AUKUS requires Canada have a navy large enough to do anything in the Pacific. Canada has 5 west coast ships, 1 - 3 of which are down for repairs at any given point in time. Nobody is coming to Canada for assistance with anything. Canada does not have enough ships to patrol it's own coastline. Canada has the longest coast in the world by far (243,000km), and one of the smallest navies of any developed nation. Canada cannot even patrol it's own arctic.
@@HenriHattarAustralia sits in a perfect location for the US also it isn't just about giving Australia submarines. But also giving the US another foothold and service options for their subs so they can deploy and be prepared for readiness anywhere in the indo pacific south China sea and in Oceania. AUKUS benefits both US and Australia national security
AUKUS at the moment comprises a small group of nations that have tangible assets, realistic budgets and a common view towards threats and use of force. Adding New Zealand and Canada as core members to this mix would unnecessarily complicate the decision making process. Maybe as "associate members" in the near future?
As an Australian I have to say I’m against Canada joining. Canada is a close ally and friend of Australia’s but they have a much bigger population and a smaller military than ours. If Canada were to join the focus would then be shifted from Australia. Canada wouldn’t bring any technology to the subs either as the already rely on uk and USA subs. I think let aukus build these things and if Canada needs them in the future they’re ready to go. But Canada in aukus would only slow things down.
Canada military is on par to Australia military size. They have 10 million more people than Australia 27 million people, as to what percentage is of that is higher age is ? As for being part of AUKUS I don't think it would slow it down. But may make things more complicated as for the US Congress may not want to transfer surtain technology approval to them due to diplomatic reasons between eachother. The Canadian government has voted against the US in the UN a number of times. Australia has shown to be more loyal ally in that area also, And has served alongside the US during Vietnam war when other allies wouldn't. I think that also made a big difference. Also the AUKUS benefits both Australia and US. It gives the US a stronger foothold in the indo pacific and in Oceania. As where US submarines can be serviced in Australia and rearm mutants weaponry. This give the US wider options of service to be prepared and readiness. Canada don't have much to offer the US in this term. Australia strategic position in Oceania is perfect spot for the US to maintain strength within indo pacific and Oceania. And be able to deploy more easily to the south China sea also. And contain China
@@Nathan-ry3yu yeah I agree with a lot of what you said but I disagree that the military is on par with Australia’s… according to business insider in the top 25 military’s Australia is number 16 and Canada didn’t even make it onto the list.
@@corey6722 I know Australia ordered a lot of gear. But lot of it hasn't been delivered yet either. New IFV and K9 huntsmen won't be built and delivered till 2027. HIMARS not till 2025. Apache attack helicopters not till 2025. Mq 28 ghost bat drones still in development and testing. Hunter class frigates the first ones to be put in service 2033. Nuclear powerd submarines 2 in 2033 3rd one 2034. 4th one 2036. 5th one 2039 2040. New SSNR submarines 2050s 2060s. If any new destroyer or corvettes if the government has agreed to when it gets its surface fleet review, if it was added as a requirement would be a ? As to when they be built. The strength based on Australia military power is based over a time scale of years. Not what they have now. That's the issue I look at. To me it looks great on paper. But look the timeline of the delivery of a lot of this stuff. And that's just an example for some the stuff been ordered. All the other stuff has similar time frame. I'm not sure what to make out of it. I know many people thinks it's great. But I believe it's a screw up. Too distant for my liking.
@@Dorian803 please stop being snobby and have better manners. Yes a Minister of National Defence needs to understand what it takes to protect Canadians. Common sense stuff
what does canada bring to the table? just compare us to australia. they have a larger military (light aircraft carriers, attack helicopters, future nuclear submarines) and a larger intelligence community (we have no foreign intelligence agency and no intelligence assessment agency). until we step up to the plate, why would they want us in AUKUS?
@@johnmcguire678 the US always looks out for its own interests first. if AUKUS and NATO didnt benefit it, they wouldve withdrawn from both organizations
@@justinleon3509no.. just no. I’m American, and I wish we did look out four our own interests. If we did, China wouldn’t be a huge problem right now. And North American manufacturing jobs wouldn’t of gone to Asia in the 70’s 80’s and 90’s. US politicians decide what’s best for their reelection. Not what’s best for the US.
@@arkad6329 well, you elected them into office, so what they say and do will be interpreted as the 'will of americans'. if that isnt the case, you can vote them out or overhaul your democratic system
@@arkad6329 nope, but he is elected official and prime minister of canada. his mandate will be tested at the next election. whether i like or dislike him is irrelevant. politics is about choosing who you believe best represents your interests. if other people want him to lead, then i have to accept that.
As an Australian.. Canada is like New Zealand. They know we would protect them so they don’t spend on defence. Canada and New Zealand can play in B grade. Canada and New Zealand are also too close to China and have weak governments.
Agreed. It's extremely naive and lazy to solely rely on another country to protect you. Trudeau's government are a bunch of clowns when it comes to military spending.
Maybe Canada would be invited if they met their military requirements per GDP. Same problem with NATO. Canada doesn't pull their own weight and doesn't meet international military requirements. 👍♥️🇨🇦
@@johnmcguire678 And what is wrong with you? And can you please tell me why you are rejecting Australia --- United Kingdom --- United States of America Alliance Armed Forces called A.U.K.U.S. including our North Atlantic Treaty Organization Alliance Armed Forces called N.A.T.O,john mcguire?Semper Fidelis
No one is bring war to Canada unless it is the end of the world. It would take a world war for Canada to be involved because of its location, the same thing for NZ for that matter. Australia, my country on the other hand relies on the Indian and Pacific ocean being. Our proximity to Asia and Australia's land mass size make it vital as a fall back nation if Japan, Singapore, Korea or other free nations are attacked. So it is in the world's interest that Australia has a strong Navy.
Why would they want us in the club, we'd just be the poor relation that needs watching - when all is said and done Canada is a minor player on the world stage with an underfunded military, a keystone cop attitude to security, and a prime minister who's family has a love in with the likes of Mao and Castro
That's the USA..... NOT canada. The americans have made it clear "canada" has no way to prevent them from doing resource exploration and "navigation exercises" in the arctic.
Yes, Canada should participation in AUKUS, but are lack of security and weak military and just being cheap with new equipment for the military has made us unreliable, Canada wants to be seen as a big player in the world, and talk tuff and hang with the big players in the world and be seen as a big player in the world, but we can't back up are talk because we are not trustworthy and have a very poor military, that's why we were never invited to join AUKUS, and I don't blame the USA Brition and Australia for not asking us.
I’m American, and if you wouldn’t mind; I want to indulge in y’all’s dilemma with us in the Arctic. Most Americans, don’t give a crap about our dispute with y’all in the Arctic. So our government has a lot of free rein, with not much in the way of scrutiny. Y’all got to do some 4D chess, and actually care about that water way. One thing the US does to say to the world that we don’t recognize X countries claims, is freedom of navigation missions. We sail a Destroyer trough the contested waters, and say “Nuh uh! This here, this is international waters! Yeehaw!” Now here is the 4D chess: If y’all had a good sized fleet of several Frigates. You could dispatch a few to shadow the Destroyer and basically say “uh, yeah! It is our waters. Could you please go home, there eh?” This will cause a international incident. And basically embarrass the American government. Now, everyday Americans will be like, “why are we picking fights with the Canadians? They’re our friends!” (Y’all do have a ton of soft power to influence that response) And internal pressure will force our governments to sort out the dispute. But to do that, y’all need a larger navy, with several Frigates and destroyers. Until then it far to easy for the US Government to just ignore your claims.
Canada simply wasn't part of the initial discussions. The then chief of the RAN (Royal Australian Navy) made an approach to his UK counterpart to help sound out the Americans regarding the possibility of acquiring this technology. The US itself being concerned about the rise of China in the region and globally was swayed. The US already has a small rotational US Marine force operating out of the Northern Territory, the chance to have access to a naval base in the region that was out of the range of China to hit with missiles appealed enough. As well the possibility of having an additional squadron of submarines to count on that they didn't have to spend the cash on added to the appeal. The additional sweetener was the money Australia would pump into the US shipyards to help with maintenance and additional production capacity was hard to resist.
@@Nathan-ry3yu The Queen did what exactly? What part of the political process in the UK let alone Australia do you think she was privy to? Canada was never privy to the discussions until basically the time of the 2021 announcement. They were not invited to take part nor involved in the discussions regarding Pillar 1 of the agreement, basically the development of a sovereign nuclear powered submarine capability for Australia. They might become involved in Pillar 2 with quantum technology, AI etc but not the former.
@@Nathan-ry3yu Thanks Nathan I needed a good laugh and you provided. I haven't played with a troll in ages. I can assure you Her Majesty was not a mediator of, not took part in the discussions. The first mention of this project were discussions between the heads of the Royal Navy and Royal Australian Navy where assistance was asked to facilitate development of a nuclear powered submarine capability in Australia. The respective department heads and political leaders were then brought on board to authorise or not the concept. The Queen was head of state not government, she certainly would not speak for Australia in such matters as Australia has like Canada and New Zealand severed political control with the UK a long time ago. The last vestiges of that were done away with in Canada in 1982 and 1986 in Australia.
You don't need to join a pact to work with allies. Australia is not a member of NATO but they would assist their allies in any military action and share technologies.
On the one hand Canada acknowledges global warming. But on the other hand it doesn’t act to mitigate the arctic defence implications of the arctic becoming navigatable to hostile vessels
AUKUS is focusing on the Indo-Pacific. Canada has responsibilities elsewhere eg. Working with NATO countries to counter another monster. Canada had been fighting in the European battlegrounds ever since WW2.
I think the concept of a united Anglosphere could be a long term win. The 5 of us could provide so many assets (Not just military) that any country opposing a peaceful world would have to think twice.
And in my own personal opinion,And it is indeed appalling,sad and concerning that our Canadian/Royal Canadian Armed Forces,country/royal country and nation/royal nation called Canada ( True North Strong and Free ) is currently not invited and missing a key --- naval and key --- military roles through Australia --- United Kingdom --- United States of America Organization Alliance Armed Forces called A.U.K.U.S. Organization Alliance Military Forces.And the Australia --- United Kingdom --- United States of America Organization Alliance Armed Forces is another military branch of the all --- appointed,the all --- chosen and the all --- called Supreme Allied Powers Hierarchy that can be found,that can be seen and that can be located in the Far East Asia or Southeast Asia or the Asia --- Pacific most likely based in the Armed Forces/Royal Armed Forces,country/royal country and state/royal state called Australia.Semper Fidelis
And I love your feed backs,insights and comments.And indeed,And our all --- powerful,our all --- fearless and our all --- courageous as well as our very good and very well --- trained Canadian/Royal Canadian Armed Forces ( True North Strong and Free ) should " step on the plate " and get involve,participate and join in the '"other looming,possible and next world's front line/front lines of war/wars " called the Taiwan Strait Pacific " theater of war, " Arabic Reja. Semper Fidelis
It's not that the US & UK don't trust Canada - Canada has always been a very reliable and close friend to both countries over a very long period of time. It's just that Canada has never shown any interest in operating nuclear subs whereas the US & UK have been building and operating them for decades. I'm sure if Canada did want to join AUKUS they would be warmly welcomed to join.
Canada gone against the US and UK within the UN. That has lead to diplomatic issues between them. Also Canada don't meet the security requirements needed for AUKUS they too relaxed making secured information to be leaked. They could also sell information to the France leading to a major security breach
How is this concerning. Everyone in Canada wishes we would stay out of all this bs. We don’t want to be involved. We want to live in peace and ignorance…. Really getting tired of Canada putting there nose where it’s doesn’t want to belong
@@johnmcguire678 Trump is a bigger threat, yes. But, that doesn't mean Russia won't invade our Northern border. We, Canadians, must protect our property. Russia doesn't acknowledge our country, up North. Their words!
Would be great to interview journalists from CGTN Einar Tangan, Lijinjing, Martin Jacques. Cyrus Janssen, Daniel Dumbrill, Brian Berletic. The Duran. To understand the real threat.
The AUKUS Submarine will be the best attack submarine in the world, the BAE designed AUKUS submarine manufactured in Britain and Australia, fitted out with American reactors and weapons systems will be the worlds most modern deadly submarine until the replacement for the Virginia class arrives.
@@alanbstard4 For Canada? Expensive but why buy a Korean sub that might not be able to trans under the north ice shelf , a major capability for the future Canadian sub is to transit from the Atlantic to the Pacific and visa versa. A conventional sub cannot sprint for a long distance and is restricted to basically a slow cruise or it will reduce range considerably. A nuclear sub is a far more capable way to transit under the ice and having nuclear submarines would give back the Canadian Navy a bit of sting, in the future the Canadian Navy could be up against very capable nuclear Chinese submarine fleet. If Australia can do it, Canada should be able to do it.
@@allannantes8583 So how many of our 2nd hand Australian Hornets Canada purchased? Yet Australia has now in flying service 71 F-35A, 24 F/A-18F block 2 to block 3 & 12 EA-18 Growlers against what Canada has 36 converted Canadian Classic F/A-18++ Hornets !.....that's NOT doing it far better! that slacking off relying on the USA to protect you and NATO
![Twenty One Pilots - The Line (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XCz7WUotXs8/mqdefault.jpg)
AUKUS requires Canada have a navy large enough to do anything in the Pacific. Canada has 5 west coast ships, 1 - 3 of which are down for repairs at any given point in time. Nobody is coming to Canada for assistance with anything. Canada does not have enough ships to patrol it's own coastline.
Canada has the longest coast in the world by far (243,000km), and one of the smallest navies of any developed nation. Canada cannot even patrol it's own arctic.
Canada also does not have a northern naval port. Millions of sq/km of northern territory, no ability to project power into it's own territories.
The coastline argument is redundant as most of it is ice and non accessable, in accessable coast Australia has far more.
@@HenriHattarAustralia sits in a perfect location for the US also it isn't just about giving Australia submarines. But also giving the US another foothold and service options for their subs so they can deploy and be prepared for readiness anywhere in the indo pacific south China sea and in Oceania. AUKUS benefits both US and Australia national security
@@Nathan-ry3yu Excellent response
I think Russia should invade Canada through North pole
AUKUS at the moment comprises a small group of nations that have tangible assets, realistic budgets and a common view towards threats and use of force. Adding New Zealand and Canada as core members to this mix would unnecessarily complicate the decision making process. Maybe as "associate members" in the near future?
Good response, Agreed.
NZ won't be interested until they lift the nuclear-free zone ban
Reality is why should Canada be involved, I have seen no indication Australia in the Arctic or anything to do with Russia.
As an Australian I have to say I’m against Canada joining. Canada is a close ally and friend of Australia’s but they have a much bigger population and a smaller military than ours. If Canada were to join the focus would then be shifted from Australia. Canada wouldn’t bring any technology to the subs either as the already rely on uk and USA subs. I think let aukus build these things and if Canada needs them in the future they’re ready to go. But Canada in aukus would only slow things down.
Canada military is on par to Australia military size. They have 10 million more people than Australia 27 million people, as to what percentage is of that is higher age is ? As for being part of AUKUS I don't think it would slow it down. But may make things more complicated as for the US Congress may not want to transfer surtain technology approval to them due to diplomatic reasons between eachother. The Canadian government has voted against the US in the UN a number of times. Australia has shown to be more loyal ally in that area also, And has served alongside the US during Vietnam war when other allies wouldn't. I think that also made a big difference. Also the AUKUS benefits both Australia and US. It gives the US a stronger foothold in the indo pacific and in Oceania. As where US submarines can be serviced in Australia and rearm mutants weaponry. This give the US wider options of service to be prepared and readiness. Canada don't have much to offer the US in this term. Australia strategic position in Oceania is perfect spot for the US to maintain strength within indo pacific and Oceania. And be able to deploy more easily to the south China sea also. And contain China
@@Nathan-ry3yu yeah I agree with a lot of what you said but I disagree that the military is on par with Australia’s… according to business insider in the top 25 military’s Australia is number 16 and Canada didn’t even make it onto the list.
@@corey6722 I know Australia ordered a lot of gear. But lot of it hasn't been delivered yet either. New IFV and K9 huntsmen won't be built and delivered till 2027. HIMARS not till 2025. Apache attack helicopters not till 2025. Mq 28 ghost bat drones still in development and testing. Hunter class frigates the first ones to be put in service 2033. Nuclear powerd submarines 2 in 2033 3rd one 2034. 4th one 2036. 5th one 2039 2040. New SSNR submarines 2050s 2060s. If any new destroyer or corvettes if the government has agreed to when it gets its surface fleet review, if it was added as a requirement would be a ? As to when they be built. The strength based on Australia military power is based over a time scale of years. Not what they have now. That's the issue I look at. To me it looks great on paper. But look the timeline of the delivery of a lot of this stuff. And that's just an example for some the stuff been ordered. All the other stuff has similar time frame. I'm not sure what to make out of it. I know many people thinks it's great. But I believe it's a screw up. Too distant for my liking.
@@corey6722 Got that right😁
exactly @@Nathan-ry3yu
We need minister of defence whom has a background in policing and military strategies
The Spider's Web: Britain's Second Empire | Documentary Film
If you're going to use "whom", learn when to use it. Being snobby is bad enough without also being wrong.
@@Dorian803 please stop being snobby and have better manners.
Yes a Minister of National Defence needs to understand what it takes to protect Canadians.
Common sense stuff
what does canada bring to the table? just compare us to australia. they have a larger military (light aircraft carriers, attack helicopters, future nuclear submarines) and a larger intelligence community (we have no foreign intelligence agency and no intelligence assessment agency). until we step up to the plate, why would they want us in AUKUS?
@@johnmcguire678 the US always looks out for its own interests first. if AUKUS and NATO didnt benefit it, they wouldve withdrawn from both organizations
@@justinleon3509no.. just no. I’m American, and I wish we did look out four our own interests. If we did, China wouldn’t be a huge problem right now. And North American manufacturing jobs wouldn’t of gone to Asia in the 70’s 80’s and 90’s.
US politicians decide what’s best for their reelection. Not what’s best for the US.
@@arkad6329 well, you elected them into office, so what they say and do will be interpreted as the 'will of americans'. if that isnt the case, you can vote them out or overhaul your democratic system
@@justinleon3509 do you like Justin Trudeau?
@@arkad6329 nope, but he is elected official and prime minister of canada. his mandate will be tested at the next election. whether i like or dislike him is irrelevant. politics is about choosing who you believe best represents your interests. if other people want him to lead, then i have to accept that.
As an Australian.. Canada is like New Zealand. They know we would protect them so they don’t spend on defence. Canada and New Zealand can play in B grade. Canada and New Zealand are also too close to China and have weak governments.
Man i love the pride and passion of Australian's. But new Zealand and Canada are bad boys in my eyes
Lol..other war round Nan.. Aukus is blatant warmongering against China.. us are the crazy bad threateners
Agreed. It's extremely naive and lazy to solely rely on another country to protect you. Trudeau's government are a bunch of clowns when it comes to military spending.
we Australians need to muscle up before we're in a position to protect anyone
Canada's defence budget is about the same as Australia's I have not see iany Australian's in the Arctic or facing Russia.
Maybe Canada would be invited if they met their military requirements per GDP. Same problem with NATO. Canada doesn't pull their own weight and doesn't meet international military requirements. 👍♥️🇨🇦
What happened to their brigade in Lithuania? It's been a year.
@@johnmcguire678 saying that Canada should withdraw from NATO is comical. That would be the biggest mistake Canada could make
Schools are better than fighter jets that can't fly and will be technologically irrelevant the second they get on a modern battlefield.
@@johnmcguire678 And what is wrong with you? And can you please tell me why you are rejecting Australia --- United Kingdom --- United States of America Alliance Armed Forces called A.U.K.U.S. including our North Atlantic Treaty Organization Alliance Armed Forces called N.A.T.O,john mcguire?Semper Fidelis
@@rmf9567 And you are totally right,precise and correct with your comments,IgnemFeram!!!
Well, if Trudeau is being honest about finding out about china pressure through the press than who the hell would invite us to anything
No one is bring war to Canada unless it is the end of the world. It would take a world war for Canada to be involved because of its location, the same thing for NZ for that matter. Australia, my country on the other hand relies on the Indian and Pacific ocean being. Our proximity to Asia and Australia's land mass size make it vital as a fall back nation if Japan, Singapore, Korea or other free nations are attacked. So it is in the world's interest that Australia has a strong Navy.
CAUKUS -- bring it on!
And I love your comment,bakuninRogers!!!
You dont invite a dead cat to a fish fry!
Add France instead so it be FAUKUS 😂
Or AUSFUK
The joke is old.
Why Canada is whining? Don’t they know they’re already unofficial 51st state of America? What the heck? Just saying…
As a Brit I'd welcome Canada joining AUKUS but not under the current PM. He seems a wokist clown.
Hope you didn't get arrested for this hate speech.
adding a “C” into AUKUS won’t be aesthetically pleasing
Easy place the C for Canada between the K and U.................AUKCUS
Canada not being in AUKUS is a good thing as it would ruin the acronym
Too many frenchies in Canada.
Why would they want us in the club, we'd just be the poor relation that needs watching - when all is said and done Canada is a minor player on the world stage with an underfunded military, a keystone cop attitude to security, and a prime minister who's family has a love in with the likes of Mao and Castro
Doesn't Canada's huge sea borders require participation in this? What about the Arctic in northern Canada???
That's the USA..... NOT canada. The americans have made it clear "canada" has no way to prevent them from doing resource exploration and "navigation exercises" in the arctic.
@@WinstonTheAmazingCanadian That's Bullsh!t.
@@diannawilson5743 Really? Try and stop them then...cuckanada
Yes, Canada should participation in AUKUS, but are lack of security and weak military and just being cheap with new equipment for the military has made us unreliable, Canada wants to be seen as a big player in the world, and talk tuff and hang with the big players in the world and be seen as a big player in the world, but we can't back up are talk because we are not trustworthy and have a very poor military, that's why we were never invited to join AUKUS, and I don't blame the USA Brition and Australia for not asking us.
I’m American, and if you wouldn’t mind; I want to indulge in y’all’s dilemma with us in the Arctic.
Most Americans, don’t give a crap about our dispute with y’all in the Arctic. So our government has a lot of free rein, with not much in the way of scrutiny. Y’all got to do some 4D chess, and actually care about that water way.
One thing the US does to say to the world that we don’t recognize X countries claims, is freedom of navigation missions. We sail a Destroyer trough the contested waters, and say “Nuh uh! This here, this is international waters! Yeehaw!”
Now here is the 4D chess: If y’all had a good sized fleet of several Frigates. You could dispatch a few to shadow the Destroyer and basically say “uh, yeah! It is our waters. Could you please go home, there eh?” This will cause a international incident. And basically embarrass the American government. Now, everyday Americans will be like, “why are we picking fights with the Canadians? They’re our friends!” (Y’all do have a ton of soft power to influence that response) And internal pressure will force our governments to sort out the dispute.
But to do that, y’all need a larger navy, with several Frigates and destroyers. Until then it far to easy for the US Government to just ignore your claims.
Canada simply wasn't part of the initial discussions. The then chief of the RAN (Royal Australian Navy) made an approach to his UK counterpart to help sound out the Americans regarding the possibility of acquiring this technology. The US itself being concerned about the rise of China in the region and globally was swayed. The US already has a small rotational US Marine force operating out of the Northern Territory, the chance to have access to a naval base in the region that was out of the range of China to hit with missiles appealed enough. As well the possibility of having an additional squadron of submarines to count on that they didn't have to spend the cash on added to the appeal. The additional sweetener was the money Australia would pump into the US shipyards to help with maintenance and additional production capacity was hard to resist.
@@Nathan-ry3yu The Queen did what exactly? What part of the political process in the UK let alone Australia do you think she was privy to? Canada was never privy to the discussions until basically the time of the 2021 announcement. They were not invited to take part nor involved in the discussions regarding Pillar 1 of the agreement, basically the development of a sovereign nuclear powered submarine capability for Australia. They might become involved in Pillar 2 with quantum technology, AI etc but not the former.
@@Nathan-ry3yu Thanks Nathan I needed a good laugh and you provided. I haven't played with a troll in ages. I can assure you Her Majesty was not a mediator of, not took part in the discussions. The first mention of this project were discussions between the heads of the Royal Navy and Royal Australian Navy where assistance was asked to facilitate development of a nuclear powered submarine capability in Australia. The respective department heads and political leaders were then brought on board to authorise or not the concept. The Queen was head of state not government, she certainly would not speak for Australia in such matters as Australia has like Canada and New Zealand severed political control with the UK a long time ago. The last vestiges of that were done away with in Canada in 1982 and 1986 in Australia.
You don't need to join a pact to work with allies. Australia is not a member of NATO but they would assist their allies in any military action and share technologies.
On the one hand Canada acknowledges global warming.
But on the other hand it doesn’t act to mitigate the arctic defence implications of the arctic becoming navigatable to hostile vessels
would you trust a chinese happy FROG ??
AUKUS is focusing on the Indo-Pacific. Canada has responsibilities elsewhere eg. Working with NATO countries to counter another monster. Canada had been fighting in the European battlegrounds ever since WW2.
I think the concept of a united Anglosphere could be a long term win. The 5 of us could provide so many assets (Not just military) that any country opposing a peaceful world would have to think twice.
The less alliances during the Anthropocene that a nation such as Canada is in at this time of the endgame, the better!
Professor-Marty.
And in my own personal opinion,And it is indeed appalling,sad and concerning that our Canadian/Royal Canadian Armed Forces,country/royal country and nation/royal nation called Canada ( True North Strong and Free ) is currently not invited and missing a key --- naval and key --- military roles through Australia --- United Kingdom --- United States of America Organization Alliance Armed Forces called A.U.K.U.S. Organization Alliance Military Forces.And the Australia --- United Kingdom --- United States of America Organization Alliance Armed Forces is another military branch of the all --- appointed,the all --- chosen and the all --- called Supreme Allied Powers Hierarchy that can be found,that can be seen and that can be located in the Far East Asia or Southeast Asia or the Asia --- Pacific most likely based in the Armed Forces/Royal Armed Forces,country/royal country and state/royal state called Australia.Semper Fidelis
I hope this poster is receiving help.
are you alright?
@@HenriHattar poor chap is nutty as a fruit cake
And yes,I am absolutely alright or Ok.And if you don't mind me asking,Why am I alright?,@@alanbstard4
Certainly could do with a session on a lounge!@@alanbstard4
Canada's begging
Canada 🇨🇦 should be in Aukus and patrolling Taiwan Strait by now.
And I love your feed backs,insights and comments.And indeed,And our all --- powerful,our all --- fearless and our all --- courageous as well as our very good and very well --- trained Canadian/Royal Canadian Armed Forces ( True North Strong and Free ) should " step on the plate " and get involve,participate and join in the '"other looming,possible and next world's front line/front lines of war/wars " called the Taiwan Strait Pacific " theater of war, " Arabic Reja. Semper Fidelis
So Tawain is a province of China, CGTN The Point-Hub-Heat. Cyrus Janssen, New Atlas, The Duran, RT International
What with? Canoes?
What with?
Canada is already in the bag so they don’t have to dangle any carrots anymore.
The Spider's Web: Britain's Second Empire | Documentary Film
more like americas, uk lost the worlds dominating position in 1800s when america took over
It baffles Australians that the UK and America don’t trust Canada with the AUKUS technology.
No it doesn't ! It is transparent that Canada would be a burden at this stage!
It's not that the US & UK don't trust Canada - Canada has always been a very reliable and close friend to both countries over a very long period of time. It's just that Canada has never shown any interest in operating nuclear subs whereas the US & UK have been building and operating them for decades. I'm sure if Canada did want to join AUKUS they would be warmly welcomed to join.
It's NOT that at all, Canada has NO credible defence force in either Navy, Air Force OR Army and it would not be welcome until it did.@@jonb77
Canada gone against the US and UK within the UN. That has lead to diplomatic issues between them. Also Canada don't meet the security requirements needed for AUKUS they too relaxed making secured information to be leaked. They could also sell information to the France leading to a major security breach
@@Nathan-ry3yu Yeah, also the Trump campaign to cut off jets to Canada.
Canada LOL!
Canada 🇨🇦 needs a scam, and it is about to get one..😂
I hate
How is this concerning. Everyone in Canada wishes we would stay out of all this bs. We don’t want to be involved. We want to live in peace and ignorance…. Really getting tired of Canada putting there nose where it’s doesn’t want to belong
Do we have nuclear subs? No!
We dont need them.
@@johnmcguire678 do we share the north with Russia? Yes!
Should we take war with Russia, to defend or border in the North seriously? Yes!
@@johnmcguire678 Trump is a bigger threat, yes. But, that doesn't mean Russia won't invade our Northern border. We, Canadians, must protect our property. Russia doesn't acknowledge our country, up North. Their words!
Would be great to interview journalists from CGTN Einar Tangan, Lijinjing, Martin Jacques. Cyrus Janssen, Daniel Dumbrill, Brian Berletic. The Duran. To understand the real threat.
Yes, the can interview Ribventroff and Goebbels as well, they're just as trustworthy
Say NO TO AUKUS
CANADA STAND FOR NEUTRAL
Is China NEUTRAL? Don't think so, but then again your name is prob Won Hyung Lo.
Neutrality is pro-fascist. Morality is anti-fascist.
Canada is definitely NOT neutral, they are a NATO country.
The only hostile state actors I see are AUKUS.
Bing bong
So CHina BUILDING more nuclear subs and ships and planes and missiles and claiming other coutnries territory is NOT hostile?
AUKUS is a ripoff. Be careful, Canada. It's all about buying kit from USA at inflated prices
The AUKUS Submarine will be the best attack submarine in the world, the BAE designed AUKUS submarine manufactured in Britain and Australia, fitted out with American reactors and weapons systems will be the worlds most modern deadly submarine until the replacement for the Virginia class arrives.
@@LeonAust at what price?
@@alanbstard4 For Canada? Expensive but why buy a Korean sub that might not be able to trans under the north ice shelf , a major capability for the future Canadian sub is to transit from the Atlantic to the Pacific and visa versa.
A conventional sub cannot sprint for a long distance and is restricted to basically a slow cruise or it will reduce range considerably.
A nuclear sub is a far more capable way to transit under the ice and having nuclear submarines would give back the Canadian Navy a bit of sting, in the future the Canadian Navy could be up against very capable nuclear Chinese submarine fleet.
If Australia can do it, Canada should be able to do it.
@@LeonAustCanada could do it far better.
@@allannantes8583 So how many of our 2nd hand Australian Hornets Canada purchased? Yet Australia has now in flying service 71 F-35A, 24 F/A-18F block 2 to block 3 & 12 EA-18 Growlers against what Canada has 36 converted Canadian Classic F/A-18++ Hornets !.....that's NOT doing it far better! that slacking off relying on the USA to protect you and NATO
C
Canada need neutrality
Good reporting. Go Democrats.
@🇨🇦
Loco Amerikkka hoy. No necesitas los Estados Unidos de corrupción.
What a joke AUKUS. Stay away