Russia’s invasion of Ukraine warns Canada to take defense seriously


For the second time in my adult life, a big shock seems to have taken people seriously in defense. I still don’t know how serious it is. But, like 9/11, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has blown away a number of comforting illusions. So what do we do now?

In the short term, it looks like we’re doing faster and better than we were afraid of. It is not yet known why the “selected” Russian banks were excluded from SWIFT rather than the entire batch. Sometimes it stirs up pressure, sometimes it goes all-in … so to speak.

So to speak, Western countries also provide Ukraine with deadly weapons. And we, who survived the Cold War, which many didn’t even think of at the time, were all paying close attention, even in the Soviet Union, because the shooting war could be involved in a nuclear war. I remember that.

For example, if the transport of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles is likely to turn the tide, Russians may target them before crossing the Ukrainian border. Do you want to shoot back? Given the habitual modern frivolity of what Kipling called the God of copybook headlines, I find that few people seem to be worried about the possibility of such an escalation. I’m surprised.

Speaking of the Cold War, you may think that 2022 is the third time people have been serious about it. However, while Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were very successful, they worked in an environment where Reagan was an old man and Thatcher was highly convinced of his reputable relics. The general wisdom that Gipper’s ballistic missile defense, ridiculed as “Star Wars,” is bad at being able to shoot down incoming communist nuclear weapons, and that mentioning a similar Soviet program is vulgar. Remember that for, you never actually landed on the ground.

9/11 was different. While the press predicted the swamps of Afghanistan, some voices were raised by high-pitched opposition to active action and blaming the West as a true terrorist. But in general, these are self-parody, and we have determined that they have an overwhelming military advantage, at least until the war in Iraq worsens, but we do not know how to use it constructively. So I had to go back to sleep, Afghanistan … uh … in the mud. And the seriousness gradually disappeared.

I’m back. For now, anyway. Even Germany, which has long been very vulnerable to Ostpolitik, has openly armed Ukraine, promised to double its defense budget, and ultimately the GDP officially promised by all NATO members. I promised to reach 2%, but everyone knew they were lying.

Canada should do the same. In fact, our spending has been low for a very long time, procurement is theoretically ridiculously inadequate, and because it’s basically a job creation program, doubling is minimized and very I’m in a deep hole. You need aircraft, warships, logistics ships, munitions, pistols, and soldiers. In short, everything.

Includes better cyber defense. If you ask the official Ottawa, you will get the usual official guff. But if you look at what they say about what we can see, we can see that reassuring nonsense is the only military asset we have in stock. And then there is ballistic missile defense.

For years it was one of the things that hasn’t been discussed about its benefits. Rather, you are struck from the gentleman’s record because you are interested in it. So, despite everything happening in the world, Canada could kill millions of us by shutting down everything with some well-placed EMP blasts. We are combatively opposed to being able to shoot down like a fraudulent North Korean or Iranian missile. Infrastructure and most vehicles. Certainly already.

Of course, doubling defense spending means finding money. Please do not spend money. It’s not the money I borrowed. It’s not quantitative easing. So we also need to take the budget seriously. I didn’t have to worry about my budget, because both the reason for the legislature and the tricks were pulling the purse string, but I was able to casually clean up the parliament and blow away my spending.

This means that we need to be serious about how we govern ourselves. Why. Is the main function of the nation to provide us with all free stuff, or to protect our lives, freedoms and property? It cannot be both, because trying to do the former is ultimately wasted and the latter is at serious risk. In a world like Ukraine where a crisis can occur suddenly, it is steadily increasing in the long run and increasing in the short run.

I know we weren’t ready to laugh at both World Wars, and the second seemed to unfold at a terrifying speed. But it was nothing at the pace at which technology and machines could move today. So are we going to be serious?

good? We?

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

John Robson


John Robson is a documentary filmmaker, National Post columnist, Dorchester Review contributor editor, and Executive Director of Climate Discussion Nexus. His latest documentary is “Environment: True Story”.