News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 30K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 2.9K     0 

Bayer

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
1,610
Reaction score
1,369
City:
Toronto
As someone who has family in Hungary and lives in a NATO Member Country I prefer we not do that.

If WW3 breaks out because NATO went into Ukraine you can bet that conscription will take place in Canada to fight in Europe. It is easy to say we should get involved but actions have consequences and I don't get the sense you want to fight a war.
Nobody wants to fight a war. But I don't think it is avoidable unless someone in Russia deposes Putin and his accomplices.
 

Bayer

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
1,610
Reaction score
1,369
City:
Toronto
I'm not so sure I'm as cavalier about provoking a potentially nuclear war that would likely kill millions. I'm sure Toronto would be a juicy target for at least one such bomb.
The point is to do what is right. Thousands of people are being killed for no reason whatsoever in a large democracy; there are yet-unconfirmed reports, mentioned by the U.S. ambassador to the UN, that Ukrainians might be deported to Russia.

We invoke technicalities to avoid any unpleasantness for ourselves. I fear it won't work in the end. Whatever happens, I am hoping for vast increases in defence spending in the next federal budget.
 

Richard White

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
5,330
Reaction score
3,646
City:
Toronto
Nobody wants to fight a war. But I don't think it is avoidable unless someone in Russia deposes Putin and his accomplices.

If we go into Ukraine to assist it would bring both us and NATO into a very bloody war.

Sometimes as unfortunate as it is, the best course of action is not getting involved.

The Gulf War is a prime example of this. We got involved because Kuwait was invaded and it led to the destabilizing of the entire region for decades.

Eventually we had to go back there to fix the mistakes we made in 1991.

The difference here is that Russia is not Iraq. Iraq was a cakewalk for the US and it's allies. Russia is evenly matched and could put up a world ending fight.

If Europe is destabilized it will bring the EU and NATO into a war that will cost millions of lives.

Do you really want to go down this road again?
 

Bayer

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
1,610
Reaction score
1,369
City:
Toronto
If we go into Ukraine to assist it would bring both us and NATO into a very bloody war.

Sometimes as unfortunate as it is, the best course of action is not getting involved.

The Gulf War is a prime example of this. We got involved because Kuwait was invaded and it led to the destabilizing of the entire region for decades.

Eventually we had to go back there to fix the mistakes we made in 1991.

The difference here is that Russia is not Iraq. Iraq was a cakewalk for the US and it's allies. Russia is evenly matched and could put up a world ending fight.

If Europe is destabilized it will bring the EU and NATO into a war that will cost millions of lives.

Do you really want to go down this road again?
It seems to me the war has already begun, but no, I don't particularly want to go there. In the Middle East, I tend to think it is the Irak war that was destabilizing. But the current situation is reminiscent of WWII. No one wanted war, but it proved to be justified and necessary, after warning signs were consistently ignored for too long.

We have been doing the same for years. Now, we can wait for Ukraine to be destroyed and its people killed, and hope this will go away. We can think we know that Putin won't use nuclear weapons unless we intervene directly, even though we are destroying his economy with our sanctions, while Ukrainians destroy his troops, aircraft and armoured vehicles with the weapons we supply.
 

Richard White

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
5,330
Reaction score
3,646
City:
Toronto
It seems to me the war has already begun, but no, I don't particularly want to go there. In the Middle East, I tend to think it is the Irak war that was destabilizing. But the current situation is reminiscent of WWII. No one wanted war, but it proved to be justified and necessary, after warning signs were consistently ignored for too long.

We have been doing the same for years. Now, we can wait for Ukraine to be destroyed and its people killed, and hope this will go away. We can think we know that Putin won't use nuclear weapons unless we intervene directly, even though we are destroying his economy with our sanctions, while Ukrainians destroy his troops, aircraft and armoured vehicles with the weapons we supply.

Say what you will but this is more akin to the Cuban Missile Crisis than WW2. If we go into Ukraine there is almost a guarantee it will turn into WW3.

However you spin it, I'd rather see Ukraine occupied than have a nuclear WW3. Consider it a necessary sacrifice for world peace and stability in Europe.

To quote Spock "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"
 

lenaitch

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
4,082
Reaction score
4,022
I agree. Allowing Ukraine to be the sacrificial lamb for the West merely delays the inevitable. Best we get involved now when Russia isn't as prepared for it, than wait until they deliberately provoke a conflict with NATO.
Nothing stops any nation from independent intervention without invoking NATO Article 5. The fact that Poland, Germany or another bordering country has not acted should be instructive; their 'ground zero' is within range of a lot more Russian hardware than we are.

The gamble is a nuclear or conventional response. Who's willing to take that bet? We in Canada have a bit of history of liking to tell the rest of the world how to run their affairs. If the balloons go up, we would have comparatively little skin in the game; it would be mostly over by the time we could respond with our meagre resources.
 

afransen

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,741
Reaction score
5,221
The point is to do what is right. Thousands of people are being killed for no reason whatsoever in a large democracy; there are yet-unconfirmed reports, mentioned by the U.S. ambassador to the UN, that Ukrainians might be deported to Russia.

We invoke technicalities to avoid any unpleasantness for ourselves. I fear it won't work in the end. Whatever happens, I am hoping for vast increases in defence spending in the next federal budget.
I think provoking as nuclear exchange that would kill hundreds of millions is not doing "what's right".
 

Bayer

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
1,610
Reaction score
1,369
City:
Toronto
I think provoking as nuclear exchange that would kill hundreds of millions is not doing "what's right".
Mutually assured destruction is as much a deterrent as it used to be when I took that college class called "Nuclear Armaments and the Cold War" back in 1981. If Ukraine being destroyed is not a motivation to act, will, say, the tiny Latvia be when the time comes?
 

Bjays92

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
1,217
Reaction score
3,256
Not militarily anyways - via cyberwarfare? You betcha.

AoD
The problem is it's not Russia we're talking about, it's Putin and Putin alone.

This is the Putin who has just wholly destroyed the Russian economy and everyday Russians livelihoods for no good reason. The same Putin who is sending his own people to slaughter in Ukraine and is hell bent on bringing down the West.

From a purely utilitarian perspective, we'd be better off letting Ukrainians be completely wiped off the face of the earth than we would be provoking WW3. I don't necessarily subscribe to a utilitarian worldview and am willing to put my money where my mouth is and go overseas if there were to be a conscription.

However, at the end of the day I don't think this is about just Ukraine. Global war would be catastrophic and so if sacrificing Ukraine meant it could be contained, I think most people would be for that. The problem is I don't think it can be contained, I think there are zero prospects to somehow averting an eventual global conflict between both Russia and China, against the West.

If that's the calculus then I believe it is best we enter the war on our terms, not our enemies. We aren't at this point yet but I don't think it will be long before we are. Putin has been stepping up his threats against NATO countries, use of chemical weapons seems more and more likely and Stoltenberg has already said a major cyberattack against NATO would trigger article 5. There are lines that will be tested in the near future, and I don't think the current response will be able to hold against them.

Again, I don't want any of this to happen, but this is hardly akin to the Cuban missile crisis imo, there is an actual war being fought and the threat of spillover is high. Relations with Russia are lower than they ever were during the USSR era, They have a potentially insane leader, and technology and modes of warfare are some completely different with totally different levels of risk. This is nothing like a classic standoff, it is far more complex and far worse.
 
Last edited:

love0715

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 21, 2020
Messages
5
Reaction score
3
Hi , my parents were originally from China and they then lived in HK since 1970s. The past 50 years, Many chinese escaped to Hong Kong (HK) or other countries purely because they are scared of communism. Ever since early 1990s, many people living Hong Kong only escaped to Canada, USA, Australia etc also because they were worried about handover of HongKong in 1997.
If you watched the news last few years, you see that lots of protests about people fighting for freedom in HK.

If you look at whats going on globally, ever since Biden took over, I have been worried, with weak USA, that China wants to re-capture Taiwan. Now with Russia attacking Ukraine, with so many fight going on, it's like best ever opportunity for China to attack Taiwan.

Feel like this battle between democratic countries vs totalitarianism, democratic countries are losing everywhere. Very sad and worrying
TC
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
12,149
City:
Toronto
Hi , my parents were originally from China and they then lived in HK since 1970s. The past 50 years, Many chinese escaped to Hong Kong (HK) or other countries purely because they are scared of communism. Ever since early 1990s, many people living Hong Kong only escaped to Canada, USA, Australia etc also because they were worried about handover of HongKong in 1997.
If you watched the news last few years, you see that lots of protests about people fighting for freedom in HK.

If you look at whats going on globally, ever since Biden took over, I have been worried, with weak USA, that China wants to re-capture Taiwan. Now with Russia attacking Ukraine, with so many fight going on, it's like best ever opportunity for China to attack Taiwan.

Feel like this battle between democratic countries vs totalitarianism, democratic countries are losing everywhere. Very sad and worrying
TC
It was weaker under Trump. Trump was a lapdog to Putin, even to the point of trying to weaken NATO. NATO got stronger because of the Ukraine War, started by Putin.

Trump Privately Discussed Destroying NATO Alliance

The president (Trump) repeatedly told aides that he wanted to withdraw the United States from the alliance,

From link. Dated January 15, 2019.

President Donald Trump has long criticized the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, frequently bellyaching that the international military partnership has been “very unfair” to the United States, and castigating American allies as deadbeats for, in his eyes, failing to pull their weight. However, it appears Trump’s attacks on NATO are more than bluster. Citing senior administration officials, The New York Times reported late Monday that at several points in 2018, Trump discussed withdrawing the U.S. from the international organization, a move that would effectively doom the 29-nation alliance and empower Russia, which has spent years seeking to weaken it.

“It would destroy 70-plus years of painstaking work across multiple administrations, Republican and Democratic, to create perhaps the most powerful and advantageous alliance in history,” Michèle A. Flournoy, an under secretary of defense under Barack Obama, told the Times. “And it would be the wildest success that Vladimir Putin could dream of.”

To some extent, the news isn’t all that surprising. Trump has never hid his disdain for international partnerships, and has maintained rocky relationships with critical American allies, whom he constantly accuses of taking advantage of the U.S. During his presidential campaign, he described NATO in particular as “obsolete,” and admonished member nations in his two appearances before the alliance. “NATO members must finally contribute their fair share and meet their financial obligations,” Trump told the group in 2017. “This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States. And many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years and not paying in those past years.”

Still, the revelation that Trump wanted to leave the alliance entirely—which neither the president nor the White House has denied—is jarring. For seven decades, the partnership has been a critical bulwark against Russia—and Moscow has long hoped to see it unravel. A U.S. pullout would, without question, be a gift to Putin. Senior administration officials, including former secretary of defense Jim Mattis and National Security Adviser John Bolton, reportedly worked to maintain the allyship after the president first told aides that “he did not see the point of the military alliance.” Other national security officials have continued “internal and highly sensitive efforts to preserve the military alliance,” the Times reported.

Of course, a great deal of damage has already been done. Trump’s tumultuous appearance at NATO last July bruised relationships with top allies as he clashed with leaders and threatened to leave the organization if they didn’t capitulate to him. “He obviously has come to this meeting with the intention of dividing the alliance and in creating a negative story he appeared to have no interest in creating a positive outcome,” former U.S. ambassador to NATO Nicholas Burns told my colleague Abigail Tracy at the time. “Every president since Truman has thought of himself as the leader of the NATO alliance. Trump obviously doesn’t.”
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
12,149
City:
Toronto

Russia Suffers Worst Killing Of Military Leadership Since WW2

From link.

A 15th Russian military commander has been claimed killed in action in Ukraine, in what appears to have become the deadliest war for the country's top generals since World War Two.

The Ukrainian army has said that Colonel Alexei Sharov, who led the 810th Guards Naval Infantry Brigade, was killed in fighting in the city of Mariupol earlier this week.

His death has not been confirmed by the Russian army, but would mark the fifth colonel killed and the 15th fatality among the country's high-ranking military officials since the war in Ukraine began almost one month ago.
Tallies by western officials of Russian generals killed in Ukraine suggest that Russia is taking its heaviest losses among general officers since World War Two, with at least five major generals among the casualties.

Among those to have died are Major General Vitaly Gerasimov - a one-star general who had won medals for his involvement in Russian military campaigns in Syria, Chechnya and Crimea and was killed on the outskirts of Kharkiv on 8 March - and Major General Andrey Sukhovetsky, a special forces commander who became the first Russian general to die in Ukraine since 1944.

Military experts have said that the rate of losses of top officials in action indicates that high-ranking officers have been forced to move to the front lines as a result of communication failures and a lack of discipline among their troops.
According to Bellingcat, technical issues have left military officials reliant on communicating through unencrypted channels, which can be intercepted by Ukrainian forces and used to carry out targeted strikes on command posts.

In a tweet on Sunday, 20 March, Mykhailo Podolyka, an leading advisor to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, claimed that as many as six Russian generals had been killed, and said that the scale of the losses showed that Russia's army was 'fully unprepared' and reliant on 'numbers & cruise missiles'.
News of Sharov's death came on the same day that pro-Kremlin tabloid Komsomolskaya Pravda published Russian ministry of defense numbers that stated 9,861 Russian soldiers had been killed and a further 16,153 injured in battle. The article was quickly deleted, with the newspaper issuing a statement claiming that it had been hacked.

Russia has not updated its casualty figures since it confirmed almost 500 soldiers had been killed in the first two weeks following its invasion of Ukraine.

The Ukrainian military claims more than 15,000 Russian soldiers have died - around the same number that were killed during the entirety of the Soviet Union's decade-long war in Afghanistan.
 

Top