[Newsbot]

Title: Canadian-led battle group will deploy to Latvia, part of NATO move to deter Russia
Category: World
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2016-07-08 11:14:35
Canadian

[Hyack]

$1:

The roughly 450 Canadians will form the nucleus of a robust multi-national combat battalion, part of a brigade to provide credible deterrence against further Russian expansionism in the region.

Supplying 450 members of Canada's armed forces to act more or less as speed bumps in Latvia does not appear to be a very good military tactic, especially when it comes to the Canadians........

[BartSimpson]

Considering that the force-multipliers in effect mean that Ivan needs to deploy 4500 ill-trained, unpaid, and poorly equipped draftees to go up against Canada's best.

Meaning your guys serve as both a deterrent to aggression in Latvia and to prevent aggression wherever the inevitable Russian counter-force would have been deployed (Ukraine).

[martin14]

Hyack Hyack:

$1:

The roughly 450 Canadians will form the nucleus of a robust multi-national combat battalion, part of a brigade to provide credible deterrence against further Russian expansionism in the region.

Supplying 450 members of Canada's armed forces to act more or less as speed bumps in Latvia does not appear to be a very good military tactic, especially when it comes to the Canadians........

They are expendable bait.

If the Russians come, our guys won't last 30 minutes.

It's the idea that shooting a Latvian border guard is one thing,
shooting Canadian or American troops is something altogether different.


It's just more utterly stupid poking the bear for no good reason.

Funny how we aren't prepared to fight the Islamists,
but the Liberals have no problem for this idiocy.

[Hyack]

martin14 martin14:

They are expendable bait.

If the Russians come, our guys won't last 30 minutes.

It's the idea that shooting a Latvian border guard is one thing,
shooting Canadian or American troops is something altogether different.


It's just more utterly stupid poking the bear for no good reason.

Funny how we aren't prepared to fight the Islamists,
but the Liberals have no problem for this idiocy.

Expendable to whom.....their mothers, wives, children.....

[BartSimpson]

martin14 martin14:

It's just more utterly stupid poking the bear for no good reason.

A little reading is in order...

http://www.neweasterneurope.eu/articles ... ander-base

[Freakinoldguy]

martin14 martin14:

Hyack Hyack:

$1:

The roughly 450 Canadians will form the nucleus of a robust multi-national combat battalion, part of a brigade to provide credible deterrence against further Russian expansionism in the region.

Supplying 450 members of Canada's armed forces to act more or less as speed bumps in Latvia does not appear to be a very good military tactic, especially when it comes to the Canadians........

Funny how we aren't prepared to fight the Islamists,
but the Liberals have no problem for this idiocy.

That's because Sunny Ways can hide this under the guise of his new and improved Peace Keeping Canadian Military. But, it's interesting to note that the term "peacekeeping" in Canada generally involves an under equipped and totally vulnerable force that's sent into harms way for the specific purpose of scoring political points.

[martin14]

Hyack Hyack:

Expendable to whom.....their mothers, wives, children.....

EXPENDABLE TO JUSTIN TRUDEAU AND HIS LIBERAL CABINET.

[Canadian_Mind]

Unfortunately, we wouldn't be able to muster and permanently deploy a fighting force capable of taking on the Russians during peacetime. Anything we could deploy would end up being a speed bump. Even if we mustered a division of 10 000 troops they would be wiped out within a week. Effectively our only choice between doing it right and half-assing it is to half-ass it. If you half-ass it, you want to minimize the casualties. Better to send a token 450 that may die than a token 4500 that may die.

[Freakinoldguy]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Unfortunately, we wouldn't be able to muster and permanently deploy a fighting force capable of taking on the Russians during peacetime. Anything we could deploy would end up being a speed bump. Even if we mustered a division of 10 000 troops they would be wiped out within a week. Effectively our only choice between doing it right and half-assing it is to half-ass it. If you half-ass it, you want to minimize the casualties. Better to send a token 450 that may die than a token 4500 that may die.

That's a pretty fucking cavalier attitude for people who aren't the ones doing the dieing.

If the Liberals don't have the intestinal fortitude or political will to actually build and maintain a military capable of defending itself maybe they should just admit what we all know. That they're a bunch of anti military elitists who are more than willing to send our unprepared troops into harms way to garner nothing more than political points and selfie opportunities for themselves.

If one soldier dies because of political incompetence, cost cutting, indifference or just good old politicking then it's one to many and one that could have been avoided by doing the right thing. But, then again I don't think sunny ways and his cabinet with the exception perhaps of the MND will likely lose to much sleep if any or all those 450 troops are ground up in a Russian assault.

[Alta_redneck]

Is this not something the Liberals would be wanting to debate if it was Harper who was doing this ?

[Thanos]

No, they'd skip the debate altogether and go straight to "Demon Harper worse than Hitler" mode as was their tendency in those years. Accompanied by some jackass from the NDP following Jack Layton's example and accusing our guys of being war criminals too.

[bootlegga]

I don't see the big deal - this force is the raison d''etre of NATO - an attack on one is an attack on everybody. It's really no different than sending three NATO frigates into the Black Sea in 2014 - had Putin attacked them, they wouldn't have had much chance either.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_112997.htm

Both the multi-national battalion and that task force did was remind Putin of the risks of going further west.

[Freakinoldguy]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I don't see the big deal - this force is the raison d''etre of NATO - an attack on one is an attack on everybody. It's really no different than sending three NATO frigates into the Black Sea in 2014 - had Putin attacked them, they wouldn't have had much chance either.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_112997.htm

Both the multi-national battalion and that task force did was remind Putin of the risks of going further west.

Deterrent or not, my point is that if you're going to send them into harms way at least give them the equipment and support to stand a fighting chance to defend themselves, otherwise it becomes a potential suicide mission by a group of troops who trusted that their political masters would do the right thing.

As for the NATO frigates, you said "had much of a chance" and that's the key. At least they stood a chance and could have put up a good fight before going down. Our troops in Latvia as now equipped not so much.

NATO is assuming that the Americans will pick up the slack for our and any other troops that are lacking in equipment and manpower so, it shouldn't matter what condition they arrive in. But, that thought process is a complete misnomer. As anyone who's studied history knows, any attacks by a protagonist will be directed against the weakest link in the chain which, means if we're the under equipped and armed unit we're more likely to end up being the the Romanian Army at Stalingrad rather than the Spartans at Thermopylae.

[Canadian_Mind]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Unfortunately, we wouldn't be able to muster and permanently deploy a fighting force capable of taking on the Russians during peacetime. Anything we could deploy would end up being a speed bump. Even if we mustered a division of 10 000 troops they would be wiped out within a week. Effectively our only choice between doing it right and half-assing it is to half-ass it. If you half-ass it, you want to minimize the casualties. Better to send a token 450 that may die than a token 4500 that may die.

That's a pretty fucking cavalier attitude for people who aren't the ones doing the dieing.

If the Liberals don't have the intestinal fortitude or political will to actually build and maintain a military capable of defending itself maybe they should just admit what we all know. That they're a bunch of anti military elitists who are more than willing to send our unprepared troops into harms way to garner nothing more than political points and selfie opportunities for themselves.

If one soldier dies because of political incompetence, cost cutting, indifference or just good old politicking then it's one to many and one that could have been avoided by doing the right thing. But, then again I don't think sunny ways and his cabinet with the exception perhaps of the MND will likely lose to much sleep if any or all those 450 troops are ground up in a Russian assault.

No shit. That's why I'd rather we do it right or don't do it at all. However, if we're going to half-ass it, losing 450 is better than losing more.

I am not convinced Trudeau cares as much about the troops as Harper did, and Harper wasn't exactly good at committing actions that actually supported the troops.