Great Britain Offers to help Canada defend its Arctic (CBC)

Britain offers Canadian military help to defend the Arctic

Experts say that concerns about sovereignty have made Ottawa reluctant to let allies operate in the region

Murray Brewster - CBC News

Posted: September 24, 2021
Last Updated: 5 Hours Ago

Britain is signalling its interest in working with the Canadian military in the Arctic by offering to take part in cold-weather exercises and bring in some of its more advanced capabilities — such as nuclear-powered submarines — to help with surveillance and defence in the Far North.

In a recent exclusive interview with CBC News, the United Kingdom's top military commander said his country is "keen to co-operate" and learn more about how to survive and fight in a cold, remote setting.

Gen. Sir Nick Carter said Britain would also like to "cooperate in terms of helping Canada do what Canada needs to do as an Arctic country."

More at link:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/britain-uk-canada-arctic-defence-submarines-russia-china-1.6187347

 

[Kirkhill]

Same map showing the North West Passage linking Greenland with Alaska via Nunavut. All Thule Inuit territories. All members of the Arctic Council. All of commercial interest to "Outsiders".

And the NWP provides a "sheltered" route for shipping, including subs, to rapidly shift from the left to right flanks of the northern No-Mans land where the Boomers roam.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm guessing here, but that might be because those who would join the CR end up joining the PRes (or Reg F) instead.

Real possibility, even likelihood. But given the tensions with the southern native communities and their constant concern over services, I think that development of the Ranger Patrol system in the south may be missing a bet.

 

[Kirkhill]

The impact of moving 4 Long Range Precision Strike elements of the type envisaged by the US Army and Marines, or the Aegis Ashore SM3/SM6 units of the US Navy already in service in Poland and Romania.

One at Longyearbyen on Svalbard. One at Reykjavik on Iceland. One at Thule on Greenland. One at Alert on Ellesmere.

1500 km range against surface targets (like surfaced SSBNs). Useful capabilities against missiles on launch, during boost and during terminal phases.

 

[dimsum]

View attachment 66666

The impact of moving 4 Long Range Precision Strike elements of the type envisaged by the US Army and Marines, or the Aegis Ashore SM3/SM6 units of the US Navy already in service in Poland and Romania.

One at Longyearbyen on Svalbard. One at Reykjavik on Iceland. One at Thule on Greenland. One at Alert on Ellesmere.

1500 km range against surface targets (like surfaced SSBNs). Useful capabilities against missiles on launch, during boost and during terminal phases.

Frankly, Inuvik would be a better spot than Alert based on those circles.

 

[daftandbarmy]

View attachment 66664

Same map showing the North West Passage linking Greenland with Alaska via Nunavut. All Thule Inuit territories. All members of the Arctic Council. All of commercial interest to "Outsiders".

And the NWP provides a "sheltered" route for shipping, including subs, to rapidly shift from the left to right flanks of the northern No-Mans land where the Boomers roam.

Speaking of the NW Passage:


BZ Hard Over Harry! Couldn't let the RCMP have bragging rights on that one for much longer, could you?

Royal Canadian Navy ship completes Northwest Passage journey for first time since 1954​

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/canadian-navy-ship-completes-northwest-passage-1.6194739

 

[CBH99]

With respect to Sovereignty, perhaps the Americans would prefer that they, and the Brits, have access to a Canadian Northwest Passage rather than having the Passage recognized as International Waters.

The USN has to contest every bit of salt water. Proforma. That means arguing for access to both the Russian controlled North East Passage as well as the Canadian controlled North West Passage. But realistically they are never going to have access to the Russian side.

If the USN were successful in having the NWP recognized as international waters then the Russians and the Chinese would have free passage from the Pacific to the Atlantic via the fastest route. I'm sure that is not something they would be happy with.

It is, I believe, better for the US generally to have the NWP considered internal waters to which they, and the Brits, as allies, have access. Perhaps even something akin to the St Lawrence Seaway reflecting the interests of Alaska, Greenland and Nunavut.

As near as I can see there is a deep water mid-atlantic trench that can be exploited by the Brits and the US to get to the North Pole. The hard part seems to be getting out of the Arctic across the shallows of the Bering Sea and between the Aleutian Islands.

With the NWP secured then they can transit "safely" through Canadian controlled internal waters from Greenland to Alaska and then through US waters to the Bering Strait - the critical choke point.

If any places needs to be held they are Adak and Dutch Harbor.

I believe it was Stoker, OGBT, or one of our other career Navy guys on this site that had mentioned that a few years ago when the US (under the Trump administration at the time) had started to argue it should be international waters, rather than an internal Canadian waterway.

That quickly disappeared when (I’m assuming) someone had taken Secretary of State Pompeo aside and explained precisely what you mentioned.

If it was an international passage, the Chinese and Russians could legally transit that waterway at all, and even park an asset or two there if they wanted.

As a Canadian internal waterway, it limited the amount of traffic in the area, and the USN would be ‘granted permission each time they requested it’ for transit. (Aka they don’t ask, and we don’t bother getting them to request.)

Every few years, some younger minds start to make a stink of it in the US. And every few years, the more seasoned folks take them aside and explain why the status quo is to be maintained. And it quietly becomes a non-issue all over again.


While the Russians and Chinese seem to be becoming quite friendly with each other, I believe that is more a matter of us (re ‘the west’) pushing them together more than anything else.

I don’t think the Russians want the Chinese up there any more than we do.


0.02

 

[Kirkhill]

I believe it was Stoker, OGBT, or one of our other career Navy guys on this site that had mentioned that a few years ago when the US (under the Trump administration at the time) had started to argue it should be international waters, rather than an internal Canadian waterway.

That quickly disappeared when (I’m assuming) someone had taken Secretary of State Pompeo aside and explained precisely what you mentioned.

If it was an international passage, the Chinese and Russians could legally transit that waterway at all, and even park an asset or two there if they wanted.

As a Canadian internal waterway, it limited the amount of traffic in the area, and the USN would be ‘granted permission each time they requested it’ for transit. (Aka they don’t ask, and we don’t bother getting them to request.)

Every few years, some younger minds start to make a stink of it in the US. And every few years, the more seasoned folks take them aside and explain why the status quo is to be maintained. And it quietly becomes a non-issue all over again.


While the Russians and Chinese seem to be becoming quite friendly with each other, I believe that is more a matter of us (re ‘the west’) pushing them together more than anything else.

I don’t think the Russians want the Chinese up there any more than we do.


0.02

As usual - I'm picking up on someone else's ideas. It wouldn't surprise me if it was OGBD or Stoker.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Frankly, Inuvik would be a better spot than Alert based on those circles.

A better spot for whom?

 

[Pieman]

All good points here.

. More desirable is the domination of the No-Mans Land of the North Pole.

It's always a bit of a crapshoot with global warming simulations but most scientists have the arctic being ice free between 2035 and 2050. Not that far away is it? Invariably we tend to discover that the earth has a great deal more ice/water than we have data for so that timeline could easily extend a bit or even gain momentum if CO2 trends keep climbing.

And China can go screw itself if it thinks it will be taken seriously as a ‘near Arctic nation’.

I don't know...if you even been to Beijing you might change your mind on that. They have plundered North America of its wealth. Not to mention their increasingly sophisticated technical know how. Did you know the Chinese have their own space station and robots on the Moon and Mars now? I suspect the states is going to have to work hard to stay ahead in the weapons game.

 

[CBH99]

All good points here.


It's always a bit of a crapshoot with global warming simulations but most scientists have the arctic being ice free between 2035 and 2050. Not that far away is it? Invariably we tend to discover that the earth has a great deal more ice/water than we have data for so that timeline could easily extend a bit or even gain momentum if CO2 trends keep climbing.


I don't know...if you even been to Beijing you might change your mind on that. They have plundered North America of its wealth. Not to mention their increasingly sophisticated technical know how. Did you know the Chinese have their own space station and robots on the Moon and Mars now? I suspect the states is going to have to work hard to stay ahead in the weapons game.

In another thread, there were some quotes of statements made by JT that he essentially ‘admired the Chinese ability to get things done, and not have to debate everything to death & move ahead on consensus.’

And taking whether or not he admires them out of it - he isn’t wrong when it comes to their efficiency. They have a long term strategic goal, and work quite creatively and ambitiously to make it happen.


I imagine they are on par with the US in most areas of weaponry as it is, whether the US wants to admit that or not.

Sure there are some niche capabilities that the US enjoys a clear advantage (subs, naval aviation, etc) - but Chinese warships are looking pretty darn modern and sleek these days.

Even if their software is a generation or two behind (and that’s us clearly guessing, as we haven’t seen them in action) - that still makes them pretty deadly. Their submarine force is being rejuvenated and expanded, and an ICBM with 10+ individually targeted warheads doesn’t need to be super accurate.

Guaranteed the Chinese will be the first to start mining Helium 3 from the surface of the moon.

The only way the Chinese will succeed in extracting resources in the Arctic is if actual Arctic nations procrastinate and delay, or do the bare minimum. Our failure WILL be their success, and thus far the Russians are the only ones putting any real effort into the Arctic.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I'm guessing here, but that might be because those who would join the CR end up joining the PRes (or Reg F) instead.

I don't have data, but my dealings with Canadian Rangers lead me to believe they're doing something right in their own home communities, sort of like a militia in a good way.

Transfer is never zero, but I know of Rangers that have been Rangers in their community a long time. I don't see the same "one component to the other" thing anywhere near as much as I see among urban reservists & reserve units.

That said, my experience is in northern (mostly northwestern) Ontario, so other areas may differ.

 

[daftandbarmy]

In another thread, there were some quotes of statements made by JT that he essentially ‘admired the Chinese ability to get things done, and not have to debate everything to death & move ahead on consensus.’

And taking whether or not he admires them out of it - he isn’t wrong when it comes to their efficiency. They have a long term strategic goal, and work quite creatively and ambitiously to make it happen.

China's greatest threats are internal, as with any communist dictatorship.

China is growing threat but internal issues may undercut its rise, top US intelligence officials say​

​

"I don't think there is any country that presents a more severe threat to our innovation, our economic security and our democratic ideals - and the tools in their toolbox to influence our businesses, our academic institutions, our governments at all levels are deep and wide and persistent," said Christopher Wray, director of the FBI.

Wray cited the example of an indictment last fall relating to China's "Operation Fox Hunt" allegedly involving illegal Chinese law enforcement activities on US soil designed to threaten, intimidate and harass members of the Chinese diaspora.

"It's an indication and illustration of just how challenging and diverse this particular threat is," he said.

The FBI has some 2,000 investigations linked to the Chinese government, he said. It is now opening a new China-related investigation every 10 hours on average and has seen investigations of economic espionage increase by 1,300 per cent in recent years, he added.

Wednesday's testimony came as senators work on a bipartisan bill aimed at countering Beijing's influence and its bid for technological supremacy.

China is growing threat but internal issues may undercut its rise, top US intelligence officials say

Do you have questions about the biggest topics and trends from around the world? Get the answers with SCMP Knowledge, our new platform of curated content with explainers, FAQs, analyses and infographics brought to you by our award-winning team. But "it is worth noting that its economic...

finance.yahoo.com

 

[Kirkhill]

China's greatest threats are internal, as with any communist dictatorship.

China is growing threat but internal issues may undercut its rise, top US intelligence officials say​

​

"I don't think there is any country that presents a more severe threat to our innovation, our economic security and our democratic ideals - and the tools in their toolbox to influence our businesses, our academic institutions, our governments at all levels are deep and wide and persistent," said Christopher Wray, director of the FBI.

Wray cited the example of an indictment last fall relating to China's "Operation Fox Hunt" allegedly involving illegal Chinese law enforcement activities on US soil designed to threaten, intimidate and harass members of the Chinese diaspora.

"It's an indication and illustration of just how challenging and diverse this particular threat is," he said.

The FBI has some 2,000 investigations linked to the Chinese government, he said. It is now opening a new China-related investigation every 10 hours on average and has seen investigations of economic espionage increase by 1,300 per cent in recent years, he added.

Wednesday's testimony came as senators work on a bipartisan bill aimed at countering Beijing's influence and its bid for technological supremacy.

China is growing threat but internal issues may undercut its rise, top US intelligence officials say

Do you have questions about the biggest topics and trends from around the world? Get the answers with SCMP Knowledge, our new platform of curated content with explainers, FAQs, analyses and infographics brought to you by our award-winning team. But "it is worth noting that its economic...

finance.yahoo.com

China GDP 14.72 trillion USD (2020)
USA GDP 20.94 trillion USD (2020)

China Defence Budget 261 billion USD (2019)
USA Defense Budget 649 billion USD (2019)

China GDP per capita 10,500 USD (2020)
USA GDP per capita 63,543.58 USD (2020)

A prosperous nation. Probably with similar capital investments to the US in defence given that most of the US budget goes to hiring troops from a prosperous society.

On the other hand the Chinese troops come from a relatively poor society. It conscripts if necessary but mostly people join voluntarily - three hots and a cot, beer money, rank and privilege beat scrounging for a Nike job.

By the same token those that don't make it to the comfortable levels of society find themselves competing with Uighurs for power, unpolluted water, food, jobs and space (Edit and girls - the result of the one child policy and the preference for boys). They also have Hong Kong to compare themselves to.

Patriotism doesn't fill many rice bowls. Iron or not.

 

[daftandbarmy]

China GDP 14.72 trillion USD (2020)
USA GDP 20.94 trillion USD (2020)

China Defence Budget 261 billion USD (2019)
USA Defense Budget 649 billion USD (2019)

China GDP per capita 10,500 USD (2020)
USA GDP per capita 63,543.58 USD (2020)

A prosperous nation. Probably with similar capital investments to the US in defence given that most of the US budget goes to hiring troops from a prosperous society.

On the other hand the Chinese troops come from a relatively poor society. It conscripts if necessary but mostly people join voluntarily - three hots and a cot, beer money, rank and privilege beat scrounging for a Nike job.

By the same token those that don't make it to the comfortable levels of society find themselves competing with Uighurs for power, unpolluted water, food, jobs and space (Edit and girls - the result of the one child policy and the preference for boys). They also have Hong Kong to compare themselves to.

Patriotism doesn't fill many rice bowls. Iron or not.

Well, although they're posturing alot lately, one might argue that in comparison with 'The West' in general, China is a positive peacenik when it comes to invading other countries etc.

Regardless, 'jaw jaw' vs. 'war war' might still be the best approach with a cranky China.

An interesting article from 2020...

What war with China could look like​

Experts roundly agreed that immediate conflict remains unlikely, given the huge costs in lives and treasure. Moreover, the nuclear weapons on both sides certainly serve to make leaders more cautious. But within the next decade or less, straining relations coupled with increased Chinese military capability could bring events to the brink.

What war with China could look like

A host of scenarios could push China and the United States into some kind of conflict.

www.militarytimes.com

 

[Brad Sallows]

>What war with China could look like​

A littoral bit here, and a littoral bit there...

 

[FJAG]

Maybe China isn't the biggest problem:

Russia plans new Arctic naval fleet as Putin celebrates his 69th birthday by moving to ensure further stranglehold on Europe's gas supplies​

• Russia announced plans for a new Arctic naval fleet as Putin's 'birthday present'
• Intended to help Russia secure the polar region's future gas and energy supplies
• Strongman has been accused of deliberately withholding gas supplies to Europe
• He is trying to leverage the bloc to approve a pipeline that would bypass Ukraine

Russia plans new Arctic naval fleet as Putin celebrates his birthday

The new Arctic naval fleet - announced today on Putin's 69th birthday - will help Russia tighten its stranglehold on Europe's gas supplies by securing future energy reserves in the polar region.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Czech_pivo]

View attachment 66666

The impact of moving 4 Long Range Precision Strike elements of the type envisaged by the US Army and Marines, or the Aegis Ashore SM3/SM6 units of the US Navy already in service in Poland and Romania.

One at Longyearbyen on Svalbard. One at Reykjavik on Iceland. One at Thule on Greenland. One at Alert on Ellesmere.

1500 km range against surface targets (like surfaced SSBNs). Useful capabilities against missiles on launch, during boost and during terminal phases.

Svalbard is a no go zone in terms of placing anything remotely militarily there. Its a complete non-starter. A treaty from about 100yrs ago assures that this is the case and will remain the case.

 

[Kirkhill]

With respect Pivo

Belgium's neutrality in 1914 had been guaranteed by Britain since 1839.

In 1936 Belgium reiterated it was neutral
In 1939 Netherlands declared it was neutral, as did Denmark, Norway and Iceland.

Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway were all invaded by Germany. Iceland was invaded by Britain then garrisoned by Canada and the US.

Scraps of paper will not save anybody. Certainly not from well armed scrap metal merchants and seal hunters.

As to the range circles, it was pointed out that Inuvik would probably be a better site than Alert. I agree. The Americans could just as easily move to Nordkapp in Norway, Thule or Independence Fjord on Greenland and Point Barrow in Alaska, as well as Reykjavik on Iceland, and achieve the same, or greater effect. And not have to bother Canadian politicians at all.

They can cheerfully ignore us. And our claims.

Do we want to be ignored?

 

[Czech_pivo]

With respect Pivo

Belgium's neutrality in 1914 had been guaranteed by Britain since 1839.

In 1936 Belgium reiterated it was neutral
In 1939 Netherlands declared it was neutral, as did Denmark, Norway and Iceland.

Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway were all invaded by Germany. Iceland was invaded by Britain then garrisoned by Canada and the US.

Scraps of paper will not save anybody. Certainly not from well armed scrap metal merchants and seal hunters.

As to the range circles, it was pointed out that Inuvik would probably be a better site than Alert. I agree. The Americans could just as easily move to Nordkapp in Norway, Thule or Independence Fjord on Greenland and Point Barrow in Alaska, as well as Reykjavik on Iceland, and achieve the same, or greater effect. And not have to bother Canadian politicians at all.

They can cheerfully ignore us. And our claims.

Do we want to be ignored?

100% true statements, the difference between all of those is that Russia was not involved. With Russia guaranteed certain privileges in Svalbard I'm not certain that we'd have an easy time in just sailing up and unloading the infrastructure necessary to be operational without the Russians making an appearance.
Besides, with the appearance of the new Russia hyper-sonic sub launched missiles, I can see the need for a layered, defence in depth series of these circles in order to deal with the potential limited time to impact we could be dealing with.
But going back to Svalbard and its neutrality, as the Czech's know all to well, a piece of paper and the phase 'Peace in our times' means nothing...

 

[Kirkhill]

100% true statements, the difference between all of those is that Russia was not involved. With Russia guaranteed certain privileges in Svalbard I'm not certain that we'd have an easy time in just sailing up and unloading the infrastructure necessary to be operational without the Russians making an appearance.
Besides, with the appearance of the new Russia hyper-sonic sub launched missiles, I can see the need for a layered, defence in depth series of these circles in order to deal with the potential limited time to impact we could be dealing with.
But going back to Svalbard and its neutrality, as the Czech's know all to well, a piece of paper and the phase 'Peace in our times' means nothing...

Sorry about the Sudetenland......

Not one of Britain's better days.

And you are dead right about the Russians. Unfortunately I think the question is whether the Russians will break the agreement before the Norwegians do. The new Russian base is only three or four hundred kilometers away from Svalbard. That is why my comment about scrap metal merchants and seal hunters. That was the Argentine justification for being in the South Atlantic.