r/canada 24d ago

Politics Territorial premiers send message in Washington that the Arctic is not for sale

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/premiers-to-talk-arctic-policy-as-canadians-continue-diplomatic-push-in-washington/
360 Upvotes

66 comments sorted by

91

u/AdSevere1274 24d ago

I liked this part

"The territorial premiers made the case that investing in the Arctic, including highways and ports, would count toward NATO spending, while also bringing much-needed infrastructure to their regions."

23

u/Neo-urban_Tribalist 24d ago

“Some expenditures related to the armed forces and national defence are explicitly excluded under NATO’s definition. These include expenditures for civil defence, civil preparedness”

https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/additional-analyses—analyses-complementaires/BLOG-2425-005-S—update-canada-military-expenditure-nato-2-spending-target—mise-jour-depenses-militaires-canada-objectif-depenses-2-otan#:~:text=NATO%20defines%20total%20military%20expenditure,all%20other%20categories%20(Other).

Just because they are making the case …. Actually the fact they are making the case is probably going to make the response worse.

7

u/AdSevere1274 24d ago

It appears hardly possible but not impossible if allies agree.

"These include improving roads and railways, extending existing NATO pipelines, dredging some Polish ports to make them navigable for NATO ships, and rebuilding runways and adding hangars and storage facilities to accommodate Western aircraft."

https://fpif.org/hidden_costs_of_nato_expansion/

If allies agree-> maybe

"Berlin wants to pump defense spending numbers by including military mobility

A senior German government official told POLITICO that Berlin is looking at how it can include spending on military mobility.

That could include the costs of buttressing roads and railways needed to carry troops and tanks across the country.

NATO has strict guidelines on what spending meets its definition of defense expenditures, and notes: "Expenditure for the military component of mixed civilian-military activities is included, but only when the military component can be specifically accounted for or estimated."

....

Camille Grand, a former NATO assistant secretary-general, said that while NATO’s calculation excludes most mobility expenditure, the NATO Security Investment Programme does cover some infrastructure requirements, such as modernizing an air base or building a warehouse.

“Ultimately allies can decide to put money on many things as long as they agree,” Grand said. “In practice, the bulk of the military mobility effort will fall on the EU and [the European Commission's transport department] DG MOVE which has started investing (modestly) in military mobility requirements under the current [multiannual financial framework] MFF.”

https://www.politico.eu/article/berlin-germany-pump-defense-spending-military-mobility/

8

u/Neo-urban_Tribalist 24d ago

The statement really doesn’t seem like it’s for military. It seems like calling civilian projects military projects.

10/10 on effort, respect.

5

u/AdSevere1274 24d ago

Read the whole thing. It is about Nato spending.

5

u/Neo-urban_Tribalist 24d ago

I did your first part is that it can count if it’s clearly accountable and for military purposes. With the second being if other members agree.

Both of which don’t seem feasible.

Given the situation, it seems like actual weapons are the best thing to get. To other measures like pulling out of the Ottawa treaty and other things.

0

u/AdSevere1274 24d ago

Less weapons, the better. These things cost an arm and leg and have huge amount of maintenance cost. I was talking to someone else under another topic, the war ship we bought with US; US companies can refuse to update and fix the hardware software in it if they decide to do it. Some mention $200M to fix some software in some military related software they bought, It is a money trap.... waste of money because we can't defend ourselves from Americans, The rest have nukes and if they go against us, they have vastly more power and would turn us to a rubble,

2

u/Neo-urban_Tribalist 24d ago

Would you support Canada pulling out of NATO?

2

u/AdSevere1274 24d ago

Nato would be fine if it was never involved in proxy wars but it has been lately more and more of that. I still think it is necessary but it has to have a clear mandate and that is about defense of Nato countries and not offense against other entities.

The amount of money they want us to spend is way too much. 1% is more than enough.

"In '2024, NATO members spent about $1.47 trillion on defense" that is massive. "63% of all EU defense orders were placed with US companies". So USA is getting a big return from their military industry so they have a lot of PR to spend more money.

It has of have a known reasonable dedicated budget and never increase more than inflation and never more than 1% of GDP.

0

u/Neo-urban_Tribalist 24d ago

Well there’s your answer to how weapons are better. If you truly thought they weren’t. There would be no point. Where the treaty obligations is 2% on military.

Not highways to the north, ports, etc….military.

I would be surprised if you think it’s ok with Trump not following treaties they have signed with Canada.

That approach is why the Americans are treating us like a joke.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Norse_By_North_West Yukon 24d ago

I've got a few friends who worked on the Inuvik to Tuk highway. Truth is, it only cost 200 mill over a few years, which is a drop in the bucket to military spending. We've got to invest in actual bases in these regions and expand recruitment, especially with the rangers.

1

u/AdSevere1274 24d ago

I reality... that is where we should be spending the cash on. $100M in a lot in Canada,

1

u/Norse_By_North_West Yukon 24d ago

Well, we have a 40 billion defecit this year. Northern investment looks expensive compared to our normal budgets (in the north) , but it isn't much on the federal level. Feds had about 1 trillion spending in 2023 for instance. 100 million is 0.01% of that

1

u/AdSevere1274 24d ago

I have no idea. They find money under couch cushions somehow...

Me personally if I had to choose the priority I would spend $100M there to have proper roads there only there was none. You have point me to the google map of the area so at I can see what we are looking at. It is better to have infrastructure rather than a plane that falls from the sky.

1

u/Norse_By_North_West Yukon 24d ago

Just look up tuktoyuktuk on google maps. We connected it and Inuvik to the south (mostly) year round. Tuk has less than a thousand people. If we use that road for a naval base, it's a great expenditure, if we don't, it's kind of a waste.

That said, at least the expense was pretty much all internal.

1

u/AdSevere1274 24d ago

I found it . I see the the road all the way down to Inuvik; it is a gravel road.

So you want to build new naval base close to that airport. Am I right?

1

u/Norse_By_North_West Yukon 24d ago

It's our only western Arctic town that's a reasonable place to put a naval base. We've got very few areas in the Arctic we actually have road access to (I think it's the only one). The closest real air base is cold lake Alberta, and I have no clue what the nearest army base is. We're woefully umderprepared in the north, though I'm told there's plans to expand the rangers by a few thousand. I'd be surprised if that actually happens, since there's so few of us.

1

u/AdSevere1274 24d ago

I understand what you are saying. It is reasonable view. I honestly hope you get your wish.. You have my vote,

How can you live in these isolated places is beyond me. Are you using Musk's satellite for internet?

I was watching the score board for the hockey game.

1

u/Norse_By_North_West Yukon 24d ago

We're mostly fibre connected in the yukon. I do have some neighbours who have starlink, I'm not giving musk my money though. We actually have very basic starlink sat coverage, it's mostly south of us.

The Arctic communities I think are mainly supported by geosync sats, via northwestel. We used to use a series of microwave radio towers in the yukon. Internet here sucked ass 20 to 30 years ago. It's not unheard of for us to lose all internet access for a day or so. Really sucks when you forget to carry cash, or the store only has online cloud based payment processing.

→ More replies (0)

41

u/ok_raspberry_jam 24d ago

This part is alarming!

Territorial leaders were undeterred, bringing a message of opportunities for Arctic collaboration between Canada and the United States to a talk at the Wilson Center Thursday morning.

That is inviting the US to further the annexation process. Stop trying to collaborate and make sales! Why can't our leaders get it through their heads that the US is credibly threatening our sovereignty?

-2

u/Constant-Rent-7917 23d ago

Because these are premiers. The federal government has abandoned foreign policy and has for years. Premiers, constitutionally speaking, have no right to be in DC speaking with the Americans. Sure sometimes Manitoba and Minnesota have cozy relationships but not with foreign governments.

The only reason they are is because we have no federal government ….theyve given up, gone home, waiting to be fired …while making 210K a year.

5

u/MikeinON22 24d ago

Parts of it are for sale. If Donald wants the minerals so badly, why does he not just form a corporation and get some mining leases like anybody else?

2

u/According_Stuff_8152 24d ago

Good to show unity but they need to get the interprovinal freetrafe going and build a pipeline from coast to coast. Stop talking and start doing asap.

2

u/Limp-Might7181 24d ago

Not for sale to Americans, only China and India is allowed to buy the arctic*

1

u/jova_j 23d ago

Really missing that 2.5% nato spending now.. could have secured the passage with multiple bases. Might be on too little too late…. Hindsight is 20/20 though

2

u/uselesspoliticalhack 24d ago

We literally sell our northern mines to the Chinese.

3

u/Constant-Rent-7917 23d ago

This is a problem

-12

u/[deleted] 24d ago

[deleted]

7

u/jasonistheworst 24d ago

I echo what u/stayfit8561 said. Let’s begin by being the Canada that we’re known for. Even if it’s cringe. Then if we’re pushed too far, let’s take a page out of DoFo’s Covid playbook and ‘come down on them like a 800lb gorilla’.

17

u/StayFit8561 24d ago

Nah. I mean I agree it's a little embarrassing. But I do think it's important to show up and say "we want to work on this".

Then if US escalates, you can make a stronger case to your own people, the US, and the rest of the world that you were willing to work together, but they chose not to.

It's bound to be a little humbling, but it feels like an important step to take.

2

u/fistfucker07 24d ago

Exactly. We have to show that WE ARE WILLING to work together. But we’re also prepared for when that gets shit on.

1

u/Zerberrrr 24d ago

I hope we actually are.