Ukraine has just generated another cash sink for Western taxpayers

Last month, former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s deputy prime minister, Chrystia Freeland, was dropkicked from newish Prime Minister Mark Carney’s cabinet. He did her a massive favor. Because now she doesn’t have to pretend to represent Canada anymore while following her true passion: representing Ukraine.

Freeland has a new role: “Special Representative for the Reconstruction of Ukraine,” officially speaking. The first question that came to mind when hearing this was, “When does she finally get to move to Kiev, already?” Imagine my disappointment to learn that she doesn’t.

Well, actually, my first question was, “Is Ukraine under reconstruction now? Did I slip into a coma and miss the bomb show wrapping up?” Nope, the conflict is still raging. But I guess it makes it sound like she’s going to be keeping a careful watch over the money that Carney has “pledged” to Ukraine – perhaps in the same way that people “pledged” to pay me a dollar per lap for my childhood swim-a-thons, then bailed when I came back to collect after competing 500 laps. I guess time will tell. Canadian taxpayers can only pray that will be the case, and that Carney is just virtue signaling Canadian cash for Ukraine and not actually sending any there, in the same way that the jokers running the EU make a big stink about the evils of Russian energy while importing it on the down-low through third countries.

In the meantime, Canadian cash for weapons, “for Ukraine,” is sure pumping up the integrated US/Canada military-industrial complex, which seems to be the go-to Western strategy for boosting their GDP these days amid their tanking economies.

Another question: Will Freeland use her experience in blocking Canadian bank accounts as Trudeau’s finance minister during the Covid-era Freedom Convoy anti-mandate protests to block shady cash flowing to Ukraine? I’m guessing not, if only because those Canadian bank accounts were blocked under the ultimately false pretext (as determined by Canadian intelligence) that foreign cash was funding interference with Canadian government decisions. In Ukraine’s case, that foreign cash is considered a plus because it’s coming from the West. Seems like she’d be more likely to tackle anything that got in its way.

Anyway, Freeland has just used her new Canadian taxpayer-funded role to plead Ukraine’s case in the pages of the Financial Times.

She wrote that “the fact is that we need Ukraine to save us,” presumably from the other side of the world, in Ottawa. She then goes on to qualify some murky, contentious drone activity around the Ukraine–EU border as “recent incursions into Central and even Western Europe.” At least I think that’s what she’s referring to. Unless I somehow missed the Russian tanks rolling down the Champs-Élysées. She doesn’t specify. But no matter. All the better, apparently, to argue that these incidents “show NATO needs Ukraine as a shield against Russia.”

Sounds like what Vladimir Zelensky was saying just the other day. The Ukrainian leader was going off about an incident last month of some alleged 90 drones over Ukraine, which he said were heading for Poland. He said that if only 20 of them actually ended up there, it was only because Kiev shot the rest down. The implication? That Ukraine was saving Poland. Trump was asked about it at the time and didn’t exactly praise Zelensky as Poland’s savior. He basically shrugged, saying, look, whatever – could have just been accidental.

Freeland also cited Trump’s tongue-in-cheek remarks from the other week when he rapped on social media about how Ukraine was winning on the battlefield against Russia and probably could even conquer Russian territory. He then offered to sell the Europeans all the American weapons they wanted in that endeavor. What part of Trump’s wishing them “good luck” did Freeland not understand as a commentary on Trump being keen to profit off the EU’s delusions, as long as Washington doesn’t have to get its hands dirty? She grasped none of it, apparently. Because she wrote in the FT that “US President Donald Trump got it right at the UN last week: Ukraine is a winner, and Ukraine can win.”

Freeland literally had just written of Ukraine in the same piece, a bit further up, that “we have assumed it would lose, at least without extraordinary effort from us.” Really? Your whole posse in Canada has been saying otherwise for years. “Ukraine will win and Canada will be there until the end,” said Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand, in early 2023, when she was defense minister.

So now we’ve gone from “Ukraine will win” to “Ukraine will only win if we do everything except pull the trigger” to “we need Ukraine because NATO is so weak.” Yeah, so weak that NATO is actually contemplating blasting Temu-grade drones out of the sky with F-16s, as the Romanian defense minister suggested during a recent Warsaw Security Forum panel.

Freeland adds that the West can learn from Ukraine about “how to fight a 21st-century war, and how to invent, manufacture and then keep reinventing the weapons we need for this new way of war in real time.” Look out, folks! Freeland has just discovered guerrilla warfare – but apparently not the double-edged sword it represents.

It’s all good when Ukrainian Nazis are getting schooled by NATO forces to fight Russia, and when they then graduate to fulfilling Freeland’s fantasy of pretending to teach NATO how to do guerrilla warfare – as though it’s a matter of NATO lacking ability and not just guerrilla warfare being way too cheap for NATO to justify washing tax cash into defense coffers.

What could possibly go wrong with letting Ukraine play asymmetric warfare “teacher” to justify the West turning it into a giant weapons toy box? It’s not like there haven’t been reports lately of Latin American drug cartels getting their drone training in Ukraine to use back home. We’re talking about Mexican and Colombian gangsters, according to Defense News, one of the leading military publications. Just your average start-up, really.

Freeland then proceeds to cheerlead the idea recently promoted by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz of straight-up stealing €140 billion in European-held Russian assets as a “loan” for Ukraine. Ukraine apparently just pays it back once Russia admits fault and writes a check, huh? In other words: never.

It’s one thing for Freeland to justify her new role by bloviating and virtue-signaling in the Western press. It’s another to make taxpayers foot the bill for it when her real job should be to end this war as quickly as possible through diplomacy so some legitimate reconstruction business can be done in Ukraine’s interests that doesn’t just involve perpetuating a taxpayer-funded racket.