Canada Defence Force

[Big_Zucchini]

Obviously there will be no violence. There's some political noise and hype but whatever happens, will happen behind closed doors.
Trumpy Jr. is in Greenland right now. I'm assuming they wouldn't have sent him on the Trumpy jet if it was really just empty posturing.
In the end, the west is full of land and nations that are threatened but unwilling to invest in defense and rely on the US for protection. It's natural for the US to start pressuring them, whether it's by making threats or by fulfilling them.

Buying lands is not unprecedented, and surely even in 2025 is a fresh change from the wars and destruction we see elsewhere.
There will be some agreements. I doubt land swaps will actually happen, but there is likely to be progress that will benefit the US.

In something more related to Canada, I think Poilievre is a breath of fresh air in Canadian politics. He said he will reform the Canadian armed forces. Not something that can be easily done in a term or two, but even this statement of intent is a good thing.

 

[John Fedup]

Obviously there will be no violence. There's some political noise and hype but whatever happens, will happen behind closed doors.
Trumpy Jr. is in Greenland right now. I'm assuming they wouldn't have sent him on the Trumpy jet if it was really just empty posturing.
In the end, the west is full of land and nations that are threatened but unwilling to invest in defense and rely on the US for protection. It's natural for the US to start pressuring them, whether it's by making threats or by fulfilling them.

Buying lands is not unprecedented, and surely even in 2025 is a fresh change from the wars and destruction we see elsewhere.
There will be some agreements. I doubt land swaps will actually happen, but there is likely to be progress that will benefit the US.

In something more related to Canada, I think Poilievre is a breath of fresh air in Canadian politics. He said he will reform the Canadian armed forces. Not something that can be easily done in a term or two, but even this statement of intent is a good thing.

Harper promised increased defence investment but didn’t deliver. I expect minimum investment with Poilievre. The mess that junior is leaving him doesn’t offer many options.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Harper promised increased defence investment but didn’t deliver. I expect minimum investment with Poilievre. The mess that junior is leaving him doesn’t offer many options.

A country that cannot recruit an army is one that lacks soul. Else people would be willing to defend it.
This is the first issue to tackle, and one that needs more charisma than executive powers.
A common enemy is the best uniter. And that's pretty easy to find with an axis forming (Russia, Iran, China and co) and going kinetic, and immigration crises all around.
Even if he hardly touches the budget but motivates people and sets a path for increased military capability and global deployments, then I'll consider that a solid contribution, and await for the successor to increase overall capacity.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

Obviously there will be no violence. There's some political noise and hype but whatever happens, will happen behind closed doors.
Trumpy Jr. is in Greenland right now. I'm assuming they wouldn't have sent him on the Trumpy jet if it was really just empty posturing.
In the end, the west is full of land and nations that are threatened but unwilling to invest in defense and rely on the US for protection. It's natural for the US to start pressuring them, whether it's by making threats or by fulfilling them.

Buying lands is not unprecedented, and surely even in 2025 is a fresh change from the wars and destruction we see elsewhere.
There will be some agreements. I doubt land swaps will actually happen, but there is likely to be progress that will benefit the US.

In something more related to Canada, I think Poilievre is a breath of fresh air in Canadian politics. He said he will reform the Canadian armed forces. Not something that can be easily done in a term or two, but even this statement of intent is a good thing.

Donald Trump should stop making stupid speeches hoping that people forget about all the promises he made in the last months.
Didn't he promised to end the Ukraine war in 24h after his election?
The man is just playing a very dangerous game.
Words are not meaningless, Europeans will remember how he is talking about us and about invading all our overseas territories and colonies.

Is it ok for you to have a US president talking to the public about invading Canada, Greenland, Panama?
How can it be ok for him and his psycho friend Musk to insult everyone 24/7?

Remember what Churchill said:
"There is only one thing worse than fighting with allies, and that is fighting without them.”
Shame on him.

 

[Terran]

Donald Trump should stop making stupid speeches hoping that people forget about all the promises he made in the last months.
Didn't he promised to end the Ukraine war in 24h after his election?
The man is just playing a very dangerous game.
Words are not meaningless, Europeans will remember how he is talking about us and about invading all our overseas territories and colonies.

Is it ok for you to have a US president talking to the public about invading Canada, Greenland, Panama?
How can it be ok for him and his psycho friend Musk to insult everyone 24/7?

Remember what Churchill said:
"There is only one thing worse than fighting with allies, and that is fighting without them.”
Shame on him.

Did he say he would use military force? No he didn’t. Farther it wasn’t a speech it was a press conference with a loaded question.
This clip seems to be the source of the conversation.

The Question used “Military or Economic Coercion”
The rephrase “ rule out use of Military Coercion”
At no point did he say invasion. At no point did he say he would invade. He said he wouldn’t rule it out. What we have is a “I am keeping options open” turned into “I am going to invade!!”.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

Did he say he would use military force? No he didn’t. Farther it wasn’t a speech it was a press conference with a loaded question.
This clip seems to be the source of the conversation.

The Question used “Military or Economic Coercion”
The rephrase “ rule out use of Military Coercion”
At no point did he say invasion. At no point did he say he would invade. He said he wouldn’t rule it out. What we have is a “I am keeping options open” turned into “I am going to invade!!”.

Why is he even talking about the use of "economic or military coercion" on the Realm of Denmark?
The POTUS, possibly the most powerful man on the planet, can talk like that?
Are we going to talk about Musk calling for revolts in the EU?
Or civil war in the UK?
Or this?


Are these people crazy or what?

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Donald Trump should stop making stupid speeches hoping that people forget about all the promises he made in the last months.
Didn't he promised to end the Ukraine war in 24h after his election?

I would never advise anyone to take political speech literally. Can the war end in 24h? Probably not. But is his general approach to foreign policy net positive in that direction? I believe so.
Biden's approach, for Ukraine at least, has been disastrous. For a war to end, either both sides must be exhausted, or one must maintain an overwhelming advantage. Biden's policy has been to maintain a balance of power between Russia and Ukraine, which is the very opposite of a war ending policy.
Trump instead expressed a policy of providing Ukraine with an overwhelming advantage if diplomacy fails. Which is a good approach.

The man is just playing a very dangerous game.
Words are not meaningless, Europeans will remember how he is talking about us and about invading all our overseas territories and colonies

I'm familiar with the European affinity for words, but strongly worded letters just aren't going to cut it anymore against tyrants.
And if amid the largest global security crisis since the cold war - leaders like Macron, Sanchez, Trudeau etc choose to behave like useful idiots for the axis and permit them to establish themselves in their territories, then what's wrong if the US also takes up that offer?
Better in western hands than in Russian or Iranian hands.

Remember what Churchill said:
"There is only one thing worse than fighting with allies, and that is fighting without them.”
Shame on him.

Trump has cultivated allies by demanding that European nations form armed forces. To date, the majority of European nations plus Canada do not have any form of armed forces.


My bottom line: None is owed security, statehood, and their way of life. If you want something, you have to show you're willing to fight for it. If your nation is threatened, don't go complaining to those threatening you. Complain to your leadership for not doing enough.

 

[Terran]

I am not even going to say anything about Musk’s comments. He says a lot and doesn’t know a lot. I view him like I view P.T. Barnum. He may have pulled off SpaceX and Tesla but he also built the Las Vegas loop and tried to sell the world on the failed idea that was Pneumatic transit 2.0.
As for Trump on Greenland, it has “Yuge” untouched natural resources. It’s located between the North America and Europe. Arctic circle which is a major geopolitical National Security Concern, And yet it remains largely undeveloped. As to Military and Economic Coercion the U.S. Military is one of the largest population groups on the island. Pituffik Space force base (still think they should have called it Starbase) formerly Thule AFB. Also the U.S. has bought foreign colonies before. You might have heard of Alaska.
Additionally the U.S. government has actually administered Greenland before. After Denmark became a holding of a certain Mustached failed Artist in 1940. The U.S. government took administrative rule of the island for the duration of the war for similar reasons of national security.

 

[Todjaeger]

Just a reminder to other members, but this thread is about general Canadian defence topics, not the US, Greenland or Denmark. Also the Mods tend to get very, very twitchy when politics get brought into a thread. This is especially true when the politics is not directly related to defence policy or defence budgeting.