Canada and the World

[kEiThZ]

I'd argue a strong defense posture (along with other forms of "soft power") is precisely what allow us more independence in our foreign policy. Like the good old days of peacekeeping isn't simply because we have a few nice words to say at the UN - but that we actually contribute meaningfully.

AoD

This was the essence of being a middle power during the Cold War. Since then we've taken our peace dividend and then some. But still insist on getting all the credit and respect that is supposed to accrue to a middle power.

And we don't even spend that peace dividend on other ways that benefit the global community. We aren't generous on foreign aid. We aren't a leader on climate change. Etc.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

This was the essence of being a middle power during the Cold War. Since then we've taken our peace dividend and then some. But still insist on getting all the credit and respect that is supposed to accrue to a middle power. And we don't even spend that peace dividend on other ways that benefit the global community. We aren't generous on foreign aid. We aren't a leader on climate change. Etc.

Nevermind benefiting the global community - we spent it on tax cuts and other domestic policies with precious little to show for it.

We are so pre-occupied with our petty provincial politics (the black hole that basically sucked all our energy) that we forgot we actually have a nation to build. Like think about how much of our Feds are focused on dealing with the provinces and their whim because lord forbid if we don't our provincial premiers will throw a hissy fit?

I think we are overripe for a reevaluation of our Federal system of government (and beefing it up, at the expense of provincial autonomy). We are a country - stop wrapping ourselves around the flag and then pretending we are just a bunch of provinces pulling the strings of a marionette federal government for cash.

AoD

 

[lenaitch]

We don't sell anything to the US on preferential terms or at a better price as a matter of policy, we do so simply because it cheaper to ship or pump something to a nation that we are physically connected to as opposed to everyplace else which is, quite literally, overseas. Besides, isn't our 'oil sands' crude discounted because of the added refining costs compared to 'sweeter' crude? It also doesn't hurt that our next door neighbour is multiples larger than us on every measure and, in terms of sheer numbers, a good market I dearly wish that we never exported any resource in its raw form, be it logs, ore or oil, but we do, and that is our economic loss. Our economic numbers are near the top of the world pile largely because of the value of these resources (none of which are extracted or produced in large urban areas BTW). If it were not for them, where would we be? We certainly couldn't maintain our society based on the value of our manufactured exports. Our GDP is roughly the same as South Korea; why are we in the G7 and they aren't?

I get that we are a middle power in so many ways, but we have this habit of expecting to sit at the adults table and have our voice heard far beyond our actual engagement in the world. It is said by many that we 'punch above our weight'. That was certainly the case, eventually, for both world wars - given the size of our nation and economy at the time - but it was because of the people on the line and in the factories, not the national institutions, many of which wanted us to have little part of them. Like it or not, a country's impact and reputation on the world stage is often measured in the number of dogs it has in the hunt. We like to position ourselves as a champion of peace and stability in the world. To that end, we currently have a grand total of 59 police and military personnel on sanctioned UN peace missions. Many Canadians, when polled, think we should do more 'peacekeeping'. Where, exactly? I'm no sure of our collective fond memory of Peasonian peacekeepers is an indictment of our educational system or the politicians and bureaucrats who keep flogging it. I know why they do -it is immensely cheaper. According to one minister of the Crown, our strength and contribution is now as 'convenors', so others can do and decide stuff. Yay us.

Even in continental defence, during the heady days of the Cold War, many Canadian would probably be surprised to know that the many radar sites strung across sovereign Canadian soil were, for many years, staffed totally by US military personnel. Kid yourselves not. If we walked away from NORAD, the US would still have to be satisfied that their northern flank is not exposed. A solo commitment to that level would far exceed whatever entry fee we pay to the alliance. Otherwise, the US military will operate in our sovereign space and there will be nothing we can do about it.

 

[Northern Light]

This could fit here or in the Ukraine thread given the obvious linkage............but lobbying has begun in earnest for rearmament, at-scale.

Analysis: Military's push for Canada to go on 'wartime footing' to boost weapons production will cost taxpayers

The push is on both in the U.S. and Canada to gear up industry to go to a “wartime footing” and significantly boost production of weapons.

nationalpost.com

To be clear, I completely support replacing essential equipment and ammunition, but as the piece indicates, there is a suggesting of taking arms production to a war-time footing.

That would be profoundly expensive; and I would argue pre-mature. As @kEiThZ has noted there is a need for a proper defense white paper outlining what we our forces to be capable of; and surely we ought to decide that before replacing old weapons, radar and ammo.

To the extent we truly lack industrial capacity to build what we need, I'm all in favour of remedying that. But aside from making sure we know what we need first; I'd keep a wary eye on the bottom line of the government and the margins of the defense supply industry.

 

[Northern Light]

We don't sell anything to the US on preferential terms or at a better price as a matter of policy, we do so simply because it cheaper to ship or pump something to a nation that we are physically connected to as opposed to everyplace else which is, quite literally, overseas.

Under the proportionality clause of NAFTA Canada was obliged to sell a certain amount of energy to the U.S.; this clause has had a great deal of effect on what we export, to whom, and at what price. Of note, it was removed in the new USMCA agreement.

In reality, we can choose to take our energy (all of it) off the market and manipulate world price just like the U.S. and OPEC. We could choose to have strategic reserves and make a variety of other decisions, but we don't. That's a conscious choice, and one almost certainly affected by U.S. lobbying as it would not serve their best interests if we did so.

Besides, isn't our 'oil sands' crude discounted because of the added refining costs compared to 'sweeter' crude?

Yes, Oil Sands Crude does trade at a discount as a heavier oil product. All the more reason to ensure we get the value-added side of that business.

Our economic numbers are near the top of the world pile largely because of the value of these resources (none of which are extracted or produced in large urban areas BTW).

Yes, that is a material part of our economy. Though perhaps you would be surprised to know that manufacturing still represents a larger portion of Canadian GDP that Forestry, Mining, Oil/Gas extraction and Agriculture put together, at just over 10%.

Economy of Canada - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That said, as the world's largest suppliers of Canola, Mustard Seed, and Lentils and the second largest suppliers of Wheat and Oats, we feed the world

If it were not for them, where would we be? We certainly couldn't maintain our society based on the value of our manufactured exports.

As noted, we in fact do have a significant manufacturing economy. That said, it is not as robust as it once was, and that largely owes to the U.S-Canada Free Trade Agreement when we agreed to provide unfettered access to our market to our detriment.

That agreement along with a low-tariff policy towards China, decimated our manufacturing of appliances and electronics; it also diminished our auto industry.

Our GDP is roughly the same as South Korea; why are we in the G7 and they aren't?

I could point out we are 2 spots above them on the world list of nations by GDP...........but there's a bigger truth and we all know it; we're a reliable vote for the U.S. in such forums. We speak softly, they carry the big stick.

I get that we are a middle power in so many ways, but we have this habit of expecting to sit at the adults table and have our voice heard far beyond our actual engagement in the world.

I accept many of the specific arguments you make, but find this statement a bit much. There are really two obvious measures of power, for simplicity's sake, money and guns.

In that context:

Canada's GDP is the 10th largest in the world. That's out of 190 ranked countries here:

GDP by Country - Worldometer

Countries in the world ranked by Gross Domestic Product (GDP). List and ranking of GDP growth, GDP per capita and couuntry share of World's GDP

www.worldometers.info

Canada's Military rank will vary slightly by the organization doing the ranking, but is generally in the low to mid 20s, its #23 here, out of 142 ranked countries.

2024 Military Strength Ranking

Ranking the nations of the world based on current available firepower.

www.globalfirepower.com

That's more than enough to be capability on both fronts to be at any table discussing anything.

On top of that we have the 6th largest energy reserves on the planet:

The 17 Countries Sitting On The Most Valuable Energy Reserves

Fossil fuels are key to the future.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[kEiThZ]

If we walked away from NORAD, the US would still have to be satisfied that their northern flank is not exposed.

And the Americans wouldn't tolerate it. I've sat in discussions where Americans have talked about deploying amphibs or carriers to the Arctic. And while we're always careful in any discussion with the US, to point out Canada's specific Arctic claims, we all know what counts is what is brought to the table.

There's an old phrase that applies, " There will always be a navy in your waters. Yours or somebody else's.". And since Canadians have largely decided that amphibious ships or small carriers or nuclear powered submarines, are tools of warmongers, that means the US Navy will eventually patrol some of our Arctic. Because they sure as hell aren't going to let the Chinese and Russians park themselves up there.

The thing that absolutely blows my mind is the smugness while sitting in Toronto. We don't have any fighters near Southern Ontario. It's quite likely that it's American Air National Guard fighters from neighbouring states responding to any incidents.

But hey, suggesting that Canada retain the ability to defend its sovereignty is apparently uncanadian and we should all quit and go serve with the Americans.

 

[kEiThZ]

Something for everybody here to think about is that a lot of military theorists now think that China might move up its invasion of Taiwan. Previously it was thought this might be attempted by the end of the decade. I was listening to a Twitter Spaces with Australian Major General Mick Ryan (an excellent author and follow), and he thinks they've moved up their timeline to 3-5 years.

Few reasons:

1) The Chinese, like the Russians have invested massively in their armed forces over the last two decades. Don't buy all that stuff how they spend a fraction of the US. Authoritarian countries lie about their military spending.

2) The US and most NATO countries are substantially weakened after two decades in Iraq and Afghanistan. For example, we're facing massive rust out and obsolescence across the board in Canada. Big as the Americans are, they are also facing huge issues and are only just beginning to think about how to fight in the Pacific.

3) The hesitancy of allies to arm Ukraine in the first week, shows that any operation that is successful in a week will forestall intervention.

4) Advanced democracies have a very low threshold for economic pain. $2/L gas might be enough to flip a government here. Just imagine the public pressure from economic disruption in a Taiwan Straits conflict would bring.

The conventional wisdom was that China would back off after seeing Russia's failures in Ukraine. But General Ryan pointed out that the Chinese are likely to draw very different conclusions:

1) America and its allies are at a nadir in military power, while China is at a relative zenith coming out of its long modernization cycle, which massively focuses on amphibious operations and anti-access area denial weapons that would prevent allies from saving Taiwan.

2) They should use overwhelming force. They will have to attempt to cut off Taiwan from the outside world and kill their government. Don't allow an underdog hero narrative like Zelenskyy and Ukraine to form.

3) Tight authoritarian control in China let's them maintain a focus on the war, while democratic countries get substantially distracted by the economic disruption at home.

The only thing that might give the Chinese pause would be how quickly Western sanctions came together. But even there, these sanctions weren't supported by the Global South and China is far more influential in the global economy than Russia.

I really wonder what Canada's response would be in such a conflict. We can't contribute much militarily. The real question is how willing we would be to decouple from China economically. We aren't even willing to stop money laundering from there now.

 

[afransen]

I was pretty astonished that the last budget didn't have much more significant plans to increase military spending. I would be strongly supportive if we showed commitment to value-for-money procurement and not silly customization and pork barreling for local billionaires.

 

[kEiThZ]

I was pretty astonished that the last budget didn't have much more significant plans to increase military spending.

Not a big deal actually. Other than a bit more funding for minor capital projects, I would just rather that spending commitments follow a proper review.

We need to make some really tough decisions. We have been terrible in Canada with designing our forces. We regularly attempt to build a mini version of the US or UK, instead of fitting our force design to our resource constraints.

A good example of the above is the tanks our army fields. We have 82 tanks. Only 40 of those are actually combat coded. That's not even enough to fill out a full US or UK sized armoured battalions. They are also incredibly difficult to mobilize. A C17 flight can only move one at a time. So it would take forty flights to move a whole battalion. Since we only have 5 C17s, this means that in the best case scenario with the air force going all out to move them, it would take a week to move all our combat ready tanks to Europe. More typically, they would be shipped by sea, and would take a month to get there.

Moreover, these tanks take up a massive part of our army's budget. And because they can only really exercise on large bases, we only base them in Gagetown and Wainwright. So our techs keep flying back and forth across the country to maintain them. And every time the rest of the army has to train with tanks, we'll move a whole battle group of 3000 to 5000 personnel from Edmonton or Petawawa to Gagetown or Wainwright to train.

So what's the point of having a capability that may not be able to get there until after the war is over? And it takes up a massive chunk of resources. And we've all seen how armour has taken a beating in Ukraine.

So before spending say more money. We need a rethink. How useful are tanks? Could we achieve similar or greater capabilities with other technology like drones and missiles? If we do keep tanks, should we even base them in Canada? Or should we simply forward base them in Europe? Decisions like that.

I would be strongly supportive if we showed commitment to value-for-money procurement and not silly customization and pork barreling for local billionaires.

Personally, I think we should think more like a Baltic country. That size is closer to how we actually resource our military. We need to move past vanity capabilities like tanks. Smaller countries make do with a lot more truck mounted kit. An example of an Estonian truck mounted missile system that can hit armour or ships 30km away:

This is, to be clear, very difficult for a good chunk of our political class and even some senior leadership in our military to swallow. It's admitting that Canada, a G7 country, is going to field forces that look like some small European country. But we need to accept the reality of the league we're in. The dreams that we'll even be at the level of Australia, Germany, Italy or Spain are over. So I'd rather we drop the aspirations and pretensions and tailor the force design to our realities.

A much smaller and lighter army that we can move quickly. And perhaps a larger navy and air force. That is more suited to our domestic security. It will necessarily mean less contributions to anything like Iraq or Afghanistan. But it will give us substantial capabilities to contribute to something like Libya or Taiwan. Having our own amphibious capabilities (if one must dream) would also mean that we could protect and rescue our own citizens in a lot of the world (Lebanon scenario).

 

[DirectionNorth]

This could fit here or in the Ukraine thread given the obvious linkage............but lobbying has begun in earnest for rearmament, at-scale.

Analysis: Military's push for Canada to go on 'wartime footing' to boost weapons production will cost taxpayers

The push is on both in the U.S. and Canada to gear up industry to go to a “wartime footing” and significantly boost production of weapons.

nationalpost.com

To be clear, I completely support replacing essential equipment and ammunition, but as the piece indicates, there is a suggesting of taking arms production to a war-time footing.

That would be profoundly expensive; and I would argue pre-mature. As @kEiThZ has noted there is a need for a proper defense white paper outlining what we our forces to be capable of; and surely we ought to decide that before replacing old weapons, radar and ammo.

To the extent we truly lack industrial capacity to build what we need, I'm all in favour of remedying that. But aside from making sure we know what we need first; I'd keep a wary eye on the bottom line of the government and the margins of the defense supply industry.

Is there a new report coming? I found this (Report) but there may be something I'm not aware of.

Under the proportionality clause of NAFTA Canada was obliged to sell a certain amount of energy to the U.S.; this clause has had a great deal of effect on what we export, to whom, and at what price. Of note, it was removed in the new USMCA agreement.

In reality, we can choose to take our energy (all of it) off the market and manipulate world price just like the U.S. and OPEC. We could choose to have strategic reserves and make a variety of other decisions, but we don't. That's a conscious choice, and one almost certainly affected by U.S. lobbying as it would not serve their best interests if we did so.

/sigh

Yes, that is a material part of our economy. Though perhaps you would be surprised to know that manufacturing still represents a larger portion of Canadian GDP that Forestry, Mining, Oil/Gas extraction and Agriculture put together, at just over 10%.

Economy of Canada - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That said, as the world's largest suppliers of Canola, Mustard Seed, and Lentils and the second largest suppliers of Wheat and Oats, we feed the world

As noted, we in fact do have a significant manufacturing economy. That said, it is not as robust as it once was, and that largely owes to the U.S-Canada Free Trade Agreement when we agreed to provide unfettered access to our market to our detriment.

That agreement along with a low-tariff policy towards China, decimated our manufacturing of appliances and electronics; it also diminished our auto industry.

I could point out we are 2 spots above them on the world list of nations by GDP...........but there's a bigger truth and we all know it; we're a reliable vote for the U.S. in such forums. We speak softly, they carry the big stick.

I accept many of the specific arguments you make, but find this statement a bit much. There are really two obvious measures of power, for simplicity's sake, money and guns.

In that context:

Canada's GDP is the 10th largest in the world. That's out of 190 ranked countries here:

GDP by Country - Worldometer

Countries in the world ranked by Gross Domestic Product (GDP). List and ranking of GDP growth, GDP per capita and couuntry share of World's GDP

www.worldometers.info

That's the point, we have potential influence and military power, but we don't even try to create or use it.

Canada's Military rank will vary slightly by the organization doing the ranking, but is generally in the low to mid 20s, its #23 here, out of 142 ranked countries.

2024 Military Strength Ranking

Ranking the nations of the world based on current available firepower.

www.globalfirepower.com

That's more than enough to be capability on both fronts to be at any table discussing anything.

On top of that we have the 6th largest energy reserves on the planet:

The 17 Countries Sitting On The Most Valuable Energy Reserves

Fossil fuels are key to the future.

www.businessinsider.com

I've heard lots of compliments about the ability of our troops. My gut instinct is that we were once larger on those charts, but our inability to fund replacements in a timely manner or to splurge (ie. not be cheap) with our defense really hurts our potential. The Rangers use 70-year-old guns, for example - not necessarily a problem, but is there really no way to make a reliable cold-weather gun? Or our navy - we have the longest coastline in the world, and 4 submarines, 12 frigates, and 12 coastal defense ships.

Diplomacy is as important as the military, especially in the era of soft-power, and while it's not really rank-able, I've heard fairly unflattering things about that side of foreign policy.

We also don't have any commitment, and everything seems to be about politics (see: 2011 election).

@kEiThZ's analysis of our priorities is much better than my own.

Something for everybody here to think about is that a lot of military theorists now think that China might move up its invasion of Taiwan. Previously it was thought this might be attempted by the end of the decade. I was listening to a Twitter Spaces with Australian Major General Mick Ryan (an excellent author and follow), and he thinks they've moved up their timeline to 3-5 years.

Few reasons:

1) The Chinese, like the Russians have invested massively in their armed forces over the last two decades. Don't buy all that stuff how they spend a fraction of the US. Authoritarian countries lie about their military spending.

2) The US and most NATO countries are substantially weakened after two decades in Iraq and Afghanistan. For example, we're facing massive rust out and obsolescence across the board in Canada. Big as the Americans are, they are also facing huge issues and are only just beginning to think about how to fight in the Pacific.

3) The hesitancy of allies to arm Ukraine in the first week, shows that any operation that is successful in a week will forestall intervention.

4) Advanced democracies have a very low threshold for economic pain. $2/L gas might be enough to flip a government here. Just imagine the public pressure from economic disruption in a Taiwan Straits conflict would bring.

The conventional wisdom was that China would back off after seeing Russia's failures in Ukraine. But General Ryan pointed out that the Chinese are likely to draw very different conclusions:

1) America and its allies are at a nadir in military power, while China is at a relative zenith coming out of its long modernization cycle, which massively focuses on amphibious operations and anti-access area denial weapons that would prevent allies from saving Taiwan.

2) They should use overwhelming force. They will have to attempt to cut off Taiwan from the outside world and kill their government. Don't allow an underdog hero narrative like Zelenskyy and Ukraine to form.

3) Tight authoritarian control in China let's them maintain a focus on the war, while democratic countries get substantially distracted by the economic disruption at home.

The only thing that might give the Chinese pause would be how quickly Western sanctions came together. But even there, these sanctions weren't supported by the Global South and China is far more influential in the global economy than Russia.

I really wonder what Canada's response would be in such a conflict. We can't contribute much militarily. The real question is how willing we would be to decouple from China economically. We aren't even willing to stop money laundering from there now.

Russia's invasion should be/have been much easier than an invasion of Taiwan. The recent lockdowns have put the country into destabilization, especially places like Shanghai, etc. that have been affected. I can see Taiwan being used as a tool to get the population distracted, but I see some issues that aren't at play in Ukraine.

First, The island-role of the country makes it hard for us to land supplies, but it also makes it hard to invade the island. If they can't succeed at the first try, they can't win the war. A first strike would have to be carefully prepared and would need lots of force, and a mass of military barges off Fujian is likely to be noticed from the Kinmen, Matsu, and Penghu islands. Any missile strikes would mean that Taiwan could retaliate, and missiles don't eliminate the need to actually invade the island. The only way this works is if there is a surprise attack (or gross incompetence on Taiwan's part) and I don't see a possibility for that.

Also, Taiwan's exports are arguably more important, and less replaceable, than Ukraine's - at least in the Western world - and even if our-happy-go-lucky "leaders" don't realize this, the Americans surely do. The gamble on low Western support backfired in Ukraine, and Taiwan is a major supplier of items which we seem to be unable to do without these days.

As for Canada, we won't do anything other than lecture China, our specialty. Our economy is too dependent on their black money, after all.

 

[kEiThZ]

I've heard lots of compliments about the ability of our troops. My gut instinct is that we were once larger on those charts, but our inability to fund replacements in a timely manner or to splurge (ie. not be cheap) with our defense really hurts our potential.

Those rankings are based on superficial nonsense. Nobody but randos on the internet take them seriously. Looking at budgets (without considering purchase power parity that too) and looking at available military manpower is all but pointless in the 21st century where technology, economic and industrial capabilities form the basis of military capacity, not raw manpower. If you go by those rankings, Russia should be absolutely crushing Ukraine right now. And yet...

Also, those rankings don't account for geography. It's easier to project force regionally. Especially, into a neighbouring country. It's much harder for those who live on an island to project further away. And this is what Canada essentially is. So whatever our theoretical power, in reality our military contribution becomes rather small, because we are substantially limited by the ability to project force. This is why I have long argued that we need a fundamental rethink towards a more mobile and expeditionary military. But this means admitting that we are not going to field military capabilities of our peer nations in Europe and Asia. And that seems hard to swallow for politicians, regardless of political persuasion. Though I'd argue that the world knows we're all talk, so we won't lose nearly as much face as our elites think.

The Rangers use 70-year-old guns, for example - not necessarily a problem, but is there really no way to make a reliable cold-weather gun?

This is actually a problem that was solved a few years ago. And it is a top notch solution. Was developed and tested substantially at DRDC Toronto too.

Colt Canada C19 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Or our navy - we have the longest coastline in the world, and 4 submarines, 12 frigates, and 12 coastal defense ships.

Not only do we not have enough ships to really monitor and secure our own coastline. But we don't have Sealift to project forces in our own continent sized country. If we ever have "the big one" in Vancouver, it will be the Americans (who @Northern Light loves to portray as warmongers) running the rescue because we really don't have sufficient projection abilities. The real question is whether they'd give us the same priority if some of their own West Coast cities were hit at the same time.

Aside from that, even discounting the incompetence of the Russians, the Ukraine war is a live public demonstration on the vulnerabilities of surface vessels. Going forward, it becomes a lot more vital to have carriers with aircraft and submarines accompany these ships. It's why, for example, Australia (in a similar remote and sparse geographic context as us) bought two amphibs and is investing so heavily in nuclear submarines with AUKUS.

 

[Northern Light]

Not only do we not have enough ships to really monitor and secure our own coastline. But we don't have Sealift to project forces in our own continent sized country. If we ever have "the big one" in Vancouver, it will be the Americans (who @Northern Light loves to portray as warmongers) running the rescue because we really don't have sufficient projection abilities. The real question is whether they'd give us the same priority if some of their own West Coast cities were hit at the same time.

Kindly stop putting words in my mouth; and misrepresenting my sentiments. If you want to quote me, quote me.

I can and do speak for myself.

Thanks.

****

We won't do a back/forth thing here, not helpful. Suffice to say I see the world in far more shades of grey and nuance in all things.

 

[kEiThZ]

Russia's invasion should be/have been much easier than an invasion of Taiwan. The recent lockdowns have put the country into destabilization, especially places like Shanghai, etc. that have been affected. I can see Taiwan being used as a tool to get the population distracted, but I see some issues that aren't at play in Ukraine.

To be honest, I was quite shocked to hear General Ryan's assessment. But he has also been so right on various other conflicts, that I get a little worried about this assessment.

Certainly, we will hope there is no invasion. But as we see with Russia in Ukraine, hope is not an effective deterrent strategy when dealing with authoritarian regimes.

 

[kEiThZ]

Kindly stop putting words in my mouth; and misrepresenting my sentiments. If you want to quote me, quote me.

I can and do speak for myself.

Thanks.

****

We won't do a back/forth thing here, not helpful. Suffice to say I see the world in far more shades of grey and nuance in all things.

Certainly. Would you like me to quote your words where you tell a visible minority member of the CAF with two decades of service that they are not suited to live in Canada and should go join the American military instead?

It's quite telling that you have neither the shame nor remorse to delete your post or apologize. Added bonus: Commenting as a contemptuous know-it-all with literally zero experience in military service, foreign affairs, intelligence or foreign aid. So you should expect the contempt you've well earned.

 

[kEiThZ]

Also, Taiwan's exports are arguably more important, and less replaceable, than Ukraine's - at least in the Western world - and even if our-happy-go-lucky "leaders" don't realize this, the Americans surely do. The gamble on low Western support backfired in Ukraine, and Taiwan is a major supplier of items which we seem to be unable to do without these days.

Have you seen what is going on with wheat and global food prices? Turns out Ukraine is not nearly as economically unimportant as we thought.

Worse yet, Putin is weaponizing food. The Russians are stealing Ukrainian wheat and trying to peddle it around the Mediterranean at higher prices. And there's even rumours they are bribing or threatening various poor countries with grain. Previously, USAID bought Ukrainian wheat and shipped it to Africa as food aid.

The G7 is now meeting to consider naval protection of ships in the Black Sea to ensure that grain gets out and we don't get famine in Africa.

Now look at chips from Taiwan. That's not nearly as critical to anybody's survival as food. So if causing global famine wasn't enough to stop Putin, what are the chances that recession and supply chain disruption would deter the Chinese?

Even worse for Taiwan is that Covid and Ukraine have shown that companies are vulnerable if they concentrate production in one place, especially if that country is geopoltically vulnerable. So as chipmakers set up new production lines elsewhere, this makes an invasion of Taiwan even less disruptive to the global economy. And that only makes it more tempting for the Chinese.

I certainly hope these assessments are wrong. But I'm starting to see a lot of usually calm foreign and security policy professionals and commentators sounding more alarmed. And that does make me worried.