Close Menu
    Kanada

    Kanada erreicht NATO-Verteidigungsziel, aber die Opposition sagt, es sei „kreative Buchführung“


    Kanada erreicht NATO-Verteidigungsziel, aber die Opposition sagt, es sei „kreative Buchführung“

    https://nationalpost.com/news/government-reaches-2-nato-spending-target-keeping-ambitious-promise

    View 41 Comments

    41 Kommentare

    1. Hicalibre on

      They did add the CCG under DND back in September. That added nearly three billion to DnD spending.

    2. FootballLax on

      „Yes, the United States includes the 

      Coast Guard as part of its broader military and defense calculations. “

      So we are playing with the same rules now as others, get bent little PP.

    3. DangerousCable1411 on

      Conservatives fighting for their lives in the comments while getting what they wanted…

    4. Few_Replacement_5864 on

      Didn’t it come out a week or two ago that part of NATO defence spending included planting trees?

    6. Hlotse on

      The Conservatives could have said good move and pushed for more. Negative commentary does not always translate into voter approbation. Military spending under successive Canadian governments – Conservative and Liberal – has been flat for decades.

    7. TSAforlife on

      Well, they would know about that. Just ask them about Harper’s „surplus“.

    8. T4whereareyou on

      I see the Tories are now pissing on our military meeting their obligations to NATO. What next, complaining that we purchased aircraft, rifles, ships, submarines, and tanks?

    10. Saisinko on

      Government spending is usually the worst bang for buck ratio you can ever achieve. Businesses salivate at the thought of doing deals with government because they can take them to the cleaners.

      I want to double, triple, or quadruple dip as much as possible in terms of multi-purpose projects.

      For example,

      – „Critical minerals“ is a widely used term nowadays and we can hit defense spending targets by extracting and being able to transport these materials to our allies. This employs Canadians and leads to trade revenue even during peaceful times.

      – Drones are another area I believe are huge bang for buck and we should be investing heavily in them for surveillance and tethering some of our military aid to Ukraine for kick backs on their tech and expertise.

    11. ghost_n_the_shell on

      While I am very happy with the increased military spending, I think any sane person will agree this is actually the case.

    13. mayorolivia on

      While I support meeting our NATO commitment, we did it due to Trump bullying and haven’t gotten any benefits. He insulted our contribution to Afghanistan and is unwilling to lift tariffs.

    14. Minimum-Style-1411 on

      Well… it wasn’t the Liberals that proclaimed that the dollar amount was achieved. It was NATO that made the determination. 

    15. eoan_an on

      So we finally have funding for the CAF, and we’re supposed to be upset because there is some non-army accounts included?

      How are we supposed to take the national post seriously with these joke articles?

      Carney is increasing the budget for the army and soon, the extra accounts excluded, the goal will be past the 2%.

      This article is so useless.

    16. Axerin on

      A lot of countries do this. Nothing new or crazy about this.

      Some countries include veterans benefits some don’t. Some include paramilitary (like coast guard) budgets, some don’t.

    17. Valiant_Cake on

      Literally never satisfied.

      Our NATO numbers are submitted to NATO and they ratify and check. Nothing is just “trust me bro” for them. It’s a requirement from each ally. The critics don’t understand it’s not just the PM claiming this with no evidence.

    20. TorontoTom2008 on

      Team PP chirping without having constructive ideas. Who could have predicted.

    21. NavyDean on

      Lol other nations are sailing through our waters and some people are going to argue coastal ships aren’t defense and call it funny accounting?

      Good luck with that logic.

    22. Euclidisthebomb on

      The lunacy of the argument put forth by the Conservatives tells us they are disingenuous and unsuitable as leadership.

      Let us not forget that the last time the Conservatives were in power defence spending fell to under 1% of GDP.

      But beyond that anyone familiar with what our allies lump into their spending bucket would immediately find much fault with the theme put forth by the Conservatives.

      Just go take a look at how much of the American defense budget is devoted to veterans benefits. America uses their defense spending as an employment strategy, an economic strategy, an entitlement strategy and a benefits strategy. And each of those components is 2x or more the entire Canadian defence budget.

      Have fun dissecting some of the other NATO allies. Greece uses its military as an employment strategy – don’t have a job – into the military you go! One person per family to assist with income during the hard times of their economy.

      So the Carney government is shifting around responsibilities and tagging some spending as military and this is suddenly an issue. The fact is all government spending on behalf of Canada is also essentially in defence of Canada in some facet.

      What are we getting out of it? Better pay for the rank and file? Yes. Better living accommodations? Yes (sloowwly). New military hardware? Yes.

      Although Canada has already funded some new assets the laundry list of what is yet on the table is enormous:

      * submarine fleet
      * more jet fighters (only 16 are fully funded to date)
      * more destroyers (only 3 are funded to date)
      * light frigate fleet
      * new tank fleet
      * new self propelled 155mm fleet
      * theatre level SAM systems
      * light infantry vehicle fleet

      just those amount to probably another 1%-1.25% increase (against gdp) in the military budget. So arguing about the fact Carney has decided the next road to the arctic will be a cofunded military project (assuming that is the case) is trivial and meaningless in the long term.

      The day the Cons decide to contribute to serious discussion rather then stupid talking points I will listen to them. That time is not now.

    23. Asianpear98 on

      Canadian defense procurement is cooked.

      The requirements are written in Ottawa not by the troops/commanders. Often time this leads to someone in Ottawa tailoring the procurement requirements to meet the specifications of a product they have either been lobbied for, or been advertised about. This leads to alot of our procurement from boots to parachutes to rifles being foreign made.

      The process should be the opposite way around. We make the requirements and companies adjust their product to meet our requirements. Not our requirements made to match the companies products.

    24. Gecks777 on

      These are NATO numbers, NATO has certified we are at 2%, the only thing creative here is this ridiculous narrative.

    25. DukeandKate on

      I read the article. There is no specifics on „creative accounting“ just innuendo. So „where’s the beef?“

      Most other nations in NATO have the Coast Guard under armed forces and my understanding is that fisheries operations is not counted in the figures. So, I’d love to see some references to something specific about creative accounting.

      Shame on The Post for publishing opposition opinion without fact checks.

    26. Select-Bowler5267 on

      Volatus aerospace drones will fly in mirabel Quebec Monday morning during the defense contract announcements. Very excited!

    27. Dont-concentrate-556 on

      100% it’s creative accounting. But 2% couldn’t have been achieved any other way. It takes time to ramp up cyclical spending and there’s no point wasting precious tax dollars if you can’t properly spend it.

    29. Choosemyusername on

      Meanwhile CBC dutifully being the government’s hired stenographer and not doing this work.

    30. Tall_Ad4280 on

      Same creative accounting that allowed the conservatives to sell assets and claim they balanced the budget.

    31. vanwhisky on

      Of course it’s the conservative critic, Canada will never be able to satisfy their expectations. Call it creative accounting if you want but it’s making the numbers.

    32. Bob-Lawblaugh on

      Coming from the party (CPC) that had military spending at 1% GDP the last time they were in government. And somehow proclaim that they are the only ones that support the military.

    33. Symmetrecialharmony on

      I don’t understand it man. We hit 2% of GDP through accounting methods that are absolutely standard relative to other NATO nations (including the US FYI) but it isn’t enough, yet at the same time we are spending too much money and printing it as PP says.

      Like which is it do you want to fund the military or not. But this contradictory narrative of “we need to spend much much less” and also “I’d spend even more than the liberals on defence !” Makes no fucking sense man

    34. Jebus209 on

      Creative accounting for some of it, but most is exactly on par with the accounting the other NATO countries use, including the USA.

      But also its not like the Conservatives ever spent this much on defense so arent they showing their own past failures lol.

    35. Jbake5554 on

      The ONLY good thing about the war in Ukraine is that more NATO countries are meeting their defense targets. The nations of the West need each other now more than ever.

    36. Kaplaw on

      They didnt read the clear new plan to have 15K regular troops, 100K reserves and the creation of a 300K civilian semi-trained defense force?

      That alone with the new aquisitions being announced on military hardware, things are clawing back steadily but we need to claw back from very far and a long time of neglect from our government so we are not there yet.

    37. Minimum-Style-1411 on

      Since it is NATO that made the determination that Canada has met the spending criteria, and its opposition that proclaims that it is false, it must be the opposition of NATO, or Russia and it’s supporters that are decrying the spend. 

    38. Expensive_Plant_9530 on

      Sure but that’s the case with every NATO partner. You’re allowed to include certain defence adjacent things in the number.

    39. 10081914 on

      Oh no, a difference in accounting pushed us to 2%. That accounting is one that a lot of other countries also do to count their defence spending.

      Oh no, we added 9 billion to the defence budget.

      Oh no, we pledged to a 5% GDP budget for defence spending with NATO.

      Damn creative accounting.

    40. Forever49 on

      As they do with immigration numbers, the glibs are lying through their teeth about 2%.

    Leave A Reply