"The unit has also been tasked with helping to develop evacuation plans for Canadian diplomatic personnel in the event of a full-scale invasion, sources said."
They obviously think that the balloon is going to go up soon and "Operation Canuck Bugout" will commence.
Canada has consistently backed Kyiv in its dealings with Russia since Putin annexed Crimea in 2014. According to the Canadian government, Ottawa has committed roughly $700 million in assistance to Ukraine since Jan. 2014, including provision of non-lethal military equipment and sending rotations of 200 Canadian Armed Forces troops every six months to train Ukrainian security forces.
Aurel Braun, an international relations professor at the University of Toronto, said in an interview Monday that while Canada’s support does “make a difference,” the West’s central player around the negotiation table is the U.S.
“It depends a great deal what the Americans do,” said Braun, who is also associated with Harvard’s Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies.
Since 2015, the US has sent $2.5 billion in military and domestic aid to Ukraine, including small arms ammunition, military training companies, and FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank systems. The pentagon sent $450 million in military assistance to Ukraine in 2021 alone.
The final shipment includes small arms, ammunition, and grenades, Defense Department officials told reporters on Wednesday, just a day after Mr. Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin held a two-hour virtual summit over recent clashes in Ukraine and other places along Russia‘s borders with Europe.
The military assistance shipment includes both lethal and non-lethal items, from patrol boats to medical supplies, officials said. Spokesman John Kirby declined to comment on possible future shipments should tensions escalate.
Hundreds of US-made FGM-148 Javelin missiles are now in the hands of Ukrainian soldiers in the event Russian tanks roll across their border. The warhead is capable of knocking out armored vehicles by striking them from above where they are most vulnerable. Any restrictions from the Americans on where the Javelin missiles can be located have been waived as Russian troops have reportedly massed on their side of the border with Ukraine.
Go ahead Canada, with your 'non-lethal aid.. Talk is cheap so I guess it's "talk 'em to death eh?".
‘Lethal’ U.S. Military Aid Begins Arriving in Ukraine U.S. Embassy says ammunition included in first shipment Talks between Blinken and Lavrov fail to yield an agreement U.S. military aid arrives in Kyiv. U.S. military aid arrives in Kyiv.Source: American Embassy in Kyiv ByJohn Harney January 22, 2022, 3:36 AM UTC
U.S. military aid to help Ukraine defend against a possible invasion by Russia began arriving on Friday night, according to the American Embassy in Kyiv.
The embassy, in a Twitter post, said the material “includes close to 200,000 pounds of lethal aid, including ammunition for the front line defenders of Ukraine.”
In other news, US Embassy in Kiev is making plans to exacuate dependents & non-essential personnel as early As Monday, Jan 24 after it was reported top of line Russian aircraft had been arriving at nearby Belarus. https://www.foxnews.com/wor...evacuating-officials
In other news, US Embassy in Kiev is making plans to exacuate dependents & non-essential personnel as early As Monday, Jan 24 after it was reported top of line Russian aircraft had been arriving at nearby Belarus. https://www.foxnews.com/wor...evacuating-officials
So the next question is "will the Brandon administration fund the Russian Military too with full-blown military pullout and leaving behind BILLIONS worth of military equipment?". Maybe this time Brandon will give them Aircraft Carriers and nuclear weapons.
So the next question is "will the Brandon administration fund the Russian Military too with full-blown military pullout and leaving behind BILLIONS worth of military equipment?". Maybe this time Brandon will give them Aircraft Carriers and nuclear weapons.
"leave behind.... " The US (and other nations) have done that for many decades. When you give (or sell) small arms, artillery, aircraft or naval vessels to another nation, those weapons are theirs, no strings attached most of the time. If that nation or it's govt loses them to an enemy, it's on them and it happens quite frequently, as we have recently seen but it's been going on long before Afghanistan. Islamic Iran, farther back, ended up with 4 squadrons (about80 aircraft) of F-14 Tomcats, about 600 Hughes AIM54 Phoenix missiles, (plus spares) and pilot and armor training and came close to having 4 latest and greatest state of the art USA designed and built Spruance class destroyers, (Look up Kidd class guided missile destroyers) because we agreed to sell them to the Shah's regime. We pulled the plug on the tin can sale but the F-14/Phoenix sale had already been done.
I saw an OpEd in the New York Times a few days ago that accused the U.S. of a certain amount of hypocrisy because of the Monroe Doctrine. The long standing idea that the U.S. takes a jaundiced eye towards any of our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere, from Mexico, south to Chile and Argentina, forming close military ties with nations that we regard as antagonists. Russia and China. Or the USSR in times past.
The columnist likened that towards Russia's antagonism towards the NATO presence and possible expansion of NATO adjacent to Russia's borders--Ukraine being the case in point. A "what holds for the goose holds for the gander" kind of argument.
The columnist didn't end by saying that we should acquiesce to Russia and sign some kind of formal agreement that NATO would never expand to include Ukraine. Nor did the columnist say that we shouldn't try to help Ukraine in its conflicts with Russia.
I guess the columnist just wanted to remind people of the Monroe Doctrine. He cited some recent examples of Senators or Congress(wo)men (see what I did there?) saying that the Monroe Doctrine is still a "thing" today and has not been (or should not be) relegated to the past.
He said the U.S. needs to be "honest" about this.
I just wonder if anyone here thought of the Monroe Doctrine lately, because of what's happening with Russia and Ukraine?
I didn't, until I saw that OpEd.
------------------ Viva la revolución del 15 de agosto
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-22-2022).]
I haven't given any importance whatsoever to an 1820s policy in relation to today's world.
There has been a US civil war, numerous south and central American civil wars and revolutions, 2 world wars, multiple smaller wars, and HUGE technical and social advances and changes since James Monroe was president.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-22-2022).]
The columnist likened that towards Russia's antagonism towards the NATO presence and possible expansion of NATO adjacent to Russia's borders--Ukraine being the case in point. A "what holds for the goose holds for the gander" kind of argument.
I see an issue with Russia's claim they do not want NATO so close to their border. If they take Ukraine, wouldn't that move their border closer to NATO, the one thing they do not want?
Russia with it's Kaliningrad oblast and NATO aligned countries of Lativa, Estonia, and Turkey already share borders or seaways. May be a case of "keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer' but I don't think that is what is at work here...
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-22-2022).]
I see an issue with Russia's claim they do not want NATO so close to their border. If they take Ukraine, wouldn't that move their border closer to NATO, the one thing they do not want?
Exactly. It's just another way you know the US led media line is bullchit. Russia didn't want to take Ukraine
Russia has maintained a naval base there since the early 1800s and it is the home of the Russian "Black Sea Fleet", their southernmost "warm water" naval base and their primary naval access to the Mediterranean.
Opening the Nordstream pipeline into Germany would have effectively nullified the agreement that the Russians and Ukranians had for maintaining the Russian "lease" of Sevastapol until 2042
The specter of Ukraine joining NATO, real or not, would have also put Sevastopol in question / jeopardy as it is highly unlikely that NATO would condone a Russian naval base IN an allied country, and NATO membership would have potentially given Ukraine sufficient political and military clout to evict the Russians .
Back in 2014 the Ukrainian navy component of the old Russian "Black Sea Fleet" was "voluntarily evicted" from Sevastopol and moved to port in Odessa.
Proof being that he won't recognize the 2 break away regions for the past 7-8 years. They're majority Russian and asking that Russia recognize them as separate from Ukraine and to come under Russian protection.
Russia has maintained a naval base there since the early 1800s and it is the home of the Russian "Black Sea Fleet", their southernmost "warm water" naval base and their primary naval access to the Mediterranean.
Opening the Nordstream pipeline into Germany would have effectively nullified the agreement that the Russians and Ukranians had for maintaining the Russian "lease" of Sevastapol until 2042
The specter of Ukraine joining NATO, real or not, would have also put Sevastopol in question / jeopardy as it is highly unlikely that NATO would condone a Russian naval base IN an allied country, and NATO membership would have potentially given Ukraine sufficient political and military clout to evict the Russians .
Back in 2014 the Ukrainian navy component of the old Russian "Black Sea Fleet" was "voluntarily evicted" from Sevastopol and moved to port in Odessa.
Why would the permitting of Nordstream2 terminate the Sevastapol lease? The only lease terms involved in the 2010 negotiations were that Russia would drop the price of natural gas sold to Ukraine (that comes in via a pipeline overland) by 30% in exchange for extending the agreement to 2042 with an option to extend another 5 years into 2049.
Why would the permitting of Nordstream2 terminate the Sevastapol lease? The only lease terms involved in the 2010 negotiations were that Russia would drop the price of natural gas sold to Ukraine (that comes in via a pipeline overland) by 30% in exchange for extending the agreement to 2042 with an option to extend another 5 years into 2049.
Because unless I am mistaken the other, and larger, part of that agreement nets Ukraine the equivalent of billions of dollars annually in pipeline transfer fees for the gas that crosses their country into eastern Europe. Opening the Nordstream pipeline effectively slashes that income because the Russians will pay zero transfer fees on Nordstream and their comparatively costly gas transfer across Ukraine will come to a crawl if not cease altogether. Unless the Ukrainians are complete morons, and I'm sure they aren't, there are most likely minimums built into that agreement.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-23-2022).]
Because unless I am mistaken the other, and larger, part of that agreement nets Ukraine the equivalent of billions of dollars annually in pipeline transfer fees for the gas that crosses their country into eastern Europe. Opening the Nordstream pipeline effectively slashes that income because the Russians will pay zero transfer fees on Nordstream and their comparatively costly gas transfer across Ukraine will come to a crawl if not cease altogether. Unless the Ukrainians are complete morons, and I'm sure they aren't, there are most likely minimums built into that agreement.
I don't think the zero fee thing is going to be correct. There is already a Nordstream1 pipeline to Germany. Nordstream2 runs parallel to Nordstream1 and both terminate at the same point in NW Germany. The pipelines that run thru Ukraine, also supply gas (and some crude) to other nations besides Ukraine. Poland, Muldova, Czech Republic, Austria, Hungary, Slovakia, and tapping off that same supply, lateral lines run from some of those countries to Romania, Slovena, Crotia, Bosnia/Herz, and part of Italy gets gas from Russia from the thru Ukraine lines too. That line won't get shut down even when (if) NS2 goes on line.
Russia would like to have the ability to force Ukraine to actually pay for the gas they're taking. Because they haven't been staying current on payments. At least last year they weren't, and Russia made noises about shutting it down temporally.
