[kEiThZ]

Yes, the Russians, the Chinese and others are building/developing their own stuff, but their spending in absolute dollars and their capabilities are well below that of the Americans.

Imagine thinking that the Chinese and Russians are honest about their military spending. You can't be this naive?

Not only do they outright lie about their spending (routinely disclosed in intelligence estimates), they also hide spending in other departments. For example, billing military housing and healthcare to other ministries. Meanwhile, the US includes massive amounts of welfare spending (5 yrs of service in the US earns lifetime healthcare, subsidized mortgages and 4 years of free postsecondary) in their defence spending.

 

[Northern Light]

Imagine thinking that the Chinese and Russians are honest about their military spending. You can't be this naive?

I am not naive.

I don't assume anyone's spending is entirely accurate, but if you want to use an internationally published marker (whether one agrees with it or not), such as 2% of GDP, you take the internationally published estimates. Apply asterisks all around.

Meanwhile, the US includes massive amounts of welfare spending (5 yrs of service in the US earns lifetime healthcare, subsidized mortgages and 4 years of free postsecondary) in their defence spending.

Which would then artificially inflate the percentage of GDP spent on the military, diminishing the American's would-be bragging rights.

 

[Northern Light]

Absolute spending doesn't mean much. Purchase Power Parity means developing countries get more for their dollars than developed countries.

Also, how soon we forget the 2% target. What would you say if the same attitude was applied to climate and foreign aid targets?

I've noted repeatedly that I don't subscribe to the 2% target. I don't accept similar targets for anything else either, be it foreign aid or healthcare. I'm all about measuring outcomes, not processes.

 

[kEiThZ]

I've noted repeatedly that I don't subscribe to the 2% target. I don't accept similar targets for anything else either, be it foreign aid or healthcare. I'm all about measuring outcomes, not processes.

Cool. Then we should ignore similar targets for climate change. After all, as a lot of opponents argue, Canada's impact on the global climate is irrelevant by virtue of being so small in absolute terms. So really why try, after all, any effort we make would not have any noticeable impact on ameliorating climate change? Would you agree with that?

 

[kEiThZ]

I am not naive.

I don't assume anyone's spending is entirely accurate, but if you want to use an internationally published marker (whether one agrees with it or not), such as 2% of GDP, you take the internationally published estimates. Apply asterisks all around.

Taking figures from autocracies at face value is naive. Also, the US does publish unclassified national intelligence estimates that provide a rough guide on the real level of Chinese and Russian military spending. And we know from the news that Russia is right now doing things like raiding pension funds to pay for the war. Discounting all of that just to be right on the internet.....

Which would then artificially inflate the percentage of GDP spent on the military, diminishing the American's would-be bragging rights.

It does inflate their stats. Nobody has denied that. But even if you discounted that spending they would still be above 2%, which is better than most of NATO. In the end, the point here is that the Russians and Chinese aren't as docile and innocent as those self-reported international stats would suggest, while the US is not nearly as hyper-militaristic as their numbers would suggest.

 

[Northern Light]

Taking figures from autocracies at face value is naive. Also, the US does publish unclassified national intelligence estimates that provide a rough guide on the real level of Chinese and Russian military spending. And we know from the news that Russia is right now doing things like raiding pension funds to pay for the war. Discounting all of that just to be right on the internet.....



It does inflate their stats. Nobody has denied that. But even if you discounted that spending they would still be above 2%, which is better than most of NATO. In the end, the point here is that the Russians and Chinese aren't as docile and innocent as those self-reported international stats would suggest, while the US not nearly as hyper-militaristic as their numbers would suggest.

At no point did I suggest the Russians or Chinese were docile.

Nor did I suggest that I take their stats at face value.

You're arguing into outer space on these points. We don't disagree.

The point is that I don't care about the 2% target, (which is not advocacy for under funding or abolishing the military, I just disagree with the metric).

That and most nations spending over 2% have little to no welfare state, and are generally not recognized as desirable places to live.

 

[Northern Light]

Cool. Then we should ignore similar targets for climate change. After all, as a lot of opponents argue, Canada's impact on the global climate is irrelevant by virtue of being so small in absolute terms. So really why try, after all, any effort we make would not have any noticeable impact on ameliorating climate change? Would you agree with that?

No. I would oppose a climate change target based on what percentage of GDP we spend addressing the issue. As a metric, that conflates greater spending with a better outcome.

I think we measure emissions, not expenditures.

In respect of defense, I would argue for deciding what we think the military should be capable of; and we fund according to our ability to deliver that outcome. If that's 1.5% of GDP, that's fine, and if its 2.5% that's fine. Its about the outcome.

Similarly on health, I want to measure how long people live, rates of cancer, and heart disease, effectiveness of treatments (cure/remission etc at 5 years post-intervention) and wait times.

 

[kEiThZ]

I think we measure emissions, not expenditures.

We measure what is easy to measure. For climate change that is emissions. But emissions don't translate into outcome (what you insist on assessing against). The relevant outcome would a reduction in global temperature increase.

I use climate change as an example, because it is the same economic problem: Tragedy of the Commons. Just as we must all cut emissions to effect a solution to climate change, the only way to deter aggressive autocrats is to collectively invest enough in defence to do so.

No. I would oppose a climate change target based on what percentage of GDP we spend addressing the issue. As a metric, that conflates greater spending with a better outcome.

I think we measure emissions, not expenditures.

In respect of defense, I would argue for deciding what we think the military should be capable of; and we fund according to our ability to deliver that outcome. If that's 1.5% of GDP, that's fine, and if its 2.5% that's fine. Its about the outcome.

You should be grateful we're going by spending. A country with a geography as large as ours should normally have a lot more assets, if we were held to that standard. It's actually kinda ridiculous that a country with the longest coastline in the world has a navy of only 12 frigates and 4 submarines right now and an air force with only 94 fighters. We have only 15 search and rescue aircraft to cover a country the size of continent and half the North Atlantic (also our responsibility). If we're going by outcome, we don't have enough to even monitor our own borders, waters and airspace.

 

[lenaitch]

You should be grateful we're going by spending. A country with a geography as large as ours should normally have a lot more assets, if we were held to that standard. It's actually kinda ridiculous that a country with the longest coastline in the world has a navy of only 12 frigates and 4 submarines right now and an air force with only 94 fighters. We have only 15 search and rescue aircraft to cover a country the size of continent and half the North Atlantic (also our responsibility). If we're going by outcome, we don't have enough to even monitor our own borders, waters and airspace.

Not even considering how many of those we can put to sea or in the air either because of staffing shortages or overdue/absent critical upgrades.

******

Like Trump's position or not; like our defence spending or not, but anyone who encourages a belligerent aggressor nation "to do whatever the hell they want" with an ally because they don't meet a spending target has no right to lead a country.

 

[kEiThZ]

Not even considering how many of those we can put to sea or in the air either because of staffing shortages or overdue/absent critical upgrades.

I've pointed out the 3:1 rule before. And given how old our stuff is that's optimistic. Essentially the best case scenario for us is that at any given time our navy can put to sea 3 frigates and 1 submarine. And if we commit to 1 frigate in Europe and 1 in Asia that means the longest coastline in the world is patrolled by 1 warship and 1 submarine. We play the same musical chairs with a lot of the air force too.

Like Trump's position or not; like our defence spending or not, but anyone who encourages a belligerent aggressor nation "to do whatever the hell they want" with an ally because they don't meet a spending target has no right to lead a country.

Trump can be wrong on his Russian simping and be right on Europe and Canada underspending (a complaint made by every POTUS since Clinton) at the same time. However, it's particularly poignant now because our underspending comes exactly at the moment Trump is undermining NATO. This whole situation would be far less scary if Europe and Canada weren't so dependent on the US for protection.

 

[kEiThZ]

Europe needs a decade to build up arms stocks, says defence firm boss

The head of Rheinmetall, Germany's biggest defence firm, says Europe's ammunition stocks are currently empty.

www.bbc.com

 

[lead82]

That’s why this war needs to end and negotiations to begin now. The war is at a stalemate which means Russia won. I don’t see any Ukrainian offensives this year. They are running out of ammo and with US bill being dragged through the house it may never actually pass. That gives Russia the opportunity to go on offensive. With a Trump victory a real possibility the war will end by early 2025 with Trump throwing Ukraine to the wolves. 2024 is the last best shot for US to sit with Russia at the negotiating table before that happens.

 

[Richard White]

That’s why this war needs to end and negotiations to begin now. The war is at a stalemate which means Russia won. I don’t see any Ukrainian offensives this year. They are running out of ammo and with US bill being dragged through the house it may never actually pass. That gives Russia the opportunity to go on offensive. With a Trump victory a real possibility the war will end by early 2025 with Trump throwing Ukraine to the wolves. 2024 is the last best shot for US to sit with Russia at the negotiating table before that happens.

I hate to say it but you are somewhat right.

The fact is that this war is dragging on for so long that it is falling farther and father down the priority list for alot of people.

There is likely fatigue setting in where nations who originally supported Ukraine are wondering where their money and ammo is going. They are not seeing a return on their investment and I don't doubt that they will stop helping Ukraine in the near term.

At some point Ukraine needs to win back their territory or the world will stop investing and paying attention.

 

[lead82]

I’m not sure they can win back any more territory. Right now they are focusing on keeping Russia from further advances. From a human manpower perspective it’s time to stop the bleeding and start negotiating some deal. Build a demilitarized zone at the lines now much like South Korea. Ukraine gets to join the EU and western economic model but not join NATO. Ukraine will get security guarantees from US and EU NATO states, similar to what Israel has annd builds a deterrent to prevent further attacks from Russia or Belarus.

Ukraine gets to expand its Black Sea ports and Russia removes the blockage and allows full shipping. Exchange or PoWs and children kidnapped. It’s not great, far from ideal but probably best they can hope for at this stage. Russia gets to declare victory of more territory they lost respect on world stage and peace in Ukraine doesn’t necessarily mean sanctions are reversed. There should be additional criteria like funding the rebuilding of Ukraine and compensation for the war.

 

[kEiThZ]

I am not sure why you guys think Russia would stop fighting when Putin knows Trump is around the corner. It's not just what Ukraine is willing to do. Also, Ukraine is not going to just surrender territory, they'll accept a ceasefire at most.

I think some of you need a reminder of what life is like for Ukrainians in occupied territory. It will help you understand why Ukraine won't just abandon their citizens.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1757334171586891953