Rather disconcerting article if it's accurate. It's one thing to be a neighbor and trading partner. The question is, are they willing to pull their fair share of the load. Doesn't appear that way.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-25-2023).]
Canada's military has become a joke. There are plenty of willing guys in the country, but the libs have turned it into an elitist day-camp.
Just after dad died in '14 I went to a requiting office to get back in. I figured with all the civy licenses and experience no problem doing 15 years as a tech of some sort and easy pension.
Ya right.
They wanted at least one and preferably more university degrees, as well as passing a "personality" test of some sort or along those lines (code for P-C-ness-wokeness evaluation). I dunno exactly, by that point I wasn't really listening to the guy and busy picking my jaw off the floor over what they wanted to turn a wrench.
Only took 12 years of wishy-washy to get this done. And no, we probably dont have enough guys to fix those either right now. They are all busy doing it somewhere less liberal.
Canada's military has become a joke. There are plenty of willing guys in the country, but the libs have turned it into an elitist day-camp.
Just after dad died in '14 I went to a requiting office to get back in. I figured with all the civy licenses and experience no problem doing 15 years as a tech of some sort and easy pension.
Ya right.
They wanted at least one and preferably more university degrees, as well as passing a "personality" test of some sort or along those lines (code for P-C-ness-wokeness evaluation). I dunno exactly, by that point I wasn't really listening to the guy and busy picking my jaw off the floor over what they wanted to turn a wrench.
Only took 12 years of wishy-washy to get this done. And no, we probably dont have enough guys to fix those either right now. They are all busy doing it somewhere less liberal.
In this age of anti armor missile technology, I'm not sure how important main battle tanks would be anyway. All modern tanks are high maintenance and a sudden infux of them to the Ukranians begs the? who will dothe work on them? Abrams are gas turbine powered and definitely high tech in their target acquisition. Leopard2 is a good tank but they've been around since '79 too. Many of the Leopard2 derivatives across Europe /Nato use a fire control system licensed by USA Hughes aircraft. They are very similar in that aspect to the Abrahms in regard to1st hit probability. FCS is the heart of any modern tank. There's no more sighting thru a periscope or visually out a vent hole.
In this age of anti armor missile technology, I'm not sure how important main battle tanks would be anyway. All modern tanks are high maintenance and a sudden infux of them to the Ukranians begs the? who will dothe work on them? Abrams are gas turbine powered and definitely high tech in their target acquisition. Leopard2 is a good tank but they've been around since '79 too. Many of the Leopard2 derivatives across Europe /Nato use a fire control system licensed by USA Hughes aircraft. They are very similar in that aspect to the Abrahms in regard to1st hit probability. FCS is the heart of any modern tank. There's no more sighting thru a periscope or visually out a vent hole.
I'm not sure either, been away from all that for quite a while but, the fact is, Ukraine is asking for tanks, they think that's what they need. Agreed that between the anti-armor and drone technology, there's a problem but, the Ukrainians seem to know what they want. But, the fact that Canada isn't keeping their military up to a NATO standard should concern other NATO countries. Maybe not.
Most of the time, US branches of service want/prefer at least an associate degree for most mos. Today's military is much more than just rifles and bayonets, even for infantry..
Most of the time, US branches of service want/prefer at least an associate degree for most mos. Today's military is much more than just rifles and bayonets, even for infantry..
Not sure why you felt the need to point that out to me but, OK. It was MEM's point, not mine. But, given the present state of our military and its inability to meet recruiting needs, preferring/wanting a certain level of education and securing that are two totally different things. Even in the Infantry.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-25-2023).]
When you send all of your repairs to a contractor there is no need for a monkey at the end of a wrench. Face it, you have been outsourced and now all they want is educated button pushers.
Use to be the armed forces was a good place to get an education, trade. Now what are they teaching?
Canada's military has become a joke. There are plenty of willing guys in the country, but the libs have turned it into an elitist day-camp.
MEM only sees what he wants to see. Since 1984, the Liberals have been in power federally for 21 years. The Conservatives have been in power for 19 years. Ya, it's all the Liberals fault. For sure.
MEM, let's hear how Stephen Harper, Conservative Prime Minister from Feb '06 to Nov '15 beefed up Canada's military. I'm sure you can make up some baloney!
I concur with MJ on this. Tanks are very old technology. They are very expensive to ship (requires C-17s) and I don't even really know what the point is. What exactly are they going to shoot at that a person with a shoulder-mounted rocket couldn't... or that a drone couldn't very easily do the same job. Tanks are good against other tanks, or against an outdated military. They tend to use them as a show of force, and a means to assist in blockade. They can be used to plow through (or over) roadblocks, and when grouped together, can help enforce a sense of border... but they don't really do a whole lot in a modern era with drones.
All of that said, Canada is a mess. I'm not going to hold back. I like the Canadians, and I've worked with their military many times over the years. They are basically a shell of their former selves. But can you blame them? With the United States directly beneath them... 34 trillion dollars in debt, with 1/3rd of that being spent on military... why WOULD they spend their money on military? It's easy to train troops and outfit them... but ships, planes, tanks, and automobiles is a different story. Don't even get me started on cyber. There's like... 10 people trying to do the job that the US Government has 500 people doing, which should be triple that.
They used to have numerous military academies, and last I checked, they've eliminated almost all of them. They have... 2, maybe 1 left? One of which is Royal Military College, which is a nice school, rather small... and underfunded... crumbling buildings. This is their combined military academy in Ontario, and I think there is one in Quebec. But htat's it... there used to be a different academy for each military branch, but they combine them all now.
It's not like Canadians are any less capable... but the Canadian government (whomever is at fault... liberals or conservatives) has chosen to NOT spend money on their military. I don't think they ever will fund their military so long as they know the United States is here and can defend them.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: They are very expensive to ship (requires C-17s) and I don't even really know what the point is. What exactly are they going to shoot at that a person with a shoulder-mounted rocket couldn't... or that a drone couldn't very easily do the same job. Tanks are good against other tanks, or against an outdated military. They tend to use them as a show of force, and a means to assist in blockade. They can be used to plow through (or over) roadblocks, and when grouped together, can help enforce a sense of border... but they don't really do a whole lot in a modern era with drones.
All of that said, Canada is a mess.
Expensive to ship, agreed but, we already have some there should it be decided to give them up. The point is, the Ukrainians asked for tanks, I'm not about to suggest our Abrams is the answer to their wet dreams but, that's what they asked for. I'm not sure I would have given them up but, what i would have probably done is given Abrams to one of our allies (like Poland or another) that wanted them so they could give up their German tanks. Who knows if that idea would have floated or sank,
I tend to agree with you on the use of armor but, I'm also not sitting in a trench in Ukraine hoping someone with a big gun is gonna kill opposing tanks. and I agree that today's drones can take out anyone's tanks.
Reference Canada, can't say much other than what I read but, knowing that they aren't prepared to defend us, much less themselves based on their equipment status, it is as I said previously, disconcerting.
MEM only sees what he wants to see. Since 1984, the Liberals have been in power federally for 21 years. The Conservatives have been in power for 19 years. Ya, it's all the Liberals fault. For sure.
MEM, let's hear how Stephen Harper, Conservative Prime Minister from Feb '06 to Nov '15 beefed up Canada's military. I'm sure you can make up some baloney!
Libs get in and dig a hole.
Cons get in and partially fill it.
Libs get back in and start digging again.
The cycle repeats....and repeats....and repeats. Ad nauseum.
Nuttin that cant be cured with death camps for democrats and lynch mobs for lieberals.
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 01-25-2023).]
I concur with MJ on this. Tanks are very old technology. They are very expensive to ship (requires C-17s) and I don't even really know what the point is. What exactly are they going to shoot at that a person with a shoulder-mounted rocket couldn't... or that a drone couldn't very easily do the same job. Tanks are good against other tanks, or against an outdated military. They tend to use them as a show of force, and a means to assist in blockade. They can be used to plow through (or over) roadblocks, and when grouped together, can help enforce a sense of border... but they don't really do a whole lot in a modern era with drones.
All that depends....on where and terrain. In Europe (Ukraine) tanks bring a lot to the battlefield, and it's not just their main gun. Modern tank companies are comprised of a number of tracked or wheeled vehicles with a big gun and some with Hellfire type missiles, as well as Strykers with hellfires and 60mm. and TOW . Anti missile tanks and there is Lockheed's MAPS that jams and diverts incoming drone and ground fired missiles. There are others as well. Modern armor divisions aren't just MBTs any more.
In open terrain, infantry movement has to be supported by something, and that's usually armor. Armor is jointly protected by infantry, which nowadays is in a fighting vehicle of some kind.
Javelin is a great anti-armor system, but it has to be transported. Ready to fire, it weighs 50lbs. You aren't carrying it on your back very far in combat conditions.
From Ft Hood Texas. Most of this train (and this is just a very small portion of it), was tow and hellfire vehicles with only about 1/8 of the cars carrying Abrams.
4 Helfires, 2 AIM 9X sidewinders and a Bushmaster 30mm chain gun. This is part of a modern battlefield's armor brigade.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-25-2023).]
That's a rather wide brushstroke, Todd. Do you watch your own newscasts?
You quoted that one thing... I don't know if you intended to take it out of context, but I was talking about their military readiness. As it stands, more than half the world's armies could invade Canada right now, and they wouldn't be able to repel an attack. This says nothing about a Canadian's will to fight, or love of country, it simply speaks to the fact that they've disbanded most of their military from really every perspective you could conceive. To be quite honest, they know the United States would step in and assist, so why WOULD they even bother?
This isn't a measuring contest, it's simply a point of fact on the current state of their military. When their government meets to discuss funding military... they probably ask themselves, what is the point? The most powerful nation in the world is directly beneath us. Who would we (they) even go to war with?
All that depends....on where and terrain. In Europe (Ukraine) tanks bring a lot to the battlefield, and it's not just their main gun. Modern tank companies are comprised of a number of tracked or wheeled vehicles with a big gun and some with Hellfire type missiles, as well as Strykers with hellfires and 60mm. and TOW . Anti missile tanks and there is Lockheed's MAPS that jams and diverts incoming drone and ground fired missiles. There are others as well. Modern armor divisions aren't just MBTs any more.
I mean, I get it... I absolutely see a use for something like that (what you posted above)... just as I would an MRAP. Very useful for combat because it's nimble and not huge.
But I'm not really seeing much of a need for an A1M1... which is what I think they're asking for?
I just imagine something like that not being incredibly useful in rural combat, and even less-so in urban combat, and being something of a target... like all the Russian tanks have basically been.
You quoted that one thing... I don't know if you intended to take it out of context, but I was talking about their military readiness.
Todd, we aren't mind readers. After a full paragraph of nothing but talk about tanks, you come out with... "All of that said, Canada is a mess." You often brag about how fast you can type. All you had to do was add one extra word to clarify what you apparently meant, as in... "All of that said, Canada's military is a mess."
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
As it stands, more than half the world's armies could invade Canada right now, and they wouldn't be able to repel an attack.
I'd like to think that Canada as a sovereign nation strives to give little reason for an "attack" from whomever, but having said that, I would prefer we at least had more of a naval presence along our extensive coastlines.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 01-26-2023).]
I mean, I get it... I absolutely see a use for something like that (what you posted above)... just as I would an MRAP. Very useful for combat because it's nimble and not huge.
MRAP Is are heavy at 24 tons and MRAP IIs are heavier (30tons) and BIG. There's lots of bridges they can't travel on and a C-130 can't load them.
They are mostly surplus US inventory now. Replaced by the lighter JLTVs. 12 tons with the same survivability of the MRAPs.
I see lots of ironic parallels in the Russo/Ukraine war.. Both China and Russia heavily supported first N. Korea in 1950 and again supplied N. Vietnam all during that long war. We had lots of Chinese and Russian 7.62x39 sent our way. Now, the shoe is on the other foot. I know the Pentagon wanted badly to bomb Russian freighters coming into Haiphong harbor but were prevented from it by 'policy'. I do have to wonder how long before Putin says to hell with it and hits back directly at nearby NATO nations that are supplying arms to Ukraine...
To answer your question, Ron... yes, I believe so. Even the Aussies appreciated what Canadians did back on that awful day in 2001.
Patrick, I was never in doubt about Canadians spirt or willingness to help. The question is more about Canada's ability to defend itself and it's NATO partners. It's military equipment is questionable at best according to the author of that article and based on information about military budgeting. Inoperable weapons and vehicles do little to thwart an advancing enemy regardless of the operator's intent to defend.
Originally posted by maryjane: I do have to wonder how long before Putin says to hell with it and hits back directly at nearby NATO nations that are supplying arms to Ukraine...
"Somebody had to do it."
"Channeling" another forum member. Do you know which one?
What's a good ending for the war? Here's my thinking.
The U.S., NATO and Ukraine formally agree to accept Russia's right to have Sevastopol on the Crimean Peninsula as a military and particularly, a naval base. The entire Crimean Peninsula belongs to Russia. Russia has sovereignty over the city of Mariupol and a continuous land corridor connecting Russia to the Crimean Peninsula through Mariupol. Russia has sovereignty over all of the coastline surrounding the Sea of Azov, including what has been the long stretch of Ukrainian coastline. All of this comprises the land corridor connecting Russia with the Crimean Peninsula.
That's quite a lot for Zelenskyy to have to "swallow". But in return, Ukraine, having ceded all of this territory, is guaranteed full membership in NATO and the European Union.
?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-26-2023).]
I'd like to think that Canada as a sovereign nation strives to give little reason for an "attack" from whomever, but having said that, I would prefer we at least had more of a naval presence along our extensive coastlines.
In the context of NATO tho, it doesn't matter if Canada (or any other particular member nation) gives a foe reason to attack. These organizations exist pretty much under the 'attack one of us, you attack all of us" protocol. BUT, again, Ukraine is not a NATO member.
But having said that, what, of Canadian's (in this case) heavy armor, would be their 'fair share' to contribute to Ukraine? Who decides this? The writer of that article Adam Zivo? Do some research on him and you'll see he's been an opportunist writer, flitting from one high visibility topic to the next. By most accounts Canada has 82 Leopard2 tanks, with about 15 being training vehicles or tank retrieval vehicles.
Todd, we aren't mind readers. After a full paragraph of nothing but talk about tanks, you come out with... "All of that said, Canada is a mess." You often brag about how fast you can type. All you had to do was add one extra word to clarify what you apparently meant, as in... "All of that said, Canada's military is a mess."
Sorry Patrick, you don't get to feign ignorance here. The post is literally titled, "Can Canada be depended on in a crisis?" ... with multiple discussions (with you included) on how Canada's military is irrelevant and obsolete. I know you're competitive... I love you man, but this isn't a win/lose argument for points here... it was pretty clear what I was talking about. And if that sentence wasn't clear, the next three paragraphs specifically talked about Canada's military... in reference to again... the other posts on the topic about the obsolescence of Canada's military.
quote
Originally posted by Patrick:
I'd like to think that Canada as a sovereign nation strives to give little reason for an "attack" from whomever, but having said that, I would prefer we at least had more of a naval presence along our extensive coastlines.
And of course, that makes sense. Canada has a larger coastline to defend, and money in naval power makes sense. I'm definitely not a fan of going to war, and not suggesting that Canada should be attracting the kind of attention that deserves invasion. I'm simply stating the fact of Canada's readiness should they be invaded, or they go to war. As Blackrams said, this speaks nothing to Canada's spirit, or willingness to help in a situation... but military has not been a priority for them, largely because the United States is the most militarily powerful country in the world which sits directly below them.
Also, I would not hesitate for a moment to imagine they feel betrayed after we pulled out of Afghanistan, hardly even telling them in advance that we were going to do it... so they had to make their own arrangements, and had to go on rescue missions of their own to save Afghans who supported the Americans during the war, which apparently, our own military were told not to bother with. Don't even get me started.
Maybe Canada has the right perspective here... I don't know, but it doesn't change facts.
The U.S. does stupid stuff all the time. Until Elon Musk starting building reusable rockets, we launched all our astronauts into space using 60s-technology Soyuz rockets. We literally had an exception in our sanctions that still allowed us to use their rockets, which the Russians were only too proud to talk about... "silly Americans, such a great country, but need Russia to help them get into space." Yes, embarrassing.
But having said that, what, of Canadian's (in this case) heavy armor, would be their 'fair share' to contribute to Ukraine? Who decides this? The writer of that article Adam Zivo? Do some research on him and you'll see he's been an opportunist writer, flitting from one high visibility topic to the next. By most accounts Canada has 82 Leopard2 tanks, with about 15 being training vehicles or tank retrieval vehicles.
So what, is their 'fair share' of heavy hardware?
Well... this is what frustrates me. I know you know this... looking back at Ukraine's history, they had more than ample military and weaponry. They even had their own cache of nuclear weapons, submarines, destroyers, even an air craft carrier, etc.
The United States came in and promised we would defend them personally in the case of an attack, on the condition that they gave away ALL of their weapons. The U.S. coerced them to give all their nuclear weapons to Russia, all of their MIG fighter jets to Iran, all of their tanks to China (if I remember correctly), and all of their arms and munitions to Turkey or Hungary. The promise was that we would help them eventually join NATO, while taking full ownership of their defense.
Like most people in the United States, I had no idea Ukraine even existed prior to the annexation of Crimea in 2014. I'd never been there, just never given that geography lesson.
We seem to have left Ukraine in a lurch during the Bush administration, and the Obama administration (with peace during Trump's administration), allowing land to continuously be taken, with absolutely no help from the United States.
Now, Ukraine seems to be the big thing, and everyone cares about it... personally, I think it's because it's against Russia and there's some psychological connection there with hating Russia means hating Trump, but I digress. So now the United States is asking everyone to help... as if our problems should be everyone else's problems. Remembering of course that we asked the entire world to support us in Afghanistan, and Iraq, and then unceremoniously pulled out of Afghanistan without so much as a VTC / conference call with our allies, who not only felt betrayed, but questioned our ability to lead globally.
I think we all remember this:
So personally, if the United States is asking Canada to do their "fair share," I would probably respond to the United States with a "go **** yourself."
You know I love the United States, I'd give my life for it. But personally, the United States should never have made that promise with Ukraine that they never had any intention of keeping. Now that after two annexations of territory that we suddenly find it an important fight... I recognize that this isn't even America's problem (Canada's or the United States). This is a European problem. My experience in Europe is limited... I've only been there 3 times in the past decade, but I know most of my family there seems to believe all the media narrative about the U.S., and dare I say... almost pro-Russian. In the 80s and 90s when I'd visit... I only heard pro-Russian propaganda from people whenever I'd visit Germany, Netherlands, France, Belgium, etc. So it doesn't surprise me that Europe has been so completely apathetic to the plight of Ukraine. They are more interested in protecting their own interests, than starting a fight they have no desire to win.
So if I was Canada... I would honestly say to the United States... "Why is this my problem?"
The United States came in and promised we would defend them personally in the case of an attack, on the condition that they gave away ALL of their weapons. The U.S. coerced them to give all their nuclear weapons to Russia, all of their MIG fighter jets to Iran, all of their tanks to China (if I remember correctly), and all of their arms and munitions to Turkey or Hungary. The promise was that we would help them eventually join NATO, while taking full ownership of their defense. .....................................................................................
Like most people in the United States, I had no idea Ukraine even existed prior to the annexation of Crimea in 2014.
there's a good bit of contradiction in those 2 statements... Hard to understand how you could 'remember' Ukraine giving up it's weapons (promised to give up nukes in '94, last one left in '96) while saying you had never heard of the country's name until 2014, 10 years later.
What a lot of people don't understand is tht Ukraine had no control or launch capability of those nukes. That, remained in Moscow's hands always and, the agreement that was reached was that Ukraine got a lot more than just a vague promise of defense from the USA. Several billion $$ in Ukraine debt forgiveness, fuel for their energy producing nuclear reactors, and only security as produced by the Budapest Memorandum. There was no clad in stone promise of helping them militarily and in fact, the security clause of the BM was that neither the Russians or the US would invade Ukraine, with most of NATO nations initialing as well.
Ukraine never had much of a navy. The USSR did have significant naval assets in Ukraine as part of it's Black Sea fleet, but like the nukes, they weren't Ukraine's. Ukraine did keep some (very few) ships after the breakup of the USSR but lost them in 2014 when Russia took over Crimea.
Originally posted by maryjane: The writer of that article Adam Zivo? Do some research on him and you'll see he's been an opportunist writer, flitting from one high visibility topic to the next.
But, isn't that what most reporters do? Killing the messenger doesn't make the message less or more accurate.
But, isn't that what most reporters do? Killing the messenger doesn't make the message less or more accurate.
Rams
The so called 'message' in this instance is anything but accurate or clear, and the question even more so in regards to it's importance in the real world. The US has 2,509 Abrams M1A1 and M1A2 tanks in service, with a further 3,700 in storage. The most recent word is, we will send enough for one tank battalion, about 31 serviceable tanks; that is, we intend to send about 1/2 of 1% of our tanks. For Canada to do the same, (to match ouur contribution) to do their 'fair share' they would send .41 tanks. That's right. Not even a whole tank. Whoppty freakin doo.... There's your accuracy.
Now, which approx 7/16 of the tank would like them to crate up or palletize and get on it's merry way to Kiev?
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-26-2023).]
The point was never to ask Canada to match our gift to Ukraine. The question was could Canada hold up it’s commitment to NATO. If, the article was even close to accurate then it very debatable whether or not Canada could. And, if unable then, that would be a Whoopty Doo worth knowing.
Originally posted by blackrams: Rather disconcerting article if it's accurate. It's one thing to be a neighbor and trading partner. The question is, are they willing to pull their fair share of the load
Your words. Own 'em.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-26-2023).]
there's a good bit of contradiction in those 2 statements... Hard to understand how you could 'remember' Ukraine giving up it's weapons (promised to give up nukes in '94, last one left in '96) while saying you had never heard of the country's name until 2014, 10 years later.
What a lot of people don't understand is tht Ukraine had no control or launch capability of those nukes. That, remained in Moscow's hands always and, the agreement that was reached was that Ukraine got a lot more than just a vague promise of defense from the USA. Several billion $$ in Ukraine debt forgiveness, fuel for their energy producing nuclear reactors, and only security as produced by the Budapest Memorandum. There was no clad in stone promise of helping them militarily and in fact, the security clause of the BM was that neither the Russians or the US would invade Ukraine, with most of NATO nations initialing as well.
Ukraine never had much of a navy. The USSR did have significant naval assets in Ukraine as part of it's Black Sea fleet, but like the nukes, they weren't Ukraine's. Ukraine did keep some (very few) ships after the breakup of the USSR but lost them in 2014 when Russia took over Crimea.
I assumed there would be some inference there. You and Patrick should use some common sense, I'm not trying to deceive. I was in middle school when the USSR collapsed. So I don't "remember" any of Ukraine because I was more interested in Nintendo and desperately hoping I'd have sex with a girl one day. I meant that I "remembered" from reading articles within the past couple of years since this conflict started.
What I remember reading is that Ukraine voted to become an independent nation after the collapse, and that they refused to give all of the military equipment back. We could say these things belonged to the (formerly) USSR, but in truth Ukraine had them, and they weren't planning on giving them back. They had several destroyers and two air craft carriers... one of which they sold to China, and several destroyers that were sold to India. The other carrier was just a hull if I remember correctly, which I think they also sold to China, but I can't remember. Never the less, they had tons of planes, tanks, and everything you could imagine. Most of this armament, ships, and planes were even made in Ukraine... it was the technical and manufacturing hub of the USSR... which is probably one of the reasons why they voted to cede from Russia, and why Russia wants them back so badly.
My point still stands... Canada has no obligation to this, and I honestly don't even think we'd be dealing with this if Europe took a greater stand from the beginning in 2014, or the United States.
The so called 'message' in this instance is anything but accurate or clear, and the question even more so in regards to its importance in the real world.
The US has 2,509 Abrams M1A1 and M1A2 tanks in service, with a further 3,700 in storage. The most recent word is, we will send enough for one tank battalion, about 31 serviceable tanks; that is, we intend to send about 1/2 of 1% of our tanks. For Canada to do the same (to match our contribution) [as] their 'fair share' they would send .41 tanks. That's right. Not even a whole tank.
Whoppty freakin doo... there's your accuracy.
Now, which [approximately] 7/16 of the tank would [you] like them to crate up or palletize and get on its merry way to Kiev?
I think it's permissible to round up to the nearest tank. So I'd expect Canada to send one complete tank, fully assembled.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-26-2023).]
Your interpretation of what I was talking about. Own that. It never was about Canada sending tanks to Ukraine.
I have consistently spoken about Canada's ability to maintain and hold up their end of the NATO agreement. Not Canada sending tanks to Ukraine. That was the point.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-26-2023).]
