NATO Summit, Day 2: Should We Believe Trudeau?

Last panel had Heather Conley, Pres of German
Marshall Fund of the US talk to the Chair of
NATO's Military Committee

 The second day of the summit was mostly anti-climatic.  Unlike most summits, they released the communique after the first day, so we already knew what they had decided.  The second day was dedicated to a meeting of the North Atlantic Council (heads of state version--the key decision-making body of NATO) and Ukraine and a separate meeting of the NAC with Japan, South Korea, Australia (the PM blew it off?!) and NZ).  

So before getting parochial, what did NATO decide?  After all, as I keep saying, summits are like academic conferences--they force folks to do the work. For academics, a conference makes us write the paper.  For NATO, it means coming up with decisions/deliverables:

• NATO will replace the US as a coordination center for aid going to Ukraine.
• NATO will set up a command that will also help Ukraine make progress on getting closer to membership.  The key phrase is that there is a short, well-lit, irreversible bridge for Ukrainian membership.  This is not satisfying to Ukraine, but no way will NATO get consensus to add a country that is at war.
• Lots of agreement that China is using "dual-use" loopholes to help Russia stay in the war, to build new tanks and other weapons, and people are miffed.  And the penalty for that?  None so far.
• Momentum but no decision to move the standard for how much members should spend of their GDP on defense from 2% to 2.5% or 3%.

  

  The Ukrainian rep was mostly annoyed by the
  fact that the questioner didn't quite get that
  his country is at war and NATO countries are not.
  

  
  

NSA Jake Sullivan had
nothing interesting to
say.

 

 Canada finally succumbed to the pressure to hit 2%. Trudeau had pushed off that decision again and again.  I guess they thought they could wear the pressure.  That the Canadian military was also pushing in public for more money made it harder to resist?  So, at the very last moment, after suffering multiple rounds of embarrassing attacks from all kinds of folks (even Mike Johnson, although I kept telling the media that maybe they ought not pay attention to a Christian nationalist who showboated near Trump's NY trial to proclaim Trump's innocence), the Canadian government announced a heap of spending and a commitment to get to 2% by 2032, three years after the 1.76% target in the Defence Update.  

The big news is a fleet of subs.  12?  Noooooo.  They say up to 12 but that is the most bullshit of bullshit.  The Royal Canadian Navy has a hard time staffing the ships they have, and they have only four mostly broken subs.  So, maybe they can get enough personnel together to fill six boats, but 12?  No way.  The letter the Minister of Defence sent out also mentions more, more snow vehicles, more helos for our ships, more missile defence stuff (have they announced they are going along with US ABM stuff since that has been a no-no for two decades?), more air defenses, more arty, better/upgraded tanks and LAVs, more drones of al kinds, and .....

A deal with the US and Finland to build more icebreakers.  Will that count as defence stuff?  I guess.

So far, the people I have talked to have scoffed, that there is no money for this, no ability to actually make the transactions, and so forth.  Yes, buying subs would add a heap of spending to get us closer to 2%.  But by 2032?  How long will it take to actually decide which subs to buy and then to acquire them?  How long will it take for Bombardier to turn their vaporware AWACS planes into real planes? [They apparently exist, my bad]  Tis far easier to dump a bunch of money on recruitment/retention efforts (and I am pretty sure they will do that).  Far harder to actually buy stuff.  One of the big problems is that a lot of this stuff--drones, arty, anti-aircraft, counter-drone--is in high demand since Ukraine has taught all of us how much this stuff is needed.  So, we may be on the wait list for much of this stuff, which means the money doesn't get spent.  Which means falling short of 2%.  

The alternative view is not that the Liberals can't do it, but won't do it.  That they have no intention of keeping these promises.  I don't buy that--they have mostly kept their word on buying stuff--the 2017 Defence Review did lead to their acquiring a heap of stuff.  Canada partly fails to meet 2% because of the denominator--that the economy has been growing, so more spending does not always mean progress on 2%.  Anyhow, this is a trap as the Conservatives will surely cut defence spending since they care mostly about deficits (see Stephen Harper).  Now they will be cutting more? 

It should also be noted that the icebreaker and the AWACS planes would both be partly made in .... Quebec.  So, is this a cynical ploy to get votes?  I don't think so, or else they would have made these decisions much earlier.

Anyhow, these new commitments need to get much attention as it seemed like a half-assed announcement at the last minute so that people would stop yelling at Trudeau.  I read one news story that indicated that the media never got the chance to scrum with Trudeau, the Defence Minister, or the Foreign Minister (or me!) as the three were being kept away from yet more 2% questions.  

And no, it is not a NATO summit unless Stefanie and I can hang and exchange takes on the happenings.