G&M: Trudeau’s Liberals are full of promises on everything except Canada’s highest priority: defence

John Ibbitson

513 Comments

The federal government has become strangely surreal. Each day, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announces new initiatives that are some combination of (a) unnecessary, (b) outside federal jurisdiction and (c) unlikely to be realized before the next federal election.

Meanwhile, the government remains silent on the most pressing issue, and one for which it is 100 per cent responsible: shoring up Canada’s defences in a world growing more dangerous by the day.

Several recent announcements have been about housing. The Liberals are making large sums available to accelerate housing construction, provided provinces and municipalities meet federal requirements to loosen zoning restrictions, accelerate approvals and increase density.

This is an egregious intrusion by Ottawa into an area of provincial jurisdiction, and Ontario and Quebec governments swiftly rejected the proposal. But at least there is some hope for a negotiated agreements. Other announcements have been equally intrusive, but have much less hope of ever becoming real.

As part of a renters’ bill of rights, the Liberals want to make it easier for renters to have their rent payments count toward their credit score. This could involve a great deal of red tape for landlords, and could hurt more than help renters who miss a payment.

How likely is it that such a complex new agreement would be in place before the next election, which polls suggest the Liberals are likely to lose, or that it would survive in a Conservative government under Pierre Poilievre?

Then there was Monday’s announcement of a new national program to provide meals for schoolchildren in need. Negotiating a new federal-provincial-territorial school food program agreement – or, more likely, 13 separate and asymmetrical agreements – by the target date of the 2024-25 school year seems … ambitious.

Little of what is being announced is likely to see the light of day, or to long remain in it.

Something that should have seen the light of day long ago is the long-promised but still-not-delivered defence review. Not only is defence an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction, it should be the single highest priority of any national government. Instead, Canada’s military is an embarrassment.

All NATO members have committed to spending at least 2 per per cent of GDP on defence, with 20 per cent of that money going to equipment. But while other NATO members have ramped up defence spending in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Liberals continue to dither and delay. As a result, according to the latest NATO calculations, Canada is the only NATO member that falls below both 2 per cent of GDP in spending and also below 20 per cent in spending on equipment. We have the worst-funded military in the alliance.

This is frightening. It leaves this country vulnerable to incursions by Russia and China in our Arctic territories.

It angers the United States, which expects Canada to contribute its share to the modernization of NORAD’s air and space defence.

It causes European nations to question Canada’s commitment to protecting the security of Europe in the face of an increasingly hostile and aggressive Russia.

And it makes Canada’s efforts to be taken seriously in the Indo-Pacific region a joke.

“Canada is back,” Mr. Trudeau told the world in 2015. The exact opposite is true. Because of the Liberal government’s unwillingness to spend on defence, Canada today has a lower standing in the eyes of both allies and adversaries than at any time since the outbreak of the Second World War.

Finding the money needed for defence won’t be easy. Bringing Canada’s military up to NATO standards would cost about $20-billion annually, paid for through tax increases or cuts to federal transfers for health, education and social services.

Everyone wants meals for schoolchildren who need them. But defence should be the highest priority. In any case, other NATO countries are able to properly fund their military while sustaining social programs. So can we.

Mr. Trudeau needs to release the defence review. The April 16 budget should commit major funds for defence, and show where the money is to come from. Mr. Poilievre should lay out his own plan for meeting Canada’s defence commitments.

A federal renters’ bill of rights is surreal. It’s time for this Liberal government to get real, and focus on defence.

D/C: The Royal Mint must be kept very busy these days printing non existent money based on only a promise and tax payers dollars which we do not have.

Our Federal Government’s international “credit cards” could be rescinded by the world markets if we keep this up and our exchange rate with the US could go into free fall! Sigh , sigh and double sigh! And absolutely no sign of help for our poor beleaguered military

An urgent agenda for Canada in a “Cold War 2.0”: George S. Takach for Inside Policy

In an increasingly dangerous world, Canada must act now to bolster its national security.

March 21, 2024

in Foreign Affairs, Inside Policy, Columns, Latest News, Foreign Policy, National Security, National Defence

By George S. Takach, March 21, 2024

In my recently published book, Cold War 2.0: Artificial Intelligence in the New Battle Between Russia, China, and America, I describe how the world’s leading autocracies (principally China and Russia, but with increasing support from Iran and North Korea) have plunged the democracies back into a cold war.

The major fault line in the current cold war is that authoritarian regimes are refusing to abide by the rules-based international order, exemplified by (but not limited to) Russia’s unjustified war of aggression on Ukraine, and China’s aggressive grey zone activities in the South China Sea and against Taiwan.

In this global environment, Canada – as a member of the G7 with the world’s 10th-largest economy, and a long-standing member of the NATO and NORAD alliances – faces a complex and evolving national security landscape. What should Canada’s priorities be for bolstering its national security over the next few years?

First, Canada must increase its spending on national defence. After the democracies prevailed in the first cold war (what I now call “Cold War 1”), most democracies took a “peace dividend” and reduced their expenditures on weapons and military personnel. They also let their military industrial base atrophy. For 30 years the peace dividend allowed governments to spend dramatically more on healthcare, education, and pensions for the elderly (among other non-national security priorities).

That peace dividend is no longer available. Canada urgently needs to increase its spending on national security. It’s like an insurance policy; you don’t want to be over insured, but you certainly don’t want to be under insured either, and Canada currently doesn’t have near the national security insurance it requires.

Ten years ago, when Russia unjustly invaded Ukraine for the first time and illegally annexed Crimea, a consensus formed in NATO that defence spending by each country should be at least 2 percent of that country’s GDP. Canada has never come close to meeting that target; Ottawa now sits at around 1.4 percent. This chronic underfunding of our national security must stop. That means increasing the federal budget for defence by about another $20 billion annually. And that’s just to get to 2 percent. In response to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Poland’s government is calling for defence expenditures of each NATO country to meet 3 percent of GDP; often where you stand on an issue depends on where you sit – Poland is right next to Ukraine!

The problem isn’t just a lack of money – it’s also a deficit of people. Senior leadership of the Canadian Armed Forces admits the CAF is about 15,000 personnel short of its annual recruitment target, a significant figure considering the CAF comprises only about 68,000 active-duty members. Some of the extra money allocated for defence needs to go to higher salaries for our men and women in uniform, so the CAF can attract more of the younger members of our society – and retain the ones already in uniform.

It’s not just money, though. In 2022 the Canadian government sensibly started allowing Canadian permanent residents to apply to join the military, to help alleviate the CAF’s personnel shortage. About 22,000 applied, but a year later only 77 (or about 1 percent) had been approved; the rest were waiting for their security clearance to be conducted. Of these applicants, some 15,000 walked away in frustration.

What a lost opportunity.

Clearly the security clearance process needs to be redesigned and beefed up with new technologies like artificial intelligence – to make sure it doesn’t take longer than six months except in a few exceptional cases.

Many of the new recruits also require digital skill sets that are in dire shortage in the CAF. The digitization of the CAF over the coming years will be a massive challenge. And we can’t outsource the effort to an outside firm, or indeed the US military (under the cloak of “interoperability”). The CAF needs to get this critical job done using largely its own people. Anything else will significantly erode our military capability, putting Canada’s national security at grave risk.

If Canada had another $20 billion annually to spend on defence, then a key priority should be to join AUKUS, the very important military technology alliance between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In the coming years, AUKUS members will pool their best and brightest human resources to develop nuclear-powered submarines and the latest in weapons using artificial intelligence and quantum computing.

Joining AUKUS would be expensive – roughly $5 billion to $7 billion annually for 30 years. That’s a lot of money, but Canada also has the longest coastline in the world (by far), and Russian and Chinese nuclear-powered subs are already operating in the Arctic. It’s a simple decision actually – if Canada wants to adequately defend its sovereignty, it needs to be part of AUKUS. Period.

Some would argue we need to get our house in order first, including getting NORAD modernization done. Yes, that’s important, but our military needs to be able to multi-task: complete digitization, modernize NORAD, finish all other major procurements, and participate fully in AUKUS.

The CAF also desperately needs a comprehensive drone program. The war in Ukraine has demonstrated that drones are the future of warfare, including those intended for operations in the air and both under and on top of the sea. This means that we have likely seen the birth of the last jet fighter pilot – and that the F-35 will almost certainly be the last jet fighter the CAF ever buys.

In the future, uncrewed drones will do 90 percent of what jet fighters do, but at a fraction of the cost. This is why the US has launched its “Replicator” program – a plan to quickly develop and build thousands of high-tech attack drones to counter China’s ever-growing military. Meanwhile, the UK government recently announced a new drone program worth about $25 billion.

For Canada, it should join with its allies and partners (say, the South Koreans, the Dutch, and the Danes) to collaborate on the design, development, and annual production of hundreds of thousands of drones. These are table stakes if Canada wants to be meaningful in the domain of national defence.

In the coming years, drones will only grow more important in warfare. However, the conflict in Ukraine has also shown the continued importance of artillery. Russian military doctrine still places a heavy emphasis on the use of traditional artillery, and that means that Canada needs to have a proper inventory of artillery shells, such as the 155 mm shell for the M-777 howitzer.

Unfortunately, Canada is losing this shell game; if the CAF fought against Russia and fired its 155 mm shells at a rate equivalent to that currently being employed by the Ukrainian military, then Canada would run out of ammunition in just a few days. This is an astounding fact, made even more serious by the revelation in October 2023 that between that date and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine some 20 months earlier, not one additional artillery shell had been manufactured for the CAF. Again, money isn’t just the issue – it also requires strong leadership and effective management capability to get priority projects off the ground and producing results for the Canadian military.

Which brings me to my last, and perhaps most critical point: Do Canadians want to participate meaningfully in their own self-defence, or is the plan simply to ride on the coattails of the United States?

Keep in mind, this isn’t a unilateral decision – this is an election year in the US, and former President Donald Trump has threatened, if elected in November, to not protect allies that fail to pay their fair share of defence costs. If Canada’s free ride comes to a screeching halt, then it will be a massive problem for the CAF – and Canadians may soon experience severe sticker shock when confronted with the price of going it alone on national defence.

What’s urgently required, therefore, is for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to accept (and communicate to Canadians) that national security is a foundational “must-have” requirement before literally any other priority of the government. A quick glance at Ukraine proves this point: inadequate security puts at risk all other public and private initiatives and objectives.

I wrote Cold War 2.0 so that politicians could better explain to citizens, and citizens could understand for themselves, that Canada must get serious about national defence. This doesn’t give me any joy. In 2023, democracies collectively spent an additional $800 billion in military expenditures because of the aggressive actions of Russia and China. This is the cost of Cold War 2.0. This is money that didn’t go towards healthcare, education, or pensions for the elderly. But then again, when autocracies are hell-bent on expanding their influence worldwide through illegal, coercive, and violent means, it behooves democracies – including Canada – to respond to the threat adequately, so that every morning Chinese leader Xi Jinping wakes up and says: “no, today is not the day I’m going to invade Taiwan.”

D/C: If Russia invaded Latvia how long would our ammunition last? A few hours .. shameful!

CBC:

Three new polls suggest a growing number of Canadians want more money spent on defence

Donald Trump’s threats to abandon allies seem to have struck home

Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: Mar 05, 2024 3:00 AM EST | Last Updated: 2 hours ago

Ordinary Seaman Page Francis learns navigational skills during field training on Aug. 8, 2018. Three new polls track growing support among Canadians for a boost in military funding. (Chad Hipolito/The Canadian Press)

Three new public opinion surveys suggest Canadians are growing more concerned about the state of the country’s military — and about Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump’s threats to abandon allies who don’t invest in defence.

The Angus Reid Institute released new data Tuesday showing a larger share of Canadians — 29 per cent — are choosing military preparedness and the country’s place on the world stage as their top political priority. Almost a decade ago, that figure was just 12 per cent.

“Slightly more than half (53 per cent) say Canada should increase its spending level to two per cent or beyond,” the survey analysis said — a reference to NATO’s spending benchmark, which calls on member countries to spend the equivalent of two per cent of their gross domestic product on the military.

Quoting a series of leaked documents several months ago, the Washington Post reported that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau privately told allies Canada would never meet the target.

• Defence department reallocating $810M, in part to fund major equipment purchases
• Cost of Liberal government’s defence plan has jumped by $50B, PBO says
• NewSooner or later, every NATO country will have to meet defence spending target, says Polish PM

Even though the Liberal government agreed at last summer’s NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania to make the two per cent goal an enduring commitment, Trudeau and his ministers have not committed publicly to doing so. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has said that, if elected, his party would “work towards” the two per cent goal — which was the position taken by the government of former prime minister Stephen Harper.

According to the Angus Reid survey, seven in 10 poll respondents said they would support a Conservative government that would meet or surpass the two per cent spending benchmark.

The new poll shows that Trump’s threat to allow Russia “to do whatever the hell it wants” to NATO allies who don’t meet the target appears to be resonating with Canadians.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s threats to abandon NATO allies seem to have alarmed many Canadians. (Manuel Balce Ceneta)/AP)

Support for hitting the two per cent goal jumps from 53 per cent to 65 per cent in the Angus Reid survey when the idea of a second Trump presidency is factored in.

And two-thirds of that increase in support for the two per cent target tracked by the Angus Reid survey is coming from young women.

The survey randomly sampled 2,427 Canadians and is considered accurate to plus or minus two per cent, 19 times out of 20.

A separate recent poll, conducted by Pollara Strategic Insights, offers an interesting contrast. People who participated in that survey were asked if Canada should increase defence spending because of Trump’s threats — even if it meant fewer dollars for other priorities.

That choice appears to have given some Canadians pause. The Pollara survey polled support for increased defence spending at 34 per cent. A full 43 per cent said Trump’s threats shouldn’t require an increase in defence spending.

The Pollara survey spoke with 1,552 Canadians and also had a margin of error of plus or minus two per cent.

‘Super majorities’ back higher defence spending

A third survey, conducted by EKOS Research Associates Inc. on behalf of the Canadian Association of Security and Defence Industries (CASDI), also found increasing support for higher defence spending.

“The public judgment is that we are failing to provide a strong and successful defence industry,” said the EKOS survey, dated Jan. 31, 2024, which did an in-depth analysis of the public’s attitudes toward defence contractors.

“Although a harder trade-off analysis suggests less enthusiasm, super majorities of Canadians think that increasing defence expenditures is a clear priority. Even on less favorable comparative testing to other higher priorities, there has been a clear rise in support for defence spending.”

Asked if the defence budget should be increased, 66 per cent of those surveyed by EKOS said more dollars should be going in, while only 18 per cent favoured a reduction (5 per cent weren’t sure).

“There is a view that Canada’s position on the world stage has eroded sharply and that our relatively poor performance is linked to problems with how our defence and security capabilities are responding to deepened challenges,” the EKOS survey said.

WATCH | Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was in Poland last week, where military spending is rising:

Trudeau faces defence spending pressure during visit to Poland

8 days ago

Duration 1:59Justin Trudeau wrapped up a short visit to Poland where defence spending was top of mind. Poland’s prime minister noted all NATO countries will eventually have to fulfil their pledge to spend two per cent of their GDP on defence. Canada is currently falling short of that goal.

In fact, a clear majority (71 per cent) told EKOS Canada is not taken seriously by other countries on international defence and security issues (20 per cent of poll respondents claimed that it is). And 67 per cent told the pollster Canada’s allies view this country as “weak” on defence.

The EKOS survey survey spoke to 2,608 Canadians and is considered accurate to within 1.9 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Both the EKOS research and the Angus Reid Institute analysis gauged public perceptions of Canada’s support for Ukraine and its war with Russia.

Sixty-seven per cent of those who responded to the EKOS survey agreed that “Canada has an important role to play in supplying Ukraine” with Canadian-made military equipment and support, while 27 per cent said it wasn’t a priority.

• AnalysisTwo years on, the war in Ukraine becomes a test of Western staying power

The Angus Reid numbers mirror those findings but drill down a bit deeper into the perceptions.

“A majority (60 per cent) of Canadians said in January that NATO’s support of Ukraine is the only thing keeping Russia from invading more of Europe. However, support [for] the conflict is waning — most markedly among past Conservative voters,” says the Angus Reid survey.

“Conservative supporters’ reduced interest in supporting Ukraine does not appear to indicate a reduced appetite for military spending in general, however. Seven-in-ten (71 per cent) past CPC voters would increase Canada’s defence spending, including the 15 per cent who would exceed NATO’s two per cent target.”

D/C:

https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/?s=defence+spending

Now publicly, US Ambassador Puts Pressure on Canada over NORAD Defence Spending–PM Trudeau Talks about “Crown-Inuit partnership” (note June 7 UPDATE and June 11 UPPERDATE)

G&M:Trudeau announces $13.3-million in funding for housing construction in Cape Breton

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau makes an announcement in Membertou First Nation, on Cape Breton Island, N.S., on Feb. 22.Darren Calabrese/The Canadian Press

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau travelled to Nova Scotia today to announce $13.3-million in funding to fast-track construction of 367 housing units over the next three years.

Trudeau made the announcement from a snow-covered housing development inside the Membertou First Nation, a mostly urban community south of Sydney, the largest city in Cape Breton.

The prime minister said agreements reached with Membertou and the surrounding Cape Breton Regional Municipality could help spur the construction of more than 3,200 homes over the next 10 years.

The money is coming from the federal government’s $4-billion Housing Accelerator Fund, which was announced in March 2023.

It’s aimed at encouraging municipalities to make changes to bylaws and regulations that will increase housing construction.

Under the program, Ottawa encourages municipalities to adopt denser zoning rules, speed up approvals for building permits, increase the use of public and underutilized lands, and it provides incentives for non-profit and private homebuilders to develop affordable housing projects.

D.C: Trudeau is printing and spending much more money that we have, This mysterious money would be much better spent on supporting NATO, NORAD, or our failing underfunded military, Trudeau is overspending our credit cards beyond belief and leaving a truly horrible legacy of debt for no other reason than he wants to be re-elected. What an appalling legacy for Canada and our children

G&M: Hard choices lie ahead as Canada prepares to meet NATO defence target

John Ibbitson

Canadian soldiers wait to meet Canada’s Minister of Defence in Adazi, Latvia, on Feb. 3, 2022.GINTS IVUSKANS/Getty Images

Most Canadians may not appreciate the hard choices that lie ahead as Canada prepares to meet its NATO commitment of devoting 2 per cent of this country’s gross domestic product to defence.

Politicians are shielding voters from that harsh reality. They won’t be able to shield them much longer.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg declared this week that Canada must provide a hard date for meeting the 2-per-cent floor that all NATO members committed to last summer.

“Canada has not conveyed a precise date but I expect Canada to deliver on the pledge to invest 2 per cent of GDP on defence, because this is a promise we all made,” Mr. Stoltenberg told CTV.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has put the collective security of the Western alliance at risk. In response, most NATO members are rapidly increasing their defence spending. They expect Canada to do the same.

This country is making a meaningful contribution to NATO through the presence of its battle group in Latvia. And the Liberal government has contributed generously to the defence of Ukraine.

Nonetheless, at 1.4 per cent of GDP, we are near the bottom of the pack when it comes to defence spending among NATO countries. Canada will need to increase its military budget by about $20-billion annually to meet the 2-per-cent commitment.

The Liberals currently have no plan for that. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre says he would meet the goal by reforming defence procurement, which is wise, and eliminating “wasteful foreign aid,” which is nonsense.

Canada says it spends about $8-billion on foreign aid; eliminating it completely would deprive people in need of food and development assistance in places such as Ethiopia and Sudan, while failing to meet the 2-per-cent target.

No, the $20-billion will have to come from some combination of increased taxes and cuts to spending. And yet the federal government is pursuing the very opposite course.

Ottawa is on tenterhooks while we await the results of negotiations between Liberals and New Democrats to introduce a new national pharmacare program. The Liberals have already launched a national dental care program, along with a $10-a-day child-care program.

Much of this will need to be scrapped or severely cut back. Or the government will have to cut back on the $100-billion health and social transfers to provincial governments by about a fifth.

The other alternative is to substantially increase taxes. Taking the GST from 5 per cent back up to its original level of 7 per cent would fund much of the increase.

And even more sacrifices may be needed going forward. Increasing defence spending to 3 or 4 per cent of GDP may be required to deter Russia in Europe and China in the Pacific.

The United States has warned that the Russians may be developing a nuclear-powered device that could disable Western satellite systems. NORAD will need to respond. The Americans will be expecting Canada to pay its fair share of that response.

There used to be plenty of laggards in NATO. But that was yesterday. Mr. Stoltenberg says that 18 of the 31 NATO members will hit the 2-per-cent target this year.

Germany, which once rivalled Canada as a laggard, will join the 2-per-cent club this year. So will France. Italy is struggling, but trying hard, to reach 2 per cent.

Spain, one of the few NATO countries that typically spent even less on defence than Canada, has massively increased its military budget – by 26 per cent in 2023 – and is progressing quickly toward 2 per cent.

Hanging back at 1.4 per cent of GDP is simply no longer an option. If we refuse to comply, Canada will gradually be frozen out of the counsels of our allies. In times as dangerous as these, that is not a good place to be.

Both the Liberals and Conservatives must tell Canadians how they will get this country to 2 per cent within the next few years. There is going to be pain. Canadians need to know how each party would inflict that pain.

The years of dodging and deferring and delaying are over. It’s time to get serious. But don’t let anyone tell you it’s not going to hurt.

D/C: I could not agree more.

Why Canada’s NATO pledge matters | Power Play with Vassy Kapelos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Cl9eHfoeVM

Is Canada failing to meet its pledge to NATO? | Power Play with Vassy Kapelos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEXI7ii03GI

G&M: The Liberals’ reckless retreat on defence

https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/?s=Norad

Calgary Herald: Brookman: Defence spending cuts show us up on world stage

Canada’s Arctic Strategy 2024: A 12-Month Assessment

Joseph Balodis .https://greydynamics.com/canadas-arctic-strategy-2024-a-12-month-assessment/

December 30, 2023

On 17 November, Canadian Minister of Defence Bill Blair announced at the Halifax International Security Forum that Ottawa would invest over C$38.6 billion in NORAD modernization, shipbuilding and defence spending. Canada is taking serious economic and military interest within the Arctic. Russian and Chinese vessels have been encroaching upon the northern reaches of US and Canadian exclusive economic zones and penetrating their airspace.

Key Judgement 1. It is likely that Canada will further develop their Arctic infrastructure and invest in resource extraction over the next 12 months. 

Key Judgement 2. Canadian military and security capabilities in the Arctic will almost certainly increase over the next 12 months in response to Russian and Chinese encroachment near Canadian Arctic territory. 

Key Judgement 3. Indigenous and regional communities in Canada’s Arctic will likely receive further funding and development over the next 12 months.

KJ-1: It is likely that Canada will further develop their Arctic infrastructure and invest in resource extraction over the next 12 months.

A. The Wilson Centre has stated that climate change in the Canadian Arctic has already impeded navigable waterways, damaged infrastructure, and hindered emergency service capabilities. (Source)

B. Additionally, Canadian and US Arctic territory is estimated to hold 45% of undiscovered natural resources. In November, a C$1.5 billion Critical Minerals Infrastructure Fund was launched by Canada. The project aims to develop northwest territories and remote regions. (Source),(Source)

C. Since 2022, Transport Canada has financed 16 infrastructure projects totalling 299.7 million in the Arctic and Northern territories. (Source)

D. Lastly, on 1 December, Canada was re-elected to the International Maritime Organization Council for 2024-2025. As an IMO member, Canada will commit itself to protecting the environment, promoting Arctic cooperation, and providing support to seafarers in the region. (Source)

KJ-2: Canadian military and security capabilities in the Arctic will almost certainly increase over the next 12 months in response to Russian and Chinese encroachment near Canadian Arctic territory.

A. China announced itself as a ‘near-Arctic state’ in 2018, increasing its presence in the region alongside Russia since the Ukraine war. (Source) (Source)

B. On 17 November, Canadian Defence Minister Bill Blair announced a major modernization program to expand Canada’s NORAD capabilities in aerospace and maritime warning control, worth over C$38.6 billion dollars. (Source)

C. In addition to this, 88 F-35s have been ordered for the RCAF due in 2026. Additionally with 15 new warships for the RCN with a training centre at Halifax naval base specialising in maritime warfare. (Source) 

D. Moreover, 16 Boeing P-8A Poseidon multi-mission aircraft have been ordered for the RCAF costing C$14 billion dollars with the first delivery due by 2026. The aim is to upgrade the CP-140 fleet by 2033 and enhance Arctic capabilities. (Source) 

E. Finally, regarding Arctic capabilities, Canada has delayed their C$5 billion dollar investment into the MQ-9B Reaper from the US, subsequently, due to it not meeting the criteria for Arctic conditions. The delay moves the delivery from 2025 to 2028. (Source)

KJ-3: Indigenous and regional communities in Canada’s Arctic will likely receive further funding and development over the next 12 months.

A. Canada’s 2019  Arctic and Northern Policy Framework 2019 emphasises that Indigenous peoples residing in the Arctic play a vital role in Canada’s economic, infrastructure and security development. (Source)

B. CanNor will be launching the new Indigenous economic research funding stream under NIEOP, totalling C$1.5 million over the next 3 years. Starting in 2024, this project will develop indigenous businesses and the territorial economy. (Source) 

C. Additionally, in June, Canada reaffirmed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. The action plan 2023-2028 will continue social and economic development for indigenous peoples. (Source) 

D. Lastly, on 10 August, Canada signed an agreement with indigenous governments over offshore Arctic exploration. The agreement outlined the infrastructure development, protection, and climate concerns of people residing in said regions. (Source)

Analytical Summary

We have high confidence in our assessment that Canada will increase Arctic development and security capabilities in the next 12 months. Our report is based on official Canadian statements, think tank reporting, and media. We considered the alternative that Canada would refrain from increasing Arctic development. However, it is unlikely given US spending and attention in the region. Further analysis on Canadian developments, Chinese, and Russian will further inform our analysis.

D/C: Current Arctic sea ice from NASA

PLUS:

https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/?s=arctic

Will Canada Remain Serious about NORAD Modernization?

Further to this post based on a “Commentary” by Prof. James Fergusson,

When Will the Canadian Government Show some Real Transparency about NORAD’s Way Ahead?

There’s a lot more involved than the funding announcements, new radar systems and infrastructure that the government has highlighted. In particular the government has said little publicly about various major changes to NORAD’s strategic focuses and operational priorities that the US has been considering…

now from an interview with the Canadian professor at the University of Manitoba (see here) who knows his NORAD stuff (along with colleague there Andrea Charron)–at the Conference of Defence Associations Institute:

‘We Simply Cannot Ignore North American Defence’     

NORAD Modernization, Integrated Air/Missile Defence, & North Warning System Update

An Interview with James Fergusson

“While NORAD is integrated with civil radars from NAV Canada and the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), they are not powerful enough to deal with leakers. It should be dealt with within a broader modernization plan, which the government is not talking about.”

…

How will the Northern and Polar Warning Systems improve upon the North Warning System? What kinds of capabilities or upgrades can we expect?  

The North Warning System was primarily focused on offsetting Soviet bomber threats. Its capabilities were designed to locate them before they could reach their launch points. Cold War cruise missiles had a shorter range and would have had to enter the Canadian Arctic’s mainland. Russia now possesses long-range air-and-sea-launched cruise missiles…and now you face this threat where launch points will be far removed.

The North Warning System is obsolete. I’ve argued that we’re effectively blind because it can’t track cruise missiles due to their low radar cross-section and ground-hunting capabilities. It’s certainly not optimized to detect hypersonics in the higher altitudes of what I call suborbital space. The new Arctic and Polar Lines are designed to use over-the-horizon radars to identify bombers beyond the North Pole before they reach their launch points. Whether you can vector your fighters, given their ranges, even with refuelling capabilities, is another question [emphasis added]. However, supposedly, we will also have the capability to track cruise missiles, since the new radar beams can look downwards…

One area we need to focus on is the ground-based component. How that will play out in terms of the Canadian-American agreement remains to be seen. I’m sure that has been or is being, negotiated. This system is more complicated, and costly, and raises questions about whether to incorporate additional radar lines to deal with what I call leakers, which need to be tracked because once threats fly past detection systems, they are lost [emphasis added]. While NORAD is integrated with civil radars from NAV Canada and the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), they are not powerful enough to deal with leakers. It should be dealt with within a broader modernization plan, which the government is not talking about.

What issues does a fully integrated air/missile defence system raise for the current NORAD mission suite relative to Canada-U.S. cooperation on continental defence? 

…

The Canadian government is loath to use the term missile defence because it raises the issue of participation in BMD. When NORAD Modernization investments were announced, the defence minister advised that Canada has not changed its policy but is keeping an eye on the issue. Furthermore, the CDS has stated that we need to deal with integrated air and missile defence.

The U.S. is pursuing this integration. It is important to note that the U.S. Army is responsible for air and missile defence, as opposed to the Air Force…There is…concern about whether Canada’s non-participation policy on ballistic missile defence is sustainable. We can engage in issues related to cruise missile defence, along with hypersonics, but we are not going to get interceptors on Canadian soil [emphasis added]…

Some ground-based surface-to-air missile capabilities were promised in the 2017 White Paper on Defence, but they are short-range and for overseas forces. No discussions were commenced about what is needed domestically to offset cruise and hypersonic threats. Even though the Canadian government will not invest in interceptors, the missile defence issue will re-emerge because of existing gaps. Ottawa never explained why it said no to ballistic missile defence participation, although, historically, it was partially motivated by the potential destabilization of the strategic relationship with the Soviet Union, and it has been argued that missile defence is dangerous and could encourage pre-emptive strikes. I do not agree with that argument, but I understand the politics behind it, considering the large domestic opposition. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore this issue anymore, and it needs to be addressed by the Canadian government, which it doesn’t want to do.

Is there a risk that the investment plan for NORAD Modernization – 40 billion over the next 2 decades – could be susceptible to disruption as a result of competing government priorities, changes in government, and political will?  

I wonder whether $40 billion will be enough. Usually, in government programs, estimates are low, and projects gradually end up costing more. Twenty years is a long time in the world of economics and politics [emphasis added, no kidding]. We do not know what the economy will look like down the road, and while anti-militarism rhetoric died down because of the Ukraine War, it will not disappear forever. Just as we cannot predict domestic economics and politics, we cannot predict the future international security environment…

As the environment changes, the government and the public’s willingness to spend will be affected, but, in my view, the key question about the vulnerability of NORAD Modernization is the American side of the equation. Everyone wants to keep this project quiet because of our sensitive relationship with the U.S. Will Washington remain committed to North American deterrence, or will it retreat? I am not overly concerned about that. What I am concerned about is the lack of sufficient funding. I am concerned that the Canadian government will suddenly find the domestic environment to be less quiet than it would like it to be. Nonetheless, NORAD was always under the political radar. This is likely to continue and partially explains why there are few details available from the government [emphasis added].

If the economy goes south, there will be constraints on government spending, which will negatively impact defence investments. However, the answer does not revolve around what the Canadian government does, says, or thinks, but what the Department of National Defence will do. As far as the department’s internal bureaucratic politics are concerned, it will be informed by American perceptions, since Washington’s budget will also be impacted by negative economic circumstances. This could be problematic, because Canadian defence thinking, like its American counterpart, prioritizes meeting threats to North America overseas. Due to the current threat environment, that is no longer sufficient—we cannot simply ignore North American Defence.

James Fergusson is a Professor in the Department of Political Studies, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies. He teaches a range of courses in the fields of international relations, strategic studies, Canada-US defence relations, and Canadian Foreign and Defence Policy. 

One gets a distinct impression that the prof. has little faith in the commitment of at least this government to carry through with any full NORAD modernization.

The interview video:

Mark Collins

Twitter: @mark3ds

When Will the Canadian Government Show some Real Transparency about NORAD’s Way Ahead?

There’s a lot more involved than the funding announcements, new radar systems and infrastructure that the government has highlighted. In particular the government has said little publicly about various major changes to NORAD’s strategic focuses and operational priorities that the US has been considering. Further to this post,

NORAD: Where Trudeau Government Plans to Spend Money over Next 20 Years

here are my extracts from a substantial “commentary” at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute think thank by a professor at the University of Manitoba (see end of the quote), one of the few Canadian academics really on top of this subject and its technical ramifications–along with his colleague Andrea Charron:

North American defence modernization in an age of uncertainty

This commentary by James Fergusson looks at the future of NORAD modernization and the threat posed by new military technologies.

First formally identified as a priority in the 2017 defence white paper, Strong, Secure and Engaged, and three years after NORAD modernization was identified in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s mandate letter to Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, the Trudeau government has finally earmarked funds for North American defence modernization. In the 2021 federal budget, the government did commit by defence standards, a paltry $252 million to “lay the groundwork for North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) modernization and sustain existing continental and Arctic defence capabilities” (Canada 2021). Yet no spending details were provided.

Subsequently, in January 2022, the government awarded a $592 million contract for in-service support of the North Warning System (NWS).[1] In the recent 2022 budget, $6.1 billion over five years was added to the defence budget (Canada 2022b), although the amount committed to NORAD modernization was left unspecified. In June, Defence Minister Anand announced $4.9 billion over six years, and $40 billion over 20 years for modernization with some additional details.[2] A month later on July 21, the Department of National Defence (DND) provided further details on its fact sheet [see here], though this still lacked specificity [emphasis added].

The announcement and subsequent July DND fact sheet raise two areas for evaluation. The first concerns the funding commitments relative to the reality of defence spending in Canada and infrastructure construction in the Canadian Arctic. The second relates to the underlying policy implications, which have not been acknowledged or presented [emphasis added]…

…North America, NORAD and the Arctic NWS in particular are a politically sensitive domestic issue because of longstanding Canadian sovereignty concerns relative to the United States. As such, North American defence cooperation is always liable to the general state of relations between Canada and the United States, which is one of the reasons why Ottawa has preferred NORAD to operate beneath the political radar in Canada [emphasis added].

In this regard, highly negative Canadian attitudes towards the Trump presidency arguably made forward movement politically risky and, as such, one might interpret the 2017 commitment sans detail and money as a political “trial balloon.” Regardless, the election of US President Biden in 2020 changed the political climate overnight. In addition, the Russian invasion of Ukraine eliminated any potential domestic political opposition to NORAD modernization, which one might have expected with charges of “militarizing” the Arctic and “kowtowing” to the Americans…

Of course, building new radar lines or any other NORAD-related Arctic infrastructure is no easy task, with a short construction season, limited maritime transportation capacity and the large distances involved.[9] Alongside this reality, six years is a very short time in the historically lengthy Canadian procurement process with an average closer to 15 years. Assuming that the internal specification of requirements process has been completed for the unspecified first six-year stage, requests for proposals or bids have to be issued, companies need to construct their bids taking into account buy Canadian provisions in terms of industrial and technological benefits, as well as the government’s commitment to significant Indigenous participation. Next, the bids must be evaluated, contracts issued and finally the acquisition and deployment undertaken.[10] Where this all stands today is unknown publicly [emphasis added].

In other words, the likelihood that DND can spend $4.9 billion over six years appears very low [emphasis added]…

…No one can realistically predict the state of the economy over the next year or so, never mind 20 years. And National Defence will not be immune from government fiscal retrenchment or demands to re-direct funds during an economic downturn to other more politically salient economic and social pressures.

Alongside these factors, if history is our guide, the actual final costs of NORAD modernization are likely to exceed significantly $40 billion, especially given the unpredictable costs of acquiring new advanced technologies for the NORAD mission suite as they emerge over the next 20 years [emphasis added]…

…As deterrence by denial is the central underlying strategic rationale for NORAD modernization, demonstrated capabilities and their communication to existing and potential adversaries are important. Furthermore, with modern space-based capabilities, nothing can be truly hidden. In other words, not least of all relative to the transparency and accountability mantra of the government and the magnitude of investment, the government and DND need to be more forthcoming on NORAD modernization. This, in turn, is linked to the unspoken parameters or limits of NORAD modernization in government thinking about Canada’s role in the defence of North America [emphasis added].

As best that can be discerned from DND’s announcements, NORAD modernization is primarily limited to the Arctic approaches and dominated by the NWS replacement, now labelled the Northern Approaches Surveillance System (NASS), supporting infrastructure (forward operating locations) and associated command, control and communication infrastructure. At Trenton, the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS), in reply to a media question, stated, “for Canada, we are focused upon 10 to 2 o’clock that is why it is so important we are integrated with the US as they cover the other avenues of approaches” (CPAC 2022). Apparently, at least for now, the east and west coasts of Canada (9 to 10, and 2 to 3 o’clock) are solely an American responsibility. What this, in turn, entails in terms of surveillance infrastructure relative to Canadian territory is unspecified [emphasis added].

…Indicative today is the previous NORAD Commander’s emphasis on obtaining Joint All Domain Command and Control (JADC2). Although the current Commander, US General Glen VanHerck, has dropped it from the current NORAD lexicon, it remains in play in the United States military generally and is implicitly embedded in his objective to ensure that NORAD has all-domain awareness, information dominance, and decision superiority for deterrence, defence and warfighting [emphasis added] (NORAD and USNORTHCOM Public Affairs 2021).

…Although unclear, the new NASS will likely be located across the Canadian High Arctic. Consideration also needs to be given to developing a radar network at the lower latitudes. If cruise and hypersonic missiles pass over the Arctic line, there exists no significant capability to track them [emphasis added], as internal civilian radars integrated into NORAD after 9/11 lack the capacity. Of course, these radars could be located in the northern continental United States, but no information has been provided.

This, in turn, raises the government’s funding commitment to the active defence or interception side of the deterrence equation. For now, the government is committed only to acquire new short-, medium- and long-range air-to-air missiles for the new F-35 interceptor fleet (a requirement for NORAD and overseas missions). It has also committed to a new air-to-air refuelling fleet to extend the range of the F-35, allowing it to intercept bombers and other aircraft (archers in NORAD parlance) capable of standoff air-launched missiles. Even so, the probability of intercepting the archers is difficult to estimate and depends upon the ratio of bombers (as well as submarines) and missiles to interceptors. The likelihood that all the archers and the missiles (arrows) will be defeated is below 100 percent.  No defence is perfect. Besides, striking at the archers close to, if not in, Russian territory implies NORAD acquiring a pre-emptive strike capability, which will likely prove problematic for the Canadian government, which perceives NORAD as a defensive, reactive institution, not an offensive one [emphasis added].

Regardless, NORAD is in the missile defence world, and this raises the issue of whether Canada needs to invest in ground-based point defences (surface-to-air missiles) to protect high-valued targets [emphasis added]. Such targets are twofold: Canadian cities and industrial centres, and military bases. In terms of the latter, this includes the NASS itself and Arctic forward operating locations. Such defences, however, raise the thorny issue of ballistic missile defence, which the defence minister at Trenton stated there was no policy change, but the government would continue to track the issue.

Someday, perhaps, the government will explain its allergy to ballistic missile defence [emphasis added]…

All of these policy implications, conveniently ignored in the NORAD modernization announcements, suggest a major transformation of NORAD is on the horizon [emphasis added, see posts noted below]. In some ways, they are reminiscent of the policy implications of initial Canadian-American air defence cooperation in the 1950s, which led to the creation of NORAD itself as a function of military requirements. In other words, NORAD modernization is much more than new infrastructure. It is about a much broader and deeper NORAD and thus an expanded and new continental defence relationship [emphasis added–heard anything about that from this government?].

If the past is a guide, this will take place with little, if any, Canadian public debate about a “new” NORAD, as the government seeks to avoid the sensitive and feared issue of Canadian sovereignty relative to the United States. Perhaps it would be better if the government and DND go beyond simple funding announcements, as important as they are, to the lay the groundwork for a well-informed public debate…

Certainly, NORAD and DND officials are well aware of the implications of NORAD modernization beyond new infrastructure, as may be the government in previously announcing a defence review [emphasis added]. Unfortunately, like the relative paucity of information and timelines in the funding announcements, both have been silent about the nature and scope of the review. Regardless, time is pressing, and for the foreseeable future North America and Canada will remain vulnerable to the threat posed by the new military technologies, which can affect how both Canada and the United States respond to future international crises overseas…

In effect, the funding commitments are an important first step. Beyond that, the government needs to be more forthcoming to ensure a mature, well-informed debate on North American defence and NORAD [emphasis added]. No longer can government and DND simply ignore North America for long stretches to time. The world has changed, and with it the significance of North American defence. Funding is just the tip of the iceberg.

About the author

James Fergusson is the Deputy Director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at the University of Manitoba and Professor in the Department of Political Studies at the University of Manitoba. He is the co-author with Andrea Charron of NORAD: In Perpetuity and Beyond. He received his BA (Hons) and MA degrees from the University of Manitoba and his Ph.D. from the University of British Columbia in 1989. He teaches a range of courses in the areas of international relations, foreign and defence policy, and strategic studies. He has published numerous articles on strategic studies, non-proliferation and arms control, the defence industry, and Canadian foreign and defence policy

Other posts on evolving US thinking about NORAD (most recent first):

NORAD: Looks Like US Largely Giving Up on Shooting Down Cruise Missiles at Long Distance from Targets

What Worries the NORTHCOM/NORAD COMMANDER? What Worries PM Trudeau’s Government about Continental Defence? Note UPDATE

Here’s Looking at NORAD/NORTHCOM’s Way Ahead, or, Deterrence and Punishment

Rethinking and Remaking North American Defence, or, a Revolution in NORAD Affairs? How, er, Proactive?

NORAD Chief Wants Defence (of what sort?) “Left of Launch” Focus, Russian Cruise Missiles (air- and sub-launched) Big Threat

NORAD (and NORTHCOM) Thinking Offense of some sort vs Russian Threats–what does Canadian Government Think?

As Prof. Fergusson says we still have little idea about what our government thinks. Perhaps it is simply avoiding thinking about difficult matters that might well present, er, challenges in terms of public reaction if discussed with any seriousness. Just stick with emphasizing the money spent in Canada, especially with indigenous communities and on high-tech, and jobs.

Mark Collins

Twitter: @Mark3ds

New French Ambassador: World Needs More Canada, Militarily…Meanwhile Our Military Collapses (note UPDATE)

(Photo at top of the post is from this 2018 news release by the PM’s office: “Prime Minister Justin Trudeau dines with Canadian Troops at the Ādaži Military Base in Latvia”.)

The reality is that PM Trudeau’s government cares about only five things related to the Canadian Armed Forces:

*Disaster assistance

*sexual harassment

*social justice/diversity/inclusion matters

*job-creating procurements (e.g. shipbuilding in Canada, insanely over-costly though it be)

*domestic/diplomatic effects of deployments (e.g. training Ukrainians, “leading” NATO force in Latvia).

As for the military/combat effectiveness side of things this government is, to be kind, seriously uninterested. So good luck regarding a material response to what the new French ambassador just said–excerpts from a story at the National Post:

Navel-gazing Canada has neglected its military, new French ambassador says

The problem, in part, is that Canada has grown too reliant on the U.S. and its massive defence machine, the most costly in the world, Michel Miraillet said

Tom Blackwell

Caught up in navel-gazing and living under the protective shield of the United States, Canada has allowed its military presence worldwide to wither over the last decade or so, France’s new ambassador to Ottawa suggested Friday [Oct. 14].

In blunt comments that he said reflected his own personal opinions, Michel Miraillet argued Canada needs to boost its defence capabilities as threats increase from the likes of China, Russia and North Korea [see post noted at the end of this one].

The problem, in part, is that Canada has grown too reliant on the U.S. and its massive defence machine, the most costly in the world, he said during a meeting with National Post’s editorial board.

“It’s always difficult for a country that by its nature is highly protected, with a big guy below who is a big pain in the neck but at the end of the day, well, it works,” said Miraillet. “You’re very French, you’re riding a first-class carriage with a third-class ticket…

“This country in some ways may be too comfortable, too comfortable.”

The ambassador’s remarks were by no means the first time someone from outside this country has criticized Ottawa’s recent defence spending record. U.S. presidents have long urged Canada and other lagging members of NATO to meet the alliance’s recommended goal of allocating two per cent of GDP to the military.

…the ambassador said he recalls a day when, for instance, Canada was a major contributor to United Nations peacekeeping, a contrast to today’s situation [see this post for the basic reason: “UN Peacekeeping: PM Trudeau and Liberals too Fearful to Meet their Pledges when they Realized the Realities of “Killer Peacekeeping”].

After reaching a high point in 1993, when over 3,300 Canadians were deployed on peacekeeping missions, the number dwindled to just 54 this year, figures compiled by Royal Military College Prof. Walter Dorn indicate…

Instead of looking beyond its borders at security threats and humanitarian needs worldwide, Canada seems consumed by internal political discussions, especially over “gender” issues, said Miraillet.

“Now I have this sentiment — this is very personal — but the country is really belly-button focused, more than ever.”..

No merde, Maigret. Two tweets from Prof. Thomas Juneau, very well-versed in Canadian defence and national security matters:

Some condemn the French ambassador's "undiplomatic" language calling out Canada. I disagree: Canada takes foreign policy seriously only in response to crisis or intense public pressure (see, Iran now). Allies, all irritated by Canada's free riding, *should* publicly criticize us. https://t.co/qpTp4t2PWU

— Thomas Juneau (@thomasjuneau) October 15, 2022

And here’s an opinion piece by a close observer of Canadian defence issues:

Richard Shimooka: The neglect of Canada’s armed forces is leaving us all defenceless

The CAF is crumbling due to significant underinvestment

Plus the start of a Canadian Press story on the personnel aspect (big recruitment/retention problems) of our collapsing forces:

Defence chief [uniformed] calls on Canadians to rally behind military during personnel crisis

Lee Berthiaume

The commander of the Canadian Armed Forces is calling on the country to rally behind its military as it faces an unprecedented personnel crisis that he says is threatening its ability to protect and defend Canada.

“We’re here to defend our way of life, now and into the future,” chief of the defence staff Gen. Wayne Eyre said. “So we need a whole-of-society effort to help us bring the Armed Forces back to where it needs to be for the dangerous world ahead.”

The extraordinary appeal comes as Eyre and his subordinates are struggling to fill around 10,000 empty positions at a time when Canada’s military is facing a growing number of threats and requests for help at home and abroad.

Earlier this month, the defence chief issued an order setting a new direction for the military after years of high-tempo deployments and operations, making recruitment and retention of personnel its top priority…

Finally that recent post mentioned earlier (see also “Comments”)–it really is unusual for senior Canadian officers (unlike American, and increasingly British, ones) to go public with such major concerns over broad national security/foreign policy matters. The CDS must really be approaching despair. With good reason.

Canada’s Top Military Officer Out of His Policy Lane?

UPDATE: Very big picture from CDS Gen. Eyre in video:

This interview of the CDS on 2 November by one of Washington's preeminent think tanks @CSIS is one of the most informative interviews to date.https://t.co/zj8NdTMISX

— Andrea Charron (@AndreaCharron) November 3, 2022

Mark Collins

Twitter: @Mark3ds

Theme song:

Russia’s Northern Sea Route Routed by Sanctions

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine really is having wide-ranging ramifications. First, from The Arctic Institute‘s “The Arctic This Week“:

…

THIS WEEK’S TOP STORIES

…

International Shipping on Northern Sea Route Collapses As Foreign Companies Stay Away For the first time in more than a decade the Northern Sea Route will not see international transit traffic as operators avoid Russia as a result of sanctions. Based on data from Russia’s NSR Administration the route is not expected to see any international transits in 2022, a first in almost 15 years. In 2021 Russia’s Northern Sea Route (NSR), a seasonal shipping route providing a shortcut for ships traveling between Europe and Asia, saw record-levels of international transit shipping reaching two million tons. Last year 86 voyages by vessels from almost two dozen countries traversed the route. Not only is the route seeing no international transits where ships travel the entirety of the route from Europe to Asia or vice versa this year, it has in fact been almost fully abandoned by non-Russian carriers. Even Chinese state-owned shipping company COSCO, which over the past decade has conducted almost a hundred voyages along the route, will be absent from the Northern Sea Route this year (HNN).

Second, from the High North News story itself:

International Shipping on Northern Sea Route Collapses As Foreign Companies Stay Away

Could traffic shift to a new Arctic route?

…

By the time shipping volume reaches higher levels by the next decade, another shipping route outside of the control of Russia may become navigable according to new research.

The Transpolar Sea Route or TSR which passes largely through international waters instead of hugging Russia’s coastline could begin to open up by 2035, at least during the middle of the summer [emphasis added], Amanda Lynch at Brown University in Rhode Island and Charles Norchi at the University of Maine suggest. 

While shippers face Russian fees and restrictions to travel through the NSR, a route through the center of the Arctic Ocean would face no such obstacles. In light of the changing political and security environment following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, this route outside Russia’s control could become more attractive, the researchers conclude [emphasis added].

Also keep in mind that the NSR still is very much a route for hydrocarbon-related shipping, not other cargo. From a January 2022 story at High North News:

…About two-thirds of cargo volume originates from the export of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and crude oil with the remaining share coming from bulk shipping and general cargo.

In any event, that Transpolar Sea Route sure looks quite a bit better than that twisty and poorly charted Northwest Passage in what Canada claims, with little international support, are internal waters.

So maybe we can have

Enough Already with the Canadian “Arctic Sovereignty” Hoo-Hah, Underpants Section

Especially if Russian military power ends up seriously diminished by the war.

Mark Collins

Twitter: @Mark3ds