Canada
Considers Sending Troops to Ukraine
As
the United States and Britain prepare to send advisors to support the
Ukrainian military, Canada seriously considers doing the same. But
many Canadian lawmakers are leery of becoming further involved in a
conflict half-way around the world.
26
Febraury, 2015
Canadian
Defense Minister Jason Kenney announced on Wednesday that Prime
Minister Harper’s administration is seriously considering taking
part in US-led training missions in Ukraine. Kenney said Canadian
efforts would focus primarily on battlefield medical training.
“That’s
the kind of technical training that we can offer,” he said,
according to the Canadian Press. “We are in discussions and looking
at options, and we’re open to – as I’ve been saying for two
weeks now – open to participating in training missions.”
He
did not rule out the possibility of Canadian advisors also taking
part in combat training.
Canada
has already provided Ukrainian soldiers with two shipments of
non-lethal military gear. They have also provided satellite images
which track pro-independence militias’ movement in the east of the
country. Any action beyond that must first be approved by the House
of Commons.
“If
we are going to work towards anything different than what we’re
doing now, which is non-kinetic flak jackets…we could send night
vision goggles. That’s been agreed to and we’re on board with
that,” Kenney said. “Anything beyond that requires two things.
One, concerted NATO action. Two, a decision by the Parliament of
Canada.”
Kenney
insists that the proposal would only be an extension of Canadian NATO
commitments.
“We’ll
be doing more later this year in NATO exercises, all of which is
designed to send a message to Russia that Canada, together with our
NATO allies, stands with our eastern European friends against any
intimidation or territorial aggression on the part of Vladimir
Putin,” he said.
Troops
from Poland march during an exercise in Bemowo Piskie near Orzysz, in
northeastern Poland. File photo
Russia,
of course, categorically denies its involvement in the conflict.
Still,
many express concerns with escalating Canadian involvement in the
conflict.
“Unless
there’s a prospect for years of war, and I don’t think there is,
it’s already very late in the game to be reinforcing Kiev’s
ragtag forces,” former Canadian ambassador to Russia. Chris
Westdal, told CBC News.
Lawmakers
may also be hesitant to send advisors after an incident last month,
in which Canadian military advisors fired back at self-proclaimed
Islamic State militants in northern Iraq.
“I
asked the prime minister straight up in September whether this was a
combat mission, whether Canadian troops would be involved in combat.
I got a categorical answer, and the answer was no,” New Democratic
Party leader Tom Mulcair told reporters, accusing Harper of
misleading Parliament about his administration’s intentions.
If
a similar incident occurred in Ukraine, it could escalate tensions
and draw Canada into the conflict even further.
Leader
of the Liberal opposition, Justin Trudeau, also wants more details
about the government’s plan before signing off on training
missions.
On
Wednesday, the British government announced it would send 75 military
advisors to Ukraine next month. This follows a decision by the US to
send 800 troops to train soldiers in western Ukraine
Ukraine
military has begun heavy weapons withdrawal – military spokesman
Kiev
troops have started the long-promised withdrawal of heavy weapons
from eastern Ukraine, a step required by the fragile ceasefire
agreement signed earlier this month. The rebels have been criticizing
their opponents for stalling the disengagement.
26
Febraury, 2015
“In
accordance with the agreement reached in Minsk on February 12, today
Ukraine begins withdrawal of 100mm artillery from the disengagement
line. It's the first step towards withdrawal of heavy weapons, which
will only be carried out under OSCE monitoring and verification,”
the Ukrainian Defense Ministry said in a statement.
The
movement of artillery pieces is already underway and should take
about a day, a Ukrainian military spokesperson said. The hardware
will be pulled back 25km from the disengagement line.
Kiev's
West-backed 'ludicrous demands' may derail ceasefire – Moscow
The
order to withdraw heavy weapons was given on Thursday after the
Ukrainian military confirmed that they had not been shot at for a
day. No combat casualties have been reported for a second day in a
row.
“If
there are any attempts to launch an offensive, the withdrawal
schedule will be changed. The Ukrainian troops are fully prepared to
defend the country,” the statement added.
Meanwhile
rebel forces are continuing to pull back their heavy weapons, as they
have been doing for days.
“Today
at 10am, an OSCE-monitored movement of our columns commenced. They
recorded this movement,” rebel spokesman Eduard Basurin said.
The
self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) said it wants to
withdraw 180 artillery pieces and 17 rocket launchers on Thursday.
Previously it withdrew 400 artillery pieces, including some 320
captured from the Ukrainian troops after their retreat from
Debaltsevo.
The
rebels have already withdrawn 90 percent of heavy weaponry from the
disengagement line, their leader, Aleksandr Zakharchenko, said
Thursday.
The
rebels voiced concerns over lack of similar moves by Kiev, suspecting
it of foul play. Kiev insisted that it would keep its weapons in
their positions until at least two days are spent without a single
shot.
Moscow
criticized Kiev's stubbornness, saying the condition it voiced was
unrealistic.
Under
the Minsk agreement both sides must pull their heavy weapons back
from the disengagement line to form a buffer zone of 50 to 140km,
depending on the type of weapon. The process is expected to be
complete by March 1. OSCE is tasked with verifying the withdrawal.
Alexander
Hug, deputy chief monitor of the OSCE special monitoring mission to
Ukraine, told RT on Thursday that both sides of the Ukrainian
conflict are finally withdrawing their heavy weaponry from the
frontline, stressing the move is “something that they have not done
before.”
“We
see now mutual actions towards compliance within the Minsk
arrangements. The OSCE special monitoring mission knows that both
sides have announced that they will be moving hardware away from the
frontline,” Hug said. “This afternoon, the government of Ukraine
has done that as well. We welcome this mutual step now from both
sides to start working towards utterance to their commitments.”
DPR
withdrew 90% of heavy eqipment, Kiev: none (video)
Video: Ukraine Military - Truce Holding, No Casualties Reported in Past Two Days (PressTV)
2-27-2015
Joaquin
Flores for PressTV
In
this brief interview, I speak optimistically about the Ceasefire,
explaining that the break-away republics of Donetsk and Lugansk need
this peace to rebuild critical infrastructure, and try to bring back
some semblance of normalcy back to the lives of the people.
I
also express concern that Ukraine will treat this ceasefire as
something else, which in violation of international law, would be
simply to rearm and resupply. The definition of a ceasefire is those
things which are meant to permanently end the hostilities.
Poroshenko
has already stated last week that he will use this ceasefire in order
to re-arm and re-supply. Naturally part of this is theatrics meant
to shore up his dwindling base of support. But it also reflects an
expectation upon him which his US handlers have.
Ukraine Prepares for an Attack Against Russia
2-27-15
By:
Eric Zuesse
The
post-coup leaders of Ukraine have routinely said that Ukraine
should destroy Russia; and, now, starting on February 24th, they
are placing into position the key prerequisite for doing so, which
is the advanced Anti-Ballistic-Missile, or ABM, system, S-300,
which is described
as follows by wikipedia:
“The
S-300 is regarded as one of the most potent anti-aircraft missile
systems currently fielded.[3] Its radars have the ability
to simultaneously track up to 100 targets while engaging
up to 12/24/36 targets. The S-300 deployment time is
five minutes.[3] The S-300 missiles are sealed
rounds and require no maintenance over their lifetime. An
evolved version of the S-300 system is the S-400 (NATO
reporting name SA-21 Growler), which entered limited
service in 2004.”
The
S-300 (otherwise called “SAM C-300”) is designed to protect
against retaliation. The entire purpose of ABMs is to disable
retaliation. In that sense, ABMs are the most aggressive weapons of
all. They are specifically designed to prevent retaliation from a
nation that has been attacked and that is responding by sending in
its own bombers to retaliate.
Here
is one report, February 24th, of installation of these ABMs, from
the region near Odessa, including a photo of these weapons on a
truck:
Here
is another such report, with videos of the missile-systems being
put into place, during the 24th and 25th of February:
The
likeliest explanation of this would be that the new (ever since the
February 2014 coup) anti-Russian Ukrainian Government intends
to bring NATO in to invade Russia and to do this by provoking a
limited attack from Russia that will then be repelled by these
S-300s. After surviving Russia’s response, NATO would then claim
Ukraine must be defended from Russia’s aggression; and, then,
NATO would take over the task of eliminating Russia — which the
present leaders of Ukraine (and
their followers) have been very clear that they want to happen.
Other
reasons for Ukraine’s positioning these ABMs ready for launch
wouldn’t make sense, because the missiles won’t be usable
except to block retaliation.
These
missiles are purely ‘defensive’ weapons; but the Ukrainian
Government isn’t waiting for U.S. President Obama to approve
supplying other ‘defensive’ weapons to Ukraine; they’re
moving forward with what they’ve already got.
It
should also be noted, however, that Russia had set up S-300s in
Crimea immediately prior to the 16 March 2014 referendum in
Crimea on whether Crimea should return to Russia (of which
Crimea had been a part during 1783-1954), or whether it should
instead be ruled by the
newly installed Ukrainian Government in Kiev. Russia said that
this was being done then in order to deter the Ukrainian Air Force
from bombing Crimea during the referendum — a referendum that
Ukraine was trying to prevent and was threatening to block. Ukraine
today might similarly be able to say that their new ABM
installations are being done in order to prevent an imminent
Russian air invasion into Ukraine.
Whether
any ABM-installation can be said to be authentically defensive is
thus a judgment that only each individual will make, based on that
person’s estimation of the realistic likelihood that the country
setting it up is authentically under threat of invasion at that
particular moment in time. ABMs are against retaliatory weapons,
but when is a threat real, against which are needed ABMs so as to
justify the installation of such anti-weapons? If the threat of
weapons from the other side is not real, then the threat of the
anti-weapons against them is very real: it is then clearly
preparation for launching an aggressive attack.
Consequently,
whether a ‘defensive weapon’ is actually the most aggressive
type of weapon — the preliminary to launching an attack —
depends upon whether it is the preliminary to launching an attack,
and only each individual observer can judge that question. Ukraine
says that the referendum in Crimea was itself an attack against
Ukraine. However, Ukraine did not set up ABMs at that time. They
now are. Do they really believe that Russia is about to invade
Ukraine? They have been saying, since the coup, that Russia is
invading. The U.S. Government and its allies have seconded those
allegations. But not until now is Ukraine actually preparing for
such an invasion from Russia — or else preparing for its allies
to launch an invasion of Russia.
—————
Investigative
historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re
Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records,
1910-2010,
and of CHRIST’S
VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
A
strange logic from the British press. NATO demosntrating its wares 150 km from St Petersburg proves the Russians are about to invade the Baltics, right?
Nato
and Russia hold rival military exercises on Estonian border
Joint
shows of force highlight fears that Baltics may be next target for
Kremlin land-grab
25
Febraury, 2015
Russian
and Nato troops took part in rival exercises on either side of the
Estonian border on Wednesday, highlighting fears that the tiny Baltic
state could be the next target of the Kremlin’s territorial
ambitions.
Nato
forces put on a show of strength within yards of Estonia’s Russian
border,
with armoured personnel carriers, tanks and 1,300 Estonian soldiers
forming a military parade. [...]
The
parade took place in the snow-bound Estonian frontier town of Narva,
where a majority of residents are ethnic Russians. […]
The
Kremlin responded with its own military drills,
sending 2,000 paratroopers into Russia’s western Pskov region,
which borders both Estonia and neighbouring Latvia.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.