Dougie93

not explicitly, I just checked with ChatGPT to confirm ; "No, there is no explicit definition of "armed attack" in Article 51 of the UN Charter"

never declared a victory, merely pointed out that Canada is so weak and incapable of defending itself, that even when a foreign power openly declares war against Canada, Canada declines to invoke self defence in the face of it, never mind defending itself from America, Canada is still buying weapons from America when America has declared its intent to crush Canada by force

Article 51 does not define what an "armed attack" consists of, for example, if the positions were reversed, America would have already invoked it and be bombing you by now

no it's not, there's nothing in Article 51 which explicitly defines what "armed attack" means

this is literally what America is imposing upon Canada right now, the White House has not even ruled out the use of military force to achieve its aims, a heavily armed foreign power has declared its intent to annex you, backed up by military force as necessary, at this juncture, America is already engaged in acts of war against Canada

failure to invoke Article 51 in the face of acts of war by a foreign power results in loss of sovereignty by default but Canada is already faced with a foreign power openly engaging in acts of war against Canada, yet Canada declines to invoke Article 51, Article 51 doesn't defend you if you never invoke it

a foreign power declaring that it intends to annex you meets the threshold they are heavily armed, and they openly state that they intend to attack you ; you don't have to wait until they actually roll over your border to invoke Article 51, not every armed attack is an invasion, in many cases it is simply a blockade, yet a blockade is still an act of war, or if a foreign power declares that it will use economic force to annex you, same same; act of war that's the dictionary definition of a blockade

except Canada wont defend itself, that's the difference, if the country refuses to defend itself, then there is no claim to sovereignty

it's only against the law if the country under threat invokes Article 51 in the face of it, case in point, America has declared that it plans to annex Canada, makes no bones about it, yet Canada has not invoked Article 51, so there is no legal standing to Canada's claims to sovereignty, again, by default

the nation loses its sovereignty when it is not prepared to invoke Article 51, Canada is not going to declare Article 51 against America for example, America is literally threatening to annex Canada as we speak, did I miss Canada declaring war by order in council therein ? obviously not, since Canada is not actually sovereign, but rather an American vassal state, America is openly engaging in aggression against Canada, yet Canada does not invoke Article 51 since Canada obviously can't got to war against the very state which is propping Canada up, when you are totally reliant upon another country for your security, even if that country is hostile ; to the threshold wherein you wouldn't dare invoke Article 51 against them, that's how you know ; you're not sovereign

who says it has to be an armed attack to impair your sovereignty ? for example, Canada claims sovereignty over the Northwest Passage, but other states, particularly America & China assert that it is international waters beyond the 12 mile limit, so when American or Chinese vessels exercise their freedom of navigation, let Canada try to stop them go ahead and invoke Article 51, Canada if Canada is not willing to do so, then the claim is null & void, since nobody actually tried to stop them

United Nations Charter Article 51 if you claim sovereignty over territory, go ahead and invoke your right to defend it, if you are not capable of defending it, that is not an invasion, that is a default

well international law actually demands that you be able to defend your sovereign territory as necessary, as I don't believe that Canada is capable of doing that, Canada's claims to sovereignty are at best rhetorical, Canada's claims to sovereignty are actually what are proving to be unsustainable therein

I don't think that Canada is capable of defending its sovereignty, therefore Canada is not sovereign by default

well now Canada is getting its comeuppance, since MAGA Republicans heard Canada declare all of that, and they took Canada at its word, Canada shooting its mouth off about Canada not being legitimate has consequences apparently

exactly, as in broad strokes, F-47 is the signal that the USAF considers F-35 to be a failure, at the conceptual level sure, America will still try to pawn the F-35 off on allies, but America has decided to make its own investments in 6Gen, since 5Gen is already old news, the problem for foreign buyers mind you, is that they don't have anything better than F-35 available, since whatever European 6Gen fighters that may be produced, are still two decades away from mass production,

I only care about a radical departure from Canadian White Guilt Woke Progressive Do Gooderism run amok, whatever it takes for Canadians to suffer the consequences therein, to burn in that fire of their own making I am hunkered down and prepared to weather said storm, bring it on

its Pyrrhic Victory at best now, since the Russians have expended absurdly too much blood & treasure downrange, simply to secure four Oblasts in Eastern Ukraine, while making themselves totally beholden to Beijing in the process,

again, Accelerationism ; you're not going to get any radical changes, until the population chokes on the Kool-Aid that it is currently crazy for, elections don't matter, that's not going to change anything fundamental, Canadians have to suffer the full consequences of Woke Progressive White Guilt lunacy, that's the only way any cohort on this scale can learn, to wit, don't try to change the government, rather you need the culture to change well upstream from that, that culture has not changed in the slightest so far, so Canadians not only deserve, but actually need more time in the hurt locker at this juncture, burn baby burn, bring it on,

or Canadians could just realize that the sole purpose of the air force is to fight wars for the Americans, and so dial back the spending on that project, to instead spend money on the army, since ultimately, Canadian national security really just comes down to having boots on the ground in the end,

I would suggest that the Russians can deploy an AESA with Sensor Fusion Engine for the Su-57 it's not really about avionics, nor any sort of tactical performance metric, the problem for the Russians is that they just cannot deploy all the strategic enablers available to America,

so it's "the best 5G fighter" which is none the less totally useless to Russia in a war of existential survival ?

that is not why F-35 performance was capped, the performance was tailored to cost, the F-35 was supposed to be the low cost partner in the high-low mix, same way F-16 is less capable than F-15, but at the half the price, the problems were really having to meet the Marine Corps STOVL requirement in the same platform, and then LockMart botched the development with the Concurrency concept ; fly before you buy

that's odd, since the Russians won't even fly them against NATO air defences in Ukraine, even when Russia is in a total war of annihilation therein,

but Canada deserves the Liberals, since the overwhelming majority of Canadians to include most Conservatives, drink the same Kool-Aid, Canadians are by nature naive White Guilt Liberal Progressives who subscribe to the Climate Doom rubric, don't try to fight it, Accelerationism means you give the masses what they are demanding until they choke on it, Generation X Punk Rock FTW