As a former Naval Officer, I can attest that we in fact do not have the capabilities to put together a task force. This is why we work closely with our allies. The centrepiece of any naval task force is the Aircraft carrier, which we have none. We have no ability to control the skies when our naval fleet is underway. We also do not posses battleships, just frigates and a handful of command and control platforms that are incapable of true air defence. Unless the United States deploys a task force, we are incapable of forming one ourselves.
I am not sure what the point of this was supposed to be. Sean is a professor at MilCol so no doubt he is more aware than most Canadians about the state of our forces. Was this supposed to rouse Canadians into being more interested in our naval capabilities? If so, this is a silly event to cast such a thing over. There is no reason for us to have task force capability as a navy. We do not deploy soldiers for war without the presence of our allies who have these capabilities and are willing to share. Why bother developing our own task force capabilities when we have the US right next door? What would a Canadian task force really do in this instance anyway? We can barely crew the ships we do have let alone the fleet that would be required to keep task force status. We cannot even get submarines in the water let alone manage a task force.
I'm a retired sailor as well. Agreed we're a shadow of our former self but l disagree with your suggestion we shouldn't have the capability to field a task force. We should be able to carry our share of the burden and stop the bloody freeloading off our allies (USN in particular). Should the government of the day so decide we should be able to deploy a small task force. We're a maritime nation and need to do much better.
I think the fact that we can barely crew our existing ships, and barely maintain submarines, is part of the author's point: that the Canadian public is apathetic about such concerns, as are our politicians.
Mental morale? What? My 15 years in the RCN were the best of my life. The people I worked with were amazing and dedicated individuals who always turned out to do the Queen's work no matter what the impact on their own lives. Just because we were not part of fancy task groups or didn't have capabilities that would make civilians cream in their pants, didn't stop us from being proud of the work we were doing for Canada and Canadians. When I was diagnosed with kidney failure in 2017 and forced to leave the forces under a medical release, I was treated like gold by my former chain of command and have nothing but good things to say about the experience of working with VAC. We have robust and capable armed forces with people who are extremely dedicated and take their role as members of the profession of arms very seriously. The problem isn't with the solider, the sailor or the air person, the problem is with the Canadian public, our government and our disgustingly corrupt military procurement system. Maybe people who want to bemoan the forces should focus on who they are electing to office and how mismanaged the public service sector is within Canada we'd be better off.
That's great to hear. I was thinking more in terms of the equipment they stuck you with rather than the people you worked with. The Canadian military has a long magnificent tradition of doing a lot with a little. Nor was I suggesting in any way that your accomplishments are diminished because we don't have the nuclear carriers that I still think are the coolest mixtures of ship and plane ever invented. Your last 2 sentences nail the problem down as clearly as I've seen. Thank you for that too.
I was fortunate in 2006 to have been on one of the last “large” RCN training deployments (3 frigates, a command destroyer and a supply ship, when they were enroute to San Diego to join USN training). That we tend to now only send out one ship at a time is a function of having many fewer ships now than 2006 (and that was when we had a “small” navy), along with crewing and maintenance issues. The reason Sean is correct on this is — thanks to the usual Govt lack of interest and usual media bias on this issue (defence and security), it is not top of mind in the public fora — until the situation becomes very nasty — as it has so turned with the Ukrainian “problem.” There has been and will continue to be a (slight) flurry of activity with our Govt promising to sort out DND and not just for its scandals but for that which it is meant to exist (you know, defence and security) — then when the “problem” has passed, we will all go back to normal. It has been like that for decades. The last PM who took defence seriously was actually a French Canadian named Louis St Laurent — in the 1950s. Canadians deserve better. Whether they know it or not.
I think a huge problem is that, thanks to the US, we are not willing to fund armed forces that contribute materially to the defence of Canada. If that's true, we need to rethink what the forces are actually for.
I think their most important role is as a cadre: maintain skills, tacit knowledge, and tradition so that, should we need them for defence in future, we can rebuild them in years rather than decades. But I don't know exactly what that would look like?
Ultimately it's thanks to the citizens of this country that we don't fund the military, not the USA. They make it crystal clear to the denizens of the HoC that they don't want spending on the CAF. I will agree with you (at last) we do need to decide what role the CAF will play in the defence of Canada. As for maintaining skills, we're in very serious trouble, at least within the swim lane l knew when serving. Arising from decisions that were made over the last 10 years to amalgamate a number of naval trades into one, dumb down training, shift maintenance to ISCC, and seeing the departure of a great deal of the legacy sailors, the RCN has squandered a knowledge-base and capability it took almost a century to build upon. Starting from almost scratch is going to take decades to fix the damage done in less than one. Nevermind trying to attract new recruits to join now and in the future through a process that makes a glacier look like an Olympic Sprinter.
First issue: we must stop relying on USA to do what should be “our jobs” and our responsibilities. Second issue: no matter how you scale down the Forces, because they are so very small now, it will indeed take decades (not years) to regrow as per whatever the situation dictates. Look how long the current situation took to develop. Some would say the Russia/Ukraine issue began in 2014 (I agree) but we (and others) did not act appropriately and are now stuck with not a single one of our three brigades that could deploy if needed. We might be able to send a battalion but only by robbing other battalions of their soldiers. It is important to have a basic comprehension how our Forces are organized (such as, in the Army, what divisions, brigades and battalions/regiments are) — because if you do not, you will not comprehend the current paucity of capabilities in the Army with similar issues in the RCN and RCAF (possibly even worse in those two services). Other nations have figured this out and are actually ramping up in a bit of a hurry (just to mention a few — Germany, Sweden, Finland, Norway).
I am perfectly open to the argument that even a cadre requires more than we are spending now. But that's what we should be saying: "The idea of Canada's military defending us at current levels of spending is a joke. All we should be doing is trying to preserve enough that we could ramp up at some point in the future if we decided we needed to take responsibility for our own defence. And to do that we need to do x,y, and z". That might look like buying F-35s and not worrying about one engine or 2, since we won't fly them in the North anyway. All of our military plans would be focused on knowledge and skills rather than capabilities.
We should take it as a given that any deployment we make is purely as a live exercise, and not at all to achieve any tangible military objective. That sort of thing is what a cadre-focused forces would look like.
I am assuming you have a background in the Forces and may have a good idea what a “cadre” looks like? I am assuming you also know, that a cadre is what we had between wars and it took us years before we were ever able to properly contribute anything serious to the common allied defence.
I'm sorry, I wasn't in the forces, but the rest of what you say agrees with my understanding. That is exactly my point, we should expect to take years to contribute anything serious, given what the taxpayer is actually willing to spend. It sounds to me as if that actually might be an improvement from the current situation anyway. The question is "how many years". Given our current budget, have we actually structured the forces around minimizing that time, or are we actually increasing that time by adding other missions which we can't or shouldn't actually fulfill anyway?
(Personally, I would prefer to spend more on defence and actually have a capability, but I am realistic enough to know that that is not currently something taxpayers will pay for or governments will prioritize).
I am of course aware that the UK did something like this between the wars, when they had a "no major war in the next 10 years" policy until 1935 (oops!). But it's still better to be realistic about what we are assuming than to pretend.
Correct. Taxpayers not keen. That is entirely a leadership and education process that is beyond the ability or even allowance by the Forces to support by itself. Possibly if people can make the link as to why deterrence helps to prevent what has just occurred in Europe? Again. We dropped our guard and an aggressor took the opportunity to move. Now we are all paying for it and many more will die in Ukraine and in nations absolutely dependent on Ukrainian food that will not make it to them in time to prevent hunger and starvation. The links are there. They are not difficult to see unless one lays on a political haze over those same facts and only encourages folks to vote on matters that are close to home. Those people so voting simply may not realize how connected economically (and therefore militarily) the world is. Again not that hard to explain. Our current Govt and most media do not even bother. It is not a “master of political science” level of effort needed.
I agree. I think your words "It is a paralyzing combination of fear, bureaucratic stagnation, and a crippling lack of creativity that holds us back and forces us to watch our hard-won values system circle the drain" also apply to many things about Canada.
A military costs a fortune to supply and operate, and generates no revenue. Thus, it has historically been where the government goes to save money...until it's needed. Governments of both sides have starved it for funding for decades.....you can't get elected by spending money on things that don't create "goodies" for the voters. It's part of the massive vacuum of leadership that has kneecapped Canada in every way, shape and form. It's far too late to do anything to help with Russia's absurd invasion. But is there a leader...anywhere, with a vision and a plan for the country and how to start fixing the things that seem irreparably broken? Currently, no. We have to demand more from our leaders, but our divisions paralyse that thinking so things will continue to decay....sadly.
The problem wiuht taking any navala action in the Black Sea is the Montruex Convention which limits the passage of warships into the Black Sea with the exception of riparian nations and ships based inthe Black Sea (in Russia's case. Anay major force would have to be multinational and probaly under UN auspices.
We are a nation of 37 million compared to the US which has 330 million. There are more people living in California than all Canada. It’s not freeloading, it’s working together to maximize our capability as allies. We’d be wasting a lot of money and manpower so that some hawks could look out the window and see an aircraft carrier in the harbour. It makes no sense.
I was going to make the same point. Since Turkey has now recognized a state of war involving Black Sea states, passage of warships is now banned under the treaty. I suppose an argument could be made for abrogating the treaty, but you’d at least need Turkey onside for something that’s been in force for a century (and longer, if you consider the London Straits agreement before that.) Turkey hasn’t exactly been accommodating lately, though, despite being a NATO member.
Of course, discussing the obvious treaty issue would’ve cut this piece rather short.
The basic premise of this *entire piece* is wrong. Turkey has invoked the Montreux Convention and closed the Bosporus to all military vessels which are not from Black Sea states and not returning to their home port. This is why Russia hasn't flooded the Black Sea with vessels from their Northern Fleet - they aren't allowed to transit. Even if Canada were to have the means to launch such an expedition (which we don't) we'd be blocked from entering the Black Sea. I struggle to see why someone with an apparent background in Naval matters would totally miss that fundamental point.
Well said Mr. Maloney. Our nation is led by a spineless idiot who is content to see our country go down the sewer as long as its 'inclusive', and everybody goes equally.
I know you are excited by yet another opportunity to complain about the current government but when will you learn to spell? At least you capitalized the G in Gaul (an ancient western country in Europe named such by the Romans). What you are looking for is gall. And a sentence should end with at least a period.
I realized my error after I posted my comment, but I appreciate your concern and passion for correcting my grammar and misuse of the word gall. I am glad that you agree , however, with the substance of my remarks.
Sean, I see you "teach" at RMC. Have you ever "served" in your countries' military? I have - 32 years in the RCN (that's the Royal Canadian Navy). If you want Canada to sail a TF (that's a Task Force) out there to police the sea lines of communication (that's SLOC to you), understand that none of our ships would fare any better from an "accidental" missile hit than the Russian MOSKOVA did.
So, if you're still all Gung-ho about sending sailors and ships out there, how about starting off by signing up your own kids to that adventure, or at least advocating for decent defense spending. Failing that, I'll see you at your nearest recruitment center. Tell me where it is, and I'll be there at your swearing in ceremony.
I would be happy with Canada having a navy that could conduct this kind of operation, but this particular operation would be nuts.
We should have been arguing for the obvious compromise peace from day 1: Ukraine remains independent but out of NATO, Russia gets some land, sanctions lifted. After the bloody nose Russia got at the start, this would have been achievable without incentivizing Russia to try again.
But the US and Ukraine got greedy, and now look at the mess we are in. We'll be lucky to get what we could have had, and we have massively damaged NATO solidarity and Western economies.
Advocating nuclear war to hide political embarrassment is a mistake.
Ukraine should be the only one who decides if Ukraine will cede territory to the Orcs. It's their land and should be their decision. It's not greed to want an invading army off your lands and stop killing your citizens. SMH
Fine. And Western countries decide how much aid and military assistance to offer Ukraine. At some point people need to acknowledge that thing called "reality". SMH
The day's going to come when Ukraine will decide it's time to stop, either by removing the invader or by not being able/willing to continue to defend themselves. They get to decide this "reality", not you and not l.
Unfortunately Putin has no plans to stop invading Ukraine further, or other surrounding countries. A smack on the hand and some Ukrainian land isn't going to stop him. Plus if Germany or France (or Canada) were in the same position as Ukraine, do you really think they'd be willing to give up some of their land because a bunch of other western countries told them to?
It is not related to the capabilities of the ships or willness to act. The RCN has two Halifax class frigates deployed with Standing NATO forces, and ready to act as escorts should those forces be deployed in that role.
As Mr E.J. James noted, we do not act without our allies.
The Author failed to note Turkey has exercised their rights under the Montreaux convention and closed the Dardanelles to Warships notbbasedbin the Black sea. Therefore HMC Ships have no way of entering the Black Sea.
Does the author also feel Canada should assume the unilateral responsibility for protecting the Odessa from Russian amphibious action? Ukraine will require some protection be in place before removing the mines guarding the port.
That said should there be a UN or NATO mission to escort grain ships out of the Ukraine, I would strongly support RCN participation.
Starvation in Afghanistan is already here, ongoing. Not being discussed, perhaps because fixing it would provide the military with no new work?
The people who can really win the Ukraine war, I think, are the good folks of western Europe that are not in the streets chanting "don't drive, don't fly, turn down your thermostat". If they can't be bothered to do that to impoverish the Russian war machine, I can't be bothered to get some Canadians shot trying to risk, ah "Toe-to-toe nuclear combat with the Russkies" [Slim Pickens, Dr. Strangelove]
First off, this is an excellent (but immensely distressing) column. It is immensely distressing simply because of it's truth.
The comments to this column pretty uniformly agree with the incredibly awful state of Canadian forces. Really, the only reason for the state of the forces is the selfishness of the Canadian electorate which always demands more and more bribes that must be financed somewhere, which means, of course, money from defense.
I started making notes to prepare my own comments along the above lines but I gave up. I will simply say that our navy, despite its many fine personnel, really has the real world capability of bath tub toys. That is to say, it has no real capability. As for the monies to be given to Irving? Well, how much will ultimately be spent (see latest demand for extra 300 million, etc.) and whether any new ships will be delivered in our grandchildren's lifetimes ....
Anyway, the whole state of Canada's defense infrastructure is so woeful that we might as well simply abolish the armed forces and put up a sign saying that anyone who wants (which sane country would?) can have this wretched country.
Reeeeaaaaally getting tired of academics preaching from their perch. They’re so far removed from reality through their self imposed world of academia ivory towers, their opinion matters little. Please stop publishing their drivel.
As a former Naval Officer, I can attest that we in fact do not have the capabilities to put together a task force. This is why we work closely with our allies. The centrepiece of any naval task force is the Aircraft carrier, which we have none. We have no ability to control the skies when our naval fleet is underway. We also do not posses battleships, just frigates and a handful of command and control platforms that are incapable of true air defence. Unless the United States deploys a task force, we are incapable of forming one ourselves.
I am not sure what the point of this was supposed to be. Sean is a professor at MilCol so no doubt he is more aware than most Canadians about the state of our forces. Was this supposed to rouse Canadians into being more interested in our naval capabilities? If so, this is a silly event to cast such a thing over. There is no reason for us to have task force capability as a navy. We do not deploy soldiers for war without the presence of our allies who have these capabilities and are willing to share. Why bother developing our own task force capabilities when we have the US right next door? What would a Canadian task force really do in this instance anyway? We can barely crew the ships we do have let alone the fleet that would be required to keep task force status. We cannot even get submarines in the water let alone manage a task force.
I'm a retired sailor as well. Agreed we're a shadow of our former self but l disagree with your suggestion we shouldn't have the capability to field a task force. We should be able to carry our share of the burden and stop the bloody freeloading off our allies (USN in particular). Should the government of the day so decide we should be able to deploy a small task force. We're a maritime nation and need to do much better.
I think the fact that we can barely crew our existing ships, and barely maintain submarines, is part of the author's point: that the Canadian public is apathetic about such concerns, as are our politicians.
I hope Canadians identify defence as a priority over the long haul. We influence policy through sustained interest.
Thank you for your service. I can only imagine the cost in mental morale that your career has taken.
Mental morale? What? My 15 years in the RCN were the best of my life. The people I worked with were amazing and dedicated individuals who always turned out to do the Queen's work no matter what the impact on their own lives. Just because we were not part of fancy task groups or didn't have capabilities that would make civilians cream in their pants, didn't stop us from being proud of the work we were doing for Canada and Canadians. When I was diagnosed with kidney failure in 2017 and forced to leave the forces under a medical release, I was treated like gold by my former chain of command and have nothing but good things to say about the experience of working with VAC. We have robust and capable armed forces with people who are extremely dedicated and take their role as members of the profession of arms very seriously. The problem isn't with the solider, the sailor or the air person, the problem is with the Canadian public, our government and our disgustingly corrupt military procurement system. Maybe people who want to bemoan the forces should focus on who they are electing to office and how mismanaged the public service sector is within Canada we'd be better off.
That's great to hear. I was thinking more in terms of the equipment they stuck you with rather than the people you worked with. The Canadian military has a long magnificent tradition of doing a lot with a little. Nor was I suggesting in any way that your accomplishments are diminished because we don't have the nuclear carriers that I still think are the coolest mixtures of ship and plane ever invented. Your last 2 sentences nail the problem down as clearly as I've seen. Thank you for that too.
💯Well said. Thank you.
I was fortunate in 2006 to have been on one of the last “large” RCN training deployments (3 frigates, a command destroyer and a supply ship, when they were enroute to San Diego to join USN training). That we tend to now only send out one ship at a time is a function of having many fewer ships now than 2006 (and that was when we had a “small” navy), along with crewing and maintenance issues. The reason Sean is correct on this is — thanks to the usual Govt lack of interest and usual media bias on this issue (defence and security), it is not top of mind in the public fora — until the situation becomes very nasty — as it has so turned with the Ukrainian “problem.” There has been and will continue to be a (slight) flurry of activity with our Govt promising to sort out DND and not just for its scandals but for that which it is meant to exist (you know, defence and security) — then when the “problem” has passed, we will all go back to normal. It has been like that for decades. The last PM who took defence seriously was actually a French Canadian named Louis St Laurent — in the 1950s. Canadians deserve better. Whether they know it or not.
I think a huge problem is that, thanks to the US, we are not willing to fund armed forces that contribute materially to the defence of Canada. If that's true, we need to rethink what the forces are actually for.
I think their most important role is as a cadre: maintain skills, tacit knowledge, and tradition so that, should we need them for defence in future, we can rebuild them in years rather than decades. But I don't know exactly what that would look like?
Ultimately it's thanks to the citizens of this country that we don't fund the military, not the USA. They make it crystal clear to the denizens of the HoC that they don't want spending on the CAF. I will agree with you (at last) we do need to decide what role the CAF will play in the defence of Canada. As for maintaining skills, we're in very serious trouble, at least within the swim lane l knew when serving. Arising from decisions that were made over the last 10 years to amalgamate a number of naval trades into one, dumb down training, shift maintenance to ISCC, and seeing the departure of a great deal of the legacy sailors, the RCN has squandered a knowledge-base and capability it took almost a century to build upon. Starting from almost scratch is going to take decades to fix the damage done in less than one. Nevermind trying to attract new recruits to join now and in the future through a process that makes a glacier look like an Olympic Sprinter.
First issue: we must stop relying on USA to do what should be “our jobs” and our responsibilities. Second issue: no matter how you scale down the Forces, because they are so very small now, it will indeed take decades (not years) to regrow as per whatever the situation dictates. Look how long the current situation took to develop. Some would say the Russia/Ukraine issue began in 2014 (I agree) but we (and others) did not act appropriately and are now stuck with not a single one of our three brigades that could deploy if needed. We might be able to send a battalion but only by robbing other battalions of their soldiers. It is important to have a basic comprehension how our Forces are organized (such as, in the Army, what divisions, brigades and battalions/regiments are) — because if you do not, you will not comprehend the current paucity of capabilities in the Army with similar issues in the RCN and RCAF (possibly even worse in those two services). Other nations have figured this out and are actually ramping up in a bit of a hurry (just to mention a few — Germany, Sweden, Finland, Norway).
Mic drop.
I am perfectly open to the argument that even a cadre requires more than we are spending now. But that's what we should be saying: "The idea of Canada's military defending us at current levels of spending is a joke. All we should be doing is trying to preserve enough that we could ramp up at some point in the future if we decided we needed to take responsibility for our own defence. And to do that we need to do x,y, and z". That might look like buying F-35s and not worrying about one engine or 2, since we won't fly them in the North anyway. All of our military plans would be focused on knowledge and skills rather than capabilities.
We should take it as a given that any deployment we make is purely as a live exercise, and not at all to achieve any tangible military objective. That sort of thing is what a cadre-focused forces would look like.
I am assuming you have a background in the Forces and may have a good idea what a “cadre” looks like? I am assuming you also know, that a cadre is what we had between wars and it took us years before we were ever able to properly contribute anything serious to the common allied defence.
I'm sorry, I wasn't in the forces, but the rest of what you say agrees with my understanding. That is exactly my point, we should expect to take years to contribute anything serious, given what the taxpayer is actually willing to spend. It sounds to me as if that actually might be an improvement from the current situation anyway. The question is "how many years". Given our current budget, have we actually structured the forces around minimizing that time, or are we actually increasing that time by adding other missions which we can't or shouldn't actually fulfill anyway?
(Personally, I would prefer to spend more on defence and actually have a capability, but I am realistic enough to know that that is not currently something taxpayers will pay for or governments will prioritize).
I am of course aware that the UK did something like this between the wars, when they had a "no major war in the next 10 years" policy until 1935 (oops!). But it's still better to be realistic about what we are assuming than to pretend.
Correct. Taxpayers not keen. That is entirely a leadership and education process that is beyond the ability or even allowance by the Forces to support by itself. Possibly if people can make the link as to why deterrence helps to prevent what has just occurred in Europe? Again. We dropped our guard and an aggressor took the opportunity to move. Now we are all paying for it and many more will die in Ukraine and in nations absolutely dependent on Ukrainian food that will not make it to them in time to prevent hunger and starvation. The links are there. They are not difficult to see unless one lays on a political haze over those same facts and only encourages folks to vote on matters that are close to home. Those people so voting simply may not realize how connected economically (and therefore militarily) the world is. Again not that hard to explain. Our current Govt and most media do not even bother. It is not a “master of political science” level of effort needed.
Well said.
I agree. I think your words "It is a paralyzing combination of fear, bureaucratic stagnation, and a crippling lack of creativity that holds us back and forces us to watch our hard-won values system circle the drain" also apply to many things about Canada.
A military costs a fortune to supply and operate, and generates no revenue. Thus, it has historically been where the government goes to save money...until it's needed. Governments of both sides have starved it for funding for decades.....you can't get elected by spending money on things that don't create "goodies" for the voters. It's part of the massive vacuum of leadership that has kneecapped Canada in every way, shape and form. It's far too late to do anything to help with Russia's absurd invasion. But is there a leader...anywhere, with a vision and a plan for the country and how to start fixing the things that seem irreparably broken? Currently, no. We have to demand more from our leaders, but our divisions paralyse that thinking so things will continue to decay....sadly.
The problem wiuht taking any navala action in the Black Sea is the Montruex Convention which limits the passage of warships into the Black Sea with the exception of riparian nations and ships based inthe Black Sea (in Russia's case. Anay major force would have to be multinational and probaly under UN auspices.
We are a nation of 37 million compared to the US which has 330 million. There are more people living in California than all Canada. It’s not freeloading, it’s working together to maximize our capability as allies. We’d be wasting a lot of money and manpower so that some hawks could look out the window and see an aircraft carrier in the harbour. It makes no sense.
I was going to make the same point. Since Turkey has now recognized a state of war involving Black Sea states, passage of warships is now banned under the treaty. I suppose an argument could be made for abrogating the treaty, but you’d at least need Turkey onside for something that’s been in force for a century (and longer, if you consider the London Straits agreement before that.) Turkey hasn’t exactly been accommodating lately, though, despite being a NATO member.
Of course, discussing the obvious treaty issue would’ve cut this piece rather short.
The basic premise of this *entire piece* is wrong. Turkey has invoked the Montreux Convention and closed the Bosporus to all military vessels which are not from Black Sea states and not returning to their home port. This is why Russia hasn't flooded the Black Sea with vessels from their Northern Fleet - they aren't allowed to transit. Even if Canada were to have the means to launch such an expedition (which we don't) we'd be blocked from entering the Black Sea. I struggle to see why someone with an apparent background in Naval matters would totally miss that fundamental point.
Well said Mr. Maloney. Our nation is led by a spineless idiot who is content to see our country go down the sewer as long as its 'inclusive', and everybody goes equally.
Agreed! A leader with only platitudes to offer! No substance, no courage but the Gaul to announce: “Canada is back”
I know you are excited by yet another opportunity to complain about the current government but when will you learn to spell? At least you capitalized the G in Gaul (an ancient western country in Europe named such by the Romans). What you are looking for is gall. And a sentence should end with at least a period.
I realized my error after I posted my comment, but I appreciate your concern and passion for correcting my grammar and misuse of the word gall. I am glad that you agree , however, with the substance of my remarks.
"Sean M. Maloney, PhD is a professor of history at Royal Military College. His views do not reflect those of the Department of National Defence."
His point, exactly.
Sean, I see you "teach" at RMC. Have you ever "served" in your countries' military? I have - 32 years in the RCN (that's the Royal Canadian Navy). If you want Canada to sail a TF (that's a Task Force) out there to police the sea lines of communication (that's SLOC to you), understand that none of our ships would fare any better from an "accidental" missile hit than the Russian MOSKOVA did.
So, if you're still all Gung-ho about sending sailors and ships out there, how about starting off by signing up your own kids to that adventure, or at least advocating for decent defense spending. Failing that, I'll see you at your nearest recruitment center. Tell me where it is, and I'll be there at your swearing in ceremony.
I would be happy with Canada having a navy that could conduct this kind of operation, but this particular operation would be nuts.
We should have been arguing for the obvious compromise peace from day 1: Ukraine remains independent but out of NATO, Russia gets some land, sanctions lifted. After the bloody nose Russia got at the start, this would have been achievable without incentivizing Russia to try again.
But the US and Ukraine got greedy, and now look at the mess we are in. We'll be lucky to get what we could have had, and we have massively damaged NATO solidarity and Western economies.
Advocating nuclear war to hide political embarrassment is a mistake.
Ukraine should be the only one who decides if Ukraine will cede territory to the Orcs. It's their land and should be their decision. It's not greed to want an invading army off your lands and stop killing your citizens. SMH
Fine. And Western countries decide how much aid and military assistance to offer Ukraine. At some point people need to acknowledge that thing called "reality". SMH
The day's going to come when Ukraine will decide it's time to stop, either by removing the invader or by not being able/willing to continue to defend themselves. They get to decide this "reality", not you and not l.
Appeasement doesn’t work. Give a bully you’re lunch money and he comes back the next day looking for more. Kick him where it hurts!
Agreed. It didn't work in 1938 at Munich and it won't work in 2022.
Unfortunately Putin has no plans to stop invading Ukraine further, or other surrounding countries. A smack on the hand and some Ukrainian land isn't going to stop him. Plus if Germany or France (or Canada) were in the same position as Ukraine, do you really think they'd be willing to give up some of their land because a bunch of other western countries told them to?
Sanctions have the ports shut down, even if food is exempt from sanctions, it can't get out. Plus Odessa is mined.
Long term there's the issue of fertilizer; even if sanctions stopped tomorrow the damage to that supply risks causing starvation.
Broader than just Canada. Any successful effort would require an international effort.
It is not related to the capabilities of the ships or willness to act. The RCN has two Halifax class frigates deployed with Standing NATO forces, and ready to act as escorts should those forces be deployed in that role.
As Mr E.J. James noted, we do not act without our allies.
The Author failed to note Turkey has exercised their rights under the Montreaux convention and closed the Dardanelles to Warships notbbasedbin the Black sea. Therefore HMC Ships have no way of entering the Black Sea.
Does the author also feel Canada should assume the unilateral responsibility for protecting the Odessa from Russian amphibious action? Ukraine will require some protection be in place before removing the mines guarding the port.
That said should there be a UN or NATO mission to escort grain ships out of the Ukraine, I would strongly support RCN participation.
Starvation in Afghanistan is already here, ongoing. Not being discussed, perhaps because fixing it would provide the military with no new work?
The people who can really win the Ukraine war, I think, are the good folks of western Europe that are not in the streets chanting "don't drive, don't fly, turn down your thermostat". If they can't be bothered to do that to impoverish the Russian war machine, I can't be bothered to get some Canadians shot trying to risk, ah "Toe-to-toe nuclear combat with the Russkies" [Slim Pickens, Dr. Strangelove]
First off, this is an excellent (but immensely distressing) column. It is immensely distressing simply because of it's truth.
The comments to this column pretty uniformly agree with the incredibly awful state of Canadian forces. Really, the only reason for the state of the forces is the selfishness of the Canadian electorate which always demands more and more bribes that must be financed somewhere, which means, of course, money from defense.
I started making notes to prepare my own comments along the above lines but I gave up. I will simply say that our navy, despite its many fine personnel, really has the real world capability of bath tub toys. That is to say, it has no real capability. As for the monies to be given to Irving? Well, how much will ultimately be spent (see latest demand for extra 300 million, etc.) and whether any new ships will be delivered in our grandchildren's lifetimes ....
Anyway, the whole state of Canada's defense infrastructure is so woeful that we might as well simply abolish the armed forces and put up a sign saying that anyone who wants (which sane country would?) can have this wretched country.
Reeeeaaaaally getting tired of academics preaching from their perch. They’re so far removed from reality through their self imposed world of academia ivory towers, their opinion matters little. Please stop publishing their drivel.