Canadian politics thread

[westopher]

Exactly. How do you reason with someone who
A) doesn’t care about their population and how their decisions affect them
B) their voting base doesn’t care how his decisions negatively affect them
I’m not saying it isn’t carneys problem to solve, but solving it via a meaningful agreement with trump is pretty unlikely. Moving forward the world should allow a country with isolationist policies to be isolated as much as possible while maintaining a quality of life for Canada as much as possible. It’s a balancing act, and requires unity with lots of other countries.

[whitev70r]

I'll be the first to disagree with Carney in the Ukraine Russia situation. He recently announced $2B in aid and not closed to the idea of putting troops on the ground should there be a ceasefire. Both are no no's for me.

Give them $500M ... we are in no position to dole out $2B in military aid. Put the $1.5B difference into our healthcare. We have got to stop throwing money at Ukraine. And under no circumstances would I favour putting our soldiers on the ground as some sort of peacekeeping force.

[westopher]

I agree on the troops part 100%. Fuck that.

[Traum]

If it ever comes to the situation where we'll need to send some Canadian troops to Ukraine, I honestly don't think we'd be able to send anything in the 3-figure range in terms of head counts. We simply don't have the troops.

[Badhobz]

Send me ! I’m the great humongous (only for their women)

[CivicBlues]

We've got troops in Latvia don't we? Or is it Lithuania? Can't remember, but isn't that the same thing basically?

Anyways, we throw a couple hundo "peacekeeprs" to them and pat ourselves on the back as per usual. If fighting breaks out, well then we're all fucked either way so there's no biggie.

[supafamous]

If it's NATO putting troops on the ground in Ukraine then I'm ok with it as I just don't see a path to peace that otherwise doesn't involve Putin dying in office or the Russian economy collapsing. We're in a proxy war with Russia already - maybe Canada is the most arms length of any NATO country but other countries are doing a lot to support Ukraine and the next line to cross is troops on the ground.

I don't see how NATO can let Russia take any more Ukrainian territory (on a permanent basis) - if they do, that's just an invitation for Putin to invade another country. NATO would effectively be doing what Chamberlain did with Hitler if they let Ukraine fall.

[Traum]

Originally Posted by CivicBlues

We've got troops in Latvia don't we? Or is it Lithuania? Can't remember, but isn't that the same thing basically?

Anyways, we throw a couple hundo "peacekeeprs" to them and pat ourselves on the back as per usual. If fighting breaks out, well then we're all fucked either way so there's no biggie.

We have troops deployed in Lativa. But my understanding of it is, those CAF members are pretty much the extent of what we are capable of providing outside of the country. Our Canadian gov would like to claim there are some 2200 - 3000 CAF members deployed for this operation, but the actual number of troops at any given time is more like 1/3 of the advertised figure because the big number is actually the total number of people that gets sent over to Lativa. But troops are really only sent there on rotations, so the actual number of active CAF people involved at the deployment at any given time is only ~1/3 of the total. And then on top of that, only a small portion of them are combat personnel -- there are non-combat members like crew, engineers, support staff, etc.

Beyond this deployment, we pretty much have no excess capacity for deployment anywhere else.

Originally Posted by supafamous

If it's NATO putting troops on the ground in Ukraine then I'm ok with it as I just don't see a path to peace that otherwise doesn't involve Putin dying in office or the Russian economy collapsing. We're in a proxy war with Russia already - maybe Canada is the most arms length of any NATO country but other countries are doing a lot to support Ukraine and the next line to cross is troops on the ground.

I don't see how NATO can let Russia take any more Ukrainian territory (on a permanent basis) - if they do, that's just an invitation for Putin to invade another country. NATO would effectively be doing what Chamberlain did with Hitler if they let Ukraine fall.

My interpretation of the proposals right now is -- Europe is aiming for sending troops from the Coalition of the Willing to be stationed in Ukraine, not NATO troops. Putin would be vehemently against having NATO troops stationed in Ukraine, so I don't think that idea is gonna fly at all.

[68style]

Don’t things get murky as far as acts of war if foreign troops from pretty much any other country get killed by Russian troops / drones / missiles though? I’m not going to pretend to be a war buff on how that stuff goes but seems to me that’s just daring Russia to continue on using foreign troops as possible fodder to that dare, which isn’t a great feeling.

[whitev70r]

Recently, there are reports that our military is severely understaffed (maybe it always has been). Although there are record high recruits (maybe due to no jobs available for young men and women?), half of the recruits leave.

So recently Carney announced a whole load of incentives and pay raises (like 20% increase) for military (maybe long overdue).


Leaked Canadian military report shows many new recruits are quickly leaving
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mil...ding-1.7536509

The Canadian military insists it's getting a handle on its recruiting crisis, but a new leaked internal report obtained by CBC News suggests many of those who come through the door quickly leave in frustration over the inability to get trained and into the job they want.

In addition, the effort to retain experienced soldiers, sailors and aircrew was dealt an important blow recently when a Department of National Defence office — set up to find ways to keep people — was defunded.

The struggle to recruit new members to both the regular and the reserve force has been a major preoccupation as the Canadian Armed Forces face a shortage of up to 14,000 qualified personnel.

[blkgsr]

From that Global news article:

Canada’s support so far in the conflict includes $22 billion in financial support for Ukraine, largely in the form of loans, according to Ottawa’s tallies. A separate, independent estimate from the Kiel group pegs this amount closer to $19.7 billion.


So are these "loans" we're just never going to get back? just quietly get written off the books somehow in a few years?

[whitev70r]

yah, how the hell is Ukraine going to repay all the other nations as well, what is the total if little meagre Canada is $22B? Is the total like 10 Trillion?

OK, if war ended in a year, bite the bullet, it needs to be done but this is going on WAY too long with no end in sight.

I'm sorry but make a deal - give up some land, take your losses, get the security guarantee and rebuild the nation.

[68style]

It’s easy to say when you don’t live there, what if someone took BC which is the equivalent of a Crimea/coastal region in Ukraine and you just say okay sure fine you win take it and leave us alone.

Except this is Russia? Are they going to leave it alone? What punishment is there for Putin breaking the agreement? He’s already a war criminal and he’s broken every agreement he’s ever entered into.

$20B would look like pocket change in retrospect to what would happen allowing a madman to restart the USSR and then try to envelop other parts of Europe.

People forget this isn’t just Russia being big mad at Ukraine… Ukraine is just his starting point to a much bigger operation, and it has not gone well for him.

[68style]

Just for reference, there were 2 years during world war 2 when Canada spent 37% of its entire GDP on military.

You know how much that is in today’s money? 746 billion USD per year.

Think about that for a moment. People crying over $2 billion? Lol… literally a drop of water in a swimming pool.

[whitev70r]

Bit digressing to the Ukraine/Russia thread although we are asking the question of Canada's involvement.

So how do you see this ending exactly so that Ukraine gets all the territory that Russia has gained in this war?

And what is Canada doing to help Palestinians in Gaza keeping their land and not losing territory to Israel?

[68style]

No idea, nuclear weapons ended WW2, but they’re an object of paralysis in modern conflict between superpowers now. This whole stupid thing is an impasse of not pushing hard enough that madman Putin goes nuclear but also not letting him take an inch to get a mile.

It’s an incredibly shitty and nuanced situation, I dont know that there is a solution except that he eventually gives up and everyone else is just paying NOT to have to deal with WW3 in the interim.

[Hondaracer]

God some of you guys flip instantly once Carney opens his mouth eh?

20+ billion in loans that will -never- he repaid. The whole reason for these loans was what many of you were saying was money was better than lives. Now it’s lives and money? You guys spent years of this was saying money is better than lives, did you not? lol..

What are these troops going to do? Maintain a fucking front line?

Ukraine has lost possibly 10 million people or more since the beginning of the war in refugees, relocations, etc. almost. Quarter of their population. Compile that with losing 400,000+ troops, all young men, you’ve lost an entire generation. If the war ended today, it’s not a matter of status quo, rebuilding back to “normal” there are many articles in skimming through speculating that even by 2040/2050 the population will not be back to pre-war time, which isn’t hard to believe.

Comparing WW2 spending to this is also insane.. yea.. a world war involving every ally you have, VS this? Please.. there is no comparison to be made. A better comparison would be our futile spending in Haiti.

The brand new St.Pauls hospital is going to cost 2.X billion, one of if not the largest construction projects I’ve ever seen in the lower mainland.

Not like we could use a couple more of those of anything *shrug

[whitev70r]

Originally Posted by 68style

No idea, nuclear weapons ended WW2, but they’re an object of paralysis in modern conflict between superpowers now. This whole stupid thing is an impasse of not pushing hard enough that madman Putin goes nuclear but also not letting him take an inch to get a mile.

It’s an incredibly shitty and nuanced situation, I dont know that there is a solution except that he eventually gives up and everyone else is just paying NOT to have to deal with WW3 in the interim.

Incredibly naive there.

[68style]

Why am I naive for saying one possibility out of thousands when I already said I don’t have the answers and none of us do?

[68style]

Originally Posted by Hondaracer

God some of you guys flip instantly once Carney opens his mouth eh?

20+ billion in loans that will -never- he repaid. The whole reason for these loans was what many of you were saying was money was better than lives. Now it’s lives and money? You guys spent years of this was saying money is better than lives, did you not? lol..

What are these troops going to do? Maintain a fucking front line?

Ukraine has lost possibly 10 million people or more since the beginning of the war in refugees, relocations, etc. almost. Quarter of their population. Compile that with losing 400,000+ troops, all young men, you’ve lost an entire generation. If the war ended today, it’s not a matter of status quo, rebuilding back to “normal” there are many articles in skimming through speculating that even by 2040/2050 the population will not be back to pre-war time, which isn’t hard to believe.

Comparing WW2 spending to this is also insane.. yea.. a world war involving every ally you have, VS this? Please.. there is no comparison to be made. A better comparison would be our futile spending in Haiti.

The brand new St.Pauls hospital is going to cost 2.X billion, one of if not the largest construction projects I’ve ever seen in the lower mainland.

Not like we could use a couple more of those of anything *shrug

So when you want to let Putin have Russia?

Once again you don’t understand the divide between federal and provincial and municipal, it’s a continual problem for you that you should probably educate yourself on. St. Paul’s is a provincial entity.

And I nor anyone else supporting Ukraine funding is not saying to not build hospitals here, it’s not a support for one means no support for the other.

There’s lots of other waste they could clean up and make room for better infrastructure and improvements, I totally agree with improving the medical system as a sufferer of its poor service, especially in BC, it’s a lot better in Alberta though. A provincial issue moreso BUT the Feds could step in.

It’s also got nothing to do with Carney, so fuck off with the carney bullshit, even if Milhouse was in charge I’d want him supporting Ukraine.

Are you that far fine down a bullshit newsfeed rabbit hole ever you can’t deal with issues in their own space anymore? Just attach a bunch of taglines to it and reference memes?

Is it too much to ask to see the big picture instead of turning everything into a sarcastic meme? Can’t weigh anything on it down merits anymore? So brainwashed.

[supafamous]

Originally Posted by Hondaracer

20+ billion in loans that will -never- he repaid. The whole reason for these loans was what many of you were saying was money was better than lives. Now it’s lives and money? You guys spent years of this was saying money is better than lives, did you not? lol..

What are these troops going to do? Maintain a fucking front line?

Well, the invasion started 3.5 years ago and a lot has changed so why wouldn't we revisit our options and be open to the current reality? Putin rolled up in Feb 2022 thinking that Ukraine would instantly capitulate and he's had to change his plans entirely because that never happened - he definitely didn't plan to pivot his entire economy to supporting the war nor did he plan on things like hiring North Korean troops to help him. I don't think anyone planned for the US to become an autocratic nation that aligns itself with Russia over Ukraine either.

You're saying that we can't even be open to other alternatives considering how much time has passed and how much has changed about the situation?

[supafamous]

Originally Posted by Traum

My interpretation of the proposals right now is -- Europe is aiming for sending troops from the Coalition of the Willing to be stationed in Ukraine, not NATO troops. Putin would be vehemently against having NATO troops stationed in Ukraine, so I don't think that idea is gonna fly at all.

Thanks for the clarification - in my head I didn't see the distinction between NATO and the coalition of the willing but there is a big diff between those two. NATO troops would mean all members saying yes and there'd be a number of countries that wouldn't support this.

I don't see any good outcome with all of this - this is just the war version of the trade war that Trump has kicked off, we're dealing with a crazy person on the other end who doesn't care how much it costs his own country and there's no reasonable case for the war existing at all and all parties will come out of it with dead bodies and billions wasted. This is going to be a quagmire.

However the alternative of abandoning Ukraine and letting Putin take over is WAY worse than fighting back especially as China continues to rise in power and the US abandons world leadership and turn into a dictatorship.

[Hondaracer]

We spend money instead of sending bodies, that’s been the narrative here since the war started.

Now, we might do both. And to what end? What do you get by sending Canadians there?

Go send some soldiers to go die for a cause they have no interest in. I guess that’s every war these days and nothing is ever just to begin with.

Ukraine is finished honestly, they will never rebuild to the state they were pre-war. You might be able to hold off encroaching Russian advancement, but unless they are just going to open their doors to foreign investment, their infrastructure alone will never be rebuilt.

When the time comes and ultimately Ukraine and the US decide to cede some territory to Russia, is everyone going to look back at this and figure it was money and effort well spent? To delay the inevitable? The Russian machine can carry on and be back to whole in a decade or less. Lose a million people and carry on as they always have.

And please, don’t go on with the “if we left Russia run, Europe as a whole is under threat!” Because it’s obviously not.

If China ever took Taiwan, should we spend 50 billion there?

[mikemhg]

We won't be sending troops to Ukraine, and even if we did, it's on the basis of peacekeeping, exactly what was said.

The idea being that once a peace deal has been agreed upon, nations would send troops to oversee the peace process.

Having foreign boots on the ground would theoretically force Russia from conducting any funny business and breaking the agreement itself.

[whitev70r]

Originally Posted by 68style

Why am I naive for saying one possibility out of thousands when I already said I don’t have the answers and none of us do?

Because out of all the possibilities, your idea that Putin will just quit, give back the land is probably the least likely outcome by a friggin light year longshot ... but in this case, I honestly hope your naivety is right and I'm wrong (I wouldn't mind admitting I was wrong if this happens) and this just end with him quitting and returning the land and saying, 'sorry' for all that.