Trump writes Trudeau for increase in NATO defence spending

"Dear Trump.
F.U.


Sincerely,

Canada"

If Canada is not willing to meet its defense obligations under the NATO treaty then simply withdraw from NATO.

Problem solved.

Now this is where I'm going to note that the Trump Administration has also signaled that trade and tariff talks in the future may be linked to NATO expenditures.

In other words, NATO members that default part of their defense to the USA will be charged an additional tariff on trade (call it a tax since that's what it will be) to pay for their defense.

But feel free to withdraw from NATO if you don't want to pay your own way.

Bart,

Can you please show the actual proof that Canada has not met NATO obligations?

I will wait.

Listen if I had my way, Canada would spend quite a bit more on defence. CV90's, Leopard 2 A7's, Nuclear Submarines, Pocket Carriers, more Surface Combatants, Arrow Mk.9's, Apache Gunships (or the Tiger), 150,000 more REGFOR troops, 150,000 more reservists.

Dunno what it costs, but I'd imagine its a lot.

For everyone following along, here is a direct link to NATO's funding page:


Feel free to glance through the "obligated funding" (direct funding), and the "guideline funding" (indirect funding).

Trump is trying to make a big deal about the indirect funding, to wit, Canada has followed the letter of the agreement made in 2014...even though it is a guideline only, not a mandated NATO requirement.

Here is a direct quote from NATO for the guideline:

Canada falls into the latter set. Let's analyze that for a second.

So, let's take a gander at Canada's defence spending since the guideline agreement:
2014: $15.275 B
2015: $17.561 B
2016: $18.132 B
2017: $19.837 B

Canada has increased defense spending in every year since the agreement was made.

Interesting....am I to believe Trump's tweet...or NATO's data?

As I've often argued, the per capita GDP measure of defence spending isn't a true measure of capability.

In 2016, Estonia spent $497 million US and falls in the good graces of the States, reaching 2.1%.

Meanwhile Canada, spent $15.4 Billion and falls in at about 1%. Yet I ask you, which military would the US rather have at its back - Estonia's 2,700 soldiers, halfdozen unarmed aircraft and handful of coastal patrol ships or Canada's three brigades, 80+ CF-18s, and 12 Halifax frigates and 2 SSKs?

I fully agree Canada can and should spend a fair chunk more than we do, but the arbitrary 2% goal is a made up one that the Americans use to beat up on their allies.

We should spend enough to fund a well equipped navy (20 major combatants and supporting vessels) and air force (150+ modern aircraft), with a decent army element capable of deploying to hot spots around the world.

If that costs 1.5% or 2.5% percent, it shouldn't make a bit of difference to anyone, including the US.

If he doesn't I will in 2 hours or so.

google NATO 2% spending to start.

Scrolling 5 more lines down was too hard?

I would agree with more Leopards and gunships, but 150,000 troops is way too many for Canada. We could expand a bit (25% or so), but anything more than that is a waste of our resources. We don't need a three of four divisions unless we're planning on fighting a major war or had substantial overseas commitments (like during the Cold War when we stationed almost 10,000 personnel in Germany).

Ideally, our military should be heavy on sea and air assets as we need those to protect our airspace and sea lanes (and their approaches) - a large land army like that is a luxury we don't need short of a major war.

Nuclear subs would be nice, but given the Americans unwillingness to sell us theirs, I don't think we should settle for second rate French subs - I'd prefer a substantial fleet (8-12) U212s with AIP. They'd have the range to operate in the Arctic and are super silent. We also need to replace all four Iroquois DDHs and we should be building 3 or 4 Queenston class AORs, not 2. After that, it'll be time to replace the Halifaxes with 12-16 new frigates. I don't think we need carriers per se, but if a couple of our new DDHs were like Japan's Hyuga class, I wouldn't object.

For the air force, we should have at least 150 first rate aircraft - again given the American refusal to sell us the F-22, we should buy the Typhoon, as it is is better than the F-35 and flown by many NATO countries. An updated Arrow is a nice dream, but would probably cost $100 billion or so to develop and build, so that's off the table.

Whatever that costs is what we should spend IMO.

You don't speak for the country. I've been advocating a higher defence budget and increased spending for NATO. Considering the size of our country and territory we must keep safe, we should up our NATO spending to 2.5%, and dump serious funds into our military before it's too late. Our planes are getting old and falling apart, our ships are soon to need replacements, and so on. This is not a 'ho-hum' issue, this is real. WE HAVE TO DO THIS.

The pros outweigh the cons.

-J.

This reminded me of this joke someone sent and that I saved (the date in my folder is 2003 when the exchange rate was butal but funnily enough it still applies)


The Canadian government has agreed to assist the USA in the war against terrorism.

We have agreed to send:

6000 ground troops
5 of our fast patrol frigates
6 fighter jets

After the exchange rate the USA will receive:

2 Mounties
1 canoe and a bunch of secret squirrels.

With the restrictions and taxes on Canadian lumber, the canoe's paddles will likely be held at the border.

Canada has a tendency to budget larger amounts for defense then suspend whatever we're buying in order to have some of that money shuffled off back to general revenue for other uses. So, we aren't meeting our agreement. That we're dealing with Trump though really means our only response to him should be the usual GFY because the policy of the Canadian government should be that we don't knuckle under to that son of a bitch, ever, on anything even if technically we're on the wrong side of what we agreed to do.

The investment needed, to survive the next war, isn't a military item.

It is a civil one.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nato-s ... -1.4022576

Even the CBC says so.