As my countrymen have pointed out, we here in Canada are starting to rejuvenate our armed forces, with many of the same sovereignty constraints facing the RN. This is exactly what Mark Carney was saying in his Davos speech. We have to diversify our defence supply chain away from the American hegemon. So if our two nations can lump ourselves among those middle powers, dependence on likeminded middle powers could give all of us some relative independence that over reliance on a global power cannot provide us. Certainly there are energy and mineral sources that the UK does not have but could be provided by Canada which has been and continues to want to be a reliable ally and partner with trusted nations.
This is a very sobering article and thank you for your candour. Canada is belatedly upping its naval game with new destroyers (a modification of your Type 26) being built, new joint supply ships, arctic patrol ships, unconfirmed discussion about a new corvette class, and of course, awaiting a contract for up to 12 submarines. The RCN is also engaged with the US Navy for continental defence and the first three destroyers will have Aegis systems. I’m not sure I am comfortable with that system unless it could be fire-walled if required. Again, it’s a matter of sovereignty and I suspect we Canadians are somewhat more unpopular with Trump than British citizens.
Correct. A further strategic approach might be to stop continuously badmouthing and antagonising the country we are entirely dependent on, while provoking our enemies with hostile rhetoric.
Yes. I think the oddity of the last year or so is how cavalier commentators and analysis have been to trash talk an alliance that has been embedded for 80 years, and then start flailing around when it turns out we are interdependent. Sure we are totally exposed to US interoperability. To a lesser degree so are they: turn off Menwith Hill and a 3rd of the US global intelligence gathering goes dark. And if Menwith Hill goes I suspect Pine Gap in Australia would as well. Which leaves the US massively compromised re sigint. *By design*: our forefathers bought into this approach as a means of enmeshing the alliance so that divorce seemed incomprehensible, and dumping it because of a scarcely literate Whitehouse incumbent is not a sensible reaction.
The US is however going to have to pivot in one direction and we need to the reverse because of the unknown which is Russia: we have to be the counterbalancing power to it, which Trump has largely indicated isn’t his problem.
So the starting point ought to be not what our exposure to US soft and hardware is. It should be what do we need to contain Russia?
At the very minimum it means sorting out our submarine capabilities. Plus, if the needs be, the ability to shut down the Iceland gap and possibly blockade the shadow fleet which the US (with UK assist) seems to be starting to do. Which yes means hulls.
But this is all doable without trashing our current alliance based on a terrible human inhabiting the Oval Office, but in a considered reorientation the likes of which the various US leaders have been warning about for 20 odd years.
I agree the interdependence was deliberate, and for decades it worked because alliance failure was treated as unthinkable. Menwith Hill is a good example of how that cuts both ways.
My concern isn’t interdependence itself, but whether the political assumptions it rests on are as stable as they once were. That doesn’t mean abandoning the alliance, but it does mean stress-testing it.
On Russia, I’m aligned. Submarines, GIUK, shadow fleet pressure and hull numbers are the hard tasks that don’t wait for politics. Reducing critical dependencies is about keeping the alliance credible, not walking away from it.
Thank you. None of this is comfortable to write about, but pretending these dependencies don’t exist doesn’t make them safer. My concern isn’t technology itself, it’s what happens when political assumptions behind that technology start to shift.
As my countrymen have pointed out, we here in Canada are starting to rejuvenate our armed forces, with many of the same sovereignty constraints facing the RN. This is exactly what Mark Carney was saying in his Davos speech. We have to diversify our defence supply chain away from the American hegemon. So if our two nations can lump ourselves among those middle powers, dependence on likeminded middle powers could give all of us some relative independence that over reliance on a global power cannot provide us. Certainly there are energy and mineral sources that the UK does not have but could be provided by Canada which has been and continues to want to be a reliable ally and partner with trusted nations.
No
This is a very sobering article and thank you for your candour. Canada is belatedly upping its naval game with new destroyers (a modification of your Type 26) being built, new joint supply ships, arctic patrol ships, unconfirmed discussion about a new corvette class, and of course, awaiting a contract for up to 12 submarines. The RCN is also engaged with the US Navy for continental defence and the first three destroyers will have Aegis systems. I’m not sure I am comfortable with that system unless it could be fire-walled if required. Again, it’s a matter of sovereignty and I suspect we Canadians are somewhat more unpopular with Trump than British citizens.
Correct. A further strategic approach might be to stop continuously badmouthing and antagonising the country we are entirely dependent on, while provoking our enemies with hostile rhetoric.
Yes. I think the oddity of the last year or so is how cavalier commentators and analysis have been to trash talk an alliance that has been embedded for 80 years, and then start flailing around when it turns out we are interdependent. Sure we are totally exposed to US interoperability. To a lesser degree so are they: turn off Menwith Hill and a 3rd of the US global intelligence gathering goes dark. And if Menwith Hill goes I suspect Pine Gap in Australia would as well. Which leaves the US massively compromised re sigint. *By design*: our forefathers bought into this approach as a means of enmeshing the alliance so that divorce seemed incomprehensible, and dumping it because of a scarcely literate Whitehouse incumbent is not a sensible reaction.
The US is however going to have to pivot in one direction and we need to the reverse because of the unknown which is Russia: we have to be the counterbalancing power to it, which Trump has largely indicated isn’t his problem.
So the starting point ought to be not what our exposure to US soft and hardware is. It should be what do we need to contain Russia?
At the very minimum it means sorting out our submarine capabilities. Plus, if the needs be, the ability to shut down the Iceland gap and possibly blockade the shadow fleet which the US (with UK assist) seems to be starting to do. Which yes means hulls.
But this is all doable without trashing our current alliance based on a terrible human inhabiting the Oval Office, but in a considered reorientation the likes of which the various US leaders have been warning about for 20 odd years.
I agree the interdependence was deliberate, and for decades it worked because alliance failure was treated as unthinkable. Menwith Hill is a good example of how that cuts both ways.
My concern isn’t interdependence itself, but whether the political assumptions it rests on are as stable as they once were. That doesn’t mean abandoning the alliance, but it does mean stress-testing it.
On Russia, I’m aligned. Submarines, GIUK, shadow fleet pressure and hull numbers are the hard tasks that don’t wait for politics. Reducing critical dependencies is about keeping the alliance credible, not walking away from it.
Thank you. None of this is comfortable to write about, but pretending these dependencies don’t exist doesn’t make them safer. My concern isn’t technology itself, it’s what happens when political assumptions behind that technology start to shift.