Wie Mark Carney Militärausgaben in eine Kraft für wirtschaftliche Erneuerung verwandelt

Between the government waste thats been un checked for over a decade and the potential procurement of manufacturing and mineral supply deals this might not cost as much as everyone thinks if its played out properly.

It also moves the ball and builds our relationship with other country’s that we desperately need more trade with m

The way I read it, 3.5% has to come from the historical definition of NATO defence spending. This can include infrastructure upgrades (long overdue), R&D (a great economic lever), peacekeeping and humanitarian aid (always good – I expect Ukraine money might be allocated here), cybersecurity (a no-brainer). Only 20% must be spent on equipment and R&D can be a part of this.

1.5% is more flexible and can come from improving a country’s infrastructure, “protect critical infrastructure, defend networks, ensure civil preparedness and resilience, innovate, and strengthen the defence industrial base.”

Think about Carney’s comfort zone: he’s an economist, not a military zealot.

I expect he will game the NATO rules to maximize economic benefits rather than build weapons stockpiles, with a strategic vision to enhance Canada’s long-weakened ability to project its soft power foreign diplomacy.

This is where the dogmatism of the NDP continues to fail (I typically vote NDP except voted Liberal this time around due to the absence of vision from the NDP).

Politicians who want to truly serve this country need to start acting with objectivity rather than cling to dogmatic messaging designed for “bases”.

A leader doesn’t choose the easy way out, or keep looking behind to see if their followers are following. Have a vision, get elected, execute on your vision, and when the next election comes around, you get your report card.