That's sweet of us, but I agree with this article:
"The Harper government's response to the Russia-Ukraine crisis smacked of empty gestures from a country that has become increasingly marginalized on the world stage, two retired Canadian ambassadors charged Sunday."
That's sweet of us, but I agree with this article:
"The Harper government's response to the Russia-Ukraine crisis smacked of empty gestures from a country that has become increasingly marginalized on the world stage, two retired Canadian ambassadors charged Sunday."
I completely disagree with what they're saying the grand gestures so to speak are also to show which side of this mess Canada's on and the level of commitment to stand with out other Nato Allies.
And convening a second G-7 on short notice just sounds utterly ######ed, why not have a skype meeting and say bad things about Putin.
And the security council stuff was absolute garbage and showed how basically stupid and corrupt the UN is when it come to internal politics.
Thanks for posting. This a great backgrounder for those who are not well-versed in the ongoing situation. I think you can go back to that leaked conversation between the US Ambassador to the Ukraine and the Assistant Secretary of State to find the reason for the strong Russian response here.
I've never heard of Dan Carlin before, but just listened to a few of his podcasts and I'm quite impressed. He seems to be one of the few Americans who realizes just how inept the US political system has become, and that neither political party represents the best interests of Americans. Very refreshing!
The one on 'old school whistle blowing' is very good
Trouble is...I'm starting to crave tinfoil
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
In your opinion, what is the appropriate Canadian response?
My mind immediately goes to what Russia may eventually do to challenge our sovereignty in the Arctic if they continue to make moves like this unchecked. Not standing up to them on this incident will signal to them that we are toothless. However, a conflict is not in anyone's best interest. So naturally, we need to display solidarity with our NATO allies as much as we can, and also do what we can to support the formation of a stable Ukrainian government.
Is it wild to suggest that Canada lead an effort to accelerate Ukraine's inclusion into NATO?
This would draw a firm line to Russia that if they continue to play a game in which they attempt to regain territory and influence in former Soviet states in this manner, they will face push back.
What about sending a contingent to Ukraine to assist them in developing their shale gas reserves en masse, so as to reduce their reliance on Russian imports? Say... co-investing in a crown corporation?
I am sure that there are several non-violent, yet impactful contributions that could be made... yet we run flags up and pull our ambassadors out of the country and make passive aggressive statements about the G7 while wearing snappy sweater vests.
Just thinking out loud, these may be completely asinine ideas. But I don't know half of 1% of the truth, and read this situation as Putin challenging the West to prove they have any kind of strength against their ambitions. He is calling a bluff with a bluff of his own, he needs to have his legs kicked out from under him... swiftly. The fast ones he has pulled with Georgia, Syria, Iran, Eastern Bloc, in the past 8 years is not just annoying, it is dangerous.
We do not need any opening to allow for nuclear weapons stockpiles to be re-built, and I am concerned that this situation will do just that if handled incorrectly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
I completely disagree with what they're saying the grand gestures so to speak are also to show which side of this mess Canada's on and the level of commitment to stand with out other Nato Allies.
And convening a second G-7 on short notice just sounds utterly ######ed, why not have a skype meeting and say bad things about Putin.
And the security council stuff was absolute garbage and showed how basically stupid and corrupt the UN is when it come to internal politics.
I agree that decreasing our diplomatic efforts in the region is a mistake, I should have been more specific. But then again I am not sure I agree with the benefit of such bodies as the UN security council or the G8 (or G8-1, -2, -n... whatever the hell). It always seems like a colossal waste of time and resources, but I am just a plug citizen. what the hell do I know?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SeeGeeWhy For This Useful Post:
Not sure how accurate, but thought this was interesting.
Of those 129,000 how many are loyal to Ukraine and of those 1,000,000 reservists again how many are loyal.Ukraine can pretty much put all of those troops and equipment into action.I'm confused why Russia hasn't gone full blitzkrieg yet.
My mind immediately goes to what Russia may eventually do to challenge our sovereignty in the Arctic if they continue to make moves like this unchecked. Not standing up to them on this incident will signal to them that we are toothless. However, a conflict is not in anyone's best interest. So naturally, we need to display solidarity with our NATO allies as much as we can, and also do what we can to support the formation of a stable Ukrainian government.
Is it wild to suggest that Canada lead an effort to accelerate Ukraine's inclusion into NATO?
This would draw a firm line to Russia that if they continue to play a game in which they attempt to regain territory and influence in former Soviet states in this manner, they will face push back.
What about sending a contingent to Ukraine to assist them in developing their shale gas reserves en masse, so as to reduce their reliance on Russian imports? Say... co-investing in a crown corporation?
I am sure that there are several non-violent, yet impactful contributions that could be made... yet we run flags up and pull our ambassadors out of the country and make passive aggressive statements about the G7 while wearing snappy sweater vests.
Just thinking out loud, these may be completely asinine ideas. But I don't know half of 1% of the truth, and read this situation as Putin challenging the West to prove they have any kind of strength against their ambitions. He is calling a bluff with a bluff of his own, he needs to have his legs kicked out from under him... swiftly. The fast ones he has pulled with Georgia, Syria, Iran, Eastern Bloc, in the past 8 years is not just annoying, it is dangerous.
We do not need any opening to allow for nuclear weapons stockpiles to be re-built, and I am concerned that this situation will do just that if handled incorrectly.
I agree that decreasing our diplomatic efforts in the region is a mistake, I should have been more specific. But then again I am not sure I agree with the benefit of such bodies as the UN security council or the G8 (or G8-1, -2, -n... whatever the hell). It always seems like a colossal waste of time and resources, but I am just a plug citizen. what the hell do I know?
Well to be fair, no country has really done anything yet, it's still a bit of a staring match. I agree we should probably take more concrete measures some of which you suggested, but I'm not sure you can blame anyone yet, as no one has really done anything yet.
Of those 129,000 how many are loyal to Ukraine and of those 1,000,000 reservists again how many are loyal.Ukraine can pretty much put all of those troops and equipment into action.I'm confused why Russia hasn't gone full blitzkrieg yet.
I've read that military readiness may be an issue for Ukraine. There's a lot of equipment they inherited from the USSR, but their military spending is too small to actually keep all of that equipment in service.
Sometimes my dad will send me some Stratfor geopolitical articles that speak to current events like this one that's unfolding.
I would love to post it on here but pretty sure there are rules against that plus I am sure Sttratfor wouldn't be impressed with the move but it was really interesting.
Basically it outlined that over the last decade or two Russia has been consistently pushed back east and has seen a reduction in its' overall power as previous Soviet bloc countries become increasingly friendly to the west. That's not really news or noteworthy, but it predicted (correctly) basically that Russia was going to begin an era of Soviet expansion, as a defensive course (and now we have this Crimea incident). That Russia needed to regain certain perimeter buffer lands to bolster itself geographically to provide distance between itself and Europe. Some countries like Belarus already have Soviet-similar policy that Russia could leverage but other countries, like Ukraine, need to be brought back under the umbrella.
The other reasoning for doing this was economic, as Russia obviously is the major natural gas / energy provider for Europe which is its' carrot and leverage in dealing with that continent. If there's no buffer and less military 'showmanship' it becomes tougher to leverage your energy wealth or as Stratfor put it 'it's not good to be rich and weak'.
Anyway I am pretty sure I have butchered the article but thought I would post as good a synopsis as I could here... there was a lot more to it too, but it basicaly said we're witnessing step 1 of a 3 step Soviet expansion era in an effort to Russian defense or a resurgence of Russia onto the world stage as a power.
The article also reaffirms what that dude on CNN chirped about (discussed here already), the fact that the Russians believe they are simply recovering from what the Americans / west have done to them in terms of negotiating / propping up "satellite states" near their borders and that they are simply righting what's already been a blunt 'wrong'.
whoops.. looks like Seegeewhy already covered this one page back... doh
I understand that the Russians historically have kept buffer zones to protect them but Germany or any other country isn't going to attack them. This is the 21st century, it's time Russia joined the club.
I understand that the Russians historically have kept buffer zones to protect them but Germany or any other country isn't going to attack them. This is the 21st century, it's time Russia joined the club.
Yup. Putin is a Cold War KGB man mentally, and it's really starting to show.
John Squier, former Ukraine Program Officer at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington DC states that he expects Russia to be in Crimea for the foreseeable future because if they withdraw immediately, they will look weak. The longer the Russians are there, the more significant the chance fighting will break out. Putin has painted himself into a corner, and he is used to getting his way, therefore, he may result to the one thing he knows, which is aggressive action.
Quote:
- Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says Moscow has no control over the forces in Crimea because they are "self-defence units" and do not answer to Moscow.
- Russian forces partly seized two Ukrainian missile defence units in Crimea, but Ukrainian defence ministry officials confirm that the missiles are under Ukrainian control. - Russia revealed that it had sold $11.3bn in foreign currency to support the rouble after panic selling over the Ukraine crisis.
- Ukraine raised its flag over a government building in Donetsk, where a Russian flag had stood for five days.
- Ukraine's top security official said there were fewer emergency situations and conflicts in Crimea and hoped that current tensions could be resolved through dialogue.
-The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe wants to send military observers to Ukraine and has requested for the mission to operate from March 5 until 12.
- French Foreign Minister Lauren Fabius said Europe is going to be "very firm with Putin" because what the Russians have done is "unacceptable".
UN envoy in Crimea detained by gunmen: Ukraine ministry
UN envoy Robert Serry was detained by unidentified gunmen in Simferopol, the capital of Ukraine's autonomous Crimea region, a spokesman for Ukraine's foreign ministry told AFP news agency.
Serry had been sent to the Black Sea peninsula, which has come under de facto Russian control, to "take stock of the situation", UN's deputy secretary-general Jan Eliasson told journalists earlier in Kiev. [AFP]
Not sure how accurate, but thought this was interesting.
this is great, but the sheer numbers will tell a small part of the tale. The equiptment list makes the imbalance bigger
For example the most modern Ukraine main battle tank is the T-84 which is a variant of the Russian T-80 built in the 90's.
This is a tank with smooth Steel armor and a 125 mm smooth bore cannon
They'd be facing the far superior T-90's and T-95's of the Russian Western Military District.
This is a slightly faster tank but its got a mix of reactive and standard steel armor and while they both have 125 mm cannons, The T-90 targeting system is far newer and can fire anti tank missiles as well as conventional rounds.
The Russians would also hold a significant edge in terms of the quality of their anti air defense and probably in armored personal characters.
