PS. If any of you watchers happen to work for governments or Think Tanks: I do these for fun in my spare time. It's a hobby. I can do far more substantive work like I used to do at the RAND Corporation with modest financial backing. If any of you think that might be of use...
Just a note much of are gear has gone threw upgrade periods are tanks lavs jets and ships have all under gone mid life upgrade and overhaul periods the jets got new radars and flight and weapon control systems I think...and the ships got new radar sonar and I think weapons systems if I'm not wrong ...the tanks underwent some targeting system upgrades and armour updating same with the lavs what we do havw that is operating is not as outdated as you mentioned
one of the reasons for the gratitude is extracted from official Canadian armed forces diaries "in the Netherlands, the Canadians did their best to limit collateral or excess damage to the countryside. This meant no large artillery barrages and limited use of tactical air power to support an attack. They wanted to avoid as much unnecessary death and destruction as possible in the Netherlands. The people had been starving and brutally treated since 19940. Literally nothing but tulip bulbs to eat in some areas when the Canadians arrived.
People also regularly overlook Canada's significant contribution to the Afghanistan operation in the 2000's, where Canadians saw some of the heaviest fighting and were the largest combat force in the country for the period when the US diverted to invade Iraq.
As a former Australian Army Reservist I think Canada’s military is in the same position Australia was in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s - under funded, poor equipment and people not willing to serve. This can only be reversed with significant investment and prioritising recruitment and retention.
What is really a shame is we don't have the kind of young men anymore who willingly signed up when WWI broke out. My grandfather was one of them, a teenager from Regina, Saskatchewan who lied about his age. He fought with his battalion by Stuttgart and was at Dieppe. At least one of our sons has what it takes to fight in a war, but I'm not really too sure about the rest. He's a hunter and a Canadian patriot - responsible and courageous for tough realities.
@@prairiegirl1966 tbh I believe a huge factor is that young men are being warned *not* to join especially by veterans. Our government is entirely corrupt, unwilling to properly invest in defense but at the same time consistently angering those allies that do provide defense for us, and are just made up of people who inherently hate the layman Canadian. They still refuse to meet the minimum spending requirement for a NATO member. So at the moment any Canadian who joins is joining an under-equipped, understaffed, and unmotivated force that can no longer even boast about being an elite fighting force and whose ruling class actively hates them for existing - to the point our PM told an Afghan War vet with his leg blown off that he expected too much when he asked why he's being blocked from government assistance, and meanwhile that same government gave a literal Taliban member millions of dollars and freed them from American custody.
@@prairiegirl1966 I think it can be chalked up to reasons such as the current government's lack of inspiring patriotism in its citizens, lack of incentive to join and there are no major conflicts that really affect Canada and Canadians on a whole, (i.e a conflict where ones ideals and beliefs in it are worth fighting or dying for.) in addition to the aforementioned issues already present.
With regard to the US being enthusiastic about supplying Australia with nuclear submarines, it seems only partly true. Some sectors of the US defense establishment are apparently not at all keen on the prospect. Even more frustratingly, the current AUKUS model would have us with a hybrid submarine force at the end with second hand US subs, new UK subs eventually and a very interesting job of maintaining two different types. Australia could have asked France to quote on supplying us with nuclear subs after cancelling the diesel models on order. We have always had a strong suit of self-deprecating humour in our culture, with our political being a constant fund of material! Please correct me if I have made major errors in this cartoonish sketch of the situation. John G Queensland Australia PS Have spelt defence with an ‘s’ for the benefit of our US friends. Good luck in your upcoming elections
@PoppyKitsch the submarine deal was part alliance, part arms sale. Australia wasn't just thinking about submarines when it made that deal, and it frustrates me that people don't realise this. France will NEVER fight for Australia, Britain and America will.
Ugh, this hurts. I am Canadian in my 30s and I've been following the Canadian military for some time. The military has not just been on the backburner, but it's been on decline. And this started before my birth and has only gotten worse since I've been growing. The primary reason, imo, for Canada's lack of military readiness is because of our geopolitical position. We are next to the American Empire, with one of the largest militaries in the world. Not only that, but we're essentially surrounded by this nation, what with Alaska on our northwest flank. So, our political elite came to the conclusion that it's best to rely on the Americans to defend our territory, which ofc raises issues of sovereignty if anyone thinks about it just a weee bit. True vassal/protectorate mindset right there. I wouldn't be surprised if American policy makers actually preferred this state of affairs than having a neighbor who has a well equipped and robust military tbh. It's a really bad state of affairs, this military definitely cannot defend the territorial entirety of Canada and to me, that should be the primary purpose. Not these global military actions we constantly get into, but if so, that should be left to a dedicated and well trained expeditionary force that could sustain itself and is ready for high intensity warfare. But ofc, does Canada even have the industrial output for that? Sorry for the long post, this topic just gets me soo much.
Don't apologize for the length of your response. You hit the nail right on the head, for several points. It's very worrying for many of us. We have a government who is more concerned with pronouns and peoples' "rights". We all have the right to protect ourselves, regardless of our American friends next door.
@@prairiegirl1966 Considering its the establishment that cares about respecting trans people that is about to ramp up military spending it appears they agree that Canada should also protect itself, as well as the rights of individual Canadians that you are scoffing at.
I mean yes we have the industry we just need to get it to the required output that allows us to deliver equipment on time. And to rebuttal ur point on “global military actions” what can one expect from the Cdn Army to do but sit around and wait for a literally impossible situation where a foreign force would dare land on Cdn soil. Allot of open ocean and skies to get to first which would make it impossible to conduct an operation in taking over NA. That’s why the Cdn Army due to previous govt’s, is still in a state of the Pierre Elliot Trudeau era of “we should have a ground force ready to defend Canadian soil” from a non existent physical ground threat that could violate our sovereignty. That’s why u see more of a push to have our Army as a more expeditionary force rather than a defence force even tho it can’t fulfill this duty due to funding to get the proper capabilities in order to carry out these operations. And to say hey maybe we shouldn’t, well if you look at the main goals of the armed forces it’s too 1. Protect Canada 2. Protect North America 3. Fulfill our NATO obligations. Protecting Canada and North America as a whole is already being done through NORAD and as previously stated a physical ground threat to Cdn soil is pretty non existent that’s why homeland defence obligations can easily be carried out by the RCAF and RCN cause those are the most likely avenues of approach when it comes to violating our national sovereignty whether it be from aircraft / drones / cruise missiles / to ballistic missiles not to mention sub surface to surface threats that can violate our sovereignty from the air and sea. Thus this leaves the Army which serves on 2nd biggest land mass on the planet with a obligation to fulfill a duty of being expeditionary to deploy to certain parts of the world that have been determined for the last decade as important strategic interests towards our own national interests and international obligations.
@@averyn34trans people arnt going to pick up an AR-15 and fight a war, the only people who reliably enter military service are straight white men and the current administration in Canada has done everything in their power to crush their spirt. Enjoy the freedom you have while you still can because the next global war is going to be a disaster for the western states
Thank You for taking time to talk about our armed forces it was an amazing listen. The CAF are deeply under appreciated by our people and definitely underfunded, hopefully both those can be remedied through increased spending and specialization.
The Canadian Rangers are a very loosely organized, very part-time group of members more correctly considered to be civilian liaisons to the CAF. They are local residents of the communities in which their patrols are based - remote villages and towns in the Northern and Coastal regions, far away from regular CAF presence. The rangers chief responsibility is to be a high-readiness asset to the CAF in the event of an emergency situation such as a natural disaster or search and rescue operation taking place far away from CAF presence. Members are selected based on the pre-existing skills and knowledge they can bring to the patrol. Many of the members are First Nations and have extensive knowledge of local conditions and how to operate in them. Others might be chosen because they possess valuable skills and equipment that can be quickly mobilized if needed. The training that the rangers receive is scant by the standards of regular military forces, but their roll as a military unit is considered secondary to their skills and resources that they can mobilize in short order. They’re a bit like a militia, but in a strict non-combat roll. If the red hoodie and ball cap doesn’t give it away, rangers are not there for fighting nor are they trained to be. They are just there to provide the CAF with eyes-on in parts of the country where it would take time to mobilize a response. They are an under utilized asset in my opinion. They do partake in domestic operations but could certainly be used to shoulder more of the burden durning the fire seasons to keep the strain off the reg force units who are being pulled away from their training cycles every summer.
The Army is not "Royal" because traditionally, army regiments were privately raised by wealthy individuals and lords and such. Whereas the Air Force and the Navy were raised by the federal government ("The Crown") and are therefore "Royal." (It's also why you have individual "Royal" Regiments within the army.)
I doubt the Canadian Army has anywhere near the 28000 figure. Closer to 19000. We only have 59 Battle tanks on the ground in Canada ...Frankly any numbers you get from the gov of Canada drop them by at least 30%. Ottawa will only buy what gets thdir Liberal ridings votes. ACSV is pretty much unarmed. As fof JTF2 is is starting to have the moniker of Trudeaus Praetorian Guard in reference to his continual use as security.. That said JTF2 is the best funded facets of the CAF eats the bulk of the Army budget and uses the CAF as their HR group depriving all arms of motivated soldiers sailors and Airmen.
@@kristianpedersen3370 Of course the ACSV is unarmed, its supposed to be an armoured ambulance, putting guns on it would be a geneva violation - it's replacing similarly unarmed obsolescent M113s that filled the same role. The LAV6 IFV the ASCV chassis is based on though is bristling with cannons and MGs. Close Protection is handled by a specialized RCMP unit, not the JTF, what nonsense are you spouting?
Canada has a proud and extraordinary military history considering its small population and young age. Our boys kicked absolute ass in the world wars. We had a reputation for aggression and afinity for close quarters fighting in the trenches. I'm a current member of the CAF, and we all want nothing more than to restore the organization to its former glory, but we need our government to get on board first.
@michaelshurkin613 Unfortunately, there's no one to vote for. We currently have no federal political parties that support increasing funding for the military. Every aspiring government claims they will strengthen the CAF, then cut funding when they hold office. You are correct that voters are overwhelmingly unconcerned with the state of the CAF, but I would argue that has to do with the fact that politicians ignore the issue. When it comes time to cast a vote, most Canadians forget that military spending is even on the ballot.
As a former CAF officer who "signed up" in 1968, I have seen government "White Papers" on defence come and go. All glossy presentations promising great things which never come to pass. They "talk the walk" but never "walk the talk" .... in other words .... just words and more words. Canadian governments don't possess the courage to make the tough choices on defence and other affairs of the nation, and instead spend anything and everything on social programs which do nothing to enhance the security and well-being of the country.
Canadian governments seemed to rely on alliances such as NORAD and NATO for defence as well as the US belief of the 50’s and 60’s that Russia was the only threat and a nuclear missile defence is required for a deterrent rather than boots on the ground for long conventional war. Viet Nam and Afghanistan and now Ukraine hopefully has woke up the politicians of all parties and Trump has made them aware the alliances may not be honoured.
As what comes to the future of the army, Canada should have an Arctic Mechanized brigade. Stronger organic logistics and support, lighter more mobile force, less MBTs. Like the Jaeger Brigade in Finland.
I'm not sure you could get away with anything heavier than snowmobiles and hovercraft to achieve good mobility for the arctic archipelago, maybe something more like an arctic focused airborne unit would make sense.
Canada did away with their Airborne troops. Also not mentioned was CANSOF. They have no Marines either. Really just a lack of poloitical will. Shameful
Drone units would probably the best bangs for our bucks. We have a lot of homegrown specialized skills to make them. Robotic, programming and engineering.
CDN here... tend to agree at least from what I observe and hear. Seems we like to talk big, "ohh, we sent our CF-18s.", "ohh. We sent a task force", "ohhh, we got guys in Latvia/Lithuania". But no ships. No carriers. No subs. No new planes. No people really. All these "scandals" we could call them. We have huge land area, huge shoreline extending majorly into the arctic - where our "enemies" are looking to operate and exploit. I certainly hope we find our way to immediately meet nato 2%. Maybe mandatory service is necessary.
One of the most in-depth evaluations of the current CAF I've seen on UA-cam, and probably the best done by an American. Most tend to miss what is actually needed, but you nailed it on the head!
As a former service member for the US in Afghanistan, I appreciate Canadians there wasn't a lot of them over there buuuuuuuuuut the few that were put their work in
one other very overlooked asset of the CAF is its strong officer core, because there is alot of infastructure that is put into training in the CAF. Its increasingly in question with retention problems, but weve always hosted multinational forces to train in combined arms like operation maple resolve and agile ram, these are yearly excersices that take place in wainright alberta at the canadian manouver warefare training centre and deploy about 10k troops on the field in simulated and live fire environments, its pretty huge thing. Its likely why we are asked to lead alot of time. Even in ww2, 1st canadian army was over 250k, but we were also tasked with leading other allied divisions and sometimes they were attached to 1st canadian army which would swell the ranks to more than 400k all under canadian leadership. Like even our major investment in the allied air training program trained 130k allied pilots, again great training infastructure development has always been part of our doctrine.
Good soldiers Poorly supported by both traditional governing parties & the Canadian voting public since the end of WW2. My years of service 1967-96. x2 Infantry Reserve Regiments x1 Regular Armoured Regiment + special units. 3rd generation. x1 Grandfather, x2 Uncles & my father all served before me. All governments failed to 1) replace worn equipment 2) cut units & personnel 3) ignored a broken procurement system 4) cut & clawed back budgets. Tragic. Good people poorly supported by politicians & the voting public.
The Canadian Rangers use bolt action rifles for self defence against polar bears and grizzly bears. I kid you not. The reason that the Rangers use bolt action rifles is gas operated automatic platforms like the AR15 suffer stoppages in very cold climates as the mechanisms freeze up. It’s worth noting that the Canadians were originally part of the F35 program but pulled out due to cost over runs. Canada got back into the F35 program due to capability gaps as the F/A 18 aged. Australia had been supplying retired F/A 18 jets to Canada as the RAAF acquired the Super Hornet and the F35. If you want to see a comparable nation that has had to take its own defence seriously and protect a similar land mass I recommend you look at Australia. Australia has a similar population, borders three oceans (Indian, Pacific and Antarctic) and has a similar demographic spread with population on the coast with inhospitable interior and a large land mass to defend. Australia also has a similar political system of a bicameral federal parliament, individual constituent States/Provinces and with the King as head of state.
The Canadian Rangers use a bolt action rifle, not because the Colt Canada C7 and C8 rifles suffer stoppages in cold climates, but because you don't need a semiautomatic rifle to shoot carnivores. The C19 Ranger rifle is a 7.62x51mm which is a better calibre for dropping polar bears. I carried the C7 and other Canadian Army weapons in the Canadian arctic and Norwegian mountains for years and they work just fine in cold climates.
You are far too kind to the CURRENT Canadian military. They are an absolutely hollow force that could not withstand a near peer engagement for any length of time. Most importantly their political leadership is abysmal.
@@greggpratt7711 Agreed. It makes tokenistic deployments and most of the quality Seasoned Afghan veterans have now left. It is almost like a sort of armed NGO. Nasty, slimy, pole-climbing types jump on these lukewarm and rare 'foreign deployments' as the nearest thing to a combat tour. A pity as the soldiers and junior officers themselves are fine fighting men with all the right values and instincts. But it somehow reflects a Liberal society that is more interested in things like anti jaywalking campaigns
About the sovereignty thing, Canada currently has several territorial disputes with other countries, including allies like the US, and proven invaders which is Russia. All of it in the Arctic, and like you say in the next couple of decades this will become serious because there are a lot of resources that are going to be opening up. I think you are right that Canada needs to specialise in this, given that the Yanks have very few icebreakers to rely on so Canada needs to get a bunch and then also nuke boats would also help a lot up there?
Not only Lahr, but also 4 Wing Baden-Söllingen & 3 Wing Zweibrücken as major air bases. There was also a large army presence in Soest northern Germany, This was eventually moved to Lahr making it a combined Air Force & Army base with a full Mechanized Brigade. The air component in Lahr was transport, a Tactical Helicopter Squadron attached to the army brigade & one fighter squadron from Baden would deploy to Lahr during tactical exercises.
I believe you are right about the Strategic view in the Arctic Ocean. I cannot tell for sure but I think that the US government and Defense department have probably been whispering in the Canadian Governments ear that the Arctic should be our focus. The strong commitment to buy ships and planes by the current government does satisfy an Arctic defence poster. I have mixed feelings about the purchases, the Fighter planes where the last government was going to buy without a strategic review and bid process was 65 F 35’s while the Air Force was saying they needed 88. After the current government cancelled the buy and forced the Air Force to do the Strategic Review and a bid process. The Air Force did that and came back and said that they confirmed they needed 88 Fighters and the F 35 was still the best option available so the government committed to buying 88 F 35s. The Navy must have gone through something similar. The last government started the process of replacing the 12 frigates and 4 destroyers with 15 vessels with a common hull to fulfill both functions. Between 10 and 12 hulls with just the frigate functionality ( more general purpose with a particular focus on anti submarine warfare) and between 3 and 5 with the full destroyer functionality. (Very capable in Air Defence and anti ship warfare) the Trudeau government has expanded the timelines but decided to buy the complete destroyer capability for all 15 vessels. In both cases there was an increase capability but at a cost of time. Time that I am not sure we have anymore. The Army is a problematic situation. Canada leads the Multi National Battle Group in Latvia and the plan is for Canada will still lead the organization when it grows to an international Brigades Group. I think the Americans have said that we could leave Latvia if we concentrated on the Arctic. But the Latvia mission fills an emotional need that the Canadian Army has. It’s not important that we participate in Latvia, we need to lead it. Part of our Army’s ability to function as a professional army is the running of full spectrum of combat. With a lack of all the pieces that make up an army formation in battle we need to leverage the troops and equipment that other armies bring to the party. You learn more by being in charge because others are looking to you. So the participation in the NATO operations in Europe is as much of a teaching tool for the Canadian Army as it is for us fulfilling our NATO commitments.
Canada has always maintained a strong officer core, but even this is increasingly in question. I read a thesis from an RMC graduate that critiques this. I mean in any case to be fair that this is a problem many militaries are facing. And with the advent of covid things like yearly excersices like maple resolve and agile ram were really interrupted and alot more pressure being put on CAF members as many are retiring and big retention problems occurred as many left for private sector to fill other more profitable positions. I think the last thread holding it all together is the amazing pension and flexibility of scedule for members.
@@Kevin-np3sx I think we are at a crossroad. For years I have heard that there is (like) 2 60 year olds for every 20 year old and those ratios should be reversed. Add to that situation the fact that the 20 year old does not see themselves following in our footsteps. Those two things together means that there is no guarantee that everyone retiring today is going to have someone replacing them. Sooner or later those numbers had to add up. Then comes COVID people are told to stay home. Businesses and organizations are not hiring new people. Including the military. I don’t know about you but I saw a lot of adds for “make money on line” some adds were about being a millionaire others were just saying you could replace your income. I did not check them out but if even some of them opportunities replaced the income of some kid who did not really like the job that COVID was keeping him from then when the COVID restrictions were lifted that kid was not going back to that job. So everybody thought(including the military) that we could just go back to the way it was. But I don’t think the 20 somethings were happy with the way things were and are not keen to go back. COVID was the perfect time to change direction and I believe that most of our businesses, our governments, our schools and even our militaries have not figured that out yet. I do not think we will get our government and military houses in order until we face that fact. We have been bringing in more immigrants than usual lately . If that is how we plan to replace the 20 somethings that we are missing in the community. (And it seems like we are) then we should fully embrace it. The American military has a system where an immigrant ca fast track his citizenship by serving the the military then we should be looking at something similar.
Canada can do the most good in the West by becoming a true arsenal of Democracy. Support its indigenous arms capability to the hilt. Canada's industrial might is sorely under utilized when it comes to arms production. Canada can truly build anything it wants with its own talent. Canada alone could supply Ukraine with all the 155mm ammo it could ever use with minimal investment in its two ammo plants. The US Army has been begging the Canadian Government to pony up the funds. It is one area where we could punch above our weight while greatly helping our own economy. Our misguided and miseducated population needs to get over its adversion to weapons when our country was founded on conquest.
Thank you for answering my call with expert knowledgeable insight. I am hopefully going to the Royal Military College for Infantry Officer and your strategic insights and opinions really allow me to shape up a better understanding of the geopolitical world.
@michaelshurkin613 RMC is right after high school or up to 2nd year university. Once you graduate, you get a commission and a degree, almost like Westpoint.
Hello Michael. Thank you for this presentation about the CAF. I would be happy to provide you with background explanations and information about the CAF and DND. With over 40+ years of service, including several years at NDHQ on the staff of the VCDS, I believe I could clarify those areas where you are unsure of your information as well as providing "Canadian context". For example, the RCN, Canadian Army and RCAF are not services in the traditional sense. They are merely "force generation" commands. They are only 3 of roughly 20+ "Level One" commands across both CAF and DND. To an outsider, our structure is complicated and not intuitive. Concerning "Reserve forces", there are four different types. One is the traditional reserve force, the "Primary Reserve". And separately, the "Canadian Rangers" are a separate Reserve component but are part of the Canadian Army. I hope to hear from you.
@@michaelshurkin613Hello Michael, so good to hear back from you. Cutbacks during the 1960s... sure thing. Briefly, because messages here do not lend themselves to ease of writing. Popular mythology will point fingers at the Liberal government under Pierre Trudeau (yes, father of the current PM). In reality, the first steps to downsize were made under the Conservative Diefenbacher government with an extensive study of all Federal government operations and departments, known as the Glassco Commission. In this report were the initial seeds which led to the "integration" and later "unification" of the Army, Navy a d Air Force into one service, the Canadian Armed Forces. I am broadbrushing because there is a whole lot more to get into. There is the 1964 White Paper which both led to the unification as well as significant restructuring of the Forces to be "peacekeeping oriented". At the time, the PM was Lester Pearson, considered to be the father of peacekeeping in the 1956 Suez Crisis for which he won the Nobel Prize. The White Paper laid the seeds for the later downsizing. Remember, this was the 1960s. The Vietnam experience did not engender strong support for the military. There was also a period of detente with the Soviet Union. The government was focused on other distractions such as the independence movement in the province of Quebec, with the terrorist organization, the FLQ, as the most extreme element (October Crisis, 1970, War Measures Act). Pierre Trudeau also was more of a pacifist when it came to international geopolitics (1984, Trudeau peace initiative as a reaction to Reagan's Star Wars). In the 1960s, the CAF employed nuclear weapons - Bomarc missiles, Honest John missiles, nuclear bombs on CF-104 Starfighters, Genie missiles on CF-101 Voodoos and nuclear depth charges for ASW. One of Trudeau's pursuits was to get rid of nuclear weapons in the CAF in support of nuclear non-proliferation initiatives. He did so. Incidentally, the Trudeau who made cuts was also the same Trudeau who initiated a series of re-equipment programmes in the late 1970s - CF-18s, Leopard 1 tanks, AVGPs, forerunner to the LAVs, a new fleet of Navy frigates, the Aurora (Orion) ASW patrol aircraft, new small arms, modest increase to personnel levels. And so on. I served in the CAF from 1977 to 2022 with a further almost 3 years as a civilian public servant. I do have some background experience which I would be happy to share with you. My BA is in Political Science and History. I hope my content is helpful. I can do more. Cheers, Mike
Any chance you could do one on the Turkish armed forces? It is the 2nd largest army in Nato and when adding in purchasing power parity they are just below France in actual spending.Yet are activly on multiple warzones including the multiple on their border
As a Canadian, I have to agree with your analysis. Though I have to say a large part of the reason that Canada can't buy as much as it says it wants is because the military procurement system is terribly broken, and has been for decades. Even basic equipment procurement like the recent purchase of cold weather sleeping bags was botched - they couldn't keep soldiers in the field warm enough in the winter. For a good overview of how long, and how much time and money is wasted due to Canadian procurement issues I'd recommend the Perun video, "Canadian Defence Strategy and Issues - Procurement Disasters, the Arctic & Alliances"
Please keep in mind that technically, we're getting 11 river class destroyers to replace the 12 Halifax frigates. There are 4 additional aegis equipped river destroyers to replace the 4 tribals that were retired many years ago. Also, as I understand it, the previous Conservative government was spending 0.9% of GDP on defence, so 1.7%, while not stellar, is pretty good. The army still needs an air/drone defence system, and MANPADS & anti-tank systems. LAWS isn't very good against tanks. Ukraine has pretty much thrown everything on its head with drones. More AOPS (if they work) would be nice, as well as under-ice capable subs. If they don't put external tanks on the F-35s, more tankers will be needed too.
i have met chretien a few times in this life, and he would probably find your queb roommates comment pretty funny himself, he is a pretty funny guy. but he did suffer a paralysis to his face from a bout of bells palsy in his youth...so the reason he wasn't the most clear speaking guy en francais or in english was due to a bit of a disability. he was still pretty eloquent. i remember as a young man in the 90s going to a remembrance day ceremony on parliament hill, and the powerful, moving speech with weight and gravity as those cf-18s ( i think we are still using them today) did low show of power fly bys as the howitzers fired in the back ground. what a great exploration of the caf though. and nice to see an outsiders perspective, as a canadian and reserve member you don't often see that when your bogged down in the day to day.
I always thought this country was worth defending, from all threats. The reason the Americans were not keen on Canada acquiring nuclear submarines is that they were sailing through under the ice cap without Canada's permission or knowledge. They really have not recognized Canada's sovereignty over the North West Passage.
The justification on the US side was something something about nuclear proliferation. The US exempted the UK from that because of a treaty signed in the 50s.
Yes, the USN has long regarded the Arctic as its own domain, and their was zero interest in sharing it with Canada. The French had offered to sell Canada Rubis class SSNs, but they were deemed inferior to the British subs, so that deal never got beyond the offer stage. Ronald Reagan intervened and authorized Canada to buy UK built SSNs (based on US tech), but by then the USSR was on the verge of collapse and the Conservative government decided against it to save money.
I find your analysis and conclusions valid and thoughtful, also fairly spot on. I spent years through political involvement, vainly attempting to temper/minimize the fervour to downsize the CAF. Be it Pierre Trudeau or Jean Chrétien, there was always a greater priority for funds elsewhere... Mind you, the Conservative Gov'ts were not a whole lot better! Even the argument for Sovereignty was minimized as being alarmist and horrendously costly to make credible. Mind you, this occurred by and large prior to ''Global Warming'' being a demonstrable thing. I did not even bother with Justin's gang, other than a comment or suggestion to an acquaintance who was a Cabinet Minister; most of my generation are in the Senate now, with little capacity for anything beyond basic advocacy. It has been a disheartening half century for anyone who was a foreign policy/defence pundit. Conveying recognition that there is a causal relationship that imbues credibility in the context has been frustrating beyond description. The loosy goosy/laissez faire attitude prevails to this day, although Ukraine did seem to focus the minds to a degree hitherto unseen, at least since the Cold War. Be well and stay safe
There's a handful of modernization programs underway for the Canadian military, unfortunately they're all top heavy with consideration only given to equipment acquisition rather than maintenance and recruitment. The Government of Canada had the brilliant idea of cutting the military's maintenance budget this year, so expect all our new LAV-6's to rot away unmaintained in motor pools and our already overworked frigates to rust away as preventative maintenance is no longer in the budget.
During the great war the Canadian and Australian armies stymied the bulk of the northern German offensive of 1918. There is a fantastic docodrama made jointly between Australia and Canada, will try and get a link
1. The CA has LAV IIIs and LAV 6s. The LAV III is Canadian designed and was sold to the US as the Stryker. 2. We got rid of tanks in the 90s due to US Gen Shinseki's writings...
I'v heard these arguments begore that Canada should focus on the defence of Canada and nothing else. These arguments come from politicians and civilians who are completely removed from Canadian military culture and the mindset of our soldiers, sailors and aviators. We are indeed attached by the hip to the Americans, and when it comes to war fighting, our servive members are almost identical. Our troops do not want to sit on our shore lines and baby sit the country for their 25 year careers. We sign up to deploy overseas and put ourselves into harms way. The current government is eroding that ability to deploy and fight. This lack of purpose and support from the government and public just destroys troop morale. Reconstituting the military and putting them on arctic border patrol would ensure one thing, not a single person would show up to the recruiting center.
Regarding movies telling Canadian army stories, there is an interesting Dutch film, "The Forgotten Battle" (2020), that depicts Canadian troops assaulting the Walcheren Causeway during the Battle of the Scheldt, 1944. At least it's something 🙂
Really enjoy your content, specially your analysis of primary sources. Given your expertise with the French defense establishment I would be interesting to hear you dive into the recent plans for the Belgian and French army to start operating very closely together.
I was considering military service for Canada (as resident). Seeing current line of Ottawa I've given up, Canada doesn't seem to be serious about defence.
on the topic of our leopard tanks one thing that is much worth noting is that our tanks are too old, the shell of the tank is perfectly fine, its the internal components which have been only patchworked for the last 20 years and overall they are failing. id say only about 15% of our battle tanks are operable the rest are either in warstock, been stripped for parts for other tanks or just simply broken and we dont have the ability to get parts to fix them. for example the AEV 2 (The Badger) keeping those things running feels impossible and sometimes can be very harmful to the operator for example the issue with the fire suppression system going off from simply light hitting the sensor which should only go off when it detects fire, not when light hits it, not when you turn on the tank or turn it off or even touch the electrical... the stuff it sprays you with has a high degree of cancer causing and genetic changing qualities... one common thing people get from repeated exposures is the development of new allergies. all of our armour is in disrepair as around 60 % of all our vehicles are unserviceable, this issue is widespread and its really bad. but.. it is worth noting that with the tanks we are building a huge brand new factory in edmonton where the Lord Strathcona tank regiment is stationed and with this factory we will bring in our tanks and just completely strip them of all their internals and replace them with brand new parts, this is actually extremely good because because that means we will be able to keep our tanks in great working condition for a longer period of time and it will allow us to utilize our tanks to the best of their ability... instead of setting itself on fire after driving 2 km on relatively flat terrain. i love what i do in the military and love being in the military, despite these issues and us constantly shooting ourselves in the foot with a ridiculous amount of bureaucracy and unnecessary process. even though to my understanding the higher ups are very well aware of all of this but they have little to no control on fixing this stuff and the spend all their time fighting the governemt to be able to do anything and we are bound in certain contracts that are extremely bad for us and prevent us from upgrading certain things or even getting rid of them. its all really bad and can be fixed, the issue is that we need to really focus on putting competent people into positions of power in the military instead of alot of them that do things based on how beneficial it is for themselves. you know like regular politicians
p. 66 Volume 6 of the Exercitium Cogitandi by Rolf R. Loehrich - Dancing With Death - The Personal Equation - A Diagnostic Impertinence. "PAX AMERICANA".
Canadian here, our decline in military power is directly tied to a cultural issue. the biggest part of the decline did start in the 90s, and theres a reason for that. Rwanda, and Bosnia. before these two missions, the national pride behind having a strong military was built on successful UN Missions, which was in defiance of American policy before 9/11. The americans have never wanted us to be particularly strong, for obvious reasons, and for just as many obvious reasons that changed after 9/11. Rwanda and Bosnia though, changed the entire culture of the nation in regards to the Armed Forces; Rwanda was a horrid bloody mess, that served to be nothing but a PTSD grinder. Held back from doing their jobs by the UN and forced to watch one of the most savage events of the 20th century first hand, and before a time where PTSD was being treated seriously in any regard. Because PTSD wasnt taken seriously, a significant portion of the troops that went to rwanda then went to bosnia. and in bosnia, they refused to be restrained, they already went through one genocide, they already watched uncounted women and children hacked to pieces. I hate to say it, but many of those soldiers should have gone to an international court for warcrimes, they were savage monsters and the canadian media was not afraid to show it, they absolutely relished destroying the image of the once proud and then savage war fighters of canada, and doing so in my opinion with american dollars in their pockets but thats not really the point. As much as the elite of this nation have continually pushed the CAF deeper into the hole, they do so largely with public support stemming from those two conflicts. If you are interested in learning more, the writings and speeches of former LT-General Romeo Dellaire are absolutely pivotal in understanding this shift in the cultural zeitgeist.
Thank you so much for this. I was not aware of the impact on the CAF and public opinion of those missions, but it makes sense..years ago I ran into a drunk Dutch soldier who had just returned from Bosnia. He was wrecked.
Lol. The Irish are just freeloading off the UK and the US. Plus their messed up weird anti-Western penchant, like their government's fondness for Nazi Germany.
Wait. There is a movie about the Canadians during D-Day called Storming Juno. ua-cam.com/video/Dyqh5hIcMaE/v-deo.html The link to Passchendaele: says the video is not available in your country!
Very surprised when I learned Canada chose wheeled versus tracked fighting vehicles for an artic climate. Doesn't make much sense. Fyi: NATO is now requiring each member nation to have 1 heavy brigade at a minimum. So that means tanks and IFVs.
Canada really isn't unique in the sorry state of its armed forces. Many European countries also cut spending and let theirs deteriorate after the USSR collapsed. Remember, in the 1980s, the Bundeswehr was one of the best equipped and trained armies on the continent, and even Canada had a brigade group with tanks, self- propelled arty and SAM in Germany. Many countries, the USA included, cashed in a big 'peace dividend' in the 1990s. The difference is that 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq re-energized the USA to make huge investments in the Army, USAF, and USN. Many European countries kept defence spending loweven in the 2000s, and have only recently seen a need to heavily re-invest in the armed forces.
What to do with 70 MBTs? You attach them to your mechanized brigades. Each platoon will get 1 MBT in addition to the IFVs. A battalion geta 10 tanks, a brigade gets 30. Perfect!
Canada needs a foreign policy, so a proper defense policy can be created and then procurement can follow. All of these would make it make more sense for everyone about why Canadian Armed Forces needs something. And if those policies are in place then it must be keep in place and not change every min.
Thanks for making this video. As a Canadian, our military is severly underfunded. Partly because of geography but mainly because of politics. Each political party constantly reviews defence with every change of government and each party has different ideas of what the military should be. The liberals would not have a military if their radical wing had their way and the conservatives spend on the military but not enough. There is no multi party committee to guide the military like in other countries to take the politics out of our national defence
Thank you for watching. The Liberal party appears to be a big tent that includes all sorts of groups that Trudeau has to manage. What do you think he would do if he had a free hand?
Goddamn, what really surprised me is air force. It's almost the same we have here in Finland. And you would think that one thing, along with navy that's actually useful for Canada. Other one is lack of nuclear submarines, it's again one thing Canada actually would benefit in huge way. Since realistically any threat would most likely be ocean away.
Many thanks for this video! Really appreciated! Could you do a video on NATO's frontline states: the Baltic countries, esp Lithuania where any next Russian push (towards Kaliningrad) is possible or even likely..
Very well thought out and researched. Correct with the Cretien cuts but additionally nothing was done by the following government so 20 years with little being done. Correct about the LAV 6, it is an up armoured LAV 3 based on learning from Afganistan and oddly for what started as a troop carrier is one of the most heavily armoured fighting vehicles around. The M113 isn't used. The government has not said much about the army I think partly based on what is being learned in Ukraine. It is also looking at rebuilding its induatrial support. Canada is also looking at the South Korean KSS3 sub. What admittedly has only started but there is plannig going on for a new coastal patrol vessel of about 3000 tons. THe problem has been to rebuild the ability to build warships after 20 years of neglect. So far starting in 2015 the current government has resisted opposition pressure to build less capable frigates. also of note is the rebuilding of the northern radar network. What you did not mention that I think is relevent is the coast guard. Aside for the soon to be completed 6 Arctic Patrol vessels the government id building 2 similar vessels for the Coast guard. Plus it is contracting for 2 heavy ice Breakers. This is relevent because the US and Canada have made an agreement regarding ice breakers. Like Canada the US is having trouble building ships. The plan is for the Davy yard which has bought a Finnish yard with ice breakers to buy a yard in the US where ice breakers for the US can be built.
Rangers to my understanding are essentially an arctic force for very remote areas, kind of like militarized park rangers. And regarding a future focus on a very focused specialized capability instead of being a lacklustre 'top-tier' military, I agree to a certain extent and actually do see this as the cheapest option, and one that my government is already pursuing through it's training missions in countries like Latvia and Estonia. Our current government is a bit braindead, but I see future governments as course correcting and taking a cheap but very specialized aim. I think the same goes for our air force - I've been saying for years that our air force should be focusing on wildfire fighting operations as a means of exporting soft power, as future worsening wildfires are not insignificant. Militarily though, yes, I think using Canada as the backup arctic force for the Baltics is the best course of action while the US focuses with the UK and Australia against China. Considering our mechanized forces train in Alberta where it's cold, mountainous, but also very vast, flat, and cold, I think it's fitting for action in the Baltics in conjunction with our Scandinavian allies and would likely match the combat power of a secondary military action by Russia to stop a flanking maneuver through the Baltics into countries like Poland and Germany.
First - Many thanks to TF Knighthawk (06), Aces and Sevens saved the lives of many Canadians in Kandahar. They flew into danger anywhere for us, and we who served there alongside are eternally grateful. I'm no expert, but I always thought that we should be good at what we're good at, and also what is necessary for Canada to be good at. Everything the host says is true. I'll put it in laymen's terms. Everything we've done since Korea has been half-assed and unnecessary. Mechanized forces in Canada is stupid, and it is this way because of tradition and individuals hanging on to something that is over and done with. If Canada was smart it would abolish the regimental system and adopt a system like the US Marines where you are a Marine before all else. If you ask a Marine what they are, the reply is always "I'm a Marine" before they tell you they are Armoured corps, or Infantry, or whatever. In Canada you get "I'm PPCLI", or "RCR", or "Tac Hel" or whatever trade they are first and foremost. So from that perspective, right from the start there is a lack of unity of purpose, and regimental rivalries typically sabotage the construction of unified defensive systems that contribute to, in this instance, being "Strong, Secure, and Engaged". Again, I'm no expert, but Canada should be experts at defending the North. The US should have no hesitation about it's Northern Flank. Canada should be able to project and sustain forces into the North for indefinite periods of time. What does that mean? It means Canada should include under-ice capability that does not require fuel replenishment. It means the ability to project and sustain ground forces on any piece of land North of 60 in any type of weather that is found in that area for an indefinite period. That means light forces. It means logistical equipment and a tail that extends from southern cities to Northern Tundra and all the bits and pieces that could make something like that a reality. It means being able to deploy forces to barren pieces of land and establishing, improving, and increasing scale, over scheduled chunks of time, and then sustaining the infrastructure indefinitely if need be. It means significantly more Air Defense than what is currently in service. It means persistent surveillance, some of what is now available with the Rangers. It means long range aircraft and significantly more than is currently in service. It means a lot of things, but it definitely does not require LAVs and Tanks which are significant drains on current operational resources. It means a lot of other things that round off what I suggest here. There is no requirement for Canada to have a presence in Europe. That is not of vital interest to Canada. Preserving and enhancing our relationship with the US who we do 80% of our trade with, and because we are next door neighbors, is why doing substantially more in the North on the North American Continent is of vital interest to Canada. Anything else is simply political posturing that has some form of personal interest for the decision makers who commit Canada to those tasks.
The government is a set of institutions if you read defense institutional documents like the last White Paper, Strong Secure Engaged defense policy, CAF Ethos, Transformation documents, and other articles, you are astounded by solid writing and the depth vision and mission. The Canadian Armed Forces as an organization with political direction translates the institutional mission into an organization of capability. Political incompetence and lack of direction, lack of funding, the method of social change, and unclear organizational goals makes the CAF a shallow and arguably ineffective force to achieve institutional goals. Aggression of autocracies around the world and Canada's current inability to identify, adapt, and address to these changes is disappointing.
You are correct about the Rangers they are a type of mountain special police and engineering group, not to be drafted in a war they have too many tasks at home 😁
I agree in part, i think more than fielding units to defend the Baltics, we should help partially on training and focus on a modernization and expansion. Pretty much every aspect of the CAF should be triple so that we are not a secuiarity liability for the US, and so that we can exervise agency over how our forces participate within NATO. I believe most canadians dissagree with the participation of the CAF in Afghanistan, but we had to help somehow given how much the US does for canadian security. Canadians fought well in Afghanistan, but had a high attrition rate due to how much they were expected to due and how their operations were conducted. Other operations such as in Iraq helping kurds and against ISIS were far more efficient, as we used our strengths, sych that we had an augmented impact. You want to be strong enough to be relied on by your comrades, and strong enough to chose how and when to fight.
Canada for reasons that I never understood regarded its military as “peacekeepers” in the 1990’s and structured their military accordingly. This is despite the fact the Canadians used to have the world’s third largest navy and fought through WW2 and Korea. The biggest problem with Canada is it rested on its laurels as a nation shielded by the USA and being a member of NATO so it could rely on others. Canada also is obsessed with domestic social issues that prioritise things like transgender rights over planning to stop Russia or be prepared to fight to preserve democracy in Europe or the South China Sea. Canada also has tried to show independence from the USA in terms of acquisition of equipment instead of making themselves interoperable with the USA.
Excellent video! Pretty enjoyable. It seems the CAF needs major strategic and cultural reforms. But again the access to information here in Canada is abysmal. IE when Canadian forces get deployed, we regularly learn about it from US news/military press release. Many scholars and journalists have complained about it for a long time. Tough to improve when you destroy any potential critiques by not sharing any data.
Would love to se what you think about the Norwegians (im Norwegian my self) and the changes it wil nede to do wehen going from being a northernflank frontline state, to a transit cuntry for forces going to reenforce Sweden, Finland, and maby the Baltik states. Should Norway itsself make forces available to rienforce other cuntries or should they specialize?
I'd argue Norway should specialize. I mean, it has an actual land border with Russia, plus the North Sea and Arctic. Anything Norway can do to firm all that up lightens the load for the US and UK.
Major flaw though if everyone in NATO specialises, everyone becomes even more dependent on the USA for mass. Which is a massive issue especially with Trump going back into the White House
How do Australians see NZ concerning defense policies and cooperation aspects? Because both formed collision forces several times in the history but NZ has been maintaining a very small size of military than other allies had since ww2.
This is an amazing video! One of my major concerns however as a Canadian is that our theatre of operation for NATO is Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia if I remember correctly. And with tensions rising with Russia although Russia doesnt have the capability to take on more nations there is always the chance that in the future it could (think about the flurry of annoubcements that we received from nearly all nato defence chiefs of each nation and their defense ministers stating that it was a threat. Also referencing the numerous sabotage operations that Russia has carried out in Europe). Its a big disappointment to me that if something were to ever happen in the next 5-10 years that theres a chance that we might not be equipped to support our allies in the early days of any war / conflict. With that being said I think that Russia is really trying the waters with both its allies right now and its own people, the alliance with China being the perfect example of a distrust between both nations but them both recognizing that they both similarly add to eachothers hands in the world of geopolitics
It would be good if Canada could pitch in, but I wonder if battling in the Baltics is the right fit for Canada, given that the Germans, Poles, and Finns are on hand, or should be.
@@michaelshurkin613 one other very overlooked asset of the CAF is its strong officer core, because there is alot of infastructure that is put into training in the CAF. Its increasingly in question with retention problems, but weve always hosted multinational forces to train in combined arms like operation maple resolve and agile ram, these are yearly excersices that take place in wainright alberta at the canadian manouver warefare training centre and deploy about 10k troops on the field in simulated and live fire environments, its pretty huge thing.
Thank you! This was another great video! I would say that CDN, while ticking all of the right boxes, seems to be "A Nation with an Army without a goal nor public / social support". By this I mean that if you look at the doc you presented ""Strong Secure Engaged". It seems to be a "polite" cut and paste of other NATO mid to small size country's playbooks from Europe, much more than a straightforward external policy no? For example, Point #1 "Asserting Sovereignty" would realistically mean doubling their budget for the Arctic. But they won't define these goals clearly. Points 2 and 3 are essentially non-committal. Maybe it is because the "Culture of Peace" in Canada has been fortified by this sense of geographic isolation since post WW2 you mentionned? Lastly, I will surely follow the deliveries of the F-35! Who will get them 1st? Poland? Other NATO countries? Canada? On that front, a VDO on the Rafales / F-35 would be super cool. Not sure if this is also part of your forte. Thank you again Sir!
Fantastic breakdown - however a few points: your equipment knowledge is very out of date. M113s? Only in museums. We are on the LAV 6 platform now and there are three SOF units although JTF2 is the only Tier 1 Maintenance issues are absolutely a plague for the Canadian Army and attrition/ Force Generation issues have the potential to keep the RCAF in a nadir position. Otherwise well done sir!
The wheeled vehicles you reference have been long since replaced and promised second hand to others. Canada is replacing the tanks as new ones become available that can fulfill requirements. Most of Canadian recruitment efforts are stymied by the constant demands of NATO for competent combatants, and trainers for other forces. Hence not available for training at home. It is difficult to obtain the people for growing the force when there is a constant never ending berating of the organization by double talking folks like yourself.
Paschendale is an incredible movie! The CAF is sadly in such a poor state that it's effect is neglible at best. Procurement is a joke and succesive governments continually reduce much needed spending, regardless of political affiliation.
With America to our southern border our north should be prickly as a porcupine. We should have at least 9 RCN Harry DeWolfe class coastal patrol vessels, but with at least twice thier current armaments and one 20mm Phalanx CIWS each vessel. Our twelve minesweepers have not had a main gun since 2014. This is downright criminal !!! With 202,000 kms coastline to patrol, we should be the world's largest customer of unmanned drones to protect our soverignty. Plus, it was a huge mistake taking out of service, our ADATS mobile missile system in 2004. Twelve conventional submarines? Where they gonna grow those sub crews? The Perisher submatine commander course is no joke. Exactly how many senior naval officers do you expect to appear out of nowhere??? Edit: Your idea of foregoing a full brigade of mechanized troops, as we once had dedicated to West Germany has some meit. We could aim at a Swiss model of National Guard with an elite leadership and training profesional smaller core has some merit. Also, ignoring recent Swedish military history, being neutral, they stepped up thier UN troop contributions. If the UN is to survive its current blistering regards Israel and American alliance and UN veto power, we could revisit this in the near future.
Swedish neutrality was a bit of a farce. The Swedes were deeply in bed with the US and NATO the whole time, with the CIA running lots of ops out of Sweden. I'm pretty sure Swedish contigency plans for a war with the Soviets all included at the top of the list full cooperation with NATO.
@@michaelshurkin613 as a member of the home guard one thing that is new historically is that the Home Guard is part of the general equipment modernisation instead of getting hand me downs. Its clear the homeguard is seen as a territorial force because the old territorial battalions are missing and the homeguard needs interoperability with Army units. The homeguard was the only organisation that focused on national defence during the strategic timeout where other forces lost the capability to stay in the field longterm without facilities the homeguard had all that even if it was old stuff (this year our tractor drawn field kitchen was finally replaced with one that can be pulled at 80km/h). But new equipment is comming across the line and with a semi democratic organisation it has a great deal of influence on what to get. A US officers eyes would bleed if he was in our unit because rank means relativley little as we elect our leaders and ranks come later after adequate training cources but people keep their old army navy or air force ranks. It sounds disorganized but it works because there is a lot of trust in the organisation as everyone is a volunteer and everyone knows each other, the political span is also very wide which leads to hilarious incidents like a right wing politician being the squad leader of the vice Mayor in the same municipality.
Yes the Canadian army is in a poor state, but in a way it can be an advantage in the current ethos. The USA are facing a huge problem with the shift toward drones, they have a huge sunk cost fallacy to overcome and a military industrial complex heavily invested in maintaining the status quo and keep buliding legacy systems. We don't and we have the skills to make drones and well, drones are cheap to make. So we could catch up a lot of our underfunding in therm of practical efficiency by leaning in heavily on drone unit development.
With the arctic sea melting, Russia is on rhe run. Even small Portugal had done their first trip under ice with one of their Type 214 diesel submarines. Canada will have to detour Russia or let the US do that
I have said before that NATO should suspend Canada from NATO until we increase are military and meet the 2% or more, then NATO can take us back into the fold, the only way the Canadian government will ever meet its requirements to NATO unless the federal government in serious embarrassed on the world stage and NATO.
Canada is a friend and ally of the U.S., but we are a sovereign country. Therefore we do have to spend money on our own defence. For our NATO commitments and NORAD as well. Too many years of Liberal governments have diminished our military and brainwashed many people into pacifists. The U.S. has a similar issue with the growing Marxist movement. We should increase our military spending by at least another 25 billion. You're wrong that most Canadians don't know anything about our military. The majority of Canadians are patriotic, knowledgeable and love our military. We want to bring back our armed forces to a formidable size and strength. It's typically leftists that hate our way of life that want to gut the military and think we don't need a Canadian military. You know, people who tear down historical statues etc.
PS. If any of you watchers happen to work for governments or Think Tanks: I do these for fun in my spare time. It's a hobby. I can do far more substantive work like I used to do at the RAND Corporation with modest financial backing. If any of you think that might be of use...
Just a note much of are gear has gone threw upgrade periods are tanks lavs jets and ships have all under gone mid life upgrade and overhaul periods the jets got new radars and flight and weapon control systems I think...and the ships got new radar sonar and I think weapons systems if I'm not wrong ...the tanks underwent some targeting system upgrades and armour updating same with the lavs what we do havw that is operating is not as outdated as you mentioned
You gloss over or ignore the war crimes committed by Canaduh and it's crew of blood thirsty savages...
As a Dutchman I am obliged to absolutely love the Canadian armed forces one of our liberators
You are not the first Dutchman to tell me this.
That was 75 years ago. Canada today can't help itself, let alone anyone else.
Thank you and all your people for looking over the graves of my ancestors 💙
@amesorton not the time or place show some class
one of the reasons for the gratitude is extracted from official Canadian armed forces diaries
"in the Netherlands, the Canadians did their best to limit collateral or excess damage to the countryside. This meant no large artillery barrages and limited use of tactical air power to support an attack. They wanted to avoid as much unnecessary death and destruction as possible in the Netherlands. The people had been starving and brutally treated since 19940. Literally nothing but tulip bulbs to eat in some areas when the Canadians arrived.
People also regularly overlook Canada's significant contribution to the Afghanistan operation in the 2000's, where Canadians saw some of the heaviest fighting and were the largest combat force in the country for the period when the US diverted to invade Iraq.
Tbh you'd be hard pressed to hear Canadian sources talk about this in length. Americans were much more appreciative than our own government.
As a former Australian Army Reservist I think Canada’s military is in the same position Australia was in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s - under funded, poor equipment and people not willing to serve. This can only be reversed with significant investment and prioritising recruitment and retention.
What is really a shame is we don't have the kind of young men anymore who willingly signed up when WWI broke out. My grandfather was one of them, a teenager from Regina, Saskatchewan who lied about his age. He fought with his battalion by Stuttgart and was at Dieppe. At least one of our sons has what it takes to fight in a war, but I'm not really too sure about the rest. He's a hunter and a Canadian patriot - responsible and courageous for tough realities.
@@prairiegirl1966 tbh I believe a huge factor is that young men are being warned *not* to join especially by veterans. Our government is entirely corrupt, unwilling to properly invest in defense but at the same time consistently angering those allies that do provide defense for us, and are just made up of people who inherently hate the layman Canadian.
They still refuse to meet the minimum spending requirement for a NATO member. So at the moment any Canadian who joins is joining an under-equipped, understaffed, and unmotivated force that can no longer even boast about being an elite fighting force and whose ruling class actively hates them for existing - to the point our PM told an Afghan War vet with his leg blown off that he expected too much when he asked why he's being blocked from government assistance, and meanwhile that same government gave a literal Taliban member millions of dollars and freed them from American custody.
@@prairiegirl1966 I think it can be chalked up to reasons such as the current government's lack of inspiring patriotism in its citizens, lack of incentive to join and there are no major conflicts that really affect Canada and Canadians on a whole, (i.e a conflict where ones ideals and beliefs in it are worth fighting or dying for.) in addition to the aforementioned issues already present.
With regard to the US being enthusiastic about supplying Australia with nuclear submarines, it seems only partly true. Some sectors of the US defense establishment are apparently not at all keen on the prospect. Even more frustratingly, the current AUKUS model would have us with a hybrid submarine force at the end with second hand US subs, new UK subs eventually and a very interesting job of maintaining two different types.
Australia could have asked France to quote on supplying us with nuclear subs after cancelling the diesel models on order.
We have always had a strong suit of self-deprecating humour in our culture, with our political being a constant fund of material!
Please correct me if I have made major errors in this cartoonish sketch of the situation.
John G Queensland Australia
PS Have spelt defence with an ‘s’ for the benefit of our US friends.
Good luck in your upcoming elections
@PoppyKitsch the submarine deal was part alliance, part arms sale. Australia wasn't just thinking about submarines when it made that deal, and it frustrates me that people don't realise this. France will NEVER fight for Australia, Britain and America will.
Ugh, this hurts. I am Canadian in my 30s and I've been following the Canadian military for some time. The military has not just been on the backburner, but it's been on decline. And this started before my birth and has only gotten worse since I've been growing.
The primary reason, imo, for Canada's lack of military readiness is because of our geopolitical position. We are next to the American Empire, with one of the largest militaries in the world. Not only that, but we're essentially surrounded by this nation, what with Alaska on our northwest flank. So, our political elite came to the conclusion that it's best to rely on the Americans to defend our territory, which ofc raises issues of sovereignty if anyone thinks about it just a weee bit. True vassal/protectorate mindset right there. I wouldn't be surprised if American policy makers actually preferred this state of affairs than having a neighbor who has a well equipped and robust military tbh.
It's a really bad state of affairs, this military definitely cannot defend the territorial entirety of Canada and to me, that should be the primary purpose. Not these global military actions we constantly get into, but if so, that should be left to a dedicated and well trained expeditionary force that could sustain itself and is ready for high intensity warfare. But ofc, does Canada even have the industrial output for that?
Sorry for the long post, this topic just gets me soo much.
Don't apologize for the length of your response. You hit the nail right on the head, for several points. It's very worrying for many of us.
We have a government who is more concerned with pronouns and peoples' "rights". We all have the right to protect ourselves, regardless of our American friends next door.
No. Our morale is in the toilet with the discarded men's tampons.
@@prairiegirl1966 Considering its the establishment that cares about respecting trans people that is about to ramp up military spending it appears they agree that Canada should also protect itself, as well as the rights of individual Canadians that you are scoffing at.
I mean yes we have the industry we just need to get it to the required output that allows us to deliver equipment on time.
And to rebuttal ur point on “global military actions” what can one expect from the Cdn Army to do but sit around and wait for a literally impossible situation where a foreign force would dare land on Cdn soil. Allot of open ocean and skies to get to first which would make it impossible to conduct an operation in taking over NA. That’s why the Cdn Army due to previous govt’s, is still in a state of the Pierre Elliot Trudeau era of “we should have a ground force ready to defend Canadian soil” from a non existent physical ground threat that could violate our sovereignty. That’s why u see more of a push to have our Army as a more expeditionary force rather than a defence force even tho it can’t fulfill this duty due to funding to get the proper capabilities in order to carry out these operations. And to say hey maybe we shouldn’t, well if you look at the main goals of the armed forces it’s too 1. Protect Canada 2. Protect North America 3. Fulfill our NATO obligations. Protecting Canada and North America as a whole is already being done through NORAD and as previously stated a physical ground threat to Cdn soil is pretty non existent that’s why homeland defence obligations can easily be carried out by the RCAF and RCN cause those are the most likely avenues of approach when it comes to violating our national sovereignty whether it be from aircraft / drones / cruise missiles / to ballistic missiles not to mention sub surface to surface threats that can violate our sovereignty from the air and sea. Thus this leaves the Army which serves on 2nd biggest land mass on the planet with a obligation to fulfill a duty of being expeditionary to deploy to certain parts of the world that have been determined for the last decade as important strategic interests towards our own national interests and international obligations.
@@averyn34trans people arnt going to pick up an AR-15 and fight a war, the only people who reliably enter military service are straight white men and the current administration in Canada has done everything in their power to crush their spirt.
Enjoy the freedom you have while you still can because the next global war is going to be a disaster for the western states
The 'out of shape former High School athletes' moniker is very apt.
Thank You for taking time to talk about our armed forces it was an amazing listen. The CAF are deeply under appreciated by our people and definitely underfunded, hopefully both those can be remedied through increased spending and specialization.
The Canadian Rangers are a very loosely organized, very part-time group of members more correctly considered to be civilian liaisons to the CAF. They are local residents of the communities in which their patrols are based - remote villages and towns in the Northern and Coastal regions, far away from regular CAF presence. The rangers chief responsibility is to be a high-readiness asset to the CAF in the event of an emergency situation such as a natural disaster or search and rescue operation taking place far away from CAF presence.
Members are selected based on the pre-existing skills and knowledge they can bring to the patrol. Many of the members are First Nations and have extensive knowledge of local conditions and how to operate in them. Others might be chosen because they possess valuable skills and equipment that can be quickly mobilized if needed.
The training that the rangers receive is scant by the standards of regular military forces, but their roll as a military unit is considered secondary to their skills and resources that they can mobilize in short order. They’re a bit like a militia, but in a strict non-combat roll. If the red hoodie and ball cap doesn’t give it away, rangers are not there for fighting nor are they trained to be. They are just there to provide the CAF with eyes-on in parts of the country where it would take time to mobilize a response.
They are an under utilized asset in my opinion. They do partake in domestic operations but could certainly be used to shoulder more of the burden durning the fire seasons to keep the strain off the reg force units who are being pulled away from their training cycles every summer.
Ah, I was wondering why I had never heard of them before
The Army is not "Royal" because traditionally, army regiments were privately raised by wealthy individuals and lords and such. Whereas the Air Force and the Navy were raised by the federal government ("The Crown") and are therefore "Royal." (It's also why you have individual "Royal" Regiments within the army.)
That's true. What I read was that the British Army as such was created by Cromwell, so definitely not "royal."
I doubt the Canadian Army has anywhere near the 28000 figure. Closer to 19000. We only have 59 Battle tanks on the ground in Canada ...Frankly any numbers you get from the gov of Canada drop them by at least 30%. Ottawa will only buy what gets thdir Liberal ridings votes. ACSV is pretty much unarmed. As fof JTF2 is is starting to have the moniker of Trudeaus Praetorian Guard in reference to his continual use as security.. That said JTF2 is the best funded facets of the CAF eats the bulk of the Army budget and uses the CAF as their HR group depriving all arms of motivated soldiers sailors and Airmen.
@@kristianpedersen3370 Of course the ACSV is unarmed, its supposed to be an armoured ambulance, putting guns on it would be a geneva violation - it's replacing similarly unarmed obsolescent M113s that filled the same role. The LAV6 IFV the ASCV chassis is based on though is bristling with cannons and MGs. Close Protection is handled by a specialized RCMP unit, not the JTF, what nonsense are you spouting?
Canada has a proud and extraordinary military history considering its small population and young age. Our boys kicked absolute ass in the world wars. We had a reputation for aggression and afinity for close quarters fighting in the trenches.
I'm a current member of the CAF, and we all want nothing more than to restore the organization to its former glory, but we need our government to get on board first.
You probably need voters to get on board first. Canadians have to think it's important.
@michaelshurkin613 Unfortunately, there's no one to vote for. We currently have no federal political parties that support increasing funding for the military. Every aspiring government claims they will strengthen the CAF, then cut funding when they hold office.
You are correct that voters are overwhelmingly unconcerned with the state of the CAF, but I would argue that has to do with the fact that politicians ignore the issue. When it comes time to cast a vote, most Canadians forget that military spending is even on the ballot.
As a former CAF officer who "signed up" in 1968, I have seen government "White Papers" on defence come and go. All glossy presentations promising great things which never come to pass. They "talk the walk" but never "walk the talk" .... in other words .... just words and more words. Canadian governments don't possess the courage to make the tough choices on defence and other affairs of the nation, and instead spend anything and everything on social programs which do nothing to enhance the security and well-being of the country.
That's the impression I have.
Canadian governments seemed to rely on alliances such as NORAD and NATO for defence as well as the US belief of the 50’s and 60’s that Russia was the only threat and a nuclear missile defence is required for a deterrent rather than boots on the ground for long conventional war. Viet Nam and Afghanistan and now Ukraine hopefully has woke up the politicians of all parties and Trump has made them aware the alliances may not be honoured.
As what comes to the future of the army, Canada should have an Arctic Mechanized brigade. Stronger organic logistics and support, lighter more mobile force, less MBTs. Like the Jaeger Brigade in Finland.
I'm not sure you could get away with anything heavier than snowmobiles and hovercraft to achieve good mobility for the arctic archipelago, maybe something more like an arctic focused airborne unit would make sense.
Canada did away with their Airborne troops. Also not mentioned was CANSOF. They have no Marines either. Really just a lack of poloitical will. Shameful
Great analysis. I’m a retired CAF Army Paratrooper.
I would greatly enjoy a video on the Turkish armed forces. They're the largest army in NATO outside of America, and are modernizing in a major way.
On the list! :)
If Canada wants to be a specialized only military
- Special Forces
- Autonomous Air & Sea Systems
- Arctic Commando Squadron & ISR superiority
Arctic commando is a dream of mine, we could repurpose a part of the Rangers to act like the Australian RFSU's.
@@WakandaX_I dont know what the RFSU's do for australia.
Are they a tiered special operations group too?
@WakandaX_
Drone units would probably the best bangs for our bucks. We have a lot of homegrown specialized skills to make them. Robotic, programming and engineering.
CDN here... tend to agree at least from what I observe and hear. Seems we like to talk big, "ohh, we sent our CF-18s.", "ohh. We sent a task force", "ohhh, we got guys in Latvia/Lithuania".
But no ships. No carriers. No subs. No new planes. No people really. All these "scandals" we could call them.
We have huge land area, huge shoreline extending majorly into the arctic - where our "enemies" are looking to operate and exploit.
I certainly hope we find our way to immediately meet nato 2%. Maybe mandatory service is necessary.
Nuclear Igloo Doctrine
One of the most in-depth evaluations of the current CAF I've seen on UA-cam, and probably the best done by an American. Most tend to miss what is actually needed, but you nailed it on the head!
Thank you.
As a former service member for the US in Afghanistan, I appreciate Canadians there wasn't a lot of them over there buuuuuuuuuut the few that were put their work in
one other very overlooked asset of the CAF is its strong officer core, because there is alot of infastructure that is put into training in the CAF. Its increasingly in question with retention problems, but weve always hosted multinational forces to train in combined arms like operation maple resolve and agile ram, these are yearly excersices that take place in wainright alberta at the canadian manouver warefare training centre and deploy about 10k troops on the field in simulated and live fire environments, its pretty huge thing. Its likely why we are asked to lead alot of time. Even in ww2, 1st canadian army was over 250k, but we were also tasked with leading other allied divisions and sometimes they were attached to 1st canadian army which would swell the ranks to more than 400k all under canadian leadership. Like even our major investment in the allied air training program trained 130k allied pilots, again great training infastructure development has always been part of our doctrine.
Good soldiers Poorly supported by both traditional governing parties & the Canadian voting public since the end of WW2. My years of service 1967-96. x2 Infantry Reserve Regiments x1 Regular Armoured Regiment + special units. 3rd generation. x1 Grandfather, x2 Uncles & my father all served before me. All governments failed to 1) replace worn equipment 2) cut units & personnel 3) ignored a broken procurement system 4) cut & clawed back budgets. Tragic. Good people poorly supported by politicians & the voting public.
The Canadian Rangers use bolt action rifles for self defence against polar bears and grizzly bears. I kid you not. The reason that the Rangers use bolt action rifles is gas operated automatic platforms like the AR15 suffer stoppages in very cold climates as the mechanisms freeze up. It’s worth noting that the Canadians were originally part of the F35 program but pulled out due to cost over runs. Canada got back into the F35 program due to capability gaps as the F/A 18 aged. Australia had been supplying retired F/A 18 jets to Canada as the RAAF acquired the Super Hornet and the F35. If you want to see a comparable nation that has had to take its own defence seriously and protect a similar land mass I recommend you look at Australia. Australia has a similar population, borders three oceans (Indian, Pacific and Antarctic) and has a similar demographic spread with population on the coast with inhospitable interior and a large land mass to defend. Australia also has a similar political system of a bicameral federal parliament, individual constituent States/Provinces and with the King as head of state.
Yeah, I need to do Australia soon. Thanks for the info about the rifles.. Makes sense. They aren't for combat, clearly. And there's no need for that.
The Canadian Rangers use a bolt action rifle, not because the Colt Canada C7 and C8 rifles suffer stoppages in cold climates, but because you don't need a semiautomatic rifle to shoot carnivores. The C19 Ranger rifle is a 7.62x51mm which is a better calibre for dropping polar bears. I carried the C7 and other Canadian Army weapons in the Canadian arctic and Norwegian mountains for years and they work just fine in cold climates.
You are far too kind to the CURRENT Canadian military. They are an absolutely hollow force that could not withstand a near peer engagement for any length of time. Most importantly their political leadership is abysmal.
@@greggpratt7711 Agreed. It makes tokenistic deployments and most of the quality Seasoned Afghan veterans have now left. It is almost like a sort of armed NGO. Nasty, slimy, pole-climbing types jump on these lukewarm and rare 'foreign deployments' as the nearest thing to a combat tour.
A pity as the soldiers and junior officers themselves are fine fighting men with all the right values and instincts. But it somehow reflects a Liberal society that is more interested in things like anti jaywalking campaigns
Canada having a military just might be Canada's best kept secret.
I think that Finnish conscript army requires a deep look from outside perspective and how professionals really rate it.
Yes. Great topic.
Thanks. Excellent dispassionate and professional analysis as always. I’m doing my part to expand your reach
Much appreciated!
About the sovereignty thing, Canada currently has several territorial disputes with other countries, including allies like the US, and proven invaders which is Russia. All of it in the Arctic, and like you say in the next couple of decades this will become serious because there are a lot of resources that are going to be opening up. I think you are right that Canada needs to specialise in this, given that the Yanks have very few icebreakers to rely on so Canada needs to get a bunch and then also nuke boats would also help a lot up there?
I was surprised to know Canada used to deploy fairly sizable troops in Lahr Germany during the cold war
Not only Lahr, but also 4 Wing Baden-Söllingen & 3 Wing Zweibrücken as major air bases. There was also a large army presence in Soest northern Germany, This was eventually moved to Lahr making it a combined Air Force & Army base with a full Mechanized Brigade. The air component in Lahr was transport, a Tactical Helicopter Squadron attached to the army brigade & one fighter squadron from Baden would deploy to Lahr during tactical exercises.
I believe you are right about the Strategic view in the Arctic Ocean. I cannot tell for sure but I think that the US government and Defense department have probably been whispering in the Canadian Governments ear that the Arctic should be our focus. The strong commitment to buy ships and planes by the current government does satisfy an Arctic defence poster.
I have mixed feelings about the purchases, the Fighter planes where the last government was going to buy without a strategic review and bid process was 65 F 35’s while the Air Force was saying they needed 88. After the current government cancelled the buy and forced the Air Force to do the Strategic Review and a bid process. The Air Force did that and came back and said that they confirmed they needed 88 Fighters and the F 35 was still the best option available so the government committed to buying 88 F 35s.
The Navy must have gone through something similar. The last government started the process of replacing the 12 frigates and 4 destroyers with 15 vessels with a common hull to fulfill both functions. Between 10 and 12 hulls with just the frigate functionality ( more general purpose with a particular focus on anti submarine warfare) and between 3 and 5 with the full destroyer functionality. (Very capable in Air Defence and anti ship warfare) the Trudeau government has expanded the timelines but decided to buy the complete destroyer capability for all 15 vessels. In both cases there was an increase capability but at a cost of time. Time that I am not sure we have anymore.
The Army is a problematic situation. Canada leads the Multi National Battle Group in Latvia and the plan is for Canada will still lead the organization when it grows to an international Brigades Group. I think the Americans have said that we could leave Latvia if we concentrated on the Arctic. But the Latvia mission fills an emotional need that the Canadian Army has. It’s not important that we participate in Latvia, we need to lead it. Part of our Army’s ability to function as a professional army is the running of full spectrum of combat. With a lack of all the pieces that make up an army formation in battle we need to leverage the troops and equipment that other armies bring to the party. You learn more by being in charge because others are looking to you. So the participation in the NATO operations in Europe is as much of a teaching tool for the Canadian Army as it is for us fulfilling our NATO commitments.
Canada has always maintained a strong officer core, but even this is increasingly in question. I read a thesis from an RMC graduate that critiques this. I mean in any case to be fair that this is a problem many militaries are facing. And with the advent of covid things like yearly excersices like maple resolve and agile ram were really interrupted and alot more pressure being put on CAF members as many are retiring and big retention problems occurred as many left for private sector to fill other more profitable positions. I think the last thread holding it all together is the amazing pension and flexibility of scedule for members.
@@Kevin-np3sx I think we are at a crossroad. For years I have heard that there is (like) 2 60 year olds for every 20 year old and those ratios should be reversed. Add to that situation the fact that the 20 year old does not see themselves following in our footsteps. Those two things together means that there is no guarantee that everyone retiring today is going to have someone replacing them. Sooner or later those numbers had to add up. Then comes COVID people are told to stay home. Businesses and organizations are not hiring new people. Including the military. I don’t know about you but I saw a lot of adds for “make money on line” some adds were about being a millionaire others were just saying you could replace your income. I did not check them out but if even some of them opportunities replaced the income of some kid who did not really like the job that COVID was keeping him from then when the COVID restrictions were lifted that kid was not going back to that job. So everybody thought(including the military) that we could just go back to the way it was. But I don’t think the 20 somethings were happy with the way things were and are not keen to go back. COVID was the perfect time to change direction and I believe that most of our businesses, our governments, our schools and even our militaries have not figured that out yet. I do not think we will get our government and military houses in order until we face that fact. We have been bringing in more immigrants than usual lately . If that is how we plan to replace the 20 somethings that we are missing in the community. (And it seems like we are) then we should fully embrace it. The American military has a system where an immigrant ca fast track his citizenship by serving the the military then we should be looking at something similar.
Can you do Australia please
There's a fantastic 6-hours-long video by Hypohistericalhystory about the Australian Armed Forces on UA-cam
Canada can do the most good in the West by becoming a true arsenal of Democracy. Support its indigenous arms capability to the hilt. Canada's industrial might is sorely under utilized when it comes to arms production. Canada can truly build anything it wants with its own talent. Canada alone could supply Ukraine with all the 155mm ammo it could ever use with minimal investment in its two ammo plants. The US Army has been begging the Canadian Government to pony up the funds. It is one area where we could punch above our weight while greatly helping our own economy. Our misguided and miseducated population needs to get over its adversion to weapons when our country was founded on conquest.
Yes to all.
Thank you for answering my call with expert knowledgeable insight. I am hopefully going to the Royal Military College for Infantry Officer and your strategic insights and opinions really allow me to shape up a better understanding of the geopolitical world.
Thank you. Does RMC come after being commissioned?
@michaelshurkin613 RMC is right after high school or up to 2nd year university. Once you graduate, you get a commission and a degree, almost like Westpoint.
Hello Michael. Thank you for this presentation about the CAF.
I would be happy to provide you with background explanations and information about the CAF and DND. With over 40+ years of service, including several years at NDHQ on the staff of the VCDS, I believe I could clarify those areas where you are unsure of your information as well as providing "Canadian context". For example, the RCN, Canadian Army and RCAF are not services in the traditional sense. They are merely "force generation" commands. They are only 3 of roughly 20+ "Level One" commands across both CAF and DND. To an outsider, our structure is complicated and not intuitive.
Concerning "Reserve forces", there are four different types. One is the traditional reserve force, the "Primary Reserve". And separately, the "Canadian Rangers" are a separate Reserve component but are part of the Canadian Army.
I hope to hear from you.
Thank you. Do you have any insight as to why the Canadian government cut as much as it did in the 1960s?
Can you please send me your email address, Michael?
@@michaelshurkin613Hello Michael, so good to hear back from you.
Cutbacks during the 1960s... sure thing.
Briefly, because messages here do not lend themselves to ease of writing.
Popular mythology will point fingers at the Liberal government under Pierre Trudeau (yes, father of the current PM). In reality, the first steps to downsize were made under the Conservative Diefenbacher government with an extensive study of all Federal government operations and departments, known as the Glassco Commission. In this report were the initial seeds which led to the "integration" and later "unification" of the Army, Navy a d Air Force into one service, the Canadian Armed Forces.
I am broadbrushing because there is a whole lot more to get into.
There is the 1964 White Paper which both led to the unification as well as significant restructuring of the Forces to be "peacekeeping oriented". At the time, the PM was Lester Pearson, considered to be the father of peacekeeping in the 1956 Suez Crisis for which he won the Nobel Prize.
The White Paper laid the seeds for the later downsizing.
Remember, this was the 1960s. The Vietnam experience did not engender strong support for the military. There was also a period of detente with the Soviet Union.
The government was focused on other distractions such as the independence movement in the province of Quebec, with the terrorist organization, the FLQ, as the most extreme element (October Crisis, 1970, War Measures Act).
Pierre Trudeau also was more of a pacifist when it came to international geopolitics (1984, Trudeau peace initiative as a reaction to Reagan's Star Wars).
In the 1960s, the CAF employed nuclear weapons - Bomarc missiles, Honest John missiles, nuclear bombs on CF-104 Starfighters, Genie missiles on CF-101 Voodoos and nuclear depth charges for ASW. One of Trudeau's pursuits was to get rid of nuclear weapons in the CAF in support of nuclear non-proliferation initiatives. He did so.
Incidentally, the Trudeau who made cuts was also the same Trudeau who initiated a series of re-equipment programmes in the late 1970s - CF-18s, Leopard 1 tanks, AVGPs, forerunner to the LAVs, a new fleet of Navy frigates, the Aurora (Orion) ASW patrol aircraft, new small arms, modest increase to personnel levels. And so on.
I served in the CAF from 1977 to 2022 with a further almost 3 years as a civilian public servant. I do have some background experience which I would be happy to share with you.
My BA is in Political Science and History.
I hope my content is helpful. I can do more.
Cheers, Mike
Any chance you could do one on the Turkish armed forces?
It is the 2nd largest army in Nato and when adding in purchasing power parity they are just below France in actual spending.Yet are activly on multiple warzones including the multiple on their border
Your Chrétien joke made me laugh out loud 😂 well done 👏
As a Canadian, I have to agree with your analysis. Though I have to say a large part of the reason that Canada can't buy as much as it says it wants is because the military procurement system is terribly broken, and has been for decades. Even basic equipment procurement like the recent purchase of cold weather sleeping bags was botched - they couldn't keep soldiers in the field warm enough in the winter. For a good overview of how long, and how much time and money is wasted due to Canadian procurement issues I'd recommend the Perun video, "Canadian Defence Strategy and Issues - Procurement Disasters, the Arctic & Alliances"
Now this is a nice surprise of a video!
Thank you for watching!
Please keep in mind that technically, we're getting 11 river class destroyers to replace the 12 Halifax frigates. There are 4 additional aegis equipped river destroyers to replace the 4 tribals that were retired many years ago.
Also, as I understand it, the previous Conservative government was spending 0.9% of GDP on defence, so 1.7%, while not stellar, is pretty good. The army still needs an air/drone defence system, and MANPADS & anti-tank systems. LAWS isn't very good against tanks. Ukraine has pretty much thrown everything on its head with drones. More AOPS (if they work) would be nice, as well as under-ice capable subs. If they don't put external tanks on the F-35s, more tankers will be needed too.
i have met chretien a few times in this life, and he would probably find your queb roommates comment pretty funny himself, he is a pretty funny guy. but he did suffer a paralysis to his face from a bout of bells palsy in his youth...so the reason he wasn't the most clear speaking guy en francais or in english was due to a bit of a disability. he was still pretty eloquent. i remember as a young man in the 90s going to a remembrance day ceremony on parliament hill, and the powerful, moving speech with weight and gravity as those cf-18s ( i think we are still using them today) did low show of power fly bys as the howitzers fired in the back ground. what a great exploration of the caf though. and nice to see an outsiders perspective, as a canadian and reserve member you don't often see that when your bogged down in the day to day.
I don't know enough to judge Chrétien...I've never heard he was a bad guy, though. And he was right to stay out of Iraq. That's the truth.
I always thought this country was worth defending, from all threats. The reason the Americans were not keen on Canada acquiring nuclear submarines is that they were sailing through under the ice cap without Canada's permission or knowledge. They really have not recognized Canada's sovereignty over the North West Passage.
The justification on the US side was something something about nuclear proliferation. The US exempted the UK from that because of a treaty signed in the 50s.
But I suspect you're argument is the real reason.
Yes, the USN has long regarded the Arctic as its own domain, and their was zero interest in sharing it with Canada.
The French had offered to sell Canada Rubis class SSNs, but they were deemed inferior to the British subs, so that deal never got beyond the offer stage. Ronald Reagan intervened and authorized Canada to buy UK built SSNs (based on US tech), but by then the USSR was on the verge of collapse and the Conservative government decided against it to save money.
Also I’m a fan of Canada armed forces too!
I find your analysis and conclusions valid and thoughtful, also fairly spot on.
I spent years through political involvement, vainly attempting to temper/minimize the fervour to downsize the CAF.
Be it Pierre Trudeau or Jean Chrétien, there was always a greater priority for funds elsewhere... Mind you, the Conservative Gov'ts
were not a whole lot better! Even the argument for Sovereignty was minimized as being alarmist and horrendously costly to make credible.
Mind you, this occurred by and large prior to ''Global Warming'' being a demonstrable thing. I did not even bother with Justin's gang, other than a comment
or suggestion to an acquaintance who was a Cabinet Minister; most of my generation are in the Senate now, with little capacity for anything beyond basic advocacy.
It has been a disheartening half century for anyone who was a foreign policy/defence pundit. Conveying recognition that there is a causal relationship that imbues credibility
in the context has been frustrating beyond description. The loosy goosy/laissez faire attitude prevails to this day, although Ukraine did seem to focus the minds
to a degree hitherto unseen, at least since the Cold War. Be well and stay safe
I am Canadian and did not know we still had an army.
There's a handful of modernization programs underway for the Canadian military, unfortunately they're all top heavy with consideration only given to equipment acquisition rather than maintenance and recruitment. The Government of Canada had the brilliant idea of cutting the military's maintenance budget this year, so expect all our new LAV-6's to rot away unmaintained in motor pools and our already overworked frigates to rust away as preventative maintenance is no longer in the budget.
During the great war the Canadian and Australian armies stymied the bulk of the northern German offensive of 1918. There is a fantastic docodrama made jointly between Australia and Canada, will try and get a link
“And anything else that happens to be on my mind” appears to be a lot of things! Im not complaining though!
Yes. :)
Can you do one on Australia and New Zealand
Australia, yes. New Zealand? I can't explain them. And honestly, they don't matter.
1. The CA has LAV IIIs and LAV 6s. The LAV III is Canadian designed and was sold to the US as the Stryker.
2. We got rid of tanks in the 90s due to US Gen Shinseki's writings...
That's unfortunate. Shineski at the time was in the thrall of high tech that didn't exist and still doesn't.
I'v heard these arguments begore that Canada should focus on the defence of Canada and nothing else. These arguments come from politicians and civilians who are completely removed from Canadian military culture and the mindset of our soldiers, sailors and aviators. We are indeed attached by the hip to the Americans, and when it comes to war fighting, our servive members are almost identical. Our troops do not want to sit on our shore lines and baby sit the country for their 25 year careers. We sign up to deploy overseas and put ourselves into harms way. The current government is eroding that ability to deploy and fight. This lack of purpose and support from the government and public just destroys troop morale. Reconstituting the military and putting them on arctic border patrol would ensure one thing, not a single person would show up to the recruiting center.
Regarding movies telling Canadian army stories, there is an interesting Dutch film, "The Forgotten Battle" (2020), that depicts Canadian troops assaulting the Walcheren Causeway during the Battle of the Scheldt, 1944. At least it's something 🙂
I saw that. Yet I forgot it was about Canadians.
There's also the Hyena Road: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyena_Road
This is great! Thank you for the education.
You're welcome!
Really enjoy your content, specially your analysis of primary sources. Given your expertise with the French defense establishment I would be interesting to hear you dive into the recent plans for the Belgian and French army to start operating very closely together.
We also have the LAV 6. The Rangers are a great organization. They are really a "show the flag" element to demonstrate our interests in the North
Liked and subscribed. I enjoy your presentation style
@@jessehaug6998 thank you.
I was considering military service for Canada (as resident). Seeing current line of Ottawa I've given up, Canada doesn't seem to be serious about defence.
on the topic of our leopard tanks one thing that is much worth noting is that our tanks are too old, the shell of the tank is perfectly fine, its the internal components which have been only patchworked for the last 20 years and overall they are failing. id say only about 15% of our battle tanks are operable the rest are either in warstock, been stripped for parts for other tanks or just simply broken and we dont have the ability to get parts to fix them.
for example the AEV 2 (The Badger) keeping those things running feels impossible and sometimes can be very harmful to the operator for example the issue with the fire suppression system going off from simply light hitting the sensor which should only go off when it detects fire, not when light hits it, not when you turn on the tank or turn it off or even touch the electrical... the stuff it sprays you with has a high degree of cancer causing and genetic changing qualities... one common thing people get from repeated exposures is the development of new allergies.
all of our armour is in disrepair as around 60 % of all our vehicles are unserviceable, this issue is widespread and its really bad.
but.. it is worth noting that with the tanks we are building a huge brand new factory in edmonton where the Lord Strathcona tank regiment is stationed and with this factory we will bring in our tanks and just completely strip them of all their internals and replace them with brand new parts, this is actually extremely good because because that means we will be able to keep our tanks in great working condition for a longer period of time and it will allow us to utilize our tanks to the best of their ability... instead of setting itself on fire after driving 2 km on relatively flat terrain.
i love what i do in the military and love being in the military, despite these issues and us constantly shooting ourselves in the foot with a ridiculous amount of bureaucracy and unnecessary process. even though to my understanding the higher ups are very well aware of all of this but they have little to no control on fixing this stuff and the spend all their time fighting the governemt to be able to do anything and we are bound in certain contracts that are extremely bad for us and prevent us from upgrading certain things or even getting rid of them.
its all really bad and can be fixed, the issue is that we need to really focus on putting competent people into positions of power in the military instead of alot of them that do things based on how beneficial it is for themselves. you know like regular politicians
p. 66 Volume 6 of the Exercitium Cogitandi by Rolf R. Loehrich - Dancing With Death - The Personal Equation - A Diagnostic Impertinence. "PAX AMERICANA".
Canadian here, our decline in military power is directly tied to a cultural issue.
the biggest part of the decline did start in the 90s, and theres a reason for that. Rwanda, and Bosnia.
before these two missions, the national pride behind having a strong military was built on successful UN Missions, which was in defiance of American policy before 9/11. The americans have never wanted us to be particularly strong, for obvious reasons, and for just as many obvious reasons that changed after 9/11.
Rwanda and Bosnia though, changed the entire culture of the nation in regards to the Armed Forces; Rwanda was a horrid bloody mess, that served to be nothing but a PTSD grinder. Held back from doing their jobs by the UN and forced to watch one of the most savage events of the 20th century first hand, and before a time where PTSD was being treated seriously in any regard. Because PTSD wasnt taken seriously, a significant portion of the troops that went to rwanda then went to bosnia.
and in bosnia, they refused to be restrained, they already went through one genocide, they already watched uncounted women and children hacked to pieces.
I hate to say it, but many of those soldiers should have gone to an international court for warcrimes, they were savage monsters and the canadian media was not afraid to show it, they absolutely relished destroying the image of the once proud and then savage war fighters of canada, and doing so in my opinion with american dollars in their pockets but thats not really the point.
As much as the elite of this nation have continually pushed the CAF deeper into the hole, they do so largely with public support stemming from those two conflicts. If you are interested in learning more, the writings and speeches of former LT-General Romeo Dellaire are absolutely pivotal in understanding this shift in the cultural zeitgeist.
Thank you so much for this. I was not aware of the impact on the CAF and public opinion of those missions, but it makes sense..years ago I ran into a drunk Dutch soldier who had just returned from Bosnia. He was wrecked.
great stuff, as usual. if you want a real head-scratcher try Ireland and its defense policy
Lol. The Irish are just freeloading off the UK and the US. Plus their messed up weird anti-Western penchant, like their government's fondness for Nazi Germany.
Wait. There is a movie about the Canadians during D-Day called Storming Juno. ua-cam.com/video/Dyqh5hIcMaE/v-deo.html
The link to Passchendaele: says the video is not available in your country!
Very surprised when I learned Canada chose wheeled versus tracked fighting vehicles for an artic climate. Doesn't make much sense. Fyi: NATO is now requiring each member nation to have 1 heavy brigade at a minimum. So that means tanks and IFVs.
Yeah, tracks make sense. And these: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandvagn_206
Canada really isn't unique in the sorry state of its armed forces. Many European countries also cut spending and let theirs deteriorate after the USSR collapsed. Remember, in the 1980s, the Bundeswehr was one of the best equipped and trained armies on the continent, and even Canada had a brigade group with tanks, self- propelled arty and SAM in Germany.
Many countries, the USA included, cashed in a big 'peace dividend' in the 1990s. The difference is that 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq re-energized the USA to make huge investments in the Army, USAF, and USN. Many European countries kept defence spending loweven in the 2000s, and have only recently seen a need to heavily re-invest in the armed forces.
All good points.
What to do with 70 MBTs? You attach them to your mechanized brigades. Each platoon will get 1 MBT in addition to the IFVs. A battalion geta 10 tanks, a brigade gets 30. Perfect!
just have to see how many VCs the Canadian armed forces have won over the years to see how brave and capable they are
Little typo in the description, the battle of passchendaele of WW1 not WW2
Ooh, I need to fix that.
Canada needs a foreign policy, so a proper defense policy can be created and then procurement can follow. All of these would make it make more sense for everyone about why Canadian Armed Forces needs something. And if those policies are in place then it must be keep in place and not change every min.
Thanks for making this video. As a Canadian, our military is severly underfunded. Partly because of geography but mainly because of politics. Each political party constantly reviews defence with every change of government and each party has different ideas of what the military should be. The liberals would not have a military if their radical wing had their way and the conservatives spend on the military but not enough. There is no multi party committee to guide the military like in other countries to take the politics out of our national defence
Thank you for watching. The Liberal party appears to be a big tent that includes all sorts of groups that Trudeau has to manage. What do you think he would do if he had a free hand?
Goddamn, what really surprised me is air force. It's almost the same we have here in Finland. And you would think that one thing, along with navy that's actually useful for Canada. Other one is lack of nuclear submarines, it's again one thing Canada actually would benefit in huge way. Since realistically any threat would most likely be ocean away.
Many thanks for this video! Really appreciated! Could you do a video on NATO's frontline states: the Baltic countries, esp Lithuania where any next Russian push (towards Kaliningrad) is possible or even likely..
I'm planning to.
Very well thought out and researched. Correct with the Cretien cuts but additionally nothing was done by the following government so 20 years with little being done. Correct about the LAV 6, it is an up armoured LAV 3 based on learning from Afganistan and oddly for what started as a troop carrier is one of the most heavily armoured fighting vehicles around. The M113 isn't used. The government has not said much about the army I think partly based on what is being learned in Ukraine. It is also looking at rebuilding its induatrial support.
Canada is also looking at the South Korean KSS3 sub. What admittedly has only started but there is plannig going on for a new coastal patrol vessel of about 3000 tons. THe problem has been to rebuild the ability to build warships after 20 years of neglect. So far starting in 2015 the current government has resisted opposition pressure to build less capable frigates. also of note is the rebuilding of the northern radar network.
What you did not mention that I think is relevent is the coast guard. Aside for the soon to be completed 6 Arctic Patrol vessels the government id building 2 similar vessels for the Coast guard. Plus it is contracting for 2 heavy ice Breakers. This is relevent because the US and Canada have made an agreement regarding ice breakers. Like Canada the US is having trouble building ships. The plan is for the Davy yard which has bought a Finnish yard with ice breakers to buy a yard in the US where ice breakers for the US can be built.
You should do a video on one of the Baltic countries military.
Planning on it :)
Rangers to my understanding are essentially an arctic force for very remote areas, kind of like militarized park rangers.
And regarding a future focus on a very focused specialized capability instead of being a lacklustre 'top-tier' military, I agree to a certain extent and actually do see this as the cheapest option, and one that my government is already pursuing through it's training missions in countries like Latvia and Estonia. Our current government is a bit braindead, but I see future governments as course correcting and taking a cheap but very specialized aim. I think the same goes for our air force - I've been saying for years that our air force should be focusing on wildfire fighting operations as a means of exporting soft power, as future worsening wildfires are not insignificant.
Militarily though, yes, I think using Canada as the backup arctic force for the Baltics is the best course of action while the US focuses with the UK and Australia against China. Considering our mechanized forces train in Alberta where it's cold, mountainous, but also very vast, flat, and cold, I think it's fitting for action in the Baltics in conjunction with our Scandinavian allies and would likely match the combat power of a secondary military action by Russia to stop a flanking maneuver through the Baltics into countries like Poland and Germany.
Your point about the forest fires is something I had not thought of. In truth, that is a growing threat. A major one.
First - Many thanks to TF Knighthawk (06), Aces and Sevens saved the lives of many Canadians in Kandahar. They flew into danger anywhere for us, and we who served there alongside are eternally grateful.
I'm no expert, but I always thought that we should be good at what we're good at, and also what is necessary for Canada to be good at. Everything the host says is true. I'll put it in laymen's terms. Everything we've done since Korea has been half-assed and unnecessary. Mechanized forces in Canada is stupid, and it is this way because of tradition and individuals hanging on to something that is over and done with.
If Canada was smart it would abolish the regimental system and adopt a system like the US Marines where you are a Marine before all else. If you ask a Marine what they are, the reply is always "I'm a Marine" before they tell you they are Armoured corps, or Infantry, or whatever. In Canada you get "I'm PPCLI", or "RCR", or "Tac Hel" or whatever trade they are first and foremost. So from that perspective, right from the start there is a lack of unity of purpose, and regimental rivalries typically sabotage the construction of unified defensive systems that contribute to, in this instance, being "Strong, Secure, and Engaged".
Again, I'm no expert, but Canada should be experts at defending the North. The US should have no hesitation about it's Northern Flank. Canada should be able to project and sustain forces into the North for indefinite periods of time. What does that mean? It means Canada should include under-ice capability that does not require fuel replenishment. It means the ability to project and sustain ground forces on any piece of land North of 60 in any type of weather that is found in that area for an indefinite period. That means light forces. It means logistical equipment and a tail that extends from southern cities to Northern Tundra and all the bits and pieces that could make something like that a reality. It means being able to deploy forces to barren pieces of land and establishing, improving, and increasing scale, over scheduled chunks of time, and then sustaining the infrastructure indefinitely if need be. It means significantly more Air Defense than what is currently in service. It means persistent surveillance, some of what is now available with the Rangers. It means long range aircraft and significantly more than is currently in service. It means a lot of things, but it definitely does not require LAVs and Tanks which are significant drains on current operational resources. It means a lot of other things that round off what I suggest here.
There is no requirement for Canada to have a presence in Europe. That is not of vital interest to Canada. Preserving and enhancing our relationship with the US who we do 80% of our trade with, and because we are next door neighbors, is why doing substantially more in the North on the North American Continent is of vital interest to Canada. Anything else is simply political posturing that has some form of personal interest for the decision makers who commit Canada to those tasks.
The government is a set of institutions if you read defense institutional documents like the last White Paper, Strong Secure Engaged defense policy, CAF Ethos, Transformation documents, and other articles, you are astounded by solid writing and the depth vision and mission. The Canadian Armed Forces as an organization with political direction translates the institutional mission into an organization of capability. Political incompetence and lack of direction, lack of funding, the method of social change, and unclear organizational goals makes the CAF a shallow and arguably ineffective force to achieve institutional goals. Aggression of autocracies around the world and Canada's current inability to identify, adapt, and address to these changes is disappointing.
You are correct about the Rangers they are a type of mountain special police and engineering group, not to be drafted in a war they have too many tasks at home 😁
I agree in part, i think more than fielding units to defend the Baltics, we should help partially on training and focus on a modernization and expansion. Pretty much every aspect of the CAF should be triple so that we are not a secuiarity liability for the US, and so that we can exervise agency over how our forces participate within NATO. I believe most canadians dissagree with the participation of the CAF in Afghanistan, but we had to help somehow given how much the US does for canadian security.
Canadians fought well in Afghanistan, but had a high attrition rate due to how much they were expected to due and how their operations were conducted.
Other operations such as in Iraq helping kurds and against ISIS were far more efficient, as we used our strengths, sych that we had an augmented impact.
You want to be strong enough to be relied on by your comrades, and strong enough to chose how and when to fight.
Why wasn't I taught about "Decompression Therapy"? And why wasn't it paid time off work from civilian work?
Canada used to have its own aircraft carrier.
Three
Canada for reasons that I never understood regarded its military as “peacekeepers” in the 1990’s and structured their military accordingly. This is despite the fact the Canadians used to have the world’s third largest navy and fought through WW2 and Korea. The biggest problem with Canada is it rested on its laurels as a nation shielded by the USA and being a member of NATO so it could rely on others. Canada also is obsessed with domestic social issues that prioritise things like transgender rights over planning to stop Russia or be prepared to fight to preserve democracy in Europe or the South China Sea. Canada also has tried to show independence from the USA in terms of acquisition of equipment instead of making themselves interoperable with the USA.
I confess that Canadian Woke surprises me and makes American Woke look trivial.
Excellent video! Pretty enjoyable. It seems the CAF needs major strategic and cultural reforms. But again the access to information here in Canada is abysmal. IE when Canadian forces get deployed, we regularly learn about it from US news/military press release. Many scholars and journalists have complained about it for a long time. Tough to improve when you destroy any potential critiques by not sharing any data.
France used to be like that. I was in France in 1991 and had to learn about French mil participation in the war by reading UK newspapers.
Would love to se what you think about the Norwegians (im Norwegian my self) and the changes it wil nede to do wehen going from being a northernflank frontline state, to a transit cuntry for forces going to reenforce Sweden, Finland, and maby the Baltik states.
Should Norway itsself make forces available to rienforce other cuntries or should they specialize?
I'd argue Norway should specialize. I mean, it has an actual land border with Russia, plus the North Sea and Arctic. Anything Norway can do to firm all that up lightens the load for the US and UK.
Major flaw though if everyone in NATO specialises, everyone becomes even more dependent on the USA for mass.
Which is a massive issue especially with Trump going back into the White House
Wished you’d discussed NORAD - m still wondering how that works practically
In truth I just don't know. But that's a great topic for further investigation.
@michaelshurkin613 but it’s a perfect example of how Canada’s Defense is imbricated within that of the US
So Canada is a bit like New Zealand
How do Australians see NZ concerning defense policies and cooperation aspects? Because both formed collision forces several times in the history but NZ has been maintaining a very small size of military than other allies had since ww2.
Léo Major is worth a movie, look him up…
This is an amazing video! One of my major concerns however as a Canadian is that our theatre of operation for NATO is Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia if I remember correctly. And with tensions rising with Russia although Russia doesnt have the capability to take on more nations there is always the chance that in the future it could (think about the flurry of annoubcements that we received from nearly all nato defence chiefs of each nation and their defense ministers stating that it was a threat. Also referencing the numerous sabotage operations that Russia has carried out in Europe). Its a big disappointment to me that if something were to ever happen in the next 5-10 years that theres a chance that we might not be equipped to support our allies in the early days of any war / conflict. With that being said I think that Russia is really trying the waters with both its allies right now and its own people, the alliance with China being the perfect example of a distrust between both nations but them both recognizing that they both similarly add to eachothers hands in the world of geopolitics
It would be good if Canada could pitch in, but I wonder if battling in the Baltics is the right fit for Canada, given that the Germans, Poles, and Finns are on hand, or should be.
@@michaelshurkin613 one other very overlooked asset of the CAF is its strong officer core, because there is alot of infastructure that is put into training in the CAF. Its increasingly in question with retention problems, but weve always hosted multinational forces to train in combined arms like operation maple resolve and agile ram, these are yearly excersices that take place in wainright alberta at the canadian manouver warefare training centre and deploy about 10k troops on the field in simulated and live fire environments, its pretty huge thing.
Thank you! This was another great video! I would say that CDN, while ticking all of the right boxes, seems to be "A Nation with an Army without a goal nor public / social support".
By this I mean that if you look at the doc you presented ""Strong Secure Engaged". It seems to be a "polite" cut and paste of other NATO mid to small size country's playbooks from Europe, much more than a straightforward external policy no?
For example, Point #1 "Asserting Sovereignty" would realistically mean doubling their budget for the Arctic. But they won't define these goals clearly.
Points 2 and 3 are essentially non-committal.
Maybe it is because the "Culture of Peace" in Canada has been fortified by this sense of geographic isolation since post WW2 you mentionned?
Lastly, I will surely follow the deliveries of the F-35! Who will get them 1st? Poland? Other NATO countries? Canada?
On that front, a VDO on the Rafales / F-35 would be super cool. Not sure if this is also part of your forte.
Thank you again Sir!
So, from what you have to say about us is only trashing the Canadian....
Fantastic breakdown - however a few points: your equipment knowledge is very out of date. M113s? Only in museums. We are on the LAV 6 platform now and there are three SOF units although JTF2 is the only Tier 1
Maintenance issues are absolutely a plague for the Canadian Army and attrition/ Force Generation issues have the potential to keep the RCAF in a nadir position. Otherwise well done sir!
Thanks. I read that the M113s were still around, but I'm happy to be corrected.
The wheeled vehicles you reference have been long since replaced and promised second hand to others. Canada is replacing the tanks as new ones become available that can fulfill requirements. Most of Canadian recruitment efforts are stymied by the constant demands of NATO for competent combatants, and trainers for other forces. Hence not available for training at home.
It is difficult to obtain the people for growing the force when there is a constant never ending berating of the organization by double talking folks like yourself.
Paschendale is an incredible movie! The CAF is sadly in such a poor state that it's effect is neglible at best. Procurement is a joke and succesive governments continually reduce much needed spending, regardless of political affiliation.
With America to our southern border our north should be prickly as a porcupine. We should have at least 9 RCN Harry DeWolfe class coastal patrol vessels, but with at least twice thier current armaments and one 20mm Phalanx CIWS each vessel. Our twelve minesweepers have not had a main gun since 2014. This is downright criminal !!!
With 202,000 kms coastline to patrol, we should be the world's largest customer of unmanned drones to protect our soverignty.
Plus, it was a huge mistake taking out of service, our ADATS mobile missile system in 2004.
Twelve conventional submarines?
Where they gonna grow those sub crews? The Perisher submatine commander course is no joke.
Exactly how many senior naval officers do you expect to appear out of nowhere???
Edit: Your idea of foregoing a full brigade of mechanized troops, as we once had dedicated to West Germany has some meit. We could aim at a Swiss model of National Guard with an elite leadership and training profesional smaller core has some merit. Also, ignoring recent Swedish military history, being neutral, they stepped up thier UN troop contributions. If the UN is to survive its current blistering regards Israel and American alliance and UN veto power, we could revisit this in the near future.
Swedish neutrality was a bit of a farce. The Swedes were deeply in bed with the US and NATO the whole time, with the CIA running lots of ops out of Sweden. I'm pretty sure Swedish contigency plans for a war with the Soviets all included at the top of the list full cooperation with NATO.
We have an army didn’t know
There were Americans at Normandy?
The picture of leopards in Afghanistan are Leo1s, not leo2a4 or 2a6. Might not be afghanistan either given that
Can you make a video on Swedens armed forces
Planning to.
@@michaelshurkin613 as a member of the home guard one thing that is new historically is that the Home Guard is part of the general equipment modernisation instead of getting hand me downs.
Its clear the homeguard is seen as a territorial force because the old territorial battalions are missing and the homeguard needs interoperability with Army units.
The homeguard was the only organisation that focused on national defence during the strategic timeout where other forces lost the capability to stay in the field longterm without facilities the homeguard had all that even if it was old stuff (this year our tractor drawn field kitchen was finally replaced with one that can be pulled at 80km/h). But new equipment is comming across the line and with a semi democratic organisation it has a great deal of influence on what to get.
A US officers eyes would bleed if he was in our unit because rank means relativley little as we elect our leaders and ranks come later after adequate training cources but people keep their old army navy or air force ranks. It sounds disorganized but it works because there is a lot of trust in the organisation as everyone is a volunteer and everyone knows each other, the political span is also very wide which leads to hilarious incidents like a right wing politician being the squad leader of the vice Mayor in the same municipality.
Please could you compare Spain?
Yes the Canadian army is in a poor state, but in a way it can be an advantage in the current ethos. The USA are facing a huge problem with the shift toward drones, they have a huge sunk cost fallacy to overcome and a military industrial complex heavily invested in maintaining the status quo and keep buliding legacy systems. We don't and we have the skills to make drones and well, drones are cheap to make. So we could catch up a lot of our underfunding in therm of practical efficiency by leaning in heavily on drone unit development.
can't watch the movie in canada
That's too bad.
With the arctic sea melting, Russia is on rhe run. Even small Portugal had done their first trip under ice with one of their Type 214 diesel submarines. Canada will have to detour Russia or let the US do that
I have said before that NATO should suspend Canada from NATO until we increase are military and meet the 2% or more, then NATO can take us back into the fold, the only way the Canadian government will ever meet its requirements to NATO unless the federal government in serious embarrassed on the world stage and NATO.
Canada is a friend and ally of the U.S., but we are a sovereign country. Therefore we do have to spend money on our own defence. For our NATO commitments and NORAD as well. Too many years of Liberal governments have diminished our military and brainwashed many people into pacifists. The U.S. has a similar issue with the growing Marxist movement. We should increase our military spending by at least another 25 billion. You're wrong that most Canadians don't know anything about our military. The majority of Canadians are patriotic, knowledgeable and love our military. We want to bring back our armed forces to a formidable size and strength. It's typically leftists that hate our way of life that want to gut the military and think we don't need a Canadian military. You know, people who tear down historical statues etc.
Canadian air defenses in Ukraine would be a good start
Canadians, we are natural woodsmem. And make for great scouts and light infantry. Also we are just plain stubborn, a virtue when used properly.
Maybe 80-90 years ago.
@@nolansacket3457 no it's still true today absolutely. There is just a bigger portion of hopeless shut-in city folk now.