With apologies for voicing an opinion rather than linking an external article.
I am of the strong opinion that Remembrance Day had become at best grandstanding, and at worst, completely meaningless. There are phases tossed around like “Lest we Forget” or “Never Again”. But when Russia invaded Ukraine, we have effectively done the opposite (or very nearly).
Sure, we can send ammo so Ukranians can fight back, or host some of their forces for training. But the reality is, we are only marginally involved. We haven’t mobilized. We aren’t on war footing economically.
The root causes are many. But a combination of NATO’s article 5 protection only kicking in if we are attacked (rather than joining an already existing war), and the threat of nuclear retaliation, means we are paralyzed politically.
At a minimum: I would support direct involvement, whether that’s ramping up our own military, deploying specialists, reservists for minesweeping, stationing our own troops (meagre as they are) in Ukraine to directly support the fight. I would actually support much larger actions, including naval blockades or airspace closures but wholly understand that Canada cannot execute those on their own.
We cannot allow genocidal wars to be pressed in the modern world. And we should be doing everything we can about it. Right now, we’re doing barely more than nothing.
In an age of mass communication, instant connection, accumulated knowledge, historic experience and legions of academics and capable professionals and political leaders … there should be more options to deal with regional conflicts other than spending billions of dollars on the latest technologies designed to kill people.
If we aren’t capable of preventing or solving problems without war and death … then we (everyone on all sides) are no better than our ancestors thousands of years ago.
The answer shouldn’t be trying to figure out how to kill as many people as possible to settle differences.
I’ll repeat it again … if billions are spent on war, war is inevitable … if billions are spent on peace, peace can occur.
The fundamental truth hasn’t changed. While all measures should be taken to avoid war, those measures ultimately rest on the ability to wage that war.
In martial arts terms. The goal is to avoid fighting. You de-escalate, and disengage where possible. However, when someone is attacked, you need to know how to step in and defend them. Further, you need to know how to counter and neutralise the threat. Those same tools can be misused to do great harm, but many of the methods for avoiding conflict rely on being able to counter the threat, if the opponent drops the veneer of civility.
Within countries, this dilemma was solved by giving a monopoly on force to the government (for good or bad). On the international stage, there is no higher power to appeal to. No police, or father figure to step in. We have to learn to play nice, including when a sibling wants to set fire to the playpen. We must, however be careful not to burn the playpen down ourselves.
One of the biggest problem in our modern is that … if we stick to your analogy … is that we allow these children to get their hands on hand guns, machine guns and flame throwers. And the only response they understand is that if they want something or start a fight with another sibling, their only response is to start shooting at people or set them on fire.
We live in a world where we have allowed a military industrial complex to dictate how we are are deal with differences, disagreements and debate by just figuring out how to kill people in order to settle these conflicts. Billions are spent on military solutions while only millions are spent on peaceful resolution or deescalation … and if this comment thread is any indication, all we seem to understand is the need to fight, kill and destroy rather than in debating solutions to not do those things.
In martial arts, if all you teach to your students is to fight whenever there is conflict, hit whenever there is disagreement and strike whenever there are differences … is it any wonder that all we ever do is fight and kill?
My point is there is nuance to the question. We have a dilemma. We need the very tools of oppression to resist the oppression. However, if we arm ourselves with them, we have the temptation of using them to oppress others, to our benefit.
Ukraine gave up its tools. It gave up its nukes, in exchange for an agreement that Russia wouldn’t attack it, and the rest of the world would back them, if Russia broke that agreement.
What we need is a balance. The world, as a whole must be able to suppress a violent state. At the same time, no one state should have the power to suppress a large proportion of other states. This would allow for policing action, but avoid the use of force for selfish reasons. Right now, America has the biggest stick. And it uses it, and its threat regularly. However, if it just gave up that stick, others would take advantage of the power vacuum. Collectively, we need a big enough stick that no-one can threaten the collective. At the same time, individual members shouldn’t have too much power.
Ironically, this is playing out in Ukraine. While America is sending significant resources, it is not the only one doing so. Abandoning Ukraine would be a dereliction of our agreement to back them. It would also embolden others to act, since Russia got their way.
If you’ve not ran across them, look up Nash Equilibriums. It’s what is in play, and why simple fixes just won’t work
This sounds like the same logic that led up to World War One
Building a complex series of alliances like a series of dominoes and if one were to be knocked over, would set off a chain reaction.
The building of ever bigger militaries and armaments just builds bigger and bigger dominoes ready to fall over.
Every time I debate this topic, the most vocal arguments are the ones that want more war, more military and more fighting … and then become confused and wonder why there is so much fighting all the time.
You seem to think it’s an either or question. I’m strongly anti war. At the same time, I know that pacifism is almost as bad.
As I said, look up Nash Equilibriums. The goal should be that the Nash Equilibrium is negotiation. If any one country or sub over arms, then the Nash shifts and war becomes an inevitability. In the Nash based model, disarming is equivalent to increasing the armament of the other countries. A country can over arm without changing its level of military spending etc.
The goal is a stable “steady state”. No-one gains by arming up, but everyone can react effectively to someone doing it, without runaway escalation.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
In an age of mass communication, instant connection, accumulated knowledge, historic experience and legions of academics and capable professionals and political leaders … there should be more options to deal with regional conflicts other than spending billions of dollars on the latest technologies designed to kill people.
If we aren’t capable of preventing or solving problems without war and death … then we (everyone on all sides) are no better than our ancestors thousands of years ago.
The answer shouldn’t be trying to figure out how to kill as many people as possible to settle differences.
I’ll repeat it again … if billions are spent on war, war is inevitable … if billions are spent on peace, peace can occur.
The fundamental truth hasn’t changed. While all measures should be taken to avoid war, those measures ultimately rest on the ability to wage that war.
In martial arts terms. The goal is to avoid fighting. You de-escalate, and disengage where possible. However, when someone is attacked, you need to know how to step in and defend them. Further, you need to know how to counter and neutralise the threat. Those same tools can be misused to do great harm, but many of the methods for avoiding conflict rely on being able to counter the threat, if the opponent drops the veneer of civility.
Within countries, this dilemma was solved by giving a monopoly on force to the government (for good or bad). On the international stage, there is no higher power to appeal to. No police, or father figure to step in. We have to learn to play nice, including when a sibling wants to set fire to the playpen. We must, however be careful not to burn the playpen down ourselves.
One of the biggest problem in our modern is that … if we stick to your analogy … is that we allow these children to get their hands on hand guns, machine guns and flame throwers. And the only response they understand is that if they want something or start a fight with another sibling, their only response is to start shooting at people or set them on fire.
We live in a world where we have allowed a military industrial complex to dictate how we are are deal with differences, disagreements and debate by just figuring out how to kill people in order to settle these conflicts. Billions are spent on military solutions while only millions are spent on peaceful resolution or deescalation … and if this comment thread is any indication, all we seem to understand is the need to fight, kill and destroy rather than in debating solutions to not do those things.
In martial arts, if all you teach to your students is to fight whenever there is conflict, hit whenever there is disagreement and strike whenever there are differences … is it any wonder that all we ever do is fight and kill?
My point is there is nuance to the question. We have a dilemma. We need the very tools of oppression to resist the oppression. However, if we arm ourselves with them, we have the temptation of using them to oppress others, to our benefit.
Ukraine gave up its tools. It gave up its nukes, in exchange for an agreement that Russia wouldn’t attack it, and the rest of the world would back them, if Russia broke that agreement.
What we need is a balance. The world, as a whole must be able to suppress a violent state. At the same time, no one state should have the power to suppress a large proportion of other states. This would allow for policing action, but avoid the use of force for selfish reasons. Right now, America has the biggest stick. And it uses it, and its threat regularly. However, if it just gave up that stick, others would take advantage of the power vacuum. Collectively, we need a big enough stick that no-one can threaten the collective. At the same time, individual members shouldn’t have too much power.
Ironically, this is playing out in Ukraine. While America is sending significant resources, it is not the only one doing so. Abandoning Ukraine would be a dereliction of our agreement to back them. It would also embolden others to act, since Russia got their way.
If you’ve not ran across them, look up Nash Equilibriums. It’s what is in play, and why simple fixes just won’t work
This sounds like the same logic that led up to World War One
Building a complex series of alliances like a series of dominoes and if one were to be knocked over, would set off a chain reaction.
The building of ever bigger militaries and armaments just builds bigger and bigger dominoes ready to fall over.
Every time I debate this topic, the most vocal arguments are the ones that want more war, more military and more fighting … and then become confused and wonder why there is so much fighting all the time.
You seem to think it’s an either or question. I’m strongly anti war. At the same time, I know that pacifism is almost as bad.
As I said, look up Nash Equilibriums. The goal should be that the Nash Equilibrium is negotiation. If any one country or sub over arms, then the Nash shifts and war becomes an inevitability. In the Nash based model, disarming is equivalent to increasing the armament of the other countries. A country can over arm without changing its level of military spending etc.
The goal is a stable “steady state”. No-one gains by arming up, but everyone can react effectively to someone doing it, without runaway escalation.
And there you go glad you got there we are no better then our ancestors. We like to think we are but we are not.