Canada commits, wait for it, 4 tanks
Or, what is the definition of "risible"?
It was one of those pre-announcement leaks that you hoped had got the arithmetic wrong. Maybe the news that Canada would send 4 tanks was a mistake for 14 or 24 or…
Nope. The Defence Minister, Anita Anand, announced at a boisterous and noisy press conference on Parliament Hill on January 26 that Canada was indeed sending a grand total of 4 “combat ready” Leopard 2 (A4 variant) tanks to Ukraine in the coming weeks, along with necessary supplies of spare parts and ammunition. The Minister also announced the prospect that Canada would send trainers as well, but this is pending “coordination with our allies.”
For those wanting more on the Leopard 2 A4, the basic facts are that it is an upgraded version (of the original Leopard 1 main battle tank), produced by Germany between 1985 and 1992. It’s not the latest model on the lot. That is the Leopard 2, A7. Canada first acquired a contingent of 20 Leopard 2 tanks on loan from Germany for use in Afghanistan in 2007. Subsequently, in 2009 Canada purchased 80 Leopard 2 A4 and 20 of the Leopard 2 A6 models from the Netherlands. That’s the basis for our current fleet, pending whatever the Defence Review update (coming any time soooooon) might say.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/leopard_2.htm
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/leopard-2-tank
The Minister made a point of stressing that Canada’s contribution was part of a wider effort by a host of states who are now planning to send main battle tanks to support Ukraine, including Germany, Finland, Poland, Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands. (Curiously the US and UK were not mentioned) What she didn't say is that Canada’s contribution is likely to be at the very smallest end of the coalition scale.
If a total contribution of 4 Leopard 2s to Ukraine was the end of the story that would be a truly risible announcement. One journalist present asked whether this contribution was just symbolic, a form of tokenism. This was denied. The Minister of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff both indicated that the size of the Canadian contribution may grow in future. Whew.
But the Minister and the CDS were not quite singing from the same song book. The Minister said that any future additional contribution would depend on a number of factors—coordination with allies, the maintenance of Canada’s own military readiness (for what exactly, in Canada?); on-going training (fair enough, but a limited need at present given widespread deficiencies in force manning levels); and meeting NATO commitments under Operation Reassurance. On the last point, while Canada is making a substantial troop commitment to Operation Reassurance with some 700 soldiers currently deployed to a NATO forward-ready battle group in Latvia, there are no Canadian tanks with that contingent. The Canadian force works alongside Leopard 2 tanks supplied by Poland.
The Chief of the Defence Staff, General Eyre, made some different points in regard to the number of Canada tanks committed to Ukraine. First he noted that Canada had a relatively small fleet of Leopard 2s compared to some of our Western European partners. True enough, but not a compelling argument to defend sending only 4.
To put the number 4 in context, the Minister stated at the press conference that Canada currently has 82 Leopards (alongside additional tank recovery and specialized vehicles). So we are sending 4.5% of our Leopard fleet. Of course, no one is saying how many of the current contingent of Leopards are combat ready or could be made combat ready. Can it be only 4?
The CDS, for his part, noted the importance of serviceability issues—put bluntly, there is no point in sending tanks if they are not combat ready, or if there are no spare parts and ammunition for them. But again, does this mean 4 is the best we can do? Let’s hope not.
Finally, General Eyre talked about a sense of urgency in getting military equipment to Ukraine sooner rather than later. He suggested that the 4 Leopards would be flown over to Ukraine (or likely to a border staging point) expeditiously, using C-17 heavy-lift transport planes. But each C-17 can only carry one tank. The more efficient (but slightly slower way) would be to send them by ship. No mention of that. In any case urgency, while good, has to be tempered with a recognition that getting tanks into the theatre is not the same as getting them into the front lines. The Ukrainians will need to be trained on them, and the logistical “tail” established to support them.
The Defence Minister made a point of saying that the decision to send the Canadian Leopards to Ukraine was a very recent one, prompted by last week’s allied talks, including at the Defence Contact group on January 20, which Minister Anand proudly noted she had attended. But General Eyre undercut this by indicating that planning had been underway regarding the possible deployment of tanks to Ukraine “over a number of weeks.”
The upshot of a risible announcement to send 4 Leopard tanks is that Canada must send more in future. It would have been far better to say that Canada was preparing an initial and immediate deployment of 4 tanks to be followed as soon as possible by an additional unspecified number, as consultations with allies proceeded (blah, blah, blah). It might also have a been a thought to ensure the promise of trainers was really going to happen, before making it.
No doubt the Minister wanted to make some sort of quick political announcement on the immediate heels of the German decision to send some of their own Leopards 2s to Ukraine and allow their re-export by other allies, including Canada.
But the opportunity was botched.
Oh yes, I promised a definition of “risible.” Here is from my favourite OED (Oxford English Dictionary):
“capable of inciting laughter, laughable, ludicrous” (dating from usage origin in 1727)
Sigh.
Why do you find any of this surprising?
It is like the issue flagged in your newsletter the other day that announced a "review" which, in practical terms, will yield no operationally useful results for 20 years.
It is all hand waving and virtue signaling.
If the security infrastructure were not acceptably bilingual and staffed to reflect diversity quotas, there would be attention and perhaps action.
The fact that it is not fit for purpose is far down the list of priorities for THIS government -- as is equally evident from the treatment of the military. Indeed, to even suggest that its core responsibilities should include the projection of force, will produce a response about peace keeping and blue helmets.
Thus, the equally risible situation in which we buy, off the shelf, a piece of defensive kit that it has refused to provide for our own military.
In 2020, Britain projected ending its use of tanks, seeing them as obsolete. The small number of tanks Canada proposes to Ukraine might reflect a similar Canadian downgrading of that weapon. Many of the tanks that Canada has spent many millions to purchase and maintain are likely nearly or fully out of commission. Perhaps we should learn the lesson about military spending in general. It's wasteful, environmentally destructive (the U.S. military has a carbon footprint larger than most states in the world) and siphons public funds from critical social, education and environmental initiatives. Time for a negotiated settlement in Ukraine that reflects the security imperatives of all the peoples of the Eurasian area.