I couldn't agree more with your comments about Ukraine. Our government should step up, and not hide behind weasel words like 'on order' as opposed to 'Delivered!'
Ukraine has become just one more issue being used to create a divide in this country. It seems as country and as government there is no open communication and sharing of ideas. It has become an us vs them mentality. This government and it leaders on all sides, need to work as one over issues like Ukraine, china, most recently the Gaza conflict. Which is again becoming nothing more than a division tool, at the expense of human lives. As serving member during the Afghan mission, I didn’t follow much politics at the time, easier to not have opinion. I don’t recall there being this much fighting over support, and sending troops. I am sure you would have more insight into that than myself. Although it almost political suicide these days if you are seen willing to work together on any matter.
Great article indeed, especially useful for the links to credible sources debunking the anti-Ukraine misinformation narratives. It beggars understanding anyone could fall for these, but there’s so much “noise” out there on so many topics, it’s hard for regular folks to get the real story.
And agreed Canada could / should be doing more, but the simple truth there is that any efforts by us pale in contrast to what the US can do. They are the real drivers on this, and the best way Canada can encourage them “to do the right thing” is to pick up the slack on our own defence needs so that we cannot be dismissed as slackers quarterbacking from the sidelines.
Looking forward to more in this series. Happy New Year!
I just wanted to share an outstanding resource with you.
It is a [free] book and documentary film called 'THE GREAT TAKING' by financial guru David Webb.
It shows how our financial institutions (banks, brokers, insurers, pension funds, etc.) are basically all set up to have their assets stripped in the event of a financial crash with related bankruptcies; and that, of course, means that all their customers will have their own assets taken away from them.
This is not conjecture or conspiracy theory. I have been personally tracking many of these changes in the past two decades and have been writing about such financial shenanigans for years.
Moreover, the work is extremely well-sourced showing how the related laws have changed over the last several years to enable this mass plunder.
I myself will be further investigating how our Canadian financial institutions have become vulnerable to these plunders (for which I already have some, quite stunning, insights) and may post an article about this in the coming months. As you are already subscribed to my Substack, you would automatically receive it.
If you can share this resource with some of your colleagues in your party, I think they will be shocked and astounded about what is to come if we don't, collectively, become more cognizant of this threat and find practical ways to mitigate it.
As your party is likely to take power this year or next, I think that your team ought to be both privy and cognizant of these larger globalist plans. Canada can be the exception to this globalist takeover if we all work together.
I have also shared this with Dr. Leslyn Lewis.
Here are the links:
VIDEO: The Great Taking 2023 Documentary by DAVID WEBB,
I have been thinking about this war by referring back to my RMC War Studies days reading and understanding Carl von Clausewitz's insights on the theory and nature of war.
Since October 2021, when he first briefed President Joe Biden on Russia's plans to invade Ukraine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley reportedly kept a list of "U.S. interests and strategic objectives" in the crisis: "No. 1" was "Don't have a kinetic conflict between the U.S. military and NATO with Russia." The second was "contain war inside the geographical boundaries of Ukraine."
The US Administration has adhered to these interests and strategic objectives (which might be called "resolute inaction") despite the failure of sanctions to force Russia "to change course" in Ukraine (President Biden's words). Biden confirmed this on October 19, 2023 "we do not seek to have American troops fighting in Russia or fighting against Russia." Obvious from this, war with Russia serves no US political interests. And US support is now entangled in domestic politics.
President Macron echoes the American approach: "President Emmanuel Macron of France has assured Ukraine of continued support in defense against Russia's aggressive war, reports Bild [on January 19, 2024]."We are not at war with Russia, but our duty is to make its victory impossible. We cannot allow Russia to believe that it can win the war," he stated. According to Macron, Russia's victory would signify the end of European security.
"That's why we continue to support the Ukrainians. For this, we train Ukrainian soldiers and provide military equipment for artillery, ground-based air defense, and long-range strikes," said the French president."
UK Foreign Secretary the Rt. Hon. Lord Cameron also expressed it this way: "The former U.K. prime minister’s remarks come as the West scrambles to keep Ukraine topped up with high-tech weaponry to fend off Russia’s full-scale invasion, while bracing for the potential return of NATO-skeptic Donald Trump to the White House.
“One thing we can do is demonstrate during the course of this year that Putin isn’t winning,” Cameron said..."
As Carl von Clausewitz noted in "On War": "we need only bear in mind how wide a range of political interests can lead to war, or think for a moment of the gulf that separates a war of annihilation, a struggle for political existence, from a war reluctantly declared in consequence of political pressure or of an alliance that no longer seems to reflect the state's true interests." (Book I, Chapter 2).
Clausewitz noted that "war is a clash of major interests, which is resolved by bloodshed". Russia obviously believes it is its major interest to prevent Ukraine from becoming a NATO ally, and is willing to fight. US/NATO sees Ukraine membership in NATO as in its interest but not sufficiently important enough to fight.This is the paradox of the "negative aim".
As Clausewitz noted: "A single action [in this instance, war with Russia], assuming it succeeds, would do less for a negative aim than it would for a positive one. But that is just the difference: the former is more likely to succeed and so give you more security. What it lacks in immediate effectiveness it must make up for in the use of time, that is by prolonging the war. Thus the negative aim, which lies at the heart of pure resistance, is also the natural formula for outlasting the enemy, for wearing him down." (Book I, Chapter 2)
The consequence of the "negative aim" (not allow Russia to succeed) versus the "positive aim" (defeat Russian aggression), is it leaves the initiative with the adversary with the positive aim (Russia's objective to destroy or damage Ukraine enough to prevent its membership in NATO). And it prolongs the war. Every day that Russia continues the war by "not losing" is a "win".
The Institute for the Study of War website reported on January 19, 2024:
"US officials reportedly assess that Ukraine will have to fight a long war and continue efforts to secure as much security assistance as possible for Ukraine before 2025 while expecting that positional fighting may continue in Ukraine until 2026...
CNN reported that unspecified US intelligence officials assess that the war will last at least two more years, with some assessing there may be up to five years of fighting. CNN reported that unspecified US officials do not believe that a short-term ”drop-off” in US assistance to Ukraine will have a major battlefield impact, but that a long-term lack of US assistance could allow Russia to regain momentum by stockpiling weapons produced domestically and by Iran and North Korea, however.
ISW assess...that the collapse of Western aid to Ukraine would likely lead to the eventual collapse of Ukraine’s ability to hold off the Russian military and significant Russian advances further west, likely all the way to the western Ukrainian border with NATO member states."
The end-result of the "negative aim" strategy may be that Ukraine is worn down by Russia long before Russia can be worn down by Ukraine.
Oh boy! I can't wait for WWIII because Erin is mad at them ruskies!
But thank you for explaining that yes there are neo-nazis in Ukraine army.
Can you explain why you kicked Sloan out of your party because some random suppose neo-nazi gave him money under a fake name to which he gave back when he found out?
Can you explain why Ukraine had bio labs that were illegal and undocumented?
Can you explain the colour revolution and the bombing of Russian ethnic areas in Ukarine? Or the discrimination of russian speaking/ethnic groups in Ukraine?
I couldn't agree more with your comments about Ukraine. Our government should step up, and not hide behind weasel words like 'on order' as opposed to 'Delivered!'
Agreed. There is so much we could provide quickly and it is urgently needed.
Ukraine has become just one more issue being used to create a divide in this country. It seems as country and as government there is no open communication and sharing of ideas. It has become an us vs them mentality. This government and it leaders on all sides, need to work as one over issues like Ukraine, china, most recently the Gaza conflict. Which is again becoming nothing more than a division tool, at the expense of human lives. As serving member during the Afghan mission, I didn’t follow much politics at the time, easier to not have opinion. I don’t recall there being this much fighting over support, and sending troops. I am sure you would have more insight into that than myself. Although it almost political suicide these days if you are seen willing to work together on any matter.
Great article indeed, especially useful for the links to credible sources debunking the anti-Ukraine misinformation narratives. It beggars understanding anyone could fall for these, but there’s so much “noise” out there on so many topics, it’s hard for regular folks to get the real story.
And agreed Canada could / should be doing more, but the simple truth there is that any efforts by us pale in contrast to what the US can do. They are the real drivers on this, and the best way Canada can encourage them “to do the right thing” is to pick up the slack on our own defence needs so that we cannot be dismissed as slackers quarterbacking from the sidelines.
Looking forward to more in this series. Happy New Year!
Dear Mr. O'Toole,
I just wanted to share an outstanding resource with you.
It is a [free] book and documentary film called 'THE GREAT TAKING' by financial guru David Webb.
It shows how our financial institutions (banks, brokers, insurers, pension funds, etc.) are basically all set up to have their assets stripped in the event of a financial crash with related bankruptcies; and that, of course, means that all their customers will have their own assets taken away from them.
This is not conjecture or conspiracy theory. I have been personally tracking many of these changes in the past two decades and have been writing about such financial shenanigans for years.
Moreover, the work is extremely well-sourced showing how the related laws have changed over the last several years to enable this mass plunder.
I myself will be further investigating how our Canadian financial institutions have become vulnerable to these plunders (for which I already have some, quite stunning, insights) and may post an article about this in the coming months. As you are already subscribed to my Substack, you would automatically receive it.
If you can share this resource with some of your colleagues in your party, I think they will be shocked and astounded about what is to come if we don't, collectively, become more cognizant of this threat and find practical ways to mitigate it.
As your party is likely to take power this year or next, I think that your team ought to be both privy and cognizant of these larger globalist plans. Canada can be the exception to this globalist takeover if we all work together.
I have also shared this with Dr. Leslyn Lewis.
Here are the links:
VIDEO: The Great Taking 2023 Documentary by DAVID WEBB,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk3AVceraTI
https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/videos/the-great-taking/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/YjNcb14b31FE/
BOOK:
- The Great Taking by DAVID WEBB
https://thegreattaking.com/about-this-book
PDF link:
https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/1ee786fb-3c78-4903-9701-d614892d09d6/taking-ebook-c044a5e.pdf
Thank you for your time.
Wishing you and your family a happy and healthy 2024!
God bless.
Sincerely,
Dan Fournier
I have been thinking about this war by referring back to my RMC War Studies days reading and understanding Carl von Clausewitz's insights on the theory and nature of war.
Since October 2021, when he first briefed President Joe Biden on Russia's plans to invade Ukraine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley reportedly kept a list of "U.S. interests and strategic objectives" in the crisis: "No. 1" was "Don't have a kinetic conflict between the U.S. military and NATO with Russia." The second was "contain war inside the geographical boundaries of Ukraine."
The US Administration has adhered to these interests and strategic objectives (which might be called "resolute inaction") despite the failure of sanctions to force Russia "to change course" in Ukraine (President Biden's words). Biden confirmed this on October 19, 2023 "we do not seek to have American troops fighting in Russia or fighting against Russia." Obvious from this, war with Russia serves no US political interests. And US support is now entangled in domestic politics.
President Macron echoes the American approach: "President Emmanuel Macron of France has assured Ukraine of continued support in defense against Russia's aggressive war, reports Bild [on January 19, 2024]."We are not at war with Russia, but our duty is to make its victory impossible. We cannot allow Russia to believe that it can win the war," he stated. According to Macron, Russia's victory would signify the end of European security.
"That's why we continue to support the Ukrainians. For this, we train Ukrainian soldiers and provide military equipment for artillery, ground-based air defense, and long-range strikes," said the French president."
UK Foreign Secretary the Rt. Hon. Lord Cameron also expressed it this way: "The former U.K. prime minister’s remarks come as the West scrambles to keep Ukraine topped up with high-tech weaponry to fend off Russia’s full-scale invasion, while bracing for the potential return of NATO-skeptic Donald Trump to the White House.
“One thing we can do is demonstrate during the course of this year that Putin isn’t winning,” Cameron said..."
As Carl von Clausewitz noted in "On War": "we need only bear in mind how wide a range of political interests can lead to war, or think for a moment of the gulf that separates a war of annihilation, a struggle for political existence, from a war reluctantly declared in consequence of political pressure or of an alliance that no longer seems to reflect the state's true interests." (Book I, Chapter 2).
Clausewitz noted that "war is a clash of major interests, which is resolved by bloodshed". Russia obviously believes it is its major interest to prevent Ukraine from becoming a NATO ally, and is willing to fight. US/NATO sees Ukraine membership in NATO as in its interest but not sufficiently important enough to fight.This is the paradox of the "negative aim".
As Clausewitz noted: "A single action [in this instance, war with Russia], assuming it succeeds, would do less for a negative aim than it would for a positive one. But that is just the difference: the former is more likely to succeed and so give you more security. What it lacks in immediate effectiveness it must make up for in the use of time, that is by prolonging the war. Thus the negative aim, which lies at the heart of pure resistance, is also the natural formula for outlasting the enemy, for wearing him down." (Book I, Chapter 2)
The consequence of the "negative aim" (not allow Russia to succeed) versus the "positive aim" (defeat Russian aggression), is it leaves the initiative with the adversary with the positive aim (Russia's objective to destroy or damage Ukraine enough to prevent its membership in NATO). And it prolongs the war. Every day that Russia continues the war by "not losing" is a "win".
The Institute for the Study of War website reported on January 19, 2024:
"US officials reportedly assess that Ukraine will have to fight a long war and continue efforts to secure as much security assistance as possible for Ukraine before 2025 while expecting that positional fighting may continue in Ukraine until 2026...
CNN reported that unspecified US intelligence officials assess that the war will last at least two more years, with some assessing there may be up to five years of fighting. CNN reported that unspecified US officials do not believe that a short-term ”drop-off” in US assistance to Ukraine will have a major battlefield impact, but that a long-term lack of US assistance could allow Russia to regain momentum by stockpiling weapons produced domestically and by Iran and North Korea, however.
ISW assess...that the collapse of Western aid to Ukraine would likely lead to the eventual collapse of Ukraine’s ability to hold off the Russian military and significant Russian advances further west, likely all the way to the western Ukrainian border with NATO member states."
The end-result of the "negative aim" strategy may be that Ukraine is worn down by Russia long before Russia can be worn down by Ukraine.
Mark Gaillard CD
Oh boy! I can't wait for WWIII because Erin is mad at them ruskies!
But thank you for explaining that yes there are neo-nazis in Ukraine army.
Can you explain why you kicked Sloan out of your party because some random suppose neo-nazi gave him money under a fake name to which he gave back when he found out?
Can you explain why Ukraine had bio labs that were illegal and undocumented?
Can you explain the colour revolution and the bombing of Russian ethnic areas in Ukarine? Or the discrimination of russian speaking/ethnic groups in Ukraine?