By Ted Barnes, 21 February 2025
For years, some Canadians have asked for a strong military, strong borders, strong northern presence, and a whole shopping list of procurements to replace worn out equipment and fund NORAD and 2% of our GDP for NATO. The people who advocated for this were ridiculed by elected officials and the public. Successive governments have had half measures and kicked the can repeatedly down the road as election promises to portray an illusion that the government was serious. US and NATO officials wag their fingers at us knowing we are not serious and, up until only recently, we have enjoyed the assumed protection of the United States. Canada was happy with the status quo. The election of Donald Trump has turned that upside down with tariff threats and accusations of lax borders and Canada, in absence of a better word, freeloading and enjoying the protection of the United States -- so much so that the US President either jokingly or not thinks we should become the 51st state. This has panicked people and our response to this is being used a political distraction in Canada in my opinion.
Lately I have been hearing on social media including this forum that we should pull out of agreements, and procurements with the United States because of tariff threats and threats of annexation. The United States is being booed during the anthems at hockey games, people are not travelling to the United States, it is starting to spiral out of control. Much of this is pettiness. We all know that the US President is erratic and says lots of foolish things. Former CRCN Mark Norman has called on the government to do exactly that and there is no way back. So far it has not come to anything, but this may very well happen soon with a leadership change. Normally Canada enjoys a close military relationship with the United States. I personally remember dozens of US port visits on Canadian warships where we were always treated well. We got more out of the relationship than we gave. Now all of that is in peril. Do you have any idea of the disruption and cost of halting our military procurements from the US, and what it would cause Canada through penalties from broken contracts and agreements? The CSC would be years delayed, the P8’s which we now have crews training with the RAF would cost us years. We are about to send a contingent of sailors to the AEGIS school for training for the CSC. Procurements of missiles, F 35 and everything else US would degrade our military further and further delay us for years. It is not just a simple matter of getting new suppliers -- our procurement moves at a glacial pace in the best of times. Do we want to pull out of NORAD or any other miliary cooperation with the United States?
Do we want to pull all our embedded personnel from US missions and US bases and vice versa. Do we want to expel US personnel from Canada. Do we want to stop joint operations to the North or warship visits to US ports? Where does it stop? Some US allies like Saudi Arabia, Japan and others get it by investing significant resources in the US economy and buy massive amounts of military equipment, guess what? They do not have tariffs levied against them. 
We knew Trump was coming to power and how erratic he was, and we did nothing to prepare. We should have reached out months ago. For the last eight years, the Trudeau government openly made fun of Trump and his government and now, we are reaping the whirlwind. What we should have been doing as a sovereign country was strengthening our borders and strengthening our military. We had a weak response in both those areas and now have a ridiculously small military and lots of unwanted guests that were forced on us due to lax border policies.
Trump wants to see himself as a winner and that is the key to all of this. What we should have done is ask for a massive rearming of the military from US sources to meet and exceed our 2% GDP promise instead of kicking the can down the road, and this would have been seen as an investment into the US economy. Trump would see that and move on. Now we have a government officials and leaders calling on shutting off strategic minerals and energy from them and escalating the situation further. That would not end well for us. I think going forward we carefully consider the consequences to our security before we drop or pull out of any procurements or agreements and use logic to guide us instead of emotions.
Image: HMCS Charlottetown, Flagship of Standing NATO Maritime Group Two (SNMG2), sails in consort with USS Wasp (LHD-1) as the two ships conduct operational patrols in the Mediterranean Sea on 07 July 2024. Photo Credit: Aviator Gregory Cole, Canadian Armed Forces Photo
20 thoughts on “Canada and US Cooperation on Defence”
Good afternoon Ted,
I believe that we are on opposite sides of the currently burning international debate of “How to respond to Trump?” My personal view is that appeasing a bully does not solve your problem; it simply whets their appetite. This is exactly the situation in which we find ourselves with Trump. Given that, I would ask you to answer the following questions:
– once we have given Trump something expensive to “let him see himself as a winner,” what do we offer next when he returns soon after looking for something even more precious, and then the time after that, and the subsequent time, ad nauseum?
– how would you maintain Canadians’ morale as they watch a steady stream of penitent politicians traipsing to Trump’s golf courses to abase themselves before him like court jesters to give away our country to meet his unending demands?
None of this argues, though, for cutting military ties with the USA. Instead, we should maintain all of them and work very hard to ensure their success. This would put the onus on Trump to kick over the apple barrel. This approach does not, however, force us to continue blindly with our current equipment plans without giving any thought to how they must evolve.
Finally, I find that you are not being honest/consistent in your argument. Here, you say we should have reached out to Trump months ago; which would have been around around 22 Nov 24. However, on 26 Jan 25 in another Broadsides discussion you said “Oh he doesn’t like Trudeau that’s for sure and I don’t doubt Trudeau’s visit [on 29 Nov 24] and weakness he displayed emboldened the President to double down on these tariff threats.” Which is it – reaching out is a sign of weakness or a necessary part of assuaging Trump’s ego and mitigating his attacks on us?
Ubique,
Les
Honestly I don’t think it’s appeasement at all, appeasement is the Munich Agreement, this is not. We need a strong military and we need equipment and considering we live next door to the largest arms dealer in the world going to the US for large orders of equipment is a no brainer and perfectly reasonable. I think everyone on this forum is in agreement, we don’t have a strong military in fact we are very soon going to have a number of ships for all intents and purposes tied up, hints of that have been in the media over the last few months. Things are not good CAF wide and the ironic thing about all of this is that we did it to ourselves.
Part of the reason why Trump has been a bully to us is that we have a weak military and yes we certainly rely on the US for their protection and that’s come back on us through Trump as he sees that as us taking advantage of the US. If we had a reasonable military, a strong border, diversified our economy, no provincial trade barriers and had great alliances in selling our natural resources – i.e., natural gas to Japan and Germany – then any bullying from Trump would have a minimal effect on our economy.
So what to this point have we given to Trump, really nothing. We agreed to strengthen our borders which is a good thing I would think. So far other than that, really nothing. Rearming the military is not giving Trump something expensive, it’s actually rebuilding our military which we should have been doing the entire time. They get the business yes but we probably would have been giving them the business anyways considering we have always bought American.
As for morale, as you are perfectly aware the leader of the current government was one of the first to go to Florida to meet Trump, clearly he wasn’t that impressive and honestly government officials going to the US to have discussions to avoid unnecessary tariffs is something I fully support and expect to be perfectly honest.
Totally agree with you on maintaining ties, however many do not. Threatening to cut off their oil and electricity is not helpful either. We need strong leadership, stronger ties and common ground in my opinion. When I said “months ago” it would have been when there was an inkling of him winning, of course everyone thought Harris would win, including the federal government so there was no real plan and Trump has often talked about tariffs even stretching back years. We need to do something because clearly what’s going on is not working and we need to live with Trump leadership for the next four years. The “Art of the Deal” here is to make them think they won while really giving away nothing.
Hello Ted. I would strongly argue that not just ‘some’ Canadians but a majority of Canadians have argued for most of what you have discussed in your article. Canada MUST take Donald Trump at his word when he unrealistically wants Canada to become the USA’s 51st state. When he talks tariffs and annexation threats…..TAKE HIM AT HIS WORD! He will tax us into submission, ruining his own economy in the process to get what he wants from Canada.
In my opinion, most of what we have done, or not done, we have caused ourselves, by our own inactions in the past. We are so far behind the eight ball we foolishly “think-we-are-first”. Instead of pulling out of agreements & fearing annexation, we must become much more proactive and strengthen our ties with our neighbours to the South, instead of sticking our heads in the sand, hoping that Donald Trump would just go away for the next 4 years. Well…. he won’t! I firmly believe that DT’s re-election to office is a blessing in disguise for Canada to re-invigorate the CAF. However none of this can happen unless we quickly have a massive infusion of personnel in the CAF. Canada not only needs leadership change but an attitude adjustment for the future of our military. We can no longer afford to ‘kick the can down the road’ as you say any longer. Canadian citizens will no longer settle for second-best. Reaching out is not a weakness as Les Mader has opined in his comments, but a sign of great strength of an independent country like Canada. I strongly agree with most of what you have said in your reply to Les Mader. As you have said, most of what has happened, or not happened to the CAF, we have done to ourselves long ago to the point where our military may never come back, but…..we must try. To do nothing is no longer an option. Maintaining stronger ties with our friend and closest ally to the South will be mandatory no matter who is in the Oval Office. If we do this, yes, Canada will already have won!!
Good afternoon David,
I fear that you have misunderstood my comment. I did not say that reaching out was necessarily a weakness; I was pointing out the inconsistency of Ted Barnes’ posts.
However, reaching out must not become a euphemism for surrender. Given the level of visceral hostility towards Canada that seems to be motivating Trump and his advisors (see article at link below) there is nothing that Canada can do to win them over. Giving them rich military contracts, increased Canadian defence budgets, sweetheart resource deals, groveling before Trump’s omnipotence and omniscience whenever he looks our way, affording unthinking diplomatic support, etc will simply leave us weaker and more and more demoralized; it will not give us back what we had with every other modern American president.
Under Trump, the USA is joining the club of 21st Century imperialist powers with Canada as its primary target. It is almost as if he is trying to make real the tripartite world of Orwell’s 1984.
We can either recognize this fact and look to our own defences, strengths, and friends or we can surrender and become a possession of the USA with minimal rights. When commentators as far apart as Jesse Watters at Fox and Ali Velshi at MSNBC both agree that full statehood for Canada would tip the advantage in Congress and the Electoral College massively towards the Democratic Party, you can be sure that our accession into the USA would not do well by us.
Ubique,
Les
https://financialpost.com/financial-times/u-s-official-pushes-cut-canada-five-eyes-intelligence-group
Good afternoon Ted,
Appeasement does not have to be a single Munich-like event. It can also be a long series of little actions that cumulatively see us giving up that which we value most highly. In dealing with Trump, we must always do what is in our best interest. If that makes Trump happy, so be it. If it does not, tough!
I have argued for some 20 years that we need to buy various military capabilities. The USA might be the place to procure them. If it is, we would then need to decide whether we can trust the Americans to be honest suppliers in the long run, and if we believe that they will not be we will have to decide whether to go ahead with them anyways or to look elsewhere.
What we must do urgently is to decide whether the CAF’s and RCN’s current equipment plans are still relevant. I do not believe that parts of them are, particularly the 15 River-class DDGHs.
Ubique,
Les
Hello Les,
I can understand some hesitancy regarding the River-class vessels. I can guess you either want the class cut back significantly or entirely. Given the domestic political realities we face and how poorly our Navy will be if the program is delayed to any degree, I would say that anything besides keeping to the current plan would be a very ill-conceived idea. Going abroad to get vessels is going to undermine the domestic shipbuilding efforts we have spent many years and billions of dollars setting up.
River production is starting within a month or so I think. Canceling the River program is going to enter us into protracted legal battles, which will drag out any kind of replacement and cost us dearly. It is effectively impossible to divorce our procurement from the Americans in this regard, as the Rivers are entirely filled with American items or American-supported items. Changing the design to remove all of this would amount to starting from scratch again, which we cannot afford to do.
I don’t see a way around this, we need to keep trucking with the River-class and its production. The hope is the Americans won’t screw us because if they do, the entire program is effectively over.
Good morning Jimmy,
Thank you for your thoughts.
I agree that we must start the production of the first batch of Rivers as they are designed as soon as possible and move quickly with their construction.
However, I also believe that while this construction is ongoing, we must refine our force structure plans to determine:
– how many Rivers we will need to do what.
– what other ship types are required, if any, how soon, in what quantities, to accomplish which missions.
We must not spend our available naval capital acquisition funds on a quantity of Rivers that does not actually meet our new strategic reality.
If the Trump regime does screw us around with these ships we will then know for sure that we really are in a very different and darker world.
Ubique,
Les
Les, we know exactly how many River-class we need, how many submarines, and how many multi-mission Corvettes. That’s not going to change in my opinion. Even if the strategic reality changed, an extra 5 ships or an extra 20 ships including amphibs will make no difference whatsoever. A CAF with 80 tanks and 90 fighters is frankly nothing compared to the size of other states’ forces. Again I will state we did this to ourselves, too bad it took Donald Trump living in everyone’s head to demonstrate this.
Good morning Ted,
When you say that we know how many ships of each type we need, I would ask what was the strategic context in which that assessment was made?
Clearly, trying to confront the Americans “mano-to-mano” in high-tech, conventional warfare is just dumb. We need to be smart. Smart requires the willingness to think differently for all elements of the CAF.
Finally, I would add that it is probably a good thing that we did not ‘blow a fortune’ building a CAF that could be a supporting conventional force for the Americans to now discover that they are our most likely enemy! At least we have the unspent-monies to spend where they are most required. The question is will we have enough time to make the needed investments?
Ubique,
Les
HI, Les I would imagine somewhere, somehow the RCN determined the right number of ships – ie River Class Destroyers, JSS, AOPV, Corvettes and Submarines – we need and what we want to achieve. Despite the rhetoric that seems to dispense with actual common sense about our neighbors we’re not currently buying into an imminent invasion from the US and I haven’t heard anything at all to suggest that anything is changing.
We currently have 100’s of CAF members working in the US and worldwide at various bases and Commands, ships working with the USN and USCG on operations, ships availing themselves of US ports and support from US bases just like any other time. Nothing has changed. If anything we need to strengthen our ties with the US and pay our way in NATO just like many have been asking for years instead of proroguing parliament.
Hi Les,
Given the timelines involved, I don’t think changing shipbuilding plans is a useful response. Mr. Trump has a four year term; if he is going to attack it will presumably be in the first half of the term, while he still has congressional support. If that happens, Canadians must either surrender or down tools and take up guns. We should prepare against that possibility, but I doubt our leaders will do so adequately.
Assuming the Americans do not invade during Mr. Trump’s term, Canada is still likely to need a conventional navy. The NSS is a multi-decade plan and the first River-class destroyer might be deliverable right around the time Mr. Trump leaves office. We should not disrupt that plan over what is probably a short term threat – although I do think we might consider buying the weapons from Britain rather than from our likely attacker! Cancelling military contracts will hit America where it hurts – in their pockets.
All of you need to stop getting your information from the state subsidized media & telecom monopolies, although dependency is characteristic of socialist vassals with conditioned identity problems that can be triggered with astonishing ease. Neither Trump, bilateral relations, nor the state of our national security are black and white issues, and if anything, they are all problems manufactured in this country by unqualified ideologues playing the crying game to a captive audience. Personally, I find the entire debate in this country comparable to a popularity contest among a bunch of affluent school children, a debate orchestrated by the 1% of the 1% that will lead as it always does to more burdens and suffering on the majority. Those who do not learn from history always repeat it as per Einstein’s definition of insanity of not learning from mistakes.
Trump is not even close to the worst thing that could happen here, it is only for the privileged and the entitled in this country that see their easy lives under threat. The people of this country operate under a massively inflated sense of self importance, understand yourself first and the issue of what your friends and rivals are about is easy. If you had any sense, you should worry a lot more about what I could do to you for decades of rape, murder, and larceny by the greatest hypocrisy on earth.
Hello One Person. You seem to be so angry at most Canadians who openly oppose tyranny. Tyrants like Trump achieve their goals by delegating power only to people personally loyal to them. Every tyrant throughout history has gained a personal monopoly on the use of force so he can impose his will on anyone, for any reason. All of this is happening now just as Trump is effectively handing over large swaths of the world to Putin and Xi; the only world megalomaniac dictators he respects and understands, because they, too, are tyrants. Ask any Ukrainian if they agree with your type of rhetoric. This is a ‘black & white’ issue for Canadians as most global people agree. As Trump tries to consolidate power, Canadians must protect the institutions in our society still able to oppose what Trump is ‘shoveling.’ That includes the Canadian military and Forum members like this one. Ultimately this will come down to Canada’s own courage and resolve which seem to be rising rapidly lately. To engage in peaceful disobedience to any tyrant who is trying to erase the world-based order with hatred, bigotry, tariffs and annexation threats, is not only our right as free Canadians, but our solemn duty! You would be wise to remember: Yes, those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it, however, tyranny will never prevail over those who refuse to succumb to it!
Good morning David,
Well said! Thank you.
Ubique,
Les
Reply to Ted Barnes of 1 Mar 25
Good evening Ted,
Since you did not answer my question about for which strategic environment our naval force structure has been developed, I will assume that it is for the world as foreseen from the perspective of around about 2022 or 2023, when the current chaos and wrecking of the world order was not envisioned. Thus, it is of little relevance.
With regard to your idea of strengthening our ties with the USA, I agree that we should maintain our current relations as long as practical. However, we should not make any new defence agreements with Trump if they involve any cost to us.
We must, though, increase our defence capabilities for this new and dangerous world.
Ubique,
Les
Hello again Les,
Regarding your concerns about refinement to our force structure plans, I would put forward that making fundamental changes to a 10+ year procurement plan due to a 4 year President might not be an ultimately wise strategy. The RCN came to the conclusion that the full 15 River class vessels was what is required for the RCN both at home and to fulfill our commitments abroad, I do not see the hostility from the US meaningfully changing this dynamic. This is a time that we must be willing to help our allies abroad more than ever, alongside strengthening our own continental defence. The Rivers are incredibly potent capability multipliers for continental defence, as much as they are for expeditionary operations abroad.
No realistic amount of other AAW or ASW resources can provide the density and capability that these apex platforms can, especially as any diversions now will result in the RCN falling further off its timelines for recapitalization.
We should be focusing on pushing the submarine acquisition through in order to really solidify our continental defence and what we can project abroad.
Have a good day.
Good afternoon Jimmy,
Thank you for your thoughts. I find that I am in full agreement with some of them. In particular, I also believe that:
– We must help our allies abroad more in the defence of the democratic world order, while strengthening immensely our continental and Arctic defence.
– The River-class DDGHs offer significant capabilities for Canada’s ‘distant defence’ (expeditionary operations) and our coastal sovereignty protection.
– We must start the construction of the first batch of River-class ships, as designed, as soon as possible, if not immediately.
– We must pursue the SSK acquisition project urgently, with a minimum of 12 vessels.
– These SSKs will have both an expeditionary and a coastal/Arctic defence value.
The areas where I believe that we disagree are:
– How long Trump’s impact will damage Canado-American relations. Assuming that he respects the US Constitution and does not arrange for a third presidential term, I believe that the MAGA Party will continue its destructive crusade until at least 2037 (a minimum of three presidential mandates). If correct, this would force Canada to plan how to deal with a MAGA USA in at least the medium term. Thus, 10+ year shipbuilding programs would find themselves being affected.
– The validity of the navy’s current force structure design. I personally do not believe that the RCN incorporated the current geo-strategic situation into its force structure planning (how could they have factored in what no-one else saw coming until Nov 24 at the very earliest). This calls into question the investment of so much of the navy’s available funds into the full 15 River-class DDGHs. I would feel much better if the RCN re-did its force structure design bearing in mind what we see happening now; I think that the navy needs to rebalance its investments. The only way that I think that 15 DDGHs would still be relevant is if such huge sums were invested in the navy that it could afford everything else and pay for the full 15. I do not think that this is credible, given the needs of the rest of the CAF and Canada’s other needs and its economic prospects.
Ubique,
Les
Hello Les. I tend to agree totally on most of what you have said to Jimmy’s comments, however (and there always is one) your comments to Jimmy on the ‘”Validity of the navy’s current force structure design IMO does not meet the needs of the RCN now or in the distant future. The RCN could not and did not foresee the current geo-political situation of our neighbours to the south. The RCN did not have a “futuristic portal” for Donald Trump’s plans after the 24 November “Shock and Awe” happened for Donald Trump & Elon Musk’s MAGA election plans. The RCN needs all 15 of these River-class destroyers now more than ever.
So, how can we get there sooner rather than later? First, we have to get this tariffs business settled ASAP. Second, the RCN has to get more sailors to sea soonest and that means faster recruitment to crew all 15 destroyers well before 2030. Third, recapitalize and not rebalance our naval investments. One solution may be to put the NSS consortium on some sort of ‘war-footing’ and divide up the build process to all 3 NSS shipyards to reach the 15 ship goal much sooner. Put the submarine acquisition program into ‘hyper gear’ to acquire 12 modern sub replacements with signed contracts by the end of 2025 at the latest.
Yes, it will require huge sums of money to do this not for just the RCN but for the Army & Air Force acquisitions as well but we have no other choices. Canada and the Canadian people cannot afford to wait around any longer because of what is happening with the world-based order in flux. This will all require at least an annual GDP for defence of at least 5% for the foreseeable future. When you think about it, we are already at war with DT’s dumb tariffs as the PM has said today. The democracy of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people are counting on Canada now! Let’s not let them or the Canadian people down…..again!
Good afternoon David,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. As mentioned in my 3 Mar 25 post above, I agree fully that neither the CAF nor the RCN could have realistically foreseen the world we are now in when they did the strategic forecasts that drove their force structure planning.
Just a few comments on your major points:
– Settling the tariffs business is not solely Canada’s call, unless it abjectly surrenders (which will simply ‘put blood in the water’ and lead to ever more demands). Thus, I believe that we must treat the tariff battle as a background reality which informs our defence efforts.
– Fully agree that recruiting needs to become more successful. The recruiting effort must, though, avoid performative actions. Large numbers of unusable personnel recruited to then be released is simply a waste of effort and resources. Consider the army’s experience at the start of the Korean War when the Minister of National Defence (MND) ordered that the recruiting process had be abbreviated. Thousands (I believe) of unsuitable recruits had to be released over time, many even after they had reached Korea.
– I am not sure that Canada has the funds to recapitalize its naval (and full military) investments without some rebalancing among the defence equipment plans.
– I believe that 5% of GDP for defence is unachievable, especially if the government must massively support those hurt by Trump’s tariffs.
– Increasing our shipbuilding capacity may run into skilled labour shortages, which could only be addressed with time.
– Perhaps we need to award contracts for smaller warships – corvettes and mine warfare – to shipyards outside of the NSS. They might be able to tap into new sources of personnel. They would certainly offer more slipways.
– Agree that the submarine contract must be awarded soonest. I am not sure that end 2025 is realistic when I consider the debates in this Forum about the merits of the Swedish, South Korean, and German/Norwegian contenders. I do not know if the navy’s statement of operational requirements and technical specifications are sufficiently mature to allow the proper selection to be made yet.
Ubique,
Les
I agree tariffs need to be dealt with immediately. Getting sailors to sea will be a challenge with eight Kingston-class being paid off to support the Halifax-class. However the Naval Experience Program (NEP) is paying dividends in recruitment and will be copied by the rest of the elements. The other two yards do not have the capacity to build the CSC, it was looked at. The timeline will be the timeline.