If only.  Still one cannot imagine a leading Canadian federal politician in such a picture:

Natalia Kolesnikova/AFP/Getty Images
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, his wife Svetlana Medvedeva, 
and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin at an Orthodox Easter celebration 
at Christ the Savior Cathedral, Moscow, April 4, 2010

Much earlier and all too, er, Soviet:

Mark
Ottawa

…from the French:

[more here on the Mistral class]…

Since 2006 our government has delivered squat in terms of new Navy ships (see here for the sorry story of the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship, and here for the now-abandoned fairly honking Joint Support Ship).  Mainly because it, like all Canadian governments, insists our Navy’s vessels be built in Canada.  Fie!

Update remark: Politics, politics, all is politics.

Upperdate: A version of this post is at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute’s 3Ds Blog.

Mark
Ottawa

Two interesting stories:

Copenhagen Climate Cables
The US and China Joined Forces Against Europe [once again the world did not need more Canada]

Canada accuses China of intransigence on climate change

See also the end of this post:

I’m dreaming of a white…

And last year from Adrian:

I’m Sure Murray Dobbin Can Find A Way To Blame Stephen Harper

Strangely, a few recent articles in international news makes no mention of how a failure to come to a global agreement in Copenhagen is all Canada and Stephen Harper’s fault.

…

Mark
Ottawa

A lot of smoke, very little fire.  This is what Spiegel Online (Der Spiegel is one of the major media recipients of material from Assiduous Asshole Assange) manages to highlight today, focused on Russia:

Washington Concerned about Berlusconi-Putin Axis

Russian Mafia an International Concern for US Diplomats

The US Is Betting on Putin

Cables Track US Diplomatic Efforts to Avert Russian-Georgian Conflict

US Forced to Change Course in Relations with Ukraine

The US Ambassador Learns that Cognac Is Like Wine [already mentioned at this post]

I am shocked, shocked to find…what? In a quarter of a million documents:

INTERACTIVE ATLAS

A time lapse of 251,287 documents: The world map shows where the majority of the cables originated from, and where they had the highest level of classification. View the atlas …

But there are perhaps shocking downsides–from a leader in The Economist:

…any gains will come at a high cost. In a world of WikiLeaks, diplomacy would no longer be possible. The secrecy that WikiLeaks despises is vital to all organisations, including government—and especially in the realm of international relations. Those who pass information to American diplomats, out of self-interest, conviction or goodwill, will be less open now. Some of them, like the Iranian businessman fingered as a friend of America, could face reprisals…

On reading diplomats’ dissembling, people may be tempted to sneer. In fact diplomacy’s never-ending private conversation ultimately helps see off war and strife. That conversation will continue. Too many people have too much to gain for it to stop. But it will be less rich, less clear and therefore probably less useful. WikiLeaks claims to want to make the world a better place. It will probably do the reverse.

More from a story in the paper:

…
For the most part, the leaks’ content is less important than their source, and the manner of the betrayal. Individually, the disclosures are trivial: some would be barely newsworthy if published legally. But collectively, they are corrosive. America appears humiliatingly unable to keep its own or other people’s secrets [i.e., it's not the nature of the "secrets" that matters, see start of post, but rather the fact and manner of their revelation]…

…casual damage to bystanders sits oddly with the founding mission of WikiLeaks, as outlined in 2007: “Our primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behaviour in their governments and corporations.” Early targets included high-level corruption in Kenya; alleged illegal activities in an offshore operation of the Swiss-based bank Julius Baer; the American prison camp at Guantánamo Bay; Scientology’s beliefs and practices; Sarah Palin’s personal e-mail account; the membership list of the far-right British National Party; and a toxic-waste scandal in Africa. Cheekily, WikiLeaks also published classified Pentagon and British military documents about the damage leaks can do to national security…

Oddly, that material has now disappeared from its website. But the worries were prescient. This year WikiLeaks has focused almost exclusively on American government secrets, using material apparently leaked by Mr Manning…

So now a hatred-driven, mainly single target site, rather than a principled one aimed at tous azimuts. Thanks to that AAA fellow.

Update: The Guardian also has an interactive map.  And the NY Times lists cables on Canada here.

Mark
Ottawa

Further to this post,

“Bloodlands”: Where WW II in Europe was really fought…

good on the Russian Parliament:

…Stalin ordered Katyn massacre

Via Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs. As for the Germans:

Expense claim: “liquidation of Jews in Belgrade”

Mark
Ottawa

The good professor (amongst other things, see below) is now knotting his knickers over the possibility that Canada might start an arms race in the Arctic if we buy F-35s:

A government purchase of F-35 fighter jets could cause “angst in Russia” and trigger an Arctic arms race, Arctic sovereignty expert Michael Byers said Thursday.

“I don’t want my country to be the country that starts an Arctic arms race,” Byers said as debate over the government’s plan to spend $16 billion on 65 of the F-35s raged on several fronts on Parliament Hill.

Byers is chair in global politics and international law at the University of British Columbia…

Perish the thought of causing Bad Vlad Putin any Angst (though the fellow certainly can surprise one, as with endorsing The Gulag Archipelago).

What a load of hooey. The F-35–or any other new Canadian fighter–can hardly start any Arctic arms race. The roles of Canadian fighters up there, and off our other coasts, are airspace surveillance, defence and interception. That’s what our current CF-18s do and what their replacements will do. No offensive role whatsoever so nothing for the Russians to race to defend against.

Moreover, the F-35′s radar-evading stealth is no advantage in those missions; there’s nothing for the Russians to counter since, as I wrote earlier:

…Russian Bear bombers themselves do not have a radar system to search for approaching fighters. Its emissions would be simply suicidal, drawing fighters right to their target…

Stealth fighters do not up the ante in terms of air defence against Russian bombers.  But I think Mischievous Michael knows that and is just trying to stir things up anyway. Not exactly intellectually honest, I’d say. But not unexpected.

The Postmedia News story identifies him as “chair in global politics and international law at the University of British Columbia.” That’s hardly a really informative identification.  It is indeed effectively misleading by making him seem the disinterested “expert” he is described as.  Take a look at this post to see where he (a defeated federal NDP candidate) and some of his buddies really are, as they say, coming from:

The major media, the Rideau Institute and, e.g., Steve Staples, Michael Wallace and Michael Byers…

A very committed crew of Rideau Institute advocates trying to push the view that the CF should essentially become a non-combat constabulary and peacekeeping organization. But, contrary to what Senator Pamela Wallin writes in her letter quoted in the post, Mischievous Michael unfortunately does not appear to be retired from active professing at the university.

By the way, as readers of this blog well know, I’m no fan of the way this government has committed to, and justified, acquiring the F-35.

Update: In reality:

Breaking:  CF-18 on the job

Mark
Ottawa

Recently:

…The Netherlands’ new coalition government is expected to maintain the nation’s commitment to the test phase of Lockheed Martin‘s F-35 programme, although a decision on whether the type will replace its Lockheed F-16s will not be made for several more years…

Story today:

Two Russian Tupolev Tu-95 Bears were intercepted by NATO aircraft yesterday. The Dutch Ministry of Defense said two Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF) F-16s from Leeuwarden air base intercepted the Bears, which did not identify themselves.

Air controllers at the Air Operations Control Station in Nieuw Milligen (AOCS NM) ordered the F-16s to fly towards the Bears at supersonic speed. The RNLAF F-16s intercepted the Bears on the edge of the airspace under Dutch responsibility and followed them until they headed towards British airspace northwest of Leeuwarden.

British Royal Air Force Eurofighters then took over. Before the RNLAF scramble, Danish F-16s followed the Bears.

The last time Dutch, British, Danish (and German) aircraft were scrambled to follow two Bears was on the night of 15-16 September.

Better get some scary Conservative talking points into the hands of the Dutch government to justify a quicker (if ever) F-35 contract, eh? More scary Bear stuff here and here.

Mark
Ottawa

The following shows the economic, if not practical, lunacy of our governments’ (note the plural) insisting that our Navy’s ships be built in Canada:

Shipping industry gets tariff break

Imported cargo ships, tankers and large ferries will no longer be subject to a 25 per cent tariff, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced Friday.

The measure is aimed at making it cheaper for Canadian shipowners to replace aging fleets with more modern and more efficient vessels.

Waiving the tariff will save the industry $25 million a year for the next 10 years, the government estimates.

“These were tariffs that don’t serve any purpose because … the ships to which they apply are not capable of being made competitively in Canada [emphasis added],” Flaherty told reporters in St. Catharines, Ont…

The tariff removal will be retroactive to the start of the year. The measure applies to all general cargo vessels, tankers, and ferries longer than 129 metres…

Surely our Navy could use a break to stretch its shipbuilding dollars further. If Canadian industry can’t competitively build civilian vessels, how can it do so at any reasonable cost for more complex naval ones? Instead this government has announced a “National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy” under which, for vessels over 1,000 tonnes, one Canadian shipyard will be selected to build combat ships for the Navy (Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship), and one non-combat ships for the Navy (Joint Support Ship) and Coast Guard.

Monopoly builders will sure help efficiency and bringing down costs. Pork, pork, pork; jobs, jobs jobs; votes, votes, flipping votes. Hurl.

But at least the government is now finally open–at least in theory–to selecting proven foreign designs. See:

Joint Sometime Ship (JSS): At least five years late

Also take a look at the “Arctic” ships section of this post:

New fighters, Joint Support Ships, and Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships: What’s good enough?..

This government is either logically shameless or challenged, eh?  Heck, even the Russkies (so dreaded by the Conservatives) are buying naval ships abroad.

Update: A comment at Milnet.ca:

This is very simple, very, very old fashioned pork barrelling and vote buying. They used to set up beer stalls by the voting booths, now they are a wee tiny bit more subtle, albeit a lot more expensive.

Canadians yards can build first rate, modern, sophisticated ships, including warships – they just cannot do it without buying a whole boat load of technology and expertise, at enormous cost. But, hey, a job’s a job, right? Gotta keep those Canadian workers on the job and shopping at WalMart. Wouldn’t do to let the market decide; this is Canada!

Well, except now for civilian ships.

Mark
Ottawa

Or Bagotville?  That seems to be what the Chief of the Air Staff is suggesting:

Canada needs stealth fighter jets so its military can sneak up on an adversary at the edges of domestic airspace and use that potential for surprise as a deterrent, the head of the air force says.

Lieutenant-General André Deschamps, the chief of the air staff, responded to critics of the government’s planned purchase of high-tech F-35 stealth fighters by asserting that the aircraft will provide a needed capability for defence at home, and not just for fighting air battles abroad.

“If they can’t detect us and don’t know where we are, it dramatically changes their potential tactics. So it is a deterrent,” Gen. Deschamps said in an interview with The Globe and Mail…

The Harper government has pointed to recent flights of Russian long-range bombers near Canadian airspace in the Arctic and off the east coast – intercepted by CF-18s [more here, here, and here]– to assert the need for top-notch fighters.

Gen. Deschamps said he’s not seeking to amplify “the noise around the Russians,” but pointed to the interceptions to argue that the F-35s will let the Canadian Forces observe foreign planes unseen, and the potential surprise will deter interlopers.

“Nobody expects somebody to come in and roll ashore here in the next little while,” he said. “But it’s a question of being able to exercise your sovereignty. And you can’t do that sitting on the runway saying, ‘I wish I could go out there without these guys knowing I’m going to be there two hours before the intercept point [emphasis added].’”..

Now our fighters are based at Cold Lake, Alberta, and Bagotville, Quebec–and will continue to be stationed there when we get new ones. I do not think the Russians have any radars capable of detecting aircraft on the those runways–nor even at, say Yellowknife, N.W.T, if temporarily stationed there. Nor do I think any Russian radars are likely to detect Canadian fighters en route to an interception near our nothern, and particularly, our eastern, or western airspace approaches (see this superb site).

Russian Bear bombers themselves do not have a radar system to search for approaching fighters. Its emissions would be simply suicidal, drawing fighters right to their target.

So why the need for stealth in the air defence/sovereignty protection role? I don’t see it.  Neither does the RAF, which will be using its Eurofighter Typhoons for air defence, not F-35s (whenever it gets them).  In any event our fighters’ radar that tracks the bomber will likely alert the bomber, so stealth is simply irrelevant.

More from the CAS:

…
Deschamps said Canada is expected to pay between $70 million and $75 million per aircraft and the price will be locked in once Ottawa signs a final agreement, likely in 2014.

The air force examined other choices, including an improved version of the CF-18 and the Eurofighter [more on those planes, and some F-35 info here], but the Lightning II proved to be the best all-round aircraft, he said.

However, the chief of air staff would not say what the price difference between the various aircraft might be, citing the confidentiality of the competing aircraft makers…

There’s also been concern that the Lightning II is not suitable for close air support bombing [those are stupid critics, after all it's the Joint Strike Fighter and attacking ground targets is its primary mission], a critical role given the country’s recent experience in Afghanistan ["critical" for our Air Force?-- the government has not even been willing to deploy CF-18s to Afstan to support the CF and allied forces there].

The F-35 can bomb and strafe targets on the ground, but Deschamps said unmanned combat aerial vehicles are increasingly taking on that function.

He said the primary role of the new jet will be to control the country’s airspace.

For which I just do not see the requirement for stealth.  Meanwhile some sense from Jack Granatstein:

In a slow summer for serious political matters, the announcement that Canada will buy 65 F-35 fighter jets at a cost (including maintenance) of $16-billion has upset the opposition parties and critics of the government’s defence policy. For its part, the Harper government did little to help itself by having the Defence Minister talk about how pilots like fast aircraft and that acquiring them would help recruiting [more here]. The Prime Minister’s press secretary also didn’t help much when he announced that, if it hadn’t been for Canada’s CF-18s, two Russian bombers would have invaded across the Pole. It really is the summer silly season.

…if we don’t mount sovereignty patrols in our airspace, who will? The answer is all too clear: the U.S. Air Force. Does anyone want to have American pilots flying over Canada to check out Russian bombers? Can Canada be a sovereign state if the defence of its most basic national interest is provided by another country? We will surely require some aircraft to do such patrols for the foreseeable future…

I don’t know whether the F-35 is the best fighter for our needs. But I do know that Canada has national interests and that these will always need to be defended and advanced. I do know that Canada must always be able to undertake surveillance over its own territory and to be prepared to turn away Russian bombers on training missions today or some other nation’s aircraft on more mischievous operations tomorrow. And I accept that, at some point, Canada may again decide to send its military abroad to work with our allies…

J.L. Granatstein is a historian and a senior research fellow at the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.

Earlier, with great detail:

Canada’s new fighter, the F-35: What the government is and isn’t saying

Update thought: If the government were really concerned about effective air defence–as opposed to scarifying ursine PR ops–they might remember (hah!), from a time when air defence was taken seriously: the CF-101B, non-stealthy, Voodoo with nuclear-armed Genie missiles. From a previous post:

…
We don’t in fact need the capabilities of the F-35 to intercept subsonic Bears. Our current Hornets–which will need replacing, lot’s more here–seem to be doing just fine, do they not?  Then there was the CF-101 Voodoo which our Air Force flew for a quarter century:

…F-101B’s based in alert hangars were sent out on air defence missions. These were usually in reply to unknown intrusions into the air defence identification zone by wayward airliners or Soviet reconnaissance aircraft such as the Tu-95 Bear. Aircraft were usually sent out in pairs. One aircraft would do an identification pass on the unknown while the second one stayed behind, ready to employ the AIM-4 if required. With respect to Soviet reconnaissance flights, one Bear would encounter several different pairs of NATO and NORAD interceptors during it’s flight from the western USSR to Cuba…

E.g:

Not that one is suggesting we should have kept the Voodoo (more photos here) in service.

Update: …

Plus some comment at Milnet.ca on the other, more modern, Russian strategic bomber (a few more may be produced) which the comparatively clueless Conservatives forgot (or did not know about) to mention as part of their threat hyping.

Upperdate: Meanwhile photo op and a whiff of political pork:

Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper sits in the cockpit of a CF-18 fighter jet with Major Daniel Dionne in Mirabel, Quebec, September 1, 2010.
SHAUN BEST/REUTERS

And some speculation on what will happen to the UK’s plans for the F-35. Not a subject the government appears to be interested in.

Mark
Ottawa

Actually “Akula!” in this case:

Russian subs stalk Trident in echo of Cold War
Russian submarines are hunting down British Vanguard boats in a return to Cold War tactics not seen for 25 years, Navy chiefs have warned.

A British Vanguard submarine Photo: GETTY…

Akula:

…

Russian Akula Class submarines are deployed in the Pacific…

Earlier:

Pentagon response to Bears over Calgary, Toronto, Montreal/F-35 fact check Update

Mark
Ottawa