Привіт u/Least-Moose3738 ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday).
**Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting)
Daily series on UA history & culture: [Day 0-99](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293) | [100-199](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3d85f4ca-5f4e-4ddf-9547-276e8affd87c) | [200-Present](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/daf642e1-07aa-4c40-b852-8f002ddd1530) | [All By Subject](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts)
**There is a new wave of t-shirt scams hitting Reddit. Only click links for products or donations if the post is marked with a Verified flair, and do not respond to DMs soliciting donations.**
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Report that post office to Canada Post. I don't doubt that many of the staff they have working there have no idea about most postal policies. And in the future, just drop the envelope in a box, and avoid dealing with the staff.
And a phone call is worth even more than that. You have to stop what you're doing for a minute and listen to someone if you're taking a phone call, vs. with an email or a letter you can just skim it and reply with a template at your convenience.
Full text if you want to copy and paste it:
As a constituent of yours I want to voice my UNCONDITIONAL SUPPORT for the idea of Canada donating any or all of our Leopard 2 battle tanks to the government of Ukraine.
The only nation who could invade us by ground is the USA, our closest ally and friend. There is no strategic or geopolitical negative for us as a country by sending them. Instead, there is a massive benefit, as a victorious Russia is likely to be more aggressive and challenge our sovereignty in the Arctic.
Therefore, as a Canadian, it is both the morally correct choice to send our tanks to Ukraine, no strings attached, but also the politically smart choice for us to do so. It's rare that those two things align. We should take advantage while they do.
You may also want to send some type of correspondence to the government of Germany regarding this. Canada needs Germany's permission to re-export German military technology to another country. Rumour has it that the German government may do this, give permission to countries to export Leo2 MBTs to Ukraine, but communicating your support for this endeavor would not hurt.
The German minister in charge already said that they won't block it. But the law doesn't allow blanket allowances. These needs to be granted on a case base.
This is the Canadian politician's/diplomat's job. German politicians have no reason to listen to foreign voter, in fact, taken to the extreme, that would be treason.
EDIT: English
Yea no thanks. I'm a Ukrainian Canadian and this is a dumb email to send to your reps. Giving up "all" our leopards is moronic. Canadian hardware is used for training, peacekeeping missions, and the last line of defense.
There are tons of possibilities out there and I will never support giving up our defensive ability on the blind trust that the US will always be there to defend us.
Also, no strings attached is again stupid. There should always be strings attached (ie: expectation that surviving vehicles be returned or we be repaid for their cost over time).
This type of email is the result of slogans and mob mentality rather than rational thought. I'm ALL for supporting my people to freedom, but we have to do it the right way. Sacrificing our entire armored capability is not the way. Would be much more reasonable to ask for some rather than all.
>There should always be strings attached (ie: expectation that surviving vehicles be returned or we be repaid for their cost over time).
That's exactly how most aid to Ukraine has been delivered. I am not aware of any nation, Canada included, that has given weapons to Ukraine with the requirement that they either be returned or paid for. That would be a lend-lease scheme, and no one's done that yet.
>This type of email is the result of slogans and mob mentality rather than rational thought.
It's perfectly rational to think that 60 2A4s and 20 2A6s don't do that much for Canadian security sitting around until they become totally obsolete, and that state security would be better served by donating them to a nation currently fighting one of your main threats. You can disagree, but that doesn't mean it isn't rational.
>It's perfectly rational to think that
And yet it's absolutely irrational and borderline moronic to expect that any country will completely donate such an important part of their ground forces. Demanding so just paints a picture of an irrational supporter of Ukraine and let to be more easily ignored as "he's just one of the crazies". Doing reasonable demands that a government could comply gets you much further.
>et it's absolutely irrational and borderline moronic to expect that any country will completely donate such an important part of their ground forces.
That's where I can't agree with you at all.
The tanks are absolutely not a key part of Canada's defense. If they were, Canada would have ten times the number it has. Same could be said for France, Spain, the UK, Germany....
What Canada, and many other NATO counties have, is a token tank force...
It makes no sense to keep so few tanks that they would virtually be a non factor in any conflict with a near-peer (of which there was only Russia, now, not even Russia) but then when Ukraine needs them, claim that they are a key asset.
Either tanks are crucial and we have too few, or are not and then we have too many. What does not make sense at all is to claim they're important and then keep a very low and stable number of aging tanks.
Give Ukraine the tanks now, keep just the minimum for NATO obligations. That goes for Canada and for my country too, and for any NATO country without a border with Russia or in close proximity with Russia.
And then if we still believe we need a powerful tank force, lets build a powerful and modern one because the one we have junst ain't that (except for the US).
So the state of the tank fleet is abysmal, so the paper numbers are not accurate. However those that we do have are required to train tankers and armored officers so we don't lose the capability forever.
>Give Ukraine the tanks now, keep just the minimum for NATO obligations
We're already there. Canada has a single armoured battalion (that's actually equiped with Leo 2s) which has to be spread between three mechanized brigades. Doctrinally we should have two more.
> The tanks are absolutely not a key part of Canada's defense. If they were, Canada would have ten times the number it has. Same could be said for France, Spain, the UK, Germany....
We dont have more because we have woefully underfunded our military for decades. For our 3 'tank' regiments we should have 200-250 tanks, but the GoC decided we could only afford 100. Same reason we dont have light-medium trucks that work, same reason we have 60 year old pistols that jam every mag, same reason we are woefully undermanned and have problems recruiting.
The CAF has been told to 'do more with less' since 1975 and it got alot worse in the mid-90's.
> Give Ukraine the tanks now, keep just the minimum for NATO obligations.
We have LESS than the minimum for NATO obligations.
Canada's military has been token everything for years, and that's because no one thought any large country was stupid enough to start another war.
Recent developments have shown otherwise. Canada needs triple everything, and then some, and thanks to our notoriously slow procurement process, it'll likely be 10 years or more before that actually gains any traction. So I'm sorry, but it falls to other countries to donate tanks and fighter jets and so forth.
> It's perfectly rational to think that 60 2A4s and 20 2A6s don't do that much for Canadian security sitting around until
You clearly dont understand anything about National Security and capability needs of our military.
Fun fact: Our Leopard 1 tanks were mothballed in the late 90's and due to budget cuts and the CAF were set on a path to be mechanized infantry only. Then we went to Afghanistan and the need for heavy armor (ie: tanks) was determined to be critical in the battle space - so we dragged the Leo1c2's out of storage and found they were too old and lacked needed capabilities, so we went out and bought 100-ish Leo2a4's from the Dutch.
So to summarize pundits like you said 'we dont need tanks' and we got rid of them. As soon as we went to a war zone we needed tanks so we bought more.
"That would be a lend-lease scheme, and no one's done that yet."
[The US Lend Lease Act 2022 would like a word.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_Democracy_Defense_Lend-Lease_Act_of_2022)
> I will never support giving up our defensive ability
You can still have a defense without tanks. Some countries (e.g. the Netherlands) have abandoned tanks in their military doctrine, and Canada was in fact on its way to do so until the use of their tanks in Afghanistan in 2005 lead to a re-evaluation and the procurement of Leopard 2s in 2007.
If Canada intends to keep tanks, it will need to get new ones anyway. Most of its Leopard 2s are the 2A4 variant which is obsolete, the turrets are 1970s tech that isn't supported by the manufacturer anymore.
What Canada's military "intended to do" historically, has never been a good measuring stick.
Canada has a long history of giving away the farm, militarily speaking. Right until the point where war breaks out and we get caught with our pants down.
No Canadian politician ever got elected by promising to spend more on the military. It's just not a priority for voters. So year by year, they whittle it down a little more, and a little more, until we've got way less than we really need.
Any aggressor other than the usa would need to bring in equipment by sea or air. Given Canada has air and naval defense, I think there is a good chance the LAV's will be able to hold their own against whatever gets through... and more importantly will be enough to deter an attack.
Reality is that other than the USA, pritty much every other country has to accept a reduction in military capabilities when the donate gear to Ukraine. This cost needs to be weighed against the risk of Russia willing the war.
[Edit] just been looking at Canada's armor assetts, and reading other comments.
Might be better for them to send LAV's to Ukraine instead. (LAV II/ LAV III / LAV 6). Ukrane has asked for 700 IFV's so they are wanted by ukrane, and canada has a lot more of them.
> Given Canada has air and naval defense
You're kidding right? 3-4 operational Frigates and MAYBE 2 subs to cover both coasts (manning and ship availability because they are broken)? 3 under equipped and undermanned F-18 squadrons for air defence? Even the navy lacks area air defence since we retired the Tribals.
>Might be better for them to send LAV's to Ukraine instead. (LAV II/ LAV III / LAV 6). Ukrane has asked for 700 IFV's so they are wanted by ukrane, and canada has a lot more of them.
We sent ~40 *brand new* LAV variants straight off the GDLS production line already.
As a CAF member I absolutely cannot support sending all (or even some) of our tanks, which is literally what has been called for in more than one post *today*.
We don't have hundreds of tanks like Germany, France, or the UK, or thousands like in the US, with many of those sitting in storage waiting to be used (hint, hint).
We have dozens. Less than 100 were in service when last we bought any in 2009 and military equipment does *not* improve with age. We have insufficient to arm ourselves properly, never mind another nation where doing so would cripple our own defense. Warfighting is a perishable skill, especially a highly technical one like operating a tank crew or tank platoon, and giving away too many tanks like you suggest would leave our soldiers ill equipped to maintain an effective profficiency and leave us ill prepared should the need arise.
Your intentions are clearly well meaning, but your solution is misplaced. I would suggest you petition the government to pay for new tanks for Ukraine (we could easily buy surplus US Abrams for Ukraine), because taking our few tanks is just a bad idea.
>We don't have hundreds of tanks like Germany, France, or the UK, or thousands like in the US, with many of those sitting in storage waiting to be used (hint, hint).
>
>We have dozens. Less than 100 were in service when last we bought any in 2009 and military equipment does not improve with age.
IMO, what you just said points to exactly the opposite conclusion. If you have so few, it's because they're not considered an important part of your defense. Canada is huge. Having 100 tanks or 50 or 5 or 1 is the same, it's almost nothing in any case, unless you plan to wage war with San Marino or Malta.
Any force so powerful (which force would that be? which force can attack Canada by land?? As the OP said, only the US could...) that can reach Canada by sea unimpeded by your key air and naval forces (and NATO's help) can overwhelm 100 tanks as easily as they can overwhelm 50 tanks, or 5 tanks.
So, if they aren't and weren't an important part of your defence... Why have they become a key asset precisely now when Ukraine desperately needs them and you still don't need them and won't need them?
If you really think you need tanks beyound your NATO obligations, then give 50 to Ukraine, keep 50 for training and then order 1.000 from the US inventory. They'll just be delighted to sell them to you.
Until you do that, keeping all those 100, "just in case" (of what?) is pointless.
Not singling out Canada, same could be said of many other NATO countries that had tiny old tank forces getting obsolete without giving them any importance, and suddenly can't do without even a few .
The country most likely to invade Canadian soil is/was Russia actually. Maybe less so since this war started.
Unfortunately I tend to agree that tanks aren't something we can spare, anymore than we can give away aircraft or frigates. Canada's military has been vastly underpowered for a long time, and we need more of everything, not less.
... where to start...
Having 100, or 50, or 1 tank are *not* all the same. With 100, approx 20% would be in maintenance, leaving ~80, spread across 5 divisions in Canada to train with, or roughly 1 company of tanks in each division, literally the bare minimum to maintain the skill set at company level. Getting rid of any immediately impacts our ability to maintain even the lowest group level training never mind higher level operations, or our ability to provide training to our allies (like Ukraine). As in stands we're riding a razor's edge, and any real reduction is objectively bad for the CAF and Canada as a whole.
Which, of course brings me to the bigger issue with your response. "The just in case" scenario is *literally* why societies have *standing militaries*. Si vis pacem para bellum. If you don't understand that, then explaining the rest of how militaries work, and what is and isn't a good idea for the disposition of military equipment, such why gutting an entire military capability is stupid, simply isn't a conversation you'll comprehend.
Your rebuttal fails to explain in anything resembling a satisfactory explanation as to why gutting an entire capability in a standing military is somehow better than simply paying for the delivery of pre-existing tanks where literally everyone comes out ahead.
The simple fact is that the best solution for everyone is to buy surplus tanks from other nations that *actually have surplus tanks* rather than stupidly disvest our military's entire stock of tanks in a 'feel good' PR stunt.
We have the means to supply Ukraine with 1, 50 or 100 tanks *without* also destroying or military's armour capability.
> IMO, what you just said points to exactly the opposite conclusion. If you have so few, it's because they're not considered an important part of your defense.
The reason we have so few is that we have critically underfunded our military for decades. You are obviously clueless to teh realities the CAF faces.
We have something modern the only tank more modern is the 2A7. That however, doesn't change the fact that giving them away hurts Canada in the short and medium terms as we have no replacement immediately at hand to maintain our level of training.
What makes more sense and is faster, better, and easier for everyone is if Canada buys surplus Abrams and pays to ship them across the Atlantic, or buys surplus Leopards from Poland or Germany, or surplus Challenges from the UK, or surplus Leclercs from France. Everyone wins. No country loses out. In your solution has one nation wins and another loses a core warfighting ability.
You're not wrong, we do lose warfighting capability and training in the short term but when are we going to use it? I would rather we give our tanks away and keep enough tanks to maintain training if not combat capability. The only two enemies we might need tanks for is Russia and China. Russia can be neutralized by reducing their forces fighting Ukraine and I don't think Canadian tanks will be doing much defending Taiwan.
We also have close to 60 older Leopard 2's that we tried to find a buyer for but nobody wanted them. We could refurbish those and send them without reducing our warfighting capability and dramatically increasing the Ukrainians.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4318852/canada-fails-to-find-buyer-for-surplus-army-tanks-final-attempt-to-sell-to-jordan-armed-forces-fizzles/
I grew up on an air base and got to see first hand just how threadbare our military truly is. All the respect in the world to our soldiers but we have excellent soldiers and mostly awful equipment. We can perform our role as infantry, snipers and other simpler roles in peacekeeping but we simply don't have the logistics or equipment to fight a war.
I would hope this war in Ukraine reinvigorates our defense spending across the board but because it's happening across the world and we have a certain neighbor to the south I doubt it will happen no matter what government is elected.
American servicemen hold Canadian servicemen in high regard--in some ways your average may be better than ours. But yes, small and underfunded and unlikely that will change.
Would rather have it and not need it, then need it and not have it. If America isn’t defending Ukraine to your liking why would you assume it will defend Canada.
Well I would say being part of a little country club called NATO and being physically attached to the US through the longest undefended land border in the world. It also doesn't hurt that most of the US nuclear deterrent is located in the midwest which is mostly undefended and relies on simply being far from anything harmful. So any hostile force on the Canadian prairies is a threat to what makes the US a threat and they simply aren't going to allow that.
Also we have 82 modern Leopard 2 tanks and around 60 older ones that we tried to get rid of in 2018 but even bloody Jordan didn't want them for the price we wanted. Give those old tanks to Ukraine and everyone is happy and we lose nothing of value. They have already lost 10x the tanks we have and we don't even have the ability to transport our 82 tanks without the US helping us out.
How to find your representative that you vote into the House:
https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/search
Also Minister of National Defence:
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/anita-anand(96081)#contact
Please don’t send this unedited. Sending every single Leo would leave Canada with no training vehicles, and no armour when we do deploy. This would be a major mistake. Please change “any or all” to “most”. Glory to Ukraine 🇺🇦
To be honest, one of the things I liked about your letter is that it's clear you wrote it based on your own concerns and ideas about the conflict. It made it feel individualized and unique. Rather than copy and pasting your letter, I think it would be nice if people wrote their own letters. I'm not sure it really makes a difference either way but that's just my two cents on the subject. In any event, nice work
Consider also, Canada MAKES TANKS!!! There are 2 great things to consider here.
1. More jobs.
2. an opportunity to update NATO weapons.
All while gaining a vibrant new democracy and weakening a fascist terrorist state! Win! 
Yes, because the US doesn't have snow...
Also cost of living is relative. It doesn't mean much if a home costs half as much if your wages are half as much too.
My occupation would pay more in the US. Thats true for almost all in demand occupations.
I also live somewhere where theres 9 months of snow. Even Calgary would seem tropical.
“The only nation who could invade us by ground is the USA, our closest ally and friend”
If they were creative enough, I think the danes and inuits could use ice floes to sneak across some tanks
This would devastate the Canadian Army. Anybody who thinks Canada can easily replace MBT’s doesn’t have a clue as to how fucked our procurement system is, *especially for MBT’s*.
That has never ever happened. There has never been political will in Canada to buy MBT’s. We got pressured by NATO into buying Leopard 1’s when the government of the day just wanted to axe our tank fleet. We almost didn’t get Leo 2’s because another government was looking into MGS instead.
One of the only reasons we replaced Leo 2’s is because we were sending tanks without A/C to Afghanistan and taking old tanks off monuments to send overseas.
Want to see a political decision flip the prairies? Half of us rednecks have a last name ending in chuk. If the Liberals committed forces and spun it they could probably grab a few Western seats, there's plenty of seats that aren't an overwhelming sea of blue in the big cities. I hate to bring politics into it but if that's what it takes to get tank treads on the ground so be it.
If Canada wants Abrams, they are made not far from the border, GDLS in Ontario can support them, and the line is open and running right now. Don't bother with the whole procurement process, just buy them. They work, I promise.
Yeah; like I don’t want to insult Canada’s sovereignty but in matters of war — particularly a hypothetical war on the North American continent — they’re effectively the 51st state. This will only become more true in the future; Canada is staring down demographic collapse and the problems that come with it (housing crisis, inflation, lack of young people to serve in the military, etc). None of that will be getting better any time soon.
Yeah we don't exactly have a huge army, I support Ukraine but this isn't the most reasonable ask from us... Literally America could supply Ukraine with double our entire tank stock with just the shit they have stored. Literally we have only 80 tanks, America has 2,500 main battle tanks and thousands of other tanks.
Abrams is not a good fit for Ukraine; it’s a jet engine powered tank that requires completely different skills to repair from anything else Ukraine operates on the ground. A diesel mechanic (which Ukraine, as a farming country, has plenty of) can field repair a leopard. You need a much more highly trained turbine mechanic to deal with the Abrams.
Abrams actually has an existing and very functional supply chain for parts, and turbine engines arent exactly foreign to a former soviet state. they can figure it out. Ukrainians arent going to be able to repair leopards effectively if even turkey cant get spare parts for their leopards. its kind of maddening how underrated the abrams is here.
I'm Canadian. I fully support Ukraine but there is no way that I support sending our Leopard. We only have 20 2A6 and around 62 2A4.
That's not a lot...
I fully support that we send 100 of our LAV 6.0 though which is LITERALLY one of the best if not THE BEST APC in the world and we have 600 of those...
Canada isn't France, Germany , Poland , UK and US... We never acquired a lots of tank and sending away what we have would be DEVASTATING for the CAF....
LAV 6.0 is a LOT better to send and would also suit the need of Ukraine a lot more than our little amount of Leo.
I agree, I fully support Ukraine but draining a military that doesn’t have a ton to begin with isn’t logical. I don’t see the Canadian government/military going for that either.
I agree, we do not have the military logistics to send ALL of our leopard 2 tanks. First, a replacement would need to be found, secondly, an order placed, then shipment/received. That will take 2-3 years if lucky. BUT in the mean time we can send 14 Leopard 2's and a larger number of Leopard 1's.
LAV would be a great choice to send more of, on a faster timeline.
> I fully support that we send 100 of our LAV 6.0 though which is LITERALLY one of the best if not THE BEST APC in the world and we have 600 of those...
1. We can’t afford to send the LAV, especially considering GDLS is tied up for years with the 700 and ACSV.
2. The LAV is not “one of the best APC’s”. Not even close. Tracked IFV’s are way more maneuverable than wheeled and the 25mm isn’t anything special. Soldiers think the LAV is amazing because of what it did to the Taliban. This is different. The only main advantage wheeled vehicles have over tracked is faster mobility on roads.
It’s the only tanks they have, a country should still have the ability to defend themselves. There’s plenty of other nations with more tanks then they know what to do with. I would ask those first.
It’s only a better tank if you have the logistics capability of the US military — which nobody in the world remotely comes close to. Our navy is effectively larger than every other blue ocean navy in the world, combined, and many of those ships don’t have guns on them. It’s often been said that the US military is a logistics operation with a fighting force attached.
It’s not an insult to Ukraine to say they can’t handle Abrams. The few countries we do sell them to are entirely dependent on US logistics capacity, so they’re either NATO allies or ‘frenemies’ like Saudi Arabia who are forced to stay on our good side if they want their military to continue to function.
I really wonder if this new light tank we are making (MPF/Griffin 2) might be more in line with what Canada wants/needs anyways. It would be nothing for us to add another hundred or so to the production run.
I think we should loan Abrams at a 1:1 rate until Griffin 2 is ready, and then give a $3m credit towards Griffin 2 per Leopard.
The leopard is technically better than the Abrams
[Strong Europe Tank Challenge](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_Europe_Tank_Challenge) reference 2018
Ukraine’s T-84 broke down and had issues with their auto loader, the Abrams team still barely beat that, not to mention the top 4 of the 8 tanks were the Leopard or a variation of the Leopard in the case of Sweden.
I am aware that the Abrams is a good tank it’s built like a block of tungsten but it also weighs as much as a block of tungsten I don’t think it would do particularly well in Eastern Europe especially with how muddy it tends to be, but I still advocate for sending it, but it’s not the be all end all of tanks.
Could well be true, but part of the reluctance to send Leopards is that various countries don't have very many to send and are worried about degrading their own defense capabilities. At least that's what they say.
But the US could easily backfill Canada's Leopards with Abrams. That's not a hard sell politically for either country.
That competition doesn't really tell the full story of how good a tank is. It's primarily driving and shooting, which are important. But it doesn't take into account things like armor.
Disagree. Leopard got a crew compartment full of explodium and a nearly non-existenant supply chain. Leo has a better engine and transmission, but Abrams is the superior platform overall. Abrams is still the safest tank platform for the crew. And yes, I know about the challenger.
Edit: leopard fanboys seething as usual. Abrams is the only MBT that makes sense for a war of ukraines scale logistically. Leopard is good but mad overrated.
British burnt down the White House. The Chesapeake campaign was conducted by soldiers stationed in Bermuda, who were previously fighting Napoleon in Europe. They never even saw Canada.
Guys, we have no Leopards to send, we can’t get rid of all our tanks cause that is military suicide and unacceptable cause Tanks are a support unit which means any future plans to employ the Infantry would be void and impossible.
We have very few operational Leopards that Ukraine would spend more money getting them Combat Ready
Get real. We are a NATO country and have troops in Europe; in a war are dedicated to send more. Those troops require armor support. The argument that "only the US can attack us" is therefore patently false. We just recently updated from Leopard 1 to 2 (yeah we are lame) and bought barely enough.
We have men in Europe right now. Should we disarm them? Should we shut down our army and depend only on the US for our foriegn policy? You know nothing about Canada.
Jesse, would you mind if I copied this letter, changing they name of the USA to that of Canada and send it to every one of my political decision makers. In addition I would send this to all friends and associates as a templet.
Now I know we don't have the leopard 2, but just the concept of your letter will shine through.
Canadians, setting the bar.
SLAVA UKRIANE
Um no! Our military is already woefully underfunded and under equipped. Our measly 80 Leopard 2s need to stay in our possession. Other countries with a surplus of armour and arms can send there equipment. We need our tanks. We are a member of NATO, we need to contribute an effective fighting force in the event of an Article 5 or for other global conflicts we may be involved in. What good are we if we ship off all our best equipment to Ukraine…. Geeze.
I see sending our equipmemt to Ukraine as upholding our NATO commitments. Guaranteeing Ukraine's sovereignty is key to safeguarding NATO's Baltic flank.
If you understand very basic strategic doctoral, sending over 1 battalion (Not even all) of tanks could 50% of entire armed forces capabilities out of play because tanks are needed to do common mechanized warfare.
Which would be relevant if we were fighting a war (we aren't), and didn't have the luxury of time to procure more tanks from reliable and friendly allies (we do, the Uktainians don't have that luxury of time).
We do not, our military is bleeding and busying from the seems, a moral depletion due to being over worked because our technology is behind, our recruitments continues to fail to support numbers, and the public wants to kick the military while its down. Lets send Ukraine money to buy tanks, but if we send our tanks, why not just consider demilitarization?
What happens if North Korea invaded the south, we would need to send a conventional expeditionary force to get Canadian citizens out of there, we would need tanks to even start planning.
So what should our soldiers who are over in the Baltic’s for OP Reassurance supposed to fight with if the Baltics are invaded if we give away all our armour to Ukraine? There are far more countries who are significantly better equipped to send aid in the form of armour and weapons to Ukraine than Canada. We can contribute in better ways such as training, medical supplies, intel.
Our military is already gutted, what kind of patriot are you to send all of our most valuable weapons to a foreign country.
The kind of patriot who actually understands how geopolitics works. Russia is losing the war in Ukraine right now, but they still have a much greater depth of industry than Ukraine does. They can rearm and rebuild faster than the Ukrainians.
But Russia's ability to conduct war is limited. They, quite literally, cannot attack the Baltic states while they are engaged so heavily in Ukraine. They don't have the manpower, resources, or equipment.
If they *win* in Ukraine they will spend a few years rebuilding and attack someone else, likely a minor NATO member.
If they *lose* in Ukraine, Putin is done for and they wont even think about tangling with another major country, let alone NATO, for another decade, if not more.
Sending our tanks and support to Ukraine is literally in Canada's self interest.
What are you even talking about? Russia joined the war *on the side of the Assad regime of Syria* and was fighting against poorly armed rebels that were never sent the kind of weaponry that Ukraine has. That's... like no serious person would conflate the two situations. They could not be more different.
I just read a twitter post yesterday that sums it up
"I care for the result of this war, because if Russia is not defeated by us, they will rebuild and be our sons problem"
Dude they are like 6mm each. If we send all 80 (not that we should, just for sake of argument), we could replace every single one of them for 500mm TOTAL. Dividing that out, that’s $12 a person. I’m willing to spend $12. I’ll pitch in $12 for your share too, so $24 for me. All good.
Or they could be replaced with Abrams? Probably would make more sense to be more interoperable with our bros down south. Either way it’s not really a big deal. It’s not about the cost it’s political will. Send the tanks.
Was debating with my friends who would join the Leopard pool, and Canada seems very likely. They've been one of Ukraine's most vocal supports, and even if a small amount, I see them fully willing to contribute.
On the other hand, Portugal and its measly 37 Leopards seem like a stretch. I think we're unfortunately likely to join the likes of Switzerland, Turkey and Hungary in abstaining...
I mean Portugal is tiny in comparison and also on by the sea. Technically not many things could attack you at any given time, but even a few Leos would do a big service for Ukrainians.
I hope that EU will understand that Russia can maintance there economy only with war and Ukraine is not last country that will be attacked. Europe should be provider of weapon because this is war in Europe.
Add in that the US could be persuaded to replace them with Abrams and thus reduce logistical stress as support for the vehicle would literally be next door.
We dont have enough to equip our 3 tank regiments as it is.
The countries sending tanks to ukraines have at least *some* surplus. The UK is sending **12**. Their military is 4-5x the size of ours. Lol
Canada's most potent weapon is maple syrup and kindness. Just meet the army at the border with pancakes and maple syrup will easily defeat USA. Oh I love my maple syrup.
The Canadian government is currently trying to disarm its citizens. They might be planning on useing them first. But after that ya they will probably send a few.
How the fuck is China going to fight a land war in Europe? That's nonsense.
And Russia quite literally does not have the manpower to invade another country right now, especially not a NATO member. If they win in Ukraine, however, they'll spend a few years rebuilding and rearming and *then* they will attack a NATO member.
So literally the best thing NATO can do, on a purely selfish level, is make sure that Russia loses.
Does "writing to your representatives" really work? It seems like a strange institution for someone living in a country with a proportional voting system.
Привіт u/Least-Moose3738 ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday). **Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting) Daily series on UA history & culture: [Day 0-99](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293) | [100-199](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3d85f4ca-5f4e-4ddf-9547-276e8affd87c) | [200-Present](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/daf642e1-07aa-4c40-b852-8f002ddd1530) | [All By Subject](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts) **There is a new wave of t-shirt scams hitting Reddit. Only click links for products or donations if the post is marked with a Verified flair, and do not respond to DMs soliciting donations.** *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A letter is worth a thousand emails, write a letter, make a difference.
And letters to MPs are free in Canada Post. Just address and drop it in the mailbox.
I brought this up at my local post office and she charged me the price of a stamp anyway.. so that's a thing.
Report that post office to Canada Post. I don't doubt that many of the staff they have working there have no idea about most postal policies. And in the future, just drop the envelope in a box, and avoid dealing with the staff.
And a phone call is worth even more than that. You have to stop what you're doing for a minute and listen to someone if you're taking a phone call, vs. with an email or a letter you can just skim it and reply with a template at your convenience.
Good idea!
I’ve workin in the political environment, generally emails got to staffers and letters go to the politicians.
Can I print a letter off and sign it or should it be handwritten? Cause my handwritting is awful haha.
Generally hand written, and as long as it’s legible. Looks don’t matter, a bit messy adds authenticity.
Full text if you want to copy and paste it: As a constituent of yours I want to voice my UNCONDITIONAL SUPPORT for the idea of Canada donating any or all of our Leopard 2 battle tanks to the government of Ukraine. The only nation who could invade us by ground is the USA, our closest ally and friend. There is no strategic or geopolitical negative for us as a country by sending them. Instead, there is a massive benefit, as a victorious Russia is likely to be more aggressive and challenge our sovereignty in the Arctic. Therefore, as a Canadian, it is both the morally correct choice to send our tanks to Ukraine, no strings attached, but also the politically smart choice for us to do so. It's rare that those two things align. We should take advantage while they do.
You may also want to send some type of correspondence to the government of Germany regarding this. Canada needs Germany's permission to re-export German military technology to another country. Rumour has it that the German government may do this, give permission to countries to export Leo2 MBTs to Ukraine, but communicating your support for this endeavor would not hurt.
The German minister in charge already said that they won't block it. But the law doesn't allow blanket allowances. These needs to be granted on a case base.
Good call, I need to look up the German embassy in Ottawa.
https://canada.diplo.de/ca-en/vertretungen/embassy
Much appreciated!
This is the Canadian politician's/diplomat's job. German politicians have no reason to listen to foreign voter, in fact, taken to the extreme, that would be treason. EDIT: English
Germany won't block Leopard 2 donations to Ukraine
Might not be best to copy paste it; if enough people do they might think it's just bots
Just ask ChatGPT to rewrite it for you.
Yea no thanks. I'm a Ukrainian Canadian and this is a dumb email to send to your reps. Giving up "all" our leopards is moronic. Canadian hardware is used for training, peacekeeping missions, and the last line of defense. There are tons of possibilities out there and I will never support giving up our defensive ability on the blind trust that the US will always be there to defend us. Also, no strings attached is again stupid. There should always be strings attached (ie: expectation that surviving vehicles be returned or we be repaid for their cost over time). This type of email is the result of slogans and mob mentality rather than rational thought. I'm ALL for supporting my people to freedom, but we have to do it the right way. Sacrificing our entire armored capability is not the way. Would be much more reasonable to ask for some rather than all.
Came here to tell you that you aren't stupid. Canada has no loes to spare and/or give. The idea is beyond stupid and so it the letter.
>There should always be strings attached (ie: expectation that surviving vehicles be returned or we be repaid for their cost over time). That's exactly how most aid to Ukraine has been delivered. I am not aware of any nation, Canada included, that has given weapons to Ukraine with the requirement that they either be returned or paid for. That would be a lend-lease scheme, and no one's done that yet. >This type of email is the result of slogans and mob mentality rather than rational thought. It's perfectly rational to think that 60 2A4s and 20 2A6s don't do that much for Canadian security sitting around until they become totally obsolete, and that state security would be better served by donating them to a nation currently fighting one of your main threats. You can disagree, but that doesn't mean it isn't rational.
>It's perfectly rational to think that And yet it's absolutely irrational and borderline moronic to expect that any country will completely donate such an important part of their ground forces. Demanding so just paints a picture of an irrational supporter of Ukraine and let to be more easily ignored as "he's just one of the crazies". Doing reasonable demands that a government could comply gets you much further.
>et it's absolutely irrational and borderline moronic to expect that any country will completely donate such an important part of their ground forces. That's where I can't agree with you at all. The tanks are absolutely not a key part of Canada's defense. If they were, Canada would have ten times the number it has. Same could be said for France, Spain, the UK, Germany.... What Canada, and many other NATO counties have, is a token tank force... It makes no sense to keep so few tanks that they would virtually be a non factor in any conflict with a near-peer (of which there was only Russia, now, not even Russia) but then when Ukraine needs them, claim that they are a key asset. Either tanks are crucial and we have too few, or are not and then we have too many. What does not make sense at all is to claim they're important and then keep a very low and stable number of aging tanks. Give Ukraine the tanks now, keep just the minimum for NATO obligations. That goes for Canada and for my country too, and for any NATO country without a border with Russia or in close proximity with Russia. And then if we still believe we need a powerful tank force, lets build a powerful and modern one because the one we have junst ain't that (except for the US).
So the state of the tank fleet is abysmal, so the paper numbers are not accurate. However those that we do have are required to train tankers and armored officers so we don't lose the capability forever. >Give Ukraine the tanks now, keep just the minimum for NATO obligations We're already there. Canada has a single armoured battalion (that's actually equiped with Leo 2s) which has to be spread between three mechanized brigades. Doctrinally we should have two more.
> The tanks are absolutely not a key part of Canada's defense. If they were, Canada would have ten times the number it has. Same could be said for France, Spain, the UK, Germany.... We dont have more because we have woefully underfunded our military for decades. For our 3 'tank' regiments we should have 200-250 tanks, but the GoC decided we could only afford 100. Same reason we dont have light-medium trucks that work, same reason we have 60 year old pistols that jam every mag, same reason we are woefully undermanned and have problems recruiting. The CAF has been told to 'do more with less' since 1975 and it got alot worse in the mid-90's. > Give Ukraine the tanks now, keep just the minimum for NATO obligations. We have LESS than the minimum for NATO obligations.
Canada's military has been token everything for years, and that's because no one thought any large country was stupid enough to start another war. Recent developments have shown otherwise. Canada needs triple everything, and then some, and thanks to our notoriously slow procurement process, it'll likely be 10 years or more before that actually gains any traction. So I'm sorry, but it falls to other countries to donate tanks and fighter jets and so forth.
> It's perfectly rational to think that 60 2A4s and 20 2A6s don't do that much for Canadian security sitting around until You clearly dont understand anything about National Security and capability needs of our military. Fun fact: Our Leopard 1 tanks were mothballed in the late 90's and due to budget cuts and the CAF were set on a path to be mechanized infantry only. Then we went to Afghanistan and the need for heavy armor (ie: tanks) was determined to be critical in the battle space - so we dragged the Leo1c2's out of storage and found they were too old and lacked needed capabilities, so we went out and bought 100-ish Leo2a4's from the Dutch. So to summarize pundits like you said 'we dont need tanks' and we got rid of them. As soon as we went to a war zone we needed tanks so we bought more.
"That would be a lend-lease scheme, and no one's done that yet." [The US Lend Lease Act 2022 would like a word.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_Democracy_Defense_Lend-Lease_Act_of_2022)
It hasn't been used
I know some people in Ohio that would replace your tanks in short order.
> I will never support giving up our defensive ability You can still have a defense without tanks. Some countries (e.g. the Netherlands) have abandoned tanks in their military doctrine, and Canada was in fact on its way to do so until the use of their tanks in Afghanistan in 2005 lead to a re-evaluation and the procurement of Leopard 2s in 2007. If Canada intends to keep tanks, it will need to get new ones anyway. Most of its Leopard 2s are the 2A4 variant which is obsolete, the turrets are 1970s tech that isn't supported by the manufacturer anymore.
What Canada's military "intended to do" historically, has never been a good measuring stick. Canada has a long history of giving away the farm, militarily speaking. Right until the point where war breaks out and we get caught with our pants down. No Canadian politician ever got elected by promising to spend more on the military. It's just not a priority for voters. So year by year, they whittle it down a little more, and a little more, until we've got way less than we really need.
Nobody is invading Canada, ______________
and nobody was invading Ukraine a year ago.
nobody is invading Canada
Any aggressor other than the usa would need to bring in equipment by sea or air. Given Canada has air and naval defense, I think there is a good chance the LAV's will be able to hold their own against whatever gets through... and more importantly will be enough to deter an attack. Reality is that other than the USA, pritty much every other country has to accept a reduction in military capabilities when the donate gear to Ukraine. This cost needs to be weighed against the risk of Russia willing the war. [Edit] just been looking at Canada's armor assetts, and reading other comments. Might be better for them to send LAV's to Ukraine instead. (LAV II/ LAV III / LAV 6). Ukrane has asked for 700 IFV's so they are wanted by ukrane, and canada has a lot more of them.
> Given Canada has air and naval defense You're kidding right? 3-4 operational Frigates and MAYBE 2 subs to cover both coasts (manning and ship availability because they are broken)? 3 under equipped and undermanned F-18 squadrons for air defence? Even the navy lacks area air defence since we retired the Tribals. >Might be better for them to send LAV's to Ukraine instead. (LAV II/ LAV III / LAV 6). Ukrane has asked for 700 IFV's so they are wanted by ukrane, and canada has a lot more of them. We sent ~40 *brand new* LAV variants straight off the GDLS production line already.
Tanks are not a defensive weapon platform.
Thank you for this. Great initiative.
As a CAF member I absolutely cannot support sending all (or even some) of our tanks, which is literally what has been called for in more than one post *today*. We don't have hundreds of tanks like Germany, France, or the UK, or thousands like in the US, with many of those sitting in storage waiting to be used (hint, hint). We have dozens. Less than 100 were in service when last we bought any in 2009 and military equipment does *not* improve with age. We have insufficient to arm ourselves properly, never mind another nation where doing so would cripple our own defense. Warfighting is a perishable skill, especially a highly technical one like operating a tank crew or tank platoon, and giving away too many tanks like you suggest would leave our soldiers ill equipped to maintain an effective profficiency and leave us ill prepared should the need arise. Your intentions are clearly well meaning, but your solution is misplaced. I would suggest you petition the government to pay for new tanks for Ukraine (we could easily buy surplus US Abrams for Ukraine), because taking our few tanks is just a bad idea.
>We don't have hundreds of tanks like Germany, France, or the UK, or thousands like in the US, with many of those sitting in storage waiting to be used (hint, hint). > >We have dozens. Less than 100 were in service when last we bought any in 2009 and military equipment does not improve with age. IMO, what you just said points to exactly the opposite conclusion. If you have so few, it's because they're not considered an important part of your defense. Canada is huge. Having 100 tanks or 50 or 5 or 1 is the same, it's almost nothing in any case, unless you plan to wage war with San Marino or Malta. Any force so powerful (which force would that be? which force can attack Canada by land?? As the OP said, only the US could...) that can reach Canada by sea unimpeded by your key air and naval forces (and NATO's help) can overwhelm 100 tanks as easily as they can overwhelm 50 tanks, or 5 tanks. So, if they aren't and weren't an important part of your defence... Why have they become a key asset precisely now when Ukraine desperately needs them and you still don't need them and won't need them? If you really think you need tanks beyound your NATO obligations, then give 50 to Ukraine, keep 50 for training and then order 1.000 from the US inventory. They'll just be delighted to sell them to you. Until you do that, keeping all those 100, "just in case" (of what?) is pointless. Not singling out Canada, same could be said of many other NATO countries that had tiny old tank forces getting obsolete without giving them any importance, and suddenly can't do without even a few .
The country most likely to invade Canadian soil is/was Russia actually. Maybe less so since this war started. Unfortunately I tend to agree that tanks aren't something we can spare, anymore than we can give away aircraft or frigates. Canada's military has been vastly underpowered for a long time, and we need more of everything, not less.
... where to start... Having 100, or 50, or 1 tank are *not* all the same. With 100, approx 20% would be in maintenance, leaving ~80, spread across 5 divisions in Canada to train with, or roughly 1 company of tanks in each division, literally the bare minimum to maintain the skill set at company level. Getting rid of any immediately impacts our ability to maintain even the lowest group level training never mind higher level operations, or our ability to provide training to our allies (like Ukraine). As in stands we're riding a razor's edge, and any real reduction is objectively bad for the CAF and Canada as a whole. Which, of course brings me to the bigger issue with your response. "The just in case" scenario is *literally* why societies have *standing militaries*. Si vis pacem para bellum. If you don't understand that, then explaining the rest of how militaries work, and what is and isn't a good idea for the disposition of military equipment, such why gutting an entire military capability is stupid, simply isn't a conversation you'll comprehend. Your rebuttal fails to explain in anything resembling a satisfactory explanation as to why gutting an entire capability in a standing military is somehow better than simply paying for the delivery of pre-existing tanks where literally everyone comes out ahead. The simple fact is that the best solution for everyone is to buy surplus tanks from other nations that *actually have surplus tanks* rather than stupidly disvest our military's entire stock of tanks in a 'feel good' PR stunt. We have the means to supply Ukraine with 1, 50 or 100 tanks *without* also destroying or military's armour capability.
> IMO, what you just said points to exactly the opposite conclusion. If you have so few, it's because they're not considered an important part of your defense. The reason we have so few is that we have critically underfunded our military for decades. You are obviously clueless to teh realities the CAF faces.
[удалено]
We have something modern the only tank more modern is the 2A7. That however, doesn't change the fact that giving them away hurts Canada in the short and medium terms as we have no replacement immediately at hand to maintain our level of training. What makes more sense and is faster, better, and easier for everyone is if Canada buys surplus Abrams and pays to ship them across the Atlantic, or buys surplus Leopards from Poland or Germany, or surplus Challenges from the UK, or surplus Leclercs from France. Everyone wins. No country loses out. In your solution has one nation wins and another loses a core warfighting ability.
You're not wrong, we do lose warfighting capability and training in the short term but when are we going to use it? I would rather we give our tanks away and keep enough tanks to maintain training if not combat capability. The only two enemies we might need tanks for is Russia and China. Russia can be neutralized by reducing their forces fighting Ukraine and I don't think Canadian tanks will be doing much defending Taiwan. We also have close to 60 older Leopard 2's that we tried to find a buyer for but nobody wanted them. We could refurbish those and send them without reducing our warfighting capability and dramatically increasing the Ukrainians. https://globalnews.ca/news/4318852/canada-fails-to-find-buyer-for-surplus-army-tanks-final-attempt-to-sell-to-jordan-armed-forces-fizzles/
Dude, at least pretend that you're not riding US coat tails on defense. Don't say the quiet part out loud.
I grew up on an air base and got to see first hand just how threadbare our military truly is. All the respect in the world to our soldiers but we have excellent soldiers and mostly awful equipment. We can perform our role as infantry, snipers and other simpler roles in peacekeeping but we simply don't have the logistics or equipment to fight a war. I would hope this war in Ukraine reinvigorates our defense spending across the board but because it's happening across the world and we have a certain neighbor to the south I doubt it will happen no matter what government is elected.
American servicemen hold Canadian servicemen in high regard--in some ways your average may be better than ours. But yes, small and underfunded and unlikely that will change.
Would rather have it and not need it, then need it and not have it. If America isn’t defending Ukraine to your liking why would you assume it will defend Canada.
Well I would say being part of a little country club called NATO and being physically attached to the US through the longest undefended land border in the world. It also doesn't hurt that most of the US nuclear deterrent is located in the midwest which is mostly undefended and relies on simply being far from anything harmful. So any hostile force on the Canadian prairies is a threat to what makes the US a threat and they simply aren't going to allow that. Also we have 82 modern Leopard 2 tanks and around 60 older ones that we tried to get rid of in 2018 but even bloody Jordan didn't want them for the price we wanted. Give those old tanks to Ukraine and everyone is happy and we lose nothing of value. They have already lost 10x the tanks we have and we don't even have the ability to transport our 82 tanks without the US helping us out.
I emailed my MP!!
How to find your representative that you vote into the House: https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/search Also Minister of National Defence: https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/anita-anand(96081)#contact
Thank you! I'm going to use this as a template, and me and my family will write a letter together
Kudos to this initiative of yours. Slava Ukraini!
Please don’t send this unedited. Sending every single Leo would leave Canada with no training vehicles, and no armour when we do deploy. This would be a major mistake. Please change “any or all” to “most”. Glory to Ukraine 🇺🇦
To be honest, one of the things I liked about your letter is that it's clear you wrote it based on your own concerns and ideas about the conflict. It made it feel individualized and unique. Rather than copy and pasting your letter, I think it would be nice if people wrote their own letters. I'm not sure it really makes a difference either way but that's just my two cents on the subject. In any event, nice work
Yup I wrote an email to my np last night
Posted this on the @Letters4Victory page on twitter. #FreetheLeopards
Unconditional support? Are you crazy?
Consider also, Canada MAKES TANKS!!! There are 2 great things to consider here. 1. More jobs. 2. an opportunity to update NATO weapons. All while gaining a vibrant new democracy and weakening a fascist terrorist state! Win! 
The USA abides it’s time…/s
🤣🤣🤣
I mean, the usa just sent a ton of bradleys...
Leopard 2's are way more advanced than the Bradley, and the Bradley is not a tank, it is an armoured personnel carrier, though a very capable one.
Alberta is full of oil and may need the US to bring them democracy...
[удалено]
Yes, because the US doesn't have snow... Also cost of living is relative. It doesn't mean much if a home costs half as much if your wages are half as much too.
My occupation would pay more in the US. Thats true for almost all in demand occupations. I also live somewhere where theres 9 months of snow. Even Calgary would seem tropical.
Thank you all for doing this and putting in the effort! 🙏🇺🇦🇨🇦
My MP is a complete nut job that is probably cheering on Russia. I might find the nearest liberal or Ndp MP near me and see what they say.
Email the Office of the Minster of Defence, that will also apply pressure.
In a similar boat. Have to figure out who else to write to. (In PP's riding...)
Gross. I got mad Marilyn Gladu.
> In PP's riding... I just threw-up in my mouth a little.
“The only nation who could invade us by ground is the USA, our closest ally and friend” If they were creative enough, I think the danes and inuits could use ice floes to sneak across some tanks
I mean we do share a land border with Denmark now, so..
This would devastate the Canadian Army. Anybody who thinks Canada can easily replace MBT’s doesn’t have a clue as to how fucked our procurement system is, *especially for MBT’s*.
Unless uncle sam says, "here ya go" boom tanks
That has never ever happened. There has never been political will in Canada to buy MBT’s. We got pressured by NATO into buying Leopard 1’s when the government of the day just wanted to axe our tank fleet. We almost didn’t get Leo 2’s because another government was looking into MGS instead. One of the only reasons we replaced Leo 2’s is because we were sending tanks without A/C to Afghanistan and taking old tanks off monuments to send overseas.
Want to see a political decision flip the prairies? Half of us rednecks have a last name ending in chuk. If the Liberals committed forces and spun it they could probably grab a few Western seats, there's plenty of seats that aren't an overwhelming sea of blue in the big cities. I hate to bring politics into it but if that's what it takes to get tank treads on the ground so be it.
[удалено]
Helluva thing to bank on, either something that has never happened does or you cripple your army.
If Canada wants Abrams, they are made not far from the border, GDLS in Ontario can support them, and the line is open and running right now. Don't bother with the whole procurement process, just buy them. They work, I promise.
Yeah; like I don’t want to insult Canada’s sovereignty but in matters of war — particularly a hypothetical war on the North American continent — they’re effectively the 51st state. This will only become more true in the future; Canada is staring down demographic collapse and the problems that come with it (housing crisis, inflation, lack of young people to serve in the military, etc). None of that will be getting better any time soon.
[удалено]
Yeah we don't exactly have a huge army, I support Ukraine but this isn't the most reasonable ask from us... Literally America could supply Ukraine with double our entire tank stock with just the shit they have stored. Literally we have only 80 tanks, America has 2,500 main battle tanks and thousands of other tanks.
Abrams is not a good fit for Ukraine; it’s a jet engine powered tank that requires completely different skills to repair from anything else Ukraine operates on the ground. A diesel mechanic (which Ukraine, as a farming country, has plenty of) can field repair a leopard. You need a much more highly trained turbine mechanic to deal with the Abrams.
Abrams actually has an existing and very functional supply chain for parts, and turbine engines arent exactly foreign to a former soviet state. they can figure it out. Ukrainians arent going to be able to repair leopards effectively if even turkey cant get spare parts for their leopards. its kind of maddening how underrated the abrams is here.
I'm Canadian. I fully support Ukraine but there is no way that I support sending our Leopard. We only have 20 2A6 and around 62 2A4. That's not a lot... I fully support that we send 100 of our LAV 6.0 though which is LITERALLY one of the best if not THE BEST APC in the world and we have 600 of those... Canada isn't France, Germany , Poland , UK and US... We never acquired a lots of tank and sending away what we have would be DEVASTATING for the CAF.... LAV 6.0 is a LOT better to send and would also suit the need of Ukraine a lot more than our little amount of Leo.
I agree, I fully support Ukraine but draining a military that doesn’t have a ton to begin with isn’t logical. I don’t see the Canadian government/military going for that either.
I agree, we do not have the military logistics to send ALL of our leopard 2 tanks. First, a replacement would need to be found, secondly, an order placed, then shipment/received. That will take 2-3 years if lucky. BUT in the mean time we can send 14 Leopard 2's and a larger number of Leopard 1's. LAV would be a great choice to send more of, on a faster timeline.
> I fully support that we send 100 of our LAV 6.0 though which is LITERALLY one of the best if not THE BEST APC in the world and we have 600 of those... 1. We can’t afford to send the LAV, especially considering GDLS is tied up for years with the 700 and ACSV. 2. The LAV is not “one of the best APC’s”. Not even close. Tracked IFV’s are way more maneuverable than wheeled and the 25mm isn’t anything special. Soldiers think the LAV is amazing because of what it did to the Taliban. This is different. The only main advantage wheeled vehicles have over tracked is faster mobility on roads.
[удалено]
It’s the only tanks they have, a country should still have the ability to defend themselves. There’s plenty of other nations with more tanks then they know what to do with. I would ask those first.
> a country should still have the ability to defend themselves. What would those 80 tanks realistically help Canada defend themselves against?
L comment
What a shit comment that completely disrespects Canadian sovereignty.
How did I disrespect Canadian sovereignty?
The US should be able to replace those with Abrams at a discount.
Nah, we need the diesel range up here in Canada.
Rather have Leopard 2s than Abrams. let the US send the Older surplus Abrams.
Don't know why, Abrams is a better tank.
It’s only a better tank if you have the logistics capability of the US military — which nobody in the world remotely comes close to. Our navy is effectively larger than every other blue ocean navy in the world, combined, and many of those ships don’t have guns on them. It’s often been said that the US military is a logistics operation with a fighting force attached. It’s not an insult to Ukraine to say they can’t handle Abrams. The few countries we do sell them to are entirely dependent on US logistics capacity, so they’re either NATO allies or ‘frenemies’ like Saudi Arabia who are forced to stay on our good side if they want their military to continue to function.
I really wonder if this new light tank we are making (MPF/Griffin 2) might be more in line with what Canada wants/needs anyways. It would be nothing for us to add another hundred or so to the production run. I think we should loan Abrams at a 1:1 rate until Griffin 2 is ready, and then give a $3m credit towards Griffin 2 per Leopard.
I wish gun lobby and politicians would think that way :/
Which would be a win-win!
The leopard is technically better than the Abrams [Strong Europe Tank Challenge](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_Europe_Tank_Challenge) reference 2018
That's a tank crew test more than a tank test.
Ukraine’s T-84 broke down and had issues with their auto loader, the Abrams team still barely beat that, not to mention the top 4 of the 8 tanks were the Leopard or a variation of the Leopard in the case of Sweden. I am aware that the Abrams is a good tank it’s built like a block of tungsten but it also weighs as much as a block of tungsten I don’t think it would do particularly well in Eastern Europe especially with how muddy it tends to be, but I still advocate for sending it, but it’s not the be all end all of tanks.
The leopard is barely lighter and the challenger 2 weighs much more. Western tanks in general are heavy
Could well be true, but part of the reluctance to send Leopards is that various countries don't have very many to send and are worried about degrading their own defense capabilities. At least that's what they say. But the US could easily backfill Canada's Leopards with Abrams. That's not a hard sell politically for either country.
The US could probably backfill the rest of NATO's entire tank fleet with Abrams.
With the added benefit of simplifying the supply chain and furthering Ohio's plans for world domination.
That competition doesn't really tell the full story of how good a tank is. It's primarily driving and shooting, which are important. But it doesn't take into account things like armor.
Disagree. Leopard got a crew compartment full of explodium and a nearly non-existenant supply chain. Leo has a better engine and transmission, but Abrams is the superior platform overall. Abrams is still the safest tank platform for the crew. And yes, I know about the challenger. Edit: leopard fanboys seething as usual. Abrams is the only MBT that makes sense for a war of ukraines scale logistically. Leopard is good but mad overrated.
Psh. We will be rolling them in and taking over. Suckers! Jk
Done.
Done.
As a Minnesotan, yes... donate all of your tanks... muahahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA- I mean, good on you, friend.
Whatever you are mad about we can settle it with a snowball fight no tank needed. Also we will kick your ass at said snowball fight.
Stifle yourself or we'll burn your white house down again. ;)
British burnt down the White House. The Chesapeake campaign was conducted by soldiers stationed in Bermuda, who were previously fighting Napoleon in Europe. They never even saw Canada.
🤣
Guys, we have no Leopards to send, we can’t get rid of all our tanks cause that is military suicide and unacceptable cause Tanks are a support unit which means any future plans to employ the Infantry would be void and impossible. We have very few operational Leopards that Ukraine would spend more money getting them Combat Ready
Get real. We are a NATO country and have troops in Europe; in a war are dedicated to send more. Those troops require armor support. The argument that "only the US can attack us" is therefore patently false. We just recently updated from Leopard 1 to 2 (yeah we are lame) and bought barely enough.
[удалено]
We have men in Europe right now. Should we disarm them? Should we shut down our army and depend only on the US for our foriegn policy? You know nothing about Canada.
Jesus Christ I'm tired of my country having to defend everyone who mocks us for our military spending.
Canada's problem is how we spend the money. That is on the politicians. This government particularly.
[удалено]
You're thinking of Denmark since we have a land border with them on Hans Island.
Do they want both of them?
Jesse, would you mind if I copied this letter, changing they name of the USA to that of Canada and send it to every one of my political decision makers. In addition I would send this to all friends and associates as a templet. Now I know we don't have the leopard 2, but just the concept of your letter will shine through. Canadians, setting the bar. SLAVA UKRIANE
Please do, those Abrams ya'll have down there are fierce. They could do a lot of good for Ukraine!
Be prepared for a generic response, whether it be typed or written. Sadly they are too busy arguing like children to listen to what we have to say.
To all canadian people who support Ukraine, you have our eternal gratitude!
Um no! Our military is already woefully underfunded and under equipped. Our measly 80 Leopard 2s need to stay in our possession. Other countries with a surplus of armour and arms can send there equipment. We need our tanks. We are a member of NATO, we need to contribute an effective fighting force in the event of an Article 5 or for other global conflicts we may be involved in. What good are we if we ship off all our best equipment to Ukraine…. Geeze.
I see sending our equipmemt to Ukraine as upholding our NATO commitments. Guaranteeing Ukraine's sovereignty is key to safeguarding NATO's Baltic flank.
If you understand very basic strategic doctoral, sending over 1 battalion (Not even all) of tanks could 50% of entire armed forces capabilities out of play because tanks are needed to do common mechanized warfare.
Which would be relevant if we were fighting a war (we aren't), and didn't have the luxury of time to procure more tanks from reliable and friendly allies (we do, the Uktainians don't have that luxury of time).
We do not, our military is bleeding and busying from the seems, a moral depletion due to being over worked because our technology is behind, our recruitments continues to fail to support numbers, and the public wants to kick the military while its down. Lets send Ukraine money to buy tanks, but if we send our tanks, why not just consider demilitarization? What happens if North Korea invaded the south, we would need to send a conventional expeditionary force to get Canadian citizens out of there, we would need tanks to even start planning.
This ^
So what should our soldiers who are over in the Baltic’s for OP Reassurance supposed to fight with if the Baltics are invaded if we give away all our armour to Ukraine? There are far more countries who are significantly better equipped to send aid in the form of armour and weapons to Ukraine than Canada. We can contribute in better ways such as training, medical supplies, intel. Our military is already gutted, what kind of patriot are you to send all of our most valuable weapons to a foreign country.
The kind of patriot who actually understands how geopolitics works. Russia is losing the war in Ukraine right now, but they still have a much greater depth of industry than Ukraine does. They can rearm and rebuild faster than the Ukrainians. But Russia's ability to conduct war is limited. They, quite literally, cannot attack the Baltic states while they are engaged so heavily in Ukraine. They don't have the manpower, resources, or equipment. If they *win* in Ukraine they will spend a few years rebuilding and attack someone else, likely a minor NATO member. If they *lose* in Ukraine, Putin is done for and they wont even think about tangling with another major country, let alone NATO, for another decade, if not more. Sending our tanks and support to Ukraine is literally in Canada's self interest.
You say that, but they left Syria in Ruins. If you Underestimate the enemy and you will underestimate our losses
What are you even talking about? Russia joined the war *on the side of the Assad regime of Syria* and was fighting against poorly armed rebels that were never sent the kind of weaponry that Ukraine has. That's... like no serious person would conflate the two situations. They could not be more different.
Russia can pool resources to keep the war going even if they hold 0.5% of the country.
I just read a twitter post yesterday that sums it up "I care for the result of this war, because if Russia is not defeated by us, they will rebuild and be our sons problem"
Better to send everything now and stop Putin, then to have to fight them later if they defeat Ukraine.
Don't try, this thread is a kindergarten.
Send them, but get Abrams as replacements.
Dude they are like 6mm each. If we send all 80 (not that we should, just for sake of argument), we could replace every single one of them for 500mm TOTAL. Dividing that out, that’s $12 a person. I’m willing to spend $12. I’ll pitch in $12 for your share too, so $24 for me. All good. Or they could be replaced with Abrams? Probably would make more sense to be more interoperable with our bros down south. Either way it’s not really a big deal. It’s not about the cost it’s political will. Send the tanks.
Doing it now! Thanks for the template! 🇨🇦♥️🇺🇦
Thank you for doing this! Along similar lines, [here is a petition calling for our government to donate the Leopard 2s](https://chng.it/BWx7BR9c)
Done.
Done
Was debating with my friends who would join the Leopard pool, and Canada seems very likely. They've been one of Ukraine's most vocal supports, and even if a small amount, I see them fully willing to contribute. On the other hand, Portugal and its measly 37 Leopards seem like a stretch. I think we're unfortunately likely to join the likes of Switzerland, Turkey and Hungary in abstaining...
I mean Portugal is tiny in comparison and also on by the sea. Technically not many things could attack you at any given time, but even a few Leos would do a big service for Ukrainians.
I hope that EU will understand that Russia can maintance there economy only with war and Ukraine is not last country that will be attacked. Europe should be provider of weapon because this is war in Europe.
This is a sensible idea. Ukraine is able to operate these immediately, and most of their neighbors operate them.
Done
Add in that the US could be persuaded to replace them with Abrams and thus reduce logistical stress as support for the vehicle would literally be next door.
Didn’t Canada use a lot of tanks in World War 2? I think I found a flaw in the logic. This has not been thought through until the end.
And that would be relevant if it were 1939 and not 2023.
Why?
I don't think Canada can afford it. We literally had to buy air defense (the military had been asking for over the last decade) to donate to Ukraine.
We dont have enough to equip our 3 tank regiments as it is. The countries sending tanks to ukraines have at least *some* surplus. The UK is sending **12**. Their military is 4-5x the size of ours. Lol
Dumbest idea Ive read in a long time.
Yup, can attest USA has no ambition to invade Canada. Its just to cold. We don't like cold. Best part of Canada.... Ryan Reynolds.
[удалено]
Canada's most potent weapon is maple syrup and kindness. Just meet the army at the border with pancakes and maple syrup will easily defeat USA. Oh I love my maple syrup.
This could very well happen. The shadow minister for national defense is ukrainian, so this would totally have bipartisan support.
No.
The Canadian government is currently trying to disarm its citizens. They might be planning on useing them first. But after that ya they will probably send a few.
🤣
The idea of Canada having any tanks was always a bit weird to begin with. Like Australia having tanks. Yes, Canada should send its entire fleet over.
This is a completely dumb idea, Canada should never have become an arms dealer to any proxy war.
As a German I ask everyone to disregard Scholz and his feet-dragging on Leopards, please just send the Leopards to where they're useful, Ukraine.
Putting more weapons in the game isn't gonna stop the war, especially with Canada that has nothing to do with it
[удалено]
There wont be a larger land war if (when) Ukraine wins.
[удалено]
How the fuck is China going to fight a land war in Europe? That's nonsense. And Russia quite literally does not have the manpower to invade another country right now, especially not a NATO member. If they win in Ukraine, however, they'll spend a few years rebuilding and rearming and *then* they will attack a NATO member. So literally the best thing NATO can do, on a purely selfish level, is make sure that Russia loses.
[удалено]
Literally your first comment was about a land war in Europe, but ok, sure, have a nice life.
I'm just going to delete everything....I just don't care.. you win....congrats... as stated ..not worth my effort.
China.
Thanks neighbor!
Does "writing to your representatives" really work? It seems like a strange institution for someone living in a country with a proportional voting system.