Derek 2.0

Good to know, I've been through their bar at the airport, never to the one out in the ghetto.

Is that up by the old rail yard?

Yes indeed......If the Trudeau government was serious about defending Eastern Europe from the Russians, they'd withdrawal from the treaty and employ both conventional antitank mines in addition to artillery deployed submunitions......they wouldn't stop the Russians, but they might slow them. Likewise, if Trudeau plans to fight off the Russians, I'll expect him to introduce some form of anti-aircraft artillery/missiles into the army, since the army doesn't have the ability to shoot down aircraft any longer........likewise, the purchase of modern antitank missiles..........mobile artillery.......tracked infantry fighting vehicles......attack/recce helicopters.......logistics trucks.......additional fighters (That will survive in a battlefield where the Russian S400 SAM would be present) for the RCAF to provide counter air, CAS, SEAD, interdiction etc........what about small arms? Does the army still have Korean War era mortars and machine guns? probably need some of those too..........might have to quadruple our number of tanks too......etc etc

In my opinion, one of the biggest hindrances that NATO would face(self imposed) in a (defensive) war against the Russians is the signing of the landmine/submunition treaty.

If you want to "be clear" put this into context.......this is one brigade, ~1/3rd of a Division, spread across Eastern Europe. The Russians have in the European theater several Armies, comprised of several divisions each, in addition to countless reserve divisions throughout Europe. This is not a tripwire, the combined NATO armies, comprised of countless divisons, in Europe (namely West Germany) were tripwires during the Cold War........this is comical. If a war were to occur, the Russians have no need to use chemical and nuclear weapons (as they likely would have during the Cold War), as such, the first use of nukes would likely be by the French as the Russians were driving on Paris in several weeks.

So? NATO wanted more European members to take on combat missions in Afghanistan.....how did that turn out?

And it doesn't.......so its a waste of time and money.

I laugh because its a chickenshit gesture, akin to offering to piss on someone who's caught on fire (If the Russians were to light a match)

Canada? We haven't been a proper speed bump since we got ride of turn-key battlefield nukes.......lets put this in context, NATO is putting together a force of 4-5000 multinational troops to stop several Russian tank armies of over 100k personal, combined with divisions upon divisions of prepositioned equipment, days in which it can be mobilized.

You're right there..........if the Russians did decide to invade, the Canadians would be partaking in a dying and surrendering mission.

It's not Harper's fault (or Martins or even Chretiens) that the Canadian Forces aren't equipped to fight WW III in Eastern Europe, anymore then any other NATO nations in a similar state. But I agree, it is Trudeau's fault agreeing to such a mission with a Force unequipped to refight the Battle of Kursk with modern weapons.

And even then I wouldn't support it.......if NATO wants to revert back to the roll of a speed bump for the Russian army, they should have a force structure in Europe similar (or better) then what they had (in Europe) 30 years ago........if there is no political will for that, rely upon the American's nukes and diplomacy with the Russians.

The Canadian army hasn't been equipped to fight a war against the Russians, in Europe, since before Trudeau (the elder) decimated the Canadian Forces in the later 1960s and early 1970s....... Sending poorly equipped Canadians to scare off the Russians is a pathetic joke, and I do blame the Prime Minister, as he has agreed to it. Yet you've been unable to support your opinion with any form of evidence.

I never said that...........what I said: A multinational brigade, spread across Eastern Europe, is not a demonstration of will against a Russia that is reconstituting entire Cold War era Army Groups to be based in Eastern Europe.......ergo, this move by NATO, with tepid support by Trudeau, is both a waste of time and money for the exact same result in the advent of a war with the Russians.

And my point, in both posts, stands...........did you have a point?

Not at all, as its costly and ineffective.........and in the off chance the Russians did invade, it would be a repeat of the Canadians at Hong Kong.

How convenient that you elect fantasy land over defending "your guys" bad decisions.

Based on zero evidence, nor indication, that he would have.

Systems of Systems? No, its a waste of money, which would be laughable since Trudeau whipping out a battlegroup would make Putin laugh..............I have no doubt Trudeau didn't dream it up, but he signed up for it which is just as bad, if not worse.

And all those deployments won't equal the cost nor size of a single battlegroup deployed to Eastern Europe for god knows how long........again, you have zero evidence to support your distraction.

And you have zero evidence to support your alternative universe world opinion.

No, its a waste of money..........the multinational brigade is too small to deter Putin if he were actually intent on making a move on any Eastern European country.

So what? Are you suggesting Trudeau is now Obama's lapdog?