The lessons of Neville Chamberlain ignored. Am I wrong in thinking the fate of the concept of democracy lies largely in the hands of the American voter this November? It may be too late for Ukraine by then of course.....a generational "own goal" to quote those with a better geopolitical understanding.
Canada is governed by wimps. The United States Congress run by running shoe hucksters and religious fruit cakes. North America could use some current members of the Ukraine government, to explain to us the realities of living and dying and governing in a war zone.
I agree with you that Canada needs to develop its defence capabilities. The world is fast becoming a less safe place. We need to be able to defend ourselves.
I have a very simple question to Mr. Jain (and everyone else who advocates for this): Is there an upper limit on how much each country (that you say will be impacted long-term) should spend of their own money to help Ukraine win the war? If yes, what is that limit?
A follow up question: Do you think that the hundreds of billions of dollars sent to Ukraine so far has been spent wisely and without corruption? At what point would you draw the line and say the money being sent is not yielding any results?
If you don’t think this is our war, you are delusional. Canada spent 1.8 billion per year on a counter-insurgency in Afghanistan. Counter-insurgencies are cheap compared to peer nation all-arms force on force high intensity combat. We can afford and should be paying a lot more (multiple times more) or we will be paying exponentially more plus paying with Canadian lives in the years to come.
While I value human life too much to praise the deaths of Russian soldiers as an end in itself, there is no doubt that potential Russian imperialism has been undermined by the ongoing heavy losses to its military.
I think that the appropriate upper limit is not a number, but rather a state of conditions. If the pro-Ukraine alliance were to continue spending more money fighting the war than the Russian side, and if Ukraine were to continue to lose territory over the next year regardless, that would be suggestive that our efforts should come to an end. Though, war is complicated and rarely ends in decisive victories, there's almost never going to be one definitive indicator of when one side has truly lost.
I don't know what the upper limit should be. The first goal would be to start investing to meet our current NATO targets. Defence spending does not need to be a drain on the economy,
I understand the need to up our spending on our own defence. I am specifically asking about how much can/should be the upper limit to send to wars outside such as in Ukraine which is not part of NATO.
It's in vogue to compare the current situation to the 30s, mapping Putin to Hitler. Does that mean Biden is Roosevelt, Sunak is Churchill? Tucker Carlson is Lindbergh? What about Canada? Let's explore that a bit more.
From Veterans Affairs, we learn:
<quote>
* For example, the Canadian Cycle and Motor Co. Ltd. of Weston, Ontario, which had made bicycles and hockey skates before the war, took over the manufacture of armaments including gun parts, tripods for Bren guns, and cradles and pivots for anti-tank guns.
* There were spin off industries born of wartime conditions. For example, Industrial Engineering Ltd. of Vancouver produced a much-improved chainsaw. This development increased the efficiency of lumberjacks and also allowed some people to cut wood who otherwise would not be physically able to do the job. In these ways, the new chainsaw helped fill the gap created by the lumber industry's loss of personnel to military service.
* Liquid Carbonic Canadian Corporation, a Quebec company, had a soda fountain division which was turned over to building tank parts.
</quote>
Do we have anywhere near that capability today? We've outsourced everything. Real war isn't sending a handful of battle groups to Afghanistan. Real war is getting the entire country on board, because 155mm ammunition can't be found on Amazon.
Aside from matériel, who's going to do the fighting? Who wants to join when we see what happens to veterans: broken bodies, broken minds, and government neglect. And why fight for a country build on stolen land, a country systemically racist, a country that is post-national? We don't have the spirit.
It's cheap and easy to compare today's realists to yesterday's appeasers, but maybe some of them knew a serious conflict was going to be fucking awful, and should be avoided it at all costs.
NATO as a whole lost the focus shortly after the Cold War but regained and lost it again through the Balkan commitments and later on through the much larger, longer Afghan conflict. The lessons learned in both cases did not mean that NATO would be ready for a reinvigorated dictatorial Russia. That is, with capabilities in full-on mechanized ground war with huge backing from up to date and numerous air and sea resources. We are way behind in this and it is not just lack of suitable responsive logistics which would include proper weaponry.
Yes. They are not a corporation. Giving all their current subscribers 25 percent off would blow a hole big enough that they might not be able to pay their bills or do this full time . If you want to subscribe to independent journalism you have to accept they have bills to pay In order to do this. Asking them to throw money out the door so you can save 3 dollars is really bad man . Think about it
The lessons of Neville Chamberlain ignored. Am I wrong in thinking the fate of the concept of democracy lies largely in the hands of the American voter this November? It may be too late for Ukraine by then of course.....a generational "own goal" to quote those with a better geopolitical understanding.
Canada is governed by wimps. The United States Congress run by running shoe hucksters and religious fruit cakes. North America could use some current members of the Ukraine government, to explain to us the realities of living and dying and governing in a war zone.
I agree with you that Canada needs to develop its defence capabilities. The world is fast becoming a less safe place. We need to be able to defend ourselves.
I have a very simple question to Mr. Jain (and everyone else who advocates for this): Is there an upper limit on how much each country (that you say will be impacted long-term) should spend of their own money to help Ukraine win the war? If yes, what is that limit?
A follow up question: Do you think that the hundreds of billions of dollars sent to Ukraine so far has been spent wisely and without corruption? At what point would you draw the line and say the money being sent is not yielding any results?
If you don’t think this is our war, you are delusional. Canada spent 1.8 billion per year on a counter-insurgency in Afghanistan. Counter-insurgencies are cheap compared to peer nation all-arms force on force high intensity combat. We can afford and should be paying a lot more (multiple times more) or we will be paying exponentially more plus paying with Canadian lives in the years to come.
All I am asking for is some number for an upper limit - could be a round whole number, or a % of something else, etc.
If you want to live in a Western style democracy, there is no limit. What price ($) do you put on human life and dignity?
Thanks. Also please note that I have made no comment on what I myself advocate for or against here.
I will ask it, what do YOU advocate?
Despite the recent losses in Bakhmut and Adiivka, Ukraine has been getting measurable results on foreign investment. See this map of recaptured territory: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2022/11/25/nine-months-of-war-in-ukraine-in-one-map-how-much-territory-did-russia-invade-and-then-cede_6005655_8.html
While I value human life too much to praise the deaths of Russian soldiers as an end in itself, there is no doubt that potential Russian imperialism has been undermined by the ongoing heavy losses to its military.
But what is/should be the upper limit on our/other countries contributions? That is all I want to know.
I think that the appropriate upper limit is not a number, but rather a state of conditions. If the pro-Ukraine alliance were to continue spending more money fighting the war than the Russian side, and if Ukraine were to continue to lose territory over the next year regardless, that would be suggestive that our efforts should come to an end. Though, war is complicated and rarely ends in decisive victories, there's almost never going to be one definitive indicator of when one side has truly lost.
I don't know what the upper limit should be. The first goal would be to start investing to meet our current NATO targets. Defence spending does not need to be a drain on the economy,
I understand the need to up our spending on our own defence. I am specifically asking about how much can/should be the upper limit to send to wars outside such as in Ukraine which is not part of NATO.
Weak men create hard times, as they say.
It's in vogue to compare the current situation to the 30s, mapping Putin to Hitler. Does that mean Biden is Roosevelt, Sunak is Churchill? Tucker Carlson is Lindbergh? What about Canada? Let's explore that a bit more.
From Veterans Affairs, we learn:
<quote>
* For example, the Canadian Cycle and Motor Co. Ltd. of Weston, Ontario, which had made bicycles and hockey skates before the war, took over the manufacture of armaments including gun parts, tripods for Bren guns, and cradles and pivots for anti-tank guns.
* There were spin off industries born of wartime conditions. For example, Industrial Engineering Ltd. of Vancouver produced a much-improved chainsaw. This development increased the efficiency of lumberjacks and also allowed some people to cut wood who otherwise would not be physically able to do the job. In these ways, the new chainsaw helped fill the gap created by the lumber industry's loss of personnel to military service.
* Liquid Carbonic Canadian Corporation, a Quebec company, had a soda fountain division which was turned over to building tank parts.
</quote>
Do we have anywhere near that capability today? We've outsourced everything. Real war isn't sending a handful of battle groups to Afghanistan. Real war is getting the entire country on board, because 155mm ammunition can't be found on Amazon.
Aside from matériel, who's going to do the fighting? Who wants to join when we see what happens to veterans: broken bodies, broken minds, and government neglect. And why fight for a country build on stolen land, a country systemically racist, a country that is post-national? We don't have the spirit.
It's cheap and easy to compare today's realists to yesterday's appeasers, but maybe some of them knew a serious conflict was going to be fucking awful, and should be avoided it at all costs.
NATO as a whole lost the focus shortly after the Cold War but regained and lost it again through the Balkan commitments and later on through the much larger, longer Afghan conflict. The lessons learned in both cases did not mean that NATO would be ready for a reinvigorated dictatorial Russia. That is, with capabilities in full-on mechanized ground war with huge backing from up to date and numerous air and sea resources. We are way behind in this and it is not just lack of suitable responsive logistics which would include proper weaponry.
How about extending the subscription reduction to existing customers ? Loyalty benefit ?
You really going to grind them over 3 bucks a month ? Will that change your life ?
Will it change theirs ??
Yes. They are not a corporation. Giving all their current subscribers 25 percent off would blow a hole big enough that they might not be able to pay their bills or do this full time . If you want to subscribe to independent journalism you have to accept they have bills to pay In order to do this. Asking them to throw money out the door so you can save 3 dollars is really bad man . Think about it
Yeah!
Sure, Agree on your point , however why then give the lapsed group the deal ?
To unlapse them.
Obviously!
I am a firm believer that if we don't help Ukraine fight the Russians, we will have to fight the Russians somewhere else.
I'm a firm believer in the Tholian strategy of "Let's you and him fight" (that's a Star Fleet Battles reference)
Notorious , Thank you for your thoughtful responses.