The allies were already losing interest in Ukraine's faltering war effort on October 7, but the rapid abandonment of Ukraine only underscores the fecklessness of the West.
A failure by all standards, if the West and the United States in particular, do not continue to support the Ukraine Government. How many billions of dollars has the West spent since the early 1950's to protect ourselves from the Russian threat? Now the West has an opportunity to defeat Russia, or at the very least, send it back to the 1950's economically and we sit on our hands while Ukrainian men, women and children are being killed. A Pox on any politician who would sell out the Ukrainians.
This is a very good analysis, except for one thing, which is that the counteroffensive was not as unsuccessful as it is portrayed to be. Even with the limited resources described herein, they managed to chase Russia's Black Sea fleet out of Crimea, blow up a railway in Siberia, and generally take the war to Russian soil to the greatest extent possible, considering the limitations described in this post.
It's true that the Ukrainians didn't get to the coast and split the Russian land bridge to Crimea, which is what the Americans wanted to see as a sign of true success in the counteroffensive. However, on the one hand, the West hesitated to give Ukraine what it needed to do the job in a timely fashion, then it criticized Ukraine for not getting that job done. If we look at other counteroffensives (such as the Allied one in Italy during WW2), they are not so easily accomplished. Ukraine's lightening wins last year, in which they took back Kherson and Kharkiv, unfortunately set the standard for what the West thought should happen in this counteroffensive as well, but it doesn't necessarily work that way.
The counteroffensive was as successful as it could be. They didn't get the touchdown, but they did get the field goal but, from the West's perspective, that's not enough to stay in the game, it seems.
Good points -- imagine what they could,have accomplished it properly supported. We’d be having a very different conversation now, indeed it likely wouldn’t be necessary. Your series looks interesting and I will dig into them.
Leftists howl about supporting Ukraine, then let things fall apart at home, and experts wonder why there are calls to deal with home problems first? I support Ukraine and want to keep supporting them. I also support fixing broken housing and criminal systems, never mind our military. It's the leftists in charge who continue to choke on their gum while they walk. And when they come up for breath, they accuse the right of being the problem? When will we tire of being gaslit?
Supporting Ukraine is a completely different problem using completely different parts of government than issues with housing and crime. The only common factor is money, and spending on supporting Ukraine is a pittance compared to what's already being spent on those other issues. The people who are arguing that support for Ukraine is the problem are the ones who're gaslighting you.
Yes and no. Part of the issue on the right is how much the American conversation bleeds into Canada. The Conservatives oppose gov't, so how they vote is of much much lesser concern than how the right in the US is voting. If our politics weren't so infected, then the left wouldn't think it could score points on the issue when Conservatives *surprise surprise* oppose a gov't bill.
So perhaps we ‘leftists’ should praise & cozy up with Viktor Orbán (not only a bigot but a known enemy of the free press) as per Heil Harper and the IDU? C’mon! Talk about being gaslit!
Here's the other side of the problem...the "right" that would usually stand up to support this has turned against it. There is no "right" anymore, and the left are far more in favour of basic human rights.
"Leftists" are not the ones in the United States and Europe who are doing Putin's dirty work. Most of the opposition to doing more to support Ukraine (at least these days) comes from Putin's admirers on what used to be called "the Right".
In other words, Max Bernier's People's Party and the Conservative Party in Canada, and the so-called conservatives in the Republican Party in the United States.
The primary challenges to getting more aid to Ukraine right now is a combination of weak leadership, deeply polarized politics. and a small but vocal pro-Russian faction in right wing populist politics. Leaders like Biden, Scholz, and Trudeau seem to understand the need for Ukraine support, but are hobbled by domestic political concerns. Polarization means that if one side is *for* something, the other side decides that it's imperative they oppose it. The weak leadership hasn't been effective at breaking through with a compelling narrative to challenge the reflex. Then you've got the pro-Russian factions exemplified by people like Tucker Carlson - they're loud, and they're providing a narrative that bolsters the brain-dead partisanship. It's also an area where the KGB heritage in Russian propaganda can find some leverage.
The other thing we're seeing right now is a blame game to blunt responsibility for the disappointing outcome of the Ukrainian offensive. The Western side is pointing out Ukrainian deficiencies in strategy and tactics; the Ukrainians are trying to pin it on inadequate supplies. There's truth to be found in both narratives, but neither is a full explanation.
Ukraine had a really difficult military problem in assaulting fortified Russian defenses, complicated by a proliferation of small UAVs that dramatically reduces the opportunity for surprise and add friction with their ability to attack troops and vehicles. They didn't have as much Western equipment as they'd like, but there's evidence that they weren't using what they had particularly well. The fact is that Ukraine *isn't* a NATO military; they're transitioning away from a Soviet doctrine, but NATO combined arms doctrine is something developed over decades and regularly practiced by professional troops. Ukraine wasn't starting with an experienced professional force, and they haven't got the luxury of large peacetime exercises to figure this stuff out. Western military equipment has a qualitative edge over Soviet tech, but it's not magic and a lot of its effectiveness comes from using it with NATO doctrine.
The West has slow-walked getting Ukraine equipment. Getting Ukraine longer-range weapons like ATACMS could've helped earlier on, and worried about being too provocative were overblown. Still, this stuff *isn't magic.* There are also limited supplies that have to meet NATO's own military requirements in case this conflict expands or something blows up elsewhere. Producing more takes time, and costs a lot of money. That's particularly true if production rate needs to be increased.
This whole notion that a lack of F-16s was a critical factor is a particularly annoying and overly simplistic accusation. It takes a couple of years to train an F-16 pilot. When they're done training, they can safely fly the jet. They need another couple of years in an operational squadron under the guidance of much more experienced pilots to be able to employ it effectively in combat. When NATO militaries convert over to the F-16, it's taken 5-10 years to get to the point where they've got effective combat units because you've got to develop that initial cadre of experienced pilots. Then there's the problem of training the maintainers and support systems to keep the jets flying. And then there's the even bigger problem that F-16s are part of a much larger NATO air force including electronic warfare, reconnaissance, suppression of enemy air defenses, aerial tankers, and transport aircraft. NATO airpower is advanced technology and know-how that's the work of generations. Ukraine would certainly benefit from NATO-style airpower; giving them some F-16s doesn't actually accomplish that.
-this is an opportunity to crush one of America's greatest opponents without sending a single American troop
-the cost can be funded out of the $300B+ in Russian foreign reserve assets plus likely billions more in frozen oligarch assets. Perhaps the US and its allies need to more aggressively raid the funds of Putin and his supporters
-much of the spending will end up in the hands of American defense contractors and their employees. Don't most of them of them vote Republican?
-American companies will likely win large reconstruction contracts post-war
-most important of all: this would send a message to the likes of China and Iran to stay within their own borders or else
I view this as yet another result of weak American leadership.
I see it as a sign of deep American partisanship. For most Republicans today, the fact that the Democrats are *for* something is sufficient reason to oppose it. Add in a small but vocal pro-Russian faction on the right, and they're completely incapacitated.
I'm with George Skinner. I see it as a sign of deep American partisanship ... and it's despicable. The idiotic GOP won't back down until we're headed into WWIII. Any idiot who can read a history book knows that. Apparently the GOP doesn't read.
It's partisanship for sure. Though idiotic isn't the word I'd use considering their attempt to deal with the border crisis. It's good ole fashioned poltiics, and the Democrats not moving on the issue is as much the problem as the GOP being strategic. Anyone who thinks foreign policy moves voters in the States doesn't know what they are talking about.
And yet it's the GOP that refuses to pass any immigration legislation that might clarify,a nd help solve the issue....almost like they're desperate to keep it as a distraction from what they're really doing.
Oh they’ve got ‘weak leadership’ look at the new Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. He has his Internet use monitored by his 17-year-old son, just in case Mike tries to fulfill any deviant or pornographic predilection behaviours. If that’s not a security threat waiting to happen… 😳😳
I agrée with you Doug. To me it seems foreign policy is a low priority for many America-firsters who barely understand anything beyond their own borders.
Lots of interesting comments here and I'll mention a couple of different ideas to chew on.
First, one of the things that irritates me with the supplies sent to Ukraine issue is the notion that we've actually spent money. Canada has not. It has emptied its magazines and sent supplies over from stocks. Canada has not replaced that ammunition, nor has it ordered new hardware to replace what has been sent over and apparently has no intention of doing so. The CAF is being financially strangled and ignored, which is, as is commonly known, a routine state of affairs. So, should Putin's ambition to re-establish the Soviet/Russian Empire involve invading NATO allies on the Baltic coast, or Finland, or Poland, it will be very interesting to see what Canada does. I imagine we'd cluck our tongues and contemplate helping at a more 'propitious' time, when we can afford it. I have little expectation we'd step up and meet our treaty obligations. As Trudeau stated, I paraphrase, 'we'll never meet the 2% target' and I think that accurate.
Whether we pay a price for all this is TBD, but I dare say we will. Indeed, a second Trump term may include a requirement to meet our NORAD commitment immediately along with the 2% target long term or kiss NAFTA Mk II goodbye.
Secondly, a number have noted the prowess of the NATO armies in contrast to the shambolic Ukrainians. I think a caveat needs to be at least noted. Most NATO militaries have NEVER fought a first rate enemy in decades if ever. How the various militaries will actually work together under the stress of a major war with an irredentist Russia is very much an open question. Soldiers who have never experienced combat are very much an unknown quantity when they finally do. Many would not do well because they're human. The armies are also pretty small (I doubt Canada could muster a brigade, let alone a division). So, how well we'd do is an open question. The Russian army, case in point, is not doing well at all against the aforementioned shambolic Ukrainians. I very much doubt our lot would be romping through Russian defences like Rommel in France in 1940.
Obviously, I certainly hope we're never put to the test - it would involve an almost unthinkable breakdown in the international order but unfortunately we do not live in comfortable times, and it is not out of the question.
We will only react when our welfare (security or even economic) is directly threatened. It is now but only indirectly and the message has not sunk in. I am unsure if we will wake up in time — to a number of issues that threaten civilization as we (thought) we knew it.
I urge readers to carefully listen to Philip Ingram, a UK based retired NATO military analyst. It is 41 minutes long, but well worth integrating into the knowledge base. The politics look dire temporarily. Politics is always a roller coaster. The situation on the ground is much different.
My understanding from Cathal Nolan's "The Allure of Battle" is that large-scale wars almost always turn into contests of endurance. Winning battles is rarely how wars are won: Hannibal and Napoleon won many battles, but lost in the end. It comes down to attrition.
In the US and Canada, the other big issue is national unity. Post-Trump, the tradition that "politics stops at the water's edge" no longer seems to be holding. If Putin thinks Trump can win again in 2024 and that this would halt US support for Ukraine, he'll be willing to hold on until then.
I'm guessing that Poilievre and the Conservatives do support Ukraine, but Poilievre lacks humility and restraint: he wants to win at all costs. He's willing to play partisan games at the expense of national unity on Canadian foreign policy, and he's willing to play footsie with the more conspiracy-minded PPC/CPC swing voters who think that Russia invading Ukraine is NATO's fault.
This is much too clean and elegant to fit the Russian interest for it to be a coincidence. I'm willing to fathom that in the future books will be written on how Russia organized complacency and turned attention away from Ukraine. They are obviously influencing or even bribing the right folks in the National
Conservative movements in places like the US, Hungary, Turkey, Poland, etc. It's just too coincidental to be a coincidence.
In Canada with the CPC going against a Ukraine free trade deal because of "carbon taxes" is gross. It also goes against the narrative of the Conservative Party since its inception and even against the interests of its own coalition. It's too weird to not be influenced from the outside.
"In Canada with the CPC going against a Ukraine free trade deal because of "carbon taxes" is gross. It also goes against the narrative of the Conservative Party since its inception and even against the interests of its own coalition. It's too weird to not be influenced from the outside."
I have a hard time imagining Poilievre or his advisors being lobbied directly by Russian proxies. My guess is that it's more like this: Russia's spent a lot of time and effort to try to turn Americans against supporting Ukraine, via people like Trump or Tucker Carlson. And then people in Canada who are CPC supporters are listening to these same American voices and sharing their arguments. (Like some of the comments here.)
So then Poilievre would have a good reason to pander to people who are skeptical of support for Ukraine, just as he's pandered to the anti-vax crowd. He's not the kind of guy who would stand up and say, look, if you've bought into Russian propaganda I don't want your vote. (That's more like something Michael Chong would say.) Even his disavowal of Christine Anderson went out as a written statement via Brian Lilley.
Plus Poilievre watches Fox News himself. I don't know what the Fox News line on the war is these days; presumably they're trying to stay aligned with their audience.
Thank you for the analysis. I am old enough to remember the Cuba Missile Crisis and wonder if NATO did not try and bring in Ukraine the war would not have started? Yes, NATO has suffered it's second set back but with NATO members like Turkey, a friend-enemy with the most favourable analysis , and Canada, who cannot even supply its armed forces better than a weekend shopper at Whitefish MT Walmart. it is no wonder it is in shambles. Last comment. We have two Ukrainians in our office. Both are in Canada with their husbands (so much for staying to fight, but I digress). They speak Russian in the office and wondered why the war started at all?
Can't this failure almost entirely be put at the feet of Trumplicans? It's a disaster for democracy worldwide in the making, but the GOP is entirely about supporting Putin...for their own perverse goals. That Americans are stupid enough not to see the danger staring them in the face proves out every theory Joe Goebbels ever had. But let's not pretend it's Conservatism; it's open fascism, and it's Americas....and quite possibly our future if they don't wake up in the next 11 months.
Agree with a lot of this. But, when we say "the West" or NATO, what we mean in practial terms is the US. They do all the heavy lifting and have had corresponding say in what does and doesn't happen. We in Canada have been by and large happy with that situation (and have benefited!).
Americans have decided they are not interested in being the world's policeman. I think they don't quite understand the considerable benefits to them that have come with that role, but that's for Americans to decide.
What it means for Canadians (and Europe) is we can either put up or shut up. At this point, even if we wanted to, what could we contribute to Ukraine that would make a meaningful difference? If we want to play on the world's stage, we've got to back it up. And if we don't, we better start preparing for a much, much more dangerous world -- one that will eventually be very likely to challenge our control over the Arctic.
Americans may be abdicating, but the rest of us have been sitting on our laurels for a very long time. If Canada can't even find 2% of GDP to properly fund our committment to NATO, then spare me rheteric about the world needing Canada.
On a side note, what the hell happened to right-leaning parties around the world? How have so many of them bought Russian propeganda, or at least are behaving in ways that support that propeganda? I'm about to turn 57, and if you told me high school aged self that's what would happen in 40 years, I'd have never believed you!
"Feckless" is exactly the right word to use when describing Canadian, American and European citizens and politicians WRT Ukraine. It is enraging to me, but as you observed, we'd seen the signals for some time.
I am 73 so have obviously have been an observer of much for decades. I have never felt so despondent and disheartened as I do these days.
Sadly, this is an excellent article . I fear for the West. Where has our will gone?
A failure by all standards, if the West and the United States in particular, do not continue to support the Ukraine Government. How many billions of dollars has the West spent since the early 1950's to protect ourselves from the Russian threat? Now the West has an opportunity to defeat Russia, or at the very least, send it back to the 1950's economically and we sit on our hands while Ukrainian men, women and children are being killed. A Pox on any politician who would sell out the Ukrainians.
This is a very good analysis, except for one thing, which is that the counteroffensive was not as unsuccessful as it is portrayed to be. Even with the limited resources described herein, they managed to chase Russia's Black Sea fleet out of Crimea, blow up a railway in Siberia, and generally take the war to Russian soil to the greatest extent possible, considering the limitations described in this post.
It's true that the Ukrainians didn't get to the coast and split the Russian land bridge to Crimea, which is what the Americans wanted to see as a sign of true success in the counteroffensive. However, on the one hand, the West hesitated to give Ukraine what it needed to do the job in a timely fashion, then it criticized Ukraine for not getting that job done. If we look at other counteroffensives (such as the Allied one in Italy during WW2), they are not so easily accomplished. Ukraine's lightening wins last year, in which they took back Kherson and Kharkiv, unfortunately set the standard for what the West thought should happen in this counteroffensive as well, but it doesn't necessarily work that way.
The counteroffensive was as successful as it could be. They didn't get the touchdown, but they did get the field goal but, from the West's perspective, that's not enough to stay in the game, it seems.
See my series on the Russian invasion of Ukraine: https://theprairiemaritimer.com/category/the-prairie-maritimer-ukraine-ukrainians/
Good points -- imagine what they could,have accomplished it properly supported. We’d be having a very different conversation now, indeed it likely wouldn’t be necessary. Your series looks interesting and I will dig into them.
Thank you for reading!
Leftists howl about supporting Ukraine, then let things fall apart at home, and experts wonder why there are calls to deal with home problems first? I support Ukraine and want to keep supporting them. I also support fixing broken housing and criminal systems, never mind our military. It's the leftists in charge who continue to choke on their gum while they walk. And when they come up for breath, they accuse the right of being the problem? When will we tire of being gaslit?
Supporting Ukraine is a completely different problem using completely different parts of government than issues with housing and crime. The only common factor is money, and spending on supporting Ukraine is a pittance compared to what's already being spent on those other issues. The people who are arguing that support for Ukraine is the problem are the ones who're gaslighting you.
Yes and no. Part of the issue on the right is how much the American conversation bleeds into Canada. The Conservatives oppose gov't, so how they vote is of much much lesser concern than how the right in the US is voting. If our politics weren't so infected, then the left wouldn't think it could score points on the issue when Conservatives *surprise surprise* oppose a gov't bill.
So perhaps we ‘leftists’ should praise & cozy up with Viktor Orbán (not only a bigot but a known enemy of the free press) as per Heil Harper and the IDU? C’mon! Talk about being gaslit!
So you believe lies about Orban? I'm gay and he's so not the biggest problem at the moment. Why do you believe in the boogeyman.
Here's the other side of the problem...the "right" that would usually stand up to support this has turned against it. There is no "right" anymore, and the left are far more in favour of basic human rights.
Patently untrue
"Leftists" are not the ones in the United States and Europe who are doing Putin's dirty work. Most of the opposition to doing more to support Ukraine (at least these days) comes from Putin's admirers on what used to be called "the Right".
In other words, Max Bernier's People's Party and the Conservative Party in Canada, and the so-called conservatives in the Republican Party in the United States.
Rahim Mohammed had a good column about this in the National Post. Basically, stop believing conspiracy theories.
The primary challenges to getting more aid to Ukraine right now is a combination of weak leadership, deeply polarized politics. and a small but vocal pro-Russian faction in right wing populist politics. Leaders like Biden, Scholz, and Trudeau seem to understand the need for Ukraine support, but are hobbled by domestic political concerns. Polarization means that if one side is *for* something, the other side decides that it's imperative they oppose it. The weak leadership hasn't been effective at breaking through with a compelling narrative to challenge the reflex. Then you've got the pro-Russian factions exemplified by people like Tucker Carlson - they're loud, and they're providing a narrative that bolsters the brain-dead partisanship. It's also an area where the KGB heritage in Russian propaganda can find some leverage.
The other thing we're seeing right now is a blame game to blunt responsibility for the disappointing outcome of the Ukrainian offensive. The Western side is pointing out Ukrainian deficiencies in strategy and tactics; the Ukrainians are trying to pin it on inadequate supplies. There's truth to be found in both narratives, but neither is a full explanation.
Ukraine had a really difficult military problem in assaulting fortified Russian defenses, complicated by a proliferation of small UAVs that dramatically reduces the opportunity for surprise and add friction with their ability to attack troops and vehicles. They didn't have as much Western equipment as they'd like, but there's evidence that they weren't using what they had particularly well. The fact is that Ukraine *isn't* a NATO military; they're transitioning away from a Soviet doctrine, but NATO combined arms doctrine is something developed over decades and regularly practiced by professional troops. Ukraine wasn't starting with an experienced professional force, and they haven't got the luxury of large peacetime exercises to figure this stuff out. Western military equipment has a qualitative edge over Soviet tech, but it's not magic and a lot of its effectiveness comes from using it with NATO doctrine.
The West has slow-walked getting Ukraine equipment. Getting Ukraine longer-range weapons like ATACMS could've helped earlier on, and worried about being too provocative were overblown. Still, this stuff *isn't magic.* There are also limited supplies that have to meet NATO's own military requirements in case this conflict expands or something blows up elsewhere. Producing more takes time, and costs a lot of money. That's particularly true if production rate needs to be increased.
This whole notion that a lack of F-16s was a critical factor is a particularly annoying and overly simplistic accusation. It takes a couple of years to train an F-16 pilot. When they're done training, they can safely fly the jet. They need another couple of years in an operational squadron under the guidance of much more experienced pilots to be able to employ it effectively in combat. When NATO militaries convert over to the F-16, it's taken 5-10 years to get to the point where they've got effective combat units because you've got to develop that initial cadre of experienced pilots. Then there's the problem of training the maintainers and support systems to keep the jets flying. And then there's the even bigger problem that F-16s are part of a much larger NATO air force including electronic warfare, reconnaissance, suppression of enemy air defenses, aerial tankers, and transport aircraft. NATO airpower is advanced technology and know-how that's the work of generations. Ukraine would certainly benefit from NATO-style airpower; giving them some F-16s doesn't actually accomplish that.
I don't understand the American hesitancy:
-this is an opportunity to crush one of America's greatest opponents without sending a single American troop
-the cost can be funded out of the $300B+ in Russian foreign reserve assets plus likely billions more in frozen oligarch assets. Perhaps the US and its allies need to more aggressively raid the funds of Putin and his supporters
-much of the spending will end up in the hands of American defense contractors and their employees. Don't most of them of them vote Republican?
-American companies will likely win large reconstruction contracts post-war
-most important of all: this would send a message to the likes of China and Iran to stay within their own borders or else
I view this as yet another result of weak American leadership.
I see it as a sign of deep American partisanship. For most Republicans today, the fact that the Democrats are *for* something is sufficient reason to oppose it. Add in a small but vocal pro-Russian faction on the right, and they're completely incapacitated.
I'm with George Skinner. I see it as a sign of deep American partisanship ... and it's despicable. The idiotic GOP won't back down until we're headed into WWIII. Any idiot who can read a history book knows that. Apparently the GOP doesn't read.
It's partisanship for sure. Though idiotic isn't the word I'd use considering their attempt to deal with the border crisis. It's good ole fashioned poltiics, and the Democrats not moving on the issue is as much the problem as the GOP being strategic. Anyone who thinks foreign policy moves voters in the States doesn't know what they are talking about.
And yet it's the GOP that refuses to pass any immigration legislation that might clarify,a nd help solve the issue....almost like they're desperate to keep it as a distraction from what they're really doing.
It's partisanship "influenced" by certain interests in Eastern Europe no doubt. Culture doesn't change that quickly without an outside influence.
Oh they’ve got ‘weak leadership’ look at the new Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. He has his Internet use monitored by his 17-year-old son, just in case Mike tries to fulfill any deviant or pornographic predilection behaviours. If that’s not a security threat waiting to happen… 😳😳
I agrée with you Doug. To me it seems foreign policy is a low priority for many America-firsters who barely understand anything beyond their own borders.
Lots of interesting comments here and I'll mention a couple of different ideas to chew on.
First, one of the things that irritates me with the supplies sent to Ukraine issue is the notion that we've actually spent money. Canada has not. It has emptied its magazines and sent supplies over from stocks. Canada has not replaced that ammunition, nor has it ordered new hardware to replace what has been sent over and apparently has no intention of doing so. The CAF is being financially strangled and ignored, which is, as is commonly known, a routine state of affairs. So, should Putin's ambition to re-establish the Soviet/Russian Empire involve invading NATO allies on the Baltic coast, or Finland, or Poland, it will be very interesting to see what Canada does. I imagine we'd cluck our tongues and contemplate helping at a more 'propitious' time, when we can afford it. I have little expectation we'd step up and meet our treaty obligations. As Trudeau stated, I paraphrase, 'we'll never meet the 2% target' and I think that accurate.
Whether we pay a price for all this is TBD, but I dare say we will. Indeed, a second Trump term may include a requirement to meet our NORAD commitment immediately along with the 2% target long term or kiss NAFTA Mk II goodbye.
Secondly, a number have noted the prowess of the NATO armies in contrast to the shambolic Ukrainians. I think a caveat needs to be at least noted. Most NATO militaries have NEVER fought a first rate enemy in decades if ever. How the various militaries will actually work together under the stress of a major war with an irredentist Russia is very much an open question. Soldiers who have never experienced combat are very much an unknown quantity when they finally do. Many would not do well because they're human. The armies are also pretty small (I doubt Canada could muster a brigade, let alone a division). So, how well we'd do is an open question. The Russian army, case in point, is not doing well at all against the aforementioned shambolic Ukrainians. I very much doubt our lot would be romping through Russian defences like Rommel in France in 1940.
Obviously, I certainly hope we're never put to the test - it would involve an almost unthinkable breakdown in the international order but unfortunately we do not live in comfortable times, and it is not out of the question.
We will only react when our welfare (security or even economic) is directly threatened. It is now but only indirectly and the message has not sunk in. I am unsure if we will wake up in time — to a number of issues that threaten civilization as we (thought) we knew it.
Thank you Andrew for the insightful analysis.
I urge readers to carefully listen to Philip Ingram, a UK based retired NATO military analyst. It is 41 minutes long, but well worth integrating into the knowledge base. The politics look dire temporarily. Politics is always a roller coaster. The situation on the ground is much different.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEj_oOgPFQ0
My understanding from Cathal Nolan's "The Allure of Battle" is that large-scale wars almost always turn into contests of endurance. Winning battles is rarely how wars are won: Hannibal and Napoleon won many battles, but lost in the end. It comes down to attrition.
So the question is whether Ukraine (with the backing of the West) can outlast Russia. The economy of the West is far larger than Russia's, putting us in a much better position. A major challenge will be ramping up munitions production, currently scaled for peacetime (i.e. training exercises): https://www.economist.com/briefing/2023/02/19/the-west-is-struggling-to-forge-a-new-arsenal-of-democracy
In the US and Canada, the other big issue is national unity. Post-Trump, the tradition that "politics stops at the water's edge" no longer seems to be holding. If Putin thinks Trump can win again in 2024 and that this would halt US support for Ukraine, he'll be willing to hold on until then.
I'm guessing that Poilievre and the Conservatives do support Ukraine, but Poilievre lacks humility and restraint: he wants to win at all costs. He's willing to play partisan games at the expense of national unity on Canadian foreign policy, and he's willing to play footsie with the more conspiracy-minded PPC/CPC swing voters who think that Russia invading Ukraine is NATO's fault.
This is much too clean and elegant to fit the Russian interest for it to be a coincidence. I'm willing to fathom that in the future books will be written on how Russia organized complacency and turned attention away from Ukraine. They are obviously influencing or even bribing the right folks in the National
Conservative movements in places like the US, Hungary, Turkey, Poland, etc. It's just too coincidental to be a coincidence.
In Canada with the CPC going against a Ukraine free trade deal because of "carbon taxes" is gross. It also goes against the narrative of the Conservative Party since its inception and even against the interests of its own coalition. It's too weird to not be influenced from the outside.
"In Canada with the CPC going against a Ukraine free trade deal because of "carbon taxes" is gross. It also goes against the narrative of the Conservative Party since its inception and even against the interests of its own coalition. It's too weird to not be influenced from the outside."
I have a hard time imagining Poilievre or his advisors being lobbied directly by Russian proxies. My guess is that it's more like this: Russia's spent a lot of time and effort to try to turn Americans against supporting Ukraine, via people like Trump or Tucker Carlson. And then people in Canada who are CPC supporters are listening to these same American voices and sharing their arguments. (Like some of the comments here.)
So then Poilievre would have a good reason to pander to people who are skeptical of support for Ukraine, just as he's pandered to the anti-vax crowd. He's not the kind of guy who would stand up and say, look, if you've bought into Russian propaganda I don't want your vote. (That's more like something Michael Chong would say.) Even his disavowal of Christine Anderson went out as a written statement via Brian Lilley.
Plus Poilievre watches Fox News himself. I don't know what the Fox News line on the war is these days; presumably they're trying to stay aligned with their audience.
Thank you for the analysis. I am old enough to remember the Cuba Missile Crisis and wonder if NATO did not try and bring in Ukraine the war would not have started? Yes, NATO has suffered it's second set back but with NATO members like Turkey, a friend-enemy with the most favourable analysis , and Canada, who cannot even supply its armed forces better than a weekend shopper at Whitefish MT Walmart. it is no wonder it is in shambles. Last comment. We have two Ukrainians in our office. Both are in Canada with their husbands (so much for staying to fight, but I digress). They speak Russian in the office and wondered why the war started at all?
The war started, not because of any threat by NATO, but because Russia doesn't believe that Ukraine has the right to exist. See https://theprairiemaritimer.com/part-2-the-full-scale-invasion-of-ukraine-russia-accomplished/
Can't this failure almost entirely be put at the feet of Trumplicans? It's a disaster for democracy worldwide in the making, but the GOP is entirely about supporting Putin...for their own perverse goals. That Americans are stupid enough not to see the danger staring them in the face proves out every theory Joe Goebbels ever had. But let's not pretend it's Conservatism; it's open fascism, and it's Americas....and quite possibly our future if they don't wake up in the next 11 months.
Agree with a lot of this. But, when we say "the West" or NATO, what we mean in practial terms is the US. They do all the heavy lifting and have had corresponding say in what does and doesn't happen. We in Canada have been by and large happy with that situation (and have benefited!).
Americans have decided they are not interested in being the world's policeman. I think they don't quite understand the considerable benefits to them that have come with that role, but that's for Americans to decide.
What it means for Canadians (and Europe) is we can either put up or shut up. At this point, even if we wanted to, what could we contribute to Ukraine that would make a meaningful difference? If we want to play on the world's stage, we've got to back it up. And if we don't, we better start preparing for a much, much more dangerous world -- one that will eventually be very likely to challenge our control over the Arctic.
Americans may be abdicating, but the rest of us have been sitting on our laurels for a very long time. If Canada can't even find 2% of GDP to properly fund our committment to NATO, then spare me rheteric about the world needing Canada.
On a side note, what the hell happened to right-leaning parties around the world? How have so many of them bought Russian propeganda, or at least are behaving in ways that support that propeganda? I'm about to turn 57, and if you told me high school aged self that's what would happen in 40 years, I'd have never believed you!
Why any country on the planet would trust the USA is beyond me. How many times have they promised the moon and delivered a hole in the ground?
"Feckless" is exactly the right word to use when describing Canadian, American and European citizens and politicians WRT Ukraine. It is enraging to me, but as you observed, we'd seen the signals for some time.