500channelsurfer

Putin is sane, and the Russian view of the conflict is very different than that of the West, it is that of pro-Moscow influence expansion. When Putin failed to install a pro-Moscow government in Ukraine through their elections, he then tried to do so through threatening Kiev with a 40km long tank convoy, and after logistical issues, having failed again, he has decided that taking eastern territory by brutal force will both expand the territory of the Russian people and also put pressure on the rest of Ukraine to appease Russia. As long as certain Western military-industrial complex elites can enrich themselves from the weapons sales, there is little impetus to force peace, especially since the West isn't even officially sending any soldiers.

There is going to be a 2022 provincial election in Quebec. Some of you will not care but the some of us that do care do not need that comment. The political parties running are all a bit of a disappointment. The CAQ is going to run on its reputation of pulling through the pandemic even though it did not do much better than most other jurisdictions and has recently been throwing pre-election goodies around such as direct subsidies to drivers' license fees and electric bills. The Quebec Liberals are now headed by an ex-CAQ high-up who has not been very inspiring and flip-flopping for votes. Québec Solidaire and the Parti Québecois might be competing against each other for the most sovereigntist votes but that does not matter very much anymore because even that combined vote would not result in a large breakthrough. The Conservative Party of Quebec on the other hand seems to have a chance at garnering enough support from disenfranchised and far-right voters to make an impact with a few seats up from non-existence. In a way this feels like a return to the Maurice Duplessis era.

Ukrainians will need to improve their war machine and be supplied by higher quality weapons from the West in order to define Ukraine, and may need to let go of a few Russian-speaking towns in the east.

Can you please further explain the Pierre Trudeau reference so there is no confusion? There are many causes of this war: NATO and EU encroachment into former Soviet states, Putin unable mentally to leave the Cold War behind, Putin obsession with having pro-Kremlin governments in former Soviet states, historical Russian expansionism into Eastern Europe, West opting not to properly supply Ukrainian military, Ukraine being historically Eastern and not Western European leading to West hesitancy to expand eastward, essentially non-response of West when Russia invaded Crimea, list could go on but these are the major ones.

I have a more open mind to the concept of the definition of 'Ukraine' than CITIZEN_2015 or than the typical West's definition of the borders established of the Ukrainian independent state that became in 1991 upon the end of the Soviet Union. I do not choose to define Ukraine by the linguistic meaning or origins of the word. A best definition would be that of the territory inhabited by those identifying primarily as Ukrainian. While very 20th century and nationalistic, this definition best leads to an understanding that enables a nation-state capable of uniting its population under one agreed-upon government capable of defining its and controlling the territory within. Of course regions of the 1991-defined borders of Ukraine included Crimea and Polish populations, as well as regions in the east where identification as Russian was common. Over the longer-term, Russia is a country that has historical tendencies to invade and dominate not only the 1991-defined area of Ukraine, but many other areas of Eastern Europe. If we are going to get into Putin's longer-term ambitions, I would be of the belief that he does intend for Russia to again rule over territories in Eastern Europe that left the Soviet Union in 1991. Europe of course being historically a continent of ever-changing borders, migrations and rising and falling empires.

Putin and any future continuation of his regime after his time will never be interested in a peace settlement as is proposed here. August1991 is correct that Russia is bent on expanding west in a Catherine-like fashion, even if it be very slow and over the course of decades. Settlements are also a form of appeasement because the West does not realize en-masse that this is a long-term Catherine-like expansion and the current war is but a small episode for Russia. Even in the case of military disaster, Russia will have gained some territory and learned from their military failures in order for them to be better prepared next time. Russia will not pay for destruction they caused in Ukraine. This is too Treaty of Versailles even if Russia would give it a glance, and would make Russia more dangerous down the line. Any settlement will be the result of temporary Russian military exhaustion and the line will more likely be the Dnipro River resulting Ukraine being divided similarly to East and West Germany during the Cold War. The only truly effective way to hasten Russian military exhaustion or turn the tide of the Russian attack into Ukraine would be to properly supply Ukraine with up-to-date fighter jets and weapons. The West is not doing this. Is the West so confident that they can draw out this war so as to make it profitable for their private weapons contractors, or use it to expand Western influence such as through getting Sweden and Finland to join NATO, or so afraid of nuclear weapons that they dare not fight as effectively as they easily could?

The Canadian economy oligopoly has been this way for decades, long before either Trudeau. The tragedy is that no one has put legitimate effort into fixing this issue.

Russia has always entered wars with very poor military performance at the beginning and has learned and improved throughout each of its wars until it normally ends with at least some form of win (Afghanistan being an exception where it lost, similar to USA losing Vietnam). Russia simply brutally slugged away in a most destructive fashion in Grozny and Syria and eventually won. It is now doing the same in Eastern Ukraine. This brutal type of war which aims at civilians just as much as legitimate military targets is now the Russian norm. Russia would not send its best forces into this type of urban, civilian-targeting destructive type of war. Better forces and equipment are present further inside Russia for future defense or some other future offence. Putin is disconnected due to bureaucratic organization and paranoid due to Russian history, and would like to be remembered as beginning a slow, centuries-long Russian expansion back to Russian Empire territory. Putin may not be getting accurate information and may not even be thinking logically in terms of day-to-day military operations, but the Russian army as always is slowly adapting to the way it will need to fight; it looks like they are simply destroying everything in the regions of Ukraine they have chose to take for Russia so Russians and separatists can occupy those lands afterwards. Unless Putin greatly expands this territorial conquest, this Ukraine-Russia conflict will not be the major factor leading to a world war. Meanwhile, ex-prime minister of Japan was assassinated today. Domestic instabilities and fragmentation are contributing factors to world war. The risk of world war is increasing very slowly but also very surely.

Risk vs. Reward: Yes, maybe Sweden and Finland are worth the risk since they are relatively powerful countries even though they are very close geographically to Russia. However many countries in Eastern Europe were not worth the risk since they are less powerful and more vulnerable. Originally NATO was set up to safeguard counties with easy access to the Atlantic Ocean, hence North ATLANTIC Treaty Organization. Maybe a better debate is what are the goals of NATO for the future.

Well, NATO's power base is Western Europe: Germany, France, Britain. The countries that have joined NATO in Eastern Europe add much less in military strength, while are much more susceptible to Russian aggression.

Remember when America used to be united for the spread of freedom and democracy regardless of Democrat vs Republican? Where is THAT America now that it is needed? Whatever the cause, internal fighting leading to inability to show international strength results in appeasement and weakening of international institutions and norms.

Spreading out NATO through too many countries (and very unfortunately this means the Baltic states) is weakness: History teaches us the more you spread out, the less powerful you are. Had NATO not been on Ukraine's doorstep, no appeasement would have even been in the question.

Is NATO really more powerful since its expansion to include the Baltic states? I think NATO is spreading out its forces thinner and angering what the west perceives as war-mongering Russia by expanding eastwards. Yes, Britain is powerful militarily, but history teaches us the more you spread out, the less powerful you are. If one is pro-Russia and not pro-west, then one has even more reason to believe NATO is a provocateur as it swallows former Soviet and Soviet satellite states. From either viewpoint, NATO expansion eastward is more likely a step towards war, not peace.

Yes: Every factor that can possibly lead to a world war is now trending in the direction of a world war: Increased domestic political divisiveness in important countries (Trump vs Biden, Le Pen vs Macron, even Trudeau vs Conservatives) Rise of dictatorships (China, Russia) Increased international fragmentation through increased importance of international military and trade blocks Decreased effectiveness of international organizations and trade blocks (Britain the former World Empire leaves EU, and EU goes on to court war-torn Ukraine; Russian membership in UN Security Council is publicly called out as vetoing raison d'être - war prevention) Countries feeling forced to choose sides (Sweden, Finland, Brazil, India) Build-up and showcasing of weapons

Jean Charest was the real hero of the 1995 referendum. While Chrétien and the Liberals were making the sponsorship scandal, Charest organized a massive pro-Canada unity rally and got participation from people in all provinces. Charest would appeal to those voters undecided between Liberal and Conservative in an election. However, Charest is tied to Mulroney strings, I live in Quebec and while Charest was Premier, the almost entire province voted NDP federally and he picked a political fight with students resulting in university closings and mass demonstrations throughout the province.

Russia has completely withdrawn from northern Ukraine. There is no military logic to this from a ground point of view. If there are such logistical problems on the ground, Russia would have sent in supplies via private enterprise. Putin could be planning to nuke northern Ukraine. The takeover of Chernobyl is evidence, as there was no strategic value to that.

The battery argument involves the physical size of the larger batteries for propulsion being many times over what we currently utilize. And we have been doing a terrible job with the smaller ones for as long as any of us have been alive.

We need to define 'silver bullet.' I agree with the posts above: EVs are a step forward in increasing energy efficiency. The energy to move a vehicle is reduced by having said energy mass-produced at power plants instead of in individual vehicle-mounted internal combustion engines. I would like silver bullet to imply transportation at near-zero carbon emissions. As such, we will need to figure out how to dispose of safely and/or recycle the batteries we will be making at the new Windsor plant. The battery plant also does not offer solutions to the fact that much of our energy is still produced by fossil fuels. So, there are two different issues here. But at least with the new Windsor plant, Canada will be at the forefront of transportation energy transition.

The courageous citizens of Ukraine have fought back against Russian invaders to the point where some news agencies are reporting that the Russian invasion is stalled. Is there a chance that Ukraine could actually win this war? Russian military production is definitely a factor they have in their favour at the moment. However, Russia's economy will continue to deteriorate due to sanctions faster than Western nations even with fuel shortages, inflation and other Western problems exacerbated by the conflict. If Ukraine has any industrial capacity, it might be possible for Ukraine to ambush and begin pushing back Russian forces. Is this a likely scenario?

Don't forget that every so often, there is an attempt to begin taking out America. September 11. Bombing of American military ship USS Cole. America has also a history of belligerent foreign policy such as its support for coups and dictators in Central and South America such as Pinochet, and embargo against Cuba. But, like has been said, overall American products, trade and innovation are beneficial even if only in some cases for self-indulgence. Also remember that the internet and much IT and scientific innovation are largely courtesy of America.

Does Poland not have the right to donate fighter jets to Ukraine? How can USA decide Poland will not to send planes Ukranians are trained to use into Ukraine? That plan made perfect sense. It would have provided immediate help to Ukranian ground forces by having fully utilizable planes help in the skies defend Ukranian air space. Meanwhile, NATO is already beefing up deployments all over Eastern Eurpe's NATO countries. By supplying Poland with newer planes to replace the ones donated to Ukranian army, NATO members are merely more effectively pursuing actions they are already taking.

How is Ukranian defense working? Is their defense mostly depending upon drone attacks? I was expecting Ukranian army to launch counterattacks utilizing terrain etc. such as North Vietnam did in Vietnam.

Yes, is anyone with a sane and intelligent set of real policies such as these above going to come forwards and, first, enter the Conservative leadership race, second, be able to be elected both Conservative leader and then Prime Minister? Or, is it more likely that rhetoric about vaccines, freedom, wokeism/anti-wokeism is going to rule the Conservative leadership race and the Conservative party is going to split again via some Reform/PC repeat, maybe PPC/PC this time?

As soon as Erin O'Toole made his first flip-flop during the election campaign, he was on his way out. The most non flip-flopping name potentially available is Maxime Bernier. The appointment of Candice Bergen shows her party is trending in that direction.

This is a description of Fascism. Solution: Taking imposing governments, businesses and institutions to court over specific civil liberties violations generates electoral support for freedom and the visibility of new leaders capable of defending civil liberties.