Wie wird Kanada seine neuen Verpflichtungen zur Verteidigungsausgaben erreichen?
https://ottawacitizen.com/public-service/defence-watch/canada-defence-spending-nato
Wie wird Kanada seine neuen Verpflichtungen zur Verteidigungsausgaben erreichen?
https://ottawacitizen.com/public-service/defence-watch/canada-defence-spending-nato
6 Kommentare
[deleted]
I think it’s gonna be a hell of a lot of complementary investments. Whether a high speed rail line or a missile factory, whether one project is for one commitment or not is simply a matter of marketing and results.
Personally imo if think we will make the commitment but never fulfill it…I think nato is just trying to appease trump.
There will be some creative accounting.
Moving a portion of the Coast Guard under DND is easy and keeps within the lines.
You can put some of the border security under defense too.
Bulk up cybersecurity is an easy win.
But we’re going to be buying a bunch of LAVs from GDLS in London, and probably a couple of surveillance aircraft from Saab/Bombardier.
The one thing I’d like to see is drone production. Something like the Iranian Shaheed units that are being used in Ukraine and some that are surveillance oriented. They’re effective and we’ve got all the skills to manufacture them en masse here.
>That means that Canadians at that point will be spending $150 billion annually on defence and security.
The only country that has openly threatened Canada is the United States who is a member of NATO. Article 5 leaves loopholes for other members to either not come to the defense of Canada if the US attacks us or only „take „such action as it deems necessary“ which may be as little as a written protest. So we are going to pay $150 billion dollars a year for a „peace of mind“ treaty that has no „peace of mind“ as I doubt that other NATO members would agree to take on the US.
>The US has historically resisted language that would make the *collective response automatic*. [in case they attack another member, smart move US]
>**“When Trump says there are many interpretations of Article 5, he’s technically right. It’s a leap of faith. It only works because members trust each other.“**
>“This vague wording leaves room for individual assessment and helps secure consensus among allies,“ said Olivier Kempf, a senior fellow at the Foundation of the Strategic Research.
A Fragile Cornerstone: Article 5: Trump reopens debate on NATO’s mutual defence pledge
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20250625-article-five-donald-trump-reopens-debate-nato-mutual-defence-pledge-usa
Elections are every 4 years, and this planning long passes that, so it could go by the wayside at any time… like so many other procurement projects