[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Grey Fox]

I think it's useful to remind the world and Trump that the attitude of deference of his 1st term is over and forward is now about showing sovereignty every where you can.

[viper37]

Canada's Carney says Trump must stop comments before bilateral talks can start


Seems like there's someone in charge now.

[mongers]

Canada's Carney says Trump must stop comments before bilateral talks can start


Seems like there's someone in charge now.

Canada isn't going to get anywhere with a PM kowtowing to trump for 4 years, best to keep asserting the sovereignty of the Canadian people.

[Sheilbh]

I think it is very helpful to isolate Trump.  The worst thing we can do is pretend all this is normal.

But again I don't get the next step - how does this help Ukraine? Because surely that's the point of inviting Zelensky.

As I say the best case scenario I can see is that Trump attends, there isn't massive blow-up with Zelensky and Trump is isolated. My expectation is the consequence is that a month's effort by France, Poland and the UK - in close coordination with Kyiv - gets burned. At best it has to start again.

I think it's useful to remind the world and Trump that the attitude of deference of his 1st term is over and forward is now about showing sovereignty every where you can.

The real sin of world leaders in his first term (and since) wasn't their deference but a combination of fatalism about Trump and absolute inaction on building up our sovereignty.

Canada absolutely needs to assert its nationhood. But from a European perspective, and I think particularly in relation to Ukraine - we're not sovereign. We are absolutely dependent on the US - which means working with its President.

The job right now I think is to work with Trump as best we can to advance our (and Ukraine's interests) opportunistically - and to build up the capacity (industrial, military, state) in order to act independently. But we're really just starting on that. And the two need to be in parallel and not bamboozle each other - success on working with Trump should not distract from the need to be able not to and starting to build up that capacity should not be mistaken for having done it.

I think the performance of politics recreating the Merkel "leader of the free world" moment or trying to recreate this photo is meaningless in a context of actual dependency - and I think damaging with actual security risks:

[Zanza]

This man wants to negotiate with Putin about Ukrainian "assets". Appeasing him seems pointless. Everything he agrees on one day might be discarded the next day if he spots a potential real estate deal.

The reason why we rely on the Americans to defend against Russia is lack of political will in Europe. Appeasing Trump won't generate that.

[Sheilbh]

This man wants to negotiate with Putin about Ukrainian "assets". Appeasing him seems pointless. Everything he agrees on one day might be discarded the next day if he spots a potential real estate deal.

The reason why we rely on the Americans to defend against Russia is lack of political will in Europe. Appeasing Trump won't generate that.

A lack of political will and its consequences: an inadequate defence industry, hollowed out armed forces incapable of projecting power even within Europe and inadequate state capacity on defence and security. Having the political will to defend ourselves will not conjure up the material sinews of sovereignty - the factories need to be built, the militaries need re-arming, recruiting and training etc. The political will is really important but crucially it also needs to be sustained because this is a big shift that will take time to build up.

The choice isn't between appeasement or not, but about whether Europe is willing to take the action required to build its own security and until that's done how it manages its dependency on the man you've described. We're in a really shit position but I think pretending we're not and that we've already done the hard work is just delusional and potentially dangerous.

[Zanza]

I think the delusional and dangerous policy is to assume that we can rely in any form on Trump for that phase until we reached the vague goal of strategic autonomy.

Our policy must now be based on the assumption that Trump is at best neutral towards Europe's security at worst actively hostile. He is fairly open about his imperialist ambitions and his disdain for Europe after all. If for whatever whim he occasionally decides in our favour, that's just an pleasant surprise. 

That said, I do not consider Russia a conventional threat to Europe - assuming political will to defend. European empty arsenals still hold much more than was ever given to Ukraine. Russia is down to using donkeys for logistics.

[Zoupa]

But from a European perspective, and I think particularly in relation to Ukraine - we're not sovereign. We are absolutely dependent on the US - which means working with its President.

Sorry but that's an insane take. US help was stopped for 8 months, during that time russia advanced maybe a dozen miles from 2014 front lines.

US aid has been helpful intelligence wise, artillery wise and with light transports (hummvees), but Ukraine will not crumble if they receive zero US assistance going forward.

[Sheilbh]

I think the delusional and dangerous policy is to assume that we can rely in any form on Trump for that phase until we reached the vague goal of strategic autonomy.

Our policy must now be based on the assumption that Trump is at best neutral towards Europe's security at worst actively hostile. He is fairly open about his imperialist ambitions and his disdain for Europe after all. If for whatever whim he occasionally decides in our favour, that's just an pleasant surprise. 

I don't think there's much disagreement here. I don't think it's a question of whether we can rely on the Trump or not or what assumptions we make but how we behave. Instead acknowledging that we are practically reliant on the US. So how do we manage that weakness given that we know Trump - my view is that there's no need to dramatise splits any more than Trump already will. Work with him, take the wins when possible and manage things when not.

But we're not American and we're not in domestic American politics (even if it sometimes feels like it). Resisting or opposing Trump is the job of the Democrats and domestic American politics - the job of other leaders is to get on with the White House and Congress (including Democrats) to advance our interests where we can and fix our weaknesses in the meantime.

That said, I do not consider Russia a conventional threat to Europe - assuming political will to defend. European empty arsenals still hold much more than was ever given to Ukraine. Russia is down to using donkeys for logistics.

Over the next few years I think Russia is a conventional threat to their neighbours. From reporting of NATO, German, Polish, Danish and Baltic assessments the range in which Russia could be ready to attack again is 3-10 years. We've got Trump for 4. I wouldn't bet European security on who wins the next elections so I think it's very urgent.

Possibly related to that - I think Starmer and Macron have done a very good job. But in assembling their "coalition of the willing" and discussing European deployment in Ukraine, I am very struck that many of the most supportive countries like Poland and the Baltics have ruled out participating. I think that is directly linked to their perception of the likelihood and immediacy of a Russian threat.

Even aside from the air capacity, Adam Tooze has written about the challenges the US DoD and Bundeswehr could not rely on the Deutsche Bahn to transport shipments to Ukraine - this involved contractual disputes and eventually moving to river barges for transport. A former US commander in Europe has been pointing out this relationship between defence and infrastructure for a while, "we do not have the transport capacity, or infrastructure that enables the rapid movement of NATO forces across Europe [...] German railway Deutsche Bahn has enough rail cars to move one and a half armoured brigades simultaneously at one time, that's it."

That's possibly partly why Western European countries have had to rely on US logistical air support to deploy in NATO partners in Eastern Europe. But it's a big challenge when, say, Bruegel's estimate of the European defence requirement is about 50 new brigades so that's 30 times more than what Germany's rail network can transport at one time right now (and basically all the big rail routes from Western Europe to Poland, Slovakia and Romania run through Germany). It might be an over-estimae but I think we should probably work to it. It's one of the reasons I think Ukrainian railways have been so key and iconic in Ukraine during the war and why the infrastructure side is as important as defence.

Sorry but that's an insane take. US help was stopped for 8 months, during that time russia advanced maybe a dozen miles from 2014 front lines.

US aid has been helpful intelligence wise, artillery wise and with light transports (hummvees), but Ukraine will not crumble if they receive zero US assistance going forward.

Oh I totally agree with this.

I'm in no way saying Ukraine will crumble or Russia will win, or that Europe can't support Ukraine - if anything the support should increase. But we shouldn't be loudly and visibly showing sovereignty that isn't there until it's there.

Again what are the possible upsides from inviting Zelensky to the G7 or the rest of the G7 staging Trump isolated? I can't see any.

[The Brain]

What's with the British idea that sovereignty only exists where there are no external factors to consider?

[Neil]

Over the next few years I think Russia is a conventional threat to their neighbours. From reporting of NATO, German, Polish, Danish and Baltic assessments the range in which Russia could be ready to attack again is 3-10 years. We've got Trump for 4. I wouldn't bet European security on who wins the next elections so I think it's very urgent.

I'm concerned that Russia won't really be ever able to wage a conventional attack again after this one, at least not unless they can isolate it to the Baltics.  The Russian population pyramid is grim, especially for men.  It takes a lot of troops to wage a war of aggression, especially the way that the Russians wage them. 

Again what are the possible upsides from inviting Zelensky to the G7 or the rest of the G7 staging Trump isolated? I can't see any.

I'm with you on this one.  It seems to me that we want to keep those two apart, so that we can minimize the chances that Trump feels small and randomly pull more support.  [/quote]

[Barrister]

Finally, on the attack.

I find that entirely unpersuasive.

So they use some similar phrases.  Big whoop.

[Barrister]

Canada's Carney says Trump must stop comments before bilateral talks can start


Seems like there's someone in charge now.

I don't think that's remotely helpful.

The west would have talks with the USSR during the Cold War for pete's sake, even as the Soviets said "we will bury you" and the US called the USSR an "evil empire".

I don't think you pretend that Canada and the US are very friendly right now, but you have to talk with Trump.

[HVC]

I find that entirely unpersuasive.

That's not surprising

[Zoupa]

Finally, on the attack.

I find that entirely unpersuasive.

So they use some similar phrases.  Big whoop.