I can see why one might want to exercise caution in using too much pro-Trump language, but this is a tremendous understatement: "the long term objective of having Europe take care of its own problems is not an entirely crazy one."
We can speak plainly: the current US leadership has low confidence in current European leadership, and Europe needs to step up and defend itself across the board: economics, military, and immigration.
I don't understand why NATO didn't give Ukraine at least a temporary membership and mass troops along the Russian border before they decided to invade. It might have stopped the war from ever happening and given a clear signal to Putin. Instead the US had a waffling strategy.
Reason: there is no such thing as a temporary military involvement by the US. They literally don’t do them. And, of course the US is the only NATO with forces at the ready. Outside of the US, NATO power is non-existent. Aside from that, the US did not have a real President ; Biden was already senile.
The second Nordstream pipeline, a substitute for Ukrainian transit of Russian gas, should never have been ok’d by Biden. That was the decision that made the Russian invasion look cost-free to Putin. After its completion, Russia invaded.
It's fascinating......because the main issue that runs through everything Trump does is America First. And to him that means that you all have to do your share. And on that he's not wrong. Europe and Canada have been coasting for decades on American largesse. Few countries in Europe have maintained a basic military/defensive capability. And Canada? Sheesh! I think that western Europe and Canada should take this opportunity to sort out their complacent approach to very real problems that are now threats. And - why has Europe not sorted out the Ukraine issue more - how should I say - assertively? They've had years. Years. As has Canada. Great piece.
Canada has not been coasting on US largesse as the only credible threat to Canadian security for the past 20 years has been the US and that is now getting worse. Our involvement in US adventures abroad has made us less secure not more. Chretien is the only Canadian PM who understood this and had the courage to act. Time for Canada to develop a new defence strategy meant to protect us from our only natural enemy.
That may be changing. We share a continent of course, and more importantly, many watersheds, so we have to work with each other, but that does not make us natural allies.
Disagree. The US is not the only credible threat to Canadian security - if it is a threat at all. Without the US there is no NORAD or any effective patrolling of coastilne. But those minor issues aside......the major threat to Canadian security for decades now has been in the far north - from China and Russia. And the US is paying attention to that. Not Canada. We've been asleep.
Yes, time to retire NORAD, a useless system in the current technology context. And time for Canada to make a massive investment in the north: sensing systems (which NORAD is not), bases, Arctic capable drones, energy and communication grids. Canada has not made the necessary investments in the north and that needs to change. China and Russia are in profound demographic collapse. They are not a threat to Canada at all. China never has been. Russia has not been a threat for more than 30 years. The real threats, other than the US, are cybersecurity in nature. Canada has also done ab poor job defending against these. So let's say we increase our defence spending to 3% of GDP. Something likely to happen faster than most realize. Half of that should go to the North. One third to cybersecurity. There should be minimal reliance on third country technology. Oh yes, and the F35 purchase should be cancelled. They are a useless piece of tribute we are paying the Americans.
A key fact not often included in such discussions is that the EU is far richer than Russia. Thus, there’s really no excuse for them not being able to provide for their own security.
As a long time Dem who would never vote for Trump, I must admit this is one topic where I agree with him.
UK and France have nuclear capability. One could think of the European Union managing this but that is opening up another very complicated and controversial discussion.
Yes but they would need to increase the number and the variety of delivery systems dramatically to be taken seriously by Russia and the US. This would probably get all the way to autonomous drone based tactical nuclear weapons. And the investment would require Germany so Germany would also need to have its own nuclear weapons. Is this the direction the world should go?
As Pieter mentioned, Britain and France each already have enough nukes to erase Russian cities, so more are probably not necessary. What Europe needs are conventional forces which are on a scale sufficient to provide a credible reason for Russia to stay within it's own borders. Once Russian understands that it's expansion plans can never work, the risk of a nuclear confrontation is substantially reduced.
They do not have the delivery systems and their stockpiles are very much out of date. Russia has said that it is willing to use tactical nuclear weapons (so has Trump for that matter). Bluffing? Maybe. But the best way to counter a bluff is with strength. If Europe (and Canada) are to move out from under the US nuclear umbrella then they need a credible nuclear force. I am not advocating for this. I am simply pointing out a consequence of US decisions.
A Euro-NATO with Canada is something that has come up as an option over the past week. That said, the current NATO with a larger role for the Euros and Canada (meaning more $) would be the preferred route.
Putin is a war criminal and a profound danger to long term global peace, especially as Russia continues to decline and loses control of Siberia to China (this has largely already happened). I passionately support the courage and determination of the Ukrainian people. I am sceptical that a peace is anything more than breathing room for an aggressive Russia that fully intends to reestablish control out to the USSR borders and sees anything else as a threat to its own security. That said, I doubt there is any military solution and something like European troops in the Ukraine, not part of NATO, and Russia keeping at least some of the land it has stolen seems inevitable. The US is not a reliable ally and Europe, Ukraine, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Canada all need to adjust to this reality. It is not likely to change in four years. The Overton window has shifted. For Canada the biggest, the only really, threat to our security is the US and we are going to have to figure out how to manage that.
It seems a large fraction of Canadians are simultaneoulsy psychic captives of the Liberal Party of Canada and suffer a derangement of the mind with respect to the US. Trudeau has waged a war of attrition on the Canadian people, and looted its wealth with legislative conquests such as the carbon tax. He also willingly allowed Chinese actors to make Canada and its housing market into a gigantic money laundering operation. Huge amounts of Fentanyl have been seized by RCMP raids in BC. The US considers all of the above pressing security issues.
What is the conclusion drawn by many Canadians from these facts? The US is a unique threat to Canada! Robert Fulford tried to alert Canada to the mental and emotional weakness present in this assessment of America for decades, to no avail. It seems that it may never change.
I hope the Canadian people eject the Liberal Party from government soon, and for their sake, because Mark Carney has promised more of the same if returned to power.
I can see why one might want to exercise caution in using too much pro-Trump language, but this is a tremendous understatement: "the long term objective of having Europe take care of its own problems is not an entirely crazy one."
We can speak plainly: the current US leadership has low confidence in current European leadership, and Europe needs to step up and defend itself across the board: economics, military, and immigration.
Thanks. I tried to creatively word it.
You succeeded!
I don't understand why NATO didn't give Ukraine at least a temporary membership and mass troops along the Russian border before they decided to invade. It might have stopped the war from ever happening and given a clear signal to Putin. Instead the US had a waffling strategy.
Reason: there is no such thing as a temporary military involvement by the US. They literally don’t do them. And, of course the US is the only NATO with forces at the ready. Outside of the US, NATO power is non-existent. Aside from that, the US did not have a real President ; Biden was already senile.
The second Nordstream pipeline, a substitute for Ukrainian transit of Russian gas, should never have been ok’d by Biden. That was the decision that made the Russian invasion look cost-free to Putin. After its completion, Russia invaded.
It's fascinating......because the main issue that runs through everything Trump does is America First. And to him that means that you all have to do your share. And on that he's not wrong. Europe and Canada have been coasting for decades on American largesse. Few countries in Europe have maintained a basic military/defensive capability. And Canada? Sheesh! I think that western Europe and Canada should take this opportunity to sort out their complacent approach to very real problems that are now threats. And - why has Europe not sorted out the Ukraine issue more - how should I say - assertively? They've had years. Years. As has Canada. Great piece.
Canada has not been coasting on US largesse as the only credible threat to Canadian security for the past 20 years has been the US and that is now getting worse. Our involvement in US adventures abroad has made us less secure not more. Chretien is the only Canadian PM who understood this and had the courage to act. Time for Canada to develop a new defence strategy meant to protect us from our only natural enemy.
I tend to see the US as a partner for Canada, there is no way around it. Good times, bad times, but joined at the hip.
That may be changing. We share a continent of course, and more importantly, many watersheds, so we have to work with each other, but that does not make us natural allies.
Let's see. There are a lot of moving pieces here. Will try and stay on top of this for the newsletter.
Disagree. The US is not the only credible threat to Canadian security - if it is a threat at all. Without the US there is no NORAD or any effective patrolling of coastilne. But those minor issues aside......the major threat to Canadian security for decades now has been in the far north - from China and Russia. And the US is paying attention to that. Not Canada. We've been asleep.
Yes, time to retire NORAD, a useless system in the current technology context. And time for Canada to make a massive investment in the north: sensing systems (which NORAD is not), bases, Arctic capable drones, energy and communication grids. Canada has not made the necessary investments in the north and that needs to change. China and Russia are in profound demographic collapse. They are not a threat to Canada at all. China never has been. Russia has not been a threat for more than 30 years. The real threats, other than the US, are cybersecurity in nature. Canada has also done ab poor job defending against these. So let's say we increase our defence spending to 3% of GDP. Something likely to happen faster than most realize. Half of that should go to the North. One third to cybersecurity. There should be minimal reliance on third country technology. Oh yes, and the F35 purchase should be cancelled. They are a useless piece of tribute we are paying the Americans.
A key fact not often included in such discussions is that the EU is far richer than Russia. Thus, there’s really no excuse for them not being able to provide for their own security.
As a long time Dem who would never vote for Trump, I must admit this is one topic where I agree with him.
There is though the question of nuclear weapons. Do we believe that the UK, France, Germany, Sweden and so on should build their own nuclear arsenals?
UK and France have nuclear capability. One could think of the European Union managing this but that is opening up another very complicated and controversial discussion.
Yes but they would need to increase the number and the variety of delivery systems dramatically to be taken seriously by Russia and the US. This would probably get all the way to autonomous drone based tactical nuclear weapons. And the investment would require Germany so Germany would also need to have its own nuclear weapons. Is this the direction the world should go?
As Pieter mentioned, Britain and France each already have enough nukes to erase Russian cities, so more are probably not necessary. What Europe needs are conventional forces which are on a scale sufficient to provide a credible reason for Russia to stay within it's own borders. Once Russian understands that it's expansion plans can never work, the risk of a nuclear confrontation is substantially reduced.
They do not have the delivery systems and their stockpiles are very much out of date. Russia has said that it is willing to use tactical nuclear weapons (so has Trump for that matter). Bluffing? Maybe. But the best way to counter a bluff is with strength. If Europe (and Canada) are to move out from under the US nuclear umbrella then they need a credible nuclear force. I am not advocating for this. I am simply pointing out a consequence of US decisions.
A Euro-NATO with Canada is something that has come up as an option over the past week. That said, the current NATO with a larger role for the Euros and Canada (meaning more $) would be the preferred route.
Putin is a war criminal and a profound danger to long term global peace, especially as Russia continues to decline and loses control of Siberia to China (this has largely already happened). I passionately support the courage and determination of the Ukrainian people. I am sceptical that a peace is anything more than breathing room for an aggressive Russia that fully intends to reestablish control out to the USSR borders and sees anything else as a threat to its own security. That said, I doubt there is any military solution and something like European troops in the Ukraine, not part of NATO, and Russia keeping at least some of the land it has stolen seems inevitable. The US is not a reliable ally and Europe, Ukraine, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Canada all need to adjust to this reality. It is not likely to change in four years. The Overton window has shifted. For Canada the biggest, the only really, threat to our security is the US and we are going to have to figure out how to manage that.
It seems a large fraction of Canadians are simultaneoulsy psychic captives of the Liberal Party of Canada and suffer a derangement of the mind with respect to the US. Trudeau has waged a war of attrition on the Canadian people, and looted its wealth with legislative conquests such as the carbon tax. He also willingly allowed Chinese actors to make Canada and its housing market into a gigantic money laundering operation. Huge amounts of Fentanyl have been seized by RCMP raids in BC. The US considers all of the above pressing security issues.
What is the conclusion drawn by many Canadians from these facts? The US is a unique threat to Canada! Robert Fulford tried to alert Canada to the mental and emotional weakness present in this assessment of America for decades, to no avail. It seems that it may never change.
I hope the Canadian people eject the Liberal Party from government soon, and for their sake, because Mark Carney has promised more of the same if returned to power.
Agreed. Canadians have no idea to what extent the country has ben infiltrated by China. That is a clear and present threat, not the US.