Russia Approaching Canadian Airspace!

bluegreen · March 1, 2009

Yes they will back us up but they also should know that we have something to bring to the table as well...........Canada expects other countries to fight our battles for us and i am sorry i don't agree with that,if we are to be in Nato we should be able to pull our own weight militarily otherwise why be in Nato at all?
this website shows where we rank in the world.....i mean seriously Mexico has us beat!

http://www.globalfirepower.com/

Just in passing, I followed your' link, and in my estimation, every single country on the top 39 list has at least some conventional threat facing them, which would possibly justify their level of armament. There is not a single country on the list which is in as safe a position as we are, provided you accept the proviso that the USA poses no military threat to Canada. Even if the US did pose such a threat, we would be better served by massively stockpiling small arms than conventional force upgrades.

wulf42 · March 1, 2009

Just in passing, I followed your' link, and in my estimation, every single country on the top 39 list has at least some conventional threat facing them, which would possibly justify their level of armament. There is not a single country on the list which is in as safe a position as we are, provided you accept the proviso that the USA poses no military threat to Canada. Even if the US did pose such a threat, we would be better served by massively stockpiling small arms than conventional force upgrades.

Yes i think of the USA as our friends and i always have ......and considering most of our weapons comes from them i guess we can consider them safe....I realize Canada doesn't have the manpower or money they do but even if can just moderize our armed forces a bit just enough so the Russians won't be to tempted to brush us off as insignificant. Actually i am very pro American i don t like every thing they do but i like their justice system alot better than ours...but i will save that for another thread...lol!

Smallc · March 1, 2009

can just modernize our armed forces a bit

What do you think we've been doing since 2001 or so?

wulf42 · March 1, 2009

What do you think we've been doing since 2001 or so?

Well we haven't done enough i see the H.M.C.S Preserver everyday and she's looking a little old..like 1950's old

but hopefully we will get new supply ships soon.

Edited March 1, 2009 by wulf42

Smallc · March 1, 2009

Well we haven't done enough i see the H.M.C.S Preserver everyday and she's looking a little old..like 1950's old.

Yes, the ship is old....but they'll keep it in near perfect condition and running fine as long as they need to. I would like new supply ships too, but the Conservatives canceled the contracts.

I don't really see how supply ships are going to scare the Russians though. What I'd like to see is a squadron of F18s on permanent station in the arctic.

Edited March 1, 2009 by Smallc

Progressive Tory · March 1, 2009

Isn't Sarah Palin supposed to handle this kind of thing?

She can't. She's still standing in the Senate building waiting for someone to take her to her new office.

Progressive Tory · March 1, 2009

Lucky for the Liberal Party he doesn't write their press releases.

Lucky for Canadians our military critic is aware of the new Nato-Russian relationship. Otherwise they would think they were our enemies.

Declaration by Heads of State and Government of NATO Member States and the Russian Federation

"At the start of the 21st century we live in a new, closely interrelated world, in which unprecedented new threats and challenges demand increasingly united responses. Consequently, we, the member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Russian Federation are today opening a new page in our relations, aimed at enhancing our ability to work together in areas of common interest and to stand together against common threats and risks to our security."

Russia open to better relations with NATO

"Russia is open to the possibility of letting the United States and NATO ship weaponry across its territory to Afghanistan if the broader relationship between Moscow and the West improves, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Wednesday.

Lavrov spoke after a meeting at which U.S. and Russian diplomats discussed logistical details of possible U.S. shipments of nonlethal supplies to Afghanistan via Russia. Moscow has allowed nonlethal cargo from European nations to cross its territory and said last week that it would let the United States do the same."

Maybe the Conservatives didn't get the memo.

Progressive Tory · March 1, 2009

this website shows where we rank in the world.....i mean seriously Mexico has us beat!

Again, population - Mexico in 2008: 109,955,400 and Canada for the same year: 33,212,696. We simply do not have the population to support a large army and consequently, the revenue. We chose healthcare ove BB Guns and pea shooters.

We do better with NATO and even the U.S. is now working with Russia to allow entry to Afghanistan from that country. They'd have Harper by the short hairs if he dared to mess with that.

He's just looking for a headline, any headline; to give the illusion that he is still running the country.

Progressive Tory · March 1, 2009

Russians won't be to tempted to brush us off as insignificant.

Russia does not think we are insignicant because of our big brother, who would knock their lights out if they tried anything.

The U.S. is working toward collective security with Russia, and we can't go up against the U.S.A. by pretending to be Rambo. We'd look like idiots and would deserve to have our butts kicked. This was a non-issue.

Progressive Tory · March 1, 2009

I don't really see how supply ships are going to scare the Russians though. What I'd like to see is a squadron of F18s on permanent station in the arctic.

It wouldn't do any good. We're fighting the sovereignty issue with the Americans, who are fighting it with the Russians and the EU. We're just stuck in the middle and unless we want to take them all on, that's where we'll stay.

capricorn · March 1, 2009

Lucky for Canadians our military critic is aware of the new Nato-Russian relationship. Otherwise they would think they were our enemies.

Lucky for us Coderre isn't Defence Minister. Thinking Russia is a NATO partner, he would have provided the Tupolev bomber a military escort to guide it into our air space. What a dork.

capricorn · March 1, 2009

The U.S. is working toward collective security with Russia, and we can't go up against the U.S.A. by pretending to be Rambo.

Russian-American relations are their business. It's refreshing that the Conservatives don't feel the need to check with the US government before taking action to assert our sovereignty in the North.

This was a non-issue.

Not so. If Russia's actions in the Arctic are so benign, why are 5 Nordic countries banding together to protect their borders?

The proposed Nordic "declaration of solidarity" - recommended in a recent report commissioned by the governments of Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Iceland - is to be considered at a May summit of foreign ministers from the five nations.
Prepared by former Norwegian foreign minister Thorvald Stoltenberg - father of Norway's current prime minister, Jens Stoltenberg - the report argues for much greater co-operation among the Nordic nations, including Denmark's Greenland, in an era when melting ice is opening the Arctic Ocean to shipping, tourism and oil exploration.

"The Nordic governments should issue a mutual declaration of solidarity," the Stoltenberg report argued, as part of a plan laying out "how they would respond if a Nordic country were subject to external attack or undue pressure."

It's yet another sign, said University of Calgary political scientist Rob Huebert, of the intensifying international interest in the oil-rich Arctic, its increased strategic importance for northern nations and - above all - a growing wariness of Russia's revitalized military activity in the polar north.

The Nordic proposal, said Huebert, is clearly "Russia-inspired" - driven by recent signals from Moscow that the Arctic is a prime focus for Russia's economic growth and resurgent military.

Along with an increase in Russian patrol flights in the Arctic near Canadian and U.S. air space, the Kremlin recently committed to strengthening military training and infrastructure in its Far North.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Arctic...1510/story.html

Progressive Tory · March 1, 2009

Russian-American relations are their business. It's refreshing that the Conservatives don't feel the need to check with the US government before taking action to assert our sovereignty in the North.

This is not just about Russian/American relations. NATO is also working closely. It's called the NATO-Russian Council

NATO member states and Russia working together as equal partners in areas of common interest

"The NATO-Russia Council (NRC) is a mechanism for consultation, consensus-building, cooperation, joint decision and joint action, in which the individual NATO member states and Russia work as equal partners on a wide spectrum of security issues of common interest."

Now I'm not positive but I think we have one or two soldiers in Afghanistan who could benefit from access through Russia. We've spent 11.3 billion dollars there so I assume we do.

Afghanistan Help Restores NATO-Russia Ties

NATO, Russia Mend Relations As Afghan War Heats Up

So again, Russia is not our enemy and the Sovereignty issue is between the United States and Canada. The United States and Russia. The United States and the European Union.

Bush asserts power over Arctic

"In his final days in power, President George W. Bush asserted U. S. military "sea power" over the oil-rich Arctic on Monday, in another forceful rebuttal of Canada's claims of sovereignty over the Northwest Passage."

Now if you want to believe that the Conservatives are actually stupid enough to shoot down a Russian plane because they are deluded enough to think we will win the Arctic conflict, those are your beliefs, not mine. I've been giving them credit for common sense. Maybe I shouldn't have.

Maybe you're right and Harper really is an idiot. Who knew?

capricorn · March 1, 2009

PT, I don't know why you're going to so much trouble providing all this info that really doesn't cause me any concern. All this effort in response to my observation that Coderre, the Defence critic no less, didn't know that Russia is not a NATO country.

Carry on.

bluegreen · March 1, 2009

This is not just about Russian/American relations. NATO is also working closely. It's called the NATO-Russian Council
NATO member states and Russia working together as equal partners in areas of common interest

"The NATO-Russia Council (NRC) is a mechanism for consultation, consensus-building, cooperation, joint decision and joint action, in which the individual NATO member states and Russia work as equal partners on a wide spectrum of security issues of common interest."

Now I'm not positive but I think we have one or two soldiers in Afghanistan who could benefit from access through Russia. We've spent 11.3 billion dollars there so I assume we do.

Afghanistan Help Restores NATO-Russia Ties

NATO, Russia Mend Relations As Afghan War Heats Up

So again, Russia is not our enemy and the Sovereignty issue is between the United States and Canada. The United States and Russia. The United States and the European Union.

Bush asserts power over Arctic

"In his final days in power, President George W. Bush asserted U. S. military "sea power" over the oil-rich Arctic on Monday, in another forceful rebuttal of Canada's claims of sovereignty over the Northwest Passage."

Now if you want to believe that the Conservatives are actually stupid enough to shoot down a Russian plane because they are deluded enough to think we will win the Arctic conflict, those are your beliefs, not mine. I've been giving them credit for common sense. Maybe I shouldn't have.

Maybe you're right and Harper really is an idiot. Who knew?

These links are pretty dated. Digging up links on long dead and dated political talks does not support a case that Russia is anything other than a competitor. Please note that access to Afghanistan was withdrawn long ago. Russia has been pressuring their central asian neighbours to close the US bases granted in the early days of the NATO-Afghan conflict, and those neighbours have been complying. The fact that Bear's are crossing the Arctic again is a small part in Russias changed stance towards NATO. It is clear that Russia deems NATO to be a strategic threat to their interests, (and incidentally, based upon NATO behaviour, from their perspective they are absolutely correct).

Whatever Party is in power in Canada, there is going to be some form of conflict over arctic resources. Whether their will be a military conflict, or whether it will be contained in the international courts, and diplomatic venues remains to be seen. Every party with any sort of claim, including Canada will be pressing their claims as far as they can. There's probably a ton of loot up for grabs, and as a pundit once said, 'Nations have no permanent friends, just permanent interests.' One thing is certain, that only those nations with the ability to project power into the Arctic will have any serious wins in the conflict. Russia is sensibly flexing thier muscles. Bush's response has been heard. Canada has staked her claim. Denmark likewise. Europe's interest is in an open water route to Asia, and they have made this interest plain. That's just 'our' arctic. Scandinavia is also establishing their joint posture, because their interests do not precisely align with the US, or Europe. I guess that they would be our best friends in this tug of war.

So I'll throw out a question for y'all. Is it worth competing with the big boys in this conflict? Does what's at stake justify the risks, and treasure required to play this century's "Great Game"?

Oleg Bach · March 1, 2009

It's not a great game. It is a poor and silly game. Why is it that those who end up running the world are such fools and mischief makers - adventurers that seek thrills and don't care if their thrill seeking kills innocent bystanders. Russian incursion is generated by the mindset that rules Russia - a little former FGB hooilgan like Putin is to stupid to do anything that is peaceful - these are violent indivuduals who have no class - because the Russian revolution and WW2 - killed all of the classy people...and all that is left to rule are ambitious peasant boys who are simply mafia.

Progressive Tory · March 1, 2009

PT, I don't know why you're going to so much trouble providing all this info that really doesn't cause me any concern. All this effort in response to my observation that Coderre, the Defence critic no less, didn't know that Russia is not a NATO country.

I'm not sure why you made it an issue at all. We were discussing shooting down the Russian plane. The military critic was simply saying that the Russians should have warned us first, with the understanding that they are indeed an ally. A member of NATO or supporter of NATO. They are still on our side. We don't shoot at them.

Carry on.

You're the only one on the internet who thinks this is an issue. I thought considering the thread topic that you saw them as an enemy. Who knew it was just semantics.

Progressive Tory · March 1, 2009

It's not a great game. It is a poor and silly game. .

It's all about Peter Mackay trying to make headlines in his bid to be secretary general of NATO. The whole thing was ridiculous.

Smallc · March 1, 2009

A member of NATO or supporter of NATO. They are still on our side.

In reality, they're none of those things. I can tell you with almost absolute certainty that almost no NATO government trusts Russia.

Smallc · March 1, 2009

It's all about Peter Mackay trying to make headlines in his bid to be secretary general of NATO.

Or maybe they really want the Russians to back off. Not everything the Conservative Government does is for personal gain. Russia is doing what it's doing for a reason. I'm sure that whatever that reason is, we probably wouldn't like it.

capricorn · March 1, 2009

You're the only one on the internet who thinks this is an issue. I thought considering the thread topic that you saw them as an enemy. Who knew it was just semantics.

Coderre made the comment to the French press. They did not catch his goof. I did. It's an issue because what the Liberal Defence critic says about the matter is quite relevant. As Defence critic, Coderre needs to increase his knowledge of such basic facts as which countries NATO represents.

bluegreen · March 1, 2009

It's all about Peter Mackay trying to make headlines in his bid to be secretary general of NATO. The whole thing was ridiculous.

Yes, and No. The Great Game played out between Russia and Britain over Afghanistan was so called because of it's complexity. The stakes here are just as big. Mackay was playing for the camera's, sure, and that's what politicians do. Doesn't mean that there's not something serious underlying his silly grandstanding.

These are some of the strategic implications of global warming, and they are now with us. Conservative, Liberal, Green, whatever. The opening moves of this very important 'game' have been made, and 99.9% of Canadians have little true knowledge of what's happening. This is a great forum for having a go at the real issues. Canadians ought to understand a little more about it, because bet your' boots we are going to be asked to invest a lot of treasure, and to formulate complex foreign policies with big implications.

Edited March 1, 2009 by bluegreen

bluegreen · March 1, 2009

Or maybe they really want the Russians to back off. Not everything the Conservative Government does is for personal gain. Russia is doing what it's doing for a reason. I'm sure that whatever that reason is, we probably wouldn't like it.

Now Smallc is wrong and right. Everything the Conservatives do IS for personal game . You're right that Russia has many reasons, and we shouldn't like it. They aren't our enemies any more than the americans are. They are competitors in the Arctic though, no less than the americans are. ( And Danes, and Europeans, etc..)

Smallc · March 1, 2009

They aren't our enemies any more than the Americans are.

Now I'll have to say yes and no to that. I think as a country we can trust the United States more than we can trust Russia. They may not be our enemies....but they're certainly not our best friends.

bluegreen · March 1, 2009

Now I'll have to say yes and no to that. I think as a country we can trust the United States more than we can trust Russia. They may not be our enemies....but they're certainly not our best friends.

I'll reiterate a prior quote:

"Nations have no permanent friends, only permanent interests."

It may sound cynical, but it has guided statesmen's actions for all recorded history. In this matter, Canada has no friends, only shared interests. I don't think we share interests with anybody involved, except the Scandinavians who would like to exert sovereign control over 'their' slice of the Arctic, and have a similar strategic, and geographical position to Canada's.