The Americans are just too weak on supporting allies and not just the republicans, ALL of them. Oh, some of them feel bad about it, but that’s useless.
And that’s before we think about how reliable an American weapons platform will be should the US stop supporting NATO. What’s the point of buying a jet whose long term effectiveness depends on the permission of someone who doesn’t want to be your ally anymore?
Good points. It becomes the (multi) billion dollar question. If we stick with the American purchase we are betting that things will change substantially post Trump. Hardly assured. If we take the European jets we are risking a continuously escalating deterioration of the relationship that should be the easiest to repair and maintain owing to proximity and history. Splitting the order between both options may be the best option diplomatically but certainly the worst operationally and financially. Tough call. I expect further dithering as from a Canadian military procurement standpoint that has been our MO for far too long.
Thanks, Matt. The part about Russia's "escalate to de-escalate" doctrine is particularly worrying.
The Economist summarizes Russia's recent grey-zone attacks on Europe:
"Italian jets on a NATO mission shot down an explosives-laden drone that had flown into Lithuania from Belarus, and others scrambled to intercept two Russian fighter jets that violated NATO airspace. In the same week, Russian drones struck a train in Ukraine within 2km of a Polish border crossing, soon after Boris Johnson, a former British prime minister, and several European security officials had travelled through. In the Netherlands the railway network was recently disrupted by the co-ordinated placement of pipes and cables on tracks around the country.
"More significantly, in August an explosive-laden drone was flown into a cargo plane used to transport weapons for Ukraine at Germany’s Leipzig-Halle airport, though it failed to detonate."
How European countries are responding:
"Many countries are taking defensive measures, such as installing protection against drones at airports and around other critical infrastructure. Some argue that Europe also needs to take stronger collective measures to raise the cost of hybrid attacks for Russia. It can retaliate by restricting the number of visas issued to Russians, expelling diplomats, closing consulates, imposing harsher sanctions and possibly by launching covert actions of its own against Russian interests.
"'What Moscow respects most is strength,' says David Cattler of the Centre for European Policy Analysis. Unless Europe shows it is tough enough to deter provocations, Russia will continue to escalate. So far, its provocations have had no catastrophic results—but they might have done. Obstructions on tracks might derail a train. Drone attacks at airports could bring down an airliner. The riskiest approach would be to let Russia keep pushing until something cracks."
I am referring to the deterrence almost all allies laid on in Europe during the Cold War. Not any extra conflicts that were not directly related to that Cold War.
Couldn’t the fact that Ukrainian forces have outperformed NATO forces in drone-heavy exercises actually point toward part of the solution - or at least, the potential consequences for Putin if he once again succumbs to strategic hubris? Ukraine is arguably becoming one of Europe’s most valuable military assets, rather than simply a country Europe has to defend.
(This is also why our deal with Ukraine is the one I’m most excited about).
I don’t know, watching Trump refuse the Saudis the military support they expected when they actually needed it this weekend does make me think we really, truly can’t count on the US to honour its commitments anymore - which is of course pretty scary in a world largely built on the assumption that it will. But my gut also says there may be an opportunity here for countries that will honour their commitments to reassert themselves together. Here’s Ukraine’s chance to make sure the countries supporting it know that the relationship can go both ways, right?
All the “realist", we’re going back to a world where a handful of great powers determine what happens to everyone else stuff sticks in my craw not only because it offends my disposition - I also think it misses genuinely new shifts by focusing too much on historical patterns. Bigger powers keep discovering that sheer size doesn’t necessarily beat smaller, more nimble adversaries that can adapt faster, while technology seems to be giving individual countries capabilities that used to belong mostly to much larger powers.
I really do think the US is accelerating toward its end of empire, and the rest of us need to take that very seriously, very quickly. But Ukraine gives me some hope about what comes next. Maybe whatever that is ends up being more atomized, more distributed and, most importantly - and perhaps surprisingly - more resilient than the usual “multipolar world” framing suggests.
It is the likely consequence if Europe, Canada, Australia etc form a trade bloc which can make arrangements for payments/money transfers outside the SWIFT system.
Really good essay Matt. The combination of deterrence and rational actors has been a solid safeguard up to now and I think Trump has a strong survival instinct which is no doubt part of his narcissistic personality. I read talk of Putin being boxed into a corner followed by reports of "accidental" drone action in one of the Eastern border countries from time to time. Most recent Lithuania. I agree that North Korea is watching Putin's every move and calculating. I also think personality plays a huge role in statecraft - neither Putin in the Ukraine or Trump in Iran know how to back away without losing face. We all know why Trump doesn't use his oft repeated, "I won the war," line and pull out. The problem is he has reactivated the Middle East as a serious flash point and Iran is now wagging the dog by keeping the Strait closed and attacking the refineries of US allies. The Houthis have nothing left to lose and appear to be fighting mad about the many historic wrongs perpetrated in their part of the world. It is a confounding and volatile time.
For me, I think a major war fought on our soil is not a matter of 'if' but 'when'. The post WW2 status quo is gone forever. Technology has eroded the very way in which the combat arms can fight. The conditions that kept Canada safe (geography, USA) are done.
We are well and truly on our own for the first time.
> For me, I think a major war fought on our soil is not a matter of 'if' but 'when'.
It's not that our proximity to the USA makes war on our soil impossible. It's that the USA isn't prepared to tolerate geo-political rivals having a beachhead in North America. We're not "on our own" even when we want to be.
Put it this way... even if the USA has no interest whatsoever in protecting Canada, it retains a very, very strong interest in kicking any and all geopolitical rivals out of what they regard as "their" continent.
That doesn't mean we have no need to protect ourselves. There are plenty of threats that don't involve Russian tanks rolling through Toronto.
For me, It's our proximity to the USA that makes it dangerous. So long as Trump is President we are not safe. Everything changed when the pandemic happened. Rules based order (whatever that is) kaput. Also important to remember that a war on our soil (or anyone's) isn't going to be fought like wars past. We are already at war in on the information front. Add the endless possilities and it's anything can happen day.
It does feel increasingly unstable and fragile, especially as additional conflicts/incursions emerge. I agree that rational minds seem likely to prevent escalation but,
-a young assassin's bullet in Sarajevo in 1914 undid all the "rational" efforts, and
- status quo is continued anxiety, what will it take to get back to "some" more balanced and sustainable position? Does that only happen when everyone's forces and resources are close to full strength?
I think the fighter decision comes in just over 6 weeks. I don't expect an add-on to the 30 F-35s we're committed to. There is more for Canada in the Swedish deal, which makes it the most compelling. I think Ukraine has changed warfare the same way the machine gun and the aircraft carrier did. I think China could take Taiwan tomorrow wth no response outside of a few strongly worded letters. The world is shifting beneath our feet.
The destruction of Israel and the killing of all Jews has always been Hamas’ goal.
It’s in their charter and they’re not kidding.
“The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.’”
Russian provocations and European reticence have an eerie echo of the 1930s and the lead-up to World War 2. A belligerent autocrat intent on revising a post-war settlement has been engaging in escalating provocations. European powers have been tolerating each in turn because they're unprepared for war and recognize that war is the inevitable consequence of confrontation. America's out of the picture due to internal political considerations.
America is the most powerful military on planet earth but America has shown a reluctance to use that power time and time again. I still wonder if JFK would have sunk the Russian flotilla on its way to arm Cuba in the 60's. But NATO and America have held their fire each time China, Russia their proxies have crossed the line. A war is likely to result if NATO responds with force and a war is likely to result if NATO continues to show reluctance to respond with force.
Awesome essay as usual, Matt. I do think it’s a bit disingenuous to not also point out that whatever Canada decides, it won’t actually change the delivery tempo of fighters in the slightest. With the first tranche committed to, and the second having their long-lead time items already ordered, and essentially committed to, we’re getting our F-35’s as fast as Lockmart can build them. We could confirm the rest of the order today, and it wouldn’t materially change the delivery timeline at all.
Now, if we are going to get going on Gripens, then yes we should get that ball rolling sooner than later.
Drones: smoke,water spray,12 Gauge shotguns,counter drones. And/or we hide in holes underground like rats lol. Not funny,Canada is not ready to help anyone or ourselves. Every person for themselves I’m afraid. I’ve been seeing the signs to Matt
Further Russian aggression may lead European nations to drop their reticence to fully cooperate with Ukraine. That might lead to Ukrainians training Europeans in drone warfare. Timing is a problem, as no military tactics can be learned overnight. But the result might be quite impressive.
It is time for the Europeans to get a wakeup call on matters military. They have relied for too long on the U.S. and perhaps now they will become really serious. As the saying goes, for 500 million Europeans to rely on 350 million Americans to defend them from 140 million Russians, who in turn are stalemated by 40 million Ukrainians...
The other consideration is that the Russian armed forces seem to have their hands full with the Ukrainians. Do they really have the additional resources to do more than probing NATO? Can they really carry out a sustained attack?
China, on the other hand, seems like much more of a threat.
European planes it is then.
The Americans are just too weak on supporting allies and not just the republicans, ALL of them. Oh, some of them feel bad about it, but that’s useless.
And that’s before we think about how reliable an American weapons platform will be should the US stop supporting NATO. What’s the point of buying a jet whose long term effectiveness depends on the permission of someone who doesn’t want to be your ally anymore?
Good points. It becomes the (multi) billion dollar question. If we stick with the American purchase we are betting that things will change substantially post Trump. Hardly assured. If we take the European jets we are risking a continuously escalating deterioration of the relationship that should be the easiest to repair and maintain owing to proximity and history. Splitting the order between both options may be the best option diplomatically but certainly the worst operationally and financially. Tough call. I expect further dithering as from a Canadian military procurement standpoint that has been our MO for far too long.
All good points.
But what is the point of buying Swedish jets that are demonstrably less effective than many of those currently in Russian and Chinese inventories?
Something to ponder: do you want to win a trade war or do you want to be able to win an actual war?
Thanks, Matt. The part about Russia's "escalate to de-escalate" doctrine is particularly worrying.
The Economist summarizes Russia's recent grey-zone attacks on Europe:
"Italian jets on a NATO mission shot down an explosives-laden drone that had flown into Lithuania from Belarus, and others scrambled to intercept two Russian fighter jets that violated NATO airspace. In the same week, Russian drones struck a train in Ukraine within 2km of a Polish border crossing, soon after Boris Johnson, a former British prime minister, and several European security officials had travelled through. In the Netherlands the railway network was recently disrupted by the co-ordinated placement of pipes and cables on tracks around the country.
"More significantly, in August an explosive-laden drone was flown into a cargo plane used to transport weapons for Ukraine at Germany’s Leipzig-Halle airport, though it failed to detonate."
How European countries are responding:
"Many countries are taking defensive measures, such as installing protection against drones at airports and around other critical infrastructure. Some argue that Europe also needs to take stronger collective measures to raise the cost of hybrid attacks for Russia. It can retaliate by restricting the number of visas issued to Russians, expelling diplomats, closing consulates, imposing harsher sanctions and possibly by launching covert actions of its own against Russian interests.
"'What Moscow respects most is strength,' says David Cattler of the Centre for European Policy Analysis. Unless Europe shows it is tough enough to deter provocations, Russia will continue to escalate. So far, its provocations have had no catastrophic results—but they might have done. Obstructions on tracks might derail a train. Drone attacks at airports could bring down an airliner. The riskiest approach would be to let Russia keep pushing until something cracks."
Short version. Deterrence works. It worked very nicely during the Cold War.
It worked until America tired for spending treasure and American lives.
... and (apparently) tired of being the sole decider of the western alliance's geo-political strategy vis-a-vis the geo-political rivals of the USA.
Just remember that NATO and the Western world order is structured that way because that's how America wanted it structured.
I am referring to the deterrence almost all allies laid on in Europe during the Cold War. Not any extra conflicts that were not directly related to that Cold War.
Couldn’t the fact that Ukrainian forces have outperformed NATO forces in drone-heavy exercises actually point toward part of the solution - or at least, the potential consequences for Putin if he once again succumbs to strategic hubris? Ukraine is arguably becoming one of Europe’s most valuable military assets, rather than simply a country Europe has to defend.
(This is also why our deal with Ukraine is the one I’m most excited about).
I don’t know, watching Trump refuse the Saudis the military support they expected when they actually needed it this weekend does make me think we really, truly can’t count on the US to honour its commitments anymore - which is of course pretty scary in a world largely built on the assumption that it will. But my gut also says there may be an opportunity here for countries that will honour their commitments to reassert themselves together. Here’s Ukraine’s chance to make sure the countries supporting it know that the relationship can go both ways, right?
All the “realist", we’re going back to a world where a handful of great powers determine what happens to everyone else stuff sticks in my craw not only because it offends my disposition - I also think it misses genuinely new shifts by focusing too much on historical patterns. Bigger powers keep discovering that sheer size doesn’t necessarily beat smaller, more nimble adversaries that can adapt faster, while technology seems to be giving individual countries capabilities that used to belong mostly to much larger powers.
I really do think the US is accelerating toward its end of empire, and the rest of us need to take that very seriously, very quickly. But Ukraine gives me some hope about what comes next. Maybe whatever that is ends up being more atomized, more distributed and, most importantly - and perhaps surprisingly - more resilient than the usual “multipolar world” framing suggests.
Wait until the US realizes they have lost the reserve currency.
That'll probably be a consequence of their looming fiscal crisis when it occurs.
It is the likely consequence if Europe, Canada, Australia etc form a trade bloc which can make arrangements for payments/money transfers outside the SWIFT system.
Really good essay Matt. The combination of deterrence and rational actors has been a solid safeguard up to now and I think Trump has a strong survival instinct which is no doubt part of his narcissistic personality. I read talk of Putin being boxed into a corner followed by reports of "accidental" drone action in one of the Eastern border countries from time to time. Most recent Lithuania. I agree that North Korea is watching Putin's every move and calculating. I also think personality plays a huge role in statecraft - neither Putin in the Ukraine or Trump in Iran know how to back away without losing face. We all know why Trump doesn't use his oft repeated, "I won the war," line and pull out. The problem is he has reactivated the Middle East as a serious flash point and Iran is now wagging the dog by keeping the Strait closed and attacking the refineries of US allies. The Houthis have nothing left to lose and appear to be fighting mad about the many historic wrongs perpetrated in their part of the world. It is a confounding and volatile time.
For me, I think a major war fought on our soil is not a matter of 'if' but 'when'. The post WW2 status quo is gone forever. Technology has eroded the very way in which the combat arms can fight. The conditions that kept Canada safe (geography, USA) are done.
We are well and truly on our own for the first time.
> For me, I think a major war fought on our soil is not a matter of 'if' but 'when'.
It's not that our proximity to the USA makes war on our soil impossible. It's that the USA isn't prepared to tolerate geo-political rivals having a beachhead in North America. We're not "on our own" even when we want to be.
Put it this way... even if the USA has no interest whatsoever in protecting Canada, it retains a very, very strong interest in kicking any and all geopolitical rivals out of what they regard as "their" continent.
That doesn't mean we have no need to protect ourselves. There are plenty of threats that don't involve Russian tanks rolling through Toronto.
For me, It's our proximity to the USA that makes it dangerous. So long as Trump is President we are not safe. Everything changed when the pandemic happened. Rules based order (whatever that is) kaput. Also important to remember that a war on our soil (or anyone's) isn't going to be fought like wars past. We are already at war in on the information front. Add the endless possilities and it's anything can happen day.
It does feel increasingly unstable and fragile, especially as additional conflicts/incursions emerge. I agree that rational minds seem likely to prevent escalation but,
-a young assassin's bullet in Sarajevo in 1914 undid all the "rational" efforts, and
- status quo is continued anxiety, what will it take to get back to "some" more balanced and sustainable position? Does that only happen when everyone's forces and resources are close to full strength?
I think the fighter decision comes in just over 6 weeks. I don't expect an add-on to the 30 F-35s we're committed to. There is more for Canada in the Swedish deal, which makes it the most compelling. I think Ukraine has changed warfare the same way the machine gun and the aircraft carrier did. I think China could take Taiwan tomorrow wth no response outside of a few strongly worded letters. The world is shifting beneath our feet.
Re: Hamas
I don't think that conquest of Israel was ever their end goal. If they can destroy Israel's reputation and trade partners, that's a victory too.
The destruction of Israel and the killing of all Jews has always been Hamas’ goal.
It’s in their charter and they’re not kidding.
“The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.’”
This is who they are.
Russian provocations and European reticence have an eerie echo of the 1930s and the lead-up to World War 2. A belligerent autocrat intent on revising a post-war settlement has been engaging in escalating provocations. European powers have been tolerating each in turn because they're unprepared for war and recognize that war is the inevitable consequence of confrontation. America's out of the picture due to internal political considerations.
America is the most powerful military on planet earth but America has shown a reluctance to use that power time and time again. I still wonder if JFK would have sunk the Russian flotilla on its way to arm Cuba in the 60's. But NATO and America have held their fire each time China, Russia their proxies have crossed the line. A war is likely to result if NATO responds with force and a war is likely to result if NATO continues to show reluctance to respond with force.
I am glad you are leaning towards the US honouring its NATO commitments. I am uninformed compared to you, and I have my doubts.
Great points Matt!
Awesome essay as usual, Matt. I do think it’s a bit disingenuous to not also point out that whatever Canada decides, it won’t actually change the delivery tempo of fighters in the slightest. With the first tranche committed to, and the second having their long-lead time items already ordered, and essentially committed to, we’re getting our F-35’s as fast as Lockmart can build them. We could confirm the rest of the order today, and it wouldn’t materially change the delivery timeline at all.
Now, if we are going to get going on Gripens, then yes we should get that ball rolling sooner than later.
Drones: smoke,water spray,12 Gauge shotguns,counter drones. And/or we hide in holes underground like rats lol. Not funny,Canada is not ready to help anyone or ourselves. Every person for themselves I’m afraid. I’ve been seeing the signs to Matt
Further Russian aggression may lead European nations to drop their reticence to fully cooperate with Ukraine. That might lead to Ukrainians training Europeans in drone warfare. Timing is a problem, as no military tactics can be learned overnight. But the result might be quite impressive.
It is time for the Europeans to get a wakeup call on matters military. They have relied for too long on the U.S. and perhaps now they will become really serious. As the saying goes, for 500 million Europeans to rely on 350 million Americans to defend them from 140 million Russians, who in turn are stalemated by 40 million Ukrainians...
The other consideration is that the Russian armed forces seem to have their hands full with the Ukrainians. Do they really have the additional resources to do more than probing NATO? Can they really carry out a sustained attack?
China, on the other hand, seems like much more of a threat.