This is not the time.

A brief break from board-game puffery: my province is going to permanent daylight savings time.

This is exactly the wrong thing to do.

We should stop moving the clock back and forth, yes, but we need to stay on permanent STANDARD time, not daylight time.

There is a large body of research to support this.

In 2019 when we had the badly worded “referendum” about this (the third option of going to permanent standard time was not even a choice!) any number of scientists wrote to the government and appeared on media pointing out the unhealthy effects of this, but all people could think about is oh boy, I’ll have an extra hour of daylight forever.

I remember watching one of these bits on CBC and a sleep researcher from SFU was “debating” this with some soccer mom from Kelowna who just kept repeating, “but this is the way we all voted” and that she needed another hour of day so young Trevor or whatever his name was could work on his kicking skills.

But I guess we’ve all resolved not to listen to experts for now….

While we’re at it, why don’t we just go to one national time zone? When you’re on “All Canada Time” your body won’t be much more discombobulated than it will be on permanent daylight time, permanently 1-2 hours out of whack with the sun (instead of 0-1 hour).

Cascade Institute plan for national service

I live out on the West Coast, not far from Royal Roads University which used to be Royal Roads Military College.

Royal Roads houses the Cascade Institute, a research and policy group that studies “polycrises” and how society can organize to mitigate them. It is headed by Dr. Thomas Homer-Dixon, someone you may have heard of and who is definitely wired into a lot of what is going on.

It escaped my initial notice, but in August 2025 the Institute released a concept paper written by David Last of the Royal Military College with some loose ideas and back-of-the-envelope costing for a scheme of voluntary national service with four components:

1. National Service: one year of paid training and service in uniformed or civilian security services (CAF, RCMP, CBSA, Coast Guard, CSE etc.).

2. National Civil Defence: civilian volunteers with relevant skills or seeking to develop deployable skills Training in first aid, traffic control, communications, inter-organizational cooperation, and other skills; organized in regionally based units, these would be deployed to support any national, provincial, or municipal emergency under existing funding arrangements. Periodic retraining and regional or national training exercises.

3. Community Protection Service: a federally supported program to develop cadres of volunteers in every community available for immediate response. Would likely give local support to the National Civil Defence units and security services in any affected area when they are deployed there.

4. Youth Development Program: Expand the Cadet movement and other youth programs to mobilize young people and give them useful training for emergencies.

An appendix at the back of the paper gives a figure of about $1.1 bn per year to add 10,000 recruits to the National Service component; the National Civil Defence would cost about the same but give you larger numbers.

For an idea of scale, Canada spent approximately 380 billion dollars (current value) on military recruitment and training during the six years of the Second World War, that saw about 1.1 million people serve in uniform from a population of almost 12 million.

Introductory note says that this was sent to the Prime Minister’s Office in April 2025, which is probably where it stayed.

Anyway, go and have a look at it!

 

Click to access Last-et-al.-Strategy-for-National-Service-v1.6.pdf

Campus Total Defence

Alex Usher’s “One Thought to Start Your Day” is very good today… amplifying on how post-secondary education institutions can contribute to the defence of the nation.

Looking forward to his recap of what might be discussed, or maybe even decided, at the March 23 event.

Campus Total Defence
January 26, 2026
Alex Usher


This blog doubles as an invitation to a very cool event in Ottawa on March 23rd. See the end of blog for details.

If there is anything Canada should take from President Trump’s deeply disturbing rants about Greenland over the past couple of weeks, it is that our country is very definitely a target. The fascist government in power in the United States genuinely believes both that might makes right and that the entire hemisphere is rightfully theirs. The threat to national sovereignty is real, and imminent. A full-scale actual invasion is unlikely, because that takes work and Trump is nothing if not extremely lazy. But, as Philippe Lagassé has pointed out, scenarios where American troops start arriving to “help” Canada aren’t very far-fetched and we desperately need to work out how to “defend against help”.

This is obviously a huge question. From this blog’s perspective, the question is: how can universities and colleges help? To date, this blog has focused on research, because that’s where the government’s primary interest seems to have been. But defence doesn’t happen without people. And so today I want to talk about something which is only starting to rise on the government’s consciousness: how do we train to defend the country, and what role do our post-secondary institutions have to play?

Well, first of all, the military is obviously going to have to grow in size. That means a larger Royal Military College for one thing, and – possibly – a greater role for universities across the country to provide education for both enlisted personnel and officers (both in the Regular Forces and in the presumably much-expanded military reserves). A re-introduction of the Canadian Officer Training Corps on Canadian campuses, as mooted by Jack Granatstein in this piece for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, is an obvious choice as well.

This would all be to the good. But when it comes to national security, military preparedness is only part of the equation. The bigger issue, obviously, is whether a country has the ability to mount a whole-of-society defence, or so-called Total Defence, where military defence and civil defence combine seamlessly, as is practiced in many Nordic countries. Total Defence, above all, requires civil defence skills, which run from emergency preparedness, transport and emergency logistics to cyber and AI security, environmental and climate security, and psychological defence/information influence. These aren’t necessarily military skills, but they are extremely useful in any kind of crisis. Having more people in more places that have these kinds of skills makes us a safer country.

Now, of course, Canada isn’t ready for a full-on version of Total Defence (it’s usually accompanied by a system of conscription/national service, and however elbows-up Canada may be these days, I have a feeling that step isn’t imminent). It isn’t even really thinking too ambitiously yet about civil defence and how to organize it (Public Safety Canada did a public consultation on this in 2024, but it was framed in some pretty tentative/small ball terms). However, it seems to me that however we end up organizing it, there is still a crying need for more people with more key skills in more places around the country.

And that’s an opportunity for our colleges and universities to make a real contribution to Canadian sovereignty.

Just after the invasion of Ukraine, a group of universities in Sweden – which is one of those countries that has adopted a “Total Defence” posture (they call it “totalförsvaret” – along with the Swedish Defence University, which is sort of a supercharged version of our Royal Military College) began developed something they call “Campus Total Defence”. I will simply quote from the website of one of the program’s founding institutional sponsors, Örebro University:

Campus Total Defence brings together academia, public authorities, industry, and civil society to create a robust platform for education, research, and innovation. It collectively contributes the knowledge and expertise needed to meet current and future national security challenges.

By offering tailored courses, developing new research, and creating conditions for innovation, universities across the country collaborate in areas that will benefit defence capabilities, such as protective security, crisis management, AI, healthcare, food supply, and robust energy systems. The goal is to create a range of courses that will provide skills enhancement and training for personnel in various branches of the defence sector nationwide.

(As you can see, the language here includes research, but that has been a more recent development. To start off with, this was definitely a skills exercise).

Anyways, even if Canada has not quite got there yet politically, the demand for these kinds of skills is going to up. A few of these areas might end up being the subject of bachelor’s or master’s programs, but my guess would be that a lot of these would – as in Sweden – simply be practical single courses delivering specific skills (this actually seems to me like a great use case for stackable, portable micro-credentials, if you ask me), and the potential for institutions to joint program development and delivery seems pretty high.

This isn’t an initiative for which institutions need to wait for government funding. They can just go ahead and do it. While Sweden’s Campus Total Defence is now being subsidized by the government as a strategic workforce and security investment, it began as a campus-based, bottom-up initiative. Because it was the right thing to do and the country needed it.

Canada can and should do that too.

To that end, we’d like to invite everyone to join us at Carleton University on March 23rd for a day-long roundtable focused on how post-secondary institutions contribute to whole-of-society defence. We are very excited to be partnering with Carleton University for this event. We’ll have folks over from Europe to explain Campus Total Defence, some experts from Canada to talk through how the concept might work, and some excellent moderated group discussions to generate ideas on moving the concept forward. If you’re from a university or a college, already offering courses in areas related to civil defence, or interested in being part of driving this work forward, please join us. Everyone is welcome. Ticket and event info is available here.

As with our National Defence Research Roundtable in December, this is a chance for the higher education sector to show how we can contribute during this time of rupture. We hope to see you there.

 

Nationallen resiliencenn pamphalentents forren yuu, bork bork bork!

The Swedish Civil Defence and Resilience Agency is an administrative agency organized under the Ministry of Defence. The agency is responsible for issues concerning civil protection, public safety, emergency management and civil defence. The Agency works with municipalities, rural government, other government organizations and the private sector to help prepare the population and its economy, government and society to prepare and cope with emergencies and crises. This is done through education, support, training exercises, regulation and supervision.

Recently the Agency published a pamphlet in English on how private sector businesses can prepare themselves ahead of time. It makes a good companion to the earlier pamphlet “In Case of Crisis or War” which is about individual and family preparation for events.

Have a look!

https://www.mcf.se/sv/publikationer/preparedness-for-businesses–in-case-of-crisis-or-war/

https://www.mcf.se/sv/publikationer/om-krisen-eller-kriget-kommer-pa-engelska/

Higher education and defence preparedness II

 

 

Things that make you go, “hmmm.”

From the Policy Options website, posted yesterday:

Universities can help solve the Canadian military’s mobilization problem

 

Universities can help solve the Canadian military’s mobilization problem
Force-generation planning exposes bottlenecks in training, administration and infrastructure. Universities could strengthen readiness.

January 21, 2026

Recent CBC reporting that the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) are examining large-scale mobilization scenarios has drawn understandable attention. The prospect of dramatically expanding Canada’s reserve force in a national emergency appears, at first glance, to reflect a more dangerous international environment. That focus, however, misses the more consequential point.

What the mobilization planning described by CBC actually tests is not political intent or public willingness, but force-generation capacity: whether Canada could convert civilian availability into trained, sustained military capability on a timeline that would still be strategically advantageous. What it exposes is a limitation that receives far less public attention than recruiting campaigns or equipment procurement – the system’s capacity for turning recruits into trained, deployable personnel.

The figures being modelled help explain why this matters. Canada’s primary reserve currently numbers roughly 29,000 members. The CBC report shows that internal planning scenarios explore expansion toward 100,000, alongside a much larger supplementary reserve, under extreme conditions. While not formal policy, these figures are serious planning assumptions designed to reveal where existing systems would saturate under sustained pressure. They are intended to expose constraints before those constraints become operationally decisive.

Civilian enabling systems are key
Mobilization is often framed as a personnel problem. In practice, it is a logistics and systems problem. Force generation depends on moving large cohorts through a sequence of enabling functions – medical screening, security clearance, enrolment administration, basic preparation, training capacity, accommodation, and sustainment – without degrading standards or overwhelming the institutions responsible for delivery. When any one of these functions saturates, the entire force-generation process slows, regardless of recruitment success. This is why mobilization planning cannot be treated as a challenge for the CAF to solve alone.

Universities and force generation
No modern military is designed to scale rapidly without relying on civilian enabling systems. In a surge scenario, many of the binding constraints are not tactical or operational, but enabling: administrative capacity, instructional throughput, housing, and regional co-ordination. If these functions are not reinforced in advance, force generation stalls long before questions of combat capability arise. Canada already possesses a significant component of this enabling capacity, but it resides outside the defence establishment.

Canada’s universities are provincially governed institutions, but, taken together, they form nationally distributed civilian infrastructure that already performs many of the functions large-scale force generation would require. Each year, they manage high-volume intake, deliver standardized instruction, operate residential and food-service systems, maintain secure administrative processes, and co-ordinate complex operations across regions.

The argument here is not that universities should assume military roles. They should not. This is not a proposal to militarize campuses, outsource soldiering, or place universities within the chain of command. Nor is this to suggest that the federal government should intrude on provincial jurisdiction. Rather, the point here is that force generation depends on enabling functions that already exist within provincially governed systems. Universities in particular are uniquely well-positioned because they already concentrate large numbers of people within structured, administratively coherent environments that can be scaled.

Ottawa does have a legitimate role in contracting and aligning this civilian capacity when national defence objectives are at stake. This enabling approach is well-precedented. Ottawa routinely funds provincially delivered systems – including health care, training, and infrastructure – when national priorities require co-ordinated capacity. Force generation is no different.

Critically, this approach can strengthen national readiness while also improving the utilization of existing university infrastructure, particularly during off-peak periods when capacity is available.

A contract-based, seasonal surge arrangement with clear boundaries
Universities would not be required to suspend core academic functions or absorb unfunded workload. Instead, it could be structured as a time-limited, contract-based surge arrangement, delivered largely in seasonal windows such as the summer months, with any incremental staffing and support funded explicitly through federal–provincial agreements.

In that form, Ottawa would be purchasing additional throughput, while universities would secure a revenue-positive use for summer capacity, when fixed costs persist even as demand and revenue soften.

Clear boundaries would be essential. Military training authority must remain exclusively with the CAF. No weapons training would occur on campus. Participation by institutions and individuals would be voluntary, governed through transparent agreements, and subject to civilian oversight. The objective is not to blur civil–military boundaries, but to reinforce the enabling layer on which force generation depends.

Three supporting roles for universities
Here are three areas where universities could play a concrete, bounded role in support of CAF readiness:

Pre-enrolment readiness and administrative throughput
Before formal military training begins, potential reservists must meet fitness thresholds, complete first-aid or emergency response certification, and navigate medical and security clearance documentation. These are enabling functions, not combat training. Universities already deliver fitness programming, first-aid certification, and large-scale intake administration. Supporting these functions through advanced federal-provincial agreements would reduce early attrition and administrative backlog without altering CAF standards, selection authority, or training control.

Defence-adjacent instruction that accelerates force integration
Contemporary operations rely heavily on logistics, supply-chain management, communications, cyber hygiene, language capability, and emergency administration. These are core sustainment and support functions. Universities already teach them at scale through applied programs. Aligning specific modules with CAF requirements would shorten time-to-usefulness for reservists and free military training establishments to focus on warfighting tasks that only they can perform.

Surge and sustainment infrastructure
Rapid force expansion would immediately stress accommodation, classroom space, simulation facilities, and regional co-ordination nodes. Universities already operate distributed residential and instructional infrastructure that functions, in practice, as surge capacity. Time-limited access agreements would allow Canada to draw on this infrastructure during periods of expansion rather than attempting emergency construction or ad hoc leasing under pressure.

If universities are not deliberately integrated, this enabling capacity must be created elsewhere. That would require building new facilities, expanding bases, hiring instructors, and scaling administrative systems during a crisis – a slow, expensive, and operationally risky approach. Contracting capacity that already exists is faster, cheaper, and more reliable.

The mobilization planning reported by CBC should therefore be understood as a signal about force-generation fragility, not force numbers. Canada cannot improvise enabling capacity at scale. It must be organized in advance.

Force generation is not only about how many people are willing to serve. It is about whether the systems that prepare, train, house, and sustain them can keep pace. On that front, Canada already owns part of the solution. The remaining question is whether it chooses to use that capacity deliberately.

You are welcome to republish this Policy Options article online or in print periodicals, under a Creative Commons/No Derivatives licence.

(author)
John Walsh is an associate professor of classics at the University of Guelph. He founded the Serving Scholar Program, a university–military initiative supporting members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

 

Can you imagine?

Right now my mind does not stretch all the way to having university campuses become Primary Reserve training sites.

But I think there is definitely existing capacity and more importantly willingness on the part of universities and colleges (let’s not forget colleges) to conduct preparedness training for the people in the Civil Defence Corps that I’ve been writing about, through their existing Continuing Education departments.

First aid training, communications, logistics, planning and project management, leadership, technology training… these are all things these departments do now, alongside Conversational Spanish and Paint Your Pet in Watercolour. And they would be very happy to accept DND money to do it, with a reduced chance of faculty associations getting upset.

Hmmm….

 

Maple Leaf Rag

From the Globe and Mail today.

Military models Canadian response to hypothetical American invasion

The Canadian Armed Forces have modelled a hypothetical U.S. military invasion of Canada and the country’s potential response, which includes tactics similar to those employed against Russia and later U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan, two senior government officials say.
It is believed to be the first time in a century* that the Canadian Armed Forces have created a model of an American assault on this country, a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and a partner with the U.S. in continental air defence.
A military model is a conceptual and theoretical framework, not a military plan, which is an actionable and step-by-step directive for executing operations.
The Globe and Mail is not identifying the officials, who were not authorized to discuss the military’s thinking on this matter publicly. The officials, as well as a number of experts, say it is unlikely the Trump administration would order an invasion of Canada.
The Globe reported this week that Canada is considering sending a small contingent of troops to Greenland to join a group of eight European countries that are holding military exercises as a show of solidarity for Denmark, of which the self-ruling island is a territory.
U.S. President Donald Trump has been challenging NATO allies with repeated calls for the U.S. to acquire Greenland and threats to impose tariffs on European countries who oppose the takeover. Those threats escalated after his attack on Venezuela and capture of President Nicolás Maduro earlier this month.
Mr. Trump has also repeatedly mused about Canada becoming the 51st state. On the weekend, NBC reported Mr. Trump has been increasingly complaining to aides in recent weeks about Canada’s vulnerability to U.S. adversaries in the Arctic. Steve Bannon, the former Trump chief strategist who remains close to the President, said Canada is “rapidly changing” and becoming “hostile” to the United States.
The two senior government officials said military planners are modelling a U.S. invasion from the south, expecting American forces to overcome Canada’s strategic positions on land and at sea within a week and possibly as quickly as two days.
Canada does not have the number of military personnel or the sophisticated equipment needed to fend off a conventional American attack, they said. So, the military envisions unconventional warfare in which small groups of irregular military or armed civilians would resort to ambushes, sabotage, drone warfare or hit-and-run tactics.
One of the officials said the model includes tactics used by the Afghan mujahedeen in their hit-and-run attacks on Russian soldiers during the 1979-1989 Soviet-Afghan War. These were the same tactics employed by the Taliban in their 20-year war against the U.S. and allied forces that included Canada. Many of the 158 Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2014 were struck by improvised explosive devices or IEDs.
The aim of such tactics would be to impose mass casualties on U.S. occupying forces, the official said.
The modelling provides the keenest insight yet as to the level of threat assessment now being actively discussed by Canada with respect to the Trump administration.
One of the officials noted, however, that relations with the U.S. military remain positive and the two countries are working together on Canada’s participation in a new continental defence system, or “Golden Dome,” to defend against Russian or Chinese missiles.
The military has also run models on missile strikes from Russia or China on Canadian cities and critical infrastructure.
Military planners envision an American attack that would follow clear signs from the U.S. military that the two countries’ partnership in NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defence Command, was ending, and the U.S. was under new orders to take Canada by force.
Conscription has been ruled out for now, but the level of sacrifice that would be asked of Canadians remains a central topic, the officials said. General Jennie Carignan, Chief of the Defence Staff, has already announced her intention to create a 400,000-plus-strong reserve force of volunteers. The officials said they could be armed or asked to provide disruptions if the U.S. becomes an occupying power.
A senior Defence Department official said Canada would have a maximum of three months to prepare for a land and sea invasion. The first indications that invasion orders had been sent would be expected to come from U.S. military warnings that Canada no longer has a shared skies policy with the United States, the source said.
This rupture in the joint defence agreement would likely see France or Britain, nuclear-weapon states, being called on to provide support and defence for Canada against the U.S.
The Globe is not identifying the senior defence official, who was not authorized to discuss Canadian war-modelling scenarios.
Retired major-general David Fraser, who commanded Canadian troops in Afghanistan alongside the United States, said Canada could also use drones and tank-killing weapons like the Ukrainians used against the Russians to blunt their invasion in February, 2022.
Mr. Fraser said it is unthinkable that Canadian planners have had to draw up a U.S. invasion scenario. Whatever Mr. Trump does with Greenland and possibly Mexico would weigh into any Canadian scenario, he said.
But Canada can count on support from European countries, Britain, Japan, South Korea and other democratic nations.
“You know if you come after Canada, you are going to have the world coming after you, even more than Greenland. People do care about what happens to Canada, unlike Venezuela,” Mr. Fraser said. “You could actually see German ships and British planes in Canada to reinforce the country’s sovereignty.”
Mr. Fraser said Canada should immediately place more military assets in the North to claim its right to the region.
If the threat from the U.S. became serious, he said Canadian soldiers would be placed along the border even though there is no realistic possibility that Canada could defeat the U.S. militarily.
Insurgency tactics would be the best way to deal with U.S. invading forces, he said.
“There is a quantum difference between defending another land like Canadians did in Afghanistan versus defending Windsor, Ontario. You do not walk across that border because everybody is your enemy then,” Mr. Fraser added.
Retired lieutenant-general Mike Day, who headed Canadian Special Forces Command and served as chief strategic planner for the future of the Canadian Armed Forces, said it was “fanciful” to think the Americans would actually invade Canada.
But he acknowledged Canada’s armed forces could not stand up to the world’s biggest and most sophisticated military. He said, however, that the U.S. would have great difficulty occupying a country the size of Canada.
“We wouldn’t be able to withstand a conventional invasion. We would, for a limited period of time, be able to defend a very small civilian population, like the size of Kingston,” he said.
“Notwithstanding the size of the American military, however, they do not have the force structure to occupy, let alone control every major urban centre in Canada.”
“Their only hope would be a Russian-like drive to Kyiv and hope that works and the rest of country capitulates once they seize the seat of power in Ottawa,” he added. “Like Ukraine, it would inconceivable to me that we would give up if they seized our capital.”
Gaëlle Rivard Piché, executive director of the Conference of Defence Associations, said she did not see a situation where the U.S. would attack Canada. But she also said it’s crucial for Canada to significantly build up its defence capabilities.
“Clear signalling to our neighbour to the south that we want and we’re willing and able to rapidly be a credible ally that is capable of defending itself, ensuring our own national security, our national defence, will play a deterrence role towards a potential willingness by the United States to control some of Canada or to invade a portion of Canada,” she said.
University of Toronto political scientist Aisha Ahmad said Canada needs to drastically boost its homeland defence capabilities, regardless of the potential U.S. threat to the border.
“The better Canada can embrace this approach to homeland defence, the less likely all of these horrible scenarios that nobody wants will ever come to pass,” she said.
U.S. generals would be aware that Canadians would fight back against an invasion, using whatever tactics would be the most effective, she said.
“I do believe that there are intelligent generals south of our border who could very easily identify that risk environment.” ❞

 * “first time in a century”: This is of course a reference to COL Sutherland-Brown’s “Defence Scheme No. 1” a plan created in the 1920s by while he was working as Director of Military Operations and Intelligence for the Canadian Army. Basically, it was a scheme for a pre-emptive limited incursion into parts of the United States to disrupt an imminent full-scale invasion by the US, in order to win some time for British forces to make their way across the Atlantic to defend the country. 

Anyway, as interesting as drawing up this model might have been, it does point out the obvious: there is no way the United States could militarily occupy or administer this country without crippling its own defence, unless its inhabitants were completely supine. Which they won’t be, I’m fairly sure.

Maple Leaf Raggregator

Canada: Higher education and defence preparedness

Some of you may know, and likely none of you will care, that my day job involves research, writing and some program development or administration in or rather adjacent to the BC public post-secondary system. 

One news source that crosses my path nearly every day is  a blog entry or other item from Higher Education Strategy Associates or HESA, led by one Alex Usher who is the usual go-to guy fo rthe big picture on post-secondary education in Canada. If you are interested in this topic, you should certainly subscribe to his “One Thought To Start Your Day” blog. 

Today he gave an account of a “National Defence Research Roundtable” that was held in Ottawa on December 15, 2025. About 77 representatives of universities across Canada met to discuss the new security situation, the new alignment, priority and above all spending on the part of the federal government concerning national defence, and how post-secondary education could contribute to this urgent issue.

Usher presented the notes and proceedings of the roundtable:

https://higheredstrategy.com/report-back-on-the-national-defence-research-roundtable/

Certainly there was a lot in there about how miserably fragmented and seemingly hopeless the situation is given the pace of current events, but a certain amount of optimism too, if enough people would wake up. Much of the discussion also centred around pure and applied research and technical points, and I zipped through it in search of anything that might related to professional military education or civil defence, since this sort of thing is related to professional wargaming and training. One passage stood out for me as a model we might follow (p. 8):

 

In discussions, participants identified components of international models that were best suited
to the Canadian context, namely Sweden’s Campus Total Defence model and the Australian
Defence Science and Universities Network.


The Swedish model is rooted in an expansive whole-of-society definition of defence that encompasses civil preparedness and emergency response in addition to military capabilities. Participants felt this was an apt culture fit for Canada and would align well with the needed culture shift
in post-secondary towards a whole-of-society readiness framing of defence and security. This
model is also rooted in a coordinated network of 30+ Swedish universities (civilian and military)
oriented around providing upskilling education for the total defence mandate and developing
specialized research hubs reflecting each member university’s areas of strength. This coordination has largely been bottom-up and organized by universities themselves, which resonated with
post-secondary leaders and representatives from funding bodies. Participants felt that the
Canadian post-secondary sector could self-organize and coordinate in similar ways, enabling
them to proactively develop strategies and solutions in response to governmental priorities
rather than awaiting top-down instruction.

Again the Swedes are helping to show us the way, I think. 

I’ve written before about a “Canadian Civil Defence Corps” on the Swedish model, and the amount of training and skills development that could be quickly and hopefully efficiently be done at our universities and colleges has great potential. 

Ditto also, for the professional military education needs of the instructors, analysts, officers and NCOs of an expanded Canadian military (regular and reserve). This is where wargaming and wargame thinking comes in!

I hope something concrete will come of this roundtable. Meanwhile, let’s keep thinking about this. 

Click to access Presentation-on-International-Defence-Research-Funding-Models.pdf

Click to access 2025-01-14_2025-NDRR-Report_web.pdf

The view from there

On the last day of each year I like to take a hike in a large park nearby that is centred on a really big hill or really small mountain, depending on which part of it you are climbing.

Today it was sunny, the best weather in days and I took this picture looking north from the top.

I live in a remarkable part of a remarkable country and I’m hopeful that 2026 will see us continuing to do the sorts of things we need to for our long term survival, if not prosperity.

This is too good to lose.

Happy New Year to everyone.

Obligatory end-of-year post, 2025

Another year creaks to a close.

Not a bad year for publishing, in the end, and I seem to have made a few speeches.

Here is the roundup but I have learned my lesson: I will not post any links here, since 2 years ago I put in too many and my blog got suspended for a couple of weeks when an algorithm noticed and thought I was a ‘bot or something, I guess… one part of the dead Internet talking to another.

*****

Game publishing and publicity

January: Got a copy of the Bonsai Games reissue of Winter Thunder! Unfortunately the SS counters were the usual white on black, not the frou-frou hot pink I wanted. But no one asked me.

June: Got an advance copy of China’s War to look over! No complaints except that I wanted a darker reddish orange for the Warlords than the yellow-orange they went with, about like the ARVN In Fire in the Lake. But they still show up OK and are distinguishable from the khaki Japanese. Also, I learned that a Computing Science student in Finland had used Guerrilla Checkers for his degree thesis in machine learning.

July: After its being featured in the Australian Defence Force’s “Army Battle Lab Professional Gaming List 2025”, I thought it was time to make 91 DSSB Staff Game available for free print-and-play. No idea how many people may have actually looked at it.

August: Compass Games launched a last-minute Kickstarter to squeeze the Brief Border Wars Volume II re-order lemon one last time… 114 people got wrung out, just as Volume I sold out too.

November: At last! Copies of first Brief Border Wars Volume II and then China’s War started thudding onto tables across the planet. All pretty positive reports so far. Also, I decided to finally pull the trigger on O Canada and assembled 50 physical copies: sold them all within 48 hours, but a PnP version is now up on Wargamevault and Vassal and Tabletop Simulator modules are there for anyone who does not want to do the crafting project first. And finally, I got copies of the FOURTH printing of A Distant Plain!

December: pulled the pin on Gravel, abstract game played on a square square grid of any size. It may or may not be a competitor to Guerrilla Checkers in brain-burny. Relies on attrition, territory and open flanks; how’s that for vague direction. Also published new version of the QUICK game (Manila module) that uses a new approach to map graphics to show the complexity of urban terrain, also designed a module for the Klang Valley near Kuala Lumpur but will not put that out just yet.

Game design work and future publication

Work and/ or testing began or continued on the following.

Houses of Cards/Il Treno di Carte and District Commander Briganti: Two games on the Grande Brigantaggio period immediately following the Risorgimento, set in southern Italy. The first is a simple and fast card-based game that will be sold through the National Museum of the Risorgimento gift shop, after final graphic production (images are stupendous, the Museum made its archives available to the publisher) and a history-background pamphlet is written by an historian specializing in the period. The second is an adaptation of the District Commander series with a few period-appropriate twists.

My first attempt at a Brigantaggio game, a four-player asymmetric game called Briganti! that I did in 2024 was not set up quite right but I think the framework of it is good for another game set in another time and place. The hobby needs some games that are not strictly about war but also about enforcing reform and a difficult peace. I am still waiting for a good game on the Reconstruction period in the US and how it went off the rails.

Scaleable Urban Simulation: Got back to work on this and have made some changes to it. Two modules of it are now complete: a brigade-level one set in Daugavpils and a division-level one set in Hsinchu in northern Taiwan. However, given this year’s forced meld of Army Futures Command and TRADOC-G2 and other bits and pieces, the time may have passed where this could have been adopted.

Strongman: Title now changed to The Chair is Empty (thanks, Roger Leroux). A good test and lots of suggestions by knowledgeable parties at Spring Bottoscon and Class Wargames, this one is also a candidate for publication in the next year or two, now that I have found a good card printer in Canada. I’d like that.

Game Conventions

February: At the end of January I posted that I would not go to ConsimWorld Expo for reasons that are now all too obvious less than a year later. I don’t think any Canadians went this year, and maybe this will continue. Anyway, do online cons count? I was on two panels at SDHistcon Winter Quarters Online. One on portrayals of terrorism and counterterrorism in modern board wargames (no audio or video) and another where I joined the authors of the Eurowargames anthology, which was just then appearing.

June: Went to Spring BottosCon in New West, Rob Bottos thought this one up for the benefit of the Canadians who would not be going to CSWExpo this year and others. Good fun! Though the Curling Club where it was held was a bit dark.

November: Went to (fall) BottosCon in New West. No COVID this time, not even the usual con crud. Got in some games of O Canada and discussed its physical production, test games of Gravel which is I think one tweak away from being good but I am not sure where to tweak it.

Conferences and professional wargaming stuff

February: The Connections-North conference, a one-day event was held at CFB Kingston. I was on a panel about urban warfare, along with friend Major Jayson Geroux of the RCR who is still busy rewriting the Canadian Army’s urban doctrine. From Kingston I went back to Toronto, to participate in the “Simulation Summit”, another short event held at the Royal Canadian Military Institute and sponsored by Zeroes and Ones Inc.. My main contribution was helping to facilitate a rapid game design workshop, after which I was interviewed in the aptly named Sword Room for some of my thoughts on games and game design. Amazing how short my talks can be once the umms and ahhhs are edited out.

April: At Connections-Online I made a presentation on “Gaming-Neglected Aspects of the Operational Environment”, an adaptation of the presentation I made at the Mad Scientist event at Georgetown University the year before but of which there are no audio records.

June: I made an online presentation on “Urban Warfare and Crisis Management” to a wargaming workshop at the Centro Alti Studi Difesa in Rome: trends in urbanization, the city as a system of systems, urban warfare as a slow- or fast-motion disaster with progressive damage to those systems, a few illustrative games, and eight points for attention and design in making a really good game about this subject that relate to principles of disaster management.

September: Another extended trip abroad: just two weeks this time. First Connections-UK at Brunel University where I made no presentations but ran games of QUICK Junior (Scaleable Urban Simulation and 91 DSSB also on display but no takers), Gravel and The Chair is Empty; then to Turin to do some work on the Italian Risorgimento and Resistance games, and give a lecture on irregular warfare game design at the University there; then to Lausanne for Connections Suisse, which had mostly urban warfare themed presentations – I talked about my recent urban warfare work and ran some more games of QUICK Junior. Then I went home with a nasty cold to a dead computer and a union on strike.

Writing and ‘casting

February: Got my paper copy of the Eurowargames anthology, containing my chapter on analog newsgames. Maybe now I can shut up about it.

October: On an episode of Mentioned in Dispatches with Brant Guillory, where I talked about the three games coming out in October/November and Quadrigames generally.

November: Interviewed by Grant Linneberger for his Pushing Cardboard podcast. Should be out early next year.

December: Presented “Idiosyncrasy in Motion” online to the Georgetown University Wargaming Society, about my general body of work – family-based designs and one-offs, how I design, why I do it. Not my best presentation but it made me think about how much paper I’ve defiled over the last 35 years.

Near-meaningless digest of site statistics:

Overall traffic seemed to be about the same as 2024. I seem to be cruising still at around 1,700 views per month, for a total of about 21,200 views. About 8,500 visitors in all. The five most curious countries were: US (by a very wide margin), Canada, UK, and Spain. One visit each from 22 different smaller countries, with Albania bringing up the rear (no visits from Afghanistan this year, but that may be the Taliban shutting down the Internet there).
Besides the then-current post, popular pages included Free Games, BTR Games, the QUICK Page and Scenarios and Variants pages like always.
The most downloaded documents were items for free PnP games: mostly items related to QUICK, Ukrainian Crisis and 91 DSSB. By the unequal numbers of downloads for the different game components I cannot help but think that a lot of these downloads are just grabs by ‘bots… whatever for, I don’t know.

Maple Leaf Battalions

Card from O Canada game.

https://charlieangus.substack.com/p/canada-mobilizes-a-peoples-army

Well, this is kind of interesting.

For those who don’t recognize the name, Charlie Angus is one of Canada’s more interesting political commentators with an interesting pedigree. Born in northern Ontario (Timmins), in the 80s and 90s he was a punk rock musician and community activist in Toronto then went back to northern Ontario to write books and produce a magazine. From 2004 to 2025, he was the Member of Parliament for Timmins and an important figure in the left-wing factions in the New Democratic Party. He left politics and broadcasts on the Meidas Touch network and writes some good Substack.

I’ve written before about the Department of National Defence’s proposals for building a supplementary reserve force of up to 300,000 members (though they realize that it is not going to be easy! https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/army-mobilization-canada-troops-9.7009323 ).

A Canadian Civil Defence Corps

“Canadian military wants mobilization plan in place to boost reserves to 400,000 personnel”

Personally I believe it should be called something like the “Civil Defence Corps” with only a minority of its members trained in weaponry (I’ve long since come to the conclusion that most people are more useful without a rifle in their hands, nor do they necessarily want one) but here are his ideas for the “Maple Leaf Battalions”:

  • Choose an inspiring name rooted in Canadian pride and patriotism – perhaps the Maple Leaf Battalion.

  • Build from the bottom up. Decentralized local networks of resistance will foster esprit de corps and can respond quickly in the event of a local emergency.

  • Equip members properly with a uniform and access to a weapon so they can carry out their responsibilities confidently and safely.

  • Draw on the expertise already in our communities: involve health care and front-line workers, community planners, retired military and police.

  • Invite the Canadian Rangers to play a role in establishing local training programs and consider a Junior Rangers-style program for our young people.

  • Prioritize training in first aid, communications and logistics that can be used at the local level in case of emergency.

  • Bring in Ukrainian trainers to help with drone skills and civilian-defence expertise.

  • Give the battalions a strong social media presence to highlight local service and build national unity.

Again, I’m of two minds about giving everyone access to a weapon but there are some interesting touches here… I like the one about bringing in Ukrainian trainers, a fair trade since so many Ukrainian soldiers were trained by Canadian soldiers before the current war and who helped turn that military around quickly. And by all means, train everyone possible in first aid, communications and logistics to help deal with inevitable and real-world disasters and build community resiliency and a sense of belonging, protection and pride.

Again again, I do not at this point believe that the United States wants to literally occupy this country still less make it some kind of formal territorial acquisition. But they do want formal and informal acquiescence: a vassal state that poses no threat or alternative, gives unfettered access to anything the United States wants, and retains a performative government of Quislings that will keep the lid on while the looting and asset-stripping continues. The methods used to obtain this state of affairs are not so crude as an armed invasion and resisting them will take organization and intelligence (in both senses of the word).

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started