30 BCAD)
2% = 42 BUSD (60 BCAD)
3% = 63 BUSD (90 BCAD)
4% = 84 BUSD (120 BCAD)
5% = 105 BUSD (150 BCAD)

I'll see you 2.5% and an XL pipeline. Your making about a 25% markup on the WCS you receive. You can double the amount of oil you receive and double the profit you make selling WTI.

2.5% is 50 BUSD
Currently you are taking about 100 BUSD in WCS and selling an equivalent amount of WTI for 125 BUSD making a profit of 25 BUSD.
Double that take with an XL line and you add another 25 BUSD to your books.

There's 100 BUSD for you.

 

[KevinB]

Just a reminder -

Canada's GDP 2024 per IMF - 2100 BUSD

1% = 21 BUSD (30 BCAD)
2% = 42 BUSD (60 BCAD)
3% = 63 BUSD (90 BCAD)
4% = 84 BUSD (120 BCAD)
5% = 105 BUSD (150 BCAD)

I'll see you 2.5% and an XL pipeline. Your making about a 25% markup on the WCS you receive. You can double the amount of oil you receive and double the profit you make selling WTI.

2.5% is 50 BUSD
Currently you are taking about 100 BUSD in WCS and selling an equivalent amount of WTI for 125 BUSD making a profit of 25 BUSD.
Double that take with an XL line and you add another 25 BUSD to your books.

There's 100 BUSD for you.

Remember we don’t look at it like that.
You get the privilege of sending raw materials here that you are too backward to refine yourselves and we pay you in beads

 

[OldSolduer]

Remember we don’t look at it like that.
You get the privilege of sending raw materials here that you are too backward to refine yourselves and we pay you in beads

Yes and that really has me wondering if any GoCs will do something about that. Like build a refinery or two.

 

[KevinB]

Yes and that really has me wondering if any GoCs will do something about that. Like build a refinery or two.

Probably should have been done years ago.
The whole PET Rips Off Canada should have been a large refinery program as well.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The total population of European NATO countries is 520 millions. Canada's population is 40 millions. The idea that Canada is and should be an important provider of land troops to Europe is ridiculous. At the same time, Canada has little need for land troops to keep invaders from Canadian soil (unless those invaders are Americans, )

Canada's contribution to European security should come in two forms: As an arsenal of freedom, i.e. as an industrial base for producing what Europe needs to fight, and as a provider of the delivery of these products, which means a strong Navy supported by Air Forces. Coincidentally, strong naval forces supported by air forces are the things required for Canada's own self defense. Since it also contributes directly to the protection of main land USA, it also constitutes a fulfillment of our continental defense obligations.

For us, 2% buys more than what we need if, and only if, we spend it on naval and air forces - regardless of the Army's constant badgering that we need to make them capable of going to a fight in Europe.

Funny enough, concentrating on Air forces and Naval forces was the plan of William Lyon Mackenzie King in WWII and it is only the fact that all European powers dissolved before Germany, except the UK, that forced his hand into building up the army too.