If you want a 'cast with more dissension and alternate views, see if Gwynne Dyer will come on, about what we need military for - and how that has changed. Flipped 180. I'll just recommend "Canada in the Great Power Game".
What I have flipped on, is I agree that the defence budget must be doubled! But not to buy American weapons. That's also buying into the reason we bought them: currying favour.
In return for nuclear protection, we've been buying American weapons and shutting down our own high-tech military production for decades; it's delicately offered protection money, if you ask me.
So we opt out of the game. We do what Chretien did with the Iraq demand from Bush, when we doubled down on total military action, but not for what they wanted. We spent every penny and life on the UN-sanction police action in Afghanistan instead. Deke!
So you step on the bully's toes, as Churchill prescribed. Start the announcement with "We are doubling our military spending." But, then: "However, we are reducing our national spending on military equipment from American sources, because of recent remarks so offensive they have caused a collapse of trust. The F-35 contract will have to be cancelled again. So will other recent purchases."
The cancellation works better if I'm wrong about the execrable F-35. Because then the announcement says, 'This is costing us. But still, worth it.' Acceptance of loss shows the bully your resolve.
You hit them in their pride. They don't make movies about bourbon, they make movies about warplanes.
This is the easiest thing, in a way, for Canada to do. Getting private companies to take a hit is really hard on a small number of people and jobs. Letting the whole population bear the burden, evenly, via tax dollars, is much more fair. It should be government purchasing that is cancelled. And military is basically a government-to-government sale. It hits the American manufacturers best able to bear it, too, no victim-towns.
Best of all, it allows immediate, publicity-grabbing, dynamic action, Trump's recent monopoly. The Free Market sucks at action. Change trade laws and the market changes some jobs months later.
It would be weird for the generals to say "the civilians have to fight this with job loss and higher prices for themselves; you can't ask us to give up our beloved, powerful, awesome American arms". Their tears will dry when they get the doubled budget.
Where to spend their keen new money, then? On our troops care and salary. On Ukraine. European alternatives to American systems. Navy for the Arctic. And, nuclear weapons. Of course, obviously nuclear weapons.
I don't disagree, per se, but the defense sector of today isn't the same as a half century ago. To fully onshore that production would require reorienting nearly everything to serve the military beast — just look at Russia. Even the United States remains reliant on its allies to build pieces of its hardware (a fact that will become clear to them very soon.)
I'm for spending 2%, and buying more European kit. But I'm not for spending 3%, getting less, and risking social unrest because we've poured money into the wrong places because it felt better.
That said, we *can* build out some parts of a totally self-reliant military industry that we can develop a comparative advantage in. I think it's probably shipbuilding.
To be self-aware, I totally admit that *every* commentator is going through the same funny phenomenon: "My solution for the crisis it we have to do stuff I've been advocating for years, no matter what the conditions".
In my case, the raised-military-budget is a true flip (not to mention nuclear advocacy!!), but the rest is my pre-Trump military wishlist.
I mention to amuse: because the best case ever was "How to Trump-proof the Canadian economy" by Tristan Hopper in the NP. Turns out to be the exact same list of things that Tristan Hopper was all-for in 2023, and 2013! The only way to improve the economy is all the Conservative wet-dreams? We actually had heard that already, Tristin.
Thanks! We can't actually have a meaningful disagreement on the "how to defend" topic because of a fundamental disagreement on what the military are *FOR*.
Dyer would ask you to explain the reason why ANY Canadian should risk hate and guilt by stepping 1 metre outside Canada with weapons. Their job is to defend Canada, alone. There are only two excuses for this dangerous thing:
1) Pearson's "International Peacekeeping", which is noble charity work until the theory that it generates "goodwill" that leads to commercial profits shows some evidence. There's little, certainly nothing to justify costs. It's charity. Operations money should come from a separate diplomatic budget; it's not "defence"!
2) Currying favour with the superpowers to whom we've been a client to since our inception: England, France, America. Playing sidekick in return for a nuclear umbrella, these days, not to mention all that great trade.
Champions of (2) now need to explain themselves. What are we paying for, if we will not be protected, since we the protectors say we don't need to exist?
I wouldn't "onshore" a single military item that we need for wars inside Canada, that anybody else makes already. If we MUST have an item to defend our homeland, I'd buy from even(!) Americans before I'd onshore, it's a money-pit.
New R&D of drones does NOT count as such, though, they are a multi-purpose tool with a zillion uses, and nobody owns the "drone market", yet. Turkey and Iran are big drone playas in Ukraine, obviously we can afford that R&D too, if they can. It's orders of magnitude cheaper than sub R&D or plane R&D. A huge drone R&D program , along with 20% raise and better bennies, is my offer to our military to suck-up disengagement with their beloved Americans.
But if we are only buying an item for "NATO commitments", those all need to be rexamined as (a) valuable for homeland defense, or (b) just to curry favour that may never be repaid. Politics in the UK and Paris also make me glum about either nation risking hellfire to defend Iqaluit.
With respect, "their job is to defend Canada, alone" is exactly the sort of thinking that allowed Hitler's rise and the fall of Western Europe. In order to prevent war, collective security is imperative, a truth that's only more urgent with the US abandoning NATO. https://dgardner.substack.com/p/why-does-nato-exist
We participate in collective security because it is the best way to defend ourselves, not because we are charitable (why I broke that out). RIght now, Ukraine is OUR front line, absolutely.
My "plan" (unwritten) includes using that doubled budget to triple our support for Ukraine. Or more. WHATEVER IT TAKES. "It takes billions to win a war. To lose one, takes all you have." I support defending Ukraine if every other nation falls away. I support defending Ukraine if we have to leave NATO so that we can send in troops. I'll join them. (Can't fight, but I'll take jobs where the explosions can kill me. Grandmother did, in France.)
But, again with respect, in practice, (check the spending) our "collective" participation" is not Europe focused, it's very American-focused, and the "currying favour" charge comes from the $600 toilet seats - all their stuff is monumentally profitable.
That's the main part I want re-evaluated. "Switching to Europe" is not failing to participate in collective defence. I regret giving the impression; it's difficult to be concise and not do such things.
Upon editing, adding this to be super-clear: MOST NATO-Europe participation is defending us because that war could head our way. So could have Bosnia. Some NATO work is just to stick their nose in to their old colonial possessions. As a former colony ourselves, we have no interest.
OK, thanks for clarifying. Something to bear in mind is that there are lots of people who really do think defence should be about protecting our soil and ignoring the rest. Glad to hear you're not one of them but you might want to avoid language that could be misunderstood, as I did apparently.
Or, I should give up trying to summarize ten Gwynne Dyer books and 300 columns, it's all from him, just read him - and I assure you his views come from hundreds of interviews with the most-revered military around the world.
But his "Canada in the Great Power Game, 1914-2014" (third plug) is the go-to on this matter. A chapter is devoted to connecting foreign adventures to homeland defence, after the starting point of "they only exist for homeland defence". Attempting a chapter in 100 words was a fool's errand.
Would like to hear live conversations with David Frum, Tim Snyder or Sam Harris. Also, can you have a focused session only on Musk and his ambitions and antics in other countries? Italy? India?
If you want a 'cast with more dissension and alternate views, see if Gwynne Dyer will come on, about what we need military for - and how that has changed. Flipped 180. I'll just recommend "Canada in the Great Power Game".
What I have flipped on, is I agree that the defence budget must be doubled! But not to buy American weapons. That's also buying into the reason we bought them: currying favour.
In return for nuclear protection, we've been buying American weapons and shutting down our own high-tech military production for decades; it's delicately offered protection money, if you ask me.
So we opt out of the game. We do what Chretien did with the Iraq demand from Bush, when we doubled down on total military action, but not for what they wanted. We spent every penny and life on the UN-sanction police action in Afghanistan instead. Deke!
So you step on the bully's toes, as Churchill prescribed. Start the announcement with "We are doubling our military spending." But, then: "However, we are reducing our national spending on military equipment from American sources, because of recent remarks so offensive they have caused a collapse of trust. The F-35 contract will have to be cancelled again. So will other recent purchases."
The cancellation works better if I'm wrong about the execrable F-35. Because then the announcement says, 'This is costing us. But still, worth it.' Acceptance of loss shows the bully your resolve.
You hit them in their pride. They don't make movies about bourbon, they make movies about warplanes.
This is the easiest thing, in a way, for Canada to do. Getting private companies to take a hit is really hard on a small number of people and jobs. Letting the whole population bear the burden, evenly, via tax dollars, is much more fair. It should be government purchasing that is cancelled. And military is basically a government-to-government sale. It hits the American manufacturers best able to bear it, too, no victim-towns.
Best of all, it allows immediate, publicity-grabbing, dynamic action, Trump's recent monopoly. The Free Market sucks at action. Change trade laws and the market changes some jobs months later.
It would be weird for the generals to say "the civilians have to fight this with job loss and higher prices for themselves; you can't ask us to give up our beloved, powerful, awesome American arms". Their tears will dry when they get the doubled budget.
Where to spend their keen new money, then? On our troops care and salary. On Ukraine. European alternatives to American systems. Navy for the Arctic. And, nuclear weapons. Of course, obviously nuclear weapons.
Which is a whole other topic.
I don't disagree, per se, but the defense sector of today isn't the same as a half century ago. To fully onshore that production would require reorienting nearly everything to serve the military beast — just look at Russia. Even the United States remains reliant on its allies to build pieces of its hardware (a fact that will become clear to them very soon.)
I'm for spending 2%, and buying more European kit. But I'm not for spending 3%, getting less, and risking social unrest because we've poured money into the wrong places because it felt better.
That said, we *can* build out some parts of a totally self-reliant military industry that we can develop a comparative advantage in. I think it's probably shipbuilding.
To be self-aware, I totally admit that *every* commentator is going through the same funny phenomenon: "My solution for the crisis it we have to do stuff I've been advocating for years, no matter what the conditions".
In my case, the raised-military-budget is a true flip (not to mention nuclear advocacy!!), but the rest is my pre-Trump military wishlist.
I mention to amuse: because the best case ever was "How to Trump-proof the Canadian economy" by Tristan Hopper in the NP. Turns out to be the exact same list of things that Tristan Hopper was all-for in 2023, and 2013! The only way to improve the economy is all the Conservative wet-dreams? We actually had heard that already, Tristin.
Thanks! We can't actually have a meaningful disagreement on the "how to defend" topic because of a fundamental disagreement on what the military are *FOR*.
Dyer would ask you to explain the reason why ANY Canadian should risk hate and guilt by stepping 1 metre outside Canada with weapons. Their job is to defend Canada, alone. There are only two excuses for this dangerous thing:
1) Pearson's "International Peacekeeping", which is noble charity work until the theory that it generates "goodwill" that leads to commercial profits shows some evidence. There's little, certainly nothing to justify costs. It's charity. Operations money should come from a separate diplomatic budget; it's not "defence"!
2) Currying favour with the superpowers to whom we've been a client to since our inception: England, France, America. Playing sidekick in return for a nuclear umbrella, these days, not to mention all that great trade.
Champions of (2) now need to explain themselves. What are we paying for, if we will not be protected, since we the protectors say we don't need to exist?
I wouldn't "onshore" a single military item that we need for wars inside Canada, that anybody else makes already. If we MUST have an item to defend our homeland, I'd buy from even(!) Americans before I'd onshore, it's a money-pit.
New R&D of drones does NOT count as such, though, they are a multi-purpose tool with a zillion uses, and nobody owns the "drone market", yet. Turkey and Iran are big drone playas in Ukraine, obviously we can afford that R&D too, if they can. It's orders of magnitude cheaper than sub R&D or plane R&D. A huge drone R&D program , along with 20% raise and better bennies, is my offer to our military to suck-up disengagement with their beloved Americans.
But if we are only buying an item for "NATO commitments", those all need to be rexamined as (a) valuable for homeland defense, or (b) just to curry favour that may never be repaid. Politics in the UK and Paris also make me glum about either nation risking hellfire to defend Iqaluit.
With respect, "their job is to defend Canada, alone" is exactly the sort of thinking that allowed Hitler's rise and the fall of Western Europe. In order to prevent war, collective security is imperative, a truth that's only more urgent with the US abandoning NATO. https://dgardner.substack.com/p/why-does-nato-exist
Much respect, we have no actual disagreement.
We participate in collective security because it is the best way to defend ourselves, not because we are charitable (why I broke that out). RIght now, Ukraine is OUR front line, absolutely.
My "plan" (unwritten) includes using that doubled budget to triple our support for Ukraine. Or more. WHATEVER IT TAKES. "It takes billions to win a war. To lose one, takes all you have." I support defending Ukraine if every other nation falls away. I support defending Ukraine if we have to leave NATO so that we can send in troops. I'll join them. (Can't fight, but I'll take jobs where the explosions can kill me. Grandmother did, in France.)
But, again with respect, in practice, (check the spending) our "collective" participation" is not Europe focused, it's very American-focused, and the "currying favour" charge comes from the $600 toilet seats - all their stuff is monumentally profitable.
That's the main part I want re-evaluated. "Switching to Europe" is not failing to participate in collective defence. I regret giving the impression; it's difficult to be concise and not do such things.
Upon editing, adding this to be super-clear: MOST NATO-Europe participation is defending us because that war could head our way. So could have Bosnia. Some NATO work is just to stick their nose in to their old colonial possessions. As a former colony ourselves, we have no interest.
OK, thanks for clarifying. Something to bear in mind is that there are lots of people who really do think defence should be about protecting our soil and ignoring the rest. Glad to hear you're not one of them but you might want to avoid language that could be misunderstood, as I did apparently.
Or, I should give up trying to summarize ten Gwynne Dyer books and 300 columns, it's all from him, just read him - and I assure you his views come from hundreds of interviews with the most-revered military around the world.
But his "Canada in the Great Power Game, 1914-2014" (third plug) is the go-to on this matter. A chapter is devoted to connecting foreign adventures to homeland defence, after the starting point of "they only exist for homeland defence". Attempting a chapter in 100 words was a fool's errand.
Would like to hear live conversations with David Frum, Tim Snyder or Sam Harris. Also, can you have a focused session only on Musk and his ambitions and antics in other countries? Italy? India?
Philips O’Brien on the Russia/US alignment and where that leaves Europe (and Canada)
I missed the live chat. Thanks for putting it on your podcast feed. I’ll be listening later.
Time to be depressed. Can't wait!
While I was listening, my mom asked me if I ever listened to anything happy. “Is there anything happy going on?”
So, what do the "Think Tanks" actually think?
That they need more funding, and what would you *like* them to say?