>

We will actually make more money the longer this war goes on.
So would Putin's removal and someone sane taking his place >


and someone sane taking his place

It would have to be another Russian though.  They haven't really excelled when it comes to picking types of governments. >

We don't need a Russian leader who is actually anti-war. 
Just one that's smart enough to admit they have lost this one and willing to play the part of a Russia asking for forgiveness and removal of sanctions. 
They will probably also start work on re-arming and modernising the Russian Military in preparation for the next war. But it would still be an improvement on the current situation. >

We need all leaders to be anti-war. >

That's just not how Russia works, the next leader won't be Ghandi, they don't even have someone in the pipe for that.
The restoration with the West will last long and we won't work together for quite some time and even if we work together again it's not going to be in a sector that is of huge interest for Russia. >


the next leader won't be Ghandi

thats good, Ghandi would have nuked on the 1st day >


"I really believe that a clear, strategically viable and stable Ukrainian victory this year would be a big boost for the global economy and a big boost for Canada"

Putting aside all the suspicious qualifiers (clear, strategically viable, stable), I don't understand why this would be a big boost for Canada in particular. 
Canada's economy aligns relatively closely with Russia's. Canada has had greater GDP growth over the past year than any G7 country except the US, and is forecasted to have the 2nd highest GDP growth in 2023 (behind Japan). Canadian exports just hit an all-time high, driven mainly by energy products (plus agriculture and mining, to a lesser extent).
In the long term, a stable trading environment would probably be better, sure. But in the short to medium term, Canada benefits economically from the war continuing due to Russia being shut out; it's the Eurozone that really needs this to end ASAP. >

She’s just linking our support of Ukraine to domestic issues. In an election people are going to be most worried about their own jobs and that sort of thing. 
We’re going to provide whatever Canada can produce for Ukraine regardless. >

But there’s no foreseeable election >

All the pollsters and political junkies I know are leaning to a fall election this year. Could be wrong but it is being foreseen. >

I want a million dollars! Did it work? Am I rich now? >

There will only ever be a win by Ukraine if Putin is dead. Because he will never give up or stop. >

This shit is like saying if Hitler was assassinated in 1942 Germany would unconditionally surrender. 
The war would continue and Goering would take over since he was already declared the successor. >

Much worse whoever succeeds Hitler probably won't micromanage German military strategy and the axis may end up doing better. At the end of the war Stalin was quoted in saying Soviet's best general was Adolf Hitler because his hold or die orders did most of the work for the red army to encircle German divisions. >

I read somewhere that Hitler carried Germany early in the war. He bet on France taking long to prepare an offensive so he advised to send most of the army on Poland and leave a small irrelevant number to guard the French front.
But then later in the war he was throwing hard. >

The quicker Russia is defeated the better off everyone is! Even the Russians less dead!
The federal government says Canada has contributed approximately $5 billion in military, financial and humanitarian assistance since Russian forces crossed into Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022. >

Hopefully they are defeated by 2032 at least >

So is it more cost-effective for the rest of the world to finish the war rather than let us all suffer economically because of it? >

Was it more cost effective to just let Hitler have Czechoslovakia? It ended the threat once and for all, right? >

The UK's policy of appeasement in the 1930s was clearly the wrong policy, as it emboldened Hitler to the point where he thought he could keep taking what he wanted without consequence. It could be argued that doing nothing after Crimea was seized was a repetition of this same history.
If Ukraine wants tanks and fighter planes. Let them have them. >

So you agree with me? Then why am I being down-voted?
EDIT: by "finishing the war" you mean not supporting Ukraine and letting Russia have their way? The quick way to finish the war. No? >

So send the Leopards if you want victory! >

As if the military industrial complex isn't raking in billions BECAUSE of this war. War profiteering is an excellent way to boost your economy. >

Maybe, but the war in Ukraine is not very big part of it. US's help to Ukraine is less than 3% of its total military spending. >

The best solution would be if Putin died from whatever this degenerative condition is he's rumoured to have. The next leader can blame the whole thing on Putin and everyone goes home and saves face. >

It is very pretty to think so, but that is an incredibly unlikely outcome. >

More likely the new leader scapegoats pudding and stoops to new lows to give the people what putin has worked so hard to make the people think they want. >

LOL.... Captain obvious... A war in Europe that could spill over and escalate things  is bad for the markets... BEAR territory. >

It is true. Rebuilding big economies are pretty much always a boom, usually with the winning partners building up their newest strong ally to the level of friends. >

The sooner Ukraine wins, the better this is for all of us economically.
I'm all for sending humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine. They need to win.
But war is one of humanity's most wasteful endeavours. End this quickly.
And at the same time, deter China from starting shit with Taiwan.