SHAME ON ISRAEL FOR NOT HELPING UKRAINE

As a committed Zionist and Israel booster, I've always been proud of the country's achievements especially its military which has proved itself fabulously successful over the many wars.

But Israel's lack of tangible support for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression is disturbing and shameful, especially considering the history of the holocaust where country after country turned a blind eye to the extermination of the Jewish people from Europe some eighty years ago.

Sadly and pathetically, Israel is now doing the same to the Ukrainians.

Israel has been loathe to criticize Vladimir Putin for fear of antagonizing Russia, a strategic player in the middle east.
Like Britain's Neville Chamberlain before him, Prime Minister Bennett made a journey to Russia to meet the madman Putin,  purportedly to mediate but realistically to show neutrality.

How cowardly and shameful!

And like Chamberlain's humiliating legacy, history will be harsh on those who seek to appease Putin, who like Hitler entertains negotiations only as a pretext and time-delay device.

One can understand Israel's reluctance to get involved considering Russia's giant footprint in Syria. Israel is jealously protecting the informal understanding that it has with Russia concerning freedom of action in attacking Iranian installations in Syria as long as it doesn't threaten the current Syrian regime.

But taking the political expedient tact instead of taking the moral high ground is exactly what Israel has lambasted other countries for doing for 50 years, abstaining in United Nations on resolution after resolution castigating Israel.

And now Israel has abstained in a United Nation resolution condemning Russia, not because the resolution is faulty but rather because it is inconvenient.

U.S. Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield protested to her Israeli counterpart over Israel's refusal to join 87 countries in backing a U.S.-led resolution to condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine at the UN Security Council on Friday, Israeli officials tell Axios.

Israel has attempted to maintain good relations with both Russia and Ukraine during the crisis, and has even offered to serve as a mediator. But that fence-sitting has resulted in criticism from both sides and now from the U.S.

• The Israeli Prime Minister’s Office and Foreign Ministry had been claiming for weeks that the Biden administration understood Israel's need to calibrate its reaction to the Russian invasion in order to maintain its security coordination with Russia in Syria.
• But Israel dragged its feet as the U.S. was gathering co-sponsors for the resolution and did not provide a clear answer before the meeting began.
• After the vote, which Russia vetoed, Thomas-Greenfield passed a message to the Israeli ambassador Gilad Erdan stressing the Biden administration’s disappointment  Link
  

Disgraceful...

While Israel has sent much-needed humanitarian aid to Ukraine, it hasn't sent what Ukraine most covets from Israel, that is, its large fleet of drones and defensive missiles like Iron Dome.

In fact, Israel has sent no weapons at all to Ukraine while just about every western country in the world has rushed to Ukraine's military defence

Germany will deliver 1,000 anti-tank rocket launchers, 500 Stinger surface-to-air missiles, nine Howitzers, 14 armoured vehicles and 10,000 tonnes of fuel to Ukraine.

Sweden announced that it would deliver anti-tank weapons to Kyiv.

France, for its part, has committed defence equipment and fuel support.

Belgian is promising 2,000 machine guns, 3,800 tons of fuel, 3,000 additional automatic rifles and 200 anti-tank weapons.

Portugal has offered protective equipment such as bulletproof vests and helmets as well as night vision goggles, grenades and ammunition of various calibres.

The Czech Republic is sending 30,000 pistols, 7,000 assault rifles, 3,000 machine guns and several dozen sniper rifles as well as one million rounds of ammunition.
Romania is providing fuel, body armour, helmets, ammunition and other military equipment.

Canada announced the sending of military protective equipment, such as helmets and bulletproof vests but also anti-tank weapons systems and upgraded ammunition.Finland, a country that is not yet aligned with NATO but is a member of the EU, announced a historic policy shift to send weapons to Ukraine, promising 2,500 assault rifles, 150,000 rounds of ammunition, 1,500 rocket launchers and 70,000 field rations.

Denmark announced that it would be sending 2,700 anti-tank weapons and would let Danish volunteers join International Brigades forming in Ukraine to defend the country.

Norway, which had already announced on Sunday shipments of helmets and bulletproof vests, said  it would also be sending 2,000 M72 anti-tank weapons.

Croatia is sending €16 million worth of protective gear and light arms while Slovenia has promised rifles, ammunition and helmets.

Italy has also announced that it will send military equipment but has not disclosed details yet of what this may entail.

And of course, Britain and the United States are sending massive amounts of weapons on a daily basis.

Israeli drones are every bit and more effective than those few Turkish drones that are shooting the heck out of Russian conveys
A couple of dozen Israeli drones could have wreaked utter havoc on the sad-sack Russian armoured brigades which were left exposed and vulnerable because of poor tactics, logistics and lack of air cover by a failing Russian air force.

A couple of Iron Dome batteries could not stop the coming onslaught to Kiev, but they could have shot down hundreds of missiles fired by the Russians, saving countless lives and frustrating the Russian attack.

At any rate, it turns out that Israel's strategy of appeasing the Russian bear was and is 100% wrong, as the vaunted and feared Russian military turns out to be a Potemkin Village, with lots of show upfront and nothing behind the facade, like a Hollywood western movie set.

Military analysts are stunned at Russia's inept military and lack of operational capabilities. NATO, Israel and other western countries have vastly over-estimated Russia's military might.

It turns out the Russian military is hobbled by corruption, poor training, low morale, faulty equipment and logistical ineptness. And while Russia has some modern equipment, its military is unable to use it effectively and has effectively lost the Ukraine war to an inferior but determined foe.
In today's battlefield, quantity doesn't guarantee success and a 1000 tanks and armoured vehicles  costing billions can be easily defeated by a infantry based missile defence costing a fraction of the cost.
This is what is happening in the Ukraine, where a well-armed defensive force with modern western weapons is making mincemeat out of Russian armour.

And so the Russians are reduced to destroying what they cannot conquer, employing barbaric siege warfare on civilian population that is banned under modern rules of engagement. Their current military doctrine dates back to the era of the Hellenic period of the catapult, hardly something to fear for a modern military.
Against any western foe, NATO or Israel, the Russian conventional military would be wiped out.

And for Israel, it is now clear that the feared Russian bogeyman in Syria is a paper tiger..

Russia should be warned to no longer threaten Israeli operations lest their force be directly confronted and defeated.
Assad should be sent the message that he cannot count on Russian protection anymore and his continued stewardship of Syria is based on Israeli permission.
Israel can easily wipe out Russian defences and air elements and with no Russian reinforcements available, the Russian expeditionary force in Syria is a beached whale.
Let us remember that Israel too is nuclear power so that possible threat is unrealistic.
Such is the new reality of Russian weakness and I promise you that conversations and discussions are being held at the highest military levels in Israel.

At any rate, back to Ukraine...

I know that some of you are saying that Ukraine is a corrupt fascist country with deep ties to Nazism that doesn't deserve western support.

But times change, just as America is a reformed slave nation, Ukraine has worked hard to adopt western ideals after opting for Europe instead of Russia. Embracing western ideology Ukraine has made great strides in getting rid of rampant antisemitism and corruption.

It is the only European nation to have an elected Jewish president so there's that.

At any rate, I'll repeat my main point that Israel is acting shamefully in not supporting Ukraine militarily.

I'm sure that won't be a popular position among faithful readers.

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.