I'm not a Tucker Carlson fan, but should we start calling out every journalist with this kind of moniker? When we refer to Rosemary Barton as a comically obtuse Tru-anon groveller? or Omar Sachedina as a vapid, formulaic pro-leftist pinup boy?
I would say in most cases no. But given his off the chart level of disingenuous media persona (e.g. say one thing publicly vs something completely different privately about Trump/MAGA) , its warranted with him (IMHO). He is more on a personal crusade than that of being a journalist. That's not to say that isn't the case with some (probably too many) CBC employees either or any number of lefty opinion writers role playing as journalists. But there is something lost if you just collapse Carlson into the category of "just another bad jurno" like some run of the mill bad CBC type.
Carlson is NOT a journalist. He is a political entertainer at best but mostly a propagandist.There is an actual Court ruling that says that no serious person would believe anything Tucker Carlson says. That doesn't say much for his audience.
Frankly you have completely missed the mark on this.
Reality 1: The West has no more artillery shells to give Ukraine. The US war stock is so low that it fears a conflict emerging that will require massed fires. They just don’t have the bombs to fight that kind of war. Nations like Canada are, despite all their promises, still not producing more artillery shells. This late summer Canada will begin producing 18,000 shells, and none of those are earmarked for Ukraine. Why? Because the Canadian Army in Latvia has only a days worth of ammunition to fight with. 18,000 shells are about a month’s worth of shells at the rate Ukraine uses them btw.)
Specialized artillery ammunition is another issue. Germany’s much acclaimed anti armour artillery shells (SMArt155) have yet to restart production due to sub component availability issues. These are not expected to start production until 2027, even though the order was made back in 2022!
The same is true for other systems as well. Tanks? lol good luck, production is slow and parts are difficult to come by. Small arms? Still woefully low production rates and at the rate Ukrainians are burning through it we probably don’t make enough to keep them supplied unless we dramatically increase production rates.
Why is it all so slow? For one, Globalization. We depended on it, and it’s not working anymore. Another issue is that NATO didn’t ever really plan of fighting a major conflict in Europe after the end of the Cold War. Even the USA required its defense industry to provision a limited conflict. The idea of massed fires, high losses of material and people was not on anyone’s mind when they designed our current war production capabilities.
The result is that we simply do not have the means to adequately support Ukraine and our own immediate pressing needs.
Reality 2: It is highly improbable that the Ukrainians can win this war. By win I mean take back all the Russia has taken. This is a fact that no serious military thinker finds contentious. Even if the war takes 10 more years and the Ukrainians get every bit of ammunition they ask for, it’s just not possible. They are 10x smaller than Russia. They are running out of fighting age males. Their economy is destroyed, they may not even have the population left to be a country after this war is done. So what is to be done with this reality?
Choice one. Get the Ukrainians to fight the Russians on behalf of NATO until the last Ukrainian draws their last breath.
Choice two. Find a peaceful resolution to this conflict.
Choice three. NATO goes to war against Russia.
You would have to be a genocidal maniac to want the first or third choice so I think it’s appropriate to look for an exit for Ukraine that offers at least a hope of survival.
Reality 3: This isn’t a MAGA, conservative or Progressive liberal issue. The war must end because the West can’t afford it, Ukraine can’t take it, and no one wants this escalating further. Biden is pushing for peace( he really doesn’t want this as an issue on the upcoming election) France and Germany are pushing of peace, and oh, Trump wants peace too.
Reality 4: War is really really awful. We don’t get clean tidy wins very often. Almost always there are terrible unintended consequences to the decisions to go to war. Russia is experiencing that right now, but so is NATO. This conflict will end in the next 6-12 months. When it does the lesson should be, find peaceful solutions and never ever trust the assurances of the USA that they will get your back when you turn down a fairly reasonable peace offer from your enemy. (Cough cough… Minsk Accords…cough..)
Oh yeah orange man bad. Conservatives are stupid…. Got it.
"The US war stock is so low that it fears a conflict emerging that will require massed fires."
Most members of Congress appear to disagree. Further ammunition aid to Ukraine has only been stalled because of the pro-Trump/pro-Putin minority of members of Congress and the dysfunctions of the U.S. legislature.
"Even if the war takes 10 more years and the Ukrainians get every bit of ammunition they ask for, it’s just not possible."
We saw during the Wagner insurrection just how fragile the Russian regime is. If the war lasts long enough, another faction within the Russian army can and will revolt against the Putin regime. And if or when that happens, whoever comes out on top in Russia will need to recall the army from Ukraine in order to secure their control over Russia.
"the lesson should be, find peaceful solutions and never ever trust the assurances of the USA that they will get your back when you turn down a fairly reasonable peace offer from your enemy. (Cough cough… Minsk Accords…cough..)"
The Minsk Accords were too opaque to ever be enforceable in a sovereign state and were abused by the Putin regime to advance the territory of the artificial Russian puppet state that was stealing territory at Ukraine's expense.
The artificial Russian state? That’s like saying Quebec is an artificial French state. I never suggested the Russia is good or trustworthy. However, since France, Germany and Zelenskyy all thought the Minsk accords were worth signing to find a path to peace it’s a bit much to say it was too opaque.
I think if Ukraine had to do it all over again they would have allowed Russian speaking citizens to keep their language, culture and the right to vote. They would have signed the peace accords and told Obama, I mean Hillary.. er I mean Biden to go find another money laundering war to invest in.
Except the Zelenskyy ran on the promise to honour the accords…. And yeah there is definitely the real threat of what Russia would do if they didn’t. That’s the nature of these savage situations.
We talk tough in Canada, we walk around like a 300 lbs gorilla when in fact we are an annoying chihuahua, but we get away with it because big daddy to the south is standing over us. Ukraine is forced to be a wee bit more pragmatic, or at least they were, until big daddy got greedy and wanted Ukraine in its sphere. Which might be a lesson for Canada, but we don’t take lessons, we are too busy yipping like we know something.
He’s talking about the Donetsk People’s Republic that Russia established to provide cover for their initial invasion in 2014. You’re completely off the mark regarding your claims about Russian language, culture, and voting rights in Ukraine. Get away from Gateway Pundit et al and start reading some reliable sources like The Economist or Anne Applebaum.
"since France, Germany and Zelenskyy all thought the Minsk accords were worth signing to find a path to peace it’s a bit much to say it was too opaque."
Zelensky never signed the Accords, though a predecessor did. Ukraine was clear that it only ever signed the Accords under gunpoint by Russia.
That France and Germany supported the Accords demonstrates nothing about its merit. It rather suggests that these countries took the naive Neville Chamberlain approach of trying to appease an aggressive land-grabbing dictatorship. The Accord has been analyzed by academics, its provisions were left open to interpretation in a way that could allow both sides to claim to be provoked in the absence of clearly-defined regional borders: https://epicenter.wcfia.harvard.edu/blog/through-ashes-minsk-agreements
"I think if Ukraine had to do it all over again they would have allowed Russian speaking citizens to keep their language, culture and the right to vote."
Ukraine never did that. Moreover, had Putin not annexed Crimea, the remaining voting population in Ukraine would not have been reduced to the pro-West faction.
As someone whose grandfather came to Canada after fighting with the British all over the world in WW2 (he was a Polish school teacher in his early 20's in 1939), I am disgusted that anyone with even a sixth grade understanding of world history wouldn't want to support Ukraine with every fiber of their being.
Robert suggests that 'the west can't afford it". I wholeheartedly disagree. The 18,000 shells we ordered are earmarked for Latvia? Then order 18,000 more. We have not ordered Any extra shells since the war began, 24 months ago, yet we profess - both sides of the house - to support Ukraine 'for as long as it takes'. For as long as it takes them to run out of ammo?
Canada and its allies spent enormously last century in the defeat of fascist Germany. The Americans spent enormously firther with the Marshall plan and Berlin airlift so secure that peace. We invested fifty years and untold billions fighting a Cold War with the Soviet Union. These expenditures did not seem to cripple the postwar western economies, rather the opposite. And now we're not Really sure who's at fault over the Ukraine Invasion? It's appalling. This is the only reason we've Ever needed 155mm shells - a war with Russia. Now they're on a war footing and we don't want to get our arms makers excited with a few extra PO's? Because the long-tail supporters of our major parties are either marxist flunkies like Niki Ashton or Trump-fogged Putin sympathizers. Both parties need to stop kowtowing to their respective fringes. The MAGA fans are not going to vote Liberal, and the anti-colonial/capitalists are not going to throw Justin under the bus in favor of the conservatives. So - again, to both parties - stop reading polls and start selling and educating a responsible position here with some leadership.
1) Russia poses nowhere near the threat that Germany did. It's a silly and intellectually lazy comparison. It's also not fascist, if that word has any meaning anymore.
2) We have a massive manufacturing deficit that many in the West, including the US military, have been warning us about for decades. We have been winding down supplies and manufacturing facilities during this time of peace. We can't just "order more". This isn't Amazon (in part because so much manufacturing is now in China). It's impossible.
3) We're not just missing the factories, but expertise. This isn't just about shells but equipment in general. We've completely lost the necessary expertise. This is an issue for all manufacuting, but particularly equipment related to the military. This isn't about just spinning things back up - we don't even have the people who know how to build these factories (or not in anywhere near the numbers we need).
4) We agreed not to push NATO east - and then we did it. There are credible claims by Russia that don't have to do with sympathizing with a thug like Putin or justifying the invasion.
The Canadian media hasn't read nearly enough history to understand how complicated this war is and how long it's been brewing. Understand Kosovo and Minsk and then I'll believe you have some idea what you're talking about.
NATO never formally in an institutional manner promised to not expand. Even if it had made such a promise, it was the decision of non-NATO members themselves to apply for membership, Mikhail Gorbachev was still surprised by the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and not a single Russian anywhere ever died as a result of NATO expansion.
Are you, by chance, able to explain how the Minsk Accords were anything other than France and Germany taking the Neville Chamberlain approach of appeasing the territory-aggressor, and giving power to an illegitimate Russian puppet proto-state?
You've gone the historical illiteracy route I see.
The case of Neville Chamberlain is much more complicated than your simplistic, black-and-white version of history recognizes. Chamberlain understood how weak Britain (and France) was at that time. Current estimates are they might have been able to send only two under-manned and ill-equipped divisions to Czechoslovakia. On top of that, their was immense exhaustion and scarring after the most brutal war the world had seen. British people did not want to fight over what was seen as an artificial state.
Chamberlain then began re-arming the British people in reaction to the threat Germany was posing. It wasn't "appeasement" it was biding time, and given how constrained Britain was militarily and diplomatically, very likely the right one.
I think pursuing peace, where possible, is a laudable goal. I admire Chamberlain for what he attempted, but failed at. The hundreds of thousands dead due to Western-sponsored wars in the failed states of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya speak to the hubris of assuming you can easily and painlessly remove dictators.
Second, your geopolitics is simplistic. Expanding NATO is intended, and seen, as a threat. That is the goal.
Third, Ukraine signed onto Minsk. It was a supported agreement and a path to peace. Ukraine itself, through it's own failures and corruption, played its own role in getting to this state. Do you have any familiarity with why it came to Minsk, why it was adopted, and why it failed beyond "Russia did it"? Yes, Russia bears a lot of blame, but there was a US-backed coup in 2014 which kicked this off. My gosh man, learn some history.
I was already aware that Chamberlain had been seeking to re-arm Britain and had never been entirely naïve. Like you said, his policies were well-intentioned but mistaken - just like Germany and France's overtures to the Putin regime in the face of its 2014 aggressions. And Chamberlain's government was quite disrespectful to the Czechs in making the key decisions about their fate without fully consulting them, nor was the German army in a good position to both breach the Czech's border defenses and fend off hypothetical incursions at its western border. Which was worse than the withholding of weapons supplies to post-2014 Ukraine, but not entirely dissimilar.
"Expanding NATO is intended, and seen, as a threat. That is the goal."
The entire purpose of NATO is to be threatening to anyone who would want to invade a NATO member. Something that, unsurprisingly, seems to be a problem for countries who want to invade would-be NATO members at any unpredictable time of their choosing.
"Third, Ukraine signed onto Minsk. It was a supported agreement and a path to peace."
Ukraine signed Minsk under gunpoint and threat of invasion by Russia. The very provisions of the Accord (autonomy for self-declared regional separatists) were never going to be possible for a non-federal state to reconcile with its Constitution (where democratic authority belongs to the central government). Any process to change a constitution is at least a medium-term process and no ceasefire with reasonable conditions would require such a change.
"there was a US-backed coup in 2014 which kicked this off."
The only people who think that Victor Yanukoych's departure from Ukraine, in response to a popular uprising, was a "coup" are the people who never talk to Ukrainian civil society organizations nor to Russian political dissidents. Remember this was the same President whose 2004 would-be election was recalled after corruption of the ballots in his favour, with the implied support of the Putin regime.
Canadians are living in a bit of a dream world and our geography has permitted this. We don't really feel endangered and so we do a lot of tut tutting and shoulder shrugging. Ukraine ain't so lucky.
But what we don't perhaps grasp is that we have signed up for a very serious treaty called NATO. We are obliged to go to the wall for Latvia, Finland, Poland and other 'frontline' states. We can fight in Ukraine, or we can fight at a disadvantage in front of Riga. Can you conceive of Canada actually mobilising its armed forces to meet our commitments? Can you conceive of Canada actually sacrificing 'butter' for 'guns' in order to fulfill our obligations? Pretty hard to so imagine. We have dental programmes and pharmacare to fund - with debt so that our children can pay for it at their leisure.
We are a mess but, good news, as noted by Potter, we are not alone. There is much company in the Ostrich Farm in which we seemingly reside. I sometimes wonder if we have the mentalite to actually buckle down and sacrifice as was done during the Great War and the Second World War. We all believe such atavistic forces are ancient history never to be repeated. I'm not so sure that we are that secure but I am sure we are stunningly complacent about the world in which we live.
Things may get more real, God forbid, in the coming decade depending on what happens down south, which is looking pretty alarming these days, as well as with flash points linked to China, Iran, North Korea and Russia - all of whom are running out of rope to play with. Lashing out on foreign adventures has always been the option of distraction from domestic troubles. The table is well set for that eventuality.
NATO is a seriousI treaty and, if Trump gets back in and, as his buddy Putin wants, pulls the US out of NATO then we may very well find ourselves at war again.
I hate being lied to. Republicans aren't the issue. Trump isn't the issue. Let me ramble a bit:
I'm a genX'er. Grew up during the cold war. Russia was the undoubtable enemy. Reagan, evil empire, Tom Clancy novels, stuff like that. I've noticed a change in myself, and I don't know if it's age or cynicism or wisdom.
Looking back on the last decade, I would have backed Ukraine unconditionally. I have friends of that heritage, and they're great people. It would have been great for them to have a homeland to go visit from time to time. Definitely pro-Ukraine.
Until: the moment of Victoria Nuland's "Fuck the EU" blip while she picked the next Ukraine leadership. At that point I can say I became neutral; it's just another puppet regime of American interests.
When Putin took Crimea, I thought, OK, not great, but there's some claims Russia can make. Let's hope it ends there. Even Obama said Russia had "escalatory dominance". He's no military man, but he gets it. He sends blankets.
When 2022 happened, I was thinking this was a bluff, a negotiation tactic against the Nuland-gang. Let's see what happens. Ukraine puts up a valiant defense, good for them, but there's no way they can keep it up. They're kidding themselves. They burn through a decade of NATO production in a few months. Who knows what their KIA count is.
Then: Nordstream is blown up. German-owned civic infrastructure. At that point I can say I dropped all interest and sympathy for Ukraine. Sorry. It's like Germany is the beautiful girlfriend and her jealous boyfriend USA smashes her cell phone to keep her from talking to her neighbors. I'm not going to believe ANYTHING coming out of NATO (article5?) mouths. Yet we're supposed to believe the lie that Russia blew it up when they could just close the taps.
All the lies. Putin's got cancer, they're running out of rockets, the Ruble will be rubble. Akin to the WWII "japanese soldiers have bad eyes and can't fight in the night". Total bullshit.
I am not sending my sons to fight and die for these lies. It has nothing to do with MAGA or nasty Conservatives. Why hasn't Canada spun up 155mm ammunition production? Don't need Trump for that. Don't need Republicans for that. EU can do it but they won't either. Why not? Do we even have the upgrades to our pistols yet? We've got tampons in men's bathrooms, tough. Pathetic. We send a handful of M777 and leopards. Probably burned up or broken down by now. A fucking free trade deal? That's our big move?
The issue isn't Poilievre. It's people who talk big but won't make a real decision, a real sacrifice. People who kid themselves that it'll be easy to beat Russia, just a gas station masquerading as a country. Some gas station. Some country.
I'm so sick of being lied to I'm prepared to give Putin's lies a chance and watch Tucker's interview. Lies in a new language at least.
Maybe deep down we all know we're being lied to. That's why we're not building 155mm ammo. Or anything. That's why we're betraying them.
Well said! I for one, don’t understand any reluctance to support Ukraine. Putin has a long term vision and it doesn’t stop with Ukraine. He needs secure borders that he can hold with a minimum number of rapidly dwindling troops. Russian demographics are terminal. Its now or never. Those secure borders are the Baltics (where we have Canadian troops stationed), Poland up to Warsaw (anchored on the Baltic Sea and the Carpathians) and well inside Romania in the Bessarabia Gap (anchored on the Black Sea and the Carpathians.
If this doesn’t come to a negotiated settlement soon and Russia takes Ukraine, Canada will need to rearm heavily or prepare for another Hong Kong moment for our troops in Latvia. WWIII is on our doorstep.
-the war is an opportunity to destroy one of the democratic world's biggest threats without putting US military personnel at significant risk
-most of the weapons will be purchased from American companies
-American companies will gain many of the contracts to rebuild Ukraine
-drawing Ukraine into the EU and NATO will open up new markets for American companies
-wiping the last vestiges of Soviet culture off the map would send the right message to other autocratic regimes
-eliminating Russia's military capabilities now will be far easier than doing so when it makes a move on one of the Baltics or Poland
I'm increasingly of the opinion that the US and EU should issue secondary sanctions against all nations who continue to interact with Russia, and for NATO to prepare to throw everything non-nuclear that it's got at Russia and end this soon.
It’s not so much US as the populist right in the US. They’ve got a weird adulation for Putin, Orban, and other nationalist authoritarians who they see as champions for their side in various culture war issues. There’s also a brain-dead partisan reflex to oppose anything that the Democrats support. To paraphrase Jonah Goldberg, if Biden made a national address imploring people not to smash themselves in the crotch with a hammer, you’d have a lot of these people sitting out in front of their homes bashing their genitals with sledgehammers while screaming “Freedom!”
Agree wholeheartedly. The money “sent to Ukraine” actually goes to American companies to build and provide arms etc (reference Alex Vindman, Ryan McBeth). We’ve squandered an easy chance to overcome Russia and send a strong message to china, iran, and north korea.
Why hasn't the US taken the $300B in Russian foreign assets frozen by the US Central Bank yet? It could likely put the heat on its allies to do the same and also confiscate more oligarch assets.
I think there are many things at conflict here, starting with how critical thinking really isn't encouraged in schools, and the favored lever to pull is instead to censor things as misinformation and disinformation. (Some of those things ARE misinformation and disinformation - but some of those things are just things that are inconvenient truths that go against the story that is being told to most people and narratives seem to matter more than truth these days.)
What is the truth of Ukraine? I don't know if any of us truly know. Which makes me fall squarely in the position of not being invested in the war in Ukraine. There are Ukrainians who support Russia, and there are Ukrainians who don't. Who am I - a Canadian - to believe is in the right? I think it's wrong for those of us outside the country to have any strong opinions about the situation. I can denounce war crimes. I can say that some of the things Russia has done aren't right. But what about Zelensky? How trustworthy do I really think he is? (I don't think he's trustworthy either - he's spent a lot of time touring and selling the "woe is me" narrative of the Ukraine - but aside from some photos, he doesn't seem to have been an active participant in the war.)
There are many things wrong with the Ukraine and Russia situation. I would generally say that I don't think it was right of Russia to start the war. But I certainly won't claim to have any opinion on how it should end - and I don't really support Canadian funds going to support Ukraine when there are so many people homeless and addicted to drugs on our own streets. If we can't take care of meeting the basic needs of Canadians, I fail to see why millions or billions of dollars should be sent to Ukraine - or why we should involve ourselves in a complex international conflict that is beset with propaganda from both sides.
Tucker Carlson may be a tool. (I think he's likely fickle and is riding his 30 seconds of fame right now.) BUT I also don't think this interview should be censored. I think it's much more important that light be shone on truth - and people be encouraged to learn how to identify truth. (What resources do you use? How do you know when you're being exposed to propaganda? What is the goal of the propaganda? Is all propaganda negative? Is all propaganda false or can it also be truthful? Where does "mostly truth" become a lie? hint, anything that isn't truth is a lie, but it's pretty well known that the victor gets to write history.) There are conversations that need to be had that I think largely aren't happening. Maybe this article is a start - but I would suspect most people will pick out what they do or don't agree with rather than really engaging in the more difficult discussion of when is aid more than just words? What are we willing to give up from our own peace and security in the interest of helping another nation? (We took in a whole lot of refugees - so we removed people from Ukraine - not sure if that is a net good or net harm though given the current inflation and cost of living crisis happening here. Are those who came to Canada living a better life here? Safer, most likely. But I don't know about better.)
It is constructive to seriously question the claims of the opposing side in a war and take seriously the possibility of allied states being illegitimate. But in the case of Ukraine and Russia, there are some clear-cut indicators of the legitimacy of the Ukrainian state and the illegitimacy of the Russian state.
Almost every Ukrainian civil society organization that you can name is supportive of the Zelensky government in waging the war. The most prominent Russians living in exile from their home country do not support the Russian state in waging the war. A minority of world governments support the Ukrainian government's narrative, but an even smaller minority of governments support the Russian state's war narrative. Ukraine has shown enough leadership turnover in the past decade to prove that it is beyond the control of any one man, Russia not so much. Ukraine may have curtailed the freedom of its men to escape the war, but Russia has recruited its worst criminals from its prisons to fight on the front lines. There are many hints here of where to pick a lane that is better for humanity.
People who compare the national benefit of spending on Ukraine relative to domestic spending tend to miss the point: that the benefit for world stability of Ukraine aid compared to our regular defence spending is quite favourable.
Very well said, and I would add that to attack the only journalist who has the ability and the fortitude to go get this interview and to run it uncut and continuously for over 2 hours so people can make there own opinion ought to be lauded not have slights thrown at him. Jealousy is a very ugly dance partner and the main stream media has clearly decided where it is getting its funding so like the WWE, lets call them what they are "Interview-tainment" because they have lost all pretense at independence and have sold their integrity long ago. That is why more people trust Tucker, Joe Rogan, and the many folks like Bongino and Steven Crowder that are doing honest spadework and reporting as much as they can for you to make your own opinion. Wouldn't it be nice if CBC, ABC, et al did that again.
The Kremlin has acknowledged that many Western journalists have sought interviews with Putin. Tucker Carlson was the only American to interview Putin since the start of the invasion because Carlson had the necessary prior record of groveling to demonstrate that he would not seriously challenge Putin with any of the most serious allegations of criminality that the dictator has been accused of.
It's pretty simple, and obvious at this point. Western Conservatism on both countries is an arm of Trump's GOP. It's allied with Putin, and seeks to enable him while destroying democracy here. Most western foreign policy experts describe the abandonment of Ukraine as an "own goal" of epic proportions that will take decades to recover from. Canadian Conservatives are running the same policies, the same idiotic attacks on trans and gay people, abortion(you can pretend it doesn't exist in Canada; it does) to get everyone riled up, and cause them to ignore what is really going on; the completion of the oligarchs retaking the power they had in the 1800s as a new form of royalty. Conservatism as we knew it is gone; it has morphed into modern day fascism. Trudeau is a complete and total disaster....yet he's light years better than what is on the horizon.
And yet, with no explanation where, there's not much option for debate. From where I'm sitting, Pierre lies and spins like Trump, they already tried to introduce a fetal rights bill, which is just an abortion bill in disguise, Conservative premiers are attacking minorities, and they voted against a Free Tarde bill for Ukraine. I'm happy to debate.....politely. We don't have to agree.
In what way are PP' lies different from JT's lies? In what world is add aggravating factors to violence against women and abortion bill? (evidence that the offender, in committing (an) offence, abused a person whom the offender knew to be pregnant”; and “evidence that the offence caused physical or emotional harm to a pregnant victim.”) I will assume the Conservative premiers you claim are attacking minorities are those that are saying parents have a right to know what their children are doing. Why is it that Liberal supporters fall for the "if you elect the CPC then you'll be forced to have babies in a hetero cis marriage and that baby will be issued firearms at the time they are baptized as member of the White supremacy church of anti immigration". Every freaking election its the same bullshit. Stop buying into that crap.
Pierre says the C's didn't support a free trade agreement with Ukraine because he says it involves the Carbon Tax. That's an outright lie. But when you're auditioning for the big job, lying about why you should have it is a hell of a lot different than the non-answers Trudeau gives to every question before the proud smirk he gives when he realises he said nothing. Then, he comes out and says minors shouldn't be given puberty blockers. IS that the opinion that came with his MD, or did it come from a Ron DeSantis talking point? Either way, it's stupid, ignorant, moronic...well, you get the picture.
He lies about the WEF which half of Harpers ministers joyously attended. His behaviour with the media is right out of the Trump handbook. You may think that's awesome; I think it makes him look like an asshat unworthy of the job. If he won't answer now, he sure as hell won't answer when in power, and as was so brilliantly outlined in the Line just last week, Canada has a transparency problem.
When a pregnant woman is assaulted, judges have always had the option of taking her condition into account during sentencing. If you can't see the difference between that and granting ;legal rights to someone who hasn't been born, I can't help you. A fetal rights bill is an abortion bill.
I hate to break this you to, but in the wonderful melting pot that is Canada, not every home is safe for every kid. I don't think it matters at all what your kid...or mine want s to be called at school. I'm equally certain that no intervention outside of having a safe person to talk to is going to happen without the parents knowing. But if the kid isn't comfortable talking to their parents, there is a reason why. Having someone uninvolved to talk to is like having a therapist who isn't emotionally involved. And there isn't anything much harder than growing up in todays world.
Your suggestion about what will be forced is too ignorant and absurd to acknowledge.
Every single election it's the same bullshit. "We're not Trudeau...vote for us". That's not a policy.....something the Conservatives could do with a boatload of but PP doesn't have a concrete proposal for anything. I guess we'll see something in 2025. But what Conservatives are throwing around right now is direct from the GOP handbook. I suspect I dislike Trudeau as much as you do, but watching what those fascist assholes are doing in the US, and the glee with which Conservatives here are lapping it up, I prefer the devil I know. Perhaps you take a look at the crap you're buying.
So is PP a MAGA Trump supporter or a Ron DeSantis supporter? Why is it that if he doesn't agree with you he must agree with Trump? I don't know -- nor I bet do you -- with whom PP consulted wrt puberty blockers or if he was just giving his opinion as a father. I don't know if there should be a ban on puberty blockers for those under 15 but I sure as shit don't believe we have enough data on the matter and I think the parents should be involved in the decision. I've heard the anecdotally on both sides of the argument. If you know that its stupid, ignorant and moronic to withhold puberty blockers from minors you must be in possession of information that few other know about. From what I've read, the science is far from settled.
Does PP, as a politician, play the media off -- certainly. Canadians already don't trust the MSM so pointing out stupid questions is fair game. It is incumbent on the press to be prepared and ask the right question in the right way. Does Trudeau not play the same game?
And yes I know not every parent is a model human being. I know that some might react badly in certain circumstances. But, can you assure me that nobody discussing gender reassignment with my child will not have and agenda, will always be a model human being, and have only the best interests of my child in mind and the skill and knowledge to know what is right for every child. I thought most schools already had guidance counsellors to fill the role. Again, if the child, parents and "expert" agree that puberty blockers are warranted, then I see no issue.
As to the party line of "we're not Trudeau" didn't work the last two times for the Conservatives so I think dealing with the issues of cost of living, debt, immigration, incompetence etc. is what's needed. Recall though, that more people voted CPC than LPC.
I agree that Trudeau rarely answers any question but rather spews talking points but if you want to review some of his lies:
"If I earn the right to serve this country as your Prime Minister, no veteran will be forced to fight their own government for the support and compensation that they have earned. We will reinstate lifelong pensions and increase their value in line with the obligation we have made to those injured in the line of duty.”
Trudeau said the Liberal Party is "committed" to ensuring that the upcoming October election is the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post system.
Create performance standards for services offered by the federal government, complete with streamlined application processes, reduced wait times and money-back guarantees.
Further, “the utmost care and prudence in the handling of public funds” would be a foundational principle of his government, he said.
“Open nominations, which I continue to be committed to and have always been committed to, is about letting local Liberals choose who is going to be their candidate in the next election….”
"The Aga Khan has been a longtime family friend. He was pallbearer at my father’s funeral, he has known me since I was a toddler."
"The allegations reported in the story are false. At no time did I or my office direct the current or previous attorney-general to make any particular decision in this matter." re:SNC Lavalin
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says women who come forward with complaints of sexual assault and harassment must be supported and believed. Trudeau said if allegations surfaced against him the same standards would apply.
Published in the Creston Valley Advance newspaper, the piece accused Mr Trudeau of "inappropriately handling" the reporter, who felt "blatantly disrespected" by the actions, which were not described. "The same interactions can be experienced very differently from one person to the next," he said. According to the editorial, Mr Trudeau apologised for his behaviour and said: "If I had known you were reporting for a national paper, I never would have been so forward."
The office says it consulted the federal ethics commissioner ahead of the coming trip, and the family will cover the cost of its stay as well as reimburse the cost of travelling on a government plane.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's office is clarifying that he and his family are vacationing in Jamaica "at no cost at a location owned by family friends," after initially saying the family was paying for their stay.
etc...
BTW, I haven't bought anything yet. I know where I stand on some issues, I'm still researching others and I expect some will come up that I haven't even considered. My position evolves as I process new information. I just resent being told that conservative positions are fascist, Trumpian etc. just as I hate libertarian views labelled woke.
A simple question Dan. How will PP's plan on refusing puberty blocker so minors affect the 8 year old girl who starts puberty early? I don't go to politicians for a medical consult. It's pretty clear PP has no idea what he's talking about; a blanket announcement for something far more complex verifies his lack of comprehension. Parents will always be involved in that decision. Teachers don't writer prescriptions.
GOP is GOP. The script is the same even if the players are different.
You don't trust the MSM. Again, feel free not to make blanket statements about the country as a whole.
If you give legal rights to a fetus, you have opened the door. How can you be so blind to that?
"I'm not Trudeau" actually failed in three straight elections. maybe the Conservatives should consider actual policy. I trust you recall that Conservatives were also against ending first past the post. FWIW, I'm one of those who doesn't care about blackface either. 20 year olds do stupid things. If every politician has to be a saint, there won't be any politicians. Trudeau's judgement is atrocious. Every PM takes vacations. Every one of them costs a fortune. The idea that they cover the cost of travelling on a government plane would be absurd. They can't for simple security reasons. It's just tired old finger pointing done by both sides to score points.
I've said many times that Trudeau sucks, and has broken many major promises. That's why I didn't vote for him in 2019, and 2021. I will vote strategically in 2025 to defeat the Conservatives because I see them as a far bigger threat to this country. I guess you've also forgotten that Harper; after closing a bunch of Veterans Affairs offices stated that the government has "no moral obligation" to veterans. Every government going back to 1918 has treated our veterans like crap.
The current GOP is actively fascist. The current Conservative governments are enacting GOP legislation. But you're right that opinions evolve as knowledge is gained. 2 years ago I said I couldn't foresee ever voting for Trudeau again because he's such a failure. Now I think better the devil I know. November will have a huge impact on us going forward. That election is as or even more important than ours.
It's a fun debate. I see social conservatism as a cancer because it applies blanket rules to highly individual situations. Look at Texas for the calamity it has caused. What happens there, comes here. I hope to delay that for as long as possible, and I'll vote for a PM I can't stand in support of that goal. Pinch nose, mark ballot.
Be interesting to actually turn this into a debate. If David is implying that paying your bills, living within your means, not rendering people's lives unlivable through taxation for export (as in exporting our money for no gain), not playing dress up, acting ethically, working to enact policies that benefit everyone... well yes I could see where you would find Poilievre and Trump aligned. Taking it much further than that and there are many differences - your aforementioned abortion position is one, there are many others - but you also fail spectacularly to recognize that in the details of trying to link the two men are the significant differences in the political systems in which they both operate and which, necessarily, ends up defining them. The US has an actual and functional system of checks and balances. In theory. When it is rigged, bribed, or inundated then that system can be overwhelmed and thus manipulated by the sitting President. In Canada ours is much simpler: between elections the PM is a dictator and has all the benefits of such. Opposing that requires much more finesse because you are essentially auditioning every day for the job of "new PM". When you mould in a dance partner that will quite literally do anything to avoid an election, curtsey Mr. Singh, then you can manipulate every aspect of government to your preference, hence committee meetings suddenly get adjourned, witnesses get cancelled, and $600 million to the wider press and a couple $billion to the CBC and you get the kind of total disdain for any form of oversight that was classically on display by the CBC President. That Rachel Thomas did not actually choke the life out of her is a massive testimony to the fortitude and ethics of the leading lights under Poilieve and are a testament to his leadership qualities. The only minorities I have seen attacked recently were all targeted by Mr. Trudeau in his quest to divide the country every change he gets. And in that Trudeau and whomever is holding Biden's strings have MUCH in common.
So you think Mr Poilievre is honest? Do you actually believe that every problem that Canada faces has been caused by Justin Trudeau? Could PP be twisting reality just a little bit to get your vote? The conservative movement really is an "Internationale" and it's goal is not to benefit you and me... but our betters.
You just had to know that Western patience would eventually ebb as it always does when help is required. Throughout the war it seems as though there was just enough help contributed to keep the Ukrainians from being completely overrun instead of going full defence from the outset. The initial quote that the West would help until the last drop of (Ukrainian) blood was shed doesn’t seem that cynical anymore. Heads up Europe. You’re next.
Let's face facts. The Liberals haven't been able to deliver on what they've already promised. The Free Trade deal is fluff. We've exhausted our resources and have nothing left to give, We can't outfit our own Armed Forces, we have no capacity to build materiel. We aren't Ukraine's ally and owe more to Nato than we will ever be able to deliver. If there weren't so many Canadian-Ukrainians this government would have treated Ukrainians the same as they treated the Uighurs.
Perhaps the citizens of North America and Europe see their elected leaders as "the orks". Lots of fear mongering! Our governments lost so much credibility following the lockdowns that many of us just don't believe anything they profess to us. Our Leaders are obsessed with providing tens of billions $ in Ukranian assistance and totally ignore negotiations. Who wins under this strategy? Definitely not the voters.
Who the hell are they supposed to negotiate with? Putin, who illegally annexed Crimea and funded violent separatists for years before launching a full invasion? He can't be trusted.
Agree! He has no respect for treaties, borders, International Law, or human rights. Any negotiated settlement will be broken at his convenience, and he’ll find a way to blame the west. His word isn’t worth anything. I believe the fall of Ukraine will bolster both the kremlin and china, not to mention iran and north korea. The west will look weak and spineless. Then the Conservatives and American republican freedom caucus can find excuses not to support the next russian or chinese nation grab. Ugh.
"...comically obtuse MAGA village groveller..." I nominate this for TheLine's 2024 phrase of the year.
And a far more accurate assessment of the man than G&G's earlier commentary when he visited Alberta
I'm not a Tucker Carlson fan, but should we start calling out every journalist with this kind of moniker? When we refer to Rosemary Barton as a comically obtuse Tru-anon groveller? or Omar Sachedina as a vapid, formulaic pro-leftist pinup boy?
I would say in most cases no. But given his off the chart level of disingenuous media persona (e.g. say one thing publicly vs something completely different privately about Trump/MAGA) , its warranted with him (IMHO). He is more on a personal crusade than that of being a journalist. That's not to say that isn't the case with some (probably too many) CBC employees either or any number of lefty opinion writers role playing as journalists. But there is something lost if you just collapse Carlson into the category of "just another bad jurno" like some run of the mill bad CBC type.
Carlson is NOT a journalist. He is a political entertainer at best but mostly a propagandist.There is an actual Court ruling that says that no serious person would believe anything Tucker Carlson says. That doesn't say much for his audience.
So many people think that nothing matters except what directly affects them. Other people don't even exist.
Frankly you have completely missed the mark on this.
Reality 1: The West has no more artillery shells to give Ukraine. The US war stock is so low that it fears a conflict emerging that will require massed fires. They just don’t have the bombs to fight that kind of war. Nations like Canada are, despite all their promises, still not producing more artillery shells. This late summer Canada will begin producing 18,000 shells, and none of those are earmarked for Ukraine. Why? Because the Canadian Army in Latvia has only a days worth of ammunition to fight with. 18,000 shells are about a month’s worth of shells at the rate Ukraine uses them btw.)
Specialized artillery ammunition is another issue. Germany’s much acclaimed anti armour artillery shells (SMArt155) have yet to restart production due to sub component availability issues. These are not expected to start production until 2027, even though the order was made back in 2022!
The same is true for other systems as well. Tanks? lol good luck, production is slow and parts are difficult to come by. Small arms? Still woefully low production rates and at the rate Ukrainians are burning through it we probably don’t make enough to keep them supplied unless we dramatically increase production rates.
Why is it all so slow? For one, Globalization. We depended on it, and it’s not working anymore. Another issue is that NATO didn’t ever really plan of fighting a major conflict in Europe after the end of the Cold War. Even the USA required its defense industry to provision a limited conflict. The idea of massed fires, high losses of material and people was not on anyone’s mind when they designed our current war production capabilities.
The result is that we simply do not have the means to adequately support Ukraine and our own immediate pressing needs.
Reality 2: It is highly improbable that the Ukrainians can win this war. By win I mean take back all the Russia has taken. This is a fact that no serious military thinker finds contentious. Even if the war takes 10 more years and the Ukrainians get every bit of ammunition they ask for, it’s just not possible. They are 10x smaller than Russia. They are running out of fighting age males. Their economy is destroyed, they may not even have the population left to be a country after this war is done. So what is to be done with this reality?
Choice one. Get the Ukrainians to fight the Russians on behalf of NATO until the last Ukrainian draws their last breath.
Choice two. Find a peaceful resolution to this conflict.
Choice three. NATO goes to war against Russia.
You would have to be a genocidal maniac to want the first or third choice so I think it’s appropriate to look for an exit for Ukraine that offers at least a hope of survival.
Reality 3: This isn’t a MAGA, conservative or Progressive liberal issue. The war must end because the West can’t afford it, Ukraine can’t take it, and no one wants this escalating further. Biden is pushing for peace( he really doesn’t want this as an issue on the upcoming election) France and Germany are pushing of peace, and oh, Trump wants peace too.
Reality 4: War is really really awful. We don’t get clean tidy wins very often. Almost always there are terrible unintended consequences to the decisions to go to war. Russia is experiencing that right now, but so is NATO. This conflict will end in the next 6-12 months. When it does the lesson should be, find peaceful solutions and never ever trust the assurances of the USA that they will get your back when you turn down a fairly reasonable peace offer from your enemy. (Cough cough… Minsk Accords…cough..)
Oh yeah orange man bad. Conservatives are stupid…. Got it.
"The US war stock is so low that it fears a conflict emerging that will require massed fires."
Most members of Congress appear to disagree. Further ammunition aid to Ukraine has only been stalled because of the pro-Trump/pro-Putin minority of members of Congress and the dysfunctions of the U.S. legislature.
"Even if the war takes 10 more years and the Ukrainians get every bit of ammunition they ask for, it’s just not possible."
We saw during the Wagner insurrection just how fragile the Russian regime is. If the war lasts long enough, another faction within the Russian army can and will revolt against the Putin regime. And if or when that happens, whoever comes out on top in Russia will need to recall the army from Ukraine in order to secure their control over Russia.
"the lesson should be, find peaceful solutions and never ever trust the assurances of the USA that they will get your back when you turn down a fairly reasonable peace offer from your enemy. (Cough cough… Minsk Accords…cough..)"
The Minsk Accords were too opaque to ever be enforceable in a sovereign state and were abused by the Putin regime to advance the territory of the artificial Russian puppet state that was stealing territory at Ukraine's expense.
The artificial Russian state? That’s like saying Quebec is an artificial French state. I never suggested the Russia is good or trustworthy. However, since France, Germany and Zelenskyy all thought the Minsk accords were worth signing to find a path to peace it’s a bit much to say it was too opaque.
I think if Ukraine had to do it all over again they would have allowed Russian speaking citizens to keep their language, culture and the right to vote. They would have signed the peace accords and told Obama, I mean Hillary.. er I mean Biden to go find another money laundering war to invest in.
Except the Zelenskyy ran on the promise to honour the accords…. And yeah there is definitely the real threat of what Russia would do if they didn’t. That’s the nature of these savage situations.
We talk tough in Canada, we walk around like a 300 lbs gorilla when in fact we are an annoying chihuahua, but we get away with it because big daddy to the south is standing over us. Ukraine is forced to be a wee bit more pragmatic, or at least they were, until big daddy got greedy and wanted Ukraine in its sphere. Which might be a lesson for Canada, but we don’t take lessons, we are too busy yipping like we know something.
He’s talking about the Donetsk People’s Republic that Russia established to provide cover for their initial invasion in 2014. You’re completely off the mark regarding your claims about Russian language, culture, and voting rights in Ukraine. Get away from Gateway Pundit et al and start reading some reliable sources like The Economist or Anne Applebaum.
I said "fragile", not "artificial".
"since France, Germany and Zelenskyy all thought the Minsk accords were worth signing to find a path to peace it’s a bit much to say it was too opaque."
Zelensky never signed the Accords, though a predecessor did. Ukraine was clear that it only ever signed the Accords under gunpoint by Russia.
That France and Germany supported the Accords demonstrates nothing about its merit. It rather suggests that these countries took the naive Neville Chamberlain approach of trying to appease an aggressive land-grabbing dictatorship. The Accord has been analyzed by academics, its provisions were left open to interpretation in a way that could allow both sides to claim to be provoked in the absence of clearly-defined regional borders: https://epicenter.wcfia.harvard.edu/blog/through-ashes-minsk-agreements
"I think if Ukraine had to do it all over again they would have allowed Russian speaking citizens to keep their language, culture and the right to vote."
Ukraine never did that. Moreover, had Putin not annexed Crimea, the remaining voting population in Ukraine would not have been reduced to the pro-West faction.
You really have to twist yourself in knots over Minsk eh?
As someone whose grandfather came to Canada after fighting with the British all over the world in WW2 (he was a Polish school teacher in his early 20's in 1939), I am disgusted that anyone with even a sixth grade understanding of world history wouldn't want to support Ukraine with every fiber of their being.
Robert suggests that 'the west can't afford it". I wholeheartedly disagree. The 18,000 shells we ordered are earmarked for Latvia? Then order 18,000 more. We have not ordered Any extra shells since the war began, 24 months ago, yet we profess - both sides of the house - to support Ukraine 'for as long as it takes'. For as long as it takes them to run out of ammo?
Canada and its allies spent enormously last century in the defeat of fascist Germany. The Americans spent enormously firther with the Marshall plan and Berlin airlift so secure that peace. We invested fifty years and untold billions fighting a Cold War with the Soviet Union. These expenditures did not seem to cripple the postwar western economies, rather the opposite. And now we're not Really sure who's at fault over the Ukraine Invasion? It's appalling. This is the only reason we've Ever needed 155mm shells - a war with Russia. Now they're on a war footing and we don't want to get our arms makers excited with a few extra PO's? Because the long-tail supporters of our major parties are either marxist flunkies like Niki Ashton or Trump-fogged Putin sympathizers. Both parties need to stop kowtowing to their respective fringes. The MAGA fans are not going to vote Liberal, and the anti-colonial/capitalists are not going to throw Justin under the bus in favor of the conservatives. So - again, to both parties - stop reading polls and start selling and educating a responsible position here with some leadership.
100%
1) Russia poses nowhere near the threat that Germany did. It's a silly and intellectually lazy comparison. It's also not fascist, if that word has any meaning anymore.
2) We have a massive manufacturing deficit that many in the West, including the US military, have been warning us about for decades. We have been winding down supplies and manufacturing facilities during this time of peace. We can't just "order more". This isn't Amazon (in part because so much manufacturing is now in China). It's impossible.
3) We're not just missing the factories, but expertise. This isn't just about shells but equipment in general. We've completely lost the necessary expertise. This is an issue for all manufacuting, but particularly equipment related to the military. This isn't about just spinning things back up - we don't even have the people who know how to build these factories (or not in anywhere near the numbers we need).
4) We agreed not to push NATO east - and then we did it. There are credible claims by Russia that don't have to do with sympathizing with a thug like Putin or justifying the invasion.
The Canadian media hasn't read nearly enough history to understand how complicated this war is and how long it's been brewing. Understand Kosovo and Minsk and then I'll believe you have some idea what you're talking about.
NATO never formally in an institutional manner promised to not expand. Even if it had made such a promise, it was the decision of non-NATO members themselves to apply for membership, Mikhail Gorbachev was still surprised by the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and not a single Russian anywhere ever died as a result of NATO expansion.
Are you, by chance, able to explain how the Minsk Accords were anything other than France and Germany taking the Neville Chamberlain approach of appeasing the territory-aggressor, and giving power to an illegitimate Russian puppet proto-state?
You've gone the historical illiteracy route I see.
The case of Neville Chamberlain is much more complicated than your simplistic, black-and-white version of history recognizes. Chamberlain understood how weak Britain (and France) was at that time. Current estimates are they might have been able to send only two under-manned and ill-equipped divisions to Czechoslovakia. On top of that, their was immense exhaustion and scarring after the most brutal war the world had seen. British people did not want to fight over what was seen as an artificial state.
Chamberlain then began re-arming the British people in reaction to the threat Germany was posing. It wasn't "appeasement" it was biding time, and given how constrained Britain was militarily and diplomatically, very likely the right one.
I think pursuing peace, where possible, is a laudable goal. I admire Chamberlain for what he attempted, but failed at. The hundreds of thousands dead due to Western-sponsored wars in the failed states of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya speak to the hubris of assuming you can easily and painlessly remove dictators.
Second, your geopolitics is simplistic. Expanding NATO is intended, and seen, as a threat. That is the goal.
Third, Ukraine signed onto Minsk. It was a supported agreement and a path to peace. Ukraine itself, through it's own failures and corruption, played its own role in getting to this state. Do you have any familiarity with why it came to Minsk, why it was adopted, and why it failed beyond "Russia did it"? Yes, Russia bears a lot of blame, but there was a US-backed coup in 2014 which kicked this off. My gosh man, learn some history.
I was already aware that Chamberlain had been seeking to re-arm Britain and had never been entirely naïve. Like you said, his policies were well-intentioned but mistaken - just like Germany and France's overtures to the Putin regime in the face of its 2014 aggressions. And Chamberlain's government was quite disrespectful to the Czechs in making the key decisions about their fate without fully consulting them, nor was the German army in a good position to both breach the Czech's border defenses and fend off hypothetical incursions at its western border. Which was worse than the withholding of weapons supplies to post-2014 Ukraine, but not entirely dissimilar.
"Expanding NATO is intended, and seen, as a threat. That is the goal."
The entire purpose of NATO is to be threatening to anyone who would want to invade a NATO member. Something that, unsurprisingly, seems to be a problem for countries who want to invade would-be NATO members at any unpredictable time of their choosing.
"Third, Ukraine signed onto Minsk. It was a supported agreement and a path to peace."
Ukraine signed Minsk under gunpoint and threat of invasion by Russia. The very provisions of the Accord (autonomy for self-declared regional separatists) were never going to be possible for a non-federal state to reconcile with its Constitution (where democratic authority belongs to the central government). Any process to change a constitution is at least a medium-term process and no ceasefire with reasonable conditions would require such a change.
"there was a US-backed coup in 2014 which kicked this off."
The only people who think that Victor Yanukoych's departure from Ukraine, in response to a popular uprising, was a "coup" are the people who never talk to Ukrainian civil society organizations nor to Russian political dissidents. Remember this was the same President whose 2004 would-be election was recalled after corruption of the ballots in his favour, with the implied support of the Putin regime.
Canadians are living in a bit of a dream world and our geography has permitted this. We don't really feel endangered and so we do a lot of tut tutting and shoulder shrugging. Ukraine ain't so lucky.
But what we don't perhaps grasp is that we have signed up for a very serious treaty called NATO. We are obliged to go to the wall for Latvia, Finland, Poland and other 'frontline' states. We can fight in Ukraine, or we can fight at a disadvantage in front of Riga. Can you conceive of Canada actually mobilising its armed forces to meet our commitments? Can you conceive of Canada actually sacrificing 'butter' for 'guns' in order to fulfill our obligations? Pretty hard to so imagine. We have dental programmes and pharmacare to fund - with debt so that our children can pay for it at their leisure.
We are a mess but, good news, as noted by Potter, we are not alone. There is much company in the Ostrich Farm in which we seemingly reside. I sometimes wonder if we have the mentalite to actually buckle down and sacrifice as was done during the Great War and the Second World War. We all believe such atavistic forces are ancient history never to be repeated. I'm not so sure that we are that secure but I am sure we are stunningly complacent about the world in which we live.
Things may get more real, God forbid, in the coming decade depending on what happens down south, which is looking pretty alarming these days, as well as with flash points linked to China, Iran, North Korea and Russia - all of whom are running out of rope to play with. Lashing out on foreign adventures has always been the option of distraction from domestic troubles. The table is well set for that eventuality.
Not fun times.
NATO is a seriousI treaty and, if Trump gets back in and, as his buddy Putin wants, pulls the US out of NATO then we may very well find ourselves at war again.
Beautiful ending. Ukraine is certainly more of a real country than Canada feels like these days.
I hate being lied to. Republicans aren't the issue. Trump isn't the issue. Let me ramble a bit:
I'm a genX'er. Grew up during the cold war. Russia was the undoubtable enemy. Reagan, evil empire, Tom Clancy novels, stuff like that. I've noticed a change in myself, and I don't know if it's age or cynicism or wisdom.
Looking back on the last decade, I would have backed Ukraine unconditionally. I have friends of that heritage, and they're great people. It would have been great for them to have a homeland to go visit from time to time. Definitely pro-Ukraine.
Until: the moment of Victoria Nuland's "Fuck the EU" blip while she picked the next Ukraine leadership. At that point I can say I became neutral; it's just another puppet regime of American interests.
When Putin took Crimea, I thought, OK, not great, but there's some claims Russia can make. Let's hope it ends there. Even Obama said Russia had "escalatory dominance". He's no military man, but he gets it. He sends blankets.
When 2022 happened, I was thinking this was a bluff, a negotiation tactic against the Nuland-gang. Let's see what happens. Ukraine puts up a valiant defense, good for them, but there's no way they can keep it up. They're kidding themselves. They burn through a decade of NATO production in a few months. Who knows what their KIA count is.
Then: Nordstream is blown up. German-owned civic infrastructure. At that point I can say I dropped all interest and sympathy for Ukraine. Sorry. It's like Germany is the beautiful girlfriend and her jealous boyfriend USA smashes her cell phone to keep her from talking to her neighbors. I'm not going to believe ANYTHING coming out of NATO (article5?) mouths. Yet we're supposed to believe the lie that Russia blew it up when they could just close the taps.
All the lies. Putin's got cancer, they're running out of rockets, the Ruble will be rubble. Akin to the WWII "japanese soldiers have bad eyes and can't fight in the night". Total bullshit.
I am not sending my sons to fight and die for these lies. It has nothing to do with MAGA or nasty Conservatives. Why hasn't Canada spun up 155mm ammunition production? Don't need Trump for that. Don't need Republicans for that. EU can do it but they won't either. Why not? Do we even have the upgrades to our pistols yet? We've got tampons in men's bathrooms, tough. Pathetic. We send a handful of M777 and leopards. Probably burned up or broken down by now. A fucking free trade deal? That's our big move?
The issue isn't Poilievre. It's people who talk big but won't make a real decision, a real sacrifice. People who kid themselves that it'll be easy to beat Russia, just a gas station masquerading as a country. Some gas station. Some country.
I'm so sick of being lied to I'm prepared to give Putin's lies a chance and watch Tucker's interview. Lies in a new language at least.
Maybe deep down we all know we're being lied to. That's why we're not building 155mm ammo. Or anything. That's why we're betraying them.
Not bad at all Norm. I think you are saying what a lot of people are thinking these days.
Amen
Well said! I for one, don’t understand any reluctance to support Ukraine. Putin has a long term vision and it doesn’t stop with Ukraine. He needs secure borders that he can hold with a minimum number of rapidly dwindling troops. Russian demographics are terminal. Its now or never. Those secure borders are the Baltics (where we have Canadian troops stationed), Poland up to Warsaw (anchored on the Baltic Sea and the Carpathians) and well inside Romania in the Bessarabia Gap (anchored on the Black Sea and the Carpathians.
If this doesn’t come to a negotiated settlement soon and Russia takes Ukraine, Canada will need to rearm heavily or prepare for another Hong Kong moment for our troops in Latvia. WWIII is on our doorstep.
"Si vis pacem, para bellum"
The US perspective makes no sense:
-the war is an opportunity to destroy one of the democratic world's biggest threats without putting US military personnel at significant risk
-most of the weapons will be purchased from American companies
-American companies will gain many of the contracts to rebuild Ukraine
-drawing Ukraine into the EU and NATO will open up new markets for American companies
-wiping the last vestiges of Soviet culture off the map would send the right message to other autocratic regimes
-eliminating Russia's military capabilities now will be far easier than doing so when it makes a move on one of the Baltics or Poland
I'm increasingly of the opinion that the US and EU should issue secondary sanctions against all nations who continue to interact with Russia, and for NATO to prepare to throw everything non-nuclear that it's got at Russia and end this soon.
It’s not so much US as the populist right in the US. They’ve got a weird adulation for Putin, Orban, and other nationalist authoritarians who they see as champions for their side in various culture war issues. There’s also a brain-dead partisan reflex to oppose anything that the Democrats support. To paraphrase Jonah Goldberg, if Biden made a national address imploring people not to smash themselves in the crotch with a hammer, you’d have a lot of these people sitting out in front of their homes bashing their genitals with sledgehammers while screaming “Freedom!”
Agree wholeheartedly. The money “sent to Ukraine” actually goes to American companies to build and provide arms etc (reference Alex Vindman, Ryan McBeth). We’ve squandered an easy chance to overcome Russia and send a strong message to china, iran, and north korea.
Why hasn't the US taken the $300B in Russian foreign assets frozen by the US Central Bank yet? It could likely put the heat on its allies to do the same and also confiscate more oligarch assets.
I don't understand the reasons behind the hesitation. Legal? I did read that it's in the works, but not much since.
I think there are many things at conflict here, starting with how critical thinking really isn't encouraged in schools, and the favored lever to pull is instead to censor things as misinformation and disinformation. (Some of those things ARE misinformation and disinformation - but some of those things are just things that are inconvenient truths that go against the story that is being told to most people and narratives seem to matter more than truth these days.)
What is the truth of Ukraine? I don't know if any of us truly know. Which makes me fall squarely in the position of not being invested in the war in Ukraine. There are Ukrainians who support Russia, and there are Ukrainians who don't. Who am I - a Canadian - to believe is in the right? I think it's wrong for those of us outside the country to have any strong opinions about the situation. I can denounce war crimes. I can say that some of the things Russia has done aren't right. But what about Zelensky? How trustworthy do I really think he is? (I don't think he's trustworthy either - he's spent a lot of time touring and selling the "woe is me" narrative of the Ukraine - but aside from some photos, he doesn't seem to have been an active participant in the war.)
There are many things wrong with the Ukraine and Russia situation. I would generally say that I don't think it was right of Russia to start the war. But I certainly won't claim to have any opinion on how it should end - and I don't really support Canadian funds going to support Ukraine when there are so many people homeless and addicted to drugs on our own streets. If we can't take care of meeting the basic needs of Canadians, I fail to see why millions or billions of dollars should be sent to Ukraine - or why we should involve ourselves in a complex international conflict that is beset with propaganda from both sides.
Tucker Carlson may be a tool. (I think he's likely fickle and is riding his 30 seconds of fame right now.) BUT I also don't think this interview should be censored. I think it's much more important that light be shone on truth - and people be encouraged to learn how to identify truth. (What resources do you use? How do you know when you're being exposed to propaganda? What is the goal of the propaganda? Is all propaganda negative? Is all propaganda false or can it also be truthful? Where does "mostly truth" become a lie? hint, anything that isn't truth is a lie, but it's pretty well known that the victor gets to write history.) There are conversations that need to be had that I think largely aren't happening. Maybe this article is a start - but I would suspect most people will pick out what they do or don't agree with rather than really engaging in the more difficult discussion of when is aid more than just words? What are we willing to give up from our own peace and security in the interest of helping another nation? (We took in a whole lot of refugees - so we removed people from Ukraine - not sure if that is a net good or net harm though given the current inflation and cost of living crisis happening here. Are those who came to Canada living a better life here? Safer, most likely. But I don't know about better.)
It is constructive to seriously question the claims of the opposing side in a war and take seriously the possibility of allied states being illegitimate. But in the case of Ukraine and Russia, there are some clear-cut indicators of the legitimacy of the Ukrainian state and the illegitimacy of the Russian state.
Almost every Ukrainian civil society organization that you can name is supportive of the Zelensky government in waging the war. The most prominent Russians living in exile from their home country do not support the Russian state in waging the war. A minority of world governments support the Ukrainian government's narrative, but an even smaller minority of governments support the Russian state's war narrative. Ukraine has shown enough leadership turnover in the past decade to prove that it is beyond the control of any one man, Russia not so much. Ukraine may have curtailed the freedom of its men to escape the war, but Russia has recruited its worst criminals from its prisons to fight on the front lines. There are many hints here of where to pick a lane that is better for humanity.
People who compare the national benefit of spending on Ukraine relative to domestic spending tend to miss the point: that the benefit for world stability of Ukraine aid compared to our regular defence spending is quite favourable.
Very well said, and I would add that to attack the only journalist who has the ability and the fortitude to go get this interview and to run it uncut and continuously for over 2 hours so people can make there own opinion ought to be lauded not have slights thrown at him. Jealousy is a very ugly dance partner and the main stream media has clearly decided where it is getting its funding so like the WWE, lets call them what they are "Interview-tainment" because they have lost all pretense at independence and have sold their integrity long ago. That is why more people trust Tucker, Joe Rogan, and the many folks like Bongino and Steven Crowder that are doing honest spadework and reporting as much as they can for you to make your own opinion. Wouldn't it be nice if CBC, ABC, et al did that again.
The Kremlin has acknowledged that many Western journalists have sought interviews with Putin. Tucker Carlson was the only American to interview Putin since the start of the invasion because Carlson had the necessary prior record of groveling to demonstrate that he would not seriously challenge Putin with any of the most serious allegations of criminality that the dictator has been accused of.
No, Carlson is not a journalist and there is no courage involved by allowing himrself to be chosen by Putin to carry his message.
It's pretty simple, and obvious at this point. Western Conservatism on both countries is an arm of Trump's GOP. It's allied with Putin, and seeks to enable him while destroying democracy here. Most western foreign policy experts describe the abandonment of Ukraine as an "own goal" of epic proportions that will take decades to recover from. Canadian Conservatives are running the same policies, the same idiotic attacks on trans and gay people, abortion(you can pretend it doesn't exist in Canada; it does) to get everyone riled up, and cause them to ignore what is really going on; the completion of the oligarchs retaking the power they had in the 1800s as a new form of royalty. Conservatism as we knew it is gone; it has morphed into modern day fascism. Trudeau is a complete and total disaster....yet he's light years better than what is on the horizon.
And yet, with no explanation where, there's not much option for debate. From where I'm sitting, Pierre lies and spins like Trump, they already tried to introduce a fetal rights bill, which is just an abortion bill in disguise, Conservative premiers are attacking minorities, and they voted against a Free Tarde bill for Ukraine. I'm happy to debate.....politely. We don't have to agree.
In what way are PP' lies different from JT's lies? In what world is add aggravating factors to violence against women and abortion bill? (evidence that the offender, in committing (an) offence, abused a person whom the offender knew to be pregnant”; and “evidence that the offence caused physical or emotional harm to a pregnant victim.”) I will assume the Conservative premiers you claim are attacking minorities are those that are saying parents have a right to know what their children are doing. Why is it that Liberal supporters fall for the "if you elect the CPC then you'll be forced to have babies in a hetero cis marriage and that baby will be issued firearms at the time they are baptized as member of the White supremacy church of anti immigration". Every freaking election its the same bullshit. Stop buying into that crap.
Pierre says the C's didn't support a free trade agreement with Ukraine because he says it involves the Carbon Tax. That's an outright lie. But when you're auditioning for the big job, lying about why you should have it is a hell of a lot different than the non-answers Trudeau gives to every question before the proud smirk he gives when he realises he said nothing. Then, he comes out and says minors shouldn't be given puberty blockers. IS that the opinion that came with his MD, or did it come from a Ron DeSantis talking point? Either way, it's stupid, ignorant, moronic...well, you get the picture.
He lies about the WEF which half of Harpers ministers joyously attended. His behaviour with the media is right out of the Trump handbook. You may think that's awesome; I think it makes him look like an asshat unworthy of the job. If he won't answer now, he sure as hell won't answer when in power, and as was so brilliantly outlined in the Line just last week, Canada has a transparency problem.
When a pregnant woman is assaulted, judges have always had the option of taking her condition into account during sentencing. If you can't see the difference between that and granting ;legal rights to someone who hasn't been born, I can't help you. A fetal rights bill is an abortion bill.
I hate to break this you to, but in the wonderful melting pot that is Canada, not every home is safe for every kid. I don't think it matters at all what your kid...or mine want s to be called at school. I'm equally certain that no intervention outside of having a safe person to talk to is going to happen without the parents knowing. But if the kid isn't comfortable talking to their parents, there is a reason why. Having someone uninvolved to talk to is like having a therapist who isn't emotionally involved. And there isn't anything much harder than growing up in todays world.
Your suggestion about what will be forced is too ignorant and absurd to acknowledge.
Every single election it's the same bullshit. "We're not Trudeau...vote for us". That's not a policy.....something the Conservatives could do with a boatload of but PP doesn't have a concrete proposal for anything. I guess we'll see something in 2025. But what Conservatives are throwing around right now is direct from the GOP handbook. I suspect I dislike Trudeau as much as you do, but watching what those fascist assholes are doing in the US, and the glee with which Conservatives here are lapping it up, I prefer the devil I know. Perhaps you take a look at the crap you're buying.
So is PP a MAGA Trump supporter or a Ron DeSantis supporter? Why is it that if he doesn't agree with you he must agree with Trump? I don't know -- nor I bet do you -- with whom PP consulted wrt puberty blockers or if he was just giving his opinion as a father. I don't know if there should be a ban on puberty blockers for those under 15 but I sure as shit don't believe we have enough data on the matter and I think the parents should be involved in the decision. I've heard the anecdotally on both sides of the argument. If you know that its stupid, ignorant and moronic to withhold puberty blockers from minors you must be in possession of information that few other know about. From what I've read, the science is far from settled.
Does PP, as a politician, play the media off -- certainly. Canadians already don't trust the MSM so pointing out stupid questions is fair game. It is incumbent on the press to be prepared and ask the right question in the right way. Does Trudeau not play the same game?
If you consider the private members bill C-311 (which never got past first reading) to be redundant (and I do), then what do you think of the Liberal M-103? Please read the C-311 and explain to me how that imbues any rights to a fetus. I'm probably too stupid, ignorant and moronic, to use your redundancy, to figure it out. (https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-311/first-reading) BTW I've read https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/media/six-reasons-oppose-bill-c-311.pdf and it seems wildly paranoic.
And yes I know not every parent is a model human being. I know that some might react badly in certain circumstances. But, can you assure me that nobody discussing gender reassignment with my child will not have and agenda, will always be a model human being, and have only the best interests of my child in mind and the skill and knowledge to know what is right for every child. I thought most schools already had guidance counsellors to fill the role. Again, if the child, parents and "expert" agree that puberty blockers are warranted, then I see no issue.
As to the party line of "we're not Trudeau" didn't work the last two times for the Conservatives so I think dealing with the issues of cost of living, debt, immigration, incompetence etc. is what's needed. Recall though, that more people voted CPC than LPC.
I agree that Trudeau rarely answers any question but rather spews talking points but if you want to review some of his lies:
"If I earn the right to serve this country as your Prime Minister, no veteran will be forced to fight their own government for the support and compensation that they have earned. We will reinstate lifelong pensions and increase their value in line with the obligation we have made to those injured in the line of duty.”
Trudeau said the Liberal Party is "committed" to ensuring that the upcoming October election is the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post system.
Create performance standards for services offered by the federal government, complete with streamlined application processes, reduced wait times and money-back guarantees.
Further, “the utmost care and prudence in the handling of public funds” would be a foundational principle of his government, he said.
“Open nominations, which I continue to be committed to and have always been committed to, is about letting local Liberals choose who is going to be their candidate in the next election….”
"The Aga Khan has been a longtime family friend. He was pallbearer at my father’s funeral, he has known me since I was a toddler."
"The allegations reported in the story are false. At no time did I or my office direct the current or previous attorney-general to make any particular decision in this matter." re:SNC Lavalin
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says women who come forward with complaints of sexual assault and harassment must be supported and believed. Trudeau said if allegations surfaced against him the same standards would apply.
Published in the Creston Valley Advance newspaper, the piece accused Mr Trudeau of "inappropriately handling" the reporter, who felt "blatantly disrespected" by the actions, which were not described. "The same interactions can be experienced very differently from one person to the next," he said. According to the editorial, Mr Trudeau apologised for his behaviour and said: "If I had known you were reporting for a national paper, I never would have been so forward."
The office says it consulted the federal ethics commissioner ahead of the coming trip, and the family will cover the cost of its stay as well as reimburse the cost of travelling on a government plane.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's office is clarifying that he and his family are vacationing in Jamaica "at no cost at a location owned by family friends," after initially saying the family was paying for their stay.
etc...
BTW, I haven't bought anything yet. I know where I stand on some issues, I'm still researching others and I expect some will come up that I haven't even considered. My position evolves as I process new information. I just resent being told that conservative positions are fascist, Trumpian etc. just as I hate libertarian views labelled woke.
A simple question Dan. How will PP's plan on refusing puberty blocker so minors affect the 8 year old girl who starts puberty early? I don't go to politicians for a medical consult. It's pretty clear PP has no idea what he's talking about; a blanket announcement for something far more complex verifies his lack of comprehension. Parents will always be involved in that decision. Teachers don't writer prescriptions.
GOP is GOP. The script is the same even if the players are different.
You don't trust the MSM. Again, feel free not to make blanket statements about the country as a whole.
If you give legal rights to a fetus, you have opened the door. How can you be so blind to that?
"I'm not Trudeau" actually failed in three straight elections. maybe the Conservatives should consider actual policy. I trust you recall that Conservatives were also against ending first past the post. FWIW, I'm one of those who doesn't care about blackface either. 20 year olds do stupid things. If every politician has to be a saint, there won't be any politicians. Trudeau's judgement is atrocious. Every PM takes vacations. Every one of them costs a fortune. The idea that they cover the cost of travelling on a government plane would be absurd. They can't for simple security reasons. It's just tired old finger pointing done by both sides to score points.
I've said many times that Trudeau sucks, and has broken many major promises. That's why I didn't vote for him in 2019, and 2021. I will vote strategically in 2025 to defeat the Conservatives because I see them as a far bigger threat to this country. I guess you've also forgotten that Harper; after closing a bunch of Veterans Affairs offices stated that the government has "no moral obligation" to veterans. Every government going back to 1918 has treated our veterans like crap.
The current GOP is actively fascist. The current Conservative governments are enacting GOP legislation. But you're right that opinions evolve as knowledge is gained. 2 years ago I said I couldn't foresee ever voting for Trudeau again because he's such a failure. Now I think better the devil I know. November will have a huge impact on us going forward. That election is as or even more important than ours.
It's a fun debate. I see social conservatism as a cancer because it applies blanket rules to highly individual situations. Look at Texas for the calamity it has caused. What happens there, comes here. I hope to delay that for as long as possible, and I'll vote for a PM I can't stand in support of that goal. Pinch nose, mark ballot.
Be interesting to actually turn this into a debate. If David is implying that paying your bills, living within your means, not rendering people's lives unlivable through taxation for export (as in exporting our money for no gain), not playing dress up, acting ethically, working to enact policies that benefit everyone... well yes I could see where you would find Poilievre and Trump aligned. Taking it much further than that and there are many differences - your aforementioned abortion position is one, there are many others - but you also fail spectacularly to recognize that in the details of trying to link the two men are the significant differences in the political systems in which they both operate and which, necessarily, ends up defining them. The US has an actual and functional system of checks and balances. In theory. When it is rigged, bribed, or inundated then that system can be overwhelmed and thus manipulated by the sitting President. In Canada ours is much simpler: between elections the PM is a dictator and has all the benefits of such. Opposing that requires much more finesse because you are essentially auditioning every day for the job of "new PM". When you mould in a dance partner that will quite literally do anything to avoid an election, curtsey Mr. Singh, then you can manipulate every aspect of government to your preference, hence committee meetings suddenly get adjourned, witnesses get cancelled, and $600 million to the wider press and a couple $billion to the CBC and you get the kind of total disdain for any form of oversight that was classically on display by the CBC President. That Rachel Thomas did not actually choke the life out of her is a massive testimony to the fortitude and ethics of the leading lights under Poilieve and are a testament to his leadership qualities. The only minorities I have seen attacked recently were all targeted by Mr. Trudeau in his quest to divide the country every change he gets. And in that Trudeau and whomever is holding Biden's strings have MUCH in common.
So you think Mr Poilievre is honest? Do you actually believe that every problem that Canada faces has been caused by Justin Trudeau? Could PP be twisting reality just a little bit to get your vote? The conservative movement really is an "Internationale" and it's goal is not to benefit you and me... but our betters.
No, he's dead ON the mark
You just had to know that Western patience would eventually ebb as it always does when help is required. Throughout the war it seems as though there was just enough help contributed to keep the Ukrainians from being completely overrun instead of going full defence from the outset. The initial quote that the West would help until the last drop of (Ukrainian) blood was shed doesn’t seem that cynical anymore. Heads up Europe. You’re next.
Let's face facts. The Liberals haven't been able to deliver on what they've already promised. The Free Trade deal is fluff. We've exhausted our resources and have nothing left to give, We can't outfit our own Armed Forces, we have no capacity to build materiel. We aren't Ukraine's ally and owe more to Nato than we will ever be able to deliver. If there weren't so many Canadian-Ukrainians this government would have treated Ukrainians the same as they treated the Uighurs.
You say that we can’t outfit our own armed forces. We most certainly can. We just choose not to and that should embarrass every single Canadian.
Perhaps the citizens of North America and Europe see their elected leaders as "the orks". Lots of fear mongering! Our governments lost so much credibility following the lockdowns that many of us just don't believe anything they profess to us. Our Leaders are obsessed with providing tens of billions $ in Ukranian assistance and totally ignore negotiations. Who wins under this strategy? Definitely not the voters.
Negotiations? For Putin to retain any part of Ukraine is a compromise to the Stalinist dictator. No compromise with Putin.
Like we did with Stalin during and after WWII? I am confused. We do or do not negotiate?
We faced a common enemy then. If the Klingons attack us we will probably be able to make a deal with Putin.
Who the hell are they supposed to negotiate with? Putin, who illegally annexed Crimea and funded violent separatists for years before launching a full invasion? He can't be trusted.
Agree! He has no respect for treaties, borders, International Law, or human rights. Any negotiated settlement will be broken at his convenience, and he’ll find a way to blame the west. His word isn’t worth anything. I believe the fall of Ukraine will bolster both the kremlin and china, not to mention iran and north korea. The west will look weak and spineless. Then the Conservatives and American republican freedom caucus can find excuses not to support the next russian or chinese nation grab. Ugh.
Excellent and, unfortunately, very realistic article. I wanted to share the article on FB, but
"News content can't be shared in Canada: In response to Canadian government legislation, news content can't be shared.".....
Zuckerberg is not our friend. He may not even be from this planet. :)