• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Geopolitics of it all

  • Thread starter Thread starter QV
  • Start date Start date
Meanwhile - can we bundle?

Chinese interference in Canada, Australia and the UK
A Deeply Fractured US
Influence Operations

And this?

Russia is using ‘woke’ narratives to discredit Britain​

Moscow’s trolls have been deployed to polarise the population, portraying the UK as a deeply racist and imperialistic nation
IVANA STRADNER5 April 2023 • 3:36pm
Ivana  Stradner


A mural of Putin, Hitler, and Stalin with a slogan  No More Time is seen on the wall next to the PKM Gdansk Jasien train station

A mural of Putin, Hitler, and Stalin with a slogan " No More Time" is seen on the wall next to the PKM Gdansk Jasien train station in Poland.

In 2018, the Russian government banned British director Armando Iannucci’s satirical film The Death of Stalin, with the Communist Party Central Committee Chief, Sergey Obukhov, labeling it a “form of psychological warfare.” If only he were right.

Since the Cold War, Britain’s use of information operations to combat adversaries has deteriorated woefully amid a fixation on hard power. By contrast, Russian disinformation campaigns and propaganda remain as robust as ever. They have repeatedly been deployed in attempts to polarise the country, sow conflict related to the Scottish independence movement, portray the UK as a nefarious, imperialistic, colonial, and racist nation, and rewrite history to cast Winston Churchill as evil.

It is high time for the UK government to call out Moscow’s efforts for what they are: psychological war against the UK.
In light of Russia’s belligerent information operations against Britain – documented, for example, by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, among other sources – London should aggressively strike back and wage an offensive information operations campaign that puts Moscow on the defensive. And what better way to do it than exploiting the Kremlin’s love of Stalin.

Despite Stalin’s monstrous crimes against his own people – from the Great Terror of the 1930s, the Gulag labor camps, and the summary execution of thousands of Red Army soldiers during World War II – he has remained a revered figure among many Russians, with his rose-adorned statue forever standing next to Lenin’s mausoleum in Moscow’s Red Square. Earlier this year, for example, more than 1,000 Russians gathered in Red Square to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the dictator’s death.

Putin has capitalised on Stalin’s popularity to rewrite Russia’s role in both World War II and the Cold War. He has praised Stalin multiple times for his role in crafting modern Russian society. In one speech, Putin noted Stalin’s transformation of Russia, calling him an “effective manager” and discussing how, “from 1924 to 1953, the country that Stalin ruled changed from an agrarian to an industrial society.” In a 2017 interview with American film director Oliver Stone, Putin asserted that enemies use the “excessive demonisation” of Stalin as “one means of attacking the Soviet Union and Russia…to show that today’s Russia carries on itself some kind of birthmarks to Stalinism.”

Meanwhile, Putin blames the start of WWII and the Cold War on Western countries, targeting former leaders like Winston Churchill.

Stalin actually began the cult of hatred against Churchill, going so far as to compare him to Adolf Hitler. As a response to Churchill’s Fulton speech Stalin said, “It should be noted that Mr. Churchill and his friends are strikingly reminiscent… of Hitler and his friends. Hitler began the business of starting the war by proclaiming the racial theory, declaring that only people who spoke German constituted a complete nation. Mr. Churchill begins the business of unleashing war also with racial theory, arguing that only the nations that speak the English language are full-fledged nations."

Putin’s administration has mirrored these sentiments. At a 2019 meeting with heads of various international news agencies, Putin stated, “Let’s remember Churchill, who at first hated the Soviet Union, then called Joseph Stalin a great revolutionary when it was necessary to fight Nazism, and after the Americans got nuclear weapons, he called for the immediate destruction of the Soviet Union.” Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov meanwhile has claimed that "the West’s view of Russia is still predominantly clinging to Winston Churchill’s ‘Iron Curtain’ speech."

Putin’s revisionist history has been successful. A 2017 Levada center poll found a quarter of Russians believed Stalin’s repressions were “historically justified” and 13 percent admitting they knew “nothing” about Stalin’s crimes. Forty-seven percent of respondents believed “it is better to speak less about the repressions and not to dig up the past.” Moreover, 56 percent of citizens now regard Stalin as a “great leader,” with the largest increase in support for Stalin among those 18 to 30 years old.

The UK should attempt to counter this dangerous rhetoric, although not with tales about Western democracy, which do not resonate with Russians. Instead, information operations can capitalise on Putin’s own narratives, including the image of Stalin as a strong leader.

Authoritarian regimes are particularly keen to censor satire and irony because dark humor resonates with the public. Just as Hitler hated the Great Dictator film, Putin detests The Death of Stalin. Just as Stalin imprisoned people for telling disrespectful jokes, Putin has passed a law to jail people for “disrespecting government.” Stalin’s law did not stop the Russians from mocking the regime and neither will Putin’s.

UK intelligence should use the powerful tool of dark humour to appeal to Russians, reviving Soviet-era jokes about Stalin and retrofitting them to apply to Putin, posting humourous memes on Russian social media platforms. As the Death of Stalin movie hit the Kremlin’s soft spot, the UK could encourage production of a humorous movie about the Great Dictator Putin.

Britain’s information campaign should also redress Russia’s misleading narrative regarding WWII and Churchill’s critical role, emphasising the importance of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in carving up Eastern Europe and green-lighting Hitler’s aggression.

Although Putin’s army is performing poorly on the battlefield in Ukraine, one of his most powerful weapons is information. To the extent Britain remains reluctant to engage in an information war, it plays right into the Kremlin’s hands.

Ivana Stradner is a Research Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. You can hear her interview on Russian propaganda on the Telegraph's daily podcast 'Ukraine: The Latest' here.


I am finding some interesting counter-trolling going on - a bit of red pilling aimed at receptive minds in non-traditional communities - I don't know how recent the phenomenon is but it is new to me.


 
This one is more appropriate to the Canadian Chinese discussion.

 
Hats off to the French for pulling no punches. Yes, they're doing it for their own purposes but if it gets the job done, I'm in.


French envoy: Canada should link with Europe, surpass 'weak' military engagement​


He suggested that Ottawa needs to demonstrate a similar commitment to global security.

"The same goes for Canada and its weak defence effort, nevertheless, somewhat forgetful of the memory of its past commitments, of the courage shown in all major conflicts, as in peacekeeping operations."

After some reading and thinking for a few minutes as I write this.

1) President Bush went it alone more or less in Gulf War 2, he was invading no matter the reasoning.
( Yes the Brits went along with a few other nations) But in my opinion he was going alone if it came down to it.

2) President Obama was left with the mess, GW2 and Afghanistan, but could not back down as it would show him as weak leader. Syria situation was a no win, situation. American troops had been at war for over a decade and saw no win solutions, they were tired of a no win war. It would of put troops in direct conflict with Russian Forces ( not saying there has not been any exchanges of fire, just no direct action )

3) Trump had one goal and only one goal fix it for his friends and their money. Taxes etc. He wanted to pull the troops out and made a heard deal with a deadline. Once the deadline was made and he was not in Office, he stuck the next President with a bad deal and no way out of it, without looking like the bad guy the next President had to pull out the troops even if it meant the Afghanistan government would fail. which it did in double quick time.

4) President Biden, got a deal, he gets to look tough and stand up to Russia without putting any of his troops in harms way

He supplies the Ukrainian forces with American weapons, gets to prove the American weapons are better and more deadly than the Russian weapons. This gives the made in America speech line a lot of strength. Look at us saving the freedom of the oppressed people of the Ukrainians and no American lives are at risk.

Canadian leaders did not want to get involved in GW2. Afghanistan was a war we got pulled into and did very well as long as it was popular and looked as if we were making a difference over there. ( What difference we made can be debated another time). We spent huge amounts of cash and went into debt to pay for the equipment, the ammo and everything else.

Canadian leaders have never wanted to fund a proper military to protect or project protection of Canada. 75 000 troops of branches and trades.

That is 1 trooper for every 133 square KM we could never defend out country on our own. Forget coast lines , air cover. Most Canadians live within 2 hours of the US Border. Europe and yes France is hours away by aircraft, and days by ship, not much help if we are invaded.

If Russia came over the the Pole or thru Alaska the US would know about it before we did.

Besides the US who is going to help defend us in a timely manner?


Now if the shoe is on the other foot and the invaders come from the South. Europe and France is too far away to help, we are doomed till the forces of Mother Nature freeze out the American forces.


Who else do we tie our defence with ?


Sequence of events

1 UK accession to CPTPP = UK + Australia + New Zealand + Canada + Singapore + Malaysia + Brunei + Vietnam + Japan + Chile + Peru + Mexico

2 France takes EU to China and pledges that France will always do business with China
- Did France set up the meeting or did the EU? The EU is responsible for foreign affairs.
- If the EU led was Macron there as a brake on VdL and the EU?
- Or did Macron have to have VdL there to authorize his visit?

3 France boosts its defence budget by 40% over the next 7 years (118 BEU or 19 BEU per year)

French President Emmanuel Macron has detailed plans for a major boost to the armed forces, to meet modern threats including Russia's war in Ukraine.

The next seven-year budget would increase to €413bn (£360bn) from 2024-30, up from €295bn, he said.



4 France calls on Canada to get in the game
- Sell more material to France
- Buy more French technology and weapons
- Disconnect from America
- Connect to French Europe as the obvious alternative


But

France is not Canada's closest European neighbour. That would be the co-owner of Hans Island, Denmark.

Denmark (Hans Island, Greenland, Faeroes) + Iceland + Norway + Sweden + Finland + Estonia + Latvia + Lithuania + Netherlands + UK = JEF

Denmark (Hans Island, Greenland, Faeroes) + Iceland + Norway + Sweden + Finland + Canada + US = Arctic Council - Russia

We already have a strong point of attachment available to us.


Also

Canada + US + UK + Aus + NZ = Five Eyes

Canada + US + UK + Aus + NZ = ABCANZUS

US + UK + Aus = AUKUS

US + Aus + Japan + India = Quad

US + Canada = NORAD

US + Canada + JEF are strongly attached to NATO

France has a rocky association with NATO

France has a tenuous grip on the EU and Brussels due to the influence of JEF, NATO, the Visegrad 4 and the Bucharest 9 and Poland in particular.



Looks to me as if France's cockerel is looking for some chickens to roost with and is discovering that it may have left it kind of late in the day.
 
He suggested that Ottawa needs to demonstrate a similar commitment to global security.

"The same goes for Canada and its weak defence effort, nevertheless, somewhat forgetful of the memory of its past commitments, of the courage shown in all major conflicts, as in peacekeeping operations."
I like that a foreign diplomat called out the Cdn govt. Too bad Trudeau is throwing money out the door except to Defence.
 
Further to my last - wrt raw materials - future, legacy and historic

Canada and Australia are obvious storehouses with their large land masses and small populations.
But the US has strong reserves of lots of stuff. Denmark has Greenland. Norway, Sweden and Finland are also well supplied. The UK has material in the ground it is choosing not to exploit for political reasons.
All of them, along with New Zealand and the Netherlands are major agricultural producers.

Less obvious is the maritime real estate of the combined group, to which can be added the CPTPP nations and the UK with all its overseas territories and dependencies.

In a world of friendly traders the group of alliances above seems to have a sizeable chunk of the raw material supply cornered, along with a strong tech base and, still, a strong capital position.

In my opinion Western Europe, including France and Germany, together with (B)R(I)C(S) is still trying to play catch up. And they still struggle to act coherently.

Meanwhile upstarts, like Turkey, South Korea, Israel and Poland, are running hard.
 
Sequence of events

1 UK accession to CPTPP = UK + Australia + New Zealand + Canada + Singapore + Malaysia + Brunei + Vietnam + Japan + Chile + Peru + Mexico

2 France takes EU to China and pledges that France will always do business with China
- Did France set up the meeting or did the EU? The EU is responsible for foreign affairs.
- If the EU led was Macron there as a brake on VdL and the EU?
- Or did Macron have to have VdL there to authorize his visit?

3 France boosts its defence budget by 40% over the next 7 years (118 BEU or 19 BEU per year)





4 France calls on Canada to get in the game
- Sell more material to France
- Buy more French technology and weapons
- Disconnect from America
- Connect to French Europe as the obvious alternative


But

France is not Canada's closest European neighbour. That would be the co-owner of Hans Island, Denmark.

Denmark (Hans Island, Greenland, Faeroes) + Iceland + Norway + Sweden + Finland + Estonia + Latvia + Lithuania + Netherlands + UK = JEF

Denmark (Hans Island, Greenland, Faeroes) + Iceland + Norway + Sweden + Finland + Canada + US = Arctic Council - Russia

We already have a strong point of attachment available to us.


Also

Canada + US + UK + Aus + NZ = Five Eyes

Canada + US + UK + Aus + NZ = ABCANZUS

US + UK + Aus = AUKUS

US + Aus + Japan + India = Quad

US + Canada = NORAD

US + Canada + JEF are strongly attached to NATO

France has a rocky association with NATO

France has a tenuous grip on the EU and Brussels due to the influence of JEF, NATO, the Visegrad 4 and the Bucharest 9 and Poland in particular.



Looks to me as if France's cockerel is looking for some chickens to roost with and is discovering that it may have left it kind of late in the day.
Eh hem, the French Islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon would like to speak with you.......
 
What he said....

David McDonough: As China threat rises, the days of Canada as security freeloader are over​

As Sino-American strategic competition evolves, China’s diplomatic sway and military power will likely become even more formidable
Author of the article:
David S. McDonough, Special to National Post
Published Apr 06, 2023 • Last updated 4 hours ago • 9 minute read


Recent intelligence leaks that revealed Chinese agents trying to manipulate Canadian election outcomes were just the latest wake-up call that the Beijing regime is not a responsible international stakeholder, let alone a trustworthy friend or partner of Canada.


Despite Ottawa’s stonewalling on confronting this particular issue, there is reason to hope. Canada has been moving, slowly and fitfully to be sure, in this direction: by banning Huawei from our 5G network, ending federal funding for research projects that involve Chinese military and security institutions, and forcing Chinese state-owned enterprises to divest their stakes in Canadian critical mineral companies.

Renewed efforts to create a foreign registry is very much in line with this trend. Whatever the motivation for this recent announcement, and clearly damage control is one of them, there is reason to believe the government will move forward on creating one — again, perhaps reluctantly, but the important point is that it gets done. Even Canada’s belated Indo-Pacific Strategy made the point of calling China “an increasingly disruptive global power” and a “strategic challenge,” which aligns with the general thrust of how our key allies’ view. One hopes the Defence Policy Update currently in development uses even more robust language and is backed up with additional funding.

This shift in the government’s approach towards China could not come sooner. Indeed, many of our allies and partners are further ahead of us in having a clear-eyed view of China as a threat to the rules-based global order.

The United States, our closest ally and security guarantor, increasingly sees China as an aggressive strategic competitor. Australia has taken the fateful step to acquire U.S.-made nuclear-powered attack submarines, which promises to be its most expensive procurement project to date and one that could fundamentally alter its navy’s fleet structure. Even Japan has finally broken its longstanding taboo on raising its defence budget above one per cent of GDP, with plans to double that to two per cent in five years time.

With new arrangements like the Quad (India, Japan, Australia, and the US) and AUKUS (Australia, UK, US) now placed alongside America’s existing hub-and-spoke alliance system, one can see the contours of a U.S.-led anti-hegemonic coalition — to use American strategist Elbridge Colby’s term — to stymie Beijing’s effort to achieve hegemony in the Indo-Pacific and beyond.

Much of the recent Sino-American diplomatic jockeying stems from this new reality. As China moves from merely obstructing the US in the Indo-Pacific to building a global order more conducive to its values and interests, one can see this contest playing out on a global scale — from China’s role in brokering restored relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia, to China’s peace proposal for Ukraine, which was highlighted in Xi Jinping’s meeting with his “junior partner” Russia’s Vladimir Putin, to recent reports of China and the U.S. secretly battling to control undersea Internet cables around the world.

The stakes in this strategic competition could not be higher. As scholar Rush Doshi has so eloquently argued, China now seems intent on displacing the United States as a superpower. Having long ago thrown out Deng’s maxim of “hiding capabilities and biding time” and no longer content with Hu’s addendum of “actively accomplishing something,” China under Xi Jinping instead seeks to leverage these “great changes unseen in a century” — a nod to perceived American decline arising from the polarized Trump years and its disastrous COVID response — to emerge as “a leading country in comprehensive national strength and international influence.”

Yet, as Canada faces this new geostrategic reality, it needs to go beyond its more half-hearted (albeit still welcome) efforts and more properly assess its own position and place in this incipient anti-hegemonic coalition — and it’s useful to start closer to home in its assessment.

The 1941 Kingston dispensation between Canada and the United States still holds. Simply put, we cannot become a security threat to our greatest security guarantor. Instead, we need to strengthen our societal resilience against foreign interference and disinformation from China and its allies, and ensure our security and intelligence services are adequately resourced to protect us from such threats. We cannot be a weak link in that chain.

We also have a key role in defending the continent
in partnership with the Americans. That is perhaps our greatest military contribution to the anti-hegemonic coalition, as helping to secure the continent will allow the U.S. to focus more attention to the Indo-Pacific, especially military contingencies around Taiwan.

On that front, we must fully modernize the North Warning System (NWS) to a multi-domain system capable of protecting against new air-breathing and hypersonic threats, ensure our airspace is protected through a modernized NORAD, including investment in forward operating bases to support the 5th generation F-35 aircraft (as was recently announced during the Biden visit), and protect the Arctic from Russian and Chinese aggrandizement.

The latter will likely require important infrastructure improvements
and procuring both heavy icebreakers for its Coast Guard and new submarines to replace the aging Victoria-class fleet; the submarines could either be nuclear-powered or, if that proves prohibitively expensive, have air-independent power (AIP) technology to increase the limited endurance of diesel subs. Non-nuclear vessels also have an important ancillary benefit beyond cost — by allowing us to continue providing training opportunities to a US Navy (USN) that lacks diesel submarines.

Canada should also move to finally join (and help fund) continental ballistic missile defence (BMD). While this might have little immediate relevance vis-à-vis China, given the latter’s ability to overwhelm any limited BMD system, it does carry important benefits against China’s nuclear-armed ally, North Korea — thereby helping to ensure the U.S. is not coerced into refraining from intervening in defence of South Korea or Japan by that country’s nuclear arsenal, which would weaken key elements of this anti-hegemonic coalition.

Beyond North America, Canada should maintain and even strengthen its traditional Atlantic ties with NATO and Europe, especially its presence in the enhanced Forward Presence in Latvia. (Edit: NB Latvia is a member of JEF) Indeed, this deployment should eventually be buttressed with additional air and ground assets and be made long-term — as an important deterrent against future Russian aggression and, if that deterrent should fail, to increase the Baltic states’ capacity to withstand an initial Russian assault until a NATO counteroffensive is made.

Canada’s role here is also important when it comes to China. By helping to deter Russian aggression against NATO, we help minimize the chances of a catastrophic war in Europe that would assuredly involve the U.S. military in a significant way and serve as a drain on any anti-hegemonic coalition against China.

Canadian military support for Ukraine should also be viewed in such a framework. After all, by arming the Ukrainians, we are helping to ensure Russia’s military is further weakened — and that only strengthens NATO’s deterrence against them. In that regard, Canada can and should be doing more to militarily support Ukraine, including both ammunition and weapon systems; enhancing its munitions production and replenishing its own weapons stock are crucial in that regard.

Lastly, Canada needs to place greater attention on the Indo-Pacific. But we need to be realistic on our importance in this vast maritime theatre. Claims that Canada is a Pacific power ring hollow when more of our diplomatic, economic and military attention is rightly focused on North America and Europe. And Canada’s geo-strategic position and limited resources means that our attention will forever be split with these other locations.

For example, assuming adequate funding, Canada currently plans for a new fleet of 15 Canadian Surface Combatants — advanced warships that would be the sine qua non for a military presence in the Indo-Pacific theatre. Yet, even if its fleet structure prioritizes the Pacific over the Atlantic, Canada would likely have eight frigates on the West Coast, and no more than two-to-three would be readily available for deployment in the Pacific at any one time, perhaps supplemented by submarines that aren’t patrolling the Arctic.

While a significant boost on our current capacity for deployment, Canada’s Pacific fleet will remain largely a token force in comparison to regional countries like Japan and Australia or an extra-regional superpower like the United States — to say nothing of China, which already has the largest navy in the world and is building around 20 advanced naval warships each year.

Still, such a rebalanced fleet structure would prove useful. An increased naval presence could open the door to Canada participating in critical arrangements like the Quad or forums like the ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting–Plus, while giving us a means to cooperate more closely with the USN in the region; for example, we could leverage our interoperability with the USN by permanently deploying a frigate in a US battlegroup and/or participating in freedom of navigation operations with the US and other allies.

Of course, with only two new logistics joint supply ships (JSS) on the horizon, Canada should also consider adding at least one more JSS to the West Coast — to enhance its logistics in this maritime environment.

Canada should also expand its partnership with countries like Japan and/or Singapore to acquire access to their naval facilities. This would increase its ability to undertake long-term naval deployment in the Western Pacific, tie us even more concretely to the incipient anti-hegemonic coalition, help buttress deterrence against China — and, if such deterrence fails, better ensures a strong response. After all, any outbreak of hostilities between the U.S. and China, over Taiwan for instance, could then directly involve Canada, given the proximity and location of its naval assets in the region (and the real danger that such allied naval bases might come under attack by a Chinese missile barrage).

To be sure, much depends on whether Ottawa ultimately provides its security and defence institutions with sufficient funding. At a minimum, Canada would need to ensure — even with possible cost overruns — that its plans to acquire 15 new surface combatants and 88 F-35s are fulfilled in a timely manner. Ideally, it should also procure new platforms like a submarine replacement (whether nuclear or AIP), heavy icebreakers for the Coast Guard, and an additional JSS to enhance our logistical capability in the Pacific. It would also entail funding for radar and/or interceptors (including possibly an interceptor site) for BMD, more resources for its security and intelligence services, and increasing its military aid to Ukraine. Even an upgraded NWS will likely need more funding than the promised $4.9 billion.

Canada’s defence budget would therefore need to increase over the next several years, especially as it pertains to the capital portion — given that this scenario puts a relatively stronger emphasis on capital-intensive air and naval power rather than ground forces.

The government has made some important strides in seeing the reality of today’s China, which is all the more striking given how rose-hued its original vision was about Beijing — a fact that only seemed to end when Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor were unlawfully detained in 2018. One should give it credit where credit is due. But more still needs to be done.

As Sino-American strategic competition evolves in the coming years, China’s diplomatic sway and military power will likely become even more formidable than it is today. It is not guaranteed the U.S. will even win this competition, as it has never faced a peer competitor with China’s economic heft; neither Germany and Japan nor the Soviet Union at its zenith had that economic power. As such, the United States will likely be asking more from its allies and partners, including Canada.

Let’s be clear: the time Canada could free ride on American security guarantees is coming to an end. Harder choices will need to be made — from funding to force structure to military deployments. The ongoing Defence Policy Update will serve as a crucial bellwether on this issue. One only hopes Canadian decision-makers are ready to face this new reality.



David S. McDonough is Senior Editor at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
 
Eh hem, the French Islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon would like to speak with you.......

You are indeed correct. They are so easy to overlook....

The last time we were having this discussion Louis XV traded in Canada and the Eastern US for those two rocks and a stake in Guadeloupe.

Not sure that France's bargaining position is much stronger today.
 
The article is speaking totally deaf ears.

Hope!


And

A close majority of Canadians want a federal vote in 2023, says Ipsos poll.​

According to the latest poll conducted by Ipsos, nearly half of Canadians want a federal election in 2023. Some of the key findings of the poll are as follows:

  • Usually, in polls like this, the opposition voters prefer elections while the ruling party supporters oppose them. That explains around 49% of Canadians hoping for a federal election, while in reality, around 43% of people seem to think of it as a possibility in 2023.
  • 54% of respondents said Trudeau should step down as the leader of the Liberal Party in 2023, while around 27% said they believe he’ll do so.
  • Prime Minister Trudeau’s approval rating remains at 45% among the Canadians who were polled — ahead of Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, who got a 41% approval rating.

 
Sequence of events

1 UK accession to CPTPP = UK + Australia + New Zealand + Canada + Singapore + Malaysia + Brunei + Vietnam + Japan + Chile + Peru + Mexico

2 France takes EU to China and pledges that France will always do business with China
- Did France set up the meeting or did the EU? The EU is responsible for foreign affairs.
- If the EU led was Macron there as a brake on VdL and the EU?
- Or did Macron have to have VdL there to authorize his visit?

3 France boosts its defence budget by 40% over the next 7 years (118 BEU or 19 BEU per year)





4 France calls on Canada to get in the game
- Sell more material to France
- Buy more French technology and weapons
- Disconnect from America
- Connect to French Europe as the obvious alternative


But

France is not Canada's closest European neighbour. That would be the co-owner of Hans Island, Denmark.

Denmark (Hans Island, Greenland, Faeroes) + Iceland + Norway + Sweden + Finland + Estonia + Latvia + Lithuania + Netherlands + UK = JEF

Denmark (Hans Island, Greenland, Faeroes) + Iceland + Norway + Sweden + Finland + Canada + US = Arctic Council - Russia

We already have a strong point of attachment available to us.


Also

Canada + US + UK + Aus + NZ = Five Eyes

Canada + US + UK + Aus + NZ = ABCANZUS

US + UK + Aus = AUKUS

US + Aus + Japan + India = Quad

US + Canada = NORAD

US + Canada + JEF are strongly attached to NATO

France has a rocky association with NATO

France has a tenuous grip on the EU and Brussels due to the influence of JEF, NATO, the Visegrad 4 and the Bucharest 9 and Poland in particular.



Looks to me as if France's cockerel is looking for some chickens to roost with and is discovering that it may have left it kind of late in the day.
I think this sums up France right about now and it's whispering in our ear...

If you change your mind, I'm the first in line
Honey, I'm still free
Take a chance on me
If you need me, let me know, gonna be around
If you've got no place to go, if you're feeling down
If you're all alone when the pretty birds have flown
Honey, I'm still free
Take a chance on me
 
I think this sums up France right about now and it's whispering in our ear...

If you change your mind, I'm the first in line
Honey, I'm still free
Take a chance on me
If you need me, let me know, gonna be around
If you've got no place to go, if you're feeling down
If you're all alone when the pretty birds have flown
Honey, I'm still free
Take a chance on me
Well played.
 
That is really interesting that labour of all stripes are leaning CPC…
The NDP has 'lost' alot of Union support when they started going down the road years ago of being 'pro-Palestinian', spouting off that even they, the Union workers who work OT and make very good money as a result should be paying even more in taxes. Alot woke up and said, WTF, I work 55-60hrs weeks for the OT and these guys want to tax me even more, sorry, you've lost me.
 
That is really interesting that labour of all stripes are leaning CPC…

The Public Service union reaction was at least as interesting to me as the private sector.

On the other hand most of the union types I have met over the years have been really strong nationalists. The Internationale only resonates with a minority.
 
The Public Service union reaction was at least as interesting to me as the private sector.

On the other hand most of the union types I have met over the years have been really strong nationalists. The Internationale only resonates with a minority.
Maybe the federal union members are wondering if life before 2015 actually wasn’t that bad, after all….
 
Maybe the federal union members are wondering if life before 2015 actually wasn’t that bad, after all….

You know Ottawa better than I do. How many union members live near the Market versus commuting in from the suburbs?

Were they stopped from "working" by trucks? Or by Covid work from home rules?
 
You know Ottawa better than I do. How many union members live near the Market versus commuting in from the suburbs?

Were they stopped from "working" by trucks? Or by Covid work from home rules?
No, I don’t know Ottawa better than you.

Thank God…
 
4 France calls on Canada to get in the game
  • Sell more material to France
  • Buy more French technology and weapons
  • Disconnect from America
  • Connect to French Europe as the obvious alternative

1680809990359.gif

Eh hem, the French Islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon would like to speak with you.......

1680810059439.gif

I think this sums up France right about now and it's whispering in our ear...

If you change your mind, I'm the first in line
Honey, I'm still free
Take a chance on me
If you need me, let me know, gonna be around
If you've got no place to go, if you're feeling down
If you're all alone when the pretty birds have flown
Honey, I'm still free
Take a chance on me
Wasn’t that Sweden? 😉
 
Back
Top