Harper's Tough Talk on Defense and Russia is just empty words

[-1=e^ipi]

Putin's entire goal is to conquer territory to increase the size of his empire. Territory which is radioactive is of little value.

No, his goal is to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO or the EU.

[On Guard for Thee]

No, his goal is to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO or the EU.

Putin has no control over Ukraine joining NATO. That's up to NATO and would take a lot of doing. Not nearly so much with them joining the EU. That's what he was/is afraid of. You must be joking with your comment about Putin and teh Crimea. Surely you jest!

[Bonam]

The moral of the story is that military spending advocates throughout the western world will continue to use WW2 as justification of increasing military spending regardless of the political situation of the country, and they will try to associate dissent with nazi supporters.

Canada in 2014 is very different from Europe in 1939. How hard is that to understand?

The point is that no matter how much you and your country may want peace, someone out there may not share the same desires. And it pays to be prepared. Obviously military expenditures should be scrutinized carefully, just like all government spending, but just because conflict may be unlikely does not mean we can allow our military to atrophy. If we can have a viable military force for 1-2% of GDP, it is not that expensive of an insurance policy against the worst case scenario. That is the way to think of military force in a world that is unlikely to throw conflict at Canada... insurance. You pay your insurance premium every month/year, knowing that in all likelihood you may never benefit from it. But in the unlikely case that something happens, the insurance is there.

Of course, one can argue over whether, if some conflict really did come, whether Canada's military would have any chance of meaningfully defending Canada. But that's just an argument over how big your insurance policy is...

[Derek 2.0]

Of course, one can argue over whether, if some conflict really did come, whether Canada's military would have any chance of meaningfully defending Canada. But that's just an argument over how big your insurance policy is...

Exactly, and to follow that meme, our membership in alliances like NATO and NORAD, garners us a level of savings through a group plan………..

[bush_cheney2004]

Yep...you never know when you may need a navy tow truck in the Pacific ocean.

[Derek 2.0]

Yep...you never know when you may need a navy tow truck in the Pacific ocean.

Indeed....

[-1=e^ipi]

Putin has no control over Ukraine joining NATO. That's up to NATO and would take a lot of doing. Not nearly so much with them joining the EU. That's what he was/is afraid of. You must be joking with your comment about Putin and teh Crimea. Surely you jest!

He has no direct control, which is why he wants to turn Ukraine into a 'federation' via the negotiations with the Eastern Ukrainian rebels. He basically wants Eastern Ukraine to have some sort of veto over whether or not Ukraine can join the EU & NATO or not.

And I'm not joking about Crimea. That was not Putin's original intent when the Russians put pressure on the Ukrainian government 1 year ago to continue with the Ukraine-EU association agreement.

[On Guard for Thee]

He has no direct control, which is why he wants to turn Ukraine into a 'federation' via the negotiations with the Eastern Ukrainian rebels. He basically wants Eastern Ukraine to have some sort of veto over whether or not Ukraine can join the EU & NATO or not.

And I'm not joking about Crimea. That was not Putin's original intent when the Russians put pressure on the Ukrainian government 1 year ago to continue with the Ukraine-EU association agreement.

You can buy that if you like. I reckon Crimea was just the first phase in a plan that is unfolding as we speak. I think he is on some sort of quest to try and revive the days of the USSR. He is pissing in the wind.

[-1=e^ipi]

but just because conflict may be unlikely does not mean we can allow our military to atrophy. If we can have a viable military force for 1-2% of GDP, it is not that expensive of an insurance policy against the worst case scenario.

But whether or not a threat is credible and the probability associated with that credible threat is relevant. Please explain what entity you think has a significant probability of invading Canada and why spending 1-2% of GDP is a reasonable cost for insurance against this possibility.

it is not that expensive of an insurance policy against the worst case scenario. That is the way to think of military force in a world that is unlikely to throw conflict at Canada... insurance.

Tell me, do you think spending 1-2% of GDP as 'pink unicorn insurance' is reasonable in case magic pink unicorns appear from nowhere and invade Canada? Isn't it better to be prepared than to not be prepared?

If you want to advocate spending 1-2% of GDP on military, please provide better justification than just 'well it's insurance'. Spending 5% would also be 'insurance' would it not? So why not 5%? 0.3 % would also be insurance. So maybe 0.3%?

[-1=e^ipi]

You can buy that if you like. I reckon Crimea was just the first phase in a plan that is unfolding as we speak. I think he is on some sort of quest to try and revive the days of the USSR. He is pissing in the wind.

Come on. You really think Putin predicted the violent protests in Western Ukraine followed by Western support for these protests, followed by the violent overthrow of the democratically elected government of Ukraine, followed by the new government in Ukraine being hostile to Russian-Ukrainians so much so that a separatist movement would develop in Crimea? That's too absurd.

[On Guard for Thee]

Come on. You really think Putin predicted the violent protests in Western Ukraine followed by Western support for these protests, followed by the violent overthrow of the democratically elected government of Ukraine, followed by the new government in Ukraine being hostile to Russian-Ukrainians so much so that a separatist movement would develop in Crimea? That's too absurd.

If only that darn Budapest Memorandum we signed would just disappear. In the good old days of USSR we could have that done toute suite comrade.

[Bonam]

But whether or not a threat is credible and the probability associated with that credible threat is relevant. Please explain what entity you think has a significant probability of invading Canada and why spending 1-2% of GDP is a reasonable cost for insurance against this possibility.

Tell me, do you think spending 1-2% of GDP as 'pink unicorn insurance' is reasonable in case magic pink unicorns appear from nowhere and invade Canada? Isn't it better to be prepared than to not be prepared?

If you want to advocate spending 1-2% of GDP on military, please provide better justification than just 'well it's insurance'. Spending 5% would also be 'insurance' would it not? So why not 5%? 0.3 % would also be insurance. So maybe 0.3%?

No I'm all on side with trying to properly estimate risks and limit the costs of addressing them accordingly. I do however think that trying to quantify the military risk that Canada faces over the next several decades is difficult, because predicting the future is difficult. 5 years ago, who could have predicted the current situation in Iraq and Syria? Or in Ukraine? Let alone 10-20 years ago (about the timescale of military acquisition programs apparently)?

I understand your point about the pink unicorns, but the chance Canada might face some kind of threat where it would benefit from having a military is higher than that (i.e. not zero).

In lieu of good predictions about what will happen in the future, a prudent course of action might simply be to have a comparable military force to the next guy, so as not to present an overly tempting target. And that's probably what about 1-2% spending can achieve.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Bonam

[-1=e^ipi]

If only that darn Budapest Memorandum we signed would just disappear. In the good old days of USSR we could have that done toute suite comrade.

The existence of the Budapest Memoradum doesn't change the fact that Putin didn't not plan to annex Crimea a year ago because the events that would need to occur for that were too unpredictable.

Also, do you think the Crimean people have the right to self determination?

[On Guard for Thee]

The existence of the Budapest Memoradum doesn't change the fact that Putin didn't not plan to annex Crimea a year ago because the events that would need to occur for that were too unpredictable.

Also, do you think the Crimean people have the right to self determination?

You're right. Putin certainly did plan to annex Crimea, which was an illegal act in international law due to the signature on that Memorandum. We all know the "vote" on self determination held there was about as big a joke as you can imagine.

[-1=e^ipi]

because predicting the future is difficult. 5 years ago, who could have predicted the current situation in Iraq and Syria?

Actually, 1.5 years ago I predicted Islamists taking over Syria if western governments were dumb enough to fund Islamist terrorists in order to wage a proxy war against Russia.

Or in Ukraine?

Apparently, according to various people in this thread, Putin did. Putin elaborately planned all the events leading up to the annexation of Crimea and now the war in Eastern Ukraine despite all the unpredictable events like the overthrow of the government in Kiev, western intervention, etc. Apparently, Putin has some psychic power to see into the future. *sarcasm*

No I'm all on side with trying to properly estimate risks and limit the costs of addressing them accordingly. I do however think that trying to quantify the military risk that Canada faces over the next several decades is difficult, ... Let alone 10-20 years ago (about the timescale of military acquisition programs apparently)?

I agree that 10-20 years is a reasonable time scale of military acquisition. So it is only necessary to reasonably predict possible scenarios over the next 20 years, not 'next several decades'. So let's agree upon that at least.

I understand your point about the pink unicorns, but the chance Canada might face some kind of threat where it would benefit from having a military is higher than that (i.e. not zero).

Sure, non zero, but not really significantly different from zero. Who is going to invade Canada in the next 20 years? Realistically, no one (and the burden of evidence is on the people that wish to suggest otherwise).

Are there direct threats to Canada? Sure. Islamist terrorist attacks being the biggest threat. Are there threats to our allies? Sure. South Korea is threatened by North Korea, Japan is threatened by China, Eastern Europe is threatened by Russia, the middle east and North Africa is an absolute mess, etc. Let's just be realistic about this and get over the traditional concept of the primary function of the military being about protecting the territorial integrity of a country from foreign threats.

In lieu of good predictions about what will happen in the future, a prudent course of action might simply be to have a comparable military force to the next guy, so as not to present an overly tempting target. And that's probably what about 1-2% spending can achieve.

Not a big fan of cliches but 'If everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you?'.Just because other countries do it, is not sufficient justification for Canada doing it as well. Also, the situation in Canada is very different from other countries. If anything Canada is an exception to the rule in that we can get away with a much smaller military than in other parts of the word due to our geographic location.

Edited September 3, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

You're right. Putin certainly did plan to annex Crimea, which was an illegal act in international law due to the signature on that Memorandum. We all know the "vote" on self determination held there was about as big a joke as you can imagine.

As I've said in other threads (particularly threads discussing first nations issues) I care more about the morality of a position than the legality of a position.

1. The Crimeans should have the right to self determination. What some deal between Kiev and Moscow 2 decades ago says will not change my position on whether or not the Crimeans should have the right to self determination. Similarly, I don't think some British Monarch from 2 centuries ago had the right to impose racist laws than apply to Canada today.

2. As for breaking 'international law'. Look at the UN charter.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml

The second purpose is:

"To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples"

According to the UN charter, people have the right to self-determination.

[On Guard for Thee]

As I've said in other threads (particularly threads discussing first nations issues) I care more about the morality of a position than the legality of a position.

1. The Crimeans should have the right to self determination. What some deal between Kiev and Moscow 2 decades ago says will not change my position on whether or not the Crimeans should have the right to self determination. Similarly, I don't think some British Monarch from 2 centuries ago had the right to impose racist laws than apply to Canada today.

2. As for breaking 'international law'. Look at the UN charter.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml

The second purpose is:

"To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples"

According to the UN charter, people have the right to self-determination.

Bit of a difference between Quebec having a referendum (two actually) and sending troops into Crimea to setup a totally phony vote with people having guns to their heads.

[-1=e^ipi]

Bit of a difference between Quebec having a referendum (two actually) and sending troops into Crimea to setup a totally phony vote with people having guns to their heads.

I agree. The Crimean referendum wasn't a proper referendum.

However, the West and the Western Ukrainians could have taken the position "Look we respect your right to self determination, but do not recognize the results of the referendum due to the circumstances in which they took place. If the Russian troops leave and peace is restored, we will allow for a future referendum that will allow the people of Crimea to determine to future of Crimea". Instead they took the position "We do not respect the results of the referendum, nor will we respect any future results because we do not recognize the right to self-determination of the people of Crimea due to the Budapest Memorandum. Crimea is and will always be part of Ukraine and any domestic protests against this will be seen as terrorism and foreign aggression".

The Crimeans had no choice for a 'fair referendum' thanks to the West. It was either have a biased referendum and then join Russia, or wait for the Ukrainian military to invade Crimea and oppress linguistic minorities.

The West could have avoided the current scenario in Ukraine for a more peaceful situation if they took the former position. Instead they took the later position so many people have died unnecessarily.

[Derek 2.0]

The Crimeans had no choice for a 'fair referendum' thanks to the West. It was either have a biased referendum and then join Russia, or wait for the Ukrainian military to invade Crimea and oppress linguistic minorities.

The West could have avoided the current scenario in Ukraine for a more peaceful situation if they took the former position. Instead they took the later position so many people have died unnecessarily.

Ahh, your narrative is incomplete with its failure to mention the Russian naval base in Sevastopol, which has been a strategically important asset to the Russians for over 200 years.....……In the Russians view, the instability in the Ukraine, gave the Russians no other choice then seize the Crimea…..this of course is not the “West’s fault”.

[On Guard for Thee]

The "referendum" wasn't biased. It was a totally foregone conclusion. A complete waste of paper was all it was. Putin is doing what he always planned to do. This referendum he must sip vodka and joke about to this day with his oligarch buddies.

[alexmac]

present day Liberals??? They are not the governing party - duh! Like I said, your act is a charade... you bend over backwards to dredge up 20-30+ year old references... anything to give your boy/your party cover. Your ridiculous post a short while back said it all. You made a grand gesture... suggesting Harper Conservatives have only ever done ONE thing wrong! Yes, in your "magnanimous" way, just ONE thing wrong!

I do not support any party as they are all crooks and Harper will go down in history as the biggest so far. Only thing I hear is "well look at what the Liberals did" . So because the liberals robbed the country that gives Harper the right to rape the rest of Canada. Harper is out of his league and is a liar and embarrassment to all here in our country. As far as how he has dealt with Russia is just one example....sanctions yup great except he forgot Putins right hand guys who have invested millions here and those companies have made contributions to the conservative party and before you reply check your data . Baird is an embarrassment Alexander is on the same level and the list goes on. This is not a hockey game and the only losers for incompetent people like Harper is us the people who pay for this moron. Check out his pay and what his pension will be , he is supposed to be working for us not the other way around and the way he is handling things Russia will be at our door step and I mean inside the 200 mile limit , then what more harsh and empty words.

[PIK]

That was 80 years ago. Please understand that the world today is very different from 80 years ago.

The moral of the story is that military spending advocates throughout the western world will continue to use WW2 as justification of increasing military spending regardless of the political situation of the country, and they will try to associate dissent with nazi supporters.

Canada in 2014 is very different from Europe in 1939. How hard is that to understand?

You never know when a giant pink unicorn will appear out of nowhere and invade Canada with magical rainbow farts! Does that mean we should spend money on magical pink unicorn insurance? Your position is basically an extreme version of the precautionary principle.

The probability of an outcome is relevant in decision making, not just if the outcome is a possibility or not.

No the world is not different, some people just don't learn from history, that why is repeats it's self.

[Keepitsimple]

I do not support any party as they are all crooks and Harper will go down in history as the biggest so far. Only thing I hear is "well look at what the Liberals did" . So because the liberals robbed the country that gives Harper the right to rape the rest of Canada. Harper is out of his league and is a liar and embarrassment to all here in our country. As far as how he has dealt with Russia is just one example....sanctions yup great except he forgot Putins right hand guys who have invested millions here and those companies have made contributions to the conservative party and before you reply check your data . Baird is an embarrassment Alexander is on the same level and the list goes on. This is not a hockey game and the only losers for incompetent people like Harper is us the people who pay for this moron. Check out his pay and what his pension will be , he is supposed to be working for us not the other way around and the way he is handling things Russia will be at our door step and I mean inside the 200 mile limit , then what more harsh and empty words.

I take it you will not be voting for him?

[Keepitsimple]

Here's what the Prime Minister said:

The government's approach has always been to guard the federal treasury, rather than specifying a dollar figure before deciding how to spend it, he said.

"We go out and figure out what it is we need to do, and then we attempt to get a budget as frugally as possible to achieve those objectives," Harper said.

"When it comes to spending, we can argue about spending, but the reality is this: Everything NATO has done in recent years, whether it's been the mission to Afghanistan, the mission to Libya and now the reassurance mission to Eastern Europe, Canada has not only contributed everything that it has (been) asked in those missions, we have contributed disproportionately. So don't tell me about how much you're spending, tell me about how much you are doing."

Link: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/harper-defends-defence-budget-against-nato-criticism-125300305.html

[overthere]

"When it comes to spending, we can argue about spending, but the reality is this: Everything NATO has done in recent years, whether it's been the mission to Afghanistan, the mission to Libya and now the reassurance mission to Eastern Europe, Canada has not only contributed everything that it has (been) asked in those missions, we have contributed disproportionately. So don't tell me about how much you're spending, tell me about how much you are doing."

That is a direct shot at NATO allies like Germany, France, Spain, Italy and others who were physically present in Afghanistan but refused any significant combat roles the entire time, choosing instead to cower in their bases.

Canada had a combat role.