National Defence Committee on Sept. 19th, 2024

[Dr. Stephen Saideman]

The challenge is that everybody has learned how valuable these things are. As I'm sure you know, it takes a while to procure things. How long would the gap be from our shipping everything off? I can see why the army doesn't want to ship off everything, and then wait 10 years for the new tanks and the new howitzers. The problem is the production lines. Everybody wants the same stuff. Even if we made fast decisions, the stuff is not on a shelf somewhere in surplus.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Bezan.

Mr. Collins, you have three minutes.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Saideman, I want to pick up where Ms. Mathyssen left off with some of her questions earlier around disinformation.

I was fascinated with your comments regarding Trump, and I've watched with some fascination what's happening around the world with disinformation.

Retired General Eyre warned our committee several times in his appearances here, sitting in the same chair you're sitting in, sir, about disinformation and its impact on our institutions, including not only the Canadian Armed Forces but also our democratic institutions and our allies' as well.

Russia has been very vocal and has bragged publicly about those efforts. Margarita Simonyan from RT Television has talked about how successful those campaigns have been. Of course, the Department of Justice, last week, outed three very influential right-wing social media personalities, in terms of having received $10 million from Russia.

With all that said and with all the things you talked about with vice-president nominee Vance and former president Trump's efforts, they're having an impact. Those disinformation campaigns are having an impact. They sway and they influence public opinion, and then public opinion drives political characters to make different decisions. We're seeing that with MAGA. We're seeing that with the “make Canada great again” movement, with the leader of the official opposition, who's pulled his support for Ukraine, and we've seen it in the EU elections.

Therefore, if—and it's fifty-fifty right now—former president Trump is elected and that support is pulled from NATO because of, in part, those disinformation campaigns, where do we go from there, so to speak, in terms of combatting what we know is happening?

We haven't shone a lot of light on it, although the DOJ information last week was very revealing. How do we, as a society and as a government, deal with those efforts, knowing that they're having an impact on public opinion, and they're swaying political representatives to make some very crazy decisions?

[Dr. Stephen Saideman]

It's a really challenging problem. We've known this not for a week but for eight years, from that investigation into Trump's 2016 campaign. We know this about Brexit; there was Russian influence on that.

Again, as I said, it requires greater clarity from the media about where the information is coming from, being more careful about repeating false information. I'm as guilty as anyone on social media of reposting something that I see without really investigating it. We have to have better discipline about figuring out what these stories are and how we report them.

To give you an example, the Haitian immigrant story is entirely baseless. However, just talking about it helps to amplify it. How do we talk about the thing that's coming up and educate the public about it in ways that undermine the disinformation campaign?

Canada has invested in academics studying this stuff. Good friends of mine are disinformation experts. They faced lawsuits from the far right to silence them. The good news about the stuff last week is that the lawsuits are going to be harder to win by the folks who are suing them, because they can say that the exact people who were identified in network analysis of Twitter—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're going to have to leave the answer there.

[Dr. Stephen Saideman]

This bit of last week's news helps to provide evidence that all these things we've been saying thus far are true.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Collins.

Don't believe anything about cats and dogs.

You have one minute, Madame Normandin.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Arel, what are the remaining obstacles to Ukraine's potential membership in NATO? You have already mentioned, among other things, that the judicial system needs to be overhauled, that Ukraine is a democracy, but not perfectly liberal.

What are the things to keep an eye on in the post-war future?

[Dr. Dominique Arel]

First, Ukraine's accession to NATO and the European Union is happening concurrently. Second, the weak rule of law is Ukraine's Achilles heel; it's the lack of institutional independence of the court of justice.

On the issue of corruption, prior to the 2022 war, allies worked very hard to help Ukrainians build anti-corruption systems. It was said that, since the judicial system was corrupt, a parallel anti-corruption court system had to be created to prevent everything from being covered.

Progress has been made. It must be said that the political system has been in a bit of abeyance for two or three years in Ukraine because of the war. What is quite remarkable, however, is that the oligarchs—those very powerful people who somewhat corrupted the system—have lost most of their powers. So a fundamental change has taken place.

That said, ultimately, a political decision must be made. It's not a matter of ticking all the boxes.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. Normandin.

Mr. Boulerice, you have one minute.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for you that is both brief and complex, so it may be complicated to answer in a minute.

Since Vladimir Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine, a lot of international efforts have been made, not only to isolate the Putin regime, but also to exclude it from certain international bodies.

In your opinion, has that had an impact? What more could be done to prevent him, in the longer term, from continuing the war and making it an international pariah?

[Dr. Dominique Arel]

This summer, we had a symbol demonstrating how much of a pariah Russia is: It was banned from the Olympic Games, which is an extraordinary event. A second country, Belarus, which is essentially Russia's vassal, was also completely banned. It was symbolic, but it hurt in Russia.

The decision to isolate Russia forces it to find allies who are themselves already isolated. China is trying to play both sides, and Turkey, a member of NATO, is doing the same. What's remarkable is that Russia has very few allies, but it has two allies that are clearly very dangerous and have decided to help it directly.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Boulerice.

Mr. Bezan, you have three minutes, please.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Thank you.

I'm going to just ask a question of our RAND specialist, Ms. Kepe.

You are a specialist on the Baltics, and we see all the sabre-rattling. We talk about Russia, but we also know that Belarus has now taken on nuclear weapons from Russia and that they have their Zapad exercises that they've been doing extensively with Russian forces. As well, I believe there were Cuban forces last year that were part of those exercises along the Latvian and Polish borders.

What do you assess as the threat level of Belarus as a proxy for Russia to offset the threat environment in both the Baltics as well as in Ukraine?

[Marta Kepe]

In addition to the examples that you mentioned, a really important one is that, essentially, we are seeing a trend of Belarus and Russia integrating militaries closer and closer, and that has been supported by official agreements as well. From a defence planning and threat assessment point of view, I would treat Belarus and Russia together as a threat.

Really, we see it as a threat from the conventional military side but also as a similar sort of co-operative threat from the hybrid types of threats. We see that from the point of view of exercises, military integration and co-operation. We see that from the point of view of hybrid threats and the forced migration activities that have been going through Belarusian territory as well.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

When we look at the Russian drone that ended up in Latvia, I'm sure the Russians are saying, “Oh, it just flew off course.” Do you think that maybe it was done accidentally on purpose to test the response of NATO allies, and particularly the enhanced forward position that Canada leads in Latvia?

[Marta Kepe]

I haven't seen any Russian statements about what exactly happened. Investigation is still ongoing. Even the Baltic officials have different sorts of opinions on what really happened. I think no one really thinks that it was done on purpose. There are some conversations that it may have been that the drone was intended for Ukraine and that there was a really big targeting problem that happened. That is why it either crash-landed or landed in the territory of Latvia.

Let's say that I will wait for the investigation. It could have been a malfunction.

You cannot waste a good crisis, so it does serve as a way for Russia to see what is happening and what the reactions are on the political side but also on the tactics and procedures that the Baltics nationally and NATO use to respond to these threats.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Bezan.

Mrs. Lalonde, you have three minutes.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Thank you to all our witnesses today. I have to say that this has been extremely relevant and informative. I would like to hear a perspective, and I'm not going to direct my question towards anyone in particular. Maybe it's to the three of you.

The ambassador of Ukraine was here during our last committee, and when we asked her, she talked about a path towards a NATO membership. That's been Ukraine's ask of all our allied countries.

Could you maybe tell us how you see this going forward and what that would look like with the possibility of a Trump presidency?

I would certainly appreciate hearing from the three of you.

[Dr. Stephen Saideman]

The challenge is that article 5 means an attack upon one equals an attack upon all, so NATO's position has been to not allow countries in that are currently at war.

In the membership processes of the 1990s and early 2000s, there was pressure for all aspirants to settle their border disputes. What's going on now is far more than a border dispute. The war has to end before Ukraine can become a member of NATO. When that happens, I think it will be a very short path, because we would like to avoid having a future war in Ukraine. There are all the other conditions, but, as my colleague suggested, the conditions themselves don't matter, really. The whole paper process is about whether the alliance can get consensus. Until the war is over, there will be no consensus.

Now, we're forgetting that Trump's first impeachment was about trying to extort Zelenskyy to get information on Biden, so I don't think a Trump-led government would agree to Ukrainian membership. Again, we need consensus. If the United States does not join the consensus, there is no consensus.

[Dr. Dominique Arel]

Okay.

May I answer in French?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Please do.

[Dr. Dominique Arel]

Okay. Thank you.

It's not dissimilar to what Stephen Saideman said.

However, the challenge is not related to NATO membership, but to NATO's ability to defend Ukraine. I am referring to the famous security guarantees. The first step is to establish a situation where Russia will no longer be able to attack Ukraine.

In the negotiations, which are still up in the air, there is still a stumbling block on this issue. It was the same issue in March 2022, in Istanbul.

When we talk about security guarantees, what does that mean? It means Ukraine can no longer be attacked by Russia. Russia can no longer attack not because Ukraine will be defended by American soldiers, but because Ukraine will already be equipped by NATO, among others, and by its own industry, as a result of which the consequences of an attack are too perilous for Russia. That is the most difficult step.

Once that is done, I think the issue that will follow—whether Ukraine will be able to join NATO—will become less difficult to resolve.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mrs. Lalonde. Unfortunately, that brings your three minutes to a close. I want to leave a few minutes for motions. Mr. Bezan's hand is waving in the breeze here.

I want to thank you all, but before I dismiss you, maybe I'll direct this to Mr. Saideman.

It seems to me that, after 9/11, Americans triggered article 5 of NATO. Is that correct?

[Dr. Stephen Saideman]

Actually, it was Canada and its allies that inflicted article 5 upon the Americans. At the time, the American administration was ambivalent about having article 5 invoked. It was Canadians and other NATO allies invoking article 5 for the first time—the only time.