Canada-Ukraine support!

[angry anderson]

People in Canada are very naive about the whole Ukraine situation. They act like it only began in 2022, maybe in 2014. The grand sweep of gradual NATO encroachment, the steady worsening of relations, and chances for peace in Europe that were either missed or deliberately thrown away.

At least in Canada's case, our own position on Ukraine was set by Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, taking the most pro-US and anti-Russian positions he could, especially in the Maidan period and after that. He did it because the natural position of "canadian" conservative movement is to be blindly pro-US, and second to that pro-Israeli, even pro-Saudi. This might put their more racist members in an awkward position logically speaking, but they've been "fuck logic" for a long time.

The really fucked up thing is how "canadian" conservatives now are leaning to the opposite position on Ukraine that they were responsible for actually starting. Why? Because now Trump's people in the US have done so, repudiating their own doctrines that were so openly anti-Russia that it caused the hostilities in Ukraine / Europe. How we got there was:

Start by looking at the Bush doctrine in that region - NATO expansion into the former USSR even when Russia (not an enemy yet, not even ruled by Putin yet) was dead set against it, starting with the 3 Baltic states; development of treaty-breaking anti-missile defense systems and plans for orbital weaponry; support for jihadi separatists in Chechnya; "Orange Revolution", and (eventually) Maidan covert operations to flip Ukraine from a friend to a pro-NATO adversary of Russia. Obvious that Russia would look at all that as a deadly threat, but we in the west were all told to just ignore it and pretend this was not going to result in a huge conflict later.

Traditionally, US Democrats were mildly opposed to it - the default position of the Dems was to oppose or at least reduce Republican warmongering. People like Biden used to oppose those very same NATO expansion policies after the Cold War that looked like they would re-ignite a new one and bring the world back to nuclear armed peril. HOWEVER, some Democrats were more like Republicans on certain issues, and the important one there was Hillary Clinton. On social policies and some social services, she seemed like the usual leftist Democrat, but with her close ties to Wall Street and her foreign policy stances, she was actually more like a (George W) Bush Republican. You would never know it from how much US Republicans hated her personally; that was really more due to US domestic politics in the Bill Clinton era & beyond.

Nobody expected Clinton to lose to 2008 Democratic nomination to an openly anti-war black Democrat named Barack Obama, a guy who could have genuinely changed US foreign policy away from what Bush had done. Republicans were predictably delighted to know she would not become president, but horrified to see a black president, no matter what he did or did not do. Obama did not want an ongoing policy crisis inside the Dems, so he made Clinton his secretary of state once he was president. Big mistake really, because she controlled US foreign policy and the US did not turn away from very much that Bush did previously. That included meant trying to marginalize and antagonize Russia; the opportunity for a reset of the bad relations that Bush had created never took place.

This convinced Russia that anti-Russian warmongering was going to be a threat whether Republicans or Democrats were in charge of the US. Putin also felt that Russia had been betrayed by Hillary Clinton and her close supporters in particular. Russia had already begun opposing what Bush was up to, but during Obama's time in office it got steadily more aggressive. Clinton was eventually out as secretary of state, but Obama was forced to continue most of the policies and interventions she had started, including the Ukraine / NATO / Russia situation.

What was Canada doing during all this? Well, in Canada, Harper was in charge, but his time as an eager sidekick to Bush was very short; Republicans lost in 2008 to Obama. Canada's conservative government sulked for several years, trying to uphold American neoconservatism here in Canada. When the Maidan events happened, Canada jumped in on the anti-Russia side eagerly. Harper was pandering to Ukrainian Canadians' ethnic nationalism (for votes), but he was also upholding the most pro-US position he could find, namely supporting NATO expansion into Ukraine at any cost.

In 2015, Harper lost to Justin Trudeau, Libs replaced Cons, but this did not change Canadian foreign policy regarding Russia and Ukraine at all. Chrystia Freeland became foreign minister and she was already very anti-Russian by personal inclination & heritage. (Calling her a Canadian Hillary Clinton is a bit simplistic, but the Russians certainly thought so.)

When the 2016 US election happened, that changed the domestic political narratives completely, first in the US and therefore to some degree in Canada.

Clinton was running for president again, but got her nomination over the traditional anti-warmongering Democrat Bernie Sanders; it was alleged by Sanders' supporters that the nomination contest was being rigged, and that Clinton's team were engaing in varius dirty tricks. Putin saw an opportunity for some revenge against Clinton - engage in the US-style covert election interference. Pretty clear now that Russia exposed a lot of the dirty tricks Hillary Clinton had used against Sanders, and even some that had been used against Obama 8 years before.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, was a candidate who was willing to push aside the Republican establishment's usual sacred cows of foreign policy, and that included taking positions on Russia that would be considered heretical to the party which loved warmongering except for a few weirdos like Ron Paul. Does that mean Trump was a puppet of Putin? Or just a rule-breaker who thought the enemy of Clinton could be his friend? Debate continues. Did Putin's actions actually sink Hillary's campaign, or was it really just something that confirmed something to Americans who already disliked her ? Debate continues.

What is not really debateable is the aftermath of the US 2016 election. Democrats (at least the non-Bernie supporters) became as bitterly anti-Russian as it is possible to be, and converted themselves fully into the "national security" (warmongering) party. Look at Biden and you'll see a 180 degree shift from the days when he used to warn against NATO expansion because of the possible war with Russia. 2016+ Dems look like pre-Trump Republicans. On the other hand, Republicans (who had hated Russia as holy gospel before 2016) were so delighted to see Hillary Clinton fail, that they started to reject America's anti-Russian policies, and were almost in love with Putin himself for doing such harm to western liberalism.

In the US, Putin is now portrayed as a boogeyman who opposes Dems, where before he was the boogeyman who opposed the GOP. It really has more to do with how US domestic politics works - if the other side is for something, you must therefore be against it. If they want to fight Russia, you must therefore praise Russia, even if you wanted to fight Russia before. Consistency does not matter, consequences do not matter; All that matters is to make your domestic opponent lose instead of win.

So what how did this affect Canada's position regarding Russia and Ukraine?
Well, up to 2015 we were anti-Russia and pro-NATO, because this is what US Republicans wanted and therefore what Harper/conservatives wanted.
After 2015, under the Liberals we were officially anti-Russia and pro-NATO because this is what Chrystia Freeland wanted and the legacy of what Hillary Clinton wanted.
After 2016-2020, Canada just continued this anti-Russia / pro-NATO stance under Freeland & whomever replaced her for the Libs. It also helped them say they were standing up for western democracy (while Trump caused NATO grief).
After 2020 with Biden as US president, the Liberals could just continue without any friction from the US.
The net effect is that for several years now, we've had a Canadian Liberal government steadfastly upholding what was a Conservative foreign policy position, using sanctions, armaments, and even our own troops. (Do Libs get any credit from CPC supporters for continuing what Harper started? Of course not.)

However, the conservatives under Poillievre are having a tougher time figuring out what to do or say.
They usually want to do what benefits the US strategic community, which is to oppose Russia and promote US interests through NATO, and they do not want to openly flipflop on a foreign policy stance which Harper actually started - and there are still many Ukrainian Canadians they fear losing the votes of.
However, US Republicans since Trump have increasingly opposed the "Ukraine is good; Russia is bad" NATO narrative, and CPC supporters are just hard-wired to follow that.
They also oppose any policy of the Trudeau Liberal government just because. If Liberals drink water, they must drink sand. If Trudeau rescued a baby from a fire, they would throw a baby into a fire. That's how they think.

However, most Canadians do not ever think about this. Even if it all happened right before their eyes, they have no memory of these decisions being made or why, and they certainly never question it to this degree of depth. Partisan politics gives the party leaders a chance for mud slinging and ethnic group pandering, but if they express any actual differences of opinion, it will not be anything deep or strategic.

"This convinced Russia that anti-Russian warmongering was going to be a threat whether Republicans or Democrats were in charge of the US. Putin also felt that Russia had been betrayed by Hillary Clinton and her close supporters in particular. Russia had already begun opposing what Bush was up to, but during Obama's time in office it got steadily more aggressive. Clinton was eventually out as secretary of state, but Obama was forced to continue most of the policies and interventions she had started, including the Ukraine / NATO / Russia situation."


Boo hoo Crimeafuckin river. Anyone who buys into the bullshit that Russia felt threatened by encroachment of NATO is lying. Russia's history has always been seeing themselves as a victim of the West. In the case of Germany, they had a point. But the idea that the West was going to try and invade or bring down Russia is stupid bullshit. Clearly stated. Putin wants to go down in history as the dwarf who reinstated the Russian empire. His little gift to the world. Bringing a 20th century war into the 21st century with absolutely no reason other than his demented ego and basically evil syphilitic mind.

 

[thevalleydude]

"This convinced Russia that anti-Russian warmongering was going to be a threat whether Republicans or Democrats were in charge of the US. Putin also felt that Russia had been betrayed by Hillary Clinton and her close supporters in particular. Russia had already begun opposing what Bush was up to, but during Obama's time in office it got steadily more aggressive. Clinton was eventually out as secretary of state, but Obama was forced to continue most of the policies and interventions she had started, including the Ukraine / NATO / Russia situation."


Boo hoo Crimeafuckin river. Anyone who buys into the bullshit that Russia felt threatened by encroachment of NATO is lying. Russia's history has always been seeing themselves as a victim of the West. In the case of Germany, they had a point. But the idea that the West was going to try and invade or bring down Russia is stupid bullshit. Clearly stated. Putin wants to go down in history as the dwarf who reinstated the Russian empire. His little gift to the world. Bringing a 20th century war into the 21st century with absolutely no reason other than his demented ego and basically evil syphilitic mind.

"The territory they now control was mainly Russian speaking and had actually been at war with the rest of Ukraine for the past decade and it gives them the much desired land bridge to Crimea they wanted."
That's because Russians occupied Crimea. By force. As they did the rest of Eastern Europe. Latvia and Estonia have a large Russian speaking population because they occupied those countries By force. So now those countries are stuck with Russian old age pensioners and their 2 generations of Russian speaking spawn living amongst them.
Fuck Russia and the much desired land bridge to Crimea they wanted.

OK so Im looking at the current situation, not the past and they were shitty landlords and most of Eastern Europe was glad to throw off the yoke as was I to see it happen.....but as for now in Ukraine there are three choices....the unlikely hope that the current front becomes a stalemate and it becomes another endless North Korea/South Korea situation, negotiate a deal to save what you can of Ukraine, or start WW3. Which would you prefer? Because Ukraine on its own is not going to win this war with its forces depleted and the money for weapons drying up. And Im not trying to start an argument with a fellow long term board member here long enough to remember BJ Hunter..... but Crimea was annexed by the Russian empire in 1783 and has had a mainly Russian population for several centuries.

The treaty deal in Istanbul with Turkish and Jewish negotiators was merely that Ukraine not become a member of NATO, they would have to give up no territory and the ink was drying on both signatures when it was scuttled by Boris Johnston as noted late in this video. You may think they are lying but interviews with the negotiators themselves revealed the same thing. NATO membership for Ukraine was a Russian red line. Rising is a bipartisan site with progressive and libertarian hosts featured as part of the well known Washington media outlet..The Hill.

 

[angry anderson]

OK so Im looking at the current situation, not the past and they were shitty landlords and most of Eastern Europe was glad to throw off the yoke as was I to see it happen.....but as for now in Ukraine there are three choices....the unlikely hope that the current front becomes a stalemate and it becomes another endless North Korea/South Korea situation, negotiate a deal to save what you can of Ukraine, or start WW3. Which would you prefer? Because Ukraine on its own is not going to win this war with its forces depleted and the money for weapons drying up. And Im not trying to start an argument with a fellow long term board member here long enough to remember BJ Hunter..... but Crimea was annexed by the Russian empire in 1783 and has had a mainly Russian population for several centuries.

The treaty deal in Istanbul with Turkish and Jewish negotiators was merely that Ukraine not become a member of NATO, they would have to give up no territory and the ink was drying on both signatures when it was scuttled by Boris Johnston as noted late in this video. You may think they are lying but interviews with the negotiators themselves revealed the same thing. NATO membership for Ukraine was a Russian red line. Rising is a bipartisan site with progressive and libertarian hosts featured as part of the well known Washington media outlet..The Hill.

I agree that Ukraine has no fucking hope of winning. A British retired General was interviewed on Australian tv a while ago and sadly acknowledged that Ukraine will run out of people to fight. Let alone weapons. No chance. As far as treaties. They did return their nuclear weapons back to Russia on the promise that they wouldn't be invaded if they did so. Oh well.

 

[thevalleydude]

[

I agree that Ukraine has no fucking hope of winning. A British retired General was interviewed on Australian tv a while ago and sadly acknowledged that Ukraine will run out of people to fight. Let alone weapons. No chance. As far as treaties. They did return their nuclear weapons back to Russia on the promise that they wouldn't be invaded if they did so. Oh well.

They did unfortunately as it turns out. But I think it is imperative to save what is left of Ukraine because if the situation deteriorates further it could mean a partition between Poland and Russia which carries its own set of dangers....or it falling into a state of complete chaos controlled by armed thugs and oligarchs like Somalia. I dont think anyone wants that and if we take the direct NATO/US involvement route you can be certain that China will take the opportunity once the US and the west is distracted to move on Taiwan aside from the distinct possibility of a nuclear war. Perhaps something positive can come out of negotiations which will save most of Ukraine and somehow revitalize it into a useful economy again as some kind of non threatening neutral Switzerland type state with some form of mechanism to prevent further Russian intervention. Probably just a dream the way the world works now. Said my piece. Thanks.

 

[rlock]

Anyone who buys into the bullshit that Russia felt threatened by encroachment of NATO is lying. Russia's history has always been seeing themselves as a victim of the West.

Lying? No, just paying attention to history the last several decades and more. "Lying" is what your leaders do to you went they want to set up whatever shitty thing they concoct next. Proof is not on their side, but I guess nothing like that matters if you never bother to check if what they say is actually true, eh?

In any case, you say one thing, then contradict yourself the very next sentence.

 

[rlock]

I agree that Ukraine has no fucking hope of winning. A British retired General was interviewed on Australian tv a while ago and sadly acknowledged that Ukraine will run out of people to fight. Let alone weapons. No chance. As far as treaties. They did return their nuclear weapons back to Russia on the promise that they wouldn't be invaded if they did so. Oh well.

I would not count the Ukrainians out. Russian endurance is based on morale, not just the number of munitions they have or bodies they can throw away. There's a limit to how much their own military are willing to put up with, as that whole Wagner craziness proved, and that's even if the leadership wants to press on to the bitter end. I doubt any of them thought they would be bashing heads with Ukraine for years instead of weeks. Not the first time in history that invasions have stalled and turned into a quagmire.

 

[overdone]

I agree that Ukraine has no fucking hope of winning. A British retired General was interviewed on Australian tv a while ago and sadly acknowledged that Ukraine will run out of people to fight. Let alone weapons. No chance. As far as treaties. They did return their nuclear weapons back to Russia on the promise that they wouldn't be invaded if they did so. Oh well.

the only reason they won't win, is due to the West's stupidity

listen to this guy, he's made the point time and again on news interviews, Timothy D. Snyder

basically, the idiots in the west, mainly the US are just like with Israel, telling the Ukrainians they're behind them

yet tying one hand behind their backs and telling them to go out and fight

the US has the weapons to give, but won't, he claims they will be come useless soon too

I remember watching Bill Maher's show, they were talking about how the US had 3000 tanks, that they were never going to use

NATO IS A JOKE, TRUMP HAD THAT RIGHT, PUTIN HAS ATTACKED, KILLED, THEIR CITIZENS IN THE AIR, KILLED OTHERS ON THEIR SOIL, EXTRA JUDICIAL KILLINGS ANYONE, TURDEAU, EU, ANYONE?

THE ONLY THING KEEPING THEM FROM WINNING IS THE LACK OF SUPPORT, WHICH IS PENNIES FROM SPECIALLY THE EU

THE US HAS ONLY GIVEN THEM 50 BILLION OR SO IN WEAPONS

A PITTANCE FOR SOMEONE ELSE DOING YOUR HOMEWORK FOR YOU

THE US HAS THE WEAPONS TO GIVE, BUT NOT THE INTESTINAL FORTITUDE, DUE TO THE POLITICAL OBSESSION TO BE RE-ELECTED, THE ONLY TRUE JOB OF WESTERN POLITICIANS NOW

AND THE EU, WHO SHOULD BE FAR MORE CONCERNED AND WILLING TO STEP UP TO DEFEND IT'S PEOPLE ARE EVEN MORE PATHETIC IN THIS

TRUMP WAS RIGHT ABOUT THAT, LIKE A BROKEN CLOCK, A MENTALLY CHALLENGED CHILDISH CLOCK

 

[westwoody]

The US has huge stockpiles of equipment they will never use. Someone posted pics of a scrapyard with hundreds of Bradleys waiting to be chopped up for scrap. It would probably cost less to ship them to UKR than decommission them.
At least Canada just sent a pile of assault rifles and ammo.

 

[angry anderson]

the only reason they won't win, is due to the West's stupidity

listen to this guy, he's made the point time and again on news interviews, Timothy D. Snyder

basically, the idiots in the west, mainly the US are just like with Israel, telling the Ukrainians they're behind them

yet tying one hand behind their backs and telling them to go out and fight

the US has the weapons to give, but won't, he claims they will be come useless soon too

I remember watching Bill Maher's show, they were talking about how the US had 3000 tanks, that they were never going to use

NATO IS A JOKE, TRUMP HAD THAT RIGHT, PUTIN HAS ATTACKED, KILLED, THEIR CITIZENS IN THE AIR, KILLED OTHERS ON THEIR SOIL, EXTRA JUDICIAL KILLINGS ANYONE, TURDEAU, EU, ANYONE?

THE ONLY THING KEEPING THEM FROM WINNING IS THE LACK OF SUPPORT, WHICH IS PENNIES FROM SPECIALLY THE EU

THE US HAS ONLY GIVEN THEM 50 BILLION OR SO IN WEAPONS

A PITTANCE FOR SOMEONE ELSE DOING YOUR HOMEWORK FOR YOU

THE US HAS THE WEAPONS TO GIVE, BUT NOT THE INTESTINAL FORTITUDE, DUE TO THE POLITICAL OBSESSION TO BE RE-ELECTED, THE ONLY TRUE JOB OF WESTERN POLITICIANS NOW

AND THE EU, WHO SHOULD BE FAR MORE CONCERNED AND WILLING TO STEP UP TO DEFEND IT'S PEOPLE ARE EVEN MORE PATHETIC IN THIS

TRUMP WAS RIGHT ABOUT THAT, LIKE A BROKEN CLOCK, A MENTALLY CHALLENGED CHILDISH CLOCK

Absolutely right. Which proves the point that Putin's phony concern that he didn't want NATO countries on his border was bullshit. NATO is a paper tiger with no balls. Sending Ukraine short range weapons so the Russians don't get pissed off is just another example.
A Russian ex pat who was high up in the regime said that if NATO had faced off against the Russian army which sat for 3 months on the border prior to the invasion, Putin would have backed down. When he saw that after waiting for a couple of months, nobody was going to stop him he made his move.
Slovakia is about to go full support of Putin.
Germany is sending all the supplies Russia wants through Moldova and Belarus.

 

[angry anderson]

I would not count the Ukrainians out. Russian endurance is based on morale, not just the number of munitions they have or bodies they can throw away. There's a limit to how much their own military are willing to put up with, as that whole Wagner craziness proved, and that's even if the leadership wants to press on to the bitter end. I doubt any of them thought they would be bashing heads with Ukraine for years instead of weeks. Not the first time in history that invasions have stalled and turned into a quagmire.

Putin will fight to the last Russian soldier. Trouble is Ukraine will run out of people long before Russia. 10 to 1 odds has it's own power.

 

[rlock]

Putin will fight to the last Russian soldier. Trouble is Ukraine will run out of people long before Russia. 10 to 1 odds has it's own power.

Putin may want to fight to the last Russian soldier. I doubt those Russian soldiers really want to fight to the last if they think it's just for him.

The US has huge stockpiles of equipment they will never use. Someone posted pics of a scrapyard with hundreds of Bradleys waiting to be chopped up for scrap. It would probably cost less to ship them to UKR than decommission them.

The US military is so absurdly over-armed; they waste amounts that are appalling to any other military ally of theirs.

Look at the Littoral Combat ship(s) - huge program they have for one kind of ship (though they built two kinds for some reason), probably costs them more than the Canadian Navy's entire procurement budget. (Definitely more than Australia's.)
Well, the ships turned out to be riddled with problems that made them nearly useless, but even after knowing this they kept building them, because of political interests.
So what are they doing to solve the expense of them? They are scrapping these ships soon after they are built; basically the whole program is building and throwing away $100 billion worth of ships.

https://www.propublica.org/article/navy-littoral-combat-ship-takeaways

Now think about what that looks like to allies like Ukraine, allies like Taiwan, allies like Australia, South Africa ... and Canada. The militarized bureaucrats of NATO keep throwing that "2% of GDP" target in out face despite knowing how much this stretches our federal budget to the breaking point, yet there is the USA, well above that level already, throwing away more than some countries ever have.

Ukraine has gotten a massive amount of foreign military aid already, much of it from countries other than the US, like Canada - something which has totally depleted our stockpiles of everything. (Plus let's not forget we've got our own troops in Latvia, facing off against Russia, so they need to be at high readiness - very expensive too.)

However much the USA wanted this war for many years, it now seems to have had no plan to actually pay for it? "Sorry Ukraine, but it turns out your lives depend of the twists and turns of US domestic politics, so your people might end up dying thanks to our own petty grudges which have nothing to do with you."

If it was going to turn out like this for the Ukrainians, why didn't someone stand against the whole goddamn expansion agenda to begin with, rather than turn that nation into. Well, it turns out, people were trying to raise the alarm all along, throughout all the 1990s, the 2000s, and the 2010's. However, nobody listened because "The Blob" always absorbs the agenda of anyone with the power to maybe change it - that's why they call it "The Blob".

PS: What is "The Blob"? It's a term to describe the national security & foreign policy establishment in the US, that always argues in favour of intervention (they do not call it imperialism unless they are feeling boastful), and manages to tie-in to similar types in other allied countries (the UK, Canada, Australia, any pro-NATO thinkers in Europe, Japan, South Korea). When you start hearing people talk about a "rules based international order", that is Blobism. Blobism is neither left wing nor right wing (as the US see those terms), but both. The left used to be the harshest critics on The Blob (people like Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, AOC... and Obama at one time, before he was president), but today it is the the right (Ron or Rand Paul, and others more associated with Trumpism instead of Bushism). Wonder why no matter how much some leaders are elected promising to do very different things, but end up just doing more of the same? The Blob.

Here are 3 articles about The Blob, if you want a long read - however, note than only one is from after Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. (Yeah, I am weird - this is what I am into. If you can't quite get your head around it, that's understandable.)

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-blob-attacks-gaslighting-or-just-gasbagging/

This ecosystem—the Blob—is a revolving door of sameness, a multigenerational in-crowd of status-driven groupthink inhabiting a deep state that is both physical and of the mind. It’s a lifestyle, and a class. To get anywhere in it, you not only have to have the right pedigree, but the right way of thinking. Ask anyone who has attempted to break in with the “wrong credentials,” or marched off the reservation in the early years of Iraq only to be flung to the professional margins. Conference panels, sanctioned academic journals, all run by the same crowd. Check the Council on Foreign Relations yearbook, you’ll catch the drift. You can be a neocon, you can be a “humanitarian” interventionist, but a skeptic of American exceptionalism and its role in leading the post-WWII international system? Ghosted.

https://www.militarystrategymagazine.com/article/in-search-of-a-point-the-blob-at-war/

The situation is that we frequently use military force as a tool of policy; the complication is that we have policy desires that are often strategically ridiculous, usually because they are props in domestic political theatre more than anything else, and/or hubristic and not actually achievable by military force. We have lost track of what war is for, and that is the case because (crazy as it sounds) we have lost track of what war is...
The precepts that underpin ‘do something!’ wars are usually couched in morally transcendent terms such as defending against terror at home by fighting radicals abroad, or the need to prevent mass suffering (i.e., the ‘responsibility to protect’ people against their own governments). However, the strategies that value-maximising politicians adopt for dealing with them are usually low and dishonest. No one understands this better than those on the receiving end of ‘assistance’. Why should foreign elites decide to govern their countries in ways that are congenial to our interests rather than their own?

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/06/biden-foreign-policy-blob-00030443

Ukraine is already a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia, but step-by-step, Biden is moving closer to a policy of trying to defeat Russia, or to put it more bluntly, to fuel regime change in Moscow. It’s an approach that has some worried about the possibility of a nuclear confrontation. But for the Washington foreign policy establishment, or, in former Obama administration official Ben Rhodes’ more evocative term, the Blob, the battle over Ukraine has come as something of a deliverance. The Blob is composed of both Democrats and Republicans — a disparate group of elite think-tankers, lawmakers, journalists and others in official Washington — who coalesce around a hawkish foreign policy, championing the old-time gospel of American leadership on the world stage.

Anyway, only the last one is very current on the Ukraine issue, but it reinforces the idea that the public in the western world is just not really aware of what the Ukraine conflict is really about. This is not some "conspiracy" bullshit either, no secret commies or eco-satanists or alien lizard people on Epstein's island. Nope, just taking a realistic look at the actions of a bunch of well-connected people who just grind away at the same strategic goals for more years than the public seems able to remember. That's why the shallowness of the "debate" is so frustrating.

 

[80watts]

When Russia loses the Crimean peninsula, their problems are going to start get really bad. China will take over Siberia, because of Russian weakness. Its not China taking over Taiwan, its Siberia. The world will give a shit about Taiwan, but not arctic cold Siberia, the northern resource area, China has been eyeing. The biggest will be fresh water. Russia has already said no once to exporting water to China.

 

[angry anderson]

Putin may want to fight to the last Russian soldier. I doubt those Russian soldiers really want to fight to the last if they think it's just for him.




The US military is so absurdly over-armed; they waste amounts that are appalling to any other military ally of theirs.

Look at the Littoral Combat ship(s) - huge program they have for one kind of ship (though they built two kinds for some reason), probably costs them more than the Canadian Navy's entire procurement budget. (Definitely more than Australia's.)
Well, the ships turned out to be riddled with problems that made them nearly useless, but even after knowing this they kept building them, because of political interests.
So what are they doing to solve the expense of them? They are scrapping these ships soon after they are built; basically the whole program is building and throwing away $100 billion worth of ships.

https://www.propublica.org/article/navy-littoral-combat-ship-takeaways

Now think about what that looks like to allies like Ukraine, allies like Taiwan, allies like Australia, South Africa ... and Canada. The militarized bureaucrats of NATO keep throwing that "2% of GDP" target in out face despite knowing how much this stretches our federal budget to the breaking point, yet there is the USA, well above that level already, throwing away more than some countries ever have.

Ukraine has gotten a massive amount of foreign military aid already, much of it from countries other than the US, like Canada - something which has totally depleted our stockpiles of everything. (Plus let's not forget we've got our own troops in Latvia, facing off against Russia, so they need to be at high readiness - very expensive too.)

However much the USA wanted this war for many years, it now seems to have had no plan to actually pay for it? "Sorry Ukraine, but it turns out your lives depend of the twists and turns of US domestic politics, so your people might end up dying thanks to our own petty grudges which have nothing to do with you."

If it was going to turn out like this for the Ukrainians, why didn't someone stand against the whole goddamn expansion agenda to begin with, rather than turn that nation into. Well, it turns out, people were trying to raise the alarm all along, throughout all the 1990s, the 2000s, and the 2010's. However, nobody listened because "The Blob" always absorbs the agenda of anyone with the power to maybe change it - that's why they call it "The Blob".

PS: What is "The Blob"? It's a term to describe the national security & foreign policy establishment in the US, that always argues in favour of intervention (they do not call it imperialism unless they are feeling boastful), and manages to tie-in to similar types in other allied countries (the UK, Canada, Australia, any pro-NATO thinkers in Europe, Japan, South Korea). When you start hearing people talk about a "rules based international order", that is Blobism. Blobism is neither left wing nor right wing (as the US see those terms), but both. The left used to be the harshest critics on The Blob (people like Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, AOC... and Obama at one time, before he was president), but today it is the the right (Ron or Rand Paul, and others more associated with Trumpism instead of Bushism). Wonder why no matter how much some leaders are elected promising to do very different things, but end up just doing more of the same? The Blob.

Here are 3 articles about The Blob, if you want a long read - however, note than only one is from after Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. (Yeah, I am weird - this is what I am into. If you can't quite get your head around it, that's understandable.)

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-blob-attacks-gaslighting-or-just-gasbagging/



https://www.militarystrategymagazine.com/article/in-search-of-a-point-the-blob-at-war/



https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/06/biden-foreign-policy-blob-00030443




Anyway, only the last one is very current on the Ukraine issue, but it reinforces the idea that the public in the western world is just not really aware of what the Ukraine conflict is really about. This is not some "conspiracy" bullshit either, no secret commies or eco-satanists or alien lizard people on Epstein's island. Nope, just taking a realistic look at the actions of a bunch of well-connected people who just grind away at the same strategic goals for more years than the public seems able to remember. That's why the shallowness of the "debate" is so frustrating.

"Putin may want to fight to the last Russian soldier. I doubt those Russian soldiers really want to fight to the last if they think it's just for him."

If recruitment is a problem why not empty the prisons and put rapists. pedophiles and murderers in uniform and give them a get out of jail free card to rape and torture and plunder to their hearts content to motivate them ?
Oh right......

 

[oldshark]

When Russia loses the Crimean peninsula, their problems are going to start get really bad. China will take over Siberia, because of Russian weakness. Its not China taking over Taiwan, its Siberia. The world will give a shit about Taiwan, but not arctic cold Siberia, the northern resource area, China has been eyeing. The biggest will be fresh water. Russia has already said no once to exporting water to China.

When I was living in Russia back in 2000, the presence of Chinese had already become a big issue in Siberia and the Russian Far East. Russians are rightly worried that China will take these over especially as the Chinese believe that these territories are rightfully theirs. But I remember that the Russian admin were selling permits to the Chinese. Corruption is so bad there, the Russians are always screwing themselves.

 

[thevalleydude]

"Putin may want to fight to the last Russian soldier. I doubt those Russian soldiers really want to fight to the last if they think it's just for him."

If recruitment is a problem why not empty the prisons and put rapists. pedophiles and murderers in uniform and give them a get out of jail free card to rape and torture and plunder to their hearts content to motivate them ?
Oh right......

They already did that. It was the Wagner group.

 

[angry anderson]

They already did that. It was the Wagner group.

Russia has more prisons to recruit from. They're not empty yet.

 

[rlock]

When Russia loses the Crimean peninsula, their problems are going to start get really bad. China will take over Siberia, because of Russian weakness. Its not China taking over Taiwan, its Siberia. The world will give a shit about Taiwan, but not arctic cold Siberia, the northern resource area, China has been eyeing. The biggest will be fresh water. Russia has already said no once to exporting water to China.

They might go nuclear rather than lose it.
One of the major reason they never wanted Ukraine to join NATO was that the Russians would lose Sevastopol, their historical naval base. As far as they have said, they conquered the area (from the Turks) as the Russian Empire, and it was only Khruschev who decided to make Crimea part of Ukraine. Ukrainians would disagree, but you know if you go back in history far enough, you can find all kinds of different powers in charge over parts of Ukraine. (Ottoman Turks, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Crimean Tatars / Mongols, Eastern Roman Empire... etc.).

 

[rlock]

When Russia loses the Crimean peninsula, their problems are going to start get really bad. China will take over Siberia, because of Russian weakness. Its not China taking over Taiwan, its Siberia. The world will give a shit about Taiwan, but not arctic cold Siberia, the northern resource area, China has been eyeing. The biggest will be fresh water. Russia has already said no once to exporting water to China.

Just as Canada has said no several times to the USA wanting to take our fresh water, and other resources.

There will always want to be those who sell their own nation out too.

 

[jimjonze]

the only reason they won't win, is due to the West's stupidity

listen to this guy, he's made the point time and again on news interviews, Timothy D. Snyder

basically, the idiots in the west, mainly the US are just like with Israel, telling the Ukrainians they're behind them

yet tying one hand behind their backs and telling them to go out and fight

the US has the weapons to give, but won't, he claims they will be come useless soon too

I remember watching Bill Maher's show, they were talking about how the US had 3000 tanks, that they were never going to use

NATO IS A JOKE, TRUMP HAD THAT RIGHT, PUTIN HAS ATTACKED, KILLED, THEIR CITIZENS IN THE AIR, KILLED OTHERS ON THEIR SOIL, EXTRA JUDICIAL KILLINGS ANYONE, TURDEAU, EU, ANYONE?

THE ONLY THING KEEPING THEM FROM WINNING IS THE LACK OF SUPPORT, WHICH IS PENNIES FROM SPECIALLY THE EU

THE US HAS ONLY GIVEN THEM 50 BILLION OR SO IN WEAPONS

A PITTANCE FOR SOMEONE ELSE DOING YOUR HOMEWORK FOR YOU

THE US HAS THE WEAPONS TO GIVE, BUT NOT THE INTESTINAL FORTITUDE, DUE TO THE POLITICAL OBSESSION TO BE RE-ELECTED, THE ONLY TRUE JOB OF WESTERN POLITICIANS NOW

AND THE EU, WHO SHOULD BE FAR MORE CONCERNED AND WILLING TO STEP UP TO DEFEND IT'S PEOPLE ARE EVEN MORE PATHETIC IN THIS

TRUMP WAS RIGHT ABOUT THAT, LIKE A BROKEN CLOCK, A MENTALLY CHALLENGED CHILDISH CLOCK

Is this a parody?