Can Canada be depended on in a crisis? (Page 4/9)
82-T/A [At Work] JAN 26, 08:47 AM

quote
Originally posted by Patrick:

Todd, we aren't mind readers. After a full paragraph of nothing but talk about tanks, you come out with... "All of that said, Canada is a mess." You often brag about how fast you can type. All you had to do was add one extra word to clarify what you apparently meant, as in... "All of that said, Canada's military is a mess."





Sorry Patrick, you don't get to feign ignorance here. The post is literally titled, "Can Canada be depended on in a crisis?" ... with multiple discussions (with you included) on how Canada's military is irrelevant and obsolete. I know you're competitive... I love you man, but this isn't a win/lose argument for points here... it was pretty clear what I was talking about. And if that sentence wasn't clear, the next three paragraphs specifically talked about Canada's military... in reference to again... the other posts on the topic about the obsolescence of Canada's military.



quote
Originally posted by Patrick:

I'd like to think that Canada as a sovereign nation strives to give little reason for an "attack" from whomever, but having said that, I would prefer we at least had more of a naval presence along our extensive coastlines.




And of course, that makes sense. Canada has a larger coastline to defend, and money in naval power makes sense. I'm definitely not a fan of going to war, and not suggesting that Canada should be attracting the kind of attention that deserves invasion. I'm simply stating the fact of Canada's readiness should they be invaded, or they go to war. As Blackrams said, this speaks nothing to Canada's spirit, or willingness to help in a situation... but military has not been a priority for them, largely because the United States is the most militarily powerful country in the world which sits directly below them.

Also, I would not hesitate for a moment to imagine they feel betrayed after we pulled out of Afghanistan, hardly even telling them in advance that we were going to do it... so they had to make their own arrangements, and had to go on rescue missions of their own to save Afghans who supported the Americans during the war, which apparently, our own military were told not to bother with. Don't even get me started.

Maybe Canada has the right perspective here... I don't know, but it doesn't change facts.

The U.S. does stupid stuff all the time. Until Elon Musk starting building reusable rockets, we launched all our astronauts into space using 60s-technology Soyuz rockets. We literally had an exception in our sanctions that still allowed us to use their rockets, which the Russians were only too proud to talk about... "silly Americans, such a great country, but need Russia to help them get into space." Yes, embarrassing.
82-T/A [At Work] JAN 26, 09:36 AM

quote
Originally posted by maryjane:

But having said that, what, of Canadian's (in this case) heavy armor, would be their 'fair share' to contribute to Ukraine? Who decides this? The writer of that article Adam Zivo? Do some research on him and you'll see he's been an opportunist writer, flitting from one high visibility topic to the next.
By most accounts Canada has 82 Leopard2 tanks, with about 15 being training vehicles or tank retrieval vehicles.

So what, is their 'fair share' of heavy hardware?




Well... this is what frustrates me. I know you know this... looking back at Ukraine's history, they had more than ample military and weaponry. They even had their own cache of nuclear weapons, submarines, destroyers, even an air craft carrier, etc.

The United States came in and promised we would defend them personally in the case of an attack, on the condition that they gave away ALL of their weapons. The U.S. coerced them to give all their nuclear weapons to Russia, all of their MIG fighter jets to Iran, all of their tanks to China (if I remember correctly), and all of their arms and munitions to Turkey or Hungary. The promise was that we would help them eventually join NATO, while taking full ownership of their defense.

Like most people in the United States, I had no idea Ukraine even existed prior to the annexation of Crimea in 2014. I'd never been there, just never given that geography lesson.

We seem to have left Ukraine in a lurch during the Bush administration, and the Obama administration (with peace during Trump's administration), allowing land to continuously be taken, with absolutely no help from the United States.

Now, Ukraine seems to be the big thing, and everyone cares about it... personally, I think it's because it's against Russia and there's some psychological connection there with hating Russia means hating Trump, but I digress. So now the United States is asking everyone to help... as if our problems should be everyone else's problems. Remembering of course that we asked the entire world to support us in Afghanistan, and Iraq, and then unceremoniously pulled out of Afghanistan without so much as a VTC / conference call with our allies, who not only felt betrayed, but questioned our ability to lead globally.

I think we all remember this:




So personally, if the United States is asking Canada to do their "fair share," I would probably respond to the United States with a "go **** yourself."

You know I love the United States, I'd give my life for it. But personally, the United States should never have made that promise with Ukraine that they never had any intention of keeping. Now that after two annexations of territory that we suddenly find it an important fight... I recognize that this isn't even America's problem (Canada's or the United States). This is a European problem. My experience in Europe is limited... I've only been there 3 times in the past decade, but I know most of my family there seems to believe all the media narrative about the U.S., and dare I say... almost pro-Russian. In the 80s and 90s when I'd visit... I only heard pro-Russian propaganda from people whenever I'd visit Germany, Netherlands, France, Belgium, etc. So it doesn't surprise me that Europe has been so completely apathetic to the plight of Ukraine. They are more interested in protecting their own interests, than starting a fight they have no desire to win.

So if I was Canada... I would honestly say to the United States... "Why is this my problem?"
maryjane JAN 26, 10:15 AM

quote
The United States came in and promised we would defend them personally in the case of an attack, on the condition that they gave away ALL of their weapons. The U.S. coerced them to give all their nuclear weapons to Russia, all of their MIG fighter jets to Iran, all of their tanks to China (if I remember correctly), and all of their arms and munitions to Turkey or Hungary. The promise was that we would help them eventually join NATO, while taking full ownership of their defense.
.....................................................................................

Like most people in the United States, I had no idea Ukraine even existed prior to the annexation of Crimea in 2014.


there's a good bit of contradiction in those 2 statements... Hard to understand how you could 'remember' Ukraine giving up it's weapons (promised to give up nukes in '94, last one left in '96) while saying you had never heard of the country's name until 2014, 10 years later.

What a lot of people don't understand is tht Ukraine had no control or launch capability of those nukes. That, remained in Moscow's hands always and, the agreement that was reached was that Ukraine got a lot more than just a vague promise of defense from the USA. Several billion $$ in Ukraine debt forgiveness, fuel for their energy producing nuclear reactors, and only security as produced by the Budapest Memorandum. There was no clad in stone promise of helping them militarily and in fact, the security clause of the BM was that neither the Russians or the US would invade Ukraine, with most of NATO nations initialing as well.

Ukraine never had much of a navy. The USSR did have significant naval assets in Ukraine as part of it's Black Sea fleet, but like the nukes, they weren't Ukraine's. Ukraine did keep some (very few) ships after the breakup of the USSR but lost them in 2014 when Russia took over Crimea.
blackrams JAN 26, 10:37 AM

quote
Originally posted by maryjane:
The writer of that article Adam Zivo? Do some research on him and you'll see he's been an opportunist writer, flitting from one high visibility topic to the next.




But, isn't that what most reporters do? Killing the messenger doesn't make the message less or more accurate.

Rams
maryjane JAN 26, 12:10 PM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:


But, isn't that what most reporters do? Killing the messenger doesn't make the message less or more accurate.

Rams


The so called 'message' in this instance is anything but accurate or clear, and the question even more so in regards to it's importance in the real world.
The US has 2,509 Abrams M1A1 and M1A2 tanks in service, with a further 3,700 in storage. The most recent word is, we will send enough for one tank battalion, about 31 serviceable tanks; that is, we intend to send about 1/2 of 1% of our tanks. For Canada to do the same, (to match ouur contribution) to do their 'fair share' they would send .41 tanks. That's right. Not even a whole tank.
Whoppty freakin doo....
There's your accuracy.

Now, which approx 7/16 of the tank would like them to crate up or palletize and get on it's merry way to Kiev?

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-26-2023).]

blackrams JAN 26, 12:19 PM
The point was never to ask Canada to match our gift to Ukraine. The question was could Canada hold up it’s commitment to NATO. If, the article was even close to accurate then it very debatable whether or not Canada could.
And, if unable then, that would be a Whoopty Doo worth knowing.

🤪
Rams
maryjane JAN 26, 12:33 PM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:
Rather disconcerting article if it's accurate.
It's one thing to be a neighbor and trading partner. The question is, are they willing to pull their fair share of the load


Your words. Own 'em.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-26-2023).]

82-T/A [At Work] JAN 26, 12:54 PM

quote
Originally posted by maryjane:

there's a good bit of contradiction in those 2 statements... Hard to understand how you could 'remember' Ukraine giving up it's weapons (promised to give up nukes in '94, last one left in '96) while saying you had never heard of the country's name until 2014, 10 years later.

What a lot of people don't understand is tht Ukraine had no control or launch capability of those nukes. That, remained in Moscow's hands always and, the agreement that was reached was that Ukraine got a lot more than just a vague promise of defense from the USA. Several billion $$ in Ukraine debt forgiveness, fuel for their energy producing nuclear reactors, and only security as produced by the Budapest Memorandum. There was no clad in stone promise of helping them militarily and in fact, the security clause of the BM was that neither the Russians or the US would invade Ukraine, with most of NATO nations initialing as well.

Ukraine never had much of a navy. The USSR did have significant naval assets in Ukraine as part of it's Black Sea fleet, but like the nukes, they weren't Ukraine's. Ukraine did keep some (very few) ships after the breakup of the USSR but lost them in 2014 when Russia took over Crimea.




I assumed there would be some inference there. You and Patrick should use some common sense, I'm not trying to deceive. I was in middle school when the USSR collapsed. So I don't "remember" any of Ukraine because I was more interested in Nintendo and desperately hoping I'd have sex with a girl one day. I meant that I "remembered" from reading articles within the past couple of years since this conflict started.

What I remember reading is that Ukraine voted to become an independent nation after the collapse, and that they refused to give all of the military equipment back. We could say these things belonged to the (formerly) USSR, but in truth Ukraine had them, and they weren't planning on giving them back. They had several destroyers and two air craft carriers... one of which they sold to China, and several destroyers that were sold to India. The other carrier was just a hull if I remember correctly, which I think they also sold to China, but I can't remember. Never the less, they had tons of planes, tanks, and everything you could imagine. Most of this armament, ships, and planes were even made in Ukraine... it was the technical and manufacturing hub of the USSR... which is probably one of the reasons why they voted to cede from Russia, and why Russia wants them back so badly.

My point still stands... Canada has no obligation to this, and I honestly don't even think we'd be dealing with this if Europe took a greater stand from the beginning in 2014, or the United States.
rinselberg JAN 26, 01:04 PM

quote
Originally posted by maryjane:

The so called 'message' in this instance is anything but accurate or clear, and the question even more so in regards to its importance in the real world.

The US has 2,509 Abrams M1A1 and M1A2 tanks in service, with a further 3,700 in storage. The most recent word is, we will send enough for one tank battalion, about 31 serviceable tanks; that is, we intend to send about 1/2 of 1% of our tanks. For Canada to do the same (to match our contribution) [as] their 'fair share' they would send .41 tanks. That's right. Not even a whole tank.

Whoppty freakin doo... there's your accuracy.

Now, which [approximately] 7/16 of the tank would [you] like them to crate up or palletize and get on its merry way to Kiev?


I think it's permissible to round up to the nearest tank. So I'd expect Canada to send one complete tank, fully assembled.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-26-2023).]

blackrams JAN 26, 01:20 PM

quote
Originally posted by maryjane:

Your words. Own 'em.




Your interpretation of what I was talking about. Own that. It never was about Canada sending tanks to Ukraine.

I have consistently spoken about Canada's ability to maintain and hold up their end of the NATO agreement. Not Canada sending tanks to Ukraine.
That was the point.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-26-2023).]