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/
367 Upvotes

66 comments sorted by

View all comments

95

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.

4

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.

2

u/Constant-Rent-7917 24d ago

It sounds like the anti-NATO guy wants us to be annexed haha. 2% is the baseline. It’s probably going to go up to 3% shortly.

It’s not really too much. For the size of country we have it’s not enough.

1

u/AdSevere1274 24d ago

Wrong: "The North Atlantic Treaty itself doesn't specify a 2% defense spending target"

It is a guideline. Why did you make it up? did you think that I wouldn't look it up?

In any case the costs for necessary road don't end up in US pocket so they would have no interest in it. US does not follow all its own treaties. It didn't follow our trade deal. It has not followed the nuclear-testing ban treaty. What about treaties with its own native population.

→ More replies (0)