Amazing analysis Shankar! It’s fantastic you’re a new transplant to Canada and I’ve just found out more about what’s going on in this govt than anywhere else. Not that I look anywhere else but why should I? 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Sometime in the nineteen-eighties, Jean-Jacques Blais was both our MP and the Minister of Defence. My spouse and I were alarmed about American machinations in Central America; we wanted Canada to be alarmed as well. We met with him on that and other issues. He was gracious. Who knows what these fleeting contacts do? Perhaps nothing at all. But I like to imagine Mr. Blais sometimes had an image of two alarmed constituents, sitting in his office, when he was trying to make a decision about —say— Central America. I like to imagine he noticed other constituents rallying outside his office. It’s a democracy, and this is what we do. Thanks Stephen.
"Better yet, Canada should not limit itself to buying drones off the shelf. It should move into joint research and development with Ukraine." This would be a win-win situation; as part of SAFE, I'd like to see us pivot to development and manufacturing of drone technology. We have Canadians who are capable in developing the technology and the skilled auto sector workers.
As far as Saab goes, I would be highly surprised if there were not closed-door discussions by staff and ministers keeping Saab entirely in the loop on thoughts and leanings. The offers have gone on too long at too high a level for it to be pure whimsy and concepts.
Everything Carney’s has said and done on the defence & sovereignty front has been smoothing out the groundwork to support a pro-Saab decision, just cautious about timing (pre- or post-US midterms) knowing that once the decision becomes public the Trump tantrum could be historic. But no reason not to move immediately on Shankar’s suggestion about Saab’s GlobalEye offer.
Norad has become irrelevant at this point. That excuse is seemingly based on blind adherance to the way things were and the foolish hope that the relationship with the US will get better soon.
Even if NORAD returns to"Normal" what does that actually mean? Canada has to give up a part of it's autonomy (think "KILL SWITCH") That is not National Sovereignty-it's a Vassalage. No thank you... let's go Otowa! Venga va! As we say in Barcelona 😎🤘
Originally, NORAD was about protecting US mainland against airborne attack from USSR. Canada was just the landmass buffer to the north.
USSR dissolved in 1991.
Knee-jerk responses will cite Russia and China as the threats that NORAD should watch today.
Putin's Russia can't even handle Ukraine's ragtag defense. Thank Ukraine for revealing Putin to be a paper tiger ... with nukes he dares not use. After 4 yrs of grinding battle, where are the vaunted jets and hardware that the F-35 was designed to counter? Putin had to scrounge drones from _Iran.
Weapons industry now has to replace Russia with a new boogeyman for its scaremongering to market overly complex, expensive hardware.
China?
China already has the economic levers needed to manipulate events in its favour.
China knows better than to threaten its global commercial interests.
If NORAD is concerned about China, then NORAD should also worry about India since China and India both pose the same amount of airborne risk to the US mainland.
Finally, where was NORAD when a dozen drones swarmed a US airforce base in Louisiana earlier in March 2026? Yes, this is not really being fair to NORAD but it does show where the US should be looking to find _real_ airborne risks to its mainland.
Yes, Saab GripenE for Canada -- instead of "leasing" any more F-35s.
- Saab wants to expand GripenE production.
Sweden is a small country (10 million), SaabAB has a small workforce (27,000). SaabAB needs to add capacity and Canada can provide that. Saab wants to _build GripenE under license in Canada, which would keep defence spending in Canada, flowing to Canadian workers, companies and suppliers.
"Under license" means manufacturing is done at home and Saab gets a license fee for its blueprints, etc.
- Building jets under license was a multiplier for Canada in the past.
Canadair used to build Canada's fighter jets (CT-133, CF-86, CF-104, CF-5) under license in Canada. Canadair had even improved upon the F-86 by replacing its US-built GE engine with the better-performing Canadian-built Avro Orenda engine.
And Canadair also built those jets for others besides the RCAF, for countries that did not have the capacities at the time: Belgium, WestGermany, Netherlands,Turkey, etc.
The multiplier: Canadair then also _created the Tutor (Snowbirds), the Challenger, the CRJ, the CL-415 "super scooper" water bomber.
The multiplier keeps working: Saab GlobalEye AWACS, just bought by France, uses Bombardier Global 6500 airframes -- airframes evolved directly from the CRJ ( Canadair Regional Jet ); the CL-415 "super scooper" is now in much demand for fighting wild fires and it's being updated as the DHC-515.
- Throughout the cold war Sweden was steadfast in making its own jets. Partnering now with Saab on GripenE puts Canada in position to help develop the next generation of jets for both Sweden and Canada, jets which can then be built once the final GripenE rolls off the line.
Canada needs to re-evaluate any new military or major infrastructure projects which require large inputs of fossil fuels and their byproducts (e.g. diesel, helium, kerosene) both during construction and afterwards. Even if the Middle East War ends tomorrow and there is complete peace in the region, it will take a minimum of two years before the damage to the oil facilities can be repaired and maybe longer for the the LNG and refining facilities to be repaired and all of those fossil fuels and their byproducts will be too expensive to squander on blowing things up or moving one person around in a car.
The 2-year period needed for repair gives countries with limited resources an excuse to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels and their byproducts for some things and to focus their use of fossil fuels on things like health care, cooling or heating, building electrical infrastructure which requires minimal operational inputs for fossil fuels, or other aspects of building resilience.
Humm... I believe you're raising this issue because you do want to preserve the environment and quality of life in your neighborhood...
But for all projects marketed by the govt (whether in Churchill (upper Manitoba) new port facility, new oil infrastructures in the West,...), there will be impacts on the environment... In such considerations should we dismiss all these projects on environment or other societal considerations?
Sorry I believe your concerns might be legitimate but not appropriate when we are dealing about Canada's sovereignty and a major realignment away from the US; otherwise if we account for all "external considerations" (e.g. native land rights, environment,...) none of these projects will emerge in the coming years...
On the contrary, I am deeply concerned about Canadian sovereignty because I grew up in the US and understand Trump's multiple bases of support.I am concerned that Canada is relying on economic and strategic assumptions that need re-examination in light of the realities of expensive fossil fuels going forward. The International Monetary Fund and the International Energy Association are already sounding the alarm that we are never going back to pre US-Iran fossil fuel prices and the 2 year repair period after peace comes from these organizations.
I believe the estimates. Before I retired, I spent my legal career working on and closing deals and financings with respect to large global infrastructure and transportation projects. The Qatar Gas projects in the early 1990s needed billions of US dollars to complete and years before operation...and that was not in a war ravaged country.
I don't think Canada has years to spend building traditional military infrastructure in a warming Arctic when Iran and the Ukraine have established that asymmetric warfare where drones are built in homes or garages work. The world has changed since I was involved in infrastructure projects. But construction equipment still runs on diesel and it can take years and millions before these projects are operational and they may never pay back.
So my advice is to plan, plan again after checking one's assumptions. Sometimes other alternatives may emerge after the second round of planning.
Are you saying that the cost of fuel isn’t being or may not be realistically estimated when considering new military purchases and/or infrastructure projects?
Yes. I think there is a tendency to assume or hope that once the war ends the world will go back to "normal". But the International Energy Agency and The analysts at JPMorgan have a far more dismal analysis. The stupid war has removed more than 20% of the world's oil and it's by-products for the foreseeable future. It is hard for anyone to contemplate planning for the military or infrastructure when all our underlying economic assumptions about energy and growth no longer apply. The question is complicated by the fact that our health, food and electrical systems will also need expensive oil and by-products to operate.
Amazing analysis Shankar! It’s fantastic you’re a new transplant to Canada and I’ve just found out more about what’s going on in this govt than anywhere else. Not that I look anywhere else but why should I? 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Keep Calm and Carney On! Go Gripen Go!
Glad. Thx 😊
Ok good, sending to my MP. She’s Liberal and responsive. I’ll respond to her response. This is good.
Just did same.
Sometime in the nineteen-eighties, Jean-Jacques Blais was both our MP and the Minister of Defence. My spouse and I were alarmed about American machinations in Central America; we wanted Canada to be alarmed as well. We met with him on that and other issues. He was gracious. Who knows what these fleeting contacts do? Perhaps nothing at all. But I like to imagine Mr. Blais sometimes had an image of two alarmed constituents, sitting in his office, when he was trying to make a decision about —say— Central America. I like to imagine he noticed other constituents rallying outside his office. It’s a democracy, and this is what we do. Thanks Stephen.
"Better yet, Canada should not limit itself to buying drones off the shelf. It should move into joint research and development with Ukraine." This would be a win-win situation; as part of SAFE, I'd like to see us pivot to development and manufacturing of drone technology. We have Canadians who are capable in developing the technology and the skilled auto sector workers.
Completely agree. It’s time to move on the Gripen. Way past time. Let’s get moving. Canadians, like myself are waiting to invest.
As far as Saab goes, I would be highly surprised if there were not closed-door discussions by staff and ministers keeping Saab entirely in the loop on thoughts and leanings. The offers have gone on too long at too high a level for it to be pure whimsy and concepts.
Everything Carney’s has said and done on the defence & sovereignty front has been smoothing out the groundwork to support a pro-Saab decision, just cautious about timing (pre- or post-US midterms) knowing that once the decision becomes public the Trump tantrum could be historic. But no reason not to move immediately on Shankar’s suggestion about Saab’s GlobalEye offer.
Norad has become irrelevant at this point. That excuse is seemingly based on blind adherance to the way things were and the foolish hope that the relationship with the US will get better soon.
Ain't nobody got time for dat!
Even if NORAD returns to"Normal" what does that actually mean? Canada has to give up a part of it's autonomy (think "KILL SWITCH") That is not National Sovereignty-it's a Vassalage. No thank you... let's go Otowa! Venga va! As we say in Barcelona 😎🤘
And what is NORAD's purpose, these days?
Originally, NORAD was about protecting US mainland against airborne attack from USSR. Canada was just the landmass buffer to the north.
USSR dissolved in 1991.
Knee-jerk responses will cite Russia and China as the threats that NORAD should watch today.
Putin's Russia can't even handle Ukraine's ragtag defense. Thank Ukraine for revealing Putin to be a paper tiger ... with nukes he dares not use. After 4 yrs of grinding battle, where are the vaunted jets and hardware that the F-35 was designed to counter? Putin had to scrounge drones from _Iran.
Weapons industry now has to replace Russia with a new boogeyman for its scaremongering to market overly complex, expensive hardware.
China?
China already has the economic levers needed to manipulate events in its favour.
China knows better than to threaten its global commercial interests.
If NORAD is concerned about China, then NORAD should also worry about India since China and India both pose the same amount of airborne risk to the US mainland.
Finally, where was NORAD when a dozen drones swarmed a US airforce base in Louisiana earlier in March 2026? Yes, this is not really being fair to NORAD but it does show where the US should be looking to find _real_ airborne risks to its mainland.
Yes, Saab GripenE for Canada -- instead of "leasing" any more F-35s.
- Saab wants to expand GripenE production.
Sweden is a small country (10 million), SaabAB has a small workforce (27,000). SaabAB needs to add capacity and Canada can provide that. Saab wants to _build GripenE under license in Canada, which would keep defence spending in Canada, flowing to Canadian workers, companies and suppliers.
"Under license" means manufacturing is done at home and Saab gets a license fee for its blueprints, etc.
- Building jets under license was a multiplier for Canada in the past.
Canadair used to build Canada's fighter jets (CT-133, CF-86, CF-104, CF-5) under license in Canada. Canadair had even improved upon the F-86 by replacing its US-built GE engine with the better-performing Canadian-built Avro Orenda engine.
And Canadair also built those jets for others besides the RCAF, for countries that did not have the capacities at the time: Belgium, WestGermany, Netherlands,Turkey, etc.
The multiplier: Canadair then also _created the Tutor (Snowbirds), the Challenger, the CRJ, the CL-415 "super scooper" water bomber.
The multiplier keeps working: Saab GlobalEye AWACS, just bought by France, uses Bombardier Global 6500 airframes -- airframes evolved directly from the CRJ ( Canadair Regional Jet ); the CL-415 "super scooper" is now in much demand for fighting wild fires and it's being updated as the DHC-515.
- Throughout the cold war Sweden was steadfast in making its own jets. Partnering now with Saab on GripenE puts Canada in position to help develop the next generation of jets for both Sweden and Canada, jets which can then be built once the final GripenE rolls off the line.
Wonderful observations.
Canada needs to re-evaluate any new military or major infrastructure projects which require large inputs of fossil fuels and their byproducts (e.g. diesel, helium, kerosene) both during construction and afterwards. Even if the Middle East War ends tomorrow and there is complete peace in the region, it will take a minimum of two years before the damage to the oil facilities can be repaired and maybe longer for the the LNG and refining facilities to be repaired and all of those fossil fuels and their byproducts will be too expensive to squander on blowing things up or moving one person around in a car.
The 2-year period needed for repair gives countries with limited resources an excuse to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels and their byproducts for some things and to focus their use of fossil fuels on things like health care, cooling or heating, building electrical infrastructure which requires minimal operational inputs for fossil fuels, or other aspects of building resilience.
One of the projects that Canada should possibly consider abandoning is the spaceport at Canso, NS. I posted a story from the Halifax Examiner on this boondoggle. https://substack.com/profile/105900260-ella/note/c-246884175
Humm... I believe you're raising this issue because you do want to preserve the environment and quality of life in your neighborhood...
But for all projects marketed by the govt (whether in Churchill (upper Manitoba) new port facility, new oil infrastructures in the West,...), there will be impacts on the environment... In such considerations should we dismiss all these projects on environment or other societal considerations?
Sorry I believe your concerns might be legitimate but not appropriate when we are dealing about Canada's sovereignty and a major realignment away from the US; otherwise if we account for all "external considerations" (e.g. native land rights, environment,...) none of these projects will emerge in the coming years...
On the contrary, I am deeply concerned about Canadian sovereignty because I grew up in the US and understand Trump's multiple bases of support.I am concerned that Canada is relying on economic and strategic assumptions that need re-examination in light of the realities of expensive fossil fuels going forward. The International Monetary Fund and the International Energy Association are already sounding the alarm that we are never going back to pre US-Iran fossil fuel prices and the 2 year repair period after peace comes from these organizations.
I believe the estimates. Before I retired, I spent my legal career working on and closing deals and financings with respect to large global infrastructure and transportation projects. The Qatar Gas projects in the early 1990s needed billions of US dollars to complete and years before operation...and that was not in a war ravaged country.
I don't think Canada has years to spend building traditional military infrastructure in a warming Arctic when Iran and the Ukraine have established that asymmetric warfare where drones are built in homes or garages work. The world has changed since I was involved in infrastructure projects. But construction equipment still runs on diesel and it can take years and millions before these projects are operational and they may never pay back.
So my advice is to plan, plan again after checking one's assumptions. Sometimes other alternatives may emerge after the second round of planning.
Are you saying that the cost of fuel isn’t being or may not be realistically estimated when considering new military purchases and/or infrastructure projects?
Due to the situation in the Middle East?
Yes. I think there is a tendency to assume or hope that once the war ends the world will go back to "normal". But the International Energy Agency and The analysts at JPMorgan have a far more dismal analysis. The stupid war has removed more than 20% of the world's oil and it's by-products for the foreseeable future. It is hard for anyone to contemplate planning for the military or infrastructure when all our underlying economic assumptions about energy and growth no longer apply. The question is complicated by the fact that our health, food and electrical systems will also need expensive oil and by-products to operate.
I agree. The one positive is that we are less dependent on oil than we used to be and alternatives exist for some things.
It’s a double edged sword, in that less availability means more conflicts. More conflicts generally means we need more defence/ deterrence.
Risk management is something that needs to happen here to avoid the worst case. Hopefully we are doing that in the defence department.
Do you have receipts concerning the fossil fuel vulnerability discussions?