Insane Putin Starts War He Cannot Win

Paranoid or legitimately fearful of assassination?

My last post detailed five important reasons Vladimir Putin wouldn't go to war in Ukraine and as predictions go, it was laughably incorrect.

No sane person would undertake a war with no possible positive outcome and my big mistake was to assume Putin was sane when clearly he is not.

It's hard to believe that the two largest powers in the world were, until Trump's dismissal run by maniacs concerned more with their own power than the welfare of their respective nations, but there we are.

At any rate, can anyone out there imagine how this invasion turns out well for the Russians?
What is their best-case scenario?

For this reason, I could not fathom a winning strategy in invading Ukraine.

As for the rest, my other predictions that the war would be a nightmare for the Russians wasn't that much of a stretch given the state of the Russian military, its incompetent leadership and its uninterested and unmotivated conscripted military personnel.

As the blitzkrieg stalls, the Russians are reverting to form, bombing civilians into submission which did not work for them in Afghanistan but did so in Iraq.
But Ukraine has already demonstrated that they will not yield and so the carnage will continue until a resolution is found.

For the Ukrainians, the best thing they can do now is to shift to the next phase of the conflict, which is an urban guerilla war waged against an occupying force.

Instead of having their cities bombed into oblivion, the Ukrainians should just let the Russians in and allow them to occupy. 
The subsequent guerrilla war against the occupiers will be devasting on the Russians and has a better chance of sending the Russians home sooner than later.

With supplies from the West and knowledge of the cities they are defending, as well as the support of the population to resist, a motivated force of underground soldiers can devastate the occupying force.

The cost of a western anti-tank missile is less than $150,000 while a Russian tank costs in the neighbourhood of 7 million dollars. An investment by western powers of $100 million can wipe out the entire Russian expeditionary tank force.

Supplying the resistance with hundreds of these missiles will send Russian tanks into hiding outside the cities or better yet, home.

Softer occupying vehicles like jeeps, trucks, missile launchers can be easily attacked with Molotov cocktails and small arms fire.
Russian soldiers can be easily picked off by snipers making an occupying presence untenable.

Putin has made the greatest strategic blunder since Hitler invaded Russia. 

He should have learned from his forefathers who beat a superior Nazi force back by sheer determination and grit.
And the Nazi invaders were infinitely more capable than the present-day Russian military which is demonstrating and confirming their incompetence by resorting to mass civilian bombing.

Russia is cooked, win or lose they will lose.

5 Reason Russia Shouldn't Invade Ukraine

 We're hearing a lot of noise concerning a potential attack on Ukraine by Russia with politicians across the West making dire warnings that an invasion is about to be launched by Russia.

I'm not buying it because as Judge Judy is fond of saying .... "If it doesn't make sense it isn't true!"

I think we are being sold a fantasy in order for the West to frighten us and soften us up for the inevitable negotiated concessions that it will make towards ending the standoff. 

While the western governments and its attendant media keep whooping up such an attack, Vladimir Putin says he isn't planning any such thing. 
I believe him,.
A Russian invasion of Ukraine makes no sense at all while bluffing a war does make complete sense.

Here are five reasons war is not on tap.

NUMBER 1
We have been told that Russia has amassed a huge force of 150,000 troops surrounding Ukraine, poised to attack any time now.
BUT 150,000 troops is NOT as big a number as we are led to believe.
When the USA led an invasion of Saddam Hussein's Iraq,  it consisted of 500,000 troops,  more than three times larger than the Russians invasion force today. And those American-led troops were infinitely better trained and equipped than the Russians who haven't fought a conventional war since World War 2.  Ukraine is not small, it has twice the land area of Iraq, making an invasion even harder than the largely undefended Iraq.

 NUMBER 2
A common military rule is that invading forces need to be three times as large as the defending force and Ukraine's 250,000 person defence force while not a crack-fighting force, is still formidable considering that they only have to defend, a huge advantage.
With the supply of ultra-modern weapons provided by NATO recently, Russia would likely win but with unacceptable losses.

NUMBER 3
The last contested military adventure Russia fought was in Afghanistan, a total disaster that still reverberates in Russia with the population unforgiving towards the government over the 15,000 dead and 35,000 injured soldiers.
All for naught.
The Russian people are hardy and brave as World War 2 demonstrated, but they aren't stupid and have little appetite for a foreign military adventure that will cost lives over little to gain.

NUMBER 4
The risk to reward is just not there.
That Russia doesn't want Ukraine to join NATO or fall deeply into a western alliance is hardly a reason to risk a devastating war that would have, win or lose, Russia suffering disproportionate harm.
The victorious Russians would have to keep a huge occupying force to maintain control and a motivated Ukrainian population would launch a devastating guerilla war all backed by western support and weapons. 
The Western reaction would be crippling sanctions that would further drive the Russian economy into the toilet.

NUMBER 5
Putin is a supremely crafty customer who understands that the West,  whose leaders in both Germany and the United States are in no mood to face off in any military confrontation.
A bellicose and threatening Russia with a feigned invasion will wrest the necessary concession from the West, which is that Ukraine not join NATO or become a Western proxy state.

And so the fear-mongering spread by Western media is merely a smokescreen meant to soften the public into accepting Putin's terms.
Putin doesn't want another Western proxy state on its border, which is not altogether unreasonable.

Before you accept the Western argument that a free, independent state should not be bullied into accepting a foreign government dictate, let us remember that the USA did exactly the same thing back in 1962 in threatening Cuba into giving up offensive Russian missiles during the Cuban missile crisis.

So don't believe an invasion is coming, it makes no sense to either side..  

The Truckers are Right About Covid

I know it's hard to change positions on a deeply held idea or position but is there anything I can say that would change your mind regarding your absolute belief and faith in vaccines, masks, social distancing and lock-downs?

If there's no argument, no matter how compelling that will nudge you off your position then respectfully stop reading.
However, if you are open to evaluating the evolving facts that have a direct bearing on our continued Covid policy I encourage you to read on.

One of the things little known about the highly effective Israeli military is its policy of retiring its leadership early, opting for new blood in the higher ranks on an ongoing basis. It is a policy meant to breathe new ideas and stratagems in the face of evolving threats, the evolving geopolitical situation and technological advances and of course an updated analysis of the ever-changing potential threat by adversaries.
In other words, the Israelis don't want generals who will fight the next battle with tools and policies borne in the past.
Such is the case of our political leaders in both Ottawa and the provinces who are ignoring the reality of the new and evolving Covid threat.
There was a convincing argument for the past policy of masking, isolating and certainly vaccinating but in the new world of Omicron, most of these weapons are ineffective and costly, both to the mental well-being of us all and to the economy itself which is being ravaged.

The doctrine was based on the notion that vaccines, masking, isolation, social distancing and curfews were necessary to stop or slow down the spread of Covid so that our hospitals could cope.

It is that supposition that is now called into question because with Omicron these measures are largely ineffective.

Those vaccinated are as likely to contract the highly contagious Omicron as those unvaccinated. While it is true that those vaccinated who contract Omicron will be less sick and tax the health system less, the benefits of vaccination are almost exclusively reserved for those who get the jab.
Those who refuse to vaccinate hurt themselves and themselves alone.
Like smokers and the obese who are responsible for the health issues related to their failure to exercise good judgment, the un-jabbed are no different and deserve no more scorn from our politicians and certainly should not be subject to abuse.

The Prime Minister has labelled those who disagree with his Covid policy as people with unacceptable views, a thoroughly arrogant and stupid statement to make even if it was true.
But it's not.

Rangers play before a full house while Habs play to an empty house

Other countries like Sweden and the United States have never adopted the draconian measures that we have employed here and others like the United Kingdom, Israel and Denmark are giving up on sanitary measures because they are no longer defensible.

Would Trudeau label the leaders of these countries as holding 'unacceptable' views?'

I read a recent interview with Israel's version of Dr. Faucci who admitted candidly that vaccine passports no longer provide any societal health benefits and are only useful in that they are coercing the unvaxxed to get the jab through intimidation.

The policies that our federal government and the provinces continue to pursue are outdated, ineffective and utterly devastating to our mental health and our economy to boot.

I'm not minimizing the danger of Covid, but am offering a realistic analysis of the necessity and effectiveness of our countermeasures.

Politicians continue to vilify the unvaccinated and those vocally opposed to sanitary measures because scapegoating this small minority takes the focus off the reality that the mess we are in is largely because our vastly inefficient and underfunded health system could not cope with a  surge in patients.
For want of hospital capacity, our entire economy was destroyed, saddling future generations with crippling debt. 

It is this sad fact that has politicians casting blame on the unvaxxed like a sleight-of-hand magician wishing us to shift our view away.

For time immemorial leaders have blamed vulnerable and unpopular minorities for their own mistakes and shortcomings because it was and remains an effective tool.
Most of us are okay with the fact that those unvaccinated can't go into a liquor store to buy booze that is being sold by clerks who don't have to be vaccinated?
Why is this?
It is because we have been encouraged by politicians to hate.
Because we have been brainwashed into blaming a minority for the pandemic, we shift our scrutiny away from those truly responsible for the mismanagement of our health system. Surely a year into the pandemic the government could have implemented an emergency plan to substantially boost temporary hospital capacity. The cost involved pales in comparison to the social and economic losses inflicted upon society.
Have our politicians never seen an episode of M*A*S*H?

The citizens of Canada and Quebec have rallied to the vaccine in unprecedented numbers that results in us being one of the most vaccinated peoples of the world, yet the government tells us that the few remaining unvaxxed are to blame for the continued calamity.

As for the unvaxxed truckers, they are the last to be a threat to us. 
They drive alone in their trucks for days upon days and when they arrive at their destination don't even unload their trucks themselves.
Their contact with others is more limited than perhaps any occupation I can think of. The chances of an unvaccinated long-haul driver passing on Covid are drastically less than a vaccinated office worker.
For Trudeau to take a stand on a vaccination mandate for truckers is about politics and not health. 

Yes, the unvaccinated pose a burden on our health system, but blaming them for the continued pandemic is unfair and disingenuous.
It is time to admit that the landscape has changed and that sanitary measures and vaccines aren't effective in stopping the spread.

We need to learn to live with the virus.
Those who are most vulnerable must take their own precautions while respecting the idea that society cannot shut down forever.

 It's time for us to reevaluate, something Trudeau and the old guard are deathly afraid to do because in their eyes, abandoning past policies is an admission of failure.

As for you....
Are you willing to honestly and independently reevaluate the measure in place and decide for yourself whether we are not just fighting the pandemic with an outdated and ineffective war plan, one conceived in a bygone era and promoted by neanderthal politicians?

Is Kent Hughes a 'Québécois?'

Here is a most interesting opinion piece written by La Presse associate editor, Françoise Cardinal written last week.

If you have French please enjoy the  original French version by following this link.

Out of respect for the writer I offer this translation without comment;

The appointment of the new general manger of the Habs  sparked all kinds of reactions this week, some skeptical, others laudatory, and still others who deplored… the English-sounding name Kent Hughes. 

“All that remains is to replace Ducharme with an anglophone and bingo! A hat trick, ”wrote columnist Lise Ravary on Twitter, a post that quickly went viral, prompting a few “likes”, but many more negative replies. 

Are you saying, Madam Reporter, that Kent Hughes is less Québécois because his name is not French-sounding?, asked several Internet users. Do you mean outright that he is not… a Québécois?
No, no, no, not at all, she replied. “As Parizeau said, anyone who has an address in Quebec… But it would have been a plus if his name had identified him as speaking French without having to search his CV.  

Hmm… Who is Québécois, who is not? The question is delicate and to be handled with tact. We have also had evidence of this in recent weeks with the government's famous advertising campaign to "end prejudice" which seemed straight out of Bye-Bye. "In Quebec, a man from South America with tattoos running in the street, we call that: a Quebec neighbour", for example. “A group of young black people gathered in a park at nightfall, we call that: friends from Quebec. " And so on. This clumsy campaign full of stereotypes has aroused unease. Especially when we realized that in English, “Québécois neighbour” was simply “a neighbour. And the "Quebec friends", simple "friends". A blunder that we then sought to correct, but which nevertheless reveals the difficulty of handling the term 'Québécois'.

It's a difficulty which to be honest, on which the government does not have a monopoly. How did the Habs introduce its new CEO on Twitter last Tuesday? “Québécois Kent Hughes.”  But in English, he suddenly became “the Montreal-born” Kent Hughes… 

A columnist stumbles. 

The government stumbles. 

The Habs  stumble. 

And quite frankly, they are not the only ones: we also occasionally stumble over this delicate question at La Presse. As recently as last October, the language advisor of La Presse, Lucie Côté, whom you like to read every Sunday in the Context section, pointed out that we tended to reserve the word Québécois only for French speakers. of 'pur laine.' Completely unconscious. In our texts, Leylah Fernandez is often from Laval, for example, not from Quebec (although we write the Ontarian Bianca Andreescu). Same thing for Farah Alibay, who is said to be Montrealer, because born in the metropolis, rarely Quebecer. Lucie also pointed out that in our texts, we sometimes define those who have come from abroad to settle here by the country they left, as if that defined them forever. And this, regardless of the number of years you have lived in Quebec. As if involuntarily, at La Presse, the fact of being Quebecois became an ethnic origin, whereas all the people who live in Quebec are in principle Quebecers, of course. 

In order for us to do better, Lucie Côté dug into the question and offered us guidelines so that we would be more inclusive in the future. Then a word was sent to all of the 200 journalists and artisans of La Presse to make them aware of the importance, when writing, of always asking themselves why they choose such and such a way of presenting a person. Why, for example, is Dick Pound often referred to as a “Montreal lawyer”? And Leonard Cohen as a “Montreal poet? ” 

Journalists are then invited to ask themselves if it is not necessary, sometimes, to modify their text, so that it is more inclusive towards all Quebecers, whatever their name, whatever their origin. or their language. 

Which brings us back to Kent Hughes, whom we have therefore well and truly presented as a Québécois in recent days. Because he is very Québécois. He was born in Beaconsfield. He played minor hockey with the Lac Saint-Louis Lions. He was a member of the Patriotes du Cégep de Saint-Laurent. "He's a guy who has always spoken French, whose parents spoke French too, noted Enrico Ciccone in an interview with our journalist Richard Labbé. He's a guy from here who ended up going to the United States for his career, like many others have done. Martin Brodeur also did that, and do we say that he is not a Quebecer? We should stop with that…” And we should also stop having to detail the CV of a Quebecer, as I have just done, to make sure that he is indeed one.

Hope And Hate Greet New Habs General Manager

It It isn't surprising that the reaction amongst Quebec's nationalist element was decidedly negative towards the announcement that the Montreal Canadiens' new General manager would be a west island anglophone named Kent Hughes.

In his introductory press conference, Hughes spoke in superior, though decidedly Anglo-French. His comprehension of questions put to him in French was pretty remarkable considering he's lived outside the province for over two decades.

For years we've been told by the likes of racist anglophobes like Réjean Tremblay, the doyon of the Quebec's French sportswriters, that Anglophones or Europeans who play or work for the Habs are remiss in not being able to communicate with fans in French.
From Saku Koivu to André Markov to Carey Price, Tremblay showered scorn upon those who he believed should learn a third language before fans learned a second.
He complained bitterly that the choice of Hughes was made before the other francophone in the running were given a chance. As for Hughes' French, Tremblay wasn't enthusiastic.

As for Jeff Gorton, he remains livid that he was hired as the real big boss over Hughes.

"Geoff Molson is the one who made the biggest mistake. Meeker Guerrier asked the President a question in French. He was no doubt counting on an answer for his report on Noovo. Molson told him he would answer in English so that Jeff Gorton understood what he was saying.
Fuck Roberval!, fuck Rimouski!, fuck Matane!, fuck Baie-Comeau!, fuck Quebec! More colonialist  than that and you'd blush with shame. We find ourselves water carriers forced to speak English at a table because one Anglophone out of the ten guests does not understand French. Simultaneous translation exists. A pair of headphones and Big Boss Jeff would have it all figured out. Otherwise, let Molson answer in French and translate or have his answer translated. That way he respects Roberval, Rimouski, Matane, Baie-Comeau and Quebec. Otherwise, it will always be the same horrible bouillabaisse. There are already enough players who don't care about the fans, a vice-president, a senior officer of a company who depends on the tickets and the ratings of the good people to get rich, well that's another story..

 Now fans who care about the team and not about language politics were more open to giving Hughes and Gorton a fair shot and the comments under the various stories in the French press reflected the very real difference of opinion in the two camps;

Jean Ross
His French isn't the best but we can understand him as well as we understand our coach.
Now we have to concentrate on hockey.
Speaking of French, let's talk about Ducharme who has difficulty putting together a complete phrase.

André Lauzon

We didn't have enough Québécois talent to fill the job? We needed to find an expatriate chum of the unilingual Jeff Gorton?  What a lack of respect!

Adam Cobb

Hughes est quebecois.

Jacques Thériault

Kent Hughes est Québécois

Jean-Pierre Pineau

To be 'Québécois' is not simply an accident of birth, nor just growing up here. We'll see if he settles here and pays taxes. We know his kids don't speak or understand French. We're going to have a team of strangers with no attachment to the people.

 

Stephane Therrien 

For a winning team you need the best talent and language has nothing to do with it, even in the LHJMQ, English is spoken by the Swedes, Germans, Russians, Slovakians and Americans. Your vision is more attuned to a garage league team rather than the NHL. If the directors succeed in fielding a winning team, the Bell Centre will be full, anglophones as well as francophones.

 

Thomas Usine Lachine
The NHL has been a racist organization towards francophones for a long. It's an old tradition that's perpetuated here.

Gilles Millette
His French isn't perfect but resembles the French we'll probably all speak in 20, 30 or 40 years as Anglicization does its job in Quebec. We're far from the teams of old that represented the specificity of Quebec with management and star francophone players. We're sadly condemned to accept these  things.

 

Jean-Pierre Pineau 

With names likes Molson, Gorton and Hughes, we cannot feel more like 'owners.'

 

Jean Ross

For those worried about their language, does Coach Ducharme actually speak French?

 

Ghislain Bouchard 

Very good first impression. It's good to see a Canadiens GM with presence and aplomb.  As for his French, it is already very good.

André Lauzon

What an embarrassment to forgo francophone talent to hire an ex patriot anglo with bad French.

Not choosing Patrick Roy indicates a profound disconnection with reality. RIP Canadiens.

Nelson Jacques
For the moment everything is positive, nice personality, a lot of experience and skill in negotiation, he knows the field well. Personally I believe in him and that the CH was not mistaken.  

Best of luck to the team.

 

Stephane Therrien 

Over the last 10 years with francophones like Bergevin, Ducharme, Therrien, Julien, Martin, Carbonneau, Drouin, etc. the team  struggled not  to finish last, so why not change the recipe a bit? And whether you're Russian, Slovak or wherever you're from, hockey is in English. 

 

Jean-François Breton

Bizarre to hire a player agent. Instead of negotiating for higher salaries, he'll now negotiate for lower salaries!

 

Andre Parent  

Reading the comments, it seems to show that the attitude Canadiens fans is that of the of eternal loser. 

 

 Roméo Bouchard.

The Canadiens turn their back on the Quebeckers who pay for the tickets at the Bell Centre.

You have to be a masochist to believe that the Canadiens respect their fans. Hockey has become an American game, controlled by Americans, for the profit of Americans. 

After they stole our name, our country, our national anthem, our maple leaf, our nationality, Anglos have definitely stolen our hockey Canadiens team and excluded us.

Wow, what a mixed bag!

I'd like to address two issues, the first which applies directly to the last comment where the writer claims that the historically French Habs have somehow been stolen by an anglo cabal, an idea that remains popular despite it being utter nonsense.
 

With the cognitive dissonance of a Trump supporter claiming that the election was stolen, no amount of facts or evidence can convince these people that the Habs have always been a largely English organization.

It is true that the team was historically French on the ice, due to the NHL giving the team a monopoly on Quebec players for decades, but the modern era with the inclusion of Americans and Europeans to the league, coupled with the loss of exclusivity rights to Quebec players has altered the face on the ice dramatically.

But as for the management coaching and ownership, the Habs have always been largely anglophone.

In the 112 odd year history of the team;

The Canadiens have had an Anglo general manager for 71 years or 65% of the time.

 

The Canadiens have had an Anglo head coach for 63 years or 55% of the time.

 

The Canadiens have been owned by Anglophones or groups led by Anglophones for almost 90% of their history and exclusively since 1940.

 

Of the 24 Stanley Cup won by the Habs, 19 were won while the team had an English general manager and 19 were won with an English coach.

 The idea that the Montreal Canadiens were a French team stolen by 'les autres' is a popular fantasy.

The last point I'd like to make is the notion among francophones that Patrick Roy would make a good General manager for the Canadiens.

Roy notoriously quit the Canadiens in a fit of pique by walking out of his last game in Montreal after a disastrous outing where he let in nine goals in half a game. He famously disrespected the Habs president Ronald Corey on his way out of the rink and true to his word left the team via a forced trade.

His tenure as coach of the Colorado Avalanche was short-lived as he once again quit when he didn't get his way.

Former NHL defenseman Brian Engblom was an Avalanche television analyst who now works with the Tampa Bay Lightning. He had this to say about Roy.

“Patrick never lacked for opinions, right?” Engblom asked. “He’s always been that way, as a player and coach. This looks and smells like issues between he and the other people in the front office that they had differences in opinion, and he’s like, ‘OK, that’s it, I’m not doing it that way, ‘.

“That doesn’t surprise me. He never minces words or lacks conviction. He thinks what he thinks and he knows what he knows. And if it doesn’t work, that’s fine. He’ll walk away.”

 Never mind hiring a guy who embarrassed the organization big time, does he sound like GM material to you?

 

This will remind you of the sorry end of Patrick Roy in Montreal, a nasty piece of work with a hair-trigger temper, ill-suited for the calm and calculating demeanour required for the job of general-manager