Latest news with #ofCalgary

Time of India

Liberals, Conservatives silent on security; leave Canada's defense posture unresolved

Experts criticize Liberal and Conservative defense platforms for avoiding Canada's security in a post-reliable-U.S. world. Parties focus on equipment, not strategic shifts. The silence on this existential threat, amidst rising global tensions, leaves Canada's defense posture dangerously unresolved, raising concerns about future preparedness Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads As Canadians head to the polls, a critical examination of the Liberal and Conservative defense platforms reveals a striking similarity: a profound silence on the fundamental question of Canada's ability to defend itself in a world where the U.S. is no longer a guaranteed warn that this strategic void leaves Canada dangerously unprepared for a rapidly evolving security recent release of both parties' defense policies, marked by competing promises on Arctic sovereignty and military spending, has been met with skepticism by national security the consensus on meeting NATO's 2% GDP target and investing in Arctic infrastructure is noted, the focus on specific equipment acquisitions overshadows the larger, more pressing core concern, as articulated by experts, is the parties' deliberate avoidance of addressing Canada's security posture in a post-reliable-U.S. specter of American isolationism, amplified by Donald Trump's rhetoric, has fundamentally altered Canada's strategic calculus. Yet, both Liberals and Conservatives appear reluctant to confront this reality."What does Canada need to defend itself, especially in the absence of a reliable ally to the south?" asks University of British Columbia's Michael Byers. This question, central to Canada's future security, remains unanswered in the parties' of Calgary's Rob Huebert points to the "existential threat" posed by an "untrustworthy America," coupled with an increasingly aggressive Russia and a powerful criticizes the parties' focus on "dribs and drabs" of equipment purchases, arguing that a comprehensive strategic reassessment is urgently political reluctance to address this issue is understandable, says Huebert. "Neither of the parties really want to address it in any serious context, just because it does create the possibility of electoral disaster if the wrong word is spoken."This avoidance, however, comes at a significant cost. As Dave Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute notes, Canada's allies are increasingly impatient with "rhetoric and promises."The upcoming NATO summit, where a higher defense spending target is expected, underscores the urgency of concrete experts also express skepticism about the parties' ability to implement their defense promises, citing a history of policy pronouncements without tangible results. "Canada has developed this tendency to talk about security, but to do nothing," says silence on this crucial issue, however, leaves a troubling question mark over Canada's readiness to face an uncertain future.