11 septembre 2024 | International, Terrestre
24 mai 2023 | International, Aérospatial
President Volodymyr Zelenskiy renewed his appeal on Wednesday for U.S.-built F-16 fighter jets, saying their appearance with Ukrainian pilots would be a sure signal from the world that Russia's invasion would end in defeat.
2 avril 2019 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité, Autre défense
(B2) Il ne se passe pas de mois désormais sans qu'un dirigeant en responsabilité au niveau européen ne présente une idée ‘nouvelle' pour faire avancer l'Europe de la défense. En soi, c'est intéressant, cela anime le débat. Mais il serait nécessaire d'en savoir plus. Une foison d'entreprises On a mis en place une coopération structurée permanente. Puis est venue une initiative européenne d'intervention, dérivée d'une idée présentée par Emmanuel Macron il y a 18 mois, en septembre 2017. Ensuite sont venues plusieurs déclarations franco-allemandes (à Meseberg en juin 2018 et Aix-La-Chapelle en janvier 2019) qui ont évoqué une nouvelle solidarité militaire entre les deux pays et un conseil de sécurité de l'UE. Puis sont venues des déclarations de plusieurs leaders européens — tels le Français Emmanuel Macron, l'Allemand Angela Merkel, l'Espagnol Pedro Sanchez — annonçant un projet, « à terme », d'armée européenne (1). Des dirigeants de premier plan. Enfin, Emmanuel Macron a souhaité mettre en place un nouveau traité de défense avec non seulement l'Allemagne mais aussi le Royaume-Uni définissant une nouvelle clause de défense mutuelle et ce fameux Conseil de sécurité européen. Sans oublier le fameux porte-avion commun, que voudrait développer la CDU d'Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer. Cesser de mettre en bouche et expliquer Il serait peut-être désormais temps que les idées cessent d'être mises en bouche, mais qu'on arrive à saisir ce qu'elles recouvrent exactement. Paris et Berlin n'ont pas tout à fait peut-être la même idée du Conseil européen de sécurité ni de la défense européenne, il serait intéressant que ces nuances soient clarifiées pour que le débat puisse s'engager concrètement. Il serait aussi intéressant d'avoir un peu de cohérence dans tout ce feu d'artifice d'idées merveilleuses. Expliquer : une nécessité démocratique Les responsables politiques devraient prendre l'habitude, dans leurs grands discours, d'accompagner ceux-ci d'une petite notice explicative, détaillant en quelques phrases, comment leurs belles idées doivent être comprises. Cela aurait un intérêt : éviter des incompréhensions, permettre au débat de s'engager, faire avancer les projets. Cela aurait un avantage : clarifier si on est dans l'effet de manche, l'agitation ou le projet, l'action. Cela répondrait tout simplement à une nécessité démocratique. https://www.bruxelles2.eu/2019/03/31/arretons-de-declamer-detaillons/
19 novembre 2018 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR
Murray Brewster · CBC News It was more than the usual sky-is-falling rhetoric we're used to seeing in national security reports out of Washington. It came from some pretty sober, respected voices in the defence community. A special commission report, presented to the U.S. Congress this week, delivered one of the most stark — even startling — assessments in the last two decades of the limits of American military power. The independent, nonpartisan review of the Trump administration's 2018 National Defence Strategy said the U.S. could lose future wars with Russia or China. "This Commission believes that America has reached the point of a full-blown national security crisis," reads the 116-page document written by 12 leading defence and security experts and released Wednesday. "If the United States had to fight Russia in a Baltic contingency, or China in a war over Taiwan, Americans could face a decisive military defeat." Those are sobering words for Canada, in light of this country's contribution of over 450 troops to the NATO-led deterrence mission in Latvia. Time for a defence policy rewrite? And it has prompted a call from at least one Canadian defence expert for a re-assessment — perhaps even a full-blown rewrite — of the Liberal government's own defence policy. More than simply another rote, boilerplate plea for fatter U.S. defence budgets, the commission's report lays out in precise detail the kind of geopolitical threats Washington — and, by extension, other Western capitals — are facing from rivals and enemies at many levels and in multiple spheres. "The security and well-being of the United States are at greater risk than at any time in decades. America's military superiority — the hard-power backbone of its global influence and national security — has eroded to a dangerous degree," says the report. "America's ability to defend its allies, its partners, and its own vital interests is increasingly in doubt. If the nation does not act promptly to remedy these circumstances, the consequences will be grave and lasting." The report acknowledges that the U.S. and its allies may be forced to fight a localized nuclear war in the future, given how Russia has restored the once-unthinkable concept to its military planning and training exercises. The commission also paints various grim scenarios that could confront Western allies between now and 2022, including an invasion of the Baltics under the guise of a "peacekeeping" mission to protect Russian minorities: "As U.S. and NATO forces prepare to respond, Russia declares that strikes against Russian forces in those states will be treated as attacks on Russia itself — implying a potential nuclear response. "Meanwhile, to keep America off balance, Russia escalates in disruptive ways. Russian submarines attack transatlantic fibre optic cables. Russian hackers shut down power grids and compromise the security of U.S. banks." The consequences, said the report, would be severe: "Major cities are paralyzed; use of the internet and smartphones is disrupted. Financial markets plummet as commerce seizes up and online financial transactions slow to a crawl. The banking system is thrown into chaos." While the report doesn't mention U.S. President Donald Trump by name, it notes the effect of his bruising rhetorical fights with world leaders and criticism of international institutions, such as NATO. "Doubts about America's ability to deter and, if necessary, defeat opponents and honour its global commitments have proliferated," said the report. Cautious optimism At this weekend's Halifax International Security Forum, Canada's marquee defence conference, some leading experts struck a less pessimistic note and suggested that the West still has a major technological lead on Moscow. "Russia is a great country. It is a great country, historically. But Russia is also a failing country," said Peter Van Praagh, president of the Halifax Security Forum, at the opening of the event on Friday. "Russia does not have the same advanced tools that NATO has, that Canada and NATO and the American alliance [have]." Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan also expressed cautious optimism about the threat. "In NATO we're taking this extremely seriously. We're learning from the various missions that are ongoing," he said. A former military adviser to one of Sajjan's predecessors said Canada could learn from the commission exercise, which was meant to challenge the Trump administration's defence plans. "It's certainly something we don't have," said Richard Cohen, an ex-army officer who served as former defence minister Peter MacKay's adviser. "Our government would never dream of inviting anyone to come and criticize its defence policy." The current government sought extensive input before the new Canadian policy was presented 18 months ago. The U.S. commission report calls on NATO and its allies to "rebuild" substantial military forces in Europe, among things. Cohen said that, if anything, should trigger a fresh look at the Liberal government's own defence policy. "Our defence policy is predicated on the kind of asymmetric warfare we have faced since the end of the Cold War and it really ignores the looming strategic threats that Russia, China and maybe some others pose as well," he said. "At least the United States realizes this growing strategic threat," Cohen added, noting that the current Liberal defence policy makes only passing mention of China "in very gentle terms" and limited references to Russia. "If the United States is in a national security crisis, then we're in a national security crisis." https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/defence-policy-trump-china-russia-1.4910038