Dear Editor:
I was heartened by a recent letter from Jacques De Winter (‘Cancer to democracy,’ Oct. 31). It reminded us that we are in a poor state to defend our country against an aggressor, because we have allowed our military capability to decay.
I completely agree. Perhaps we have bred generations of people who believe any NATO country is protected through mainly U.S. military support. But does that still apply with Donald Trump at the helm and our world-renowned inadequate spending on our own defense? (1.3/2.0% GDP)
Concerning the above I would like to table portions of a letter on the subject that I sent to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Mr. Trudeau,
The UK Director of Government Communications for Ukraine, recently advised that NATO countries were under the threat of attack by the Russian Federation.
“The current expectation is that bullying of a smaller NATO country by the Russian Federation is the main threat. Perhaps Lithuania, in order to link with Kaliningrad? Surely not, NATO would respond! Would it, or would internal protests from special interest groups solicit a ‘peace in our time’ response?
So probably no response other than sanctions, demonstrations and bluster. Goodbye Lithuania.
Now supposing it wasn’t a little European country under attack. Supposing it was an incursion into the Canadian Arctic into our sovereign territory. Large land mass, few citizens, minimal infrastructure, natural resources, minimal military presence.
Would NATO step in to defend Canadian territory? Consider hypothetically that Russian and proxy North Korean troops land on Ellesmere Island. Canada objects but has limited military capability in the area and so cannot respond. The United Nations talks about it and thinks that the islands should be given back to Norway anyway.
Russia and China veto the inevitable UN Security Council resolution. So that kills a response from the UN. NATO countries might react as they probably would for Lithuania above, but surely the U.S. will respond?
Consider the last time a NATO country was attacked and the response from the U.S. – Falklands 1982. Argentina invades the Falklands. Fortunately, UK had a strong leader in Margaret Thatcher, as such a strong Naval Force was dispatched from Britain.
NATO did not respond, but the U.S. got involved as it had a cold war relationship with Argentina.
After much discussion between the U.S. and Argentina the UK was asked to relinquish the Falklands to Argentina. Mrs. Thatcher refused, of course, and eventually Britian prevailed.
Would we get the same response from the US for our postulated invasion of Canada? Let the Russians have Ellesmere Island?
I received no reply.
The above scenario is feasible, considering Ukraine. It seems to me that we should all be pushing/voting our elected leaders to meet their prime mandate: defence of the country. Alternately, we could just sit back and allow a militarily strong aggressor to take whatever they want: minerals, oil, land, slaves. Our choice.
Michael Lee,
Salem