Canadian Forces considers China and Russia the country’s main threats – climate change barely acknowledged in new document
The employment concept document hammering home the threat to Canada from China and Russia comes as the military leadership and its supporters advocate for billions more dollars in defence spending.
But pumping more money into the military comes at a time when the Liberal government is pushing fiscal restraint on federal departments. In addition, the Canadian Forces and National Defence have faced questions about how they manage the money they already receive as well as concerns about equipment projects that have gone tens of billions of dollars over budget without providing additional military capability.
We must remember that Russia and China do not differentiate between peace and war
The hostile intentions and actions of our adversaries show that they consider themselves to be at war with the West
I don’t think that words have consistent meanings coming from this guy. If their adversaries (China) show that they consider themselves to be at war, then they also consider themselves to be at peace?
I feel like this guy is largely just drumming up defense budget.
But like, your critique is kind of a silly mischaracterization of what he’s saying that doesn’t actually address the content of his message. Yes, he’s saying that he believes China and Russia treat peacetime the same as wartime, and that they also consider themselves to be at war with Canada. These aren’t incompatible thoughts…
They are incompatible thoughts. Peacetime posturing and wartime posturing involve completely different priorities and lines of effort for governments.
Wartime governments need to prioritize their war efforts. Peacetime governments do not - while there may be some light overlap for creation and maintenance of a self defense military force, individual liberties are not restricted, economic efforts are not diverted to replenish critical resources, and industrial outputs are not shifted to materiel production. Posturing for war places extreme stress on a nations ability to participate in global commerce and academia.
You’re immediately going to posturing, something specifically not mentioned, to choose an interpretation which makes it nonsensical. It could simply represent a level of aggression and imperialist intent.
No they are not incompatible thoughts.
I really don’t care about this dude enough to argue this point any longer, just try to actually respond to arguments for their content and rhetoric rather than just choosing a nonsensical interpretation out of many sensical though still disagreeable ones.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
I don’t think that words have consistent meanings coming from this guy. If their adversaries (China) show that they consider themselves to be at war, then they also consider themselves to be at peace?
I feel like this guy is largely just drumming up defense budget.
But like, your critique is kind of a silly mischaracterization of what he’s saying that doesn’t actually address the content of his message. Yes, he’s saying that he believes China and Russia treat peacetime the same as wartime, and that they also consider themselves to be at war with Canada. These aren’t incompatible thoughts…
They are incompatible thoughts. Peacetime posturing and wartime posturing involve completely different priorities and lines of effort for governments.
Wartime governments need to prioritize their war efforts. Peacetime governments do not - while there may be some light overlap for creation and maintenance of a self defense military force, individual liberties are not restricted, economic efforts are not diverted to replenish critical resources, and industrial outputs are not shifted to materiel production. Posturing for war places extreme stress on a nations ability to participate in global commerce and academia.
You’re immediately going to posturing, something specifically not mentioned, to choose an interpretation which makes it nonsensical. It could simply represent a level of aggression and imperialist intent.
No they are not incompatible thoughts.
I really don’t care about this dude enough to argue this point any longer, just try to actually respond to arguments for their content and rhetoric rather than just choosing a nonsensical interpretation out of many sensical though still disagreeable ones.
[citation needed]
As opposed to the oh-so-friendly rhetoric getting slung from the USA and Canada right now.
A bunch of churlish hypocrites, the lot of them.