16 avril 2020 | Local, Naval

Russia’s Arctic Agenda and the Role of Canada

Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 17 Issue: 51
By: Sergey Sukhankin
April 15, 2020 05:24 PM Age: 14 mins

New research (which includes two articles written by Russian experts) published by the prominent think tank the Canadian Global Affairs Institute has spurred interest and hopes in Russia's expert community about the possibility of normalizing ties between Russia and Canada through cooperation in the Arctic region (Russiancouncil.ru, April 3; Cgai.ca, accessed April 12). This cooperation could potentially be premised on two main pillars.

First would be the mutual rejection of “internationalization” of the Arctic. Both Canada and Russia—for whom the Arctic region is an issue of foreign policy (Russiancouncil.ru, July 1, 2019) —feel ill at ease with the increasing involvement of non-Arctic states in the region, particularly, China. Russian information outlets noted the level of distress when the Chinese icebreaker Snow Dragon completed its first-ever voyage through the Arctic Ocean off the coast of Canada, accumulating “a wealth of experience for Chinese ships going through the Northwest Passage in the future” (Regnum, September 17, 2017; see EDM, October 3, 2017).

Second, Moscow seeks to exploit regional frictions and disagreements between Canada and the United States (Pentagonus.ru, accessed April 10) to boost its own position/influence in the region. Russian sources recall the year 2010, when then–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly challenged Canada's stance on the status of the Northwest Passage, which Ottawa considers part of Canadian territory (Foreignpolicy.ru, February 20, 2015). In the past, both the Russian tone and general assessment of Canada's role in the Arctic were denigrating, claiming Ottawa lacked agency. Perhaps the clearest expression of this sentiment came from the director of the Institute of Strategic Planning and Forecasting, Professor Alexander Gusev, who, in 2015, declared that “they [Canada] are only performing the role assigned by the US” (Odnako.org, March 30, 2015). After 2016, however, Russia dramatically changed its coverage of the US-Canadian dispute in the Arctic region, with Moscow increasingly employing reconciliatory rhetoric toward Ottawa and employing ever more assertive public diplomacy tools.

One notable example of this new approach is Moscow's reliance on pro-Russian experts based in Canada. In 2016, speaking in Sochi, on the margins of that year's Valdai Club session, Professor Piotr Dutkiewicz (a former director of the Institute of European and Russian Studies at Carleton University, in Ottawa) stated, “[T]his area [the Arctic region] will be the first one where we will feel real changes in our relations... Arctic cooperation will become the focal point thanks to which our two sides [Canada and Russia] will be extending their areas of collaboration” (Izvestia, October 28, 2016). Moreover, as repeatedly stated by Federation Council member Igor Chernyshenko (a senator from Murmansk Oblast), the Arctic region could become a “bridge,” helping Canada and Russia overcome the existing difficulties in their bilateral ties. Last May, he announced, “[W]e invited them [the Canadian side] to return to a dialogue. We proposed holding a conference between Russian and Canadian universities in northwest Russia, maybe in Murmansk Oblast. They supported this idea” (TASS, May 25, 2019). Notably, the last such event was held in November 2014, in Canada, hosted by the aforementioned Carleton University.

In addition to trying to foster bilateral academic ties, Russia's outreach to Canada on Arctic issues involves sustained information campaigns via RT and similar multi-language information outlets with international reach. In particular, Russian propaganda narratives routinely overemphasize the extent of current US-Canadian disagreements in the Arctic. At the same time, foreign-audience-facing Kremlin-linked media outlets underscore the allegedly negative role of President Donald Trump (and his policies toward Canada) in aggravating the existing disputes. RT widely claimed that “after Trump's inauguration, he began pressing Ottawa on economic issues and extended claims on Canadian possessions in the Arctic region.” It also highlighted US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo's remarks suggesting that “Russia is not the only country with illegitimate claims [in the Arctic] ...the US has a lasting dispute with Canada over its claims on sovereignty over the Northwest Passage. Finally, RT's propaganda reporting also relied on a statement by Pavel Feldman, the deputy director of the Institute for Strategic Studies and Forecasts at the Moscow-based Peoples' Friendship University of Russia (RUDN). Feldman is quoted as saying, “[T]he US and Canada carry on a heated competition over the Arctic region; yet, publicly, these countries are trying to position themselves as partners” (RT, October 16, 2019).

In recent months, this increasing Russian attention to Canada as an Arctic power and a key element of regional stability and order has started to be expressed at the highest levels in Moscow. Poignantly, President Vladimir Putin declared in a public address at the start of this year that Russia “is open to cooperation with Canada on the basis of mutual respect and consideration of each other's interest.” Putin added, “[O]ur countries are neighbors in the Arctic region and bear joint responsibility for the development of this vast region, for preservation of the traditional lifestyle of its native populations and the careful treatment of its brittle ecosystem” (Vzglyad, February 5, 2020).

Such reconciliatory rhetoric should, however, be taken with a heavy dose of caution in Ottawa: from the earliest days of the Soviet Union, Moscow's stance on the Arctic region has been deliberately flexible and tightly premised on being able to demonstrate its military potential in the High North and to intimidate other regional players. The Russian Federation has increasingly undertaken the same policy course since 2014 (see EDM, April 9). Incidentally, on January 31, 2020, two Russian Tu-160 heavy strategic bombers approached Canadian airspace—maneuvers that the Russian Ministry of Defense explained away as “planned exercises” (Vpk.name, February 3). It is worth pointing out that the US North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is unable to identify and track Russian bombers of this type until they are close enough to launch missiles at targets on the continent.

Furthermore, it is worth keeping in mind that, in fact, Russia (not the US) is Canada's direct competitor when it comes to territorial claims in the Arctic (the Lomonosov Ridge)—a point explicitly corroborated by Russia's Arktika 2007 expedition, which explored this disputed undersea area and famously planted a Russian flag at the North Pole, on the bottom of the Arctic Ocean (Izvestia, August 3, 2007).

Lastly, it may be worth keeping an eye on one of the proposed amendments (soon to be officially adopted) to the Russian Constitution on the “prohibition of actions related to the alienation of Russian territory, or the propaganda thereof” (TASS, February 25). This amendment—reportedly drafted with predominantly Kaliningrad and Vladivostok in mind—is likely to also be applied to some Arctic territories that are of equally strategic interest to Canada.


Sur le même sujet

  • European-built fighter aircraft: did they ever stand a chance in Canada’s competition?

    11 octobre 2019 | Local, Aérospatial

    European-built fighter aircraft: did they ever stand a chance in Canada’s competition?

    DAVID PUGLIESE, OTTAWA CITIZEN Canada's future fighter jet competition has already lost two European competitors. Will it lose a third, the Gripen built by Saab of Sweden? At the end of August, the United Kingdom's Ministry of Defence and Airbus Defence and Space informed the Canadian government of their decision to withdraw from Canada's future fighter competition. Airbus had been offering Canada the Eurofighter Typhoon. Last year the European firm Dassault informed the Canadian government it would not be competing in the competition. It had been planning to offer Canada the Rafale fighter jet. Airbus and the UK Defence Ministry noted that their decision to withdraw was the result of a detailed review of Canada's request for proposals which was released to industry on July 23. Airbus pointed to the changes Canada made to the industrial benefits package to appease Lockheed Martin as well as the excessive costs that U.S.-Canadian security requirements placed on a company based outside North America. “A detailed review has led the parties to conclude that NORAD security requirements continue to place too significant of a cost on platforms whose manufacture and repair chains sit outside the United States-Canada 2-EYES community,” the statement from Airbus and the UK Defence Ministry noted. “Second, both parties concluded that the significant recent revision of industrial technological benefits obligations does not sufficiently value the binding commitments the Typhoon Canada package was willing to make, and which were one of its major points of focus.” The $19 billion competition has been dogged by allegations it is designed to favour Lockheed Martin's F-35 stealth fighter. Take for instance, the response that Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan provided when the Liberal government in November 2016 announced the purchase of 18 interim Boeing Super Hornets. That deal was eventually scuttled after Boeing decided to go after Bombardier in a trade dispute over civilian aircraft. But at the time when the purchase was announced, Sajjan was asked why Canada was buying the Super Hornet and not one of the other fighter jets on the market. “When you look at the various aircraft, we have our NORAD commitment's (which are) extremely important,” the defence minister responded. “There's certainly interoperability issues as well.” Procurement Minister Judy Foote was more blunt. “From our perspective, we're working with the American government, so we have to look at an American plane.” So how is that different from the aircraft to be selected for the future fighter jet competition? Sajjan and Foote were stating in November 2016 that Canada needed to buy American because of its NORAD commitments and other interoperability concerns with the U.S. Nothing appears to have changed in the last three years, at least as far as the federal government and Canadian Forces are concerned. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/european-built-fighter-aircraft-did-they-ever-stand-a-chance-in-canadas-competition

  • The Journal Pioneer logoToggle navigation MENU Account Top News  St. John's tech start-up ready to 'disrupt' the global display industry

    27 août 2020 | Local, Aérospatial

    The Journal Pioneer logoToggle navigation MENU Account Top News St. John's tech start-up ready to 'disrupt' the global display industry

    Brendan Mccarthy A St. John's-based tech start-up whose aim is to “fundamentally disrupt” a global industry worth $150 billion says it is well on its way to that goal with the release of its first-generation light-field display. Avalon Holographics says the 29-inch development system represents a significant milestone in realizing a fully immersive, natural 3D experience. “Despite the challenges COVID-19 has presented, it's an exciting time for our company,” said president and co-founder Wally Haas in a news release. “Our prototype serves as proof of concept and we're excited to show the world how natural 3D light-field displays will change the way we produce, view and understand visual content. “Our goal is to fundamentally disrupt the $150-B global display industry, and our prototype launch signals that we're well on the way.” The advanced holographic display system is designed to present 3D content without the need for accessories such as glasses or headsets. https://www.journalpioneer.com/business/regional-business/st-johns-tech-start-up-ready-to-disrupt-the-global-display-industry-489168/

  • Canadian air force short 275 pilots as attrition outpaces recruitment, training

    19 septembre 2018 | Local, Aérospatial

    Canadian air force short 275 pilots as attrition outpaces recruitment, training

    By Canadian Press OTTAWA — The Royal Canadian Air Force is contending with a shortage of around 275 pilots and needs more mechanics, sensor operators and other trained personnel in the face of increasing demands at home and abroad. The Air Force says it is working to address the deficiencies and that they have not negatively impacted operations, but officials acknowledge the situation has added pressure on Canada's flying corps and represents a challenge for the foreseeable future. “Right now we're doing everything we can to make sure we recruit, train and retain enough personnel to do our current mission,” said Brig.-Gen. Eric Kenny, director general of air readiness. “In the next 20 years, it's going to be a challenge to grow the force at the rate that we would like.” The shortfall in pilots and mechanics was referenced in an internal report recently published by the Department of National Defence, which also flagged underspending on maintenance for bases and other infrastructure, as well as reductions in annual flying times thanks to Conservative-era budget cuts. Some of those issues have since started to be addressed by the Liberals through their new defence policy, but the personnel shortage remains an area of critical concern given the need for pilots and others to fly and maintain the military's various aircraft fleets at home and abroad. Those include the planes and helicopters involved in Canada's military missions in Iraq, Latvia, Mali, and Ukraine; domestic search-and-rescue aircraft; and the CF-18 fighter jets deployed in Romania and guarding against a foreign attack on North America. The Air Force is authorized to have 1,580 pilots, but Kenny said in an interview the Air Force is short by around 17 per cent — or about 275 pilots — along with similar shortfalls for navigators and sensor operators, who work onboard different types of aircraft, as well as mechanics. Kenny also acknowledged the threat of burnout as service members are forced to pick up the slack left by unfilled positions, and the added burden of promised new drones, fighter jets and other aircraft arriving in the coming years, which will require even more people to fly and maintain. Efforts to address the shortfalls have looked at retaining service members with tax breaks, additional support and services for family members to ease military life, and plans to free up experienced personnel by assigning administrative staff to do day-to-day tasks. Several initiatives have also been introduced to speed up recruitment and training, and attract older pilots back into the Forces, which has borne some fruit and aimed at buying time for officials to decide whether to change the length of time pilots and others are required to serve before they can leave. “This is beyond just looking at benefits,” Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said Tuesday. “We're looking at a much more holistic approach in how we look after them.” But the current training system means the Air Force can only produce 115 new pilots each year, which commanders have said is insufficient to meet needs given the rate at which military pilots have moved on to commercial opportunities in recent years. Conservative defence critic James Bezan suggested one reason the military is losing pilots is because they are being asked to fly older planes, including CF-18 fighter jets that are close to 40 years old. “If pilots aren't getting new aircraft, why are they sticking around?” Bezan said. “And so, the idea of bringing in used fighter jets from Australia that are even in worse shape than the current CF-18s that we fly today, why would they stick around?” The Department of National Defence is drawing up plans for a new system that officials hope will be in place by 2021 and include the ability to expand or shrink the number of trainees in any year given the Air Force's needs. Kenny said the shortfalls will remain a challenge since the current system will remain in place for several more years — and because it takes four and eight years to train a pilot from scratch. “We know what capabilities we're receiving and now we can start working to make sure that we have personnel that are trained to be able to meet those requirements,” he said. “But I'm not going to lie: It's definitely a challenge.” https://ipolitics.ca/2018/09/18/canadian-air-force-short-275-pilots-as-attrition-outpaces-recruitment-training-2/

Toutes les nouvelles