COUNTERSPIN: Putin’s Puppets Live Rent Free in Gen. Wayne Eyre’s Head

By Newell Durnbrooke

Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Wayne Eyre has headed into retirement but not before sending a scathing message to those who raised concerns about his changes to dress and deportment rules as well as those who questioned the selection of Gen. Jennie Carignan as his successor.

You’re all a bunch of Russian stooges.

Eyre used his July 18 speech at the CDS change of command ceremony to lash out at his critics, particularly those who are less than enthused about his 2022 policy that allows troops to look like Charles Manson (or RuPal) if they so desire.

Eyre says those retired and serving Canadian Armed Forces members who criticize the military’s culture change initiatives are actually helping Russian President Vladimir Putin destroy the military.

“Our own institution is being targeted every day as we see pro-Kremlin trolls tailoring their insidious propaganda to cause maximum harm, in many cases with fabricated personal attacks,” he said. “Gen. Carignan, you have already seen this. Even if they (critics) don’t see themselves consciously aligned with hostile states their ends are the same -and to play on a term that Lenin claimed- they are Putin’s useful idiots.”

“This is a real issue that lures those who would drag us into the culture wars,” Eyre added. “That is we can either treat people with respect and dignity or we can be operationally effective. This is a false dichotomy as we know operational effectiveness is predicated on strong cohesive teams.”

Eyre used a pretty broad brush to paint as “Putin Puppets” those who even raise the slightest of concerns about the future direction of the CAF or dare to criticize some of these new policies.

By the way, the general, who is reportedly going to write a book on leadership as he collects his $210,000 a year pension, didn’t provide any proof to back up his allegations that CAF veterans are associated with the Russians.

Those who did watch the change of command ceremonies live on Facebook, or later on the parliamentary TV channel, would have gotten a chuckle from Defence Minister Bill Blair’s latest gaffe.

Blair praised Eyre for his outstanding leadership, noting that he had brought stability and passion to the job. “In fact, on the very first day of my appointment as the Minister of Defence, I had a conversation with Jane Eyre that has resonated and stayed with me from the moment I met him,” Blair said before the audience of several hundred.

Just another normal day at National Defence….conversing with Jane Eyre.

Retired Lt. Gen. Andrew Leslie seems to be on a mission to warn Canadians about Justin Trudeau. Leslie has done multiple media interviews lately outlining how Trudeau isn’t serious on defence or funding the Canadian Forces.

Leslie, a former army commander and Liberal MP in the Trudeau government, outlined his concerns in columns written in May and in June by Donna Kennedy-Glans, a former Alberta Conservative cabinet minister. Not enough money is being spent on the military, he said. The Canadian Forces is being ignored by government. The army doesn’t have a presence in the Arctic. And so on.

But is anyone actually listening?

Leslie, a wealthy individual in his own right, makes the same mistake that his fellow retired generals make – that Canadians struggling to make ends meet actually care whether the RCAF gets enough F-35s or the army receives a replacement tank.

“They (the Liberal government) believe there’s a whole host of societal funding requirements, ranging from increases in healthcare, to daycare, to children getting breakfast at school— and a bewildering array of boutique allocations of funds to cater to voter-sensitive initiatives,” Leslie told Kennedy-Glans of the National Post newspaper. “And defence comes after all of that.”

Yes Andy, that is how voters tend to think. Feed children, have health care, have their kids taken care of…and then worry about buying more smart bombs.

There was also this choice quote from Leslie. “I had the privilege and honour to be in close proximity to three consecutive prime ministers who made the system work such that we bought tanks, artillery ammunition, small arms ammunition, helicopters, guns, armour-protective vehicles, new weapons systems, the list goes on,” Leslie explained. “And those were Prime Minister Chretien, Prime Minister Martin, and Prime Minister Harper.”

Jean Chretien? Is Leslie kidding? Chretien cut the EH-101 maritime helicopter program and gutted the Canadian Forces. Didn’t retired Gen. Rick Hillier call Chretien’s time in office, the “Decade of Darkness”?

Leslie also warned Kennedy-Glans that the Liberal government won’t meet their NATO pledge to spend two per cent of GDP on defence. And in the May 12 interview with the National Post, Leslie revealed he was talking to Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s team about defence strategy and that he found them, “receptive, aware and focused.” “You can quote me on that,” Leslie said to Kennedy-Glans.

On July 12, Poilievre confirmed he won't commit to meeting the two per cent NATO defence spending target if he becomes prime minister. The Conservative leader said he won’t make promises he can’t keep.

The Conference of Defence Associations Institute promoted its “Expert Series” interview in a July 12 email blast. Readers were invited to listen to “expert” the “Hon. David MacKay on Canada's Reputation at NATO Summit.” That actually turned out to be former Defence Minister Peter MacKay being interviewed by the CDA’s Josh Malm.

Those who tuned into the 28-minute segment got to hear MacKay complain about how Canada is a laggard in defence spending, how the Liberals won’t meet the two per cent GDP spending target and how the military needs a “steadfast commitment from government” on spending.

What the CDA didn’t bother to point out is that this is the same Peter MacKay who served in a government that cut defence spending and was led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who despite agreeing to the two per cent GDP NATO spending directive, actually admitted in 2014 he had no intention to meet that goal.

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT: Alan Williams Counters The Hub

Canada’s military in crisis. Here’s what’s definitely not helping.

Introduction by Newell Durnbrooke

On May 22 the online publication, The Hub, carried an commentary piece by Richard Shimooka. It was titled “Canada’s military in crisis. Here’s what’s definitely not helping.”

You can read the commentary at this link:

https://thehub.ca/2024/05/22/richard-shimooka-canadas-military-is-in-crisis-heres-whats-not-helping/

The commentary initially dealt with the Canadian Surface Combatant program but then focused on what some in the defence community have viewed as a highly personal attack on Alan Williams, the former Assistant Deputy Minister for Materiel at National Defence. In the past, Williams has raised significant concerns about the growing cost of the CSC and how that might affect the Canadian Armed Forces as well as taxpayers.

Williams emailed Harrison Lowman, managing editor of The Hub, a note highlighting his concern over the personal attacks in the commentary as well as providing a rebuttal to the Shimooka piece. He requested it be published. The Hub, after all, claims to be committed to “independent and spirited debate.”

However, Lowman, citing a decision by The Hub’s editorial board, refused to publish the Williams’ rebuttal.

So Esprit de Corps will publish what The Hub won’t. Below is the response from Alan Williams to the commentary piece in The Hub.

By Alan Williams

In his May 2024 commentary "Canada’s Military is in Crisis. Here’s what’s definitely not helping", Richard Shimooka makes reference to a number of my observations. Frankly, I was pleased to see that he is so preoccupied with what I think and say. However, if he is going to critique my comments, he ought to get them right. 

Point #1. Mr. Shimooka challenges my assertion that the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) program is unaffordable by relating its cost to Canada’s GDP. But, of course, that comparison is irrelevant. The CSC program is unaffordable within the budget of the Department of National Defence (DND). The reality is that if the CSC and F-35 programs advance as currently structured, without additional funding, DND will incur a $100 billion-dollar capital budget shortfall over the next 10 years.

Point #2. Given the unaffordability of the CSC, Mr. Shimooka criticizes me for not recommending that Canada curtail the navy’s international role. The fact is, for me to do so, would be irresponsible.  The government decides on the role and mandate of our military. I am merely pointing out the costs of doing so, with the hope that the government balances its expectations for the armed forces with the funding it provides them. 

Point #3. Mr. Shimooka dismisses my recommendations to acquire the CSC at a much lower cost. Apparently Mr. Shimooka feels it is okay to acquire these ships for two to three times their real costs.

Point #4. Mr. Shimooka states that I recommend acquiring the US-built Constellation class vessels. Nothing could be further from the truth. I merely use the Constellation class as a reference point with regard to its cost. Canada is a sovereign country. Our ships should reflect our needs, not those of the US and should be built in Canada. 

Point #5. Mr. Shimooka contends that my alternative suggestions offer “superficially compelling ideas with unrealistic timelines and little to no cost saving”. I disagree. I have long suggested limiting the CSC contract to three initial ships and competing the balance. This proposal is sensible and doable. In fact, the notion of signing a contract with Irving Shipbuilding for three ships has been publicly acknowledged by DND. Unlike Mr. Shimooka, I have actually run the procurement system and am confident in the timelines I have suggested. On the other hand, Mr. Shimooka simply buries his head in the sand, ignoring the cost “Titanic iceberg “about to sink the department. His solution is to “dig ourselves out of the mess we find ourselves in, and the most important initial step to solving a problem is seeing it clearly.” It is hard to imagine a less helpful solution than the one he proposes.

Counterspin: Defence Media Watch

By Newell Durnbrooke

The United States will host the NATO Summit in Washington DC from July 9 to July 11 so those who follow Canadian news outlets can expect to be deluged with more articles about how Canada is supposedly a “defence laggard.”

That has been the standard commentary over the last two years from retired generals, defence lobbyists, U.S. politicians and think-tank experts, some who rely on funding from the defence industry.

In reality, Canada’s defence budget still puts it as number 7  in NATO when it comes to spending of actual dollars and number 16 in such spending worldwide. In terms of actual spending worldwide Canada is well ahead of a number of its NATO allies. DND’s Main Estimates 2023-24 had defence spending at $26.5 billion. Main estimates for 2024-2025 list spending at $28.8 billion.

Yet defence analysts and U.S. politicians repeatedly criticize Canada (and as a result the Canadian Armed Forces). Instead they highlight nations like Estonia and Latvia (which respectively spend $1.5 billion and $1.6 billion annually on defence), as something Canada should aspire to. Frankly that is ridiculous and insulting to Canadian military personnel.

Yet Canada’s significant spending on defence seems to only continue to inspire headlines like the National Post ran June 12, claiming our country is “the worst performer now.” The article and accompanying video was based on an interview of Brian Lee Crowley, managing director of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, a think tank in Ottawa.

The Post’s Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson sat impassively while Crowley outlined his knowledge about Canadian defence spending and NATO. Crowley used the example of Latvia as a defence spender without acknowledging his think-tank has received funding from that government’s defence ministry

“If you look at all the countries in NATO – there’s about 25, there might be 26 members of NATO -and you plot them all on a graph we’re the worst performer now,” Crowley claimed.

Really? The NATO alliance actually consists of 32 nations. The last time it was 25 countries was some 20 years ago. There was no explanation in the video from the National Post why their “expert” Crowley didn’t even know how many countries were in the alliance he was discussing.

Crowley also claimed the U.S. spends 4 per cent of its GDP on defence. That is also wrong of course. The U.S. Department of Defence noted that this year America is spending 2.7 per cent of its GDP, similar to last year.

It wouldn’t be surprising if those watching the video (and who were actually aware of defence matters) simply dismissed Crowley’s views as stunningly uninformed.

And speaking of uninformed…

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre recently took some heat for his lack of knowledge of basic history. He celebrated the 80th anniversary of D-Day by going to a Royal Canadian Legion branch in Ottawa to honour our veterans. But his post on X (formerly Twitter) of our heroes who stormed ashore on Normandy was a photo of U.S. troops landing at Omaha Beach.

A team of Reuters journalists, including Canada-based reporter David Ljunggren, recently outed French President Emmanuel Macron as a hypocrite when it comes to Ukraine.

Macron has been a leading European voice in denouncing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and he has lectured other leaders on the need to provide Ukraine with more weapons and to get tough with Russia on sanctions. For instance, in May 2023 Macron and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called for more sanctions as well as efforts “to prevent the circumvention of these sanctions in and by third countries."

Fast forward to April 25, 2024 and news that the Canadian government had given Bombardier and Airbus a special exemption from sanctions on using Russian titanium. Canada's sanctions on Russian titanium had been introduced in February and Canada was the first western nation to target Moscow's exports of the critical mineral, CBC reported.

But who would have pressured Canada to give such an exemption to those French-owned companies based in Canada?

Well Emmanuel Macron of course.

Reuters reported May 30 that Macron personally intervened to persuade Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to give the aerospace firms the exemptions. It seems cutting out Russian-produced titanium is proving too difficult for the companies and too harmful to the bottom line.

It seems like Canada’s Nazi collaborators are still making the news.

On May 28 the investigative media outlet, Declassified UK, reported on a 1983 incident in which Prince Charles accepted an honorary degree from a Waffen SS soldier at the University of Alberta.

That soldier was none other than Nazi collaborator Peter Savaryn, then the university’s chancellor, who had also been a member of the  14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS, otherwise known as the Galicia division. Savaryn was an unrepentant SS veteran who volunteered for the Nazi division and swore allegiance to Adolf Hitler.

SS Galicia, of course, was in the news last year during the scandal in which Canadian parliamentarians gave a standing ovation to Yaroslav Hunka who was described as a Canadian and Ukrainian “hero.” It was later revealed that Hunka was a Waffen SS member who fought for SS Galicia. Canadians reacted with outrage over a Waffen SS veteran being honoured in the Commons.

The SS division has been accused of various war crimes, including the massacres of civilians; in addition, its members have also been implicated in the murder of Jews.

Last year during the fallout from the Hunka scandal, Savaryn’s past was also revealed prompting an apology from Governor General Mary Simon over the decision to award the SS veteran the Order of Canada in 1987.

Declassified UK pointed out the irony in Prince Charles receiving an honorary degree from a member of the Waffen SS.  During his acceptance speech, Charles praised those who had “sacrificed their lives 40 years ago” in the fight against Adolf Hitler.

COUNTERSPIN: Defence Media Watch (30-1)

1) Kimberly Gale (CBC) 2) Timothy Choi (University of Calgary/CGAI) 3) Murray Brewster (CBC) 4) Lee Berthiaume (CP)

5) Richard Shimooka (Macdonald Laurier Institute) 6) David Perry (CGAI) 7) Mackenzie Gray (Global News) 8) Shaye Ganam (radio host)

Volume 30 Issue 1

By David Pugliese

Public Services and Procurement Canada has a well-earned reputation in Ottawa for trying to hide or downplay information about defence acquisition projects, particularly when it’s not good news.

Sharp readers may recall the PSPC announcement June 30, 2022 – just before a long weekend – that the delivery of the Royal Canadian Navy’s new Joint Support Ships would be delayed another two years and taxpayers would be hit with additional costs.

So to start off 2023 in a similar fashion, PSPC decided to release on Jan. 3 a brief statement about “contract amendments” for the troubled Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship (AOPS) program.

That amendment included the fact the cost of AOPS had jumped by another $780 million over the last year.

CBC journalist Kimberly Gale covered the development with a Jan. 4 story worthy of an Irving Shipbuilding news release. She highlighted Irving’s talking points that the approval of an already announced project to provide the Canadian Coast Guard with two AOPS would add 500 employees to the shipyard workforce. Gale buried the price increase in the body of the article.

She also quoted “Timothy Choi, a naval affairs specialist at the University of Calgary” with an explanation for the extra cost.

“It is actually a more complex vessel than the Royal Canadian Navy version,” Choi claimed, referring to the two AOPS Irving will build for the coast guard. “Due to a large number of additional sensors and equipment that the Canadian Coast Guard requires to fulfil its science missions.”

Choi’s claim Coast Guard AOPS are more complex than the RCN’s AOPS might come as a surprise to none other than the Canadian Coast Guard. On Dec. 11, 2019 the Coast Guard and Liberal government reassured the House of Commons only “minimal modifications” were needed on the AOPS for it to meet Coast Guard missions.

In addition, Gale didn’t inform readers that Choi is also fellow of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI), a defence industry sponsored think tank that has received funding from both AOPS builder Irving and its AOPS sub contractor Lockheed Martin.

It was up to veteran CBC defence reporter Murray Brewster to salvage the coverage. Brewster filed his Jan. 6 story not only leading with the significant cost increase but as well pointing out to readers that PSPC delivered the bad news at a time when Members of Parliament were on holidays. Brewster noted that left “MPs with absolutely no opportunity to question federal officials about the reasons for the higher price tags.”

The bigger news in the world of defence media, however, was the fact Canada was moving ahead with its F-35 purchase. The announcement was supposed to have been made by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in early December. But that plan was scuttled when Liberal officials raised concerns Trudeau would face some tough questions from journalists over his about-face on the F-35. (Trudeau had claimed in 2015 a Liberal government would never purchase the stealth fighter.)

So, a new plan was put into action. An initial leak was coordinated by the Liberals to military-friendly journalist Lee Berthiaume of The Canadian Press news service. Berthiaume was shown documents outlining the purchase of the first tranche of aircraft, reporting Dec. 20 that the Liberals would spend $7 billion for 16 F-35s. But that backfired when critics started noting the $7 billion initial cost was significantly higher than the price tag Canada’s allies were being charged for the same aircraft.

So it was back to the drawing board for Berthiaume who on Dec. 21 produced an article with “defence experts” warning the public against drawing conclusions on the $7 billion figure.

Berthiaume quoted “F-35 expert Richard Shimooka of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute” and former RCAF commander retired lieutenant-general André Deschamps. Berthiaume did not inform his readers Shimooka’s organization had previously received money from F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin. Berthiaume did note that CFN consultants (the firm Deschamps works for) does lobbying for Lockheed Martin. What he didn’t tell readers was that CFN helped National Defence in co-ordinating the public relations campaign to originally sell the F-35 during the Harper government period.

The F-35 love-in continued after Defence Minister Anita Anand made her announcement Jan. 9 of the aircraft purchase. In a Jan. 10 article Berthiaume reported some activists had questioned the need for a new fighter jet. But beyond that he didn’t outline any of those concerns. Instead, Berthiaume turned to David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute to highlight the value of the F-35. Again, no mention was made of the CGAI receiving funds from Lockheed Martin. In the same article, Berthiaume interviewed Choi who was this time described as a University of Calgary defence analyst. Again, no mention was made of Choi’s CGAI connection nor the Lockheed Martin funding.

Mackenzie Gray of Global News had his report on the announcement and quoted the CGAI’s David Perry and former Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Tom Lawson. “I think in the end the government made the right decision,” Perry told Global.

“Canada looks more serious as an ally and defence partner,” added Lawson.

Gray did not interview any critics and didn’t inform his viewers Lawson had worked as an advisor for F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin. Gray was also silent on the Lockheed Martin connection to Perry’s organization.

The audience listening on Jan. 10, 2023 to Shaye Ganam show at Calgary radio station 770 CHQR might be forgiven for thinking they were tuning into a Lockheed Martin info commercial. Instead it was Timothy Choi, who spent around seven minutes highlighting the attributes of the F-35. Ganam introduced Choi as a CGAI fellow but, similar to other media outlets, did not reveal to his listeners Lockheed Martin’s funding contribution to the institute.

Overall, the largely unquestioning and at times fawning news media coverage of the F-35 purchase announcement was a glowing success for Lockheed Martin.

(Analysis)   

COUNTERSPIN: Defence Media Watch (29-12)

Volume 29 Issue 12

By David Pugliese

Ukraine continues to show its masterful command of propaganda as the war with Russian continues. A case in point is its production of a video to thank Canada for the weapons and money it has supplied. 

Ukraine has been doing this for a number of nations, including the United Kingdom, in which it invoked James Bond. The video for Canada includes lots of imagery of equipment and for good measure a clip from SCTV’s Bob and Doug McKenzie.

Irelyne Lavery of Global News reported Dec. 9 on the video although instead of describing it as propaganda the journalist labelled it a “gracious thank you to Canada.” The Global report included responses to the video from Defence Minister Anita Anand and
Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Wayne Eyre. Eyre not only promised more military aid but ended his message with “Slava Ukraini.” 

Slava Ukraini (Glory To Ukraine) first emerged in 1917 but became more widespread when in the 1930s it was adopted by the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army as well as becoming the official slogan of Stepan Bandera’s OUN-B. Bandera collaborated with the Nazis as well as fighting the Russians. His OUN-B and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army were implicated the murders of up to 100,000 Poles as well as an untold number of Jews during the Holocaust.

Eyre’s invocation of a fascist salute was denounced by some Canadians on social media, but the general seemed oblivious to the criticism.

On Dec. 3 the CBC’s Murray Brewster had an analysis stating that Sweden, who is set to join NATO, was boosting its defence budget and – unlike Canada – would hit NATO’s defence spending target of two per cent of GDP.

To the average reader the analysis would appear to be damning to Canada. Indeed, it was pushing the standard line from retired generals, the defence industry and some academics that Canada is a NATO laggard in spending.

What Brewster’s analysis didn’t contain was the fact that Canada is ranked sixth in NATO in spending on defence in actual dollars.

More importantly, it didn’t break down the numbers Sweden hopes to spend on defence. That country is proposing to increase its defence budget to $12 billion U.S. ($16 billion Canadian) in 2028. In 2022 Sweden allocated $7.3 billion for defence or $9.9 billion Canadian.

Canada currently spends around $21 billion on defence; more than double of what Sweden now spends and $5 billion more than what that country hopes to spend in 2028.

To the Royal Canadian Navy, a Nov. 11 Global News report by journalist Jeff Semple on board HMCS Margaret Brooke was a major publicity coup.

But from a journalistic point of view it had all the earmarks of a trainwreck.

Semple repeatedly and inaccurately described HMCS Margaret Brooke and the other Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships as navy “icebreakers.” There was not one mention of the significant problems the AOPS are now facing (engine/generator problems, communications issues, contaminated water, slow speed, cost overruns, delays in production, etc).

The Ukrainian war looked like it might spark World War 3 until cooler heads prevailed. Media outlets, relying on Ukrainian sources, reported Nov. 16 that a Russian missile had hit Poland, a NATO member. Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskyy immediately called on NATO to respond to what he called a “significant escalation” of the conflict. Ukrainian officials said NATO must invoke Article 5 of its charter; an attack on one NATO country is an attack on all. In other words, it was time for NATO to strike back at Russia.

But it turned out Zelenskyy’s claim a Russian missile hit Poland was fabricated. In fact, it was a Ukraine missile, or part of it, that had hit Poland, killing two farmers. Both NATO and the U.S. issued statements confirming the missile was not Russian.

But that message didn’t seem to reach CTV’s Joyce Napier. A week after the incident Napier was interviewing Gen. Wayne Eyre. First, Napier thanked Eyre for his service. (Although this type of “thank you for your service” introduction has a U.S.-feel to it, even American journalists don’t usually do this type of thing.)

With that introduction, Napier jumped into the missile attack: “Um, so now, I want to take you back to, you know, almost two weeks ago when those missiles fell in Poland on the border with Ukraine, Poland being a NATO country, um if the war in Europe, that was close. And, you know, maybe a wake-up call for a lot of us. Are you ready for that?”

Eyre couldn’t bring himself to point out the missile was actually a Ukrainian weapon. Instead, he praised NATO. “So when that happened, uh, very happy to see that NATO took a very measured approach to understanding in war, in fact, on all our operations, first reports are often, uh, often not completely correct,” Eyre said. “And so NATO paused, took a look, gathered the, uh, gathered the intelligence and, and then responded. But make no doubt about it, um, this happened because of Russia’s aggression.”