And the problem that old, ossified, hidebound systems have is their inertia. They are obsessed with old and even obsolete metrics.

The Ukraine war has demonstrated overwhelmingly that classical militaries are wildly obsolete. That the future lies in drone warfare and well-equipped units that have the ability to operate with minimal to no direction and levels of support that make America’s military seem like a country club.

This is also where our current F-35/Gripen argument fails utterly for the F-35. Sure, it is technologically sophisticated. It has “stealth”. It can do a few things that the Gripen cannot.

But where it fails dramatically is the ability to field many units for minimal cost. To field said units with just a handful of ground crew and maintenance crew. To field units across all sorts of harsh environments, even down to short lengths of Arctic highways. And most importantly: to field units that cannot be remotely disabled by the aggressor.

By any metric that has cropped up in the Ukraine, the F-35 is a costly and counterproductive albatross around the neck of any military that doesn’t have America’s level of military spending. It is dead weight that can and will drag down any capabilities that the military wants to achieve.

Canada needs to ensure we have the most possible numbers for the fewest dollars. Every war in history has made this abundantly clear - volume trumps quality and tech sophistication each and every time. Even in WWII, where the Tiger tank was easily the match of a half-dozen Sherman tanks, that tech superiority ceased to matter when 10, 20, or even more Shermans came trundling over the hill for every Tiger tank that was fielded.

And when you can get over 420 Gripens for the same up-front cost as the original 88 F-35 contract (which has since ballooned dramatically), the choice is a no-brainer: Gripen all the way.

I’m sorry, this is focusing on one thing rather than the whole.

It’s not just about military spending, it’s the fact that the neoliberal policies are effecting everything from food, to housing, to social safety nets, to etc.

If taxes were raised on companies or high earners, or on unrealized capital gains, etc… then I’m sure there would be more money in government coffers.

Instead, we’re told that the average Canadian has to tighten their belts and pay taxes because of saber rattling while the rich continue unaffected at worst, and at best are raking in piles of money through the government contracts (Carney’s “sovereign wealth fund”).

Poland, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, etc… you’re assuming that the average citizen isn’t annoyed about the expenditure either, or that Germany and Sweden don’t rely on the MID for their economy, or also that their healthcare, housing, cost of living, etc. isn’t better than ours.

Meanwhile 1 in 4 Canadians are going hungry and are asked to foot the bill. Instead of food, we’re going to be handed an enlistment pamphlet.

Hmm.

Second article by this guy and I think it’s clear that his takes are fairly naive.