(Great cartoon by Graeme MacKay harpoons both Trudeau and Polievre)

Hamilton Spectator

When Russia invaded Ukraine, there was great concern that this was the opening phase of World War 3 and that it had potential to become a nuclear war. Vladimir Putin played on those fears immediately after the invasion with his assurance that that “the consequences against those who attempt to retaliate would provoke a response never seen in history.” In June of 2023, he informed the world that he has stationed tactical nuclear weapons with his allies in Belarus. In September of 2023 he advised us that he would use any and all available weapons to defend Russian territory – another clear reference to his nuclear arsenal.

From the outset, my wife was firmly of the opinion that NATO should adopt Ukraine as a member, put troops on the ground in Ukraine, and kick Putin’s arse back into Russia. A simulation of war followed by the “nuclear winter” estimates 5 billion dead, (which solves immigration, over-population and global warming all in one fell swoop). More conservative estimates of deaths in a nuclear war are something like 90 million, and I asserted that decision makers in support of Ukraine could not take the risk of a nuclear war. Her comment was that the only effective response to a schoolyard bully was a punch in the nose. “You have to stand up to them”, she said.  

I don’t think I’ve heard anyone in the Western world (Europe and North America) defending Russia’s actions on this conflict. We seemingly all agree that Russia is the aggressor and we recognize that in resisting the Russian invasion, Ukraine is fighting for us too. So we’ve been whole-heartedly supporting them ever since. Right? Right?

Well no, support has not been whole-hearted and enthusiastic. It’s been pretty frigging timorous. It’s evident that the spectre of Putin becoming a mad-man and unleashing a nuclear holocaust is still driving international policy on the war in Ukraine. We will help Ukraine to fight back, but only if they don’t do anything to really piss Putin off. It’s like asking a runner to go out and win a big race for us, but only by a whisker. “For God’s sake, don’t win easy.”

Early in the war Ukraine needed artillery, and the world responded by sending their leftovers and scrap, and second tier weaponry. An August 2022 article on the Global News website reported on a field visit to a Ukrainian artillery unit. “Canada, the United States and Australia have donated the M777s being used by Ukrainian soldiers in Kharkiv. These 155-millimetre towed howitzers have a range of up to 30 kilometres.

But to really make an impact, several soldiers say, they need more long-range artillery…. the much-lauded American-made High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, also known as HIMARS, is the golden goose.

The battalion doesn’t know which country their M777s has come from, but it’s possible this one is at least in part Canadian – it was damaged and needed parts swapped out to fix it…

While the U.S. has armed Ukraine with more HIMARS systems, it has stipulated that the weapon cannot be fired into Russian territory, over concerns it could be seen as foreign interference and could escalate the war.”

So, by the strange ethos of this war, it’s acceptable for Russia to bomb the absolute crap out of civilian Mariupol, but it’s unacceptable for Ukraine to hit legitimate military targets inside the internationally accepted borders of Mother Russia.

In January of 2023, the Economist published an article that asserted that although it was good to see America, France and Germany supplying armoured infantry carriers, battle tanks were seriously needed. The Economist reviewed the “don’t poke the bear” strategy of Ukraine’s allies, and concluded its article with “War is dangerous, but Ukraine needs to finish the job. It should be given the tools it needs.”  In January 2023, Ukraine was asking for tanks and governments were pursuing agreements to make that happen. A Time Magazine article (Jan 25, 2023) talked about the German hesitancy… “until now it had refused to deliver its coveted tanks—much to the chagrin of the Ukrainian government and allies such as Poland. Nor had Germany authorized the dozen or so European countries in possession of nearly 2,500 Leopard 2 tanks to do the same…But those within the German government offer a different interpretation: one not of indecision, but prudence, and a desire to be seen as keeping pace with allies rather than leading them….Germany’s decision to deliver Leopard 2s has largely been dependent on the U.S.’s similar decision. And the US? Well they were dithering too. Promises made in January by a number of nations for delivery of tanks resulted in about 70 tanks supplied to Ukraine, but the first delivery of the US Abrams tanks didn’t happen until September 25^th.

The same timid approach is seen in the use of guided missiles. An NBC article in September 2023, discussed decision by President Biden to provide the technically superior ATACMS missiles to Ukraine. “President Joe Biden has told his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelenskyy that the United States will provide a small number of long-range missiles to aid the war with Russia…For months, Ukraine has asked for the Army Tactical Missile System, known as ATACMS, which would give Kyiv the ability to strike targets from as far away as about 180 miles…The White House initially withheld approval for requests for Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, Howitzer artillery pieces, anti-ship missiles and HIMARS systems, but later gave the green light to them being shipped…” And why was the US slow to provide ATACMS? “… some in Washington have resisted supplying the weapon, known colloquially as “attack-ems,” out of fear that it would widen the war with Russia.”

A similar round of “oh dear me” thinking preceded the release of cluster munitions to Ukraine. For the first year 17 months of this war, Ukraine was provided with single missile howitzer artillery shells – large missiles effective against large infrastructure type targets. But cluster munitions are the preferred shell to be used against infantry and tank battalions because you don’t need to be quite so precise with the targeting. For 17 months, Russia was using cluster bombs against any and all targets including civilian targets like the city of Kharkiv and a pre-school facility in Okhtyrka. Eventually, as supplies of single missile howitzers began to deplete, President Biden approved the release of cluster munitions. 

Canada immediately stepped up to show their continuing strong support for Ukraine. “Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says Canada will continue to strongly argue that cluster bombs “should not be used“. Well, OK, that doesn’t sound like continuing strong support, does it? We’ll “tut tut” at the Russians for using them, but Trudeau has the arrogance to tell Ukraine that they’re wrong to fight dirty in response. It’s easy to be sanctimonious when it’s not our people fighting and dying, isn’t it?

Ukraine desperately needs fighter aircraft. In April of this year, the Economist reported that Ukraine had lost about 40% of its air force and was down to approximately 60 aircraft. That situation precipitated the usual hand-wringing and soul searching about whether or not to send fighter jets to Ukraine. When Ukraine made their request for aircraft, objections were raised by many “experts”. F-16’s can’t help because the Russians will blow up your airfields. You don’t need F-16’s – all you need is surface to air missiles to prevent Russian dominance of the air.  “If we had begun this effort last year, modern combat aircraft would already be in Ukrainian hands,” one expert lamented in April.

The preferred aircraft are the ubiquitous F-16, which has been called the “Toyota Hillux of the air combat world.” Another desirable fighter jet is the Swedish Gripen, designed as a flexible fighter capable of landing on highways if needed. Some nations were  willing to provide aircraft, but required approvals from the Americans who evidently provided the aircraft to their allies with strings attached. In May, the US agreed to have Ukrainian pilots trained on the F16 – but approval for other nations to actually provide F16s to Ukraine didn’t happen until mid-August. And what happened then? “We welcome Washington’s decision to pave the way for sending F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine,” Dutch Foreign Minister Wopke Hoekstra said on messaging platform X, formerly known as Twitter.“Now, we will further discuss the subject with our European partners.” Denmark also said providing Ukraine with the jets would now be discussed.”

 Now you’re going to start discussions? What have you been doing all along? Surely you must have seen this coming, so why aren’t you ready to act? The net effect is that Ukraine might have F16 fighter jet capability sometime in 2024.  

And what about the Gripen, from Sweden? A report in Politico in October 2023 said that Sweden was very close to approving release of Gripens to Ukraine. However the Swedes are being cautious. “Both the government and the Social Democrats have added one caveat though, saying Sweden must be a member of NATO — and party to its mutual defense commitments — before it can risk sending any Gripens. Sweden’s NATO membership is still being held up by Turkey and Hungary.” That might be seen as a reasonable precaution by Sweden – preserving their fighting capability for themselves until they have assurance that allies will help if they deplete their air force. To the cynical though, it might appear like the Swedes are using the Gripens as a lever to secure entry to NATO. Sweden’s NATO membership is still being held up by Turkey and Hungary. 

The Ukraine war is expensive. The Council on Foreign Relations, a well-respected think tank, reports that the US has provided $46.3B in military aid as well as $29B in humanitarian aid over the two years of this war. Despite my concerns about the delays in providing support, it cannot be denied that President Joe Biden has done his best to stand up for Ukraine. If only the rest of the world was as generous and committed. A report in Statista shows the US military contributions at 43B Euros. All the other countries in the world  combined have just barely surpassed the American support. Canada’s contribution is 2.1B, or less than half of the US on a per capita basis. Denmark, with a population of 6 million, has committed 17B E to Ukraine. That means that the Danish commitment is more than 50 times ours on a per capita basis. Is that, or is that not, embarrassing? And yet, our political leaders brag about our commitment to Ukraine.

The timid approach to supplying Ukraine with effective fighting equipment is understood. There’s a madman in Russia equipped with nuclear weapons, and it behooves us all to remember that. But the problem that’s emerging is that the world is growing tired of the Ukraine war. 

South of the border, Pew Research reports that about a third of Americans think they’re providing too much support for Ukraine. That number is higher than that – about 50% – for registered Republicans. Republicans, led by their extreme MAGA right wing, recently blocked a funding bill to provide more aid for Ukraine. That was not, they assured us, because they don’t support Ukraine. It’s because Democrats refused to provide concessions on immigration control policy.  

In Sept, NBC reported that Poland’s prime minister said that his country would no longer send arms to Ukraine, “amid a spiraling trade dispute and ahead of national elections.”

On Oct 17, Politico reported that “in Slovakia, the recent re-election of Robert Fico as prime minister was also met with alarm. Fico has proposed ending military support for his country’s eastern neighbor (Ukraine)”.

And in December, the Conservative Party of Canada voted against a bill that would provide funding for Ukraine. Shame!

It seems that Ukraine is not being treated as an ally. They’re being treated as a a pawn. And what do you do with pawns? You sacrifice them as you deem necessary. 

The Republicans will sacrifice them in their partisan war against the Democrats. Poland is willing to sacrifice them because Ukraine is still trying to market grains and the competition is hurting Polish farmers. Slovakia, which enjoys the presence of Ukraine as a physical buffer between themselves and Russia to the east, has contributed less than a billion euros and in October rejected further funding or military support to Ukraine. And in Canada, the Prime Minister-in-waiting is willing to sacrifice Ukraine to make a point about the carbon tax.

The world-wide decline in support for Ukraine, and in Canada in particular, is disgusting. Those people are bleeding and dying, fighting a war against an oppressor that we all need to worry about, and we’re using them to make political points about the carbon tax? Disgusting.

I think we need to see two things happening. First, we need to be aware that US support for Ukraine is likely to decline in 2024 as Biden fights for re-election. In that process, just how much support for Ukraine is too little or too much will be a tricky issue for Joe Biden. And if Trump wins the 2024 Presidential election, America’s support for Ukraine is likely to stop altogether. So Ukraine’s supporters in Europe, Canada, and the UK need to step up this year and provide every bit of military support that they can, as fast as they can. We need Ukraine to win, and we need that to happen in 2024 because it might not happen after that. And if that means increasing the risk of pissing Putin off – well, it might be that we have to take that risk.

Second, on a more local basis – we need to support Ukraine. That means urging the government to spend more on defence spending and sharing with Ukraine. It means being less cautious and taking risks for Ukraine. And it means letting Mr. Polievre know that Ukraine is our ally, not our pawn.