We participate in collective security because it is the best way to defend ourselves, not because we are charitable (why I broke that out). RIght now, Ukraine is OUR front line, absolutely.
My "plan" (unwritten) includes using that doubled budget to triple our support for Ukraine. Or more. WHAT…
We participate in collective security because it is the best way to defend ourselves, not because we are charitable (why I broke that out). RIght now, Ukraine is OUR front line, absolutely.
My "plan" (unwritten) includes using that doubled budget to triple our support for Ukraine. Or more. WHATEVER IT TAKES. "It takes billions to win a war. To lose one, takes all you have." I support defending Ukraine if every other nation falls away. I support defending Ukraine if we have to leave NATO so that we can send in troops. I'll join them. (Can't fight, but I'll take jobs where the explosions can kill me. Grandmother did, in France.)
But, again with respect, in practice, (check the spending) our "collective" participation" is not Europe focused, it's very American-focused, and the "currying favour" charge comes from the $600 toilet seats - all their stuff is monumentally profitable.
That's the main part I want re-evaluated. "Switching to Europe" is not failing to participate in collective defence. I regret giving the impression; it's difficult to be concise and not do such things.
Upon editing, adding this to be super-clear: MOST NATO-Europe participation is defending us because that war could head our way. So could have Bosnia. Some NATO work is just to stick their nose in to their old colonial possessions. As a former colony ourselves, we have no interest.
OK, thanks for clarifying. Something to bear in mind is that there are lots of people who really do think defence should be about protecting our soil and ignoring the rest. Glad to hear you're not one of them but you might want to avoid language that could be misunderstood, as I did apparently.
Or, I should give up trying to summarize ten Gwynne Dyer books and 300 columns, it's all from him, just read him - and I assure you his views come from hundreds of interviews with the most-revered military around the world.
But his "Canada in the Great Power Game, 1914-2014" (third plug) is the go-to on this matter. A chapter is devoted to connecting foreign adventures to homeland defence, after the starting point of "they only exist for homeland defence". Attempting a chapter in 100 words was a fool's errand.
Much respect, we have no actual disagreement.
We participate in collective security because it is the best way to defend ourselves, not because we are charitable (why I broke that out). RIght now, Ukraine is OUR front line, absolutely.
My "plan" (unwritten) includes using that doubled budget to triple our support for Ukraine. Or more. WHATEVER IT TAKES. "It takes billions to win a war. To lose one, takes all you have." I support defending Ukraine if every other nation falls away. I support defending Ukraine if we have to leave NATO so that we can send in troops. I'll join them. (Can't fight, but I'll take jobs where the explosions can kill me. Grandmother did, in France.)
But, again with respect, in practice, (check the spending) our "collective" participation" is not Europe focused, it's very American-focused, and the "currying favour" charge comes from the $600 toilet seats - all their stuff is monumentally profitable.
That's the main part I want re-evaluated. "Switching to Europe" is not failing to participate in collective defence. I regret giving the impression; it's difficult to be concise and not do such things.
Upon editing, adding this to be super-clear: MOST NATO-Europe participation is defending us because that war could head our way. So could have Bosnia. Some NATO work is just to stick their nose in to their old colonial possessions. As a former colony ourselves, we have no interest.
OK, thanks for clarifying. Something to bear in mind is that there are lots of people who really do think defence should be about protecting our soil and ignoring the rest. Glad to hear you're not one of them but you might want to avoid language that could be misunderstood, as I did apparently.
Or, I should give up trying to summarize ten Gwynne Dyer books and 300 columns, it's all from him, just read him - and I assure you his views come from hundreds of interviews with the most-revered military around the world.
But his "Canada in the Great Power Game, 1914-2014" (third plug) is the go-to on this matter. A chapter is devoted to connecting foreign adventures to homeland defence, after the starting point of "they only exist for homeland defence". Attempting a chapter in 100 words was a fool's errand.