3 ms·
If Russia had the means to invade Canada and hold territory they might try it. They don't. It's not even within the realm of possibility. It's absurdist fantasy
by gpm 9mo ago
If Russia had the means to invade Canada and hold territory they might try it. They don't. It's not even within the realm of possibility. It's absurdist fantasy to imagine otherwise. Their military is simply far too weak and the geography too poor.
They could probably land some troops in the middle of nowhere by taking advantage of how slow politicians are to react to incursions. Only to have the troops die from bombs and accomplish nothing but scaring some polar bears.
A beachhead in the arctic is utterly worthless as a starting point for moving south - the logistics simply make it impossible (the north is really big and really empty and has lots of really shitty terrain to cross). Even if you suppose somehow Russia is in principle capable of the logistics, Canada isn't reachable from Russia by the arctic sea except through Denmark or the US - they'd need to be co-belligerents or conquered first (narrow exception of submarines and airplanes of course, but not in large enough quantity to matter). They have no means to "control all of Canada" even if the Canadian military, and the allied militaries with treaties guaranteeing mutual defence, somehow magically ceased to exist.
Meanwhile we've seen from Ukraine that they lack effective air defence against planes far more outdated than what Canada already has... and our military isn't going to magically cease existing. Whatever beachhead they could establish, it wouldn't last long.
All this to say that Russia simply isn't a threat to Canada. The only exception to this is that they have enough nuclear bombs to say "fuck the world" and cause nuclear winter or something similarly stupid - but there's nothing militarily we could ever do to prevent that.
I agree that the US is acting consistent with being a Russian puppet - but the conclusion from that is that the US might invade to the benefit of Russia - not that Russia itself is somehow going to magic up an army capable of an invasion directly across the centre of the arctic ocean.
- notepad0x90 9mo agoYou make good points, but my point wasn't that Russia would use a beachhead in the arctic, but that it can use flight paths through the arctic to project power in southern Canada. long-range missiles are one thing, but strategic long-range bombers with some in-flight refueling too. As far as an actual invading force, that I concede, they can't do that today, but who knows what they're planning, they have the manpower, the money and the lunacy to build up such a force. Their main advantage is the nuclear deterrent preventing others from invading them back. Canada has been left alone so far (by everyone hostile) because it has (had?) the US's protection, not because of it's fearsome military (although I know they're quite fierce on their own -- just not B52, nukes, ICBMs, aircraft carriers level fierce). If I had to speculate, they won't try to take populated centers of Canada, but they might make claims to arctic resources and land, and just take it. Start bombing Toronto and Montreal if Canada fights back. They might even do it in the next few years if the US starts enough chaos elsewhere as a distraction. Once they take land, you're not getting it back, why? Back to my original point: They have nukes.
- orwin 9mo agoCanada is part of NATO, and if the VDV and the Spetnaz demonstration in Ukraine are any indication of the current level of Russian spec ops, any Nordic country, UK, France and Italy all have better trained arctic/Alpine forces than Russia. Individually.
- notepad0x90 9mo agoIf NATO survives, sure. And assuming they aren't busy with other distractions at home. The main thing that Russia has that none of the rest do (or so I hear, don't hold me to it), is icebreakers that are superior, and submarines that are also deployed all over the world, including arctic waters. The key thing is that Russia has some capability. Not superiority, but capability, that's all it takes to make war feasible. Having superior manpower or firepower doesn't guarantee victory, as you can see with Russia and Ukraine. Familiarity, homefield advantage, and political will are very important as well.
- orwin 9mo agoThey don't. Maybe icebreakers, although I seriously doubt that, but France naval capabilities are superior to Russia, without taking into account carriers and planes.