ON TARGET: Is 'Total Victory' Possible for Ukraine?

By Scott Taylor

As the war in Ukraine enters its 17th month the misinformation and disinformation continues to emanate from both sides of the conflict.

Depending on which news outlet one follows, it would be possible to believe that the Armed Forces of Ukraine are destroying the Russian invaders with ease, armed, equipped and trained by NATO allies, including Canada. Conversely, the pro-Russian media sites portray the war as a Kremlin victory with the current Ukrainian counter offensive being bloodily repulsed at the hands of superior Russian forces.

It is a battle of information ‘absolutes’ wherein western media portray anything Ukrainian as infallible, and the invading Russian troops as being incompetent and incapable.

For instance, on June 6, when the Kakhovka dam was breached on the Dnipro river, there was never any doubt that the Russians were responsible.

Russian troops controlled the dam at the time of the explosion, case closed.

The resultant flood damage is estimated to have killed 10 civilians, injured 14 and washed away numerous settlements downriver.

Ukrainian politicians highlighted the fact that several tons of fuel oil had been spilled into the river during the flood, causing an ecological disaster.

In the immediate aftermath of the dam breach, western media turned to their usual military pundits to explain to viewers why Russia would have deliberately blown up the Kakhovka dam at this particular juncture.

There was no doubt about Russia’s culpability, or speculation that Ukraine might have triggered the blast.

The problem for the pundits was the fact that short of blundering incompetence or a tragic accident, it made no real sense for Russia to destroy the dam.

The best argument put forward was that it was to pre-empt and delay the long-awaited Ukrainian counter-offensive.

However, we are now learning from a study conducted by the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for the Study of War that it was Russian defensive positions on the east bank of the Dnipro river that suffered the most damage as a result of the flood. According to the ISW study, “flooding has deprived Russian forces of previously held positions in at least 12 settlements on the east (left) bank of the Dnipro River and has pushed Russian lines back as far as 10 kms in some areas.”

In terms of the Russian defensive positions the ISW reported, “The flooding has destroyed many Russian first line field fortifications that the Russians intended to use to defend against Ukrainian attacks.”

From the outset, Ukrainian officials noted that the flood had washed landmines downriver creating a dangerous hazard to relief workers. According to the ISW, most of those landmines were part of the defensive works constructed by the Russian army.

Also rarely mentioned in the western media coverage of the incident was the fact that the reservoir at the Kakhovka dam was used to feed the North Crimea Canal.

It is this man-made waterway that provides the main water source for the Russian-controlled Crimean Peninsula. In 2014, immediately following President Putin’s declared annexation of the Crimea, Ukrainian officials had blocked the water flow into the North Crimea canal.

This had resulted in a severe shortage of water for irrigation and agriculture across the Crimea.

One of those very few tangible victories achieved by Putin’s invaders to date was the re-opening of the North Crimea canal after they captured Kherson and the Kakhovka dam in February 2022.

The catch-all response to the conundrum of explaining why Russians would have blown the dam when they had so much to lose and virtually nothing to gain is for pundits to quip-well: ‘the Russians don’t care about their own people.’

On the battlefield, it is apparent that the Ukraine military has indeed begun their counter-offensive.

There is now almost no doubt among western military experts that with NATO equipment and training, Ukraine will defeat the Russian and pro-Russian forces.

Those who talk of ‘total victory’ meaning the removal of all Russian supporting elements from Ukrainian territory forget the fact that 17% of Ukraine’s population are ethnic Russians.

Out of a total population of 43 million, some seven million Ukrainians consider themselves to be ‘Russian.’

They may be supported by the Kremlin in this current conflict, but what is to be the fate of these Ukrainian citizens who also happen to be ethnic Russians?

Will the rules-based-international-order of NATO allies allow Ukrainian soldiers to ethnically ‘cleanse’ the eastern Donbass region of nearly seven million people?

The alternative would be for Ukraine’s military to forcibly ‘occupy’ the Donbass and Crimea and set the stage for a perpetual violent insurgency.

If indeed victory is now assured for Ukraine, perhaps it is time that we begin a debate on what a ‘just’ and ‘humane’ outcome would look like.

Given the amount of weaponry we are prepared to commit to this war, Canada should also take responsibility for the potential outcome.

ON TARGET: Why is the RCAF not Equipped to Fight Wildfires?

By Scott Taylor

As a resident of Canada’s capital, I can admit that the nationwide wildfire crisis suddenly became all too real last week.

A thick smoke haze engulfed Ottawa and much of southern Ontario for several days, prompting health advisories.

Pollution levels literally went off the charts with experts estimating that citizens were exposed to 100 to 200 times the normal range of pollutants.

The prevailing wind currents resulted in most of the eastern U.S. seaboard being blanketed with the same thick pall of smoke.

New York was the hardest hit city, and residents were quick to blame Canada by jokingly referring to the haze as the ‘Eh’pocalypse.

As an emergency stop-gap measure, firefighters have been brought in from France, South Africa and the USA to help provincial authorities to battle the still out of control wildfires.

There is no federal agency tasked with fighting these fires, but in some cases provincial governments have requested assistance from the Canadian Armed Forces.

This support will come mainly from the army in the form of actual firefighters on the ground, with the air force providing some emergency airlift of endangered citizens.

The reason for this is that in a country that boasts 362 million hectares of forest – the third largest in the world – our air force is not equipped for, nor tasked with fighting forest fires.

The even crazier part of this equation is that Canadian aerospace industries have historically produced one of the world’s most effective water bombers. Originally built by Canadair, the CL-415 was nicknamed the ‘Super Scooper’ when it first flew in 1993.

A twin-engine propeller plane, the CL-415 was custom designed to allow it to refill with water from lakes near the targeted forest fire, by skimming the surface. This allows the CL-415 far more time on station near the blaze rather than having to return to an actual airfield.

Following Canadair, Bombardier subsequently built the ‘415’ and then in turn it was De Haviland Canada that produced these water bombers.

In October 2016 the CL-415 programme was acquired by the Victoria, BC based Viking Air.

Their aim is to modernize the existing design into what will be renamed the DHC-515 Firefighter, which will be produced at a plant in Calgary.

Spread across Canada, there are approximately 64 of the CL-415 aircraft employed by private companies and provincial governments.

International users of this ‘Firefighter’ are almost all foreign air forces; Croatia, Greece, Indonesia, Morocco, Portugal and Spain just to name a few.

Which begs the question, why is the RCAF not responsible for fighting forest fires?

As we are currently witnessing, these wildfires pay no need to provincial boundaries.

Our forests are a valuable natural resource; worth I daresay, as much protection as our international borders.

We are barely into this year’s wildfire season and it is already one of the most destructive on record. The research indicates that things will only worsen with time. The changes in climate create warmer, drier conditions, increased drought and a longer wildfire season.

For much of North America, projections show that an annual average increase in temperature by 1 degree Celsius will result in an increase in the median burn area by as much as 600% in some forests.

If this is the new reality then Canada needs to act now.

If the threat was of a military nature we would have to find the will and the means to mobilize the necessary resources. Instead, Canada is battling the forces of nature.

However, this is also an opportunity for Canada to shift the focus of our military – particularly our air force – to protecting our resources and by extension Canadians health and welfare as well.

A huge investment in Canadian aerospace to build an iconic Canadian designed water bomber should be a popular one.

In re-rolling the RCAF to be the lead agency in combating wildfires, perhaps this would provide the genesis to create a true Air Reserve located at airfields all across the country.

Pilots and crews could be part-time reservists with legislation to protect their jobs when mobilized for active service.

Dropping loads of water on forest fires may not be as exciting as the prospect of engaging Russian fighter jets in a dog fight, but it would still be a hell of a lot more challenging than flying a cargo plane for a courier service.

It would also be great public relations for the Canadian military to have waterbombers bedecked in RCAF markings battling fires to save forests and remote communities.

As the fight against wildfires is seasonally hemispheric, if Canada was to possess such a potent firefighting resource as a 515 Firefighter equipped Air Wing of the RCAF, during our winter they could be deployed into the southern hemisphere.

Think of the international goodwill such support could earn for Canada- just as we are currently thankful to the French, South African and American firefighters here in Canada to help us get through the current crisis.

The threat of increased wildfires is real. The time to act is now.

ON TARGET: Time to Re-Think Entire Structure of Canada's Military

By Scott Taylor

The Canadian Armed Forces are presently facing a manpower crisis which threatens to hamstring the entire institution. 

Out of a combined Regular Force and Reserve strength of 105,000, the CAF are currently short some 16,500 personnel. 

The problem is twofold in that the military is challenged to recruit sufficient numbers, while at the same time the CAF is having difficulty in retaining those already in uniform. 

As the overall numbers dwindle, it becomes that much more difficult to maintain the staffing of foreign commitments, like Canada’s forward deployed Battle Group in Latvia and simultaneously finding the necessary trainers to create the next generation of soldiers, sailors and aircrew. 
Throw into this mix the constant interruption of training cycles to deploy military personnel to assist with climate change-related natural disasters such as floods and fires, and it becomes readily apparent that Canada’s military is very close to the tipping point. 

Thus far, the solutions proposed by the senior leadership of the CAF have been little more than cosmetic tinkering to existing policies. 

In order to attract more recruits the Canadian military have loosened restrictions on dress and deportment, radical hairstyles, facial hair, tattoos and piercings. They are now allowed without restrictions and while service-members still wear uniforms, they are no longer gender specific. 
It is also no longer necessary for recruits to be citizens of Canada. Applicants need only to have their permanent residency. As for retention, the military hopes to make alterations to the pay and benefits package as an incentive to keep trained personnel in uniform.

Vice Admiral Angus Topshee, Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, has introduced the Naval Experience Program (NEP) which will allow recruits to join for a 12- month stint. 
After a short eight week Basic Military Training course, those personnel will be posted directly to CFB Halifax or CFB Esquimalt. They will not have any specific trade training so they will be considered ‘general duty’ sailors for the duration of their one year of service. 

Under the terms of the NEP, those sailors will serve on both coasts, earn $42,000, with free rations and quarters and enjoy three weeks of leave. 

Topshee ambitiously hopes that after experiencing the RCN’s culture and seeing the world from the deck of a warship, 80 per cent of these general duty sailors will elect to extend their career and sign up for a second tour. 

Such measures, even if successful, may be a case of ‘too little, too late’. 

Given the developments on the battlefield in the ongoing war in Ukraine, maybe it’s time that the CAF rethinks the structure of our military entirely. 

There is no question that the drone has emerged as the queen of the modern battlefield. 
Canada has correctly deemed it necessary to invest in a mixed future fleet of armed drones. However, the RCAF has warned that staffing  such a new capability will be challenging due to the current manpower shortage. 

As such it is being proposed that reservists be activated to operate this future fleet of drones. Which begs the question, why do skilled drone operators need to be uniformed members of the military? 

As warfare increasingly becomes a high-tech contest between machines, drone pilots or operators don’t need to learn how to march in formation, polish boots or be able to bench press their own body weight. They would not even have to learn field craft skills as, given the range of these new drones, they could be housed in comfortable lodgings well behind any front lines. 

There will always be a need for the traditional warrior but perhaps it is time to look at those non-combat support trades to determine whether their role necessitates that they undergo full military training and be subject to the military justice system. 

While Topshee’s NEP will put general duty, non-trade trained sailors aboard the RCN’s warships, maybe a parallel program could be implemented to hire specialized civilians to support the CAF without having to be in uniform.

I know this will sound like blasphemy to the traditionalists who insist on maintaining the status quo, but desperate times call for desperate measures.

As for the issue of the military being deployed to aid the civilian powers during natural disasters, one short term solution would be to expand and support the group called Team Rubicon.
Established in January 2010, this is an organization of CAF veterans which volunteers to assist in the aftermath of floods, fires and earthquakes both at home and abroad. 

Expanding Team Rubicon and adding resources to increase their capacity would allow the military community to still reap the goodwill generated through aiding fellow Canadians, without having to strain our already over-tasked serving troops. 

ON TARGET: Was Canada 'Born' On Vimy Ridge?

By Scott Taylor

When Global Affairs Canada unveiled their new passport design last week, it did not take the Colonel Blimp brigade long before they realized there is no longer an image of the Canadian National Vimy Memorial in France included within its pages. 

This omission set off howls of indignation from those who have long peddled the notion that the Battle of Vimy Ridge is where Canada was 'born' as a nation. 

The Royal Canadian Legion tabled a letter of protest, as did the Vimy Foundation, which as the name suggests, owes its very existence to the importance bestowed upon this First World War battle. 

To give them credit, the Vimy Foundation have been hugely successful in promoting the Vimy Ridge myth over the past two decades. 

For legions of young Canadian students, annual class pilgrimages to the Vimy Ridge Memorial have immortalized that monument into something of a Canadian Mecca. 

That said, I've never understood the logic behind isolating the Battle of Vimy Ridge as the moment in which Canada emerged as a truly independent country. 

The Vimy proponents argue that this was the first time all four Canadian divisions had fought together as a single army corps, and that they successfully captured a ridge which both the British and French armies had previously tried and failed to accomplish.

The fact is that, while unified, the Canadian Corps was commanded by British General Julian Byng. Furthermore the assault at Vimy Ridge was not a singular operation, but rather a diversionary attack meant to support a much larger French offensive along the Aisne River. 

From April 9 to April 12, 1917, the Canadian Corps sustained a staggering casualty toll of 3,598 dead and a further 7,004 wounded. 

While the Canadians did successfully capture the ridge, the victory was not a major breakthrough, as the German Sixth army simply retreated a few kilometers to the Oppy-Mericourt line and dug in again. 

The subsequent French offensive was a disastrous failure. The French losses were so staggering that the Army mutinied en masse, refusing any further attacks. 

If one remains wedded to the idea that Canada came of age in a First World War battle, a more suitable choice would be Hill 70. 

This was fought in August 1917, just four months after Vimy Ridge, but this time the Canadian Corps was commanded by Canada's own General Arthur Currie. 

The Canadians once again achieved their objective, but with fewer casualties than at Vimy. 

Some of the Vimy-as-birthplace-of-Canada supporters argue that Canada's effort there were symbolic of the overall wartime effort which led to a more independent Dominion in the post-war era. 

However, Canada's automatic heeding of Britain's call to arms in 1914 was a purely colonial response to what was in fact an imperial war. That we sacrificed so much to prop up and support British imperial objectives hardly signifies Canada's independence. 

For my money, Canada first cut the umbilical cord to Mother Britain during the Chanak crisis of September 1922. 

For those unfamiliar with this little known chapter of our history, this began with a resurgent Turkish national army emerging out of the ashes of the recently conquered Ottoman Empire. 

Under the generalship of Kemal Attaturk, the Turkish army was steadily forcing the Greek army out of Anatolia. 

The British were keen to enter the fray on the side of the Greeks. However, as the British people were war-weary after the First World War, UK Prime Minister David Lloyd George put the call out for the Commonwealth Dominions to commit troops to this venture. 

Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King did not immediately conform to the British request and instead insisted that any decision on going to war would be made by parliament. 

In a telegram to then-Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill, King advised the British that unlike 1914, Canada's response was no longer to be considered 'automatic.' This resistance from King was soon echoed by all the other Dominion leaders within the Commonwealth. 

As a result, Britain had no choice but to conclude a separate agreement with Kemal Attaturk, which awarded all of Eastern Thrace to Turkey. The Greeks were forced to abandon the territory without a fight. However, more importantly, King's expression of independent action had a lasting impact on Canada's status. 

Historians credit Canada's response to the Chanak incident as the genesis for British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour's subsequent revision of the status of the Dominions within the Empire.

According to Balfour, from this point forward, the Dominions were to be "autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status and in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of the domestic or internal affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations." 

Balfour's revised formula was enacted into law in 1931 through the Statute of Westminster. 

Fighting in an imperial war as a colony does not make you a nation. Saying 'no' to an imperial war is when we in fact came of age. 

But there are no monuments to the wars we didn't fight, so what image could be put in our passports to symbolize the 1922 Chanak Crisis? 

ON TARGET: Canada in Sudan: A Total Gong Show?

Photo: Private Kareen Brochu-Harvey, Valcartier Imaging Section, Canadian Armed Forces

At first glance, Canada’s military response to the crisis in Sudan has been a total Gong Show.

The civil strife in that country erupted on April 15 between two rival military factions seeking to secure sole control of Sudan.

There were approximately 1800 Canadian nationals in Sudan when the war erupted, with at least 700 of those requesting an evacuation to safety.

However, the Canadian Embassy staff in Khartoum elected to evacuate themselves first, and by April 23 it was announced that all of our diplomats were safely deployed to a third country.

This of course left the remaining Canadian citizens to fend for themselves.

Four days later Defence Minister Anita Anand announced that the Canadian Armed Forces would be mounting a rescue mission. Dubbed Operation SAVANNE, this airlift evacuation effort included approximately 200 personnel and two C130J- Hercules transport aircraft.

It was not until April 27 that the RCAF were able to actually effect two evacuation flights from the Wadi Seidna airbase outside of Khartoum.

The first Hercules carried 45 passengers, which included a mix of Canadians, Americans, UK residents, Japanese and Djiboutians. The second and final flight managed to lift off with a similarly mixed group of 72 evacuees.

Following those flights, the tenuous ceasefire on the ground collapsed, and with Canada’s diplomats safely tucked into a third country, further negotiations proved impossible.

As a result, Canada had no choice but to suspend further operations, with hundreds of Canadians still trapped inside war-torn Sudan.

On the airlift side, the Canadian effort amounted to a case of too little, too late.

By the time Canada announced it was going to start flying people out, the British and French were already concluding their successful evacuations – which included bringing many Canadians to safety.

However, there is a bright side to this saga, and one in which Canadians can take a measure of national pride.

In addition to the airlift, there was also a large-scale effort to evacuate foreign nationals by sea.

By good fortune, Canada happened to have a naval presence in the region in the form of the patrol frigate HMCS Montreal and the supply ship MV Asterix.

As events unfolded, the MV Asterix was the second international ship on the scene after the war erupted in Sudan.

For those not familiar with the composition of the current fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy, the M.V. Asterix is a bit of an anomaly.

She has the designation ‘M.V’ (Motor Vessel) rather than ‘HMCS’ (His Majesty’s Canadian Ship) for the simple reason that Asterix is a civilian-owned and operated ship that is leased by the RCN. Considered an auxiliary feet ship, MV Asterix began her service with the RCN in 2018.

With a displacement of 23,792 tons Asterix is essentially a floating gas station – general store – and ammunition magazine.

Her role is not that of a warship, but that of replenishing warships while still at sea.

As such, MV Asterix proved to be a very valuable asset to all those allied nations toiling to evacuate their nationals via the port of Sudan.

While on station in the Red Sea, MV Asterix’s was able to replenish warships from the U.S, U.K, Spain and France. The effectiveness of that support drew high praise from our allies.

Commander Tom Johnson, the Captain of the Royal Navy’s HMS Lancaster aka ‘The King’s Frigate’ wrote a thank you note to the Captain and crew of MV Asterix, which read in part, “The sprint from Muscat left us short of fuel … without your exceptional support, we simply could not have done this [Evacuation].”

There has been international praise for the extremely successful French evacuation operation.

Being able to stage missions out of their military base in neighbouring Djibouti, the French were the first to coordinate the air evacuations via the Wadi Seidna airbase.

They were also credited with the first large-scale maritime evacuation.

In turn, French Vice Admiral Emmanuel Slaars gave credit to Canada’s M.V. Asterix for the success of that operation.

In thanking the Captain and crew of MV Asterix, Slaars wrote, “These simple but sincere words to thank you for your great service in support of FS Lorraine. The [replenishment at sea] which you granted us at night, with ultra short notice early this week has appeared pivotal to the success of the Non-Combatant Evacuation Operation (NEO) conducted inside Port Sudan by Lorraine.”

As a result of that joint operation, the French were able to safely extract 398 evacuees which included more than 100 children and 10 Canadian citizens.

Suffice it to say then, that Canada’s response to the Sudan Crisis was not a complete Gong Show.

ON TARGET: Canada and the Sudan Crisis

Photo: Laura Hogan/www.rte.ie

By Scott Taylor

Up until violence erupted in Sudan on April 15, suffice it to say that most Canadians could not find this country on a map, let alone understand the complexity of the current conflict.

In a nutshell, back in 2019 the Sudanese Army and a paramilitary force called the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) jointly ousted the long-ruling autocrat, President Omar al-Bashir in a popular uprising.

Since that juncture, Army Commander General Adbel Fattah al-Burhan has been the leader of Sudan’s ruling council, while his deputy has been the RSF commander General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, aka Hemedti.

In recent weeks an internationally brokered plan was to begin Sudan’s transition towards a future civilian rule.

Before the Army and the RSF relinquished their joint power to a civilian authority they decided instead to fight each other for sole control of Sudan.

The resultant clashes between these two military groups has led to widespread casualties among civilians.

For western countries with little to no skin in this game, the priority objective in the Sudan crisis has been the evacuation of foreign nationals.

On Sunday, April 23rd, the Canadian government announced that our diplomats had all been safely removed from Sudan and that they were now monitoring the situation from a safe third country.

However, at that stage of the escalating conflict, there was still an estimated 1800 Canadian nationals stranded in Sudan with at least 700 of those requesting evacuation.

On Thursday April 27th, Defence minister Anita Anand announced that the Canadian Armed Forces would be belatedly riding to the rescue.

Dubbed Operation SAVANNE, this evacuation effort is to involve an estimated 200 military personnel and two C130J Hercules transport aircraft. This will constitute the airlift component with an additional naval contingent consisting of the frigate HMCS Montreal, and the supply ship MV Asterix.

These two ships with their embarked CH-148 Cyclone helicopter will be available to conduct seaborne evacuations from the Red Sea.

The Canadian aircraft were reportedly staging through the French airbase in Djibouti en-route to Khartoum, Sudan.

The French effort in these evacuations is to be commended for its rapid implementation.

The first French deployment consisted of three A400M transport aircraft, and a contingent of special forces. They were on the ground in Sudan on the evening of April 22nd and the first evacuation flights began on April 23rd.

More importantly, the French were the first nation to establish a military presence at the Wadi Seidna Air Base outside of the city of Khartoum. As such, it was the French that were able to establish a coordinated international airlift – which I presume now includes the belated Canadian effort.

Between April 23-25 it was the French that organized vehicle convoys from the embattled Khartoum to the Wadi Seidna air base.

For security reason the French established two separate gathering points for the stranded internationals so that they would not have to cross any battle lines between the two warring Sudanese factions.

The French Navy deployed a frigate from Djibouti and on April 25 they embarked 400 UN employees at Port Sudan.

The French rescue operation known as SAGITTAIRE was actually considered complete by April 27th, just prior to Anand announcing Canada’s response.

One has to presume that with the situation on the ground being so fluid, the efforts of the Canadian military would have been enhanced if we had kept some sort of diplomatic foothold on the ground.

In August 2021 as the Taliban launched their lightning offensive to seize control of Afghanistan, the Canadian diplomats were also among the first to be evacuated.

In that instance, one could argue that with Canadian troops having fought against the Taliban from 2002 until the end of our combat mission in 2011, Canadian diplomats may have faced Taliban reprisals.

However, with Canada having a neutral position with both of the former ruling Sudanese military rivals, there would be no risk of targeted violence.

The diplomats would simply be facing the same threat of becoming collateral damage as those remaining 1800 Canadian nationals.

Presumably our diplomats would have established some personal relationships with Generals al-Burhan and Hemedti during their four years of joint rule.

Those sort of connections can be crucial in a crisis like this, but they become meaningless if the Canadian players have already bugged out.

The government’s announcement that all diplomats were safely evacuated on Sunday April 23rd was akin to the fire departments announcing that all fire-fighters had been safely removed from the burning firehall.

On Sunday April 30, the Canadian military announced that Operation SAVANNE was officially suspended due to the unrespected ceasefire on the ground and the fact that negotiations are now considered a challenge. Go figure.

ON TARGET: Is The Canadian Military Beyond Repair?

By Scott Taylor

The Canadian military has been in the news a lot lately and suffice it to say that the common theme is that of an institution in a state of crisis not seen in decades.

First off, we had an open letter released by the Conference of Defence Associations, which was co-signed by over 60 prominent Canadians affiliated with the defence sector.

The executive summary of that letter was a call for the Trudeau government to, “radically accelerate the timelines for procurement and redress the poor state of our nation’s current defence capacity, capabilities and state of readiness.”

According to these 60+ former defence ministers, generals and security officials, “years of restraint, cost-cutting, downsizing and deferred investment have meant that Canada’s defence capabilities have atrophied.”

Given that major defence procurements often take decades to implement in Canada, this open letter should have been titled a ‘Mea Culpa.’

The signatories were all in senior positions of power when the Canadian military went woefully off course.

Only now that they are safely aboard their retirement lifeboats are they raising the alarm that Canada’s military is about to sink.

Worse news came when it was revealed from leaked Pentagon documents that Trudeau has no intention of ever meeting NATO’s spending goal of two per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) spent on defence. According to these leaked Pentagon documents, published in the Washington Post, the US military believes Canada’s “widespread” military shortcomings are harming ties with security partners and allies.

For the record, Canada spends currently 1.3 per cent of GDP on defence, which is well short of the NATO target of two per cent.

However, in terms of actual dollars spent, Canada ranks sixth in NATO out of the 31 members of the alliance.

To keep things in perspective, and to illustrate just how arbitrary the percentage of GDP translates to military proficiency, China spends just 1.3 per cent of their GDP on defence – the same ratio as Canada – yet the Colonel Blimp brigade reminds us at every opportunity that the Chinese are a military powerhouse.

The truth is that far beyond the size of Canada’s defence budget, the real crisis facing the Canadian military right now is their chronic shortfall in personnel. 

The ongoing lack of retention and drought of new recruits has resulted in some 16,500 unfilled positions in both the Regular Force and Reserves out of a combined authorized strengths of 105,000.

This massive shortfall creates its own downward spiral as those remaining in uniform face increased pressure in the form of staffing operational deployments, while simultaneously finding the training resources to try and reduce the personnel shortage.

As for getting civilians into recruiting centres, the Canadian Armed Forces have pretty much eliminated all possible obstacles.

Dress codes have been relaxed to the point where all hairstyles and facial hair are acceptable. Tattoos and piercings are permissible, and while uniforms are still worn, service members no longer have to wear gender specific clothing items.

It was also recently announced that a recruit no longer has to have full citizenship; permanent residency is now the basic requirement.

However, despite all of these allowances, the military acknowledges that the recent string of sexual misconduct scandals involving senior military officials has had a negative impact on how civilians view the Canadian military.

A recently released government-commissioned report concluded that the sexual misconduct stories, “caused as much damage as defeat in combat would have to demoralize the troops and shock Canadians.”

Last October, in response to the recruiting and retention crisis, Chief of Defence Staff General Wayne Eyre declared the personnel shortage to be the CAF’s number one priority. 

Since that declaration, all nonessential activities were halted to allow senior officers to try and address the pressing shortfall.

A recent Ottawa Citizen story illustrated just how serious the military challenge has become. The headline was “Arrival of a new aircraft, lack of trained staff will cause ‘significant disruption for RCAF’, generals told.”

Essentially, the story outlines that even when the Liberal government does loosen the purse strings to purchase the new F-35 strike aircraft and P-8 Poseidon patrol planes, their arrival and implementation into service will actually further disrupt our understaffed air force.

It has gotten to that point wherein it is akin to that of a starving individual, if you try to feed them too much, too quickly, you will actually kill them.

In other words, the Canadian military is past the point of any quick fix.

ON TARGET: Dumbfounded by Trudeau

CBC

On Tuesday April 11, during the visit of Ukraine’s Prime Minster Denys Shmyhal to Ottawa, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said something so quantifiably dumb that I had to replay the video clip to ensure I had not misunderstood his comments.

A reporter had posed a question to Trudeau asking if he was willing to “state publicly to Canadians, that Canada is now in a proxy war with Russia?” The journalist asked for a “yes” or “no” reply, plus a brief reasoning as to why or why not.

The response from Trudeau – and this, I assure you, is a verbatim transcript – was the following: “Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine upended 80 years of peace, stability and security around the world. One of the most prosperous eras the world has ever known — we have all benefited from that immeasurably everywhere around the world. Russia’s decision to end that peace, to violate the UN Charter, to overturn international law, to arbitrarily choose to redraw lines on a map, is of course of deep concern to Canada.”

While I am certainly in agreement with Trudeau over the fact that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is illegal, to claim this act of aggression shattered eight decades of world peace is just dumb.

Using the starting point of the end of hostilities in WWII, there have been no fewer than 74 interstate wars since 1945.  

That list does not include internal civil wars or the US invasion of Grenada in 1983, or the US invasion of Panama in 1989.

Surely Trudeau is aware that Canadian troops fought in the Korean War, the first Gulf War, Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq?

 In 1956, Canadian Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson was credited with the invention of the United Nations Peacekeeping when he deployed Canadian soldiers with Blue Helmets to defuse the Suez Crisis in the Middle East.

Since that juncture, Canadian peacekeepers saw action in Cyprus, the former Yugoslavia, Cambodia, Somalia, East Timor, Namibia, Eritrea, South Sudan, Western Sahara, Rwanda, Haiti and numerous other far flung global hotspots.

Since 2015, Canada has also been actively training and equipping the Armed Forces of Ukraine to battle a separatist rebellion in the eastern Donbas region.

Putin’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine did not spark the violence in Ukraine, it simply poured gasoline on an already lit fire and turned a localized Ukraine civil war into an inter-state war.

Putin also has no monopoly on “violating the UN Charter” or “overturning international law.”

The US had no UN Resolution authorizing their 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. In 2003, the US famously tried, and failed, to get a UN Resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq under the guise of self-defense.

The US went ahead, and invaded Iraq anyway and subsequently failed to find the trumped-up weapons of mass destruction which would have justified their illegal war. 

A conservative estimate would put the resultant death toll of Iraqi civilians at close to 1 million – and counting. So much for Trudeau’s world enjoying 80 years of peaceful harmony.

In 2011, Canada led the charge to use NATO airpower to assist Libyan rebels to oust President Muammar Gaddafi.

Only after NATO had achieved that goal did anyone closely examine the composition of the Libyan rebels that we were allied with.  When it turned out they were a fractious collection of thugs and Islamic extremists, the Western countries – including Canada – simply walked away from the violent anarchy that we created.

For the record, Libya continues to be a failed state with no light at the end of a long, dark tunnel.

The other talking point that Trudeau tossed out was the line about Putin not being able to change the lines on a map – particularly the map of Europe. In my lifetime, the map of the world has changed many times over.

When I was a soldier stationed in Europe we were in West Germany and East Germany was a separate country.

Czechia and Slovakia were a unified nation called Czechoslovakia. What was then Yugoslavia is now the seven states: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia.

For the record, Canada participated in the 1999 NATO bombing campaign against the former Yugoslavia which eventually resulted in the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo in 2007.

This was indisputably Serbian sovereign territory, so it seems it is possible to change the lines on a map as long as it is the US wielding the Sharpie.

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 created 15 new republics. As a result, the map of Europe now includes Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Russia, Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine.

 Little understood by Western media is that in many cases, the creation of the former Soviet Republics as independent states led to many bloody territorial disputes.

To date there remains simmering armed standoffs in the territories of Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabagh.

Suffice it to say that Trudeau’s response to the reporter should have been a simple “yes.” By every conventional measure, Canada is involved in a proxy war with Russia.

 It is one thing to dumb down a complex conflict into simple soundbites – and with apologies to the film Tropic Thunder, Trudeau went “full dumb,” and you never go “full dumb.”

ON TARGET: RCN Recruiting Plan: Deja Vu All Over Again?

COMD_MARPAC/Twitter

It is no secret that the Canadian Armed Forces are woefully under-strength. According to the Chief of Military Personnel, Maj.-Gen. Lise Bourgon, the Regular Forces and the Reserves are presently 16,500 short of their combined authorized strength of 105,000 service-members.

In 2022, Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Wayne Eyre told a House of Commons committee that he is “very, very worried” about the military’s staffing crisis.

Eyre has subsequently issued a directive that makes recruiting and retention the CAF’s top priority. One of the first initiatives implemented was last year’s ground breaking decision to lift almost all grooming and dress regulations.

There are no longer restrictions on hairstyle, facial hair, tattoos or piercings.

Members still have to wear a uniform but there is no longer a gender specification. Men can wear women’s clothing items and vice versa.

In December 2022, in order to cast a wider recruiting net, the CAF no longer required recruits to be full-fledged citizens in order to join. All that is necessary now is to have permanent residency status.

On March 31, the Royal Canadian Navy announced that they are implementing a new initiative called the Naval Experience Program (NEP). This is a recruitment program intended to give Canadians the opportunity to experience the Navy as a sailor on a one-year contract that provides them with exposure to a variety of naval trades before deciding if a career in the Navy is the right fit for them.

According to the RCN press release, “through the new NEP, the Navy is rethinking the way it attracts, recruits and trains sailors. The aim of the program is simple: to reduce the amount of time it takes to train civilians as sailors, to foster the development of sailors who love their work, and to attract those who enjoy the unique lifestyle of that the Navy offers.”

In almost all other aspects, the NEP mirrors that of standard recruitment into the CAF.

Applicants can be as young as 16 if they have parental consent and you can enlist up to the age of 57. Admission is open to Citizens and permanent residents.

The pay and benefits are equivalent to those enrolled in the Regular Force. The one difference will be that NEP participants will be rushed through an 8-week basic military training course and naval environmental training in either Halifax, N.S or Esquimalt, B.C.

Essentially the only thing different from the new NEP and ordinary recruitment is that there is no contractual obligation to serve the long standard three-year basic engagement.

While Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee is to be commended for looking at unconventional methods to address the chronic manpower shortage, the fact is that the NEP concept is not without a CAF precedent.

Back in 1983 Canada faced a nation-wide employment shortage with the youth sector facing the most serious challenges. To solve this problem, the government created the Youth Training and Employment Program (YTEP). While it was a well meaning initiative to take unemployed youths and put them in a uniform for twelve months, in practice it did not work so well.

It may have taken these individuals off the list of the unemployed, but for the military it created a whole new tier of personnel. These YTEP’s were neither fish nor fowl in the eyes of the chain of command.

While subject to military discipline, their short term of service meant that commanders were reluctant to invest time and resources into developing their individual skills.

Priority for things like leadership advancement or parachute training courses went to those who had voluntarily signed up for a three-year contract. As such the YTEP experience became the opposite of what VAdm Topshee hopes the NEP will be: the YTEP soldiers rarely re-enlisted to become career soldiers. Hence that experimental program was quickly discontinued.

The other inherent risk of the NEP is that it may dissuade a large number of those who – without the one year option – would agree to commit to a standard three-year contract.

Given that there is no pay incentive to commit to a longer contract, why would a 19-year-old commit to three years instead of one? This could, in turn, exacerbate the manpower shortage in the years to come with additional trainers needed to deal with an annual influx.

Once signed up, it will be the responsibility of the RCN leadership to ensure that one-year experience does indeed make these individuals into lifelong sailors. That will be the real challenge.

ON TARGET: Canada extends Iraq mission: WHY?

Tech. Sgt. Jack Sanders

By Scott Taylor

March 19 marked the 20th anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq.

This milestone passed relatively unheralded by the US media for the simple reason that it was a complete and utter disaster.

Under the trumped-up claim that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s), the US invoked their right to self-defence as a justification to invade a sovereign country.

Militarily, the Iraqi army never stood a chance, and with a few notable exceptions, Saddam’s soldiers simply melted away.

To break the will of the Iraqi people to resist, US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld boasted to the American people that unleashed he had a campaign of “shock and awe.”

That this plan involved the widespread aerial bombardment of civilian urban centres, meant that Rumsfeld did not just admit to committing a war crime, he actually bragged about it.

In the end, the hostilities ceased briefly, and Saddam went into hiding without Iraq actually using their alleged WMDs. The reason for this is simple: Saddam never had WMD’s, and the US knew it all along.

President George W. Bush illegally invaded a sovereign country in order to replace Saddam with a US friendly puppet government.

Canada did not condemn Bush for his war crime, but we did pride ourselves on the fact that despite intense diplomatic pressure, Prime Minister Jean Chretien chose not to join the invading coalition. 

Since the US military’s quick battlefield victory turned into a bloody quagmire of an occupation, Chretien’s decision to sit this war out was validated.

However, that was not to remain the case.

In 2011, President Barrack Obama withdrew the last American troops in Iraq with the hope that the US trained and equipped Iraqi security forces would be able to prop up whatever regime happened to rule in Baghdad.

That pipedream went up in smoke in 2014, when Daesh (aka ISIS or ISIL) rolled across the Syria-Iraq border. As Daesh pushed forward, the Iraqi security forces not only didn’t put up a fight, but they also willingly handed over their vast arsenal of US-supplied weapons and vehicles.

The desperate regime in Baghdad called out the Shiite militias to stop Daesh’s advance. They also called on support from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and in desperation, the USA.

Having learned their lessons during their eight year occupation, the US cobbled together an alliance to assist them in the targeted objective of defeating Daesh.

This time around, Canada said yes. However, then Prime minister Stephen Harper knew that Canadians were averse to our soldiers waging a war on foreign soil – as we had just concluded a fruitless but costly 11-year combat commitment in Afghanistan.

For this reason, Canada’s contribution to Operation IMPACT was limited to a six-pack of CF-18 fighter jets, some transport and a reconnaissance aircraft plus a few hundred special forces personnel. The troops deployed were to conduct, advise, and assist missions, rather than engage in actual combat.

As Daesh possessed no anti-aircraft weaponry, our pilots were only at risk of equipment failure or an accident.

The hodgepodge anti-Daesh alliance that was assembled meant the Canadian military shared some strange bedfellows indeed. The overall commander of the ground forces was a general from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. His disparate force consisted of Kurdish separatist militia – trained by Canadians – was well as Shiite militia and Hamas. By extension to those battling Daesh on the Syrian side of the border, this alliance also included Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian army and his Russian supporters.

The one thing linking all of these factions was the singular objective of defeating and eliminating the Daesh evil doers from their self-proclaimed Caliphate in the Levant.  For all intents and purposes that purely military objective was considered to be accomplished in 2019.

Given that Canada has no skin in the game in Iraq, that milestone should have meant a hard exit for the Canadian Armed Forces.

Yet on March 27, 2023, Minister of National Defence Anita Annand announced a further extension of Operation IMPACT until at least March 31, 2025 – two years from now.

The vaguely described official rationale is that, “This extension will allow the Canadian Armed Forces to continue to play an important role in supporting regional partners in the advancement of peace and security.”

On paper, Operation IMPACT authorizes up to 800 personnel to be deployed to the Middle East.

While the actual number currently deployed is considered to be well below that, the truth is that those trained, experienced troops would better serve as trainers here in Canada.

The Canadian military — regular and reserve — force are currently 16,500 personnel short of an authorized combined strength of 105,000.

With a battle group forward-deployed to Latvia and a contingent of trainers advising the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the UK, there is a serious shortage of qualified people left on the ground to train our own soldiers.

The last thing that the CAF needs is this further extension of mission in Iraq, a mission that has no clear aim and zero chance of success. It is a fools’ errand that in no way contributes to the security of Canadians.

ON TARGET: So If It Flies, It Spies?

By Scott Taylor

On Tuesday, March 14, Russian fighter jets intercepted a US military drone over the Black Sea, off the coast of the Crimea. According to US officials and the video footage released by the Pentagon, the Russian pilots aggressively buzzed the drone and twice doused it with aviation fuel.

The US claim that during one of the close encounters, the Russians actually made contact with the drone, damaging the propeller.

After determining that the drone was no longer “flyable” the US military remotely scrubbed any sensitive data from the drone’s software and then deliberately crashed the aircraft into the sea.

The Russian Ministry of Defence has denied the allegation that their pilots deliberately damaged the US drone but have also vowed to recover the wreckage.

The US talking points on this are that this was an unprovoked act of aggression by the Russian Air Force against an American observation drone, operating in international airspace.

Naturally, such an incident of martial provocation by Russia against the US has sent military analysts spinning on the fear of a nuclear conflagration.

While one can understand that the Americans would try to cover their embarrassment with the claim that they are the innocent victims of another crazy Russian provocation, it is difficult to fathom why Canadian media outlets unquestionably parrot the same US narrative.

To begin with, it has been widely reported that the downed drone was a General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper. While it can indeed collect intelligence, the Reaper – as in “Grim Reaper” is designated as a “hunter-killer” unmanned aerial vehicle. In describing the newly acquired MQ-9 Reapers in 2006, United States Air Force Chief of Staff, General T. Michael Mosely said, “We’ve moved from using UAV’s primarily in the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance roles before Operation Iraqi Freedom, to a true hunter-killer role with the Reaper.”

Hunting and killing are what the Reaper does best, with a lethal payload of Hellfire missiles. According to the sales brochure the Reaper is capable of “automatic detection of threats and can track 12 moving targets at once, and has the ability to ‘super ripple’ fire misses within 0.32 seconds of each other.”

The US military has never hidden the fact that the Reaper is an airborne execution machine.

On July 12, 2022, the Pentagon trumpeted the death of one Maher al-Agal in Syria. According to CIA sources al-Agal was one of the top five leaders of the fanatical Daesh (also known as ISIS or ISIL) movement. This extrajudicial killing came about thanks to a pair of Hellfire missiles fired by a US Air Force Reaper.

Just a couple of weeks later, on July 31, 2022, Ayman al Zawahiri bit the dust in Kabul, Afghanistan.

As a senior leader of the notorious al-Qaeda terrorist organization, al Zawahiri was alleged to be the mastermind of the 9-11 attacks against the USA.

Fittingly then, it was a made-in-America hunter-killer Reaper drone that ended al Zawahiri’s life with a couple of Hellfires.

To reduce any collateral damage the US reportedly used Hellfire R9X’s, which kill the target on impact with blades rather than an explosion. But I digress.

Suffice it to say that the Reaper is far more lethal than a simple observation drone.

Which brings us to the location of Russia’s alleged provocation off the coast of the Crimea in the Black Sea. Tensions have been heightened in this region since Vladimir Putin annexed the Crimea in 2014.

Following Russia’s invasion Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022, the US turned up the heat with an increase in their surveillance flights in the vicinity of the Crimea. According to the US Department of Defense, the surveillance patrols along the conflict zone are used to gather information which helps improve security for Europe and supports “allied partners.”

Included in that support to “allied partners” would be the provision of the intelligence that allowed the Armed Forces of Ukraine to sink the Russian Navy flagship Moskva.

On the flip side of this equation, we had the almost farcical incident involving an alleged Chinese spy balloon that overflew Canada the US at the end of January.

It took a week to cross America, and when it was safely off the Atlantic coast, but still in US airspace, the Pentagon exercised their legal right to blow it out of the sky.

The US Navy has since recovered the wreckage, but to date has not offered any proof that this was anything but what China claimed it to be: a high-altitude weather balloon that was blown off course.

However, in the days following this incident, the US scrambled fighter jets to blow at least three more unidentified aircraft from North American airspace.

This we are told is the inherent legal right of any follower of the rules based international order.

As such, America cannot cry victim if China floats an empty balloon through their airspace and then be surprised when the Russian Air Force engages a hunter-killer Reaper drone on the edge of an active conflict zone.

Given that we all share the same planet, as Canadians, we can chastise our American allies for dangerously provoking a nuclear armed Russia on their own doorstep.

ON TARGET: The Sad State of The Canadian Armed Forces

Photo by Richard Lawrence Photography

By Scott Taylor

Last week at the Conference of Defence Associations (CDA) annual conference, senior military leaders painted a grim picture of the current state of the Canadian Armed Forces. In a bold attempt to put a positive spin on the situation, Minister of National Defence Anita Anand told the CDA attendees that the government will be fast-tracking three key military procurement projects.

According to Anand, the Canadian Army will purchase anti-tank, anti-aircraft and anti-drone systems through an urgent purchasing process that was last utilized during Canada’s decade long war in Afghanistan.

The rationale used for such a rapid acquisition of complex combat systems is the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

“Canada’s largest foreign military deployment, as I’m sure you know, is on NATO’s eastern flank in Latvia,” Anand told the crowd. “And our troops there must have the equipment that they need to protect themselves and to do their jobs, especially at this crucial time.”

For the record, Canada has had troops in Latvia since 2017 as part of NATO’s Operation Reassurance.

There are additional NATO battle groups assigned to Estonia, Lithuania and Poland as a physical deterrent to Russian aggression in the Baltic.

Russian forces invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022, which was nearly 13 months ago.

In those first shocking days as Russian armoured columns rolled towards Kyiv, nobody was giving the Ukraine Armed Forces a snowball’s chance in hell of turning back the invaders.

Most Western pundits were already playing the guessing game of which country that Russian President Vladimir Putin would invade next after he subdued Ukraine. 

In those first frightening days, the idea of the Canadian battle group in Latvia actually going to war against Russia seemed highly likely.
However, by the end of the first week of hostilities in Ukraine it was readily apparent that the mighty Russian military was a myth.

Years of corruption had turned what looked like a formidable fighting force on the parade square into a toothless tiger in actual combat.

The most astonishing shortfall in the performance of the Russian army was that of logistics.

After only a few days of battle, hungry Russian soldiers were scavenging food and armoured vehicles were simply abandoned for want of fuel.

Now that the conflict has settled into a bloody stalemate, it seems highly unlikely that Russia will be able to hold on to their meagre gains in the Donbas region, let alone start invading NATO countries in the Baltic.

Yet it is now, with an imminent threat averted, that the Liberal government is going to start looking to purchase these three combat capabilities for the protection of our forward deployed soldiers.

Even with the fast-tracking of these purchases, analysts believe it will still take another year before such capabilities can actually be acquired and fielded in Latvia.

Then there is the fact that over the past year, Canada has drained our arsenal significantly in order to keep Ukraine in the fight.

We have provided, tanks, armoured vehicles, anti-tank rocket launchers, artillery pieces, grenades and ammunition.

For those who closely follow the CAF, it will come as no surprise that these pieces of equipment and munitions were in no way surplus.

All of this kit will need to be replaced before the CAF can be restored to a state of full operational readiness.

But wait, the news gets worse. According to Major-General Lise Bourgon, the acting Chief of Military Personnel, Canada’s military is presently 16, 000 members short of its authorized regular force and reserve force strength of 101,500 personnel.

For those doing the math, that is close to a 16 per cent shortfall.

It is Bourgon’s assessment that due to the current recruiting shortage and a retention problem, “the rate of attrition is higher than it has ever been.” For the record, U.S. military doctrine states that any unit suffering a 10 per cent casualty rate can no longer be considered combat effective.

In recent months, the CAF have amended dress code regulations to no longer be restrictive to a specific gender. They have also removed restrictions on personal grooming, such as haircuts and facial hair. Also no longer prohibited are visible tattoos and piercings.

One of the most recent attempts to cast a wider recruiting net was the removal of Canadian citizenship to join the ranks of the CAF. As of Nov. 5, 2022, permanent residents of Canada are also allowed to enlist.

While I do not object to any of these amendments, I think the best way to address both the recruiting and retention dilemma would be to ensure our troops are equipped with modern weaponry. 

Giving away the army’s arsenal, and then fast-tracking defensive weapon systems a full year after our forward deployed soldiers should have had them in place is not something overlooked by the troops. It is not good for morale.

ON TARGET: What Constitutes Total Victory For Ukraine?

By Scott Taylor

With the war in Ukraine now into a second year, with no end in sight, it is high time that world leaders begin seeking a clear path to a resolution of this conflict. In the early days of the war Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy proclaimed that negotiations would be necessary to end the war.

However, as the Ukraine Armed Forces proved their mettle on the battlefield, and NATO countries – including Canada – continue to pour weaponry and training into the Ukraine defences, Zelenskyy has declared that total victory is now the ultimate objective.

Zelenskyy’s stated claim is to drive all Russian invaders from Ukraine’s territory. This includes both Donetsk and Luhansk, plus the Crimean Peninsula. While such a simplistic solution may sound plausible and just to a casual observer, the truth is that the situation is far more complex. Such an objective being achieved may in fact preclude any chance of a lasting peace in the region.

History buffs will recognize the fact that the Crimea has been part of Russia for some 250 years.

When the British, French and Turkish alliance fought the Crimean War in 1853, they did so against the Russians, not the Ukrainians.

It was not until February 1954 that an administrative directive of the Soviet Union transferred Crimea from the Russian to the Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic.

Sevastopol on the Crimean Peninsula has long been the home port of the Russian Navy’s Black Sea Fleet.

Even prior to Vladimir Putin’s 2014 annexation of the Crimea, Russia had a long-term lease with the Ukrainian government for the Sevastopol Navy base until at least 2040.

It is not likely that Putin or any potential successor to Russia’s leadership would agree to forfeiting this strategic asset.

Then there is the fact that the population of the Crimea is predominately ethnic Russian – about 70 per cent with the other major ethnicity being Muslim Tartars.

Those in the peninsula who identify as Ukrainian are approximately 10 per cent of the total population, which numbers 2.5 million.

If NATO-equipped Ukrainian forces can eventually drive the last of the Russian military from Crimea, the question then becomes what to do with such a potentially hostile ethnic Russian population. 

An “ethnic cleansing” of that scale would not only cause massive human suffering, it would also deplete the region so completely of its workforce that Crimea would become unsustainable. 

The alternative is to deploy a permanent Ukrainian security force to keep the ethnic Russian civilians in a state of enforced submission.

From recent experience with the Afghanistan and Iraq military occupations, we should realize that this is unlikely to end in success.

The same equation can be applied to the two self-proclaimed Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, collectively known as the Donbas.

Long forgotten in the popular refrain of “we stand with Ukraine” by Western politicians is the fact that the residents of Donetsk and Luhansk are by our stated definition, Ukrainian citizens as well.

The majority of the residents of these two oblasts (or republics) are either ethnic Russian or Russian speaking Ukrainians.

When the Maidan revolution toppled the pro-Russian regime in Kyiv in 2014, one of the first acts of the new parliament was to repeal Russian language rights within Ukraine.

Unsurprisingly the disenfranchised citizens of Donbas took up weapons and proclaimed their independence from the new pro-Western regime in Kyiv.

Both Donetsk and Luhansk held referendums in those early days, wherein the majority voted to join the Russian Federation.

At that stage, however, Putin was content with the annexation of Crimea, and he wanted Donetsk and Luhansk to remain as a buffer against NATO within a federated Ukraine.

On the eve of his Feb. 24, 2022, invasion, Putin formally recognized Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states. As the war dragged on Sept. 30, 2022, Putin announced Russia’s annexation of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. All four are oblasts in Ukraine.

I have little doubt that with the right combination of NATO sophisticated weapons, training and munitions, the Ukraine Armed Forces will eventually drive the Russian invaders from these four regions.

However, it will also mean driving out those Russian-Ukrainian civilians who have long lived in this region and who have taken up arms to resist the regime in Kyiv.

Again, the choice is either a large-scale ethnic cleansing or a permanent fixed security presence sitting atop a hostile civilian population.

In a perfect world, Canada would be well suited to broker a peace deal that invoked the recognition of regional language rights within a bilingual, unified Ukraine. However, we forfeited that possibility long ago. 

ON TARGET: Canada's Two Token Gesture to Haiti

By Scott Taylor

Last Thursday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced Canada would be deploying two navy vessels to Haiti in light of the worsening security crisis in the country.

 Trudeau made this announcement from the Bahamas – where he was attending the annual meeting of the 15 nation CARICOM trading bloc.

Shortly thereafter, the Minister of National Defence issued a more detailed press release clarifying that His Majesty’s Canadian Ships (HMCS) Glace Bay and Moncton will be deployed.

These two Kingston-class Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDV’s) have been deployed since mid-January on Operation PROJECTION off the coast of West Africa.

As such, it will be a number of weeks before these two vessels can redeploy to Haitian waters where they will patrol primarily off the coast outside of Port-au-Prince.

Canadians can be forgiven if they are not up to speed on the worsening crisis in Haiti. What with the war in Ukraine, the tragic earthquake in Türkiye and the farcical panic in the media over alleged Chinese spy balloons, Haiti’s woes have not exactly been front page news.

To summarize, in brief, for years Haiti has been gripped by an ongoing political and humanitarian crisis. The power vacuum among the political leadership has devolved into a situation where Haiti is considered a failed state. Criminal gangs control much of the country, and armed clashes with police and security forces are a common occurrence.

Haitian gang members have murdered up to 15 police officers in the past two weeks alone.

The Haitian police have in turn staged their own violent protests, attacking the private residence of acting Prime Minister Ariel Henry, whom they accuse of being connected to the criminal gangs.

For his part, acting Prime Minister Henry was named to this post in July 2021 by then-President Jovenal Moise.

However, Moise was assassinated on 7 July. Then, before Henry could be inaugurated, former prime minister Claude Joseph seized the office for himself.

Although international pressure would force Joseph to step aside in favour of Henry, Haitian parliament never confirmed Henry as the Prime Minister.

Haiti’s last parliamentary elections was in 2015, and the results were deemed to be marked by significant fraud.

Thus, the power vacuum created in the wake of President Moise’s assassination has emboldened the criminal gangs.

The result has been tremendous surge in killings, rapes and kidnappings. In the past year reported killings in Haiti increased by 35 per cent to 2183 victims and the number of reported kidnappings doubled to 1359 victims.

Up until recently, the gangs were small and localized. In addition to theft, racketeering and the drug trade, these gangs also terrorize civilians with sexual violence.

However, in recent weeks it has been reported that numerous small gangs have began organizing into two large rival coalitions. In addition to clashing with security forces these two coalitions battle each other in turf wars. The violence is estimated to have resulted in the death of at least 500 bystanders.

The most notorious gang leader is a thug who goes by the moniker “Jimmy Barbecue” Cherizer – “Jimmy Barbecue” is a former police officer.

The international community is well aware of the violent anarchy raging in Haiti. However, even after acting Prime Minister Henry appealed to the UN Security Council for an international military intervention last October, countries have been reluctant to mount such a mission.

The reason for this is that the risk will be high and the chances for long term success are practically nil, until Haiti can resolve its political turmoil.

Sure, UN Peacekeepers could battle their way into Haiti against the gangs in order to defend key installations such as port facilities, but to what end?

Over the past six months Canada has been furnishing Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) armoured vehicles to the Haitian police with another delivery of three MRAP’s being announced last Thursday.

This is the same Haitian police force that just stormed the personal residence of acting Prime Minister Henry – whom they claim is in collusion with the gangs.

While it is hard to identify exactly who are the good guys at present in Haiti, the idea of giving a police force armoured vehicles to combat criminal gangs that terrorize and rape civilians, seems at least noble in its concept.

On the other hand, given that the crisis in Haiti is violent anarchy on the streets, dispatching two tiny RCN patrol vessels to sit off the coast of that island nation makes absolutely no sense to me.

I would label it a meaningless token gesture, but since there will be two MCDV’s, let’s call it two meaningless token gestures.

ON TARGET: Upping the Ante in the Ukraine War

By Scott Taylor

Last Thursday Defence Minister Anita Anand made the announcement that Canada would be donating four Leopard 2 tanks to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. This announcement came close on the heels of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz relenting to mounting international pressure and agreeing to provide Ukraine with 14 Leopard 2 tanks.

Just six days earlier at a NATO summit in Ramstein, Germany, Scholz had defiantly obstructed not only the donation of Germany's tanks but also any other NATO country from providing their own German-built Leopard 2's.

This reversal from Scholz came about after the UK and USA announced that they would be sending respectively their own Challenger and Abrams Main Battle Tanks to Ukraine. For the past two months Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been begging to have donations of western tanks to break the current stalemate in eastern Ukraine. At the top of Zelenskyy's wish list has been the Leopard 2 tanks. International media reports began a steady drum beat of stories which built an aura of the Leopard 2 being some sort of game-changing battlefield wonder weapon. 

For their part, the Russians warned that any country providing such heavy weaponry to Ukraine would be escalating the conflict and would therefore face reprisals. Poland and Finland were the first two NATO countries that offered to provide Leopard 2's to Ukraine, but Germany realized that since they ultimately had control over any second export licence for those tanks, Russia could single them out for any retribution. The UK and US cleared the way by making donations of their tanks. Ergo, if Russia does take punitive measures, Germany will not be alone.

For the record, Zelenskyy and his generals were asking for 300 Leopard 2 tanks. Contrary to what the media would have you believe, the Leopard 2 is a capable heavy tank, but not a modern super weapon. The model which Canada is sending to Ukraine is the Leopard 2A4 which first entered service in the mid-1980's. As such they will be older than the Ukraine tankers manning them. Admittedly they are better than the Russian T-72 and T-80 Soviet era tanks of the same vintage. However as we have seen in the combat to date in Ukraine, the advent of drones and sophisticated anti-tank rockets have made the modern battlefield extremely dangerous for tanks.

Added to this is the fact that instead of a homogeneous force of 300 Leopard 2's, what has been pledged to date is just; 14 Challenger tanks from the UK, 31 Abrams from the US, 14 Leopard 2's from Germany and the additional 4 from Canada. Presumably Poland, Finland and a few other NATO members will add Leopard 2's to that list but we are looking at around 100 tanks in total. Worse yet is the reality that this donation includes three distinctly different types of tanks. This amounts to a stupidly wide spectrum of equipment for a Ukraine Army that is already trying to logistically support a huge range of weapon systems and vehicles already donated to them during this war.

The  Challenger tank for instance, was only ever used by the UK although a number were exported to Oman. The ammunition calibre for the main gun on the Challenger is not NATO standard. There is a good reason why armies strive to minimize the diversity of their combat equipment. In addition to the headache of re-supply, maintenance obtaining spare parts etc, there is also the challenge of training crews on a variety of platforms.  For those expecting these new tanks to be rushed into battle against the Russians, think again.

According to US doctrine it takes 22 weeks to fully train an efficient tank crew. Granted the Ukraine tankers have had 11 months of actual combat experience in their Soviet era tanks. However, if they are to understand and best utilize the advantages of these western standard tanks, they will still require weeks of intensive training.

The fact that the Canadian Army has 82 Leopard 2 tanks but is hard pressed to part with just 4 of them to Ukraine is indicative of how neglected our armoured forces have been since we quit the combat mission in Afghanistan in 2011. If main battle tanks still have a place on the modern battlefield, I would suggest that Minister Anand commits to more than simply replacing the 4 Leopard 2's that we are giving away to Ukraine.

ON TARGET: Military Aid to Ukraine Trumps Canadian Army's Needs

Pictured: City of Mariupol © CNN

On Tuesday, Jan. 10, Minister of National Defence Anita Anand announced that Canada would be donating a $400 million air defence system to Ukraine.

The National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS) that Canada will provide to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, is a state-of-the-art medium-range ground-based air-defence system that provides tactical protection against the threat of drones, missiles and aircraft.

For those closely following the war in Ukraine, it will be readily apparent that a weapon system such as these NASAMS will prove a vital asset to Ukraine’s combat troops.

In blunting the Russian invasion and the subsequent battles of attrition, it has become evident that the drone is the new master of the battlefield.

Denying the Russian foe the use of their drones through NASAMS will give Ukraine a decided advantage in combat.

It is also true that the vast majority of Canadians agree with Anand’s statement that “Canada stands in solidarity with Ukrainians as they fight heroically against Russia’s illegal and unjustified invasion.”

You might ask: So what is the problem? Afterall, Canada is giving Ukraine the means to defend itself against a foreign invader.

The problem is that the Canadian Armed Forces do not have NASAMS.

The donated systems are being purchased directly from the U.S. government, to be shipped to Ukraine.

In fact, for the past decade, the Canadian military has possessed absolutely zero tactical air defence capability.

During the Cold War, the Royal Canadian Artillery had air defence units equipped with 40mm cannons forward deployed at airforce bases in Germany.

In 1989, Canada purchased a small number of sophisticated weapons known as the Air-Defence Anti-Tank System (ADATS). However, after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, these ADATS were eventually mothballed.

Post 9-11, the Canadian government briefly used a handful of ADATS to protect the G-8 Summit in Kananaskis, Alberta in 2002. By 2012 the last of Canada’s tactical air defence assets were retired from service.

This was not a problem during Canada’s decade long military deployment to Afghanistan, as the Afghan insurgents possessed no airborne assets.

However, once armed unrest erupted in eastern Ukraine in 2014, the threat of Russian escalation became imminent.

Canada deployed combat trainers to Ukraine in 2015 and the nucleus of a forward based NATO battle group in Latvia in 2016.

Russia is not the Taliban, and following the Feb. 24, 2022 invasion of Ukraine it became clear that airborne threats on the modern battlefield are all too real.

Knowing they were deficient in tactical air defence, the Canadian Army have been trying to acquire new systems since 2017.

The kind of protection the Canadian Army was looking for was from drones, missiles and aircraft – in other words exactly what the NASAMS will be providing to the Ukrainians.

The fact that a $400 million purchase could be made so quickly and expeditiously by the Canadian government to outfit a foreign military, while Canada’s military still does without this same capability, must be a blow to our Army’s morale.

To date, Canada has provided nearly $1 billion worth of military aid to Ukraine. The majority of these vehicles, weapons and munitions sent were drawn from the existing stocks held by the Canadian military.

In the case of the 39 armoured vehicles shipped to Ukraine, these were assembled by General Dynamics Land Systems in London, Ontario.

This means that the donation to Ukraine could be offset financially by creating direct employment for Canadians.

While not all of the other gear and munitions shipped were made in Canada, the Canadian military procurement system is based on securing industrial offsets against the purchase price. This means that, while assisting Ukraine, Canada was not simply forking over cash to a foreign country.

The $400 million spent on the NASAMS will not benefit the Canadian economy.

Now I get the fact that those NASAMS will be very useful on the battlefield, but surely some other nation could pick up the tab?

Canada is rich in numerous resources and Ukraine is desperately in need of far more than just more munitions.

As for the Canadian Army getting a tactical air defence capability any time soon, the Defence Minister’s office issued this statement, “We continue to work towards the procurement of Ground-Based Air Defence Equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces – and Minister Anand is committed to getting this done, as outlined in our defence policy.”

She is just not as committed as she was to making sure the Armed Forces of Ukraine get them first.

ON TARGET: CANADIAN DEFENCE PROCUREMENT: FUBAR?

By Scott Taylor

Over the Christmas holiday there were three Ottawa Citizen reports on defence procurement projects. The net sum takeaway from these articles was an appreciation for just how much money the government is spending in return for almost nothing tangible in terms of increased defence capability.

The first story noted that Canada has already spent $4.8 billion on new warships, the construction of which will not even begin until 2024.

The genesis for the news story was the latest figures presented to the House of Commons detailing the spending so far on the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) project.

For those Canadians unfamiliar with this program, it is high time that you took note.

With the Parliamentary budget officer estimating the total cost to exceed $300 billion, the CSC acquisition is the largest federal purchase in history.

While that sum includes the life cycle cost of operating the 15 new warships, the estimate for the construction of these ships has already skyrocketed from an original $26 billion to the currently estimate of $84.5 billion.

That amounts to roughly $5.6 billion to build each of the 15 new 7,000 tonne frigates.

Although I will be accused of comparing oranges to pumpkins, the British Royal Navy recently completed the construction of HMS Queen Elizabeth, their new 65,000 tonne aircraft carrier, at a cost of just $4.5 billion (CAD).

While we are comparing the ‘bang for the buck’ that Canada’s receives in comparison to our allies, the Citizen’s second report was entitled “Analysis: Canada’s price tag for F-35 jets raising questions.”

The cornerstone of this article was the announcement that Treasury Board had approved the spending of $7 billion for the purchase of 16 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Jets.

In March 2022, the Liberal government announced that Canada would acquire a total of 88 F-35’s to replace the RCAF’s aging fleet of CF18 fighters. That project is expected to cost between $15 billion to $19 billion for the aircraft acquisition, with a total life cycle cost of $77 billion.

However, this initial purchase contract worth $7 billion for the 16 F-35’s has raised some eyebrows among military procurement specialists. Even if you factor in the fact that this initial price tag includes spare parts and the construction of new hangars, the unit price is significantly steeper than what allied nations are paying for the same aircraft.

For instance, Switzerland just placed an order for 36 F-35’s at a cost of $8.5 billion (CAD). That works out to roughly $236 million per plane.

Finland ordered 64 F-35’s for the equivalent of $15 billion (CAD), or approximately $234 million per fighter. Germany’s purchased order for 35 F-35’s will set back German taxpayers $12 billion (CAD) which equates to $340 million per plane.

In all of those purchases, the individual deals do include provision for related systems and training. That said, Canada’s first batch of F-35’s works out to a comparatively expensive $438 million per jet.

The third Citizen report was headlined ‘Cost of new Arctic Patrol Ships jumps by $780 million.”

Once again, for those who closely follow such major defence procurement projects, it is not news that the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship (AOPS) project has been plagued with delays and cost increases from the outset.

In January, 2015 the federal government awarded Irving Shipbuilding a $2.6 billion contract to build five AOPS. In 2018, that deal was expanded to include a sixth ship for the RCN. However by 2021, those initial cost estimates had increased to $4.3 billion, and the most recent figures have risen to $4.98 billion.

The reason given for the latest price hike is the extra costs associated with the additional safety protocols as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Also cited for the extra cost was increased transportation costs and increased expenses for labour.

Fair enough.

However, taxpayers should also take note of what exactly Canada’s Navy is receiving in return for $4.98 billion. Back in 2017, the Senate Defence Committee questioned the purchase of the AOPS. Their report stated “This (concern) is based on the fact that these ships cannot operate in ice more than a metre thick, are slower than a BC Ferry, can only operate in the Arctic from June to October and will require a Coast Guard escort in northern waters.”

As a result of their findings, the senators concluded “These limitations are troubling and raise the question of whether the taxpayers are receiving value for the monies spent.”

Let me answer that question, in a single word, ‘No’.

ON TARGET: Army Stretched Too Thin: Commander Warns

By Scott Taylor

In a year-end interview with the Canadian Press, Canadian Army Commander, Lt. Gen Joe Paul admitted that his soldiers are feeling squeezed. This is due to a current shortage of personnel coupled with increased demands both abroad and here in Canada.

The Army is not the only branch of the Canadian Armed Forces feeling the pinch in terms of personnel shortages.

With an authorized regular force strength of 67,000, it is estimated that the CAF presently has more than 10,000 positions unfilled.

This is a result of both a failure to recruit and train sufficient numbers, and also a fast-rising rate of attrition. Lt. Gen Paul believes that the Army shrunk by 1200 soldiers last year alone, and he predicts that 2023 will likely see an additional 800 vacancies in the ranks.

Since 2016, Canada’s largest overseas military deployment has been to Latvia. Canada provides approximately 600-700 soldiers and the command structure to a NATO force of roughly 2000 combat soldiers from ten NATO member states.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, Canada slightly boosted the number of Canadian troops based in Latvia.

However, in June, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau signed an agreement to grow the allied force in Latvia to a full brigade.

Lt. Gen Paul is rightly concerned that Canada has little more to offer in terms of a sustained commitment to such a reinforced NATO brigade.

“So how much kit can I afford having pre-positioned in Latvia without impacting too much my training back home, without impacting my capability to do domestic operations”, Paul told CP. “If we were to generate two battle group in Latvia, sustained, we cannot do it,” he added. “The whole thing will break, especially when we need to reconstitute our ranks.”

As for the demands for domestic operations, the CAF -and the Army in particular- have seen a steady increase in responding to natural disasters across Canada over the past two decades.

While the sight of military vehicles and personnel assisting in sandbagging riverbanks during floods or carving up downed trees with chainsaws after a hurricane are excellent public relations gestures, the fact is this is not a responsible use of combat professionals.

Between the demands of sustaining the Battle Group in Latvia, ammunition shortages due to the provision of same to the Ukraine Armed Forces, or simply the lack of available personnel, it has become increasingly difficult for the Canadian Army to conduct large scale military training exercises. When you add to this the unpredictable demands on the Canadian Army to assist civilians in the wake of natural disasters, the professionalism of the individual soldiers is bound to be eroded.

The decision to expand the Latvia based Force to a full brigade was announced by Trudeau back in June, however the war in Ukraine has since taken some very dramatic turns,

Given the fact that the Russian military has suffered such crippling losses and battlefield reversals at the hands of the Ukrainians, it appears it is no longer necessary for NATO to boost troop numbers in Latvia or the other Baltic states.

If Putin had doubted NATO’s resolve to resist Russian’s military aggressions, I think that such skepticism has since been fully disproven.

Ukraine is not a member of the NATO military alliance, yet Canada and other NATO allies have provided Ukraine with training, weaponry, money, and intelligence.

This support has resulted in the crushing defeat of Putin’s military.

No one in their right mind would believe that NATO would not employ even more lethal resistance if Russia were to actually invade a NATO member state such as Latvia.

Given the battlefield losses in armoured vehicles and effective combat soldiers, Russia will not pose a threat to the Baltic States for decades to come. If NATO insists on beefing up the Brigade in Latvia, that increase in personnel should come from the other nine European NATO allies currently contributing soldiers.

Canadian politicians need to heed the warnings from our senior generals.

If indeed the Army is near the breaking point, then we need to give them an operational pause. That is especially true in reducing expectations among the civilian population that every time there is a forest fire or flood the Army will be riding to the rescue.

Wishing everyone a happy and healthy 2023.