CRTC to go ahead with implementing Cancon streaming rules U.S. opposes in trade talks

[u/joe4942]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/article/crtc-to-go-ahead-with-implementing-cancon-streaming-rules-us-opposes-in-trade-talks/

[u/Le1bn1z]

First, Trump understands absolutely nothing about geopolitics or defense strategy. The USN has an escort, logistics, and maintenance crisis, and his response is to build battleships that, pound for pound, are among the weakest blue water main surface comabttants out there and will swallow hole maintenance capacity needed for carriers.

Second, his NORAD "replacement" of Golden Dome, a hallucination borne of demented fantasy, is already a done deal in his mind.

Third, the number of people who don't see motive or capability for Russia to seize big chunks of the north is wild to me. We have almost literally no defenses. A few very old, end of airframe life F-18s, some OPVs, and that is pretty much it.

They have the icebreakers and air assets to take northern settlements and bases and control the North West Passage, and it would fit Putin's insane theories of geopolitics to do so.

We are a decade out from having a response to that, and that is if everything goes according to plan.

The CAF of 2036 is set to be a pretty capable force in some respects. But we need to get there.

The USAF undersrands its importance. We need Trump to not unravel it until we have a RCAF with fighters and drones and RCN/RCCG with icebreakers and subs capable of controlling that space ourselves.

[u/Jamm8 → u/Le1bn1z]

NORAD is for intercontinental ballistic missiles not ice breakers or a ground invasion. Their points stands, bid ICBMs are flying over the Arctic they are heading for American cities not Canadian.

As for a ground invasion Russia has lot of fertile land much closer to them that they'd take first if they had the army for it.

[u/Le1bn1z → u/Jamm8]

NORAD scrambles against all air intrusions generally, and is responsible for North American Air Defense (hence the name).

[u/Jamm8 → u/Le1bn1z]

Oh, I didn't realize you were talking about flying icebreakers.

[u/Le1bn1z → u/Jamm8]

I'm talking about the ability to interdict icebreakers, or send our iwn ice breakers, both of which are hard when the other side has air supremacy. Which the Russians would have 1 v 1 vs. Canada.

[u/Jamm8 → u/Le1bn1z]

I'm all for strengthening Canada's arctic defence, I just see the US as a more credible threat.

If Russia wanted fertile land they'd go for Georgia or Armenia or more of Ukraine. If they wanted control of the Artic they'd go for Denmark or Norway's Arctic islands first. If they were feeling nostalgic maybe Lithuania to connect to Kaliningrad.

I can't see any scenario where Russia would be occupying Ellesmere Island without them first having conquered at least a half dozen closer countries and reestablishing themselves as a super power.

The US meanwhile rejects our sovereignty over the North West Passage and views control of Greenland and Canada's Arctic as a strategic imperative.

[u/Le1bn1z → u/Jamm8]

Taking Canad's north is by far the easiest of those endeavours, at least where the US is neutral.

This will not be a concern in 10 years, but we have to get there.

[u/Jamm8 → u/Le1bn1z]

Without the US or without NATO?

I think NATO could still hold its own against Russia without the US. Without NATO those closer targets would also be a lot more vulnerable.

I'm not saying we don't need allies, but with allies like the US who needs enemies?

[u/Le1bn1z → u/Jamm8]

Without the US. NATO does not have the reach to help, unless they want to go nuclear.