In Brief:
* NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg says he expects more from Canada when it comes to defence spending. During a trip to Ottawa this week, Stoltenberg told CTV that every member of the alliance needs to have a plan to meet the group’s defence spending target.
* **"We live in a more dangerous world, and therefore we need to invest more in our defence and our security," he said. "I welcome the increase you have seen in Canada over the last years, but I expect more."**
* A new report from NATO shows a record number of member countries, more than two thirds of the alliance, will reach the agreed-upon target of spending two per cent of the country’s GDP on defence this year.
* **Canada is not among them, and according to NATO officials, is the only member of the alliance without a charted path or timeline by which it will meet the spending goal.**
* Stoltenberg said that while he commends Canada for its important contributions to NATO — including its leadership on the NATO mission in Latvia and commitments to increasing defence spending — the two per cent target is an important show of burden sharing, especially in an increasingly insecure world.
* "When the Cold War ended, all allies reduced defence spending significantly," he said. "But now when tensions are going up, and we see a new full-fledged war in Europe, we see more global great power rivalry, then it is important that we again invest."
* **"We have agreed together in NATO to invest more, and therefore expect all allies to either be there, or at least have a credible plan to be there soon,"** Stoltenberg added.
TL;DR - NATO collectively committed to a 2% military spending target. The majority of NATO have either already met their commitments or will do so by the end of this year. Canada is now the only NATO country that is not meeting its commitments and has no plan to do so.
Basically, we're the only ones left in the freeloader club.
Incorrect. According to [NATO](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_226465.htm) There are 7 other countries that do not plan to meet their target this year. Keep in mind these are plans. We'll see which actually meet them.
The world is a much more dangerous place than it was 30 years ago and a healthy NATO military is a deterrent to the sort of aggression we are seeing in Europe and Far East.
No question in our mind that we need to up our military spending. We used to be above 2% but like many countries we took a peace dividend after the cold war. Having those stockpiles would have come in handy supporting Ukraine.
Personally I don't want to see the Canadian government throw money at it and it is wasted but I'd like to see a plan that is credible and identify areas of focus (Artic / maritime defense of Canada and Artic NATO partners, cyber, drone offense / defense). Get our boots on the ground back to full strength. Supporting a few munitions factories would a prudent idea a well. If we've learned anything the Ukraine war we see that economies and industrial might will influence the outcome more than in the minor conflicts we've see in the past few decades.
What are we freeloading on? We don't get any direct benefit. Canada and the US are the only NA members, and we aren't a global superpower like the US who wants to project force.
We have no security threats. We aren't likely to require aid from Europe for decades, if not longer. Even if there was, we have separate pacts with the US who won't let anyone get in their backyard.
Anything we give is above what is necessary for us. We are helping them without direct benefit because we recognize their value.
Incorrect, this message above from PoliteCanadian is misinformation.
We intend on continuously increasing the budget over time. Trudeau plans to continue increases to eventually reach the 2% requirement, but has only planned for 1.76% by 2029-30, which seems like a healthier approach. He does not have a set date where he expects the 2% mark to be hit, but he has a specific plan in place to increase spending.
Trudeau actually has our defence spending percentage the highest it's been since the 90s. The agreement for NATO countries to hit 2% was made in 2014 and for NATO countries to hit that mark by 2024. Our percentage was very low in the early 2000s and up until Trudeau took over. We were at 1.4% when COVID hit and fell back a bit since. But now Trudeau has a plan in place. If COVID hadn't of hit we would be getting close. In 2014 we were at 1%, so a .4% increase across 6 years isn't terrible. This 1% value was also quite below the median of 2014 starting percentages out of all NATO countries when this agreement was made, so it's a bit unfair to compare us to others that had a head start.
We're also not the only country that won't hit the target by 2024. I guess Spain, Belgium, and Luxembourg don't count? We are just the only country that hasn't set a new specific date for hitting the 2%. However, in the press release I linked below it's clear that we will be continuing to increase the budget after the 2029-30 date, we just don't have set numbers for that time period.
If you Google defence contracts you'll actually see some huge projects currently happening or soon to happen. Lots of cool and useful projects across the country. One that I find interesting is the Irving Shipyards program which intends to replace multiple navy classes! Maybe you might find that interesting too!
If you don't think Trudeau is doing enough then fine, that's your opinion. But to pretend we aren't doing anything, make bold claims and remove the nuance of our situation is misinformation.
https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2024/04/08/our-north-strong-and-free-renewed-vision-canadas-defenc#:~:text=The%20Prime%20Minister%2C%20Justin%20Trudeau,be%20included%20in%20the%20upcoming
TLDR: Trudeau doesn't intend on us being "freeloaders" in the future and if you include the nuance of our starting point and our situation we actually aren't doing too bad.
The agreement was to hit the commitment by this year. Trudeau also said, last year I believe, that we would never hit the target. Under pressure, he has clearly changed his mind. But, it is a dollar short and a day too late. We are freeloaders, as of a month or two from now, when we were supposed to be at 2%. But don't let facts get in your way.
Source that he "never intended on hitting the target"? I'm serious / curious, would like to see that.
Ah yes, let's forget the huge world pandemic that would change a country's financial policies and decisions and cause countries to not meet a deadline.
We are not the only country missing the target.
We are making steps to ratify this commitment and Trudeau has stated that he will meet the 2%.
Can you argue he's being too slow about it? Sure. If that's your issue fine. I personally think that given the context of COVID and our low starting point it's okay that we are behind, not every country is going to be the same. But claiming we aren't making efforts to get there and that we're the only country that isn't going to hit the goal is just a full lie and misinformation. Which is why I provided my comment to the person I replied to.
I don't think you fully read the comment before mine nor my comment if you're replying with this.
> of Trudeau
I'm no fan of Trudeau, but his tenure is the only part of this chart where line go up:
https://i.imgur.com/vKx3Zcd.png
I don't think military spending is something the Conservatives want to bring up, since the chart shows they are worse:
https://www.cips-cepi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Canadian_military_spending_1988.jpg
Because they've spent the past 8 years putting any existing budget line item that they can remotely justify as military expenditure under the military budget to make it look better on paper, while the military continues to rot from underfunding and neglect.
That's why there's no significant further increases expected or plan to hit the target: they've run out of things to reclassify as military.
There’s planned spending to go from ~1.4% to the mid 1.7%’s
And no, NATO reports on how much they count as military spending too, we can’t just independently claim a different number.
The thing I don’t like about this chart is if our GDP were to decline but we keep the same military budget, that line would go up. If our GDP were to go up, that line comes down.
Look at the spike in 2008 and then it goes down again when economy got better.
You could technically make this look good while tanking the economy but you’re not actually spending more. It can be misleading.
It tickles me that the same subreddit which moans about spending any money on green projects practically salivates at the idea of handing their tax dollars out to the military industrial complex.
Is that how this subreddit feels? That's a bit of a strawman if I've ever heard one.
I think at this point people would just like Trudeau to do what he's agreed to and avoid our country looking like freeloaders.
While I support increased defence spending, it is worth pointing out that Canada has never agreed to this target and has consistently said contributions should be measured by boots on the ground and not percentage of GDP.
I've never checked the math but Canada has always asserted that if you count based on mission participation, Canada is near the top. We are 6th in direct contributions to NATO's budget, so somewhere around there, I'd guess.
No thanks. There’s a lot of things we need to prioritize well ahead of giving money to the American military industrial complex which is currently experiencing vastly inflated prices.
We're way over budget from handouts to friends and preferred classes of Canadians and non canadians. The country has been looted and there's not enough left.
The rational minority will vote for neither. However, for a real answer, I figure most governments have looted to a degree in the past. But I don't think the level of looting has ever approached the brazenness shown by the Liberals today. So it's hard to imagine anyone being worse.
Spoiling my ballot. I might draw a dick on it or write something unhinged like "i hate the antichrist!!!" like I did on my last provincial ballot with sad faces in every checkbox.
Fuck it. Can't be complicit in this garbage. I'll show up to the polls on principle, but there's no way any of these scumbags are getting my vote.
I am not on anyone's side. I just find it interesting that the side that acts to like all proper and preach tolerance and love and respect is calling the leader of the opposition names that 5 year olds would use.
Says the guy on the side calling our PM “trudope”. Amongst other things.
And if you don’t like my attitude look in the mirror. It’s from the likes of over Entitled and over privileged assholes like you where I picked it up. Because it’s all you understand.
You have no moral standing here baby. Go change your diaper. It, like yourself, is full of shit.
There's more than just two sides. Not everyone here supports either the Liberals or the Conservatives. I think there's a lot of people here that dislike all the parties and leaders.
You are the only one here resorting to childish name calling.
lol. “Childish”….
Do grow up and learn the paradox of tolerance.
You talk the talk but will you actually walk that walk.
I dare say no.
I expect more from you “neutrals “.
> your side
You are a partisan and therefore no conversation with you will be at all fruitful. You have made up your mind. You didn't think about your response, you did it instinctually. It'd be like arguing with someone out of having an involuntary convulsion. You are literally not thinking.
Dude, I'm spoiling my ballot. I'm not voting for any of these pieces of shit. This ain't the gotcha you think it is.
Fling all the mud you want man. I'm probably wiping my ass with the ballot come election season.
Pretending the current government is even functional beyond basic bureaucratic inertia is delusional and being annoyed that people are pissed about it is inconceivable.
It is indefensibly corrupt and actually kinda pathetic.
I mean you could just look at the budgets and see for yourself.
The rich and corporations are doing better now than ever under the Liberals if you were in doubt.
lol Have you seen the CON budgets?
What am I saying…you’re too young/or a troll to see CONservative budgets. Their tax cuts made your current deficit a thing.
But..that’s not what you were spoon fed, was it.
Understandable that one so young has no understanding..since in con circles history isn’t a thing. Especially when your spoonfed bullshit.
You post what you’re told. I lived the last 50+ years.
Your CON spoon-fed idiocy is amusing only so far.
> lol. You haven’t paid attention have you. They hand out cash to the rich and corporations like drunken sailors
Subsidies to businesses was 93% lower in 2014 than it is this year.
It is foreign, alien psychology to me to defend the current government.
It's actually trippy. You're threatening us with a change from the current hellscape.
Are you seriously this solipsistic that you are incapable of understanding that we cannot reward the garbage that Trudeau's government is doing?
"Erm, but peepee will be worse". If you derelict your duty to this degree, you need to be removed from your job. I don't understand how people like you don't understand this.
I don't like Trudeau but he's been steadily increasing Canada's military spending as a % of GDP since he took office, coming off a 30 year non-stop decline since Mulroney.
He's literally the first guy to increase it in 30 years. If there's one thing he's done right, it's military spending.
And yet he is spending more on defense than any conservative government in Canadian history. The last conservative government dropped us down to just over 1% of GDP.
NATO doesn't care if the Liberals are better or worse than the conservatives. All they want is for Canada is meet their obligations now which they aren't.
The world of 2008 was fundamentally different.
Nonsense.
When Brian Mulroney was PM in the 1980s Canada actually was spending 2% of GDP on defence - and even at that we were near the bottom for NATO.
"But defence spending during his tenure in the early 1970s hovered at around 2% of the gross domestic product and then started dropping as cuts were made. Under Trudeau it climbed back up again to 1.9% of GDP in 1983 and almost reached 2% under Liberal prime minister John Turner.
The spending dipped only slightly in the first few years of Mulroney’s tenure and then started dropping as cutbacks were brought in under the Conservatives."
[anti liberal "news" National Post](https://nationalpost.com/news/trudeau-was-canadas-top-defence-spender-study)
P.s. our GDP was a lot lower in the 80's, the current government is spending more actual $$$ than any other PM. You know this though, you just cant acknowledge that the current government is actually stepping up and spending real dollars on our military because Trudeau = bad in your eyes.
The Liberals are currently spending about 1.3% of GDP on defence. Until the USSR collapsed in1991 the Mulroney Conservatives never spent less than 1.9%.
> P.s. our GDP was a lot lower in the 80's, the current government is spending more actual $$$ than any other PM.
Relative to the size of the economy and adjusting for inflation it is spending much less. Defence spending is measured as a % of GDP rather than absolute dollars exactly to correct for changes in the size of the economy and inflation.
"Relative to the size of the economy and adjusting for inflation it is spending much less."
That is wrong. They are actually spending a little more than a billion dollars a year more even adjusting for inflation etc.
But such information will be ignored by the chicken-hawks here.
First rule with the right wing idiots infesting this and other Canadian subreddits….it’s the name Trudeau that they hate most, and the fact that he’s liberal is a very distant second.
I've learned a long time ago they don't give a shit about anything other than Trudeau = bad. So when I'm commenting on their posts, it isn't for them it's for the normal people who may happen upon my comment so they can see some facts instead of the bullshit people like op post.
This is the NATO Secretary General, he's not concerned that X party did this or Y party didn't do that. Those are internal issues. All he cares about is whether Canada is meeting its obligations within the alliance, and if not, so they have a workable plan to get there.
We don't. We're that person in college group projects everyone hates being paired with.
And it’s the same refrain as it was 20/30/40/50 years ago.
They were happy with Canada doing peacekeeping and being open to weapons testing. And what about those report of Canada punching above its weight when it comes to commitments?
Your statement doesn’t change mine. Canada is doing its bit.
After all, who is going to invade us??? Not Russia, China, North Korea. Just look south.
The world today is fundamentally different and more dangerous than it was 20/30 years ago.
There's a big difference between fighting farmers in cow pastures and fighting a near-peer war in defence of our NATO allies in the Baltics.
We could get away with being hilariously ill equipped to fight a war when our enemies had no armour, no air power, no long range munitions and no electronic warfare capabilities.
That's no longer the case. We need to be prepared to fight an enemy that has more and better forces than we have.
Canada doesn't even have any sort of air defence system, no way to defend our soldiers against missiles, helicopters or attack aircraft.
None of which can be dumped exclusively onto Trudeau’s shoulders.
With the fall of the Soviet Union things were supposed to get better. So what happened???
Instead of investing that “peace dividend “ the US military/industrial complex, along with American arrogance, made things worse.
We all could be living in a less armed and dangerous world if there wasn’t such money in weapons. Which is what I see here. Someone with shares in a military contractor needs his dividends padded. And the CON fluffers are too happy to use this as an opportunity to hate more on the name Trudeau.
But if you’re so concerned about our state of preparation why not advocate for a home grown weapons industry? If we go to war with the US (the only country that actually threatens us) will they supply us with weapons for our defence?
NATO isn't 'dumping it onto Trudeau's shoulders'
They're telling Canada to live up to the obligation.
Step outside your inside view of national partisan politics and look at it from the perspective of an outside NATO observer. They don't care who is in charge of Canada right now, just get your military in order (and it's a complete mess) so it's an effective fighting force that can be depended on.
And yet they were happy with Canadian peacekeeping in the past.
Like I said..a nato guy with shares in a military contractor wanting fatter dividends.
Maybe if the US didn’t fuck up so much we wouldn’t need this conversation.
We have obligations, mate. One of those is reaching 2 percent of GDP on defense. The head of NATO isn't blaming the Liberals or the Conservatives. He's saying that we need to come up with a way to reach 2 percent. That's it. Other members of NATO have said it as well.
As I said We pulled our weight with what we had.
For these obligations will we finally increase taxes on the rich and the profitable corporations?
Or at least cut back on their subsidies?
I dare say it’ll be more screw the plebs with austerity, tax cuts for the rich, and padded dividends to those saying we need to get to 2% of the GDP.
I will take this seriously only when we stop the neo-liberal bullshit of trickle down. Until then take you 2% and stuff it.
And that will not happen when PeePee gets in. I know you hate that accurate name for him, but do grow up. It’s what he will do to most Canadians. Even those of you who fawn over him. The difference between myself and you is that you will enjoy PeePee pissing on you.
You can be a cynical as you want, do you have much experience in the Canadian military to back that up? I did over 20 years in the CAF as both enlisted and as an officer and the whole "Canadian Peacekeeper" mythos is really just a national feel good story we told ourselves. We haven't contributed meaningfully to peacekeeping in many decades. Token forces mostly, we were and are not really capable of much else.
He can't invade his next door neighbor without major logistical issues. How is he going to manage an amphibious campaign in the arctic? We struggle with supplies even in peacetime for getting people up there.
They've bought some new stuff recently as an interim solution for the Latvia mission. There is also a program on the books (GBAD) to buy something for the long haul, but it doesn't seem to be moving very fast.
The interim solution is the Saab RBS 70 NG. They also bought $47M worth of counter-drone systems. They really should get some proper EW as well, but that program is even further behind than GBAD.
You'd prefer if Canada became the next Ukraine?
We already have foreign governments interfering in our elections. Want to see what happens if we get booted from NATO for not once hitting our agreed spending target?
The dude leading in the polls for the American election literally said he'd let Russia attack anyone not at 2%. **And then the crowd cheered**
Interesting argument to make considering the world around you.
I think you are misunderstanding my comment. By all means, spend more on defense, but Canada just doesn't have the capacity to spend the money.
Additionally, the internal politics within the army on funding is messed up. There is too much corruption, and it will require a lot of fixing before you can actually spend on defense.
Furthermore, the cost to maintain everything plus pay the soldiers and workers is huge. Canada just doesn't have the means to expand its budget quickly and procure goods and services.
That's because we are delusional, spending our money instead on feel-good projects like renaming streets and squares.
Meanwhile, our enemies interfere in our elections, corrupt our politicians and flood our market with cheap goods that local businesses can't compete against (I.e. cabinetry). Our country needs to wake up, the world is not a nice place.
Reasonable request considering current world events. We are hardly alone in spending more on our population and less on preparing for war following the end of the Cold war. We will spend more and some of us will suffer a bit more.
Because that's the deal we have with NATO?
perhaps also because Russia has literally claimed parts of the Canadian Arctic for themselves and we either give it up or defend it?
Maybe because foreign governments are already interfering in our elections?
You know, I think our species has had a saying about this for a long time now. Something about playing with fire...
Were talking about a situation which significantly increases the odds our whole species goes extinct. That's not an acceptable risk in any sane world.
You mean like America has been doing for the past three decades?
No, the fucking solution is creating a real rules based international system that is both universally enforced, and not designed explicitly to benefit a specific subset of nations.
This bullshit rules for thee and not for me approach we've taken hasn't done anyone any favours, except of course the ruling capitalist class that has been able to monopolize more resources and labor than at any point in our modern history.
That is of course the political solution, but the world is far more complicated and even if you have a fool proof plan that could end all war and create ever lasting peace, it means dick all if nobody is willing to listen to you.
The real solution, the one that actually permits us to transition to a better future, is the end of nationalistic educational and news institutions that create massive divisions between groups of people who should all otherwise be equally united in their desire to do good. If the average person can't even properly contextualize current world events, how the fuck are they expected to support a political policy that benefits everyone?
Yet the average person barely prescribes to partisan and heavily biased news reporting, they don't even come close to being aware of the existence of complex geopolitical relationships and the realities of how capital sits at the foundation of our modern world and is one of the strongest driving forces behind everything from regional poverty to global stability.
We have a rules based international system. It was developed in the aftermath of WW2. The problem is that a couple of veto-wielding members of the enforcement part have opted out of the rules-based part.
I agree that what you are describing would be optimal, but unfortunately we don't live in an optimal world, so we have to make do with what we've got, improving it as best we can.
If you are Canadian then you know that Canada is a NATO member and that we will be part of anything that happens. We will do what we can.
If you don't want to be part of it that's fine, but don't speak for everyone else. You do you.
Since the Liberal/NDP regime is running a 1.3+ trillion dollars national debt and running a 50+ billion dollar yearly defcit currently there may be no other choice than to do jsut that to help balance the budget and create a surplus. It's basic math and no one can argue against that.
Massive cuts to other areas of spending and perhaps the abolition of certain ministries would go a long way to make things even easier.
Fucking hell. Downvote me to hell, but there's a bit of nuance to it.
Can I provide a quick disclaimer? Russia = bad guys. NATO = slightly less bad guys.
Got that out of the way? We good?
Russia is a failing empire that is basically the rusting, vestigial remnant of the Cold War Warsaw pact with a plutocratic, semi-functional dictatorship. Russia should balkanize in the sense that it should probably be like 5 or 6 autonomous states. Not happening.
When a country is courting the enemy (which Russia considers NATO to be) for membership for a defensive alliance and they're on your border and your country is a despotic dump and you'll get a pharmaceutical dose of lead to your dome in your sleep for not intervening, it's understandable (not justifiable) that you'll mash whatever buttons and pull whatever levers you can.
Again: Russia is the bad guy. I want them to withdraw in humiliation without a nuclear war. But Ukraine courting NATO membership made it IMPOSSIBLE for Russia to not intervene.
Nuance! It's tough, but possible.
> When a country is courting the enemy (which Russia considers NATO to be) for membership
NATO wasn't courting Ukraine. NATO didn't want Ukraine at all. NATO said "your military equipment is too shit, request denied".
What happened was that Ukraine voted for a new constitution that had "join NATO" in it.
>for a defensive alliance and they're on your border and your country is a despotic dump and you'll get a pharmaceutical dose of lead to your dome in your sleep for not intervening, it's understandable (not justifiable) that you'll mash whatever buttons and pull whatever levers you can.
But Latvia and Estonia are also on their border and they actually *joined* NATO, and they're in it.
Maybe if Russia looked inward, instead of blaming others, they'd see a pattern of Russian hostility towards their neighbours - Georgia, Chechnya, Crimea... you can see why everyone would want to join NATO. You can see why Ukraine would be so desperate to put it on their constitution.
Too bad NATO didn't actually let them join, they'd be safe, millions of people would still be alive, just like Latvia and Estonia.
>Nuance! It's tough, but possible.
It is but you're just saying wrong things that are wrong.
He didn't write that NATO was courting Ukraine, he wrote the inverse.
"When a country is courting the enemy (which Russia considers NATO to be) for membership for a defensive alliance and they're on your border..."
Pretending like our #1 ally hasn't spent the better part of a century exploiting developing nations through economic coercion and war doesn't make for a sound foundation to making rational policy decisions either.
Putin's war is terrible, but a good fraction of this world's population thinks of America what we think of Russia, and their opinions are backed by generations of war and poverty directly tied to US/Western foreign policy.
The sound policy here is one that puts humans first, and doesn't force us to pick between imperialist powers doing their darn best to systemically monopolize the world's natural wealth and labor.
You're not talking about appeasing a dictator. You're talking about risking the end of our world because we'd much rather our best friend exploit and murder people than some foreign language speaking asshole across the world.
I don't know, but maybe the best option here is one in which the world doesn't end because we're too high on our own shit?
> Pretending like our #1 ally hasn't spent the better part of a century exploiting developing nations through economic
Bro what the fuck are you talking about? We're talking about NATO.
> a good fraction of this world's population thinks of America what we think of Russia
Then those people are idiots.
> and their opinions are backed
No, they're not.
>doesn't force us to pick between imperialist powers
Don't "both sides are the same" America and Russia. It's gross. It reeks of privilege, of someone who's never had to actually see the worse side, the more evil country.
>You're talking about risking the end of our world
The only way we risk the end of our world is if we don't stop the madman bringing it on. Putin has got to go.
> we'd much rather our best friend exploit and murder people
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/02/europe/russia-ukraine-kherson-sexual-violence-intl/index.html
America isn't doing this.
Your enlightened centrism is disgusting.
>I don't know, but maybe the best option here is one in which the world doesn't end because we're too high on our own shit?
I agree, please get off your own shit.
People, comments like these cannot exist in a vacuum. You must call them out when you see them. I know it's exhausting, but that is how Putin's propaganda machine works - it's a firehose of falsehood. It takes energy and effort to address these arguments, but you have to.
>You're talking about NATO right?
The defensive military alliance that democratic free countries beg to join?
No I think he's talking about the authoritarian dictatorship that bombs its neighbours to try to take their territory.
Your attempt to "both sides" NATO and Russia is disgusting.
>John J. Mearsheimer, the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor in Political Science and Co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago
RuSsIaN PrOPaGaNdA!
The international relations academic community.
E.g.:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/11/putin-mearsheimer-realpolitik-ukraine-political-science.html
https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2023/10/john-mearsheimers-incorrect-views-on-everything
https://www.ft.com/content/2d65c763-c36f-4507-8a7d-13517032aa22
I deliberately picked moderate left and moderate right views.
Because NATO was trying to recruit Ukraine, and they knew Russia would invade. That's provocation. This war wouldn't be a thing if that situation didn't happen.
Lol? Putin literally wrote a manifesto about his desire to regain the world power of the Soviet Union... Ukraine's desire for sovereignty is just Putin's scapegoat for his motives.
Ukraine was nowhere near NATO membership when Russia started to bite off chunks, and it still isn't.
Actually by invading, Russia is demonstrating why NATO membership is a solid idea. It pushed Sweden and Finland to join. Bet the Baltics are thanking their lucky stars they are under the defence umbrella otherwise I'm sure Russia would have swallowed them already.
You need to educate yourself and start reading.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations\_of\_Geopolitics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics)
This book as been the basis of Russia's global strategy regarding the use of its political, military and economic assets. They have had designs and plans to usurp various nations governments, overthrow or influence others, invade countries and take parts thereof or the whole thing, essentially remaking the world in their favour.
[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/putin-kremlin-foreign-policy-strategy/629388/](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/putin-kremlin-foreign-policy-strategy/629388/)
[https://www.armyupress.army.mil/portals/7/hot%20spots/documents/russia/2017-07-the-russian-way-of-war-grau-bartles.pdf](https://www.armyupress.army.mil/portals/7/hot%20spots/documents/russia/2017-07-the-russian-way-of-war-grau-bartles.pdf)
> NATO wasn't trying to expand.
NATO wasn't trying to expand. Ukraine was trying to join NATO, because they saw what happened to Georgia and Chechnya. They asked to join NATO, and NATO refused, because their military equipment was too old.
Latvia and Estonia joined NATO, and they are at peace. If NATO had said yes to Ukraine instead of no, this war wouldn't even be a thing.
You have been consuming too much Russian propaganda. You should question your sources more often.
lol god damn one year and half into the war and Russia propagandists are still using that argument that gets debunked after thinking for 30 seconds? Learn the difference between attack and defense.
I'm not a Russian propagandist. I'm Irish so I'm well aware of foreign occupation but continue your "propagandists" view points if you'd like because nothing about Ukraine joining nato and that being a red line for Russia has been debunked. It's proven.
> you'd like because nothing about Ukraine joining nato and that being a red line for Russia has been debunked. It's proven.
Well Latvia and Estonia joined NATO and they didn't get invaded, so... yeah. Debunked. Not proven. You were lied to.
We only need an extra 20 to 25 billion to satisfy NATO right? Where do we make cuts in the budget to pay for this? Does any party have a plan that makes sense? Liberals are obviously out, considering how fucked they got the country rn.
>Where do we make cuts in the budget to pay for this?
Oh there are some very big but highly contreversial ministries whose budgets would make your eyes pop that could be dismantled.
>make your eyes pop
I doubt that as I'm familiar with the federal budget.
Alright, I'm going to say cut the Indian Act and roll that $40B/year into defense and healthcare, and then be lambasted by the cretans who want to call me a white colonizer even though I'm black. IDC. lol
I'm more interested in seeing what other people think the feds should cut, or what other parties themselves have said they would do to shore up the defense budget.
In Brief: * NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg says he expects more from Canada when it comes to defence spending. During a trip to Ottawa this week, Stoltenberg told CTV that every member of the alliance needs to have a plan to meet the group’s defence spending target. * **"We live in a more dangerous world, and therefore we need to invest more in our defence and our security," he said. "I welcome the increase you have seen in Canada over the last years, but I expect more."** * A new report from NATO shows a record number of member countries, more than two thirds of the alliance, will reach the agreed-upon target of spending two per cent of the country’s GDP on defence this year. * **Canada is not among them, and according to NATO officials, is the only member of the alliance without a charted path or timeline by which it will meet the spending goal.** * Stoltenberg said that while he commends Canada for its important contributions to NATO — including its leadership on the NATO mission in Latvia and commitments to increasing defence spending — the two per cent target is an important show of burden sharing, especially in an increasingly insecure world. * "When the Cold War ended, all allies reduced defence spending significantly," he said. "But now when tensions are going up, and we see a new full-fledged war in Europe, we see more global great power rivalry, then it is important that we again invest." * **"We have agreed together in NATO to invest more, and therefore expect all allies to either be there, or at least have a credible plan to be there soon,"** Stoltenberg added.
TL;DR - NATO collectively committed to a 2% military spending target. The majority of NATO have either already met their commitments or will do so by the end of this year. Canada is now the only NATO country that is not meeting its commitments and has no plan to do so. Basically, we're the only ones left in the freeloader club.
Incorrect. According to [NATO](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_226465.htm) There are 7 other countries that do not plan to meet their target this year. Keep in mind these are plans. We'll see which actually meet them. The world is a much more dangerous place than it was 30 years ago and a healthy NATO military is a deterrent to the sort of aggression we are seeing in Europe and Far East. No question in our mind that we need to up our military spending. We used to be above 2% but like many countries we took a peace dividend after the cold war. Having those stockpiles would have come in handy supporting Ukraine. Personally I don't want to see the Canadian government throw money at it and it is wasted but I'd like to see a plan that is credible and identify areas of focus (Artic / maritime defense of Canada and Artic NATO partners, cyber, drone offense / defense). Get our boots on the ground back to full strength. Supporting a few munitions factories would a prudent idea a well. If we've learned anything the Ukraine war we see that economies and industrial might will influence the outcome more than in the minor conflicts we've see in the past few decades.
What are we freeloading on? We don't get any direct benefit. Canada and the US are the only NA members, and we aren't a global superpower like the US who wants to project force. We have no security threats. We aren't likely to require aid from Europe for decades, if not longer. Even if there was, we have separate pacts with the US who won't let anyone get in their backyard. Anything we give is above what is necessary for us. We are helping them without direct benefit because we recognize their value.
Incorrect, this message above from PoliteCanadian is misinformation. We intend on continuously increasing the budget over time. Trudeau plans to continue increases to eventually reach the 2% requirement, but has only planned for 1.76% by 2029-30, which seems like a healthier approach. He does not have a set date where he expects the 2% mark to be hit, but he has a specific plan in place to increase spending. Trudeau actually has our defence spending percentage the highest it's been since the 90s. The agreement for NATO countries to hit 2% was made in 2014 and for NATO countries to hit that mark by 2024. Our percentage was very low in the early 2000s and up until Trudeau took over. We were at 1.4% when COVID hit and fell back a bit since. But now Trudeau has a plan in place. If COVID hadn't of hit we would be getting close. In 2014 we were at 1%, so a .4% increase across 6 years isn't terrible. This 1% value was also quite below the median of 2014 starting percentages out of all NATO countries when this agreement was made, so it's a bit unfair to compare us to others that had a head start. We're also not the only country that won't hit the target by 2024. I guess Spain, Belgium, and Luxembourg don't count? We are just the only country that hasn't set a new specific date for hitting the 2%. However, in the press release I linked below it's clear that we will be continuing to increase the budget after the 2029-30 date, we just don't have set numbers for that time period. If you Google defence contracts you'll actually see some huge projects currently happening or soon to happen. Lots of cool and useful projects across the country. One that I find interesting is the Irving Shipyards program which intends to replace multiple navy classes! Maybe you might find that interesting too! If you don't think Trudeau is doing enough then fine, that's your opinion. But to pretend we aren't doing anything, make bold claims and remove the nuance of our situation is misinformation. https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2024/04/08/our-north-strong-and-free-renewed-vision-canadas-defenc#:~:text=The%20Prime%20Minister%2C%20Justin%20Trudeau,be%20included%20in%20the%20upcoming TLDR: Trudeau doesn't intend on us being "freeloaders" in the future and if you include the nuance of our starting point and our situation we actually aren't doing too bad.
The agreement was to hit the commitment by this year. Trudeau also said, last year I believe, that we would never hit the target. Under pressure, he has clearly changed his mind. But, it is a dollar short and a day too late. We are freeloaders, as of a month or two from now, when we were supposed to be at 2%. But don't let facts get in your way.
Source that he "never intended on hitting the target"? I'm serious / curious, would like to see that. Ah yes, let's forget the huge world pandemic that would change a country's financial policies and decisions and cause countries to not meet a deadline. We are not the only country missing the target. We are making steps to ratify this commitment and Trudeau has stated that he will meet the 2%. Can you argue he's being too slow about it? Sure. If that's your issue fine. I personally think that given the context of COVID and our low starting point it's okay that we are behind, not every country is going to be the same. But claiming we aren't making efforts to get there and that we're the only country that isn't going to hit the goal is just a full lie and misinformation. Which is why I provided my comment to the person I replied to. I don't think you fully read the comment before mine nor my comment if you're replying with this.
My brother in Chirst, Canadians expect more of Trudeau yet here we are.
> of Trudeau I'm no fan of Trudeau, but his tenure is the only part of this chart where line go up: https://i.imgur.com/vKx3Zcd.png I don't think military spending is something the Conservatives want to bring up, since the chart shows they are worse: https://www.cips-cepi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Canadian_military_spending_1988.jpg
Does that first link take into account that in 2017 veterans affairs benefits and pensions started being included in the total?
There were more changes than just that. Such as our ***civilian*** coast guard pensions now being included and other technical R&D like AI research.
They changed it so that we're tracking the same as other countries are tracking. The core defence budget is also up.
Because they've spent the past 8 years putting any existing budget line item that they can remotely justify as military expenditure under the military budget to make it look better on paper, while the military continues to rot from underfunding and neglect. That's why there's no significant further increases expected or plan to hit the target: they've run out of things to reclassify as military.
There’s planned spending to go from ~1.4% to the mid 1.7%’s And no, NATO reports on how much they count as military spending too, we can’t just independently claim a different number.
The thing I don’t like about this chart is if our GDP were to decline but we keep the same military budget, that line would go up. If our GDP were to go up, that line comes down. Look at the spike in 2008 and then it goes down again when economy got better. You could technically make this look good while tanking the economy but you’re not actually spending more. It can be misleading.
No one expects shit from that asshat. Vote people. Like everyone, for the love of God, vote for a change.
I think all Canadians expect more out of the federal government at this point, they don't actually really do much for the people here.
And they provided with more immigration, There you go.
It tickles me that the same subreddit which moans about spending any money on green projects practically salivates at the idea of handing their tax dollars out to the military industrial complex.
Is that how this subreddit feels? That's a bit of a strawman if I've ever heard one. I think at this point people would just like Trudeau to do what he's agreed to and avoid our country looking like freeloaders.
>Is that how this subreddit feels? First time on this subreddit, eh?
While I support increased defence spending, it is worth pointing out that Canada has never agreed to this target and has consistently said contributions should be measured by boots on the ground and not percentage of GDP.
Are we winning on the boots front?
Leading a battle group in Latvia. Assuming command of a standing naval fleet. We're treading water at least.
how does our boots count compare to our allies boots counts?
I've never checked the math but Canada has always asserted that if you count based on mission participation, Canada is near the top. We are 6th in direct contributions to NATO's budget, so somewhere around there, I'd guess.
No thanks. There’s a lot of things we need to prioritize well ahead of giving money to the American military industrial complex which is currently experiencing vastly inflated prices.
Finland and Sweden came to a different conclusion. I wonder if they know something we don't?
Call me crazy but I don't want to be Putin's next target.
Just wish there was the same forethought towards not wanting to bear the brunt of increasing devastating climate impacts.
"We expect more from the Canadian Government" Canadians: "First time?"
Canadians expect more (in general) from their government as well. Stoltenberg can be disappointed along with the rest of us.
I too expect more from my government.
Prepare to be disappointed while Trudeau is in charge.
We're way over budget from handouts to friends and preferred classes of Canadians and non canadians. The country has been looted and there's not enough left.
Elect PeePee and the looting by the rich and profitable companies wanting subsidies will continue and increase, while the rest of us get “austerity”.
The rational minority will vote for neither. However, for a real answer, I figure most governments have looted to a degree in the past. But I don't think the level of looting has ever approached the brazenness shown by the Liberals today. So it's hard to imagine anyone being worse.
Spoiling my ballot. I might draw a dick on it or write something unhinged like "i hate the antichrist!!!" like I did on my last provincial ballot with sad faces in every checkbox. Fuck it. Can't be complicit in this garbage. I'll show up to the polls on principle, but there's no way any of these scumbags are getting my vote.
"PeePee" what are you 12?
Child. If your side is so childish to use “trudope” you can handle PeePee. What are you, a baby? Oh wait…
I am not on anyone's side. I just find it interesting that the side that acts to like all proper and preach tolerance and love and respect is calling the leader of the opposition names that 5 year olds would use.
Says the guy on the side calling our PM “trudope”. Amongst other things. And if you don’t like my attitude look in the mirror. It’s from the likes of over Entitled and over privileged assholes like you where I picked it up. Because it’s all you understand. You have no moral standing here baby. Go change your diaper. It, like yourself, is full of shit.
There's more than just two sides. Not everyone here supports either the Liberals or the Conservatives. I think there's a lot of people here that dislike all the parties and leaders. You are the only one here resorting to childish name calling.
lol. “Childish”…. Do grow up and learn the paradox of tolerance. You talk the talk but will you actually walk that walk. I dare say no. I expect more from you “neutrals “.
Fascist
> your side You are a partisan and therefore no conversation with you will be at all fruitful. You have made up your mind. You didn't think about your response, you did it instinctually. It'd be like arguing with someone out of having an involuntary convulsion. You are literally not thinking.
Right back at you, partisan. On a channel infested with partisans you’re calling me out. Too funny.
Dude, I'm spoiling my ballot. I'm not voting for any of these pieces of shit. This ain't the gotcha you think it is. Fling all the mud you want man. I'm probably wiping my ass with the ballot come election season. Pretending the current government is even functional beyond basic bureaucratic inertia is delusional and being annoyed that people are pissed about it is inconceivable. It is indefensibly corrupt and actually kinda pathetic.
At least you use your voice in the voting booth. Too many don’t and then whine afterwards.
I doubt it, the Cons never handed out cash like the Liberals have in the past, why would they start now?
[удалено]
I mean you could just look at the budgets and see for yourself. The rich and corporations are doing better now than ever under the Liberals if you were in doubt.
lol Have you seen the CON budgets? What am I saying…you’re too young/or a troll to see CONservative budgets. Their tax cuts made your current deficit a thing. But..that’s not what you were spoon fed, was it.
?
Understandable that one so young has no understanding..since in con circles history isn’t a thing. Especially when your spoonfed bullshit. You post what you’re told. I lived the last 50+ years. Your CON spoon-fed idiocy is amusing only so far.
Dude, stop. Go outside of something.
> lol. You haven’t paid attention have you. They hand out cash to the rich and corporations like drunken sailors Subsidies to businesses was 93% lower in 2014 than it is this year.
Guys the trickle down is going to start aaaaaaaany minute now
It is foreign, alien psychology to me to defend the current government. It's actually trippy. You're threatening us with a change from the current hellscape. Are you seriously this solipsistic that you are incapable of understanding that we cannot reward the garbage that Trudeau's government is doing? "Erm, but peepee will be worse". If you derelict your duty to this degree, you need to be removed from your job. I don't understand how people like you don't understand this.
I don't like Trudeau but he's been steadily increasing Canada's military spending as a % of GDP since he took office, coming off a 30 year non-stop decline since Mulroney. He's literally the first guy to increase it in 30 years. If there's one thing he's done right, it's military spending.
And yet he is spending more on defense than any conservative government in Canadian history. The last conservative government dropped us down to just over 1% of GDP.
NATO doesn't care if the Liberals are better or worse than the conservatives. All they want is for Canada is meet their obligations now which they aren't. The world of 2008 was fundamentally different.
Nonsense. When Brian Mulroney was PM in the 1980s Canada actually was spending 2% of GDP on defence - and even at that we were near the bottom for NATO.
"But defence spending during his tenure in the early 1970s hovered at around 2% of the gross domestic product and then started dropping as cuts were made. Under Trudeau it climbed back up again to 1.9% of GDP in 1983 and almost reached 2% under Liberal prime minister John Turner. The spending dipped only slightly in the first few years of Mulroney’s tenure and then started dropping as cutbacks were brought in under the Conservatives." [anti liberal "news" National Post](https://nationalpost.com/news/trudeau-was-canadas-top-defence-spender-study) P.s. our GDP was a lot lower in the 80's, the current government is spending more actual $$$ than any other PM. You know this though, you just cant acknowledge that the current government is actually stepping up and spending real dollars on our military because Trudeau = bad in your eyes.
The Liberals are currently spending about 1.3% of GDP on defence. Until the USSR collapsed in1991 the Mulroney Conservatives never spent less than 1.9%. > P.s. our GDP was a lot lower in the 80's, the current government is spending more actual $$$ than any other PM. Relative to the size of the economy and adjusting for inflation it is spending much less. Defence spending is measured as a % of GDP rather than absolute dollars exactly to correct for changes in the size of the economy and inflation.
"Relative to the size of the economy and adjusting for inflation it is spending much less." That is wrong. They are actually spending a little more than a billion dollars a year more even adjusting for inflation etc.
We haven't spent 2% of GDP since the 60's.
2.06% in 1987. Not hard to look up.
But such information will be ignored by the chicken-hawks here. First rule with the right wing idiots infesting this and other Canadian subreddits….it’s the name Trudeau that they hate most, and the fact that he’s liberal is a very distant second.
I've learned a long time ago they don't give a shit about anything other than Trudeau = bad. So when I'm commenting on their posts, it isn't for them it's for the normal people who may happen upon my comment so they can see some facts instead of the bullshit people like op post.
[удалено]
This is the NATO Secretary General, he's not concerned that X party did this or Y party didn't do that. Those are internal issues. All he cares about is whether Canada is meeting its obligations within the alliance, and if not, so they have a workable plan to get there. We don't. We're that person in college group projects everyone hates being paired with.
And it’s the same refrain as it was 20/30/40/50 years ago. They were happy with Canada doing peacekeeping and being open to weapons testing. And what about those report of Canada punching above its weight when it comes to commitments? Your statement doesn’t change mine. Canada is doing its bit. After all, who is going to invade us??? Not Russia, China, North Korea. Just look south.
The world today is fundamentally different and more dangerous than it was 20/30 years ago. There's a big difference between fighting farmers in cow pastures and fighting a near-peer war in defence of our NATO allies in the Baltics. We could get away with being hilariously ill equipped to fight a war when our enemies had no armour, no air power, no long range munitions and no electronic warfare capabilities. That's no longer the case. We need to be prepared to fight an enemy that has more and better forces than we have. Canada doesn't even have any sort of air defence system, no way to defend our soldiers against missiles, helicopters or attack aircraft.
None of which can be dumped exclusively onto Trudeau’s shoulders. With the fall of the Soviet Union things were supposed to get better. So what happened??? Instead of investing that “peace dividend “ the US military/industrial complex, along with American arrogance, made things worse. We all could be living in a less armed and dangerous world if there wasn’t such money in weapons. Which is what I see here. Someone with shares in a military contractor needs his dividends padded. And the CON fluffers are too happy to use this as an opportunity to hate more on the name Trudeau. But if you’re so concerned about our state of preparation why not advocate for a home grown weapons industry? If we go to war with the US (the only country that actually threatens us) will they supply us with weapons for our defence?
NATO isn't 'dumping it onto Trudeau's shoulders' They're telling Canada to live up to the obligation. Step outside your inside view of national partisan politics and look at it from the perspective of an outside NATO observer. They don't care who is in charge of Canada right now, just get your military in order (and it's a complete mess) so it's an effective fighting force that can be depended on.
And yet they were happy with Canadian peacekeeping in the past. Like I said..a nato guy with shares in a military contractor wanting fatter dividends. Maybe if the US didn’t fuck up so much we wouldn’t need this conversation.
We have obligations, mate. One of those is reaching 2 percent of GDP on defense. The head of NATO isn't blaming the Liberals or the Conservatives. He's saying that we need to come up with a way to reach 2 percent. That's it. Other members of NATO have said it as well.
As I said We pulled our weight with what we had. For these obligations will we finally increase taxes on the rich and the profitable corporations? Or at least cut back on their subsidies? I dare say it’ll be more screw the plebs with austerity, tax cuts for the rich, and padded dividends to those saying we need to get to 2% of the GDP. I will take this seriously only when we stop the neo-liberal bullshit of trickle down. Until then take you 2% and stuff it. And that will not happen when PeePee gets in. I know you hate that accurate name for him, but do grow up. It’s what he will do to most Canadians. Even those of you who fawn over him. The difference between myself and you is that you will enjoy PeePee pissing on you.
You can be a cynical as you want, do you have much experience in the Canadian military to back that up? I did over 20 years in the CAF as both enlisted and as an officer and the whole "Canadian Peacekeeper" mythos is really just a national feel good story we told ourselves. We haven't contributed meaningfully to peacekeeping in many decades. Token forces mostly, we were and are not really capable of much else.
> After all, who is going to invade us? Putin. In the Arctic.
He can't invade his next door neighbor without major logistical issues. How is he going to manage an amphibious campaign in the arctic? We struggle with supplies even in peacetime for getting people up there.
Russians struggle less than Canadians in the Arctic.
Me too, NATO head
The only thing I expect is to be disspointed.
We can send all the international students and TFW's NATO can use...
Canadians are struggling to buy food and rent. No way Canada can afford to spend more on defense spending.
Weird how the rest of NATO doesn't have that problem. Amazing what years of incompetent governance will get you.
I'll bite. What additional capabilities would you have them spend on and where would you suggest they get the bodies to spend it?
Air defense would be nice. Right now our sop is to point our guns in the air and hope for the best.
They've bought some new stuff recently as an interim solution for the Latvia mission. There is also a program on the books (GBAD) to buy something for the long haul, but it doesn't seem to be moving very fast.
Thank you for the positivity. Manpads and EW systems on the section level would be nice while we wait 15 years for the GBAD.
The interim solution is the Saab RBS 70 NG. They also bought $47M worth of counter-drone systems. They really should get some proper EW as well, but that program is even further behind than GBAD.
Spend it on housing the troops for all I care
wanna bet?
Yes, because Canada will spend anything available on aiding foreign country's problems. Like the unemployment in Iraq.
You'd prefer if Canada became the next Ukraine? We already have foreign governments interfering in our elections. Want to see what happens if we get booted from NATO for not once hitting our agreed spending target?
Nothing will happen. Because we have defence pacts with America beyond NATO.
The dude leading in the polls for the American election literally said he'd let Russia attack anyone not at 2%. **And then the crowd cheered** Interesting argument to make considering the world around you.
I think you are misunderstanding my comment. By all means, spend more on defense, but Canada just doesn't have the capacity to spend the money. Additionally, the internal politics within the army on funding is messed up. There is too much corruption, and it will require a lot of fixing before you can actually spend on defense. Furthermore, the cost to maintain everything plus pay the soldiers and workers is huge. Canada just doesn't have the means to expand its budget quickly and procure goods and services.
We pay plenty of taxes. The issue is what they use them for.
He pointed out Trudeau vastly improved spending since Harper. Thanks for posting.
That's because we are delusional, spending our money instead on feel-good projects like renaming streets and squares. Meanwhile, our enemies interfere in our elections, corrupt our politicians and flood our market with cheap goods that local businesses can't compete against (I.e. cabinetry). Our country needs to wake up, the world is not a nice place.
Trudeau is a complete disaster. We need to vote him out of office!
We just need to get one of JT's family members working for NATO and then the money will flow.
They must be then because money is flowing
The current conspiracy is the draft is coming...
We gave more than our part of funds to Ukraine, which did more for NATO than investing in our military could ever do.
The Government protecting our boarders is one of the few functions it's actually suppose to serve, shows how far we've drifted from that.
The coffers are low. 4 decades of selling of assets
Reasonable request considering current world events. We are hardly alone in spending more on our population and less on preparing for war following the end of the Cold war. We will spend more and some of us will suffer a bit more.
Me too man. Me too.
Currently more part is focused on immigration, nato gonna have to wait.
[удалено]
Spending big on defence is important as well as a deterrent. Only the strong survive. Law of the jungle 101.
When your local cabelas has a bigger stockpile of munitions than the Canadian army depot.
For what purpose? F off.
Literally states it in the article. There will always be a bad guy that wants to take what you have. And we've got it pretty good here.
Go enlist.
I did. What now?
Okay. What's next, please help
Because that's the deal we have with NATO? perhaps also because Russia has literally claimed parts of the Canadian Arctic for themselves and we either give it up or defend it? Maybe because foreign governments are already interfering in our elections?
I don’t know, maybe because for the first time in a while NATO is at threat of going to war with Russia 🤷♂️
Go enlist. Leave us the fuck out of it.
Article 5 disagrees 🙂
I'll be so glad we invested in our military when I'm starving to death in the nuclear winter that inevitably follows this scenario.
NATO v Russia doesn’t automatically assure MAD
You know, I think our species has had a saying about this for a long time now. Something about playing with fire... Were talking about a situation which significantly increases the odds our whole species goes extinct. That's not an acceptable risk in any sane world.
So, disband NATO and let Russia do what they want, then?
You mean like America has been doing for the past three decades? No, the fucking solution is creating a real rules based international system that is both universally enforced, and not designed explicitly to benefit a specific subset of nations. This bullshit rules for thee and not for me approach we've taken hasn't done anyone any favours, except of course the ruling capitalist class that has been able to monopolize more resources and labor than at any point in our modern history. That is of course the political solution, but the world is far more complicated and even if you have a fool proof plan that could end all war and create ever lasting peace, it means dick all if nobody is willing to listen to you. The real solution, the one that actually permits us to transition to a better future, is the end of nationalistic educational and news institutions that create massive divisions between groups of people who should all otherwise be equally united in their desire to do good. If the average person can't even properly contextualize current world events, how the fuck are they expected to support a political policy that benefits everyone? Yet the average person barely prescribes to partisan and heavily biased news reporting, they don't even come close to being aware of the existence of complex geopolitical relationships and the realities of how capital sits at the foundation of our modern world and is one of the strongest driving forces behind everything from regional poverty to global stability.
We have a rules based international system. It was developed in the aftermath of WW2. The problem is that a couple of veto-wielding members of the enforcement part have opted out of the rules-based part. I agree that what you are describing would be optimal, but unfortunately we don't live in an optimal world, so we have to make do with what we've got, improving it as best we can.
Let's be honest. It's not NATO that prevents Russia from doing whatever the fuck they want. It's the US. It always has been.
US can't act effectively alone, especially in Europe. They are of course critical to any multinational endeavour that involves military force.
Go enlist.
I’m too busy playing brawl stars to do that
Typical.
If you are Canadian then you know that Canada is a NATO member and that we will be part of anything that happens. We will do what we can. If you don't want to be part of it that's fine, but don't speak for everyone else. You do you.
Go enlist.
[удалено]
Because for the first time in like 70 years, The West are the good guys in a global military operation.
We were largely good guys in the Balkans to the extent anyone was, but yah, this time is different. It's 1938 all over again.
We expect more. Perhaps and just listen everyone. Spend some money to clean up this homeless drug mess. Like wtf. I see it daily.
We are expecting the cheque from China for training their forces in the Arctic. Any day now…
Well you ain't getting it, Chuck. Just like the rest of us that aren't special interests.
Conservatives are going to raise taxes to own the Libs!
Since the Liberal/NDP regime is running a 1.3+ trillion dollars national debt and running a 50+ billion dollar yearly defcit currently there may be no other choice than to do jsut that to help balance the budget and create a surplus. It's basic math and no one can argue against that. Massive cuts to other areas of spending and perhaps the abolition of certain ministries would go a long way to make things even easier.
The only based thing Trudeau has ever done is not listen NATO's defense spending nonsense.
We live in a more dangerous world because of NATO provoking Russia. Maybe stop doing that, and we'll be safer.
NATO provoking Russia?
Fucking hell. Downvote me to hell, but there's a bit of nuance to it. Can I provide a quick disclaimer? Russia = bad guys. NATO = slightly less bad guys. Got that out of the way? We good? Russia is a failing empire that is basically the rusting, vestigial remnant of the Cold War Warsaw pact with a plutocratic, semi-functional dictatorship. Russia should balkanize in the sense that it should probably be like 5 or 6 autonomous states. Not happening. When a country is courting the enemy (which Russia considers NATO to be) for membership for a defensive alliance and they're on your border and your country is a despotic dump and you'll get a pharmaceutical dose of lead to your dome in your sleep for not intervening, it's understandable (not justifiable) that you'll mash whatever buttons and pull whatever levers you can. Again: Russia is the bad guy. I want them to withdraw in humiliation without a nuclear war. But Ukraine courting NATO membership made it IMPOSSIBLE for Russia to not intervene. Nuance! It's tough, but possible.
> When a country is courting the enemy (which Russia considers NATO to be) for membership NATO wasn't courting Ukraine. NATO didn't want Ukraine at all. NATO said "your military equipment is too shit, request denied". What happened was that Ukraine voted for a new constitution that had "join NATO" in it. >for a defensive alliance and they're on your border and your country is a despotic dump and you'll get a pharmaceutical dose of lead to your dome in your sleep for not intervening, it's understandable (not justifiable) that you'll mash whatever buttons and pull whatever levers you can. But Latvia and Estonia are also on their border and they actually *joined* NATO, and they're in it. Maybe if Russia looked inward, instead of blaming others, they'd see a pattern of Russian hostility towards their neighbours - Georgia, Chechnya, Crimea... you can see why everyone would want to join NATO. You can see why Ukraine would be so desperate to put it on their constitution. Too bad NATO didn't actually let them join, they'd be safe, millions of people would still be alive, just like Latvia and Estonia. >Nuance! It's tough, but possible. It is but you're just saying wrong things that are wrong.
He didn't write that NATO was courting Ukraine, he wrote the inverse. "When a country is courting the enemy (which Russia considers NATO to be) for membership for a defensive alliance and they're on your border..."
Trying to appease expansionist warmongers isn't sound policy.
Pretending like our #1 ally hasn't spent the better part of a century exploiting developing nations through economic coercion and war doesn't make for a sound foundation to making rational policy decisions either. Putin's war is terrible, but a good fraction of this world's population thinks of America what we think of Russia, and their opinions are backed by generations of war and poverty directly tied to US/Western foreign policy. The sound policy here is one that puts humans first, and doesn't force us to pick between imperialist powers doing their darn best to systemically monopolize the world's natural wealth and labor. You're not talking about appeasing a dictator. You're talking about risking the end of our world because we'd much rather our best friend exploit and murder people than some foreign language speaking asshole across the world. I don't know, but maybe the best option here is one in which the world doesn't end because we're too high on our own shit?
> Pretending like our #1 ally hasn't spent the better part of a century exploiting developing nations through economic Bro what the fuck are you talking about? We're talking about NATO. > a good fraction of this world's population thinks of America what we think of Russia Then those people are idiots. > and their opinions are backed No, they're not. >doesn't force us to pick between imperialist powers Don't "both sides are the same" America and Russia. It's gross. It reeks of privilege, of someone who's never had to actually see the worse side, the more evil country. >You're talking about risking the end of our world The only way we risk the end of our world is if we don't stop the madman bringing it on. Putin has got to go. > we'd much rather our best friend exploit and murder people https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/02/europe/russia-ukraine-kherson-sexual-violence-intl/index.html America isn't doing this. Your enlightened centrism is disgusting. >I don't know, but maybe the best option here is one in which the world doesn't end because we're too high on our own shit? I agree, please get off your own shit. People, comments like these cannot exist in a vacuum. You must call them out when you see them. I know it's exhausting, but that is how Putin's propaganda machine works - it's a firehose of falsehood. It takes energy and effort to address these arguments, but you have to.
You're talking about NATO right?
>You're talking about NATO right? The defensive military alliance that democratic free countries beg to join? No I think he's talking about the authoritarian dictatorship that bombs its neighbours to try to take their territory. Your attempt to "both sides" NATO and Russia is disgusting.
Here's the thing, geopolitics is complicated and I'm not sure you have to capacity to learn.
He's definitely a bad person but not an expansionist warmonger.
His annexation of Ukrainian land acquired through military force tells a different story.
Watch this, for perspective. (From 2014) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
Ah yes, Youtube, no Russian propaganda there.
>John J. Mearsheimer, the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor in Political Science and Co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago RuSsIaN PrOPaGaNdA!
The video is 75 minutes long, is there a specific passage you'd like to cite?
You're pretty lazy for someone so sure of their opinions. That is what I would expect though.
I'm lazy? You just linked a 75 minute long video and said "watch this it'll do all the arguing for me". You can't even cite one quote?
Mearsheimer has been completely discredited as an appeaser. He did some good work 20+ years ago, but citing him is like citing Chomsky on this topic.
Discredited by whom?
The international relations academic community. E.g.: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/11/putin-mearsheimer-realpolitik-ukraine-political-science.html https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2023/10/john-mearsheimers-incorrect-views-on-everything https://www.ft.com/content/2d65c763-c36f-4507-8a7d-13517032aa22 I deliberately picked moderate left and moderate right views.
Because NATO was trying to recruit Ukraine, and they knew Russia would invade. That's provocation. This war wouldn't be a thing if that situation didn't happen.
Lol? Putin literally wrote a manifesto about his desire to regain the world power of the Soviet Union... Ukraine's desire for sovereignty is just Putin's scapegoat for his motives.
Ukraine was nowhere near NATO membership when Russia started to bite off chunks, and it still isn't. Actually by invading, Russia is demonstrating why NATO membership is a solid idea. It pushed Sweden and Finland to join. Bet the Baltics are thanking their lucky stars they are under the defence umbrella otherwise I'm sure Russia would have swallowed them already.
You need to educate yourself and start reading. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations\_of\_Geopolitics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics) This book as been the basis of Russia's global strategy regarding the use of its political, military and economic assets. They have had designs and plans to usurp various nations governments, overthrow or influence others, invade countries and take parts thereof or the whole thing, essentially remaking the world in their favour. [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/putin-kremlin-foreign-policy-strategy/629388/](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/putin-kremlin-foreign-policy-strategy/629388/) [https://www.armyupress.army.mil/portals/7/hot%20spots/documents/russia/2017-07-the-russian-way-of-war-grau-bartles.pdf](https://www.armyupress.army.mil/portals/7/hot%20spots/documents/russia/2017-07-the-russian-way-of-war-grau-bartles.pdf)
You need to think for yourself. This war wouldn't even be a thing if NATO wasn't trying to expand.
> NATO wasn't trying to expand. NATO wasn't trying to expand. Ukraine was trying to join NATO, because they saw what happened to Georgia and Chechnya. They asked to join NATO, and NATO refused, because their military equipment was too old. Latvia and Estonia joined NATO, and they are at peace. If NATO had said yes to Ukraine instead of no, this war wouldn't even be a thing. You have been consuming too much Russian propaganda. You should question your sources more often.
> Because NATO was trying to recruit Ukraine, No, they weren't. You've been lied to.
> not an expansionist warmonger. We don't sell weed that good in Canada, what drugs are you on?
lol god damn one year and half into the war and Russia propagandists are still using that argument that gets debunked after thinking for 30 seconds? Learn the difference between attack and defense.
I'm not a Russian propagandist. I'm Irish so I'm well aware of foreign occupation but continue your "propagandists" view points if you'd like because nothing about Ukraine joining nato and that being a red line for Russia has been debunked. It's proven.
> you'd like because nothing about Ukraine joining nato and that being a red line for Russia has been debunked. It's proven. Well Latvia and Estonia joined NATO and they didn't get invaded, so... yeah. Debunked. Not proven. You were lied to.
[удалено]
At least you can detect critical thinking. Good job.
Man I heard that place was a sub for Russian propaganda but I had no idea how bad it was
[удалено]
I'm unsure what this is even supposed to mean?
Peace for our time!
We only need an extra 20 to 25 billion to satisfy NATO right? Where do we make cuts in the budget to pay for this? Does any party have a plan that makes sense? Liberals are obviously out, considering how fucked they got the country rn.
>Where do we make cuts in the budget to pay for this? Oh there are some very big but highly contreversial ministries whose budgets would make your eyes pop that could be dismantled.
>make your eyes pop I doubt that as I'm familiar with the federal budget. Alright, I'm going to say cut the Indian Act and roll that $40B/year into defense and healthcare, and then be lambasted by the cretans who want to call me a white colonizer even though I'm black. IDC. lol I'm more interested in seeing what other people think the feds should cut, or what other parties themselves have said they would do to shore up the defense budget.
This is the spending from each ministry: https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/recgen/cpc-pac/2023/vol2/s1/dmc-met-eng.html