I'll believe it when I see it.
China is the principle problem
While not willing to give this government, or any in recent memory, a pass on defence spending, is there any standard benchmark for NATO partners to be judged against when it comes to their %/GDP? I wasn't aware that CCG spending was lumped into any figure the government has used, but I have read that other nations include such services as border enforcement and para-military federal police into their percentage.The election down under should be interesting with respect to the submarine issue. Continuity is imperative if the Aussies have any hope at succeeding there. The proposed new Eastern submarine base should add some spice
Same old same old with Trudeau lots of talk and posing but very little substance. Maybe if trialed by fire he would stand out as well but I look at the lack of real response with regard to our own defence priorities as damming. What moves to secure our own nationality has he even broached? None as far as I know. We sit on our hands on the fighter replacement. I mean we lie our way to whatever measly GDP percentage we are currently at by including non CAF expenditures like the CCG when the CCG has very little constabulary ability. That being taken up mostly by our Kingston Class. Even from a non kinetic standpoint you think we could be helping out with the refugee situation in Poland unless they dont want or need it but I find that hard to believe
I'm not super familiar with it so Im not sure if expenditures are "approved" or not. I have a couple documents around here somewhere so maybe ill take a look on the weekend. The inclusion of other enforcement and para-military forces is true but to compare it to what our non CAF can contribute is weak on the part of the federal government. If I was NATO I would say nice tryWhile not willing to give this government, or any in recent memory, a pass on defence spending, is there any standard benchmark for NATO partners to be judged against when it comes to their %/GDP? I wasn't aware that CCG spending was lumped into any figure the government has used, but I have read that other nations include such services as border enforcement and para-military federal police into their percentage.
He's been trialed by fire once.......................Emergencies Act was the result.The election down under should be interesting with respect to the submarine issue. Continuity is imperative if the Aussies have any hope at succeeding there. The proposed new Eastern submarine base should add some spice
Same old same old with Trudeau lots of talk and posing but very little substance. Maybe if trialed by fire he would stand out as well but I look at the lack of real response with regard to our own defence priorities as damming. What moves to secure our own nationality has he even broached? None as far as I know. We sit on our hands on the fighter replacement. I mean we lie our way to whatever measly GDP percentage we are currently at by including non CAF expenditures like the CCG when the CCG has very little constabulary ability. That being taken up mostly by our Kingston Class. Even from a non kinetic standpoint you think we could be helping out with the refugee situation in Poland unless they dont want or need it but I find that hard to believe
I'd agree with the CCG being lumped in if they doubled as an armed force capable of naval warfare operations, but they can't and are basically unarmed civilians. Including them is playing games.While not willing to give this government, or any in recent memory, a pass on defence spending, is there any standard benchmark for NATO partners to be judged against when it comes to their %/GDP? I wasn't aware that CCG spending was lumped into any figure the government has used, but I have read that other nations include such services as border enforcement and para-military federal police into their percentage.
There's a good reason for ze Germans to do the about face. A number of years ago a German Army captain told me "Russia is too close".I am not very hopeful this will happen. Cripes ze Germans did a 180 in about 72 hrs!
That is our issue, despite the shrinking world, the powers that be in Canada still believe we live in a fireproof house and that the world loves us.There's a good reason for ze Germans to do the about face. A number of years ago a German Army captain told me "Russia is too close".
Russia and Germany have a history shall we say. In that part of the world things like that aren't forgotten easily.
Amen brother - we learned a long time ago that not everyone loves Canada.That is our issue, despite the shrinking world, the powers that be in Canada still believe we live in a fireproof house and that the world loves us.
While not willing to give this government, or any in recent memory, a pass on defence spending, is there any standard benchmark for NATO partners to be judged against when it comes to their %/GDP? I wasn't aware that CCG spending was lumped into any figure the government has used, but I have read that other nations include such services as border enforcement and para-military federal police into their percentage.
NATO defines defence expenditure as payments made by a national government specifically to meet the needs of its armed forces, those of Allies or of the Alliance. A major component of defence expenditure is payments for Armed Forces financed from within the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget. Armed Forces include Land, Maritime and Air forces as well as Joint formations such as Administration and Command, Special Operations Forces, Medical Service, Logistic Command, Space Command, Cyber Command, etc. They might also include "Other Forces" like Ministry of Interior troops, national police forces, gendarmerie, carabinieri, coast guards etc. In such cases, expenditure is included only in proportion to the forces that are trained in military tactics, are equipped as a military force, can operate under direct military authority in deployed operations, and can, realistically, be deployed outside national territory in support of a military force. Also, expenditure on Other Forces financed through the budgets of ministries other than MoD is included in defence expenditure.
. . . .
Thanks for that. Seems fairly clear.Yes, there is a definition and it can be found in this document. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/6/pdf/210611-pr-2021-094-en.pdf
An excerpt.
It doesn’t count for NATO, but is more an explanation of what realistically goes into defense and truer costs.Thanks for that. Seems fairly clear.
But I found this. No idea of the veracity of the source, I just stumbled across it.
Excerpt:
The Components of U.S. Military SpendingIf you really want to get a handle on what the United States spends on defense, you need to look at multiple components.The $715 billion base budget for the Department of Defense is the main contributor to the defense budget, but there are a number of other agencies that protect our nation as well, and much of their spending is devoted to the military effort. They include the Department of Veterans Affairs ($113.1 billion). Funding for the VA has been increased by nearly $30 billion over 2018 levels. That's to fund the VA MISSION Act and the VA's healthcare system. The other agencies are: Homeland Security ($54.9 billion), the State Department ($63.6 billion), and the FBI and Cybersecurity in the Department of Justice ($10.3 billion).
While not willing to give this government, or any in recent memory, a pass on defence spending, is there any standard benchmark for NATO partners to be judged against when it comes to their %/GDP? I wasn't aware that CCG spending was lumped into any figure the government has used, but I have read that other nations include such services as border enforcement and para-military federal police into their percentage.
With a different leader/party in government I would have seen an excellent opportunity to re-open the Keystone XL pipeline project and the Energy East pipeline.
An agreement to meet our NATO commitment of 2% of GDP (and agreement to take part in the US BMD program) as the carrot for the US combined with a major PR campaign to secure ethical North-American sourced oil and gas for the US and Canada while energy prices are soaring, Russian oil is taboo and President Biden is taking heat for looking to enemy states (and "supposed allies not acting like friends during this crisis" states) Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and the UAE to take up the slack.
Sadly, this government never seems to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
I think that misses the analogy.
Does anyone think that, at a bare minimum, that we get a Foreign Policy Document so that we can tailor a Defence Policy based on our Foreign Aims and Interests. SSE is now horribly out of date.
I am not very hopeful this will happen. Cripes ze Germans did a 180 in about 72 hrs!
believe that congress already tried this and the democrats shot it down in flamesWith a different leader/party in government I would have seen an excellent opportunity to re-open the Keystone XL pipeline project and the Energy East pipeline.
An agreement to meet our NATO commitment of 2% of GDP (and agreement to take part in the US BMD program) as the carrot for the US combined with a major PR campaign to secure ethical North-American sourced oil and gas for the US and Canada while energy prices are soaring, Russian oil is taboo and President Biden is taking heat for looking to enemy states (and "supposed allies not acting like friends during this crisis" states) Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and the UAE to take up the slack.
Sadly, this government never seems to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Three wives, out of wedlock child, inviting a Cpl to a clothing optional resort... Sounds like a swinger to me.I think that misses the analogy.
In order to have a swing and a miss, you need to at least swing.
We haven't swung in a long time.