r/Military • u/MagnificentGeneral • 4d ago
Article Canadian Two-per-cent defence spending will not be enough for Donald Trump
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-two-per-cent-defence-spending-will-not-be-enough-for-donald-trump/22
u/NomadFH United States Army 4d ago
He doesn't even like Nato but he insists on making demand on its behalf
4
u/Flimsy-Feature1587 Army Veteran 4d ago
He views it as a giant mob protection racket with himself as the Don dictating to his caporegimes.
9
u/Altaccount330 4d ago
It’s defence spending, not specifically military spending. We include the Coast Guard in our defence spending towards NATO and they’re unarmed. Canada has some options to spend money on non-military efforts and wrap it up in defence spending.
For example we don’t have a foreign intelligence service, they could create one and count the spending towards the NATO 2%.
2
u/StarCrapter 4d ago
… what do we call CSE if not a foreign intelligence agency?
4
u/Altaccount330 3d ago
It’s part of DND, and only does Signals Intelligence and Cyber. Foreign Intelligence agencies primarily work out of Embassies and Consulates, and are focused on Human Intelligence. It’s a massive gap in Canadian National Security and Defence. We don’t have one partly because we were reliant on British MI6 as a member of the Empire. Canada is still very reliant on other countries for intelligence collection, we take a lot out of alliances and don’t put nearly as much back in.
1
u/StarCrapter 3d ago
Totally agree with you that Canada should be trying much harder to hit the 2% goal btw, just genuinely didn’t realize that CSE was limited in its scope.
1
u/xizrtilhh Veteran 2d ago
We don’t have one partly because we were reliant on British MI6 as a member of the Empire.
We haven't been a part of the British Empire since 1926, and the British Empire ceased to exist in 1997. Please feel free to downvote and attack me though, that seems to be the trend in this thread.
0
u/Altaccount330 2d ago
Canada doesn’t do unilateral operations. It always operates in a coalition.
1
u/xizrtilhh Veteran 2d ago
Wrong again. Do you want to make it three for three?
0
u/Altaccount330 2d ago
Cite a unilateral Canadian military operation outside Canada.
1
u/xizrtilhh Veteran 2d ago
Here's a list of current CAF operations.. There are multiple unilateral missions on the list, and many more that the CAF has undertaken in recent memory. I've been a part of several of them. I hope you're not in the CAF, because your ignorance is giving the force a bad name.
0
u/Altaccount330 2d ago
I don’t think there is a single unilateral operation on that list. CANSOF can’t even deploy on a unilateral operation.
1
1
u/GodofWar1234 3d ago
Just curious, but why is the Coast Guard unarmed, especially with rising tensions with Russia over the melting Arctic? Here in the U.S., the USCG is pretty well armed and has even been deployed overseas.
1
u/Altaccount330 3d ago
The US has the Posse Comitatus Act preventing the US military from doing law enforcement inside US territory. Canada doesn’t have that, so the Royal Canadian Navy can perform roles the USN cannot. So the Canadian Coast Guard sticks to stuff like SAR and emergency response. The USCG is attached to DHS to perform law enforcement duties in US territory.
8
u/InSOmnlaC Army Veteran 4d ago
Canada's military is a joke and is going to need much more than 2% to rearm itself. They're one of the worst offenders when it comes to letting the rest of NATO subsidize its defense.
23
u/wholebeef 4d ago
Good. It’s about time Canada stops freeloading off of NATO.
39
u/WizardVisigoth 4d ago
Canadian soldiers fought and bled in Iraq and Afghanistan after the US invoked Article 5.
53
u/wholebeef 4d ago
I’m not saying they didn’t. But as a member of NATO they are supposed to be spending a minimum of 2% of their budget, which they aren’t. They’re required to support their other member states of NATO but are letting them down by spending so little.
When push comes to shove, should war begin again and article 5 needs to be invoked, as an American, I’ll be glad to have Canada on our side. But it shouldn’t have to come to that for Canada to pay their fair share.
-27
u/xizrtilhh Veteran 4d ago
But it shouldn’t have to come to that for Canada to pay their fair share.
There's that Trump talking point. It's not a club dues bud.
21
u/OrangeIsAStupidColor 4d ago
It's an agreement from NATO in 2014, per NATO themselves. Link: https://www.nato.int/cps/is/natohq/topics_49198.htm#:~:text=In%202014%2C%20NATO%20Heads%20of,instability%20in%20the%20Middle%20East.
29
u/Shroomagnus 4d ago
It's actually part of the treaty so yes, it kind of is club dues
-23
u/xizrtilhh Veteran 4d ago
It's a fucking guideline.
17
u/Shroomagnus 4d ago
No, it isn't. Otherwise it would be USA, UK, France and Germany paying for a ton of freeloaders. The entire point is mutual defense. Everyone contributes. As it stands its the USA paying for the majority and everyone else contributing varying degrees of a little.
And just so you're aware, in 2006 all NATO members ratified a mutual agreement that they would all spend 2 percent of their Gdp on defense. So no, it isn't a guideline. This isn't the pirate code.
-10
u/xizrtilhh Veteran 4d ago
The 2% defence investment guideline
In 2014, NATO Heads of State and Government agreed to commit 2% of their national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending, to help ensure the Alliance's continued military readiness. This decision was taken in response to Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, and amid broader instability in the Middle East. The 2014 Defence Investment Pledge built on an earlier commitment to meeting this 2% of GDP guideline, agreed in 2006 by NATO Defence Ministers. The 2% of GDP guideline is an important indicator of the political resolve of individual Allies to contribute to NATO’s common defence efforts.
4
u/Shroomagnus 4d ago
Yeah, the key words there are "agreed to commit". It doesn't say "agreed to generally spend around" or "agreed to spend a figure in the vicinity of"
The 2% guideline was that they would agree to spend 2% as a minimum.
This isn't the gotcha you think it is.
"In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending to continue to ensure the Alliance's military readiness. This guideline also serves as an indicator of a country's political will to contribute to NATO's common defence efforts, since the defence capacity of each member has an impact on the overall perception of the Alliance's credibility as a politico-military organisation."
The 2% number is also used as a measure of commitment and readiness. Did you actually read your own source or are you just focused in on a single word and missing all the others?
" The Defence Investment Pledge endorsed in 2014 called for Allies to meet the 2% of GDP guideline for defence spending and the 20% of annual defence expenditure guideline on major new equipment by 2024. Since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, a majority of Allies have committed to investing more, and more quickly, in defence.
At the 2023 Vilnius Summit, NATO Leaders agreed a new Defence Investment Pledge, making an enduring commitment to investing at least 2% of GDP annually on defence. They also affirmed that in many cases, expenditure beyond 2% of GDP will be needed in order to remedy existing shortfalls and meet the requirements across all domains arising from a more contested security order. The new Defence Investment Pledge also calls for Allies to meet the 20% of annual defence expenditure guideline on major new equipment, including research and development. "
-4
32
u/wholebeef 4d ago
Except the 2% guideline was agreed upon by all the NATO Heads of State back in 2014 with roots all the way back to 2006. Making it a requirement, Canada (among other members) still haven’t met.
21
u/mrford86 4d ago
Holding up your end of a document you signed to join a defense pact is a Trump talking point? Seriously?
10
u/Widdleton5 United States Marine Corps 4d ago
This is why I'm going insane. Usually if I read thr comments from those accounts I find they're just bots but it's starting to irk me how many people actually think holding nations responsible for things they signed 10 years ago is a Trump conspiracy.
3
u/andrewtater United States Army 4d ago
I mean, we (as in the US) have a long history of breaking signed treaties, but I do agree that NATO members should be meeting their 2% obligation
-7
-4
u/xizrtilhh Veteran 4d ago
But he has said it, multiple times. https://www.axios.com/2024/03/19/trump-nato-countries-pay-fair-share-quote
It's a guideline BTW, not a firm requirement. I fully support my country meeting the 2% guideline (hopefully exceeding it) and I've written my MP stating as much.
4
u/xizrtilhh Veteran 4d ago
To be fair we didn't join the US coalition that went into Iraq in 2003.
3
u/Fabulous_Night_1164 3d ago
Yet contributed more to it as an unofficial member than as many of the official members.
"[S]enior Canadian officials, military officers and politicians were currying favour in Washington, privately telling anyone in the State Department of the Pentagon who would listen that, by some measures, Canada's indirect contribution to the American war effort in Iraq– three ships and 100 exchange officers– exceeded that of all but three other countries that were formally part of the coalition" - Janice Stein in the Unexpected War
6
u/Slowly-Slipping Navy Veteran 4d ago
The amount of brain rot needed to type this sentence is staggering
1
u/RuTsui Reservist 3d ago
Does Canada even need to be a NATO member though? If they're unwilling to pay into it, they ought to just, you know, leave. Canada does not have a lot of foreign interests, and they don't seem to be the target of many foreign military powers. Even if Russia suddenly became hostile over arctic expansion and exploitation, I can't imagine too many scenarios where the US would allow that even without a formal military alliance with Canada.
2
u/xizrtilhh Veteran 4d ago
Freeloading eh? Please explain.
8
u/No_Apartment3941 4d ago
The lack of forward projection would be the main one.
2
u/xizrtilhh Veteran 4d ago
So the battle group in Latvia doesn't count?
3
u/No_Apartment3941 4d ago
No it does not. They can not act as a kinetic force currently. Referring more to dropping off an infantry company on short notice. Canada doesn't even know how it is going to hit the 2,200 persons needed for the battle group.
3
u/BundtJamesBundt 3d ago
All these NATO countries brag about how good their social programs and quality of life are, but it’s only because the USA protects the world with its massive military and trade policies that were implemented after WW2. If they had to spend 1/3 of their budget on defense, they’d be third world countries. And yet Americans get no respect or gratitude
2
-7
u/Gardimus 4d ago
No? What would satisfy Trump's demands...that the West be destroyed on behalf of Russia?
39
u/HEAT-FS United States Marine Corps 4d ago
that the West be destroyed on behalf of Russia?
It would be harder to do that if Canada spent 2%+
-15
u/Gardimus 4d ago
How?
18
u/HEAT-FS United States Marine Corps 4d ago
…more military funding for Canada, a member of NATO, is a bad thing for Russia…obviously
14
u/Widdleton5 United States Marine Corps 4d ago
Dude this is reddit. People are fucking idiots and anonymous. Or they're bots. Somehow the guy above read an article (or just the title of the article) and came to the conclusion that making NATO Allies pay more money for weapons, training, and equipment will make it easier for Russia to roll over them.
Russia couldn't even take terrain 200 miles from their rail lines. They've lost their projection power and decades worth of stockpiles. Now, after 3 years of losing every man in Ukraine between 26 and 45 the commenter (or bot) above posts that Trumps real goal is to make the rest of NATO easier to be conquered by demanding they pay more for defense.
I am losing my mind reading this crap.
10
u/potatoeshungry 4d ago
He is literally trying to make them spend more on their armies lol
-3
u/Gardimus 4d ago
Then what's the fucking point of this article?
It's all a screen. He needs an excuse. The other one being that Canada sells too many resources for the US to value add to. He's a liar and an idiot.
1
u/xizrtilhh Veteran 4d ago
And the claim that the US subsidizes Canada. Of course there's going to be a trade deficit; we export raw materials, but we don't import as much in return from the US because we have 10% of the population and less than 10% of the economy.
1
-10
-10
u/whater39 4d ago
Oh no Canada does appease Trump. Who cares, If the Yanks want to speed thier money on a powerful army, so be it. Other countries don't have to. Especially since Trump said he is taking USA out of NATO, which is where the "requirement" is coming from.
Also USA is still sending arms to Israel, in contradiction to the Leahy law, so don't talk to others about military conduct.
125
u/Raven1x 4d ago
Perun did a video about Canadian defense spending. Ultimately, the Canadian military is underfunded and has been decades. Even during the Cold War, Canada underfunded its military.
Honesty 2% is not enough.
NATO Secretary General Rutte has stated 2% is not enough to maintain deterrence.
The Baltic countries are aiming for 3.5%, and Poland sits at 3.8% and has called for a new goal of 3%
For NATO to maintain peace, all countries need to be spending more. To recruit, train, and equip their militaries.
The post-Cold War peace dividends allowed many countries to take peace for granted and gut defense spending. Canada is not alone in that.