The Big Lessons from A Week Near the Front

 Tis a dramatic title as we were nowhere near the battlefield, but the atmosphere here is very distinct from the US, Canada, and my last Germany trip.  War is not only nearby but is viewed as close to inevitable.  The perception of risk is quite high.  I kept asking: but the Russian military is weaker than we thought.  They kept responding that Russia can rebuild and can be stupid/risk acceptant again.  I am still a skeptic since that magical line separating NATO and non-NATO seems to be quite powerful.  But I don't pay much of a price if I am wrong--they do.

And then they mention Trump and I get it.  Nobody here wants Trump back, as they know he would be quick to sell them out.  Which, of course, raises the question why Putin didn't attack while Trump was still in power.  Even if he thought Trump would win the election, Putin could have launched the war in December of 2020.  

Anyhow, what else did I learn across the many meetings, the two days of conferences, and much arguing with my colleagues over a Baltic Sea of beer?

First, I have always been on the hill that 2% is a shitty metric.  That the NATO aspiration for each member to spend at least 2% of their GDP is a bad way think about things.  That input measures suck, that Greece is over 2% but a shitty ally.  Well, norms/expectations are mutually constituted--it is not up to me, nor is it up to any Canadian leader to say--this norm is lousy, let's move on.  It, alas, shapes the debates.  I don't think it would be so damaging if it were not for ...

Second, follow up on your promises in a timely way.  Canada has burnt most of its political capital in the region not because of 2% but something that travels with it--not making timely decisions and not delivering in an expeditious manner.  When Trudeau was here over the winter of 2022 and promised to do more. At the last NATO summit, Canad agreed (reluctantly is my guess) to increase the size of the effort in all of the nearby countries including Latvia.  For Canada, that means leading not a Battle Group but a Brigade, which means increasing the Canadian force from 500 and then 800 to 1800.  That is going to stress the hell out of a military that is short of personnel.  It also requires $$$ to build infrastructure so those soldiers can have a place to live.  So, everyone in Latvia is holding their breath, hoping for a decision to be announced in the leadup to the next NATO summit in July.  Minister of National Defence Anita Anand will be at the next NATO Defence Ministerial meeting next week, and she will be asked to make serious commitments.  New money.  NEW MONEY.  I am guessing that this new money will appear in the Defence Policy Update that will be released just before the summit (no accident).  I just hope that the size of this does not disappoint.  I still don't think 2% should be the target, but I do think spending should reflect the commitments that are made, which means it needs to go up.

Third, yeah, I am an advocate.  This kind of trip, where the govt helps us meet people (but does not foot much of the bill--my grants do), raises questions about my independence and those of my colleagues.  Are we just a tool of CAF info ops aimed at the public?  Not really, but the public affairs people do hope that by sharing heaps of info and getting us to talk to the folks here, that we will say nice things about the mission.  They may not get that since some of my colleagues are more skeptical.  I am probably biased in this as I lived the NATO life when I was in the Joint Staff, and I did co-write a book about the organization, so I want it to succeed.  And I do think the Russian government is a force for evil and needs to be deterred.  Defense?  I am not so sure about, but deterred, absolutely.  And NATO is doing that quite well.  So, I am in favor of investing more here.  I don't think it is that problematic for Canada to make this the single major military commitment, although my pals were suggesting that as soon as the war in Ukraine ends, that will become the shiny mission that Canadian leaders will want to join.  Committing to the long run in Latvia does reduce discretion since the CAF can't be at 1800 here and then do much elsewhere.  Does Canada send troops Cold War-style to live here for three years and bring their family along?  Maybe the military would be happy to have only one commitment--that it could say no to peacekeeping ops due to the stress of this single effort?

Fourth, we did go to a Strategic Comms conference, and the group of us mostly, I think, view Canada as being lousy at Strategic Communications.  What is the story here?  What is a good story to tell the Canadian people?  It should not be a story that is the military's to sell.  It should be the government's, and it should be other agencies.  I am not a Strat Comm person or an expert in marketing.  I get that they have a hard time getting media coverage since good news does not make much news, and journalism is facing $ problems, so if they spend on expensive trips, they will go to Ukraine, not Latvia.  But it should not be that hard to create videos, graphics, and such and flood Canadian social media to raise awareness.  Arranging this trip may help, but they can't run lots of these kinds of trips because:

• most Canadian academics don't have heaps of grant dollars or time to spend on a trip like this
• so sending the same ones back again and again means having the same voices again and again
• these trips are a huge time suck for those whose shared their expertise with us.  They were terrific, but they can't do this all the time.
• they could, you know, pay for these trips, but then we would be seen as tools of the military-industrial-academic complex.  Oh wait, there are folks already making those claims. 
   

 I think the best strategic communications is when you have a good story to tell, which means doing the right stuff, the good stuff.  The contribution/leadership of this multinational force is big, but it needs to be supported.  They need $ and procurement projects that move along.  Trudeau needs to back his promises up with actions.  Sometimes he does that, and sometimes he doesn't.  Doing more here may not win him votes, but it won't lose him votes either.  Indeed, committing to big bucks puts the Conservatives in a pickle--do they want to cut defence spending to get to a balanced budget?

I will probably write more about this as I remember stuff and as we see decisions and announcements roll out.  So, this is what I have thus far.  Let me know what you think.