Before helping others... Ukraine & CAF readiness

[jackamela]

Does anyone else feel that Western countries would be better off building their own military capabilities than putting so much into the defence of Ukraine?

(For me personally, I think there is a need to aid Ukraine - but some of those resources might be better employed on Canadian Forces).

 

[Remius]

Does anyone else feel that Western countries would be better off building their own military capabilities than putting so much into the defence of Ukraine?

No.

(For me personally, I think there is a need to aid Ukraine - but some of those resources might be better employed on Canadian Forces).

So they can sit here doing nothing?

This doesn’t have to be a one or the other scenario.

Do both.

 

[KevinB]

At the end of the day, every Russian soldier, airman, sailor etc “demobilized” by Ukraine is one less that we need to face. It also deters other nations that may seek to act against our allies.

Given the choice, I’d send every angle piece of CA kit to Ukraine, as well as the CF-18’s —

If I was making choices down here, I’d open the POMCUS doors in Europe and have 2 Ukrainian Corps outfitted in American kit ASAP and conduct months of training in individual to DIV level combat operations and supply NATO mentors to Ukraine to assist with Combat Operations planning.

 

[jackamela]

No.

So they can sit here doing nothing?

This doesn’t have to be a one or the other scenario.

Do both.

Well, in fairness if you read what I wrote a bit more closely, you will find I am suggesting 'do both' - in the interests of preparedness. But maybe tilt the ratio in favour of a bit more of that funding going to CAF readiness.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Does anyone else feel that Western countries would be better off building their own military capabilities than putting so much into the defence of Ukraine?

(For me personally, I think there is a need to aid Ukraine - but some of those resources might be better employed on Canadian Forces).

What frustrates me is the speed an urgency we can outfit another country, yet we linger with broken procurement system to outfit our own.

All indications are we are at war eve, and yet we push off our own defence spending for 20-30 years.

 

[Lumber]

Does anyone else feel that Western countries would be better off building their own military capabilities than putting so much into the defence of Ukraine?

(For me personally, I think there is a need to aid Ukraine - but some of those resources might be better employed on Canadian Forces).

No.

consider this post and the maps from the ISW. A victory for the Uks creates a huge buffer zone against Russia that would allow the redeployment of NATO forces from the South Eastern Europe to the Baltic in case of a Russian incursion there:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1780264953548570818

 

[jackamela]

No.

consider this post and the maps from the ISW. A victory for the Uks creates a huge buffer zone against Russia that would allow the redeployment of NATO forces from the South Eastern Europe to the Baltic in case of a Russian incursion there:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1780264953548570818

Fair point.

I think a Ukrainian victory is unlikely - though as things stand a draw may be possible. (Which perhaps acheives the end you suggest anyway).

 

[Brad Sallows]

Does anyone else feel that Western countries would be better off building their own military capabilities than putting so much into the defence of Ukraine?

(For me personally, I think there is a need to aid Ukraine - but some of those resources might be better employed on Canadian Forces).

Yes. Deterrence is much, much less expensive than war.

Not enough people are thinking about what international security will look like after the usual members of coalitions of the willing have become, in the estimation of countries inclined to get frisky, weaker.

Canada and the US are already doing a lot of borrowing, paying a lot of money to bondholders, and mostly governed by parties determined to continue spending and put domestic spending ahead of international security spending. There's no fiscal freedom of manoeuvre right now; there will be less in the future; no-one can reliably predict what happens if current spending trends continue other than to assert that they can't. I suppose it's a kind of indirect strategy malign foreigners might employ: encourage more deficit spending by buying bonds, maybe making a small profit while strangling our fiscal capabilities.

 

[Kirkhill]

What frustrates me is the speed an urgency we can outfit another country, yet we linger with broken procurement system to outfit our own.

All indications are we are at war eve, and yet we push off our own defence spending for 20-30 years.

Roshel has built and supplied over 1000 Light Armoured Vehicles since the start of the war (1000 as of Christmas 2023) while Terradyne has started getting orders for its Gurkha vehicles (11-13 as of Christmas).

Speed is possible if speed is desired.

 

[jackamela]

G

Yes. Deterrence is much, much less expensive than war.

Not enough people are thinking about what international security will look like after the usual members of coalitions of the willing have become, in the estimation of countries inclined to get frisky, weaker.

Canada and the US are already doing a lot of borrowing, paying a lot of money to bondholders, and mostly governed by parties determined to continue spending and put domestic spending ahead of international security spending. There's no fiscal freedom of manoeuvre right now; there will be less in the future; no-one can reliably predict what happens if current spending trends continue other than to assert that they can't. I suppose it's a kind of indirect strategy malign foreigners might employ: encourage more deficit spending by buying bonds, maybe making a small profit while strangling our fiscal capabilities.

Good analysis.

Ability to fight a war - or at least look like you could only be defeated at a tremendous cost - is one of the best guarantors that you won't have to fight one.

The other key factor is being able to pay for a war, or at least borrow enough to do so.

On that score (and, again, let's avoid political discourse but stick to facts) the current PM has doubled the national debt whilst torpedoeing O&G. So, given the real risk we may not currently be able to fund a direct war we ought to make damn sure we invest big in deterrence to make sure we don't get sucked into one.

 

[RangerRay]

Given the choice, I’d send every angle piece of CA kit to Ukraine, as well as the CF-18’s —

I agree. That kit was built to fight Russians. We should send that kit there to do just that.

The Ukrainians want to finish the job; they just need our support.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

What frustrates me is the speed an urgency we can outfit another country, yet we linger with broken procurement system to outfit our own.

All indications are we are at war eve, and yet we push off our own defence spending for 20-30 years.

Like our 3 day reserve stock of ammo?