Canada’s renewed focus on Arctic security has led to lots of comparisons with Russia’s Arctic posture - usually to Canada’s disadvantage.

But these comparisons tend to ignore some key realities. I want to break some of that down. 🧵 Canada and Russia have fundamentally different relationships with the Arctic.

That’s because of three primary factors:
- Physical geography
- Proximity to economic centres
- Strategic alternatives

Canada’s 4 existing submarines are all over 30 years old and in need of replacement.

While some comments from the (former) PM implied nuclear powered (SSN) submarines were a replacement option, it’s been confirmed only non-nuclear (SSK) boats are being considered. Why is this?🧵 It is a fact that nuclear submarines have real advantages that matter to Canada. This includes the range & speed needed to reach the maritime chokepoints of potential adversaries and have a strategic impact, and the endurance to patrol at length under the ice of Canada’s Arctic.

The Royal Canadian Navy retired its last aircraft carrier, HMCS Bonaventure, over half a century ago.

Despite calls based on nostalgia and national pride to revive this capability, we've (rightly) never seriously considered reacquiring one.

I think that may need to change.🧵 To address the elephant in the room: Aircraft Carriers are badass.

It's easy to *want* the RCN to acquire them for no other reason than that. It's also easy to dismiss arguments for them on the assumption they're shallow.

To avoid that trap, let's start by going back to basics:

With the next deadline for US tariffs approaching, and Trump's rhetorical justification increasingly focused on annexation, I thought it might be interesting to explore why Canada is a really poor - almost uniquely poor - choice to try to economically blackmail.

Enjoy!

🧵 Before we get too far over our skis, I want to emphasize: America does have the power to harm Canada and Canadians economically.

The actions Trump's foreshadowed do have the power (within limits) to make Canadians poorer.

But they don't have the power to force annexation.

With the F-35 and the Gripen both, seemingly, back in consideration for the RCAF - I thought it might be interesting to talk through what the capability difference between the two aircraft might actually mean in practical terms to a country like Canada. 🧵
Right away, let's clarify so there's no doubt: The F-35 is a significantly more capable aircraft.

Once a fully functional aircraft with an appropriate ordnance load-out is off the ground, there are very few missions where the Gripen is more likely to achieve success than a F-35.

Canada spent the last decade disarming a demographic time bomb.

We had a gap in our demographic pyramid that would have been crippling in the decades to come.

We. Fixed. A. Huge. Fucking. Problem.

What's shown here is just a signal that what we needed to do happened.

https://twitter.com/trevortombe/status/1902484645096440256

A bunch of historical and contemporary factors combined to make Zoomers a really small generation in Canada.

But, they're the generation that was always going to enter the work force/consumer base as Boomers retired.

That's a huge issue.