Russian news

[2tallbill]

Once again the Kremlin isn't thinking this through.

This is about tit for tat sanctions it's never been what's best for the Russian people.

[AkMike]

Very true! The Kremlin doesn't put the peoples needs in the equation.

[JayH]

Very true! The Kremlin doesn't put the peoples needs in the equation.

And even less concern about Ukraine. For those that seem to have missed it-Russia has created a huge humanitarian crisis & tragedy in Ukraine-- so if people find pro Russian comments distasteful ( to say the least) and criticise them--wear it-- and learn to show some respect and get a few things in proportion.
Reading  1000's of anti posts of internal politics in the US while posters seem oblivious to the disgusting Russian invasion invasion of Ukraine shows some have a problem digesting information.


More Ukrainians have been forced to flee violence in their country than Syrians have had to flee theirs


Because of Russian actions, more than three million Ukrainians have fled the Donbas and Crimea either to other parts of Ukraine thus becoming internally displaced persons or to Russia and other countries, a number that is “much larger than” the refugee flow into Europe from the Middle East, Yevgeny Kiselyov says.

Yevgeny Kiselyov, Russian journalist based in Kyiv
In a post on Ekho Moskvy today, the Kyiv-based Russian journalist says that he was recently asked by a Russian journalist whether the October 25 Ukrainian elections would lead to an improvement in Ukrainian-Russian relations. He answered the question but doubting the journalist would use his answer is repeating his words on his blog.


Specifically, Kiselyov said, “the improvement of relations between Ukraine and Russia does not depend on Ukraine.” Ukraine didn’t spoil them; Russia did by seeking to block Ukraine’s choice to turn to Europe. Russia in fact is responsible for the fact that a revolution took place in Ukraine and pro-Western forces came to power.

Then, Moscow compounded that mistake by seizing and annexing Ukraine’s Crimea and starting a war in the Donbas, backing the separatists and intervening with its own military when the separatists were losing, killing and wounding “tens of thousands of Ukrainians” and driving millions from their homes.

Moreover, he writes, “Russia with the help of the Kremlin-controlled mass media for a year and a half promoted and exacerbated anti-Ukrainian attitudes.” But what is striking is the Ukrainians have not ceased to have more or less positive feelings about Russians even though they have the most negative ones about the Putin regime.

Ukrainians left flowers and candles at the Russian embassy to express their sympathy on the fatal crash of the Russian passenger plane in Egypt.
Their positive feelings were on display this past weekend when Ukrainians brought flowers to the Russian embassy in Kyiv to express their sympathy after the Russian air crash in the Sinai, Egypt. But their hostility to the Russian regime and to Vladimir Putin personally is so great that even formerly pro-Moscow Ukrainian politicians hide that as if it were an unmentionable disease.

The only way things can change, Kiselyov says, is if there is a radical shift in Russia’s foreign policy, “a return to the status quote which existed before February 20, 2014.” But even then it will take “years if not decades” for attitudes to change. Unfortunately, in recent days, Moscow has shown it has no interest in improving relations.

Moscow is threatening to impose sanctions on Ukraine in January. It has ended the special regime for Ukrainians in Russia who fled the fighting. It has raided the Ukrainian library in Moscow. And it has continued its anti-Ukrainian propaganda and its attacks on anyone who criticizes Putin for what he has done.

But “the most important thing is that there is no basis for thinking that Putin intends to refrain from supporting the separatists who have seized power in parts of the Donbas despite the current quieting down in the east of Ukraine.” It seems clear, Kiselyov says, that “improvement of relations with Kyiv is not in either Moscow’s short-term or long-term plans.”

http://euromaidanpress.com/2015/11/03/more-ukrainians-have-been-forced-to-flee-violence-in-their-country-than-syrians-have-had-to-flee-theirs/

[deccie]

This is about tit for tat sanctions it's never been what's best for the Russian people.

That is true - they operate on the principle of reciprocity.  The impact on local people is not considered.
They destroyed confiscated food instead of giving it to poor/pensioners/hospitals/orphanages.

[deccie]

A Boeing 727 with a full crew and passengers can flat out run away from an A10. An A10 would be
instant scrap metal against 1980's handheld Russian Igla  SAMS. They are only suitable for chasing
down tanks and men on camels.

Having said that an A10 is extremely accomplished at close ground support and giving men on camels a
very miserable day. If Canada committed to buying an aircraft then they should follow through with
the promise, if they didn't then I would be the last person to tell them what to do with their tax money.

The A-10 can, and has, managed to get home with half a wing gone, one engine shot up and half a tail plane missing. The pilot is also protected by an armored bath. Fast jets have never been good at ground support unless it is doing things like dropping broad area weapons like napalm. It has always been the slow aircraft that have done the job better - like the Skyraider in the Vietnam days. They have also killed a considerable number of tanks and other AFV's - not just camels. By your own reasoning they should also retire the Herc gunships cos they are also very, very slow. Instead, the US Air Force has just bought a new version.

Most of the was discussed on the Great White North thread, Russia has been spending money upgrading their
Navy and they have been saber rattling in the Arctic and probing Canada's air defenses for quite some time now.

Yes, they are "sabre rattling" but they do not have any significant assets to do anything sustained. Come on the US has, what  12 aircraft carriers? Plus Kitty Hawk still in reserve if needed.  They would need to wipe out 80% of them before they could even come close to parity. Their remaining Kirov class has barely been updated and their only carrier is not exactly reliable either.

I agree that the US Navy would be up to the task of discouraging any country (lunatics included) from
threatening Canada by sea. The US Gerald Ford cost US taxpayers over $13 billion and is probably more
technically advanced than the A10 Warthog Russian boat. 

The A-10 has been getting some avionics updates. The last upgrades were completed at DM airbase this year.

I do imagine that Canadians generally don't like Russia probing their air defenses with Nuclear capable bombers
or the various other saber rattling that they have been doing.

Did they penetrate Canadian airspace or were they still in the international zone?

[deccie]

Unlikely. The Liberal government will re-allocate the funds to pay for their social programs (campaign promises).

I thought he said he would run a deficit to do that?

Besides, it's common knowledge that cancelling the f-35 procurement at this point won't save Canada any significant amount of money...

Even if it does not save capital costs (and that is yet to be substantiated that it won't). The operating costs of the F-35 and the F/A-18F are substantially different. The GAO report called the  ongoing maintenance costs into the F-35 "unsustainable".  It has been indicated to Australia already that the cancellation of the F-35 contract by Canada will cost them (Australia) an extra 100 million dollars.

Scrapping F-35 fighter jets may not lead to big savings, experts say

..."Defence experts are skeptical that Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government will reap any significant windfall from buying a warplane that is cheaper than the controversial F-35 fighter."...

..."The Liberals promised during the election campaign to look elsewhere for a plane and plow the savings into more ships for the Royal Canadian Navy. But military experts say different aircraft might not be a bargain when the costs of buying, operating and maintaining them over 20 to 30 years are tallied up."...

The known facts and reports already out there do not back this up at all.

This will affect future business for Canadian companies that won about $750-million in contracts related to the F-35 because Canada was a partner in the program. Canadian firms’ contracts will wind down and they will not be eligible to bid on further work."...

The total value of that work equates to the cost of about 7 airframes without maintenance costs.

Not exactly value for money.

Now, having just posted all that. The liberals may not scrap the program after they take the helm. It financially as well as militarily/strategically makes no sense.

It does if the F-35 does not perform. It does if the cost sucks away too much in the way of funds from other programs. The Arrow was cancelled and the Voodoo bought instead. The Arrow was probably the better aircraft but the Voodoo cost much less in the end. So the Voodoo was good enough for the job.

Your blame of Harper is misplaced. The Conservatives were committed to replacing/augmenting with the F-35. If the project is scrapped, that clearly lays at the feet of the new Liberal government.

I do blame Harper for the F-35 since I think the program is a colossal waste of money.
Yes, if the new government scrap it they will need to deal with the result - good or bad.

The Submarines are being refitted to Canadian standards and that project, although still underway, is almost complete. Again, it was a former Liberal government that bought the subs in the first place.

Only 1 submarine out of 4 is in full service at  the current time. Harper was elected in 2006 so that is 9 years. A project like that to upgrade 4 subs can't be completed in nearly a  decade under his administration? He CERTAINLY deserves some of the blame for that!

The Canadian Navy's replenishment capability is non-existent. We rely on the US Navy for resupply and are apparently entering into some deal with the Spanish and Chilean Navies to lease support ships...

I know. I was reading about some of the last  ship retirements just recently. The two Kaiser class oilers the US had in reserve at 90%+ completion and never used would have been perfect.  But they got scrapped instead. :-( They could not be sold for civil use due to not having double hulls.

Now, this is a boondoggle because there was a time that the US would have just given us the oilers we needed. The US Navy has a quantity of oilers in mothball that Canada could literally have 'borrowed indefinitely' if they'd so chosen as both Navies work hand in hand and are constantly on joint exercises/operations.

See above about the Kaiser class - the other remaining ships in reserve are not in such great shape.

However, Harper's Conservatives and Obama's Dems didn't see eye to eye on a lot of issues and Harper wasn't about to ask for any favors.

Brass

Well, I loathe both parties you have mentioned there anyway so not surprised to see either or both do a bad job.

[deccie]

Note that Australia has purchased a number of Super Hornets and Growlers already even though they still intend to operate the F-35. Canada should at least probably consider something similar to avoid a capability gap.

[deccie]

More Ukrainians have been forced to flee violence in their country than Syrians have had to flee theirs

Your stats are a bit off. There are more than 2 million Syrians  in Turkey alone and more than another million in Jordan. Over 4 million overall.

[Brasscasing]

I thought he said he would run a deficit to do that?

We'll have to wait and see. I'm basing my statement on past experience serving under several Liberal governments. Both Trudeau and Chretien were notorious for 'raiding' their already inadequate military budgets to cover other government expenses. I don't recall if Martin did the same.

The world has changed so maybe  liberal thinking has changed as well. However, the CF are already being pulled off the world stage so I gather not much has changed as far as liberal priorities are concerned.   

Even if it does not save capital costs (and that is yet to be substantiated that it won't). The operating costs of the F-35 and the F/A-18F are substantially different. The GAO report called the  ongoing maintenance costs into the F-35 "unsustainable".  It has been indicated to Australia already that the cancellation of the F-35 contract by Canada will cost them (Australia) an extra 100 million dollars.

The known facts and reports already out there do not back this up at all.


The total value of that work equates to the cost of about 7 airframes without maintenance costs.

Not exactly value for money.

I don't disagree with you. However, the idea/concept was to develop and operate the newest generation multi role stealth platform with networking capability. That costs. All new generation jets cost.

This time Canada, Australia and the other stakeholder countries are footing some of the cost instead of letting the Americans spend all the money and take all the risk. The reward? Allied countries are all flying the same world's most advanced multi role plane. It's why we all entered into this project in the first place. Besides, there's never been a development project that hasn't had it's critics. It's part of developing new aircraft.

It does if the F-35 does not perform. It does if the cost sucks away too much in the way of funds from other programs. The Arrow was cancelled and the Voodoo bought instead. The Arrow was probably the better aircraft but the Voodoo cost much less in the end. So the Voodoo was good enough for the job.
I do blame Harper for the F-35 since I think the program is a colossal waste of money.
Yes, if the new government scrap it they will need to deal with the result - good or bad.

Ah, the Arrow. A subject near and dear to my heart. The Voodoos and Starfighters were good aircraft but would have been no match for an Arrow if it had been produced. For it's time there was nothing being flown by any country including the US that would/could have touched it.

As an aside, all those Canadian technicians and engineers went to the US after the Arrow cancellation and ended up with NASA developing the manned space flight programs or to the defense industry like Grumman and were involved in projects like the F-14 TomCat, arguably the most successful fighter the US has ever produced.

The f-35 performs. There is some concern over it's ability to deliver heavier pay load from a distance and there have been reports of the test pilots complaining of the platform being underpowered fully loaded. However, it is a single engine jet and the stealth and networking capability more than makes up for having to put missiles/ordnance down range at a distance and running for home.

Only 1 submarine out of 4 is in full service at  the current time. Harper was elected in 2006 so that is 9 years. A project like that to upgrade 4 subs can't be completed in nearly a  decade under his administration? He CERTAINLY deserves some of the blame for that!

Three of four actually. You can pretty well count on at least one boat being in the dry dock on a continual basis for routine maintenance and upgrade. As you know these beasts aren't toys and require constant care and attention.

 http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/en/news-operations/news-media-submarine-fleet-status.page

Under Harper's watch the subs have been upgraded and are now capable of more than simply meeting their operational requirements.

I know. I was reading about some of the last  ship retirements just recently. The two Kaiser class oilers the US had in reserve at 90%+ completion and never used would have been perfect.  But they got scrapped instead. :-( They could not be sold for civil use due to not having double hulls.


See above about the Kaiser class - the other remaining ships in reserve are not in such great shape.

Well, I loathe both parties you have mentioned there anyway so not surprised to see either or both do a bad job.

Yeah, we should have been building these oilers years ago. We knew the operational life of the Naval Support Ships was nearing an end 15 years ago. That's one criticism I do have of the Navy and by extension the Conservatives. We should have been on top of that.

I happen to think the Conservatives under Harper was the best thing to happen to Canada in the last 70 years. I have no doubt that history will record these last 10 years as one of Canada's most successful decades.

Brass

[deccie]

We'll have to wait and see. I'm basing my statement on past experience serving under several Liberal governments. Both Trudeau and Chretien were notorious for 'raiding' their already inadequate military budgets to cover other government expenses. I don't recall if Martin did the same.

The world has changed so maybe  liberal thinking has changed as well. However, the CF are already being pulled off the world stage so I gather not much has changed as far as liberal priorities are concerned.

Well, since I'm no longer resident in Canada I don't have any "skin" in this game any longer but I can only say I found Harper quite distasteful as a person given some of his political tactics. I lived in Montreal while I was there so I got to see all the fun that was Party Quebecois  and their stupidity..  But to be honest all the parties didn't seem that great.  It is funny living in Russia now as in many ways Quebec was just as corrupt as here - just substantially safer. It only made sense for me to be there financially because my employer "equalized" or tax so that we did not pay any more than what we would have if we had been resident from our point of origin. On the plus side I'm now entitled to a Quebec Pension at some future point in time!

I don't disagree with you. However, the idea/concept was to develop and operate the newest generation multi role stealth platform with networking capability. That costs. All new generation jets cost.

That is true. However some revolutionary aircraft do fail and sometimes the costs exceed the benefits. For example the TSR2 was a very fine aircraft but the  program cost a great deal of money. In the event the final replacement for the TSR2 was the Buccaneer - also a very fine, though very different type of aircraft.
It was far cheaper for the RAF to get the Buccaneer used off the RN than get TSR2..

Australia looked at the TSR2 and instead bought the F-111 - and we got excellent value for money out of them. Scared the Indonesians for decades... Yes, the F-111 program also had issues. After the debacle of the F-111B was aborted there were issues with the swing wings and I think the air intakes got re-designed. The current problems with the F-35 seem to me to be more intrinsic to the basic design.
Stealth materials are simply not robust and need a lot of maintenance. That maintenance is both time consuming and expensive. Remember, one of the reasons for getting rid of the Tomcat was cost per flight hour - not that it was no longer capable. Essentially, the cost per flight hour of the F-35 is not really acceptable for long term service. Stealth aircraft are perfect for short burst wars. Get in, shoot down the enemy and go home. If your opponent has enough aircraft to survive some short term losses then the stealth aircraft will go progressively out of service as maintenance issues catch up to them. Or they will no longer be stealthy -( such as when they add the ECM pods since I gather there will be no dedicated Growler type version of the F-35 but add on pods.) "Force Multipliers" work in both directions and can bite you in the ass if your aircraft is no longer flying!

Ah, the Arrow. A subject near and dear to my heart. The Voodoos and Starfighters were good aircraft but would have been no match for an Arrow if it had been produced. For it's time there was nothing being flown by any country including the US that would/could have touched it.

I won't argue that the Arrow wasn't better - but it was more expensive. And the subjective question is - was it needed? Different people will have different answers to that.

As an aside, all those Canadian technicians and engineers went to the US after the Arrow cancellation and ended up with NASA developing the manned space flight programs or to the defense industry like Grumman and were involved in projects like the F-14 TomCat, arguably the most successful fighter the US has ever produced.

On what basis is the Tomcat the most successful?
Surely the F-16 is more successful than the Tomcat. Much though I love the Tomcat. The F-16 certainly has more kills.

The f-35 performs. There is some concern over it's ability to deliver heavier pay load from a distance and there have been reports of the test pilots complaining of the platform being underpowered fully loaded. However, it is a single engine jet and the stealth and networking capability more than makes up for having to put missiles/ordnance down range at a distance and running for home.

I've seen little evidence so far that the F-35 can perform all of its proposed roles well. Yes, it can perform well at BVR shoot downs. Attack role still seems very doubtful to me. Ground Support is just a no.

Three of four actually. You can pretty well count on at least one boat being in the dry dock on a continual basis for routine maintenance and upgrade. As you know these beasts aren't toys and require constant care and attention.

 http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/en/news-operations/news-media-submarine-fleet-status.page

Under Harper's watch the subs have been upgraded and are now capable of more than simply meeting their operational requirements.

Read the detail in your own link! It actually only says that ONE of the submarines is fully operational!

Yeah, we should have been building these oilers years ago. We knew the operational life of the Naval Support Ships was nearing an end 15 years ago. That's one criticism I do have of the Navy and by extension the Conservatives. We should have been on top of that.

Your entire surface fleet is significantly degraded now.  You have one destroyer left.. and still no replacements being built. Blame the conservatives for that too.

I happen to think the Conservatives under Harper was the best thing to happen to Canada in the last 70 years. I have no doubt that history will record these last 10 years as one of Canada's most successful decades.

I do not agree - but that is not to say I think the alternatives were significantly better.

BTW, I loved my time in Canada as a country regardless of the political state of affairs. I'd happily go back again anytime to Canada for future work.  Great people - great country - I just don't get poutine...

[Boethius]

Well, since I'm no longer resident in Canada I don't have any "skin" in this game any longer but I can only say I found Harper quite distasteful as a person given some of his political tactics.

Warren Kinsella, an absolutely partisan Liberal who worked in Ottawa for years, once said the two most decent human beings in Ottawa were Stephane Dion (now Minister of Foreign Affairs) and Stephen Harper.

[2tallbill]

Putin tops the list of Forbes most powerful people, Angela Merkel is next with Barry O in third.

read all about it here
http://www.forbes.com/powerful-people/

[Brasscasing]

Well, since I'm no longer resident in Canada I don't have any "skin" in this game any longer but I can only say I found Harper quite distasteful as a person given some of his political tactics. I lived in Montreal while I was there so I got to see all the fun that was Party Quebecois  and their stupidity..  But to be honest all the parties didn't seem that great.  It is funny living in Russia now as in many ways Quebec was just as corrupt as here - just substantially safer. It only made sense for me to be there financially because my employer "equalized" or tax so that we did not pay any more than what we would have if we had been resident from our point of origin. On the plus side I'm now entitled to a Quebec Pension at some future point in time!

Take the buy out if you can!

That is true. However some revolutionary aircraft do fail and sometimes the costs exceed the benefits. For example the TSR2 was a very fine aircraft but the  program cost a great deal of money. In the event the final replacement for the TSR2 was the Buccaneer - also a very fine, though very different type of aircraft.
It was far cheaper for the RAF to get the Buccaneer used off the RN than get TSR2..

Australia looked at the TSR2 and instead bought the F-111 - and we got excellent value for money out of them. Scared the Indonesians for decades... Yes, the F-111 program also had issues. After the debacle of the F-111B was aborted there were issues with the swing wings and I think the air intakes got re-designed. The current problems with the F-35 seem to me to be more intrinsic to the basic design.
Stealth materials are simply not robust and need a lot of maintenance. That maintenance is both time consuming and expensive. Remember, one of the reasons for getting rid of the Tomcat was cost per flight hour - not that it was no longer capable. Essentially, the cost per flight hour of the F-35 is not really acceptable for long term service. Stealth aircraft are perfect for short burst wars. Get in, shoot down the enemy and go home. If your opponent has enough aircraft to survive some short term losses then the stealth aircraft will go progressively out of service as maintenance issues catch up to them. Or they will no longer be stealthy -( such as when they add the ECM pods since I gather there will be no dedicated Growler type version of the F-35 but add on pods.) "Force Multipliers" work in both directions and can bite you in the ass if your aircraft is no longer flying!

There's no doubt with us mid power countries the pocket book matters. And if Canada had initially said 12 years ago we're going to replace our f-18s Hornets with Super Hornets and it's variants (growlers), I might have sided with you in that we'd probably have got twice the amount of aircraft and support for half the price. However, the idea/concept was to graduate to a 5th generation fighter. That was the rationale behind the initial Liberal Government commitment to the project.

I can't speak to long term degradation other than to say the more complicated the hardware the likelier a breakdown. Having said that every new design that comes off the line is facing the same challenge.

We (Canada) can't keep buying the used car price models to save money. First off, the maintenance per flight hour is still the same as operational life increases and the fact is the rest of the world is producing 5th generation aircraft. It's useless to buy old technology that's not going to get the job done or worse put our pilots in danger.

I won't argue that the Arrow wasn't better - but it was more expensive. And the subjective question is - was it needed? Different people will have different answers to that.

Is any progress ever needed? The Arrow was the culmination of the best Canada had to offer.

It would have established us as a world industry leader and created spinoff opportunities with numerous other allied countries (don't forget there was a cold war going on and every technological edge was seen as a victory in those days). 

If you're prone to conspiracy theories the demise of this program and how it came about would certainly qualify in the top 10 of the last half of the 20th century.

On what basis is the Tomcat the most successful?
Surely the F-16 is more successful than the Tomcat. Much though I love the Tomcat. The F-16 certainly has more kills.

But nowhere near as versatile. The F-16 seems to be the US 'export model' for fighter interceptors. They kept the F-14 for themselves (similar to the F-22 Raptor, no foreign sales). Oddly enough, the only country the US sold the planes to was Iran who still fly them.

I've seen little evidence so far that the F-35 can perform all of its proposed roles well. Yes, it can perform well at BVR shoot downs. Attack role still seems very doubtful to me. Ground Support is just a no.

If your talking about CAS this pilot would disagree with you...

http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2014/12/a-look-at-f-35-close-air-support-tactics-development/

Besides, the article words the controversy quite succinctly...

..."Let’s get the disclaimer out of the way: the military aviation community is divided as to whether the F-35 can be an effective CAS platform. A lot comes down to the relative merits of fast-jet CAS versus the kind of low-to-the-ground, persistent CAS practiced by the A-10 or AC-130. (We wrote more about this in January.) Neither side is willing to give ground — perhaps understandably, because the question can truly be answered only when ground troops, under fire, call for help."...

Read the detail in your own link! It actually only says that ONE of the submarines is fully operational!

..."The Victoria-class submarine fleet is now operational with three out of four submarines available for operations. HMCS Windsor, Victoria, and Chicoutimi were all at sea in December 2014 and spent a cumulative total of approximately 260 days at sea in 2014. HMCS Corner Brook is currently docked at Victoria Shipyards to undergo its Extended Docking Work Period (EDWP) under the Victoria In-service Support Contract with Babcock Canada Inc"...

Canadian subs don't sail unless they're fully operational.

Your entire surface fleet is significantly degraded now.  You have one destroyer left.. and still no replacements being built. Blame the conservatives for that too.

That's because the 280 class, designated 'Destroyer' have been replaced with the 300 class 'Frigates' that are almost the same displacement, carry the same fire power and anti submarine capability. The last four 280's, although still operational destroyers were also refitted to serve as fleet command vessels for US and NATO/UN fleets.

 Checking the Navy website there is only one left...Too bad, they were bad a$$ ships in their day.

280...



300...

BTW, I loved my time in Canada as a country regardless of the political state of affairs. I'd happily go back again anytime to Canada for future work.  Great people - great country - I just don't get poutine...

No one does....outside of Quebec, that is.

Glad you liked the Great White North, Deccie. Come back anytime. Still lot's of room.

Brass

[2tallbill]

They have also killed a considerable number of tanks and other AFV's - not just camels.

I noted camels because the A-10 is not suitable for use against adversaries capable of deploying
1980 and later air defenses, but is excellent against Taliban type air defenses. I noted in my
post that the A10 is excellent against tanks and for close ground support. If the Taliban had
1980's stinger's or 1980s generation Russian inga's hand held sams then the A-10 would not
have been deployed. So yes it's ONLY useful for camel jockey nations or terror groups.

A10's would be useless for example to Ukraine for use against the freedom fighters/terrorists
there. The places the A10 can be used today are becoming extremely limited. If SoDamn Insane
had bought a few cases of Ingas from Russia along with all those Russian tanks the A10 would
have been retired already.

Did they penetrate Canadian airspace or were they still in the international zone?

The Canadians don't allow countries to penetrate their airspace. They aren't Sweden 

[mendeleyev]

In the Mendeleyev Journal today...

It was a day the government calls "National Unity Day" but there was little unity across Russian cities as a variety of conflicting protests took place. There were pro-Kremlin marchers, Nazi and Skinhead groups, and several anti-government marches. Despite the fact that the Kremlin has done much to relabel anyone who supports Ukraine as a fascist and Nazi, the real fascists--young groups of Nationalists and Skinheads were out in force across Russia.



The Nazi and Skinhead marches were not altogether pro-Kremlin however as marchers blamed current polices on the influx of immigrant workers from nearby Asian countries, condemned the war in Syria, and blamed the downing of a Russian passenger jet over Egypt on retaliation for actions by the Russian military.



Some protesters targeted migrants who are flooding Europe due to fighting across the Middle East. Marchers chanted slogans like "Европа будет белой' (Europe is White) to protest countries that accept refugees.

However, most of the marches were strongly pro-Russia as crowds cheered and chanted slogans in support of President Putin. A majority of Russian citizens believe that Russia is under siege by the West. The holiday, known as National Unity Day, was established by the government a decade ago.

As for democratic and anti-Kremlin protests, police say that the march in Moscow, the largest, was attended by 500 persons. March organizers admit that the numbers were low, but point out the history of Russian authorities to underestimate protests against the government while overestimating when demonstrations are pro-government. There were as many police in attendance as protesters, a continuing sign that citizen interest in Russian affairs makes this government nervous.



Banner: "Against War in Ukraine."  (Фото: М. Стулов / Ведомости)

The primary theme of the pro-democracy marches centered around the war in Ukraine, a conflict that supposedly does not exist according to the state controlled media. While the government remains consistent in denying that Russia troops are in Ukraine, an increasing number of soldiers are facing legal charges for refusing to go on unspecified "training missions."

[Brasscasing]

Warren Kinsella, an absolutely partisan Liberal who worked in Ottawa for years, once said the two most decent human beings in Ottawa were Stephane Dion (now Minister of Foreign Affairs) and Stephen Harper.

He's a great guy. I used to live in his riding of Calgary, SW. He was my MP. Met him several times over the years.

Rumor had it he was a real disciplinarian with his Riding Office staff back then. I doubt that would be surprising news to Canadians nowadays, though.

Brass

[Muzh]

Great people - great country -

Ditto that.

 I just don't get poutine...

That looks disgusting. My arteries started to harden when I saw that. Ugh!!

[jone]

In the Mendeleyev Journal today...

It was a day the government calls "National Unity Day" but there was little unity across Russian cities as a variety of conflicting protests took place. There were pro-Kremlin marchers, Nazi and Skinhead groups, and several anti-government marches. Despite the fact that the Kremlin has done much to relabel anyone who supports Ukraine as a fascist and Nazi, the real fascists--young groups of Nationalists and Skinheads were out in force across Russia.



The Nazi and Skinhead marches were not altogether pro-Kremlin however as marchers blamed current polices on the influx of immigrant workers from nearby Asian countries, condemned the war in Syria, and blamed the downing of a Russian passenger jet over Egypt on retaliation for actions by the Russian military.



Some protesters targeted migrants who are flooding Europe due to fighting across the Middle East. Marchers chanted slogans like "Европа будет белой' (Europe is White) to protest countries that accept refugees.

However, most of the marches were strongly pro-Russia as crowds cheered and chanted slogans in support of President Putin. A majority of Russian citizens believe that Russia is under siege by the West. The holiday, known as National Unity Day, was established by the government a decade ago.

As for democratic and anti-Kremlin protests, police say that the march in Moscow, the largest, was attended by 500 persons. March organizers admit that the numbers were low, but point out the history of Russian authorities to underestimate protests against the government while overestimating when demonstrations are pro-government. There were as many police in attendance as protesters, a continuing sign that citizen interest in Russian affairs makes this government nervous.



Banner: "Against War in Ukraine."  (Фото: М. Стулов / Ведомости)

The primary theme of the pro-democracy marches centered around the war in Ukraine, a conflict that supposedly does not exist according to the state controlled media. While the government remains consistent in denying that Russia troops are in Ukraine, an increasing number of soldiers are facing legal charges for refusing to go on unspecified "training missions."

Far be it for me to be an apologist for Russia, but National Unity Day is really a celebration that dates back 100s of years in Russia to the early 1600s when the entire Russian people joined together to stop the Polish invasion.  Apparently there was no leadership from a Tzar or the Russian Orthodox Church, but the Russian people still came together and kicked out the Poles.  Hence the term National Unity Day.  Celebration of this day was suspended during the reign of the Communists.   It is now celebrated again due to the change of government in 1991.

For most people in Russia, National Unity Day is simply a day to stop work, cook a big meal, and drink.  While there were supportive demonstrations, they were relatively benign, at least where I have friends, and did not even represent a percent of the population.  I have it on good authority from my family in Russia that the eating part did take place.    Although my beloved will not report on the alcohol consumption of her extended family because she knows how much I disdain drunkenness.

[deccie]

In the Mendeleyev Journal today...

It was a day the government calls "National Unity Day" but there was little unity across Russian cities as a variety of conflicting protests took place.

Wife tells me that this holiday was brought in to replace the November 7 Soviet holiday celebrating the Revolution. Her shop was still open so she was at work but she also said (a) Most people around were drunk and (b) almost nobody knew the current reason for the holiday.

We were supposed to pick up $2000 cash yesterday but now can't do it until Monday cos the place we need to go is closed.   

[Donhollio]

I happen to think the Conservatives under Harper was the best thing to happen to Canada in the last 70 years.

Brass

 I know you're as blue as they come Brass but I feel like a grey cloud has dissipated from the Canadian soil. While the list of things I hated about Harper, and it is all about him, is his treatment of war veterans. That alone was reason enough to kick his ass to the curb. If I had to run off other things it would fill a toilet paper roll.

[Brasscasing]

I know you're as blue as they come Brass but I feel like a grey cloud has dissipated from the Canadian soil. While the list of things I hated about Harper, and it is all about him, is his treatment of war veterans. That alone was reason enough to kick his ass to the curb. If I had to run off other things it would fill a toilet paper roll.

Hiya Don,

I still owe you a PM, haven't forgotten.

Well, apparently Canadians wanted change and they got it. How does the saying go..."Canada's natural governing party" is back. Let's hope they can live up to their promises.

Vets - I touched on this elsewhere but will reiterate and expand a bit. Veteran's Affairs (VAC) has always treated me well and fairly. I know there are Veterans who have complaints but all in all Canada takes good care of it's Vets and by extension their families and survivors.

Can the process (dealing with the department) be tedious at times? Yes. Has the Department had it's growing pains basically going from a backwater portfolio within the federal government to being one of the largest and most well funded over the last decade? Yes. Have some of the rules and benefits changed? Yes, it has morphed to a certain degree. However, for every change seen as a negative by some Vets, there are others who see the same change as a positive.

I can't/won't speak for all concerned but don't let the Liberal campaign rhetoric fool you. Our Vets are nowhere near as neglected as the Liberals would have you believe.

I would invite anyone to peruse the government website and judge for themselves...

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng

Brass

[deccie]

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng

Brass

The Canadian Federal Tax office website is nice and shiny too - but I know after the saga I endured with them that dragged out for almost a full year I fail to see how a website is even relevant.  Actions are what matter...

[Brasscasing]

The Canadian Federal Tax office website is nice and shiny too - but I know after the saga I endured with them that dragged out for almost a full year I fail to see how a website is even relevant.  Actions are what matter...

And action is what you'll get. How fast that action is taken and whether or not the action is what you wanted or expected is at the crux of whether or not those effected are satisfied with the service received or not.

Brass 

[Slumba]

Poutine, made properly, is a food of the gods.

[Donhollio]

Hiya Don,

I still owe you a PM, haven't forgotten.

Well, apparently Canadians wanted change and they got it. How does the saying go..."Canada's natural governing party" is back. Let's hope they can live up to their promises.

Vets - I touched on this elsewhere but will reiterate and expand a bit. Veteran's Affairs (VAC) has always treated me well and fairly. I know there are Veterans who have complaints but all in all Canada takes good care of it's Vets and by extension their families and survivors.

Can the process (dealing with the department) be tedious at times? Yes. Has the Department had it's growing pains basically going from a backwater portfolio within the federal government to being one of the largest and most well funded over the last decade? Yes. Have some of the rules and benefits changed? Yes, it has morphed to a certain degree. However, for every change seen as a negative by some Vets, there are others who see the same change as a positive.

I can't/won't speak for all concerned but don't let the Liberal campaign rhetoric fool you. Our Vets are nowhere near as neglected as the Liberals would have you believe.

I would invite anyone to peruse the government website and judge for themselves...

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng

Brass

 I was thinking of the asshole MP who walked out on the Afghan vets. The vets crying out for help and in the end killed themselves. I'm thinking of that one vet who shamed MP MacKay into giving him his benefit cheque only to have the vet refuse it unless his brothers in arms also got theirs.
 It's pathetic treatment. With Herr Harper at the helm I have little doubt that Peter MacKay stepped aside to salvage his future in politics.

 BTW, my ballot had six candidates, being that I'm non partisan you'll have to guess who I voted for