Somewhere in the land of delusion, Western Conservatives look to Russia with it's FSB managed state religion, 70% divorce rate, massive abortion numbers, and mafioso political body as a defender of traditional values. I personally think they just like the idea of being drunk authoritarian wife beaters controlled entirely by an oligarchy.
The Following User Says Thank You to burn_this_city For This Useful Post:
That's the exact line of thinking that led us to have to borrow tanks from the Germans and then panic buy more to supplement and/or replace the borrowed ones after we sent our troops to Afghanistan without the proper equipment. Any well-equipped infantry force requires heavy machinery -including MBTs - to support it. Otherwise it's just people with guns.
If we are going to ask people to fight for our country, we have a responsibility to make sure they can do so effectively. As much as I agree with Canada giving support to Ukraine, (and I agree with it very strongly) it can not be to the detriment of our own armed forces.
Then we can't help. It's not like we have a surplus of good equipment we're just sitting on that we can send over with no affect on our combat readiness.
So if you "very strongly" agree with Canada giving support to Ukraine, then you have to accept it will weaken Canada's military (at least temporarily until we replenish).
You can't want to give support to Ukraine, but not want it to affect our own military. Doesn't work that way.
Personally - ignoring the brutality and horror of this war on Ukrainians and their country (infrastructure, opportunities, economy, etc.) - I think this is best-case-scenario use of our military hardware. We're not risking Canadian lives and we're harming/weakening a threatening/adversarial country.
There is also the moral imperative I believe we have to help with this and I much prefer my tax dollars going toward helping Ukraine in spite of it leaving us a bit more exposed. This is when it is comforting to be a part of the NATO alliance. I don't think we're going to be so exposed that we'll have to worry about being bowled over by another country, but it is a risk I'm willing to take to help Ukraine.
The Following 20 Users Say Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
It definitely bugs me that we're better at supplying the Ukrainian military than we are at supplying our own. In a perfect world I'd like to see us saying "Okay, we'll by x amount of this, half for ourselves then half for Ukraine."
But I understand why we don't do that. Our procurement is so broken, we can't supply our own military without paying off certain companies first, Irving or Bombardier have to get their pound of flesh otherwise it won't happen. At least we don't have that hurdle with supplying Ukraine.
At least the more Russian equipment destroyed now is less they have to potentially use against us in the future, or more importantly, sell to any other of our potential enemies like Iran
The Following User Says Thank You to btimbit For This Useful Post:
It definitely bugs me that we're better at supplying the Ukrainian military than we are at supplying our own. In a perfect world I'd like to see us saying "Okay, we'll by x amount of this, half for ourselves then half for Ukraine."
But I understand why we don't do that. Our procurement is so broken, we can't supply our own military without paying off certain companies first, Irving or Bombardier have to get their pound of flesh otherwise it won't happen. At least we don't have that hurdle with supplying Ukraine.
At least the more Russian equipment destroyed now is less they have to potentially use against us in the future, or more importantly, sell to any other of our potential enemies like Iran
Sorry, what? Personally I can see many scenarios in which we may have to actually fight Russia, but I hope Canada never engages in a war with Iran on the other side of the planet... it's just entirely unnecessary for our military to do that. I can't see Iran having any reason to engage in a war with us either.
Before anyone says regional security; strongly disagree. Israel could potentially even ####can Iran on it's own at this point, but no doubt big pappy would be in the fight too.
We should pivot to satiating their needs (USA military) through supplies and equipment (lol), potentially even funding some of that ourselves in order to meet NATO spending requirements and satisfying the war machine, while also investing in a robust domestic force multiplication defense strategy. F tons of drones, everywhere.
Apparently Zelensky's adviser resigned shortly after after admitting on live TV that the struck building in Dnipro on Saturday was taken out by Ukraine defense?
It definitely bugs me that we're better at supplying the Ukrainian military than we are at supplying our own. In a perfect world I'd like to see us saying "Okay, we'll by x amount of this, half for ourselves then half for Ukraine."
But I understand why we don't do that. Our procurement is so broken, we can't supply our own military without paying off certain companies first, Irving or Bombardier have to get their pound of flesh otherwise it won't happen. At least we don't have that hurdle with supplying Ukraine.
At least the more Russian equipment destroyed now is less they have to potentially use against us in the future, or more importantly, sell to any other of our potential enemies like Iran
We're using Cold War 'Puppet Conflict' tactics...just 30 years late!
The Ukrainians are fighting the Russians...we have nothing to do with it!
"There are Canadian Flags on these guns tho..."
We had nothing to do with it!!!
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
The Following User Says Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
That's the exact line of thinking that led us to have to borrow tanks from the Germans and then panic buy more to supplement and/or replace the borrowed ones after we sent our troops to Afghanistan without the proper equipment. Any well-equipped infantry force requires heavy machinery -including MBTs - to support it. Otherwise it's just people with guns.
If we are going to ask people to fight for our country, we have a responsibility to make sure they can do so effectively. As much as I agree with Canada giving support to Ukraine, (and I agree with it very strongly) it can not be to the detriment of our own armed forces.
We should be focusing on being a medium weight force with proper capabilities, not cosplaying the Fulda Gap again. Canada doesn’t need MBTs.
For direct fire support and protection in a non direct fire and even direct fire MBT offer superior fire power, range and protection.
The MPFP that you alluded to is a nice infantry accompaniment, but wouldn't have great survivability or range in a battlefield with MBT roving through it, and since warfare preparation is shifting away from asymmetrical warfare to expected nation state vs nation state warfare MBT are still extremely useful.
Now people can point at me and say "But Captain the Ukrainians are killing Russian tanks in great numbers". But I will tell you that is more about bad training, bad operators, terrible Russian Leadership and planning, and some unexpected flaws in Russian tanks that were good in the 80's and early 90's, but not anymore.
For Canada's inventory, we have 20 of the really good Leopard 2A6M's which are good tanks
We supposedly have 62 of the 2A4Ms, but I think that half of those are combat capable.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Apparently Zelensky's adviser resigned shortly after after admitting on live TV that the struck building in Dnipro on Saturday was taken out by Ukraine defense?
Ukraine does not have the capability to intercept a Kh-22 missile. Arestovych went on record to state that Ukraine shot down the missile and the resulting debris is what hit the building.
Not only was that statement a lie, this line of lies comes straight from the Russian playbook and Russian telegram channels were quick to point the finger at Ukraine for the incident and used the statement as propaganda. Ukrainians are angry as it was an obvious lie and they do not like being lied to (and there was zero reason to lie).
Arestovych has a very checkered history with his statements, many of which have been embellishments or outright fabrications. This was the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Firebot For This Useful Post:
It's been a pretty grim week for Ukraine with the loss of Soledar, the Dnipro attack, and now the interior ministry and several more killed in a helicopter accident that also killed 2 chidren
Now there has been media silence on Kremmina, but there are apparently Russian artillery strikes on the city itself likely meaning that Ukraine forces have advance within the city proper. A report of a Su-25 downed near Soledar as well. Russian losses have been extreme to say the least in recent days according to the latest numbers.
Canada is donating 200 Canadian-made armoured personnel carriers to Ukraine, Defence Minister Anita Anand announced on Wednesday while visiting Kyiv, Ukraine.
"Today, I am glad to confirm our next package of military aid," Anand said while sitting alongside Ukraine's Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov.
"The vehicles offer state-of-the-art, best-in-class technology and weapons can easily be mounted on them," she said. "These vehicles also allow for the safe transportation of personnel and equipment."
Anand said the Senator APCs are being purchased from Roshel, a Canadian company based in Mississauga, Ont., at a cost of $90 million.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
Just ignore me...I'm in a mood today.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
For direct fire support and protection in a non direct fire and even direct fire MBT offer superior fire power, range and protection.
The MPFP that you alluded to is a nice infantry accompaniment, but wouldn't have great survivability or range in a battlefield with MBT roving through it, and since warfare preparation is shifting away from asymmetrical warfare to expected nation state vs nation state warfare MBT are still extremely useful.
Now people can point at me and say "But Captain the Ukrainians are killing Russian tanks in great numbers". But I will tell you that is more about bad training, bad operators, terrible Russian Leadership and planning, and some unexpected flaws in Russian tanks that were good in the 80's and early 90's, but not anymore.
For Canada's inventory, we have 20 of the really good Leopard 2A6M's which are good tanks
We supposedly have 62 of the 2A4Ms, but I think that half of those are combat capable.
20 2A6s, but very little capacity to transport them, and zero ability to defend them from aerial threats. We should can the MBTs and reshape the army back into its fundamentals - a medium weight expeditionary force.
