The recent statements by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Russia's increasing military presence and capabilities in the Arctic are a promising step towards geopolitical realism, and an acknowledgment that the international naivety expressed by those on the political left in Canada is misguided and dangerous.
In
statements made to the press from northern Canada, Harper indicated a modest -- but still insufficient -- level of concern:
"I just think we should not be complacent, because we have seen over the period that President Putin has been in power just a gradual growing in aggressiveness of his government toward neighbors and the gradual military assertiveness of that country, and I just think it's something we should never be too at ease about."
One could argue the invasion of Ukraine -- a sovereign nation protected against Russia by the
Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances -- is far more than just "gradual military assertiveness."
The response of the West has been weak and ineffective, as sanctions and diplomatic huff-and-puff always are -- especially against adversaries such as the Russians. Russia respects only hard power. Soft power is merely an amusement to leaders such as Putin, who will simply merrily go on their way against such trivialities. The Russian Ruble is essentially at the same
exchange level against the US dollar as is was before the invasion of Ukraine, and the
Micex Composite Index is well within the range it has held since late 2011. In other words, sanctions have been near useless at achieving any measurable impact on Russia's continuing military advance into Ukraine.
The West has become weak, lazy, decadent, and corrupt
What NATO should have done immediately following the Russian invasion of Crimea is to grant Ukraine full NATO membership -- if it wanted it -- and accord Ukraine full protection under Article 5 of
The North Atlantic Treaty. At the same time, NATO ground forces should have begun moving immediately into Ukraine up directly against the Russian border and as far into Crimea as possible. But that didn't happen, for a number of reasons.
The West has become weak, lazy, decadent, and corrupt. The public, and the politicians that represent them, generally lack the willpower -- and in many cases, the intellectual capacity -- to work coherently through these issues of grand strategy and the struggles between great powers. The left does not own these failings via its longstanding linkages to the Russian political system. Manchurian candidates and useful idiots alike abound. Many on the political right advocate policies of isolationism, which has only ever failed throughout history, or they approve of much of what Putin stands for and his approach to governance and international relations.
Economic interdependence with Russian oligarchs
The economic ties to Russia have become too strong, and this explains the weak response by the West, especially in Europe. Germany and the UK are notable problems for their economic interdependence with Russian oligarchs and the political connections therefrom (aka, corruption). In the rush during the 1990s and early 2000s to make Russia "our friend" and to show the supposedly former communist state the wisdom of free markets, the West hitched its horse to the enemy in an almost treasonous fashion. Far more caution was warranted in political and economic engagements with Russia than occurred, and now we are paying the price. The payments for the West's greed and impatience will also come due with communist China.
There is talk of the long war against radical Islam. The long war against communism never ended, and -- if human history and nature is any guide -- it never will. The fight between good and evil is eternal. Those who thought the Cold War ended were fools or agents of the other side, or very commonly, both. China was the first to learn from the USSR's collapse: never engage so directly and overtly against the West that the populace becomes sufficiently concerned that they elect a leader such as Reagan, and learn to use capitalism and the free markets against the West until dominance can be attained. China has mastered this art -- not unexpected given the long history of their civilization and the philosophical and political wisdom upon which it is based. Russia appears to be learning its lesson, too.
What the Conservatives must avoid is giving a Liberal national defense policy under a purportedly conservative banner. Sadly, this is what they have been doing to date. All major military procurement files have been unnecessary failures. It didn't need to be this way. Some of the problems stem from ministerial incompetence and a failure to reign in the bureaucracy, others arise from an inability by the party's advisers to construct a solid case to sell to the public. Military spending since 2006 is a disaster. Canada now
spends only 1.0 percent of GDP on the military -- less than at any other point since before World War II, only one-fourth that of the Americans, and less than any serious country in Europe except Spain (which, arguably, is not a serious nation). Australia -- not a major military power by any stretch -- spends 60 percent more than Canada on the military as a percentage of its economy, and twice as much in per capita terms.
The case needs to be made to at least double Canadian military spending as a percentage of GDP over the next five to ten years, after which further increases will undoubtedly be necessary. Over the long-term, Canada will need to exceed military expenditures of the USA and Russia on a percent of GDP basis in order to make up for many lost decades where our military might floundered and declined while the rest of the serious world was moving on.
Putin attempts to rebuild significant portions of the former Soviet military capacity
The Arctic threat from Russia is
real and emerging. Both
Finland and
Estonia have reported recent airspace violations from Russian military planes. As Putin attempts to rebuild significant portions of the former Soviet military capacity, Russia has
announced that the Temp Aerodrome on the Kotelny Island of the New Siberian Islands archipelago off Yakutia "will be upgraded to receive Ilyushin Il-76 heavy military transport planes" all year round. The Tiksi Aerodrome, which used to serve as a staging base for long-range Soviet bombers to reach the United States, is
being restored. Six new military camps
will be set up in the Arctic in order "to further develop the stationing of [Russian] ground forces in the Arctic." Russia is set to
double the size of its airborne forces, with special emphasis on Arctic capabilities, and is
eyeing closer relations with Iceland.
A few days ago, the Russian Navy
hoisted its flag on a remote Arctic island -- Wrangel Island, 150 kilometers north of Chukotka and directly opposite Alaska -- indicating that in the future the island will host a base for the Russian Pacific Fleet. Another base in the Novosibirsk Islands archipelago was reopened last year. MiG-31's are
conducting Arctic drills with Tu-95 long-range strategic bombers as part of a
broader ramping up of Russian military exercises in the far north. New helicopters
specially designed for the Arctic are being tested. The next generation replacements for the Tu-95 and Tu-160 strategic bombers and the MiG-31 interceptor are on-track
to be developed by 2020, the fifth-generation Sukhoi fighter is expected to be operational by 2016, and many other components of the Russian air force are also being modernized and upgraded.
Meanwhile, some commentators
try to convince the Canadian public that "Canadians are lucky to still have [30-year old CF-18] fighter jets that can go toe-to-toe with Russian MiGs and Sukhois." Just absurd. Russia is not Canada's only potential adversary, and the notion that Canada's ancient CF-18s could defeat all of the current and/or near-future fighter jets from any possible adversary is easily disproven. The Russian PAK FA (T-50) and the Chinese J-20 and J-31 all have operational prototypes/production models and are expected to come into widespread production shortly, the Russian Sukhoi Su-27 and Mikoyan MiG-31 and the Chinese Chengdu J-10 and JF-17 Thunder and their variants are established at production capacity with many hundreds of fighters in-service, and all are
ranked well ahead of the CF-18s in terms of ability (one must be careful not to confuse the older McDonnell Douglas CF-18 Hornet -- regardless of upgrades -- with the newer Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet).
Even more nonsensical
is the notion that "Soviet submarines never threatened Canadian sovereignty over the Northwest Passage, because the whole purpose of such vessels is to remain covert. (Under international law, only overt actions can create new rights.)" So actions intended to remain covert cannot be construed as threats to national sovereignty? Of course they can, and to argue otherwise is irrational. By this failed reasoning, if a foreign power set up a secret base on Canadian territory -- say in the Arctic -- that we failed to detect, this action would not threaten our sovereignty. Or if someone enters your home and leaves without your awareness, this isn't a threat? How ridiculous does that sound? Any trespass is a threat to sovereignty by definition, as it demonstrates a failure by the trespasser to respect the fundamental property rights of the trespassee, and can be reasonably construed as a prelude towards even greater threats against the trespassee.
What Canada needs is to pursue its Arctic strategy to its needed, and logical, conclusion. This will require many tens of billions of dollars in new military spending over the coming decade on infrastructure for the northern regions and the equipment and personnel to support a strong national defense presence North of 60. It will not be an easy political sell to a dominantly left-of-center, pacifist, and isolationist public, but it is necessary to protect Canadian sovereignty. We must also begin to publicly question the real motives of those who oppose such efforts.
