Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
In addressing the threat analysis affecting Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces, I will focus today specifically on Europe and the Ukraine-Russia conflict. While we acknowledge that the committee's study encompasses a global perspective and that Canada has defence concerns in other regions of the world, Canada's largest military deployment is currently in the European theatre.
In the question and answer period, I will be very pleased to address threat concerns relevant to the Canadian Armed Forces in the other important regions, as well as questions relevant to the nature of threats faced by the Canadian Armed Forces along the spectrum of conflict, from terrorism to conventional warfare.
The immediate threat faced by Canada and consequently directly relevant to the Canadian Armed Forces is the crisis between Ukraine and Russia. The spectre of a large-scale conventional war between Russia and Ukraine, with a potential spillover effect into nearby NATO countries, is a clear and present danger. Commensurate diplomatic activity is taking place to de-escalate the confrontation. Canada is front and centre and fully engaged in both the defence and deterrence side of the equation and the dialogue and diplomacy side.
What is this conflict about, and what are the potential outcomes?
The conflict has been described by some as a battle between democracy and autocracy, or the liberal rules-based order versus realpolitik, the realist school of politics, among nations, based on national interests and power—chiefly economic and military. In the latter understanding of the world order, the concept of spheres of influence plays a key element and is at the heart of the current crisis.
Ukraine is the object of this current contest. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic emerged as an independent country, as did many other former Soviet republics, including Russia. The political, socio-economic and military convulsions that followed in the former Soviet space have come to a head in the current standoff based on whether Ukraine should join NATO or remain a neutral buffer state between the west and Russia.
In short summary, from 1991 Ukraine followed an official policy of non-alignment, balancing itself between Russia and the west—specifically NATO and the EU. There was a dramatic shift in policy in late 2013 and 2014, when Ukraine took a shift towards Russia. This in turn led to the Maidan revolt by western-leaning Ukrainians, ousting the pro-Russian president. In turn, this led to a revolt by Russian-leaning Ukrainians in the eastern Donbass region of Ukraine.
Concerned about the move of Ukraine towards the west, and particularly NATO, the Russians moved swiftly to seize Crimea and protect their Black Sea fleet based in Sevastopol. At the same time, they provided critical military and political support to Ukrainian rebels in the Donbass. Fighting in the Donbass was eventually stabilized in February 2015, with peace agreements known as the Minsk accords.
During the question and answer period I would be happy to elaborate on these accords and the Normandy process aimed at implementing these accords, thereby bringing the conflict in the Donbass to closure.
Russian frustration over the failure thus far to implement the Minsk accords and strong Ukrainian political efforts to join NATO have led the Russians to use large-scale military force exercises to influence the outcome of this standoff in a manner favourable to Russian security interests.
We are therefore today faced with hard choices and outcomes that could potentially affect Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces. There is a flurry of diplomatic activity at the level of U.S.-Russia, NATO-Russia, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe—the OSCE—in Vienna.
The diplomatic steps taken thus far suggest no agreement on the question of Ukraine's future options with regard to NATO, but there are prospects for negotiation on arms control and on confidence- and security-building measures, including a possible discussion of a new security architecture for Europe.
In the interests of time, I am prepared to outline the diplomatic options in greater detail, as well as the potential role for Canadian diplomacy, in the questions and answers.