Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Geo-strategic Issues

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


CANADA / NATO and 2% of GDP Budget

This is a discussion on CANADA / NATO and 2% of GDP Budget within the Geo-strategic Issues forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by vldbzh Military budgets for 2017 in Latvia and Lithuania are 1.8 % already. Progress is very fast. ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 4.00 average.
Old February 13th, 2017   #16
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,178
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by vldbzh View Post
Military budgets for 2017 in Latvia and Lithuania are 1.8 % already. Progress is very fast. Nevertheless It wold be better for them to have at least 3%.
Two percent of GDP would be nice for Canada but it is about as likely as three percent for the Baltic states, a probably approaching zero.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2017   #17
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Australia
Posts: 24
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
Two percent of GDP would be nice for Canada but it is about as likely as three percent for the Baltic states, a probably approaching zero.
Something should be done about military budgets of Canada and many other countries of NATO. I think 2% must be compulsory. If a country has less than 2% it pays balance to the countries that have military budgets more than 2%. If the country does not pay the balance, the procedure of expulsion from NATO should be started.
vldbzh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2017   #18
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 14,973
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by vldbzh View Post
Something should be done about military budgets of Canada and many other countries of NATO. I think 2% must be compulsory. If a country has less than 2% it pays balance to the countries that have military budgets more than 2%. If the country does not pay the balance, the procedure of expulsion from NATO should be started.
Putin would love that.

Half of NATO would be gone in a few short years.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2017   #19
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,178
Threads:
Here's how your typical Liberal pollies will address military spending. Sort of like the tricks Wall Street used in 2007-8.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opi...service=mobile
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17th, 2017   #20
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Australia
Posts: 24
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
Putin would love that.

Half of NATO would be gone in a few short years.
So Putin is very disappointed by NATO members who does not have functional armed forces and do not want to spend anything on it and completely rely on military force of big USA. It seems Putin loves NATO in deeps of his soul.
"Ms. Merkel said Friday that Germany is committed to meeting the target within a decade."- from the Canadian newspaper
vldbzh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17th, 2017   #21
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,178
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by vldbzh View Post
:"Ms. Merkel said Friday that Germany is committed to meeting the target within a decade."- from the Canadian newspaper
Given Germany's recent naval announcements, they are heading in the right direction. It would be nice to see similar progress here in my country.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17th, 2017   #22
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,178
Threads:
Here's a link on junior's latest comment about NATO commitments. Money isn't everything, he said. During the election campaign he said the budget will balance itself. NATO must be impressed, not!

Ways to gauge Canada’s commitment to NATO beyond just spending: Trudeau | National Newswatch
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2017   #23
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,178
Threads:
I will allow others to weigh in on junior's claim about Canada's heavy lifting for NATO. Hint, an expression with the word bovine included would be a good starting point.

Is Canada really doing the “heavy lifting” at NATO like Trudeau claims? | Ottawa Citizen
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2017   #24
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 1,927
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
I will allow others to weigh in on junior's claim about Canada's heavy lifting for NATO. Hint, an expression with the word bovine included would be a good starting point.

Is Canada really doing the “heavy lifting” at NATO like Trudeau claims? | Ottawa Citizen
Whatever he is smoking must be good and I want some!
ASSAIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2017   #25
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Australia
Posts: 24
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
Money isn't everything, he said.
It means "no more money until I am PM", I guess. Well, many leaders of NATO members can not see anything dangerous in the world around, it seems they live in other, better, rosy world without problems (except next elections)

Last edited by vldbzh; March 28th, 2017 at 07:48 AM.
vldbzh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2017   #26
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,178
Threads:
Sadly true or like Assail says, must be good stuff he and his liked minded colleagues are smoking.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 27th, 2017   #27
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
StingrayOZ's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,672
Threads:
Op ed piece a few days ago.

Lawrence Solomon: Canada’s one of NATO’s biggest deadbeats, but with Trump, we won’t get away with it anymore | National Post

Really highlights the fragility of Canada's defence capability.

Trudeau: Canada, Germany Do Much Of NATO’s ‘Heavy Lifting’ | Online news

Trudeau seems to be on his own. Germany has committed and will increase spending. No doubt because Germany is visibly seeing threats from Russia directly in the Ukraine, and the possible need for a NATO led stabilisation force in Syria to help keep the peace.

I got to say a comparison with Australia and Canada in 2018 would be very interesting. There is a very big mindset gap between the two countries. The way Australia has gone about procurement, capability building, enablers, force multipliers and deepening the overall capability gives Canada something to aim for. But it also highlights the time lag to do so. It is a 10-20 year process. Even if Canada has bi-partisan support today across a dozen issues, it would still take decades to build it.
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 27th, 2017   #28
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,178
Threads:
You just need to look at our immigration trend to understand why defence is going down the drain. Many of them are just citizens of convenience milking our social benefits for themselves and their extended families. Then there is the sizeable native born socialist portion of the population that is content to let the US do all the heavy lifting while at the same time bitching about Canadian sovereignty issues.

Perhaps some serious moves by Putin in the Arctic could change attitudes but I doubt it. Even so it would take a couple of decades to improve. I guess the interesting comparison would be what Australian defence capabilities would look like if it were attached to a superpower? I'm guessing a lot more capable than Canada!
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 27th, 2017   #29
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,655
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
You just need to look at our immigration trend to understand why defence is going down the drain. Many of them are just citizens of convenience milking our social benefits for themselves and their extended families. Then there is the sizeable native born socialist portion of the population that is content to let the US do all the heavy lifting while at the same time bitching about Canadian sovereignty issues.

Perhaps some serious moves by Putin in the Arctic could change attitudes but I doubt it. Even so it would take a couple of decades to improve. I guess the interesting comparison would be what Australian defence capabilities would look like if it were attached to a superpower? I'm guessing a lot more capable than Canada!
Major diffrence any direct threat to Canada is a direct threat to the US, unlike Australia any direct threat is a stratgic concern only due to our postion for some interesting Aus/US defence establishments.
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 27th, 2017   #30
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
StingrayOZ's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,672
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
You just need to look at our immigration trend to understand why defence is going down the drain. Many of them are just citizens of convenience milking our social benefits for themselves and their extended families. Then there is the sizeable native born socialist portion of the population that is content to let the US do all the heavy lifting while at the same time bitching about Canadian sovereignty issues.

Perhaps some serious moves by Putin in the Arctic could change attitudes but I doubt it. Even so it would take a couple of decades to improve. I guess the interesting comparison would be what Australian defence capabilities would look like if it were attached to a superpower? I'm guessing a lot more capable than Canada!
I'm going to go off a bit here, because I find Canada a bit frustrating.

Australia is probably a bit stricter than Canada when it comes to immigration. But I think Canada, politically left and right are in a bit of a reality bubble when it comes to world affairs even more than the US. Australia too has its left wingers, its socialists, even its greens. But all of them (bar the Greens) are in less of a make believe bubble than even the most hawkish Canadian politician I've seen.

While direct existential threats can motivate spending. That is still a very short sighted view. The physical defence of Canada is unlikely to be required.Even in this case, Canada has a case of the (strategic view of) Europe, I doubt Russia invading Greenland would even get Canada to beige alert.

Its more about expeditionary action inline with a national policy to secure your countries regional global interests and global values.That same situation affects Canada just as much as it does Australia. As a larger and slightly richer nation, Canada should bear more of that global burden than Australia.
  • Vancouver is closer to Beijing than Canberra or Sydney.
  • Toronto is closer to Yemen than Canberra.
  • Arguably the crisis in Syria is going to affect Canada more than it is going to affect Australia.

While Australia is ascending to be a globally engaged, globally capable, trans-regional power, Canada is descending into irrelevance as an non-independent power even at the regional level. As a region I would put South America as much as Canada's leadership role as the US's. While its easy to argue that the US is closer, the US is located in the Pacific Islands as well (America Samoa) yet through most of the Pacific Islands Australia and NZ have acted to keep the US from interfering by leading operations and interventions.

While 2% is a meaningless economic target, Canada spending 2% of its GDP on knitwear is not going to make the world a safer place, the target would allow real capability and is easily achievable, without compromising social programs and services in a major way. Australia generally outranks Canada in terms of life expectancy, healthcare, education, Human Development indexes, etc.

Imagine if Canada could surge an Amphibious ready group of over 5,000 and be able to deploy globally and sustain them without US assistance. Imagine if Canada operated 18 Aegis type ships (5 AWD's and a plan for 13 frigates) and had 9 x 4000t submarines in the water today but was underway for a program to build 18 x 5000t. That is what an attempt of spending 2% might look like.

Do you think Japan would seek closer ties with Canada as a reliable ally and as a counter balance to China?
Could not Canada lead a multinational mission globally with that sort of capability, independent of US policy?
Would Canada then be able to shift global events simply by showing diplomatic support?
Could not Canada then play a role in dealing with Russia directly?

Canada should have a force ~45% greater than Australia's, either in capability or in number. Australia doesn't even spend 2% currently, its something we hope to get to in the future.

But even greater possibilities would exist for Canada and Australia and others to lead and write their own global peace. The US would be part of that plan (as would the UK, and many others), but in a different way. A partnership of concerned and capable equals. Not of equal size, but of equal capability range. They would each have greater input on each others operations.

I think its more about Canada's location to europe than Canada's location to the US. As Canada is acting much more like europe than acting like the US.

But instead we have a world where Australia is building an Icebreaker twice as large as Canada's largest.

Its not just about the military. Its about global awareness.

Australia is 2700km away from the US at its closest point and the US president still thinks Australia has strong armed them into bad deals. I imagine if we were any closer the US would be restrained completely under Australian oppression.

Australia is not more at risk than Canada is. China isn't going to invade. Nobody in Australia is facing an existential threat. We could quite possible close up shop and live happy in our large corner of the planet. Arguably that is what Australia did from the early 1980's to the mid 1990's (bar annoying countries with our subs). GDP spending dropped.

Then we realise we didn't like not having a say on anything that was happening, particularly on our doorstep (which goes from the coast of India, through SEA, across to Hawaii and to the south Pole). We also didn't agree with some of the US's views on inaction.

That is what Canada needs. A shake up of its world view and serious disagreement with the US about action or intervention, somewhere.
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:55 PM.