Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Roundup: Trying to jam the Liberals on the MOU

Posted on by
Reply

Because Pierre Poilievre thinks he’s a tactical genius, he has announced that next week’s Conservative Supply Day motion will be about the MOU with Alberta, and forcing a vote on the language about a pipeline to the Pacific, in defiance of the tanker ban.

It’s a transparent attempt to try and jam the Liberals, at least rhetorically, into supporting the motion in order to show support for the MOU, after which Poilievre can keep saying “You supported it!” and “Give me the date when construction starts,” as though there’s a proponent, a project and a route already lined up (to say nothing about the long-term contracts about who is going to buy the product once it’s built, because yes, that does matter). The thing is, these kinds of motions are non-binding, and really means nothing in the end. So if a number of Liberals vote against it, it doesn’t actually mean anything, other than the rhetorical notion that lo, they are not fully in lock-step on something, which actually sets them apart from pretty much every other party where uniformity and loyalty to the leader and all of his positions are constantly being enforced in one way or another. Maybe he will tolerate differences of opinion—or maybe he’ll crack the whip. We’ll see when Tuesday gets here.

Ukraine Dispatch

The International Atomic Agency says the protective shield around Chornobyl has been damaged by Russian strikes.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The details behind Guilbeault’s exit

Posted on by
2

If there’s a story you need to read this weekend, it’s Althia Raj’s look behind the scenes on how Steven Guilbeault’s resignation went down. It’s a tale of deception, freezing Guilbeault out during the process, undermining all of the work on climate action that had been done on this point, creating special carve-outs for Alberta that will piss off every other province, and breaking the word that had been given to Elizabeth May in order to secure her support. And then, they wanted Guilbeault to say some bullshit thing like he was “putting them on notice” until April or something like that, and it was untenable for him to stay, so he resigned. It was complete amateur hour. And Carney undermining his word is a very big problem, particularly because when he was a central banker, his word needed to be believed in order for it to have power. That’s why central bankers need to be ruthlessly apolitical, so that they don’t have the appearance of making calls for partisan benefit. Carney has undermined his credibility entirely because he has shown that his word now means nothing.

This point is disturbing: Guilbeault "was also deeply troubled by the ease with which the PMO was casting aside its moral obligation to May. What was the Liberals’ word worth?"Mark Carney seems to have forgotten the first rule of central banking: Your word, your credibility, is all.

— Blayne Haggart (@bhaggart.bsky.social) 2025-11-29T02:23:29.613Z

There are some particular threads in here that should be unpacked, which is that the motivation for this whole exercise seems to have been that they felt it “necessary for Canadian unity and to combat separatism in Alberta.” This doesn’t achieve that at all. It weakens unity because it gives Alberta special treatment that includes a lower carbon price and an exemption from other emission regulations that no other province gets, which makes it look an awful lot like they got it because the whined the loudest (and they’re not wrong). And it will do nothing about separatism because it fundamentally misunderstands it. It’s not about “unfair treatment,” because that was never the case—it was about a culture of grievance.

Albertans have been force-fed grievance porn for decades, like a goose being fattened for fois gras.You'll never guess what happens next…

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-28T22:43:39.019Z

To that end, Danielle Smith is at the UCP annual general meeting this weekend, and when she crowed to the crowd about all the things she secured from Carney—she got him to bend the knee, give her everything she wants, and she has to give up pretty much nothing in exchange—they booed her. Nothing any government will do will actually satisfy them, because they don’t know how to process success. They have been force-fed grievances by successive premiers as a way of distracting from their failures and the fact that they have tied themselves to the external forces of world oil prices, and it’s not giving them unlimited wealth anymore. They don’t have the same future they hoped for because world oil prices never recovered after 2014, and the industry is increasing productivity, laying off workers while increasing production. They’re angry about that, and they’ve been conditioned to blame Ottawa, ever since the 1980s when they blamed the National Energy Programme for a global collapse in oil prices, and they’ve been blaming Ottawa and anyone named Trudeau ever since. Jason Kenney in particular threw gasoline on that fire, and then pretended like he wanted to put it out by pouring a glass of water on that fire and patted himself on the back for it, and then Danielle Smith came in with a brand-new box of matches. There is no satisfying them, and Carney was a fool for thinking he could swoop in and be the hero. Now he’s alienating voters in BC and Quebec where he can’t afford to lose seats, for no gain in Alberta of Saskatchewan. He didn’t outplay Danielle Smith—he capitulated, and got nothing in return, just like every time he has capitulated to Trump.

Danielle Smith gets booed at UCP convention after mentioning working with Canada

— Scott Robertson (@sarobertson.bsky.social) 2025-11-28T22:17:35.805Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones and missiles attacked Kyiv overnight, killing at least one and injuring at least eleven. Ukrainian forces are still fighting in Kupiansk, in spite of Russian claims that they control the settlement. President Zelenskyy says that his chief of staff has resigned over the ongoing corruption investigations.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Confusion over who authored the “peace plan”

Posted on by

It has been a crazy weekend when it comes to making heads of tails of what is happening with the so-called “28-point peace plan” between Russia and Ukraine. A bunch of US legislators at the Halifax Security Conference were insisting that they were told that the plan was the starting point of negotiations, that the deadline of Thursday was to start talks, and that this was all a big misunderstanding. You had other reports saying that people were saying that this was the Russian plan that was just for discussion purposes. Then you had reports saying that no, the White House said that this is the plan, leaving everyone in the dark as to just what the hell was going on.

What the actual fuck is going on.America put forward a nearly carbon copy version of the Russian plan for Ukrainian conquest, admitted it and backtracked, then doubles down.

— Justin Ling (@justinling.ca) 2025-11-23T02:54:54.829Z

As this was happening, world leaders, including Canada, were treating this as if it’s a starting off point that “needs work” as opposed to being a betrayal of Ukraine and that it should be killed with fire, because nobody wants to make Trump too angry, because they rely too much on the Americans for too many things still (though Ukrainians have pointed out that it’s no longer 2023, and they are much more self-reliant). European leaders did come out with their own suggested 28 pointswhich are far more fair to Ukraine, but seem to be willing to let Russia continue to occupy territory it has gained by force (unless I’m misreading it), and still doesn’t call for much in the way of penalties other than to pay for the reconstruction of Ukraine.

PMO readout of Carney's call with Zelenskyy. Maintaining the façade that the "peace plan" is a good start (when it is in fact a betrayal).

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-23T20:07:37.708Z

Meanwhile, Anne Applebaum savages the plan as not being anything more than a starting off point for a larger future war, while the only beneficiaries are some unnamed Russian and American investors, because this is what Trump is really all about. Paul Wells laments the “don’t wake Trump” tactic that those world leaders are using, because it rewards how much of a betrayal it is, and soft-pedals the fact that it invites future wars of aggression.

G20 Outcomes

There were a number of things coming out of the G20 summit in Johannesburg, South Africa, and it leave a whole lot of questions about prime minister Mark Carney and his values and priorities. Carney had plenty of praise for his hosts, and talking about the G20 being a bridge following the rupture of the US withdrawing from its role with global institutions, and that he has no “burning issue” to talk with Trump at the moment, and they’ll talk when they’re ready to. This being said, Carney also declared that the government’s “feminist foreign policy” was effectively dead, in spite of it being about the best way to achieve outcomes and at a time when the US is doing things like calling reproductive rights and gender equity “human rights violations” (no, seriously). Carney announced a joint technology partnership with India and Australia, and that talks were being revied about a comprehensive trade agreement with India, in spite of their foreign interference in Canada and trans-national repression (that their High Commissioner insists is all a delusion).

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3m6dt3iyjjc2i

So, nothing on trans-national repression or India's foreign interference.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-23T22:26:23.696Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Four people were killed in a drone attack on Kharkiv on Sunday. The death toll from last week’s missile strike on Ternopil is now up to 34. Ukraine has struck power and heat stations in the Moscow region.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ahistorical expectations about project timelines

Posted on by

A couple of quick notes for the weekend. First is that for all of the projects referred to the Major Projects Office, none have actually officially been designated a PONI (Project of National Importance), so my calling the referred projects as such is admittedly premature. But that also means that none of them have the special rules that trigger the Henry VIII Clause from the legislation, which again, leads to the same question that Althia Raj asked in her most recent column about why the rush to ram that bill through Parliament with almost no debate and little stakeholder input if they haven’t bothered to use it, nearly six months later.

The other note is that the talk about timelines remain ahistorical and nothing but wishful thinking. “We used to build big things. We built a railway in four years.” Erm, not really. This is likely a reason why most of the projects that have been referred to the MPO so far have been in the works for years is for the very reason that they’re much further along. This is likely going to be one of the death knells of Danielle Smith’s pipeline plan, which is that it’s starting from zero, and there is no way, even with the magic wand of the Henry VIII clause, that they can make it go from concept to shovels in two years.

They didn't go from "Shall we build a railway?" to a railway in four years.The CPR was a Confederation promise before 1867. Construction began in 1881.Or, actually, in 1875, when they started a section in Manitoba and northern Ontario. Which hooked up to other rails built on their own earlier.

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-09-14T23:17:30.293Z

There were planning, scandal, false starts, re-awarding of the contract. And not a lot of attention to, you know, Indigenous people's rights.Or working conditions, which were eventually the subject of Heritage Minute you might recall. www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE3I…

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-09-14T23:20:55.646Z

What's the right length of time to plan and build a new high-speed rail line in 2025? I don't know.But they didn't do the entire CPR from concept to completion in four years, and I don't think we want a dead temporary foreign worker for every mile of track.

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-09-14T23:23:15.475Z

And then there’s Poilievre’s completely nonsense demanding that government “get out of the way,” or Ontario’s Stephen Lecce talking about the problems with federal regulations killing projects when that also relies on a very selective reading of history and what happened. Northern Gateway started planning before Harper took over, and over his nine years in power, Mr. “Get government out of the way” couldn’t get it past the finish line either (in part because they couldn’t even be arsed to live up to their own consultation process with First Nations). Nothing Poilievre is saying is true, so We The Media need to stop treating it like it’s credible.

Ukraine Dispatch

The attack on Kyiv early Friday killed six and injured dozens, along with more strikes on energy facilities. Ukraine hit the oil port at Novorossiyk the same day, suspending oil exports. Ukraine is now mass-producing interceptor drones to bolster their air defences.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The second tranche of PONIs

Posted on by

Yesterday was the day that Mark Carney announced the second tranche of PONIs to be referred to the Major Projects Office, which consisted of six existing projects and one “concept,” which I’m pretty unsure how it was supposed to work. Three of those projects are mines—Sisson Mine for tungsten in New Brunswick, Crawford Nickel project in Ontario, and the Nouveau Monde Graphite phase 2 project in Quebec. Those very much align with the desire to make Canada a more trustworthy supplier of critical minerals than China (though pat of the problem is that they have a near-monopoly on refining and processing). A hydro project for Iqaluit was on the list, as was a transmission line between northwestern BC and the Yukon, and an LNG Project on the BC coast that has some Indigenous partnerships (but  not every First Nation in the area is in favour, and there are concerns about its ownership structure). As for that “concept,” it is referred to as the Northwest Critical Conservation Corridor, also between northwest B.C. and Yukon., and it could include critical minerals and clean power transmission developments in the area. Again, I’m not sure how that works with no actual project or proponent.

In some of these cases, as in the first tranche of projects, some of them are fairly well developed and along the process, while in others, they’ve been discussed forever and have some Indigenous buy-in, but shovels have never been in the ground (like the Sisson Mine). It again raises questions about what the MPO is supposed to do here, but its head, Dawn Farrell, was talking about ensuring that these processes happen in parallel and not sequentially, and would also do things like security financing, guaranteeing pricing, and ensuring a supply of skilled labour, which seems like an awful lot of things for them to try and control for.

And then there’s Alberta and its imaginary pipeline, which Danielle Smith insists she’s still working on, so she’s supportive of these projects, because she is still “negotiating” for that pipeline to the northwest BC coast that neither the province nor the affected First Nations want, while there is a growing supply glut in the market. I’m pretty sure another pipeline won’t save her province’s finances, but she’s going to keep trying.

Ukraine Dispatch

Kyiv was under another “massive” attack early this morning, and at least eleven people have been wounded. President Zelenskyy visited troops near the front lines in Zaporizhzhia.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Running the party like a frat house

Posted on by

With the House of Commons not sitting this week, one can expect the drama of the Conservative ranks to continue to reverberate this week, seeing as the government’s big budget roll-out has been ringing a little bit flat, in part because they already announced everything ahead of time, but also the fact that it’s missing the mark in some key places. Regardless, MP Chris d’Entremont is now speaking to media a bit more now that he’s crossed the floor, and it’s revealing.

d’Entremont told the CBC over the weekend that he hadn’t been 100 percent on board with crossing the floor until his remarks were published in Politico, and Andrew Scheer and Chris Warkentin barged into his office to yell at him and call him a snake, which was the point he knew it was time to go. And frankly, that’s not a surprise, but my dudes, this did not work for Erin O’Toole when he was in the dying days of his leadership, so why do you think that bullying your caucus is going to work for you? And for Poilievre’s office to respond by saying that d’Entremont is a “liar” for “wilfully deceiving his voters, friends and colleagues” is rich coming from known liars like Poilievre and Scheer. And d’Entremont also said that it wasn’t just Poilievre, but his entire leadership team who are running the party like a frat house, which sounds about right because there are no adults in the room.

I will add that something that has come up a couple of times online but not in the media was the fact that d’Entremont has been a pro-life voter throughout his political career and time in Parliament, which was something that would have mattered in the Trudeau years, but looks like Carney has dumped (possibly because he is more devoutly Catholic than Trudeau was). That wasn’t to say that certain pro-life Liberals weren’t still in Trudeau’s caucus, likely under some kind of promise extracted from them not to vote in certain ways on those issues, but there has been no discussion as to whether any similar promise was extracted from d’Entremont, or if being resolutely pro-choice is no longer a requirement for the Liberal caucus.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-09T15:08:04.404Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Over the weekend, Russia targeted the power sub-stations to two nuclear power plants, killing seven, along with other strikes on cities like Dnipro. Ukrainian strikes have apparently disrupted power and heat in two Russian cities near the border.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Heavy-handed caucus management

Posted on by

The Ways and Means motion on the budget survived its second confidence vote, on the Bloc’s amendment, as no other party supported it (unsurprisingly). But outside of that, the drama inside the Conservative caucus room continues to spill out into the open as the party tries to deflect scrutiny. Leaks are talking about ten to fifteen very unhappy members, though nothing to indicate they’re going to cross the floor or leave caucus. At least not in the immediate future. Nevertheless, it is probably not lost on anyone that Andrew Scheer and Chris Warkentin storming into Chris d’Entremont’s office to yell at him when he let it be known he was contemplating crossing the floor is probably not great caucus management.

To that end, Scheer huffed and puffed his way out to the Foyer after Question Period yesterday to claim that it’s the Liberals who are harassing Conservatives, and it was that “harassment” that drove Matt Jeneroux to tender his resignation when there are accounts about how he was meeting with senior Liberals and was allegedly “eighty percent there” in terms of being convinced to cross over before this all blew up. Of course, nothing Scheer says is remotely believable, and his trying to claim that the Liberals are manufacturing this to “distract” from their budget is beyond risible considering just how complete and total their sales job on said budget is. The fact that Scheer is resorting to that kind of a dismissal is a sign of just how completely out of his depth he is here.

Scheer says Liberals are trying to “undemocratically” get a majority through backroom deals and accuse Liberals of harassing Conservatives to cross the floor. (Sure, Jan)

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-07T17:16:03.099Z

Scheer claims Jeneroux was pressured into resigning because Liberals were harassing him. He’s actually claiming that.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-07T17:18:59.423Z

What gets me is that no one in that caucus seems to have learned a single gods damned lesson after Erin O’Toole’s final days. For those of you who memory-holed the whole incident in trying to rehabilitate O’Toole’s image while trying to turn him into a statesman, in the dying days of his leadership, he weaponized the (garbage) Reform Act to kick out any member of caucus who dared to question him, and that member of caucus was Senator Batters, which was a big mistake because she has some pretty deep networks. Within days, the vote in caucus on O’Toole’s leadership was organised and he lost decisively. And despite this object lesson, Poilievre and Scheer are trying to use a heavy-hand and threats to enforce loyalty? Seriously? The other thing that seems to be emerging is a rift between the eastern and western flanks of the party, as eastern Tories are much more progressive and even-tempered than the Reform-rooted Conservatives, who are increasingly turning MAGA, and Poilievre needs to get a handle on this and start mending some fences before this blows up in his face.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-07T14:24:04.975Z

Ukraine Dispatch

The fighting continues in Pokrovsk, while Ukrainian forces are stepping up their assault on Russian forces in Dobropillia to ease the pressure on Pokrovsk. Ukrainian soldiers fighting with drones are being rewarded with points for confirmed hits and kills, leading to ethical concerns about the gamification of war. Ukraine says that 1400 Africans from dozens of countries have signed up to fight for Russia as mercenaries, but mostly are just used in “meat assaults.”

Continue reading →

Roundup: Jeneroux heads for the exit

Posted on by

It’s been a strange couple of days in the House of Commons. First of all, Pierre Poilievre made his speech on the budget (technically on the Ways and Means motion for the budget), and traditionally, the official opposition moves an amendment, followed by the next-largest party, in this case the Bloc. And these amendments are usually things like “the budget not pass because x, y, z.” But for some reason, Poilievre didn’t move the amendment in his speech like he normally would, so the Bloc took up the opportunity do so, meaning they got the amendment, and the Conservatives had to suffice with a sub-amendment, which doesn’t matter other than it being kind of embarrassing because they obviously don’t have their shit together.

And this got compounded by the votes. Unless I’m mistaken, normally these amendments/sub-amendments happen at the same time as the main vote on the Ways and Means motion, so it’s done in one fell swoop. Not this time. The Government House Leader declared that the vote on the Conservative sub-amendment would happen yesterday evening, and the Bloc amendment tomorrow afternoon, and that these would be considered confidence votes (which they aren’t normally—only the main vote). And let me stress—it is very, very, very unusual for any vote to happen on a Friday, let alone a confidence vote, and that’s only because they can now vote on their phones (which is a parliamentary abomination). This is not how this normally goes, and it’s a bunch of really childish gamesmanship. But suffice to say, the government passed the first vote as neither the Bloc nor the NDP would support the Conservative sub-amendment, and the NDP have already indicated they won’t vote for the Bloc’s amendment either—but they’re still not decided if they’re voting on the actual motion, sometime in the week after next (because next week is a constituency week).

It’s very, very unusual that they would hold any vote on a Friday, let alone a vote they have deemed to be a confidence vote.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-06T20:21:34.500Z

And then, as this was all going on, Conservative MP Matt Jeneroux announced he was going to resign his seat, and the language in his letter sounded like it was going to be pretty soon, saying he hoped he could speak in the House one more time. But then Pierre Poilievre tweets that he’s not going to retire until spring, which is weird. Paul Wells likened this to negotiating in public, and having a silent “or else.” And this is while rumours have been swirling that the Liberals have been having conversations with Jeneroux about crossing the floor, and other rumours swirling that Conservative MPs are being threatened if they follow d’Entremont across the floor. And then to compound the weirdness, Jeneroux posts on Facebook that he totally wasn’t coerced and that he’s still determining his resignation date, but it will “probably” be in the spring. This is not normal. And if you needed reassurance that things totally aren’t falling apart inside caucus, Gérard Deltell told the media that d’Entremont’s defection was an isolated case. Guys. You’re in five-alarm clown show territory now.

Per Paul Wells: I take Pierre here to be bargaining in public. The “next spring” directly contradicts Jeneroux and, the way it's placed, all clever at the end, amounts to an “if you know what's good for you.”

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-07T02:00:51.437Z

I totally wasn't coerced, he says.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-07T02:52:25.993Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia claims they are advancing in the ruins of Pokrovsk, as fighting continues. Ukraine has hit the major Volgograd oil refinery in a drone strike, and shut down its operations. And here’s what Angelina Jolie was doing in Kherson.

Continue reading →

QP: Trading “Food Professor” quotes back-and-forth

Posted on by

The PM was present for a second day in a row, and you would have expected all the other leaders would be as well, but Pierre Poilievre was absent. That left Melissa Lantsman to lead off instead, and she dutifully read the script about the size of the deficit that accomplishes so little. Mark Carney thundered that the budget is about building the country and that they will put $3000 in the pockets of very Canadian by the end of the decade. Lantsman worried about debt servicing charges and that it goes to “bankers” (as opposed to, say, pension funds), and Carney said that the health transfers were preserved and that the interest charges are less than they were under Harper. Luc Berthold took over in French to read the lines in French about fuelling inflation and children lining up at food banks, to which Carney responded with his lines about 75 percent of the budget is about protecting sovereignty, and that repeated the $3000 claim. Berthold insisted that Carney would go down in history as the most expensive, before repeating his canard about inflation. Carney countered that it was not the most costly budget, but the most ambitious. Jasraj Hallan took over to rush though some swipes at Carney possibly holding money in offshore tax havens. Carney responded that the budget fights for tax fairness and cuts taxes for 22 million people. Hallan repeated the same accusation, and Carney said that he was proud of his time in the private sector but now he is helping to grow the country.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and he complained about the so-called “discrimination” in Old-Age Security, and Carney noted the social transfers in the budget, and that it was indeed just that older seniors can get more. Blanchet then raised their plan for credits to help young people buy a first home, and Carney said that there is already an advantage for young people, which was on top of their investment in housing. Blanchet then demanded higher health transfers with no conditions attached, and Carney said that Quebec is getting $12 billion for healthcare and $5 billion for infrastructure, along with a few other big numbers.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Red flags around the “grand bargain”

Posted on by

The more I read about the budget’s “climate competitiveness,” the more I find myself questioning just what is on offer from Mark Carney. There is an attempt to build this so-called “grand bargain” that failed the last time it was tried, where approving the Trans-Mountain Expansion was supposed to help fund the green transition and provide the social licence for doing things like the tanker ban on the northwest coast of BC, and yet here we are, where the oil and gas sector and by extension, the provincial government of Alberta, have not lived up to their end of the bargain at all. The companies that insisted they were going to meet their 2025 Net-Zero targets suddenly started to complain that it was too hard, and when the greenwashing legislation kicked in, suddenly all of those Net-Zero pledges vanished, as though they were never real to begin with.

That’s why I’m particularly unimpressed that one of the promises in the budget is to water down the greenwashing legislation, which sounds an awful lot like Carney is looking for the industry to lie to him once more about all of the reductions that they’re totally going to make in the future—really! You just need to let them have a free hand with even fewer environmental regulations in the meantime. As well, the fact that Carney is pinning his hopes on so-called “decarbonized” oil production with the Pathways project is even looking like he’s going to lose a tonne of money trying to get it to scale up, because hey, he’s offering a bunch of tax credits for them to operate, which is a de facto subsidy for oil operations. But it’s extremely expensive, and all of those oil companies want even more taxpayer money to make it work, while they pocket their profits, naturally. Nevertheless, it looks an awful lot like Carney is going to capitulate to that sector and remove the emissions cap on a bunch of half-hearted greenwashed promises and pretend that he still cares about the environment.

Speaking of the tanker ban, BC premier David Eby and the coastal First Nations are organising a pushback against any move by the federal government to lift it in order to push a pipeline through the region, while Danielle Smith puts ever more pressure on the federal government to approve that project (even though there’s no proponent, or route, or even just a line on a map). Will it be enough to dissuade Carney? At the pace he’s going, I’m not taking any bets.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-05T14:25:06.884Z

Ukraine Dispatch

The fighting continues in the streets of Pokrovsk, which is the kind of fighting that can’t be done with the same kind of drone warfare that the rest of the front line has become accustomed to.

Continue reading →